The Cannibals of Fiji Island
Back in the 1830′s, when the Methodist missionaries went to the Fiji Islands to convert the natives to Christianity, they were shockingly appalled by what they saw. Cannibalism, and not just minor Cannibalism but rampant Cannibalism. Human flesh was the food of choice, considered to be the choicest delicacy surpassing even lobster or steak, by the Islanders. And yes, the stories of the natives fattening up their captives before feasting on them were true. Women were the preferred choice of victims, because their meat was said to be more tender. They would fatten the “livestock” for months before binding the poor souls feet and hands to their thighs and setting them in a Bar-B-Q pit to be roasted “ALIVE”. They said the meat tasted better if the victim was cook while still alive. After Bar-B-Qing the victim, in a gesture that has spiritual overtones, They would often paint the victims face to look like one of their warriors and then set the main course on the table, like a roasted pig at a Hawaiian Luau. Then with the whole tribe, wife and kids ,Grandmas and Grandpas, aunts ,uncles and cousins all in attendance, the much yearned for feast would begin. Letters sent home by the missionaries tell of up to 50 victims being consumed in a single feast. No my friends whiskey, gambling, or were not the vices to be confronted in these nonbelievers, it was wholesale gluttony of the human flesh that was the vice to be conquered. Why they looked to such feast with as much glee as we look to Thanksgiving is a mystery of human nature that may never be fully understood. Needless to say it was a surely a sin that the missionaries must of found absolutely appalling . You can imagine the vulnerable missionaries relief when the natives started to relinquish their Cannibalistic habits as they slowly embraced Christianity. The funny thing to me, that the book I read didn’t touch on, is how in the world did the missionaries explain, and how in the world did the natives react when they brought up the fact that believers in Jesus Christ are suppose to partake of Christ body and his with the sacraments of Bread and Wine. I laugh at some of the situations I can imagine must of occurred in this most unusual of settings. It must of surely made for many strange moments.
Based on the book “Cannibalism: Shocking True Tales” by Joseph Cummins

http://video.google.com/videop.....;plindex=3

What puzzles me is that the audience for whom that old bourgeois atheism was so rhetorically effective — the comfortable “worldly Protestant” culture of late Victorian England and post-WWI America, which fancied itself fashionably daring for venturing to read Tom Paine or to bash the clergy — is long gone. The source criticism of the Bible is now preached by Anglican bishops and taught as “gospel truth” in Baptist seminaries, and most clergy are regarded by the general society as worthy of contempt or ridicule, not as the high and mighty who must be cut down to size. In Dawkins’s England, about — what? — 10% of the population goes to church regularly, and most of the rest don’t care much about religion one way or the other. In America church attendance is much higher, but even there mainstream Protestantism is moribund (having been largely converted to secular humanism over the last 80 years), so who’s left to shock and seduce? Who is lapping up this tired old stuff as if it’s a dazzling new Enlightenment? Aren’t Dawkins and Co. just preaching to the converted?

The “new atheists” are ill educated and boorish and the real irony is that they basically don’t know what they are talking about.

But they are just a particularly popular and high profile variation on the sort of village atheist that has populated internet discussion boards for years.

I always enjoying reading the works of thoughtful intelligent atheists like Flew (well in the past), Nietzsche, Camus etc, but the new bunch of clowns come across as slightly more polished versions of the 16 year old “new liberated” atheist you find all over the web, who never understood what they are claiming to reject and are just looking for any excuse. There anger and venom is understandable, if it wasn’t for that they wouldn’t have anything to say.

The PB edition is a massive revision of my self-published one.

I assume that was directed at me, and you’re right. My last post sounded really awful. I shouldn’t have posted immediately after reading entries at his blog and the links bork provided.

Taking a deep breath and counting to ten before posting is always good advise.

I think it was unfortunate that in order to gain the attention that atheists needed the so-called “New Atheists” (which has nothing to do with their ages) had to ridicule and berate theists just like we all do when it comes to Zeus, Ra, Janus, and Hathor. But since they did get people’s attention I’m thankful for the results. If you cannot understand that distinction as applied to other things in your life which you wouldn’t do but produce results for which you like, I cannot help you. But I never would’ve done what they did, and I don’t do that now.

Theists are often killed in China and North Korea. Are you also thankful for those results yet you would never do the same? Yes, that comparison is purposely extreme in order to make the point.

I’ve run into those Atheism Sucks people a couple times in various places and personally I’d put them in the same category as the New Atheists: they’re abusive and annoying. If you were a theist wouldn’t you agree that overall the results are a negative due to the collateral damage?

Keep it real. Keep it impersonal.

Oh, and while I’m at it…Daniel King is right: keep such insults and personal condemnations outside of UD.

“In any case I feel justified in being deceptive because I was dealing with enemies, and as such I did not need to tell the whole story (and this is where I was deceptive), especially based upon my consequentialist ethics. The whole reason I did so was to expose Holding without being soiled, which I still consider a good teleological goal.”

Wow.

As for your justification #2…odd that, as an atheist, you use the Bible as a reference in regard to liars. You might consider the fact that although people lie, that does not make it *okay*, nor does it justify your lie in this instance.

This type of deception should certainly be of concern to your readers. It would be hard to trust someone who justifies lying in this fashion.

Finally, if you think this discredits my arguments then you’re just being ignorant, and I’m not saying you are.

Cheers.