Atheist group criticizes Christianity, Bible verses

[rug]

Published: Sept. 17, 2011 Updated: Sept. 18, 2011 9:25 a.m.

By LOU PONSI / THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

HUNTINGTON BEACH – A group of self-professed atheists who denounce all religions, particularly Christianity, and condemn Bible passages they say are immoral and illegal, affirmed their beliefs with a show of symbolism Saturday at the base of the Huntington Beach Pier near Pacific Coast Highway.

About 15 members of the group Backyard Skeptics participated in the demonstration, some displaying posters with phrases such as: “Smile. You’re not alone. Millions are good without God” and “Worship me or I’ll send you to eternal hell … Have a nice day … (signed) God.”

The group’s leader, Bruce Gleason, along with a fellow member, tore up sheets of paper printed with verses from the Bible to make their point.

One paper that was torn to pieces was printed with the verse, Matthew 5:29, which states: “So if your eye – even your good eye – causes you to lust, gouge it out and throw it away.” Another, which was torn, Corinthians 14:34, states “The women are to keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak.”

http://www.ocregister.com/news/group-317693-gleason-bible.html?plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:ba625f15-d8de-4d35-8be5-3980a4113408

[laconicsax]

1. The HORRORS!!!

:eyes:

[Fumesucker]

2. Fainting couches and smelling salts for all the blind folks... n/t

[Goblinmonger]

8. I do declare this is bringing about a case of the vapors n/t

[Thats my opinion]

30. Looks like all the book burners--ripper uppers--are not religious.

[Deep13]

51. false equivalency

Destroying ones own property and preventing others from reading banned books are not the same thing. No one is suggesting that all Bibles be rounded up and burned. And yeah, I'm suggesting that the koran-burning pastor was within his free expression and free religion rights.

[humblebum]

64. Oh they are well within their rights to do what they did, but I think

the general public perception of atheism and atheists will drop considerably.

[darkstar3]

65. Yeah, because YOU'RE an objective observer on that front.

:crazy:

[David Sky]

73. Actually whenever a few atheists are bold enough to mount some sort of

public demonstration, something to make people think, something to show others that they are not alone in their atheist thoughts, I think atheism makes major advances.

Only non-atheists would wish for the reverse to happen.

Unlike what happens as the result of weekly Christian events each Sunday, ...
No persons were hurt, forcefully dunked and immersed in water, insulted, made to feel guilty, threatened with eternal damnation, denied the right to marry whom they wanted to marry, refused a divorce or annulment, or administered "last rights" as a result of this demonstration.

[Deep13]

75. Yeah, it was a stupid stunt. nt

[ZombieHorde]

138. They did not destroy books. nt

[tgearfanatic234]

157. couldn't have said it better myself

[humblebum]

3. Well what do ya know? That mythical creature called the "militant atheist"

has been finally captured on film.

[Goblinmonger]

6. That's a militant atheist?

And you're worried about them? You know what, you're right though. Those signs they made are just as bad, or probably even worse, than what Fred Phelps makes (:sarcasm: in case you're hung over today)

Do you agree with those bible verses that they condemned?

[humblebum]

11. I have little doubt about the fact.

"Synonyms: aggressive, agonistic, argumentative, assaultive, bellicose, brawly, chippy, combative, confrontational, contentious, discordant, disputatious, feisty, gladiatorial, belligerent, pugnacious, quarrelsome, scrappy, truculent, warlike" - several of those describe it quite nicely.

And yes I do agree that those biblical saying were pertinent in the times in which they were written and I also agree that atheists have no right to decide how others may act. Organized atheism is and always has been a bigoted hate group. that does not include the majority of atheists. But, the history of organized atheism is one of oppression, intolerance, and violence.

[Goblinmonger]

12. They aren't making decisions as to how someone acts.

They are protesting. Do you think that the civil rights protesters in the 60s were out of line because they were "deciding hot others may act" or is it just atheist protesters that you have a problem with?

And the gospel quotation seems like it would have an impact on the current Christianity.

[humblebum]

13. These are not civil rights protesters. These are more like

Klan protesters who are targeting another group and its beliefs. Huge difference. the world has witnessed it before and the results were not pretty.

[Goblinmonger]

14. Klan members? Please, hold back the hyperbole.

The civil rights protesters targeted another group and its beliefs. The southern whites believed that they were superior to the blacks and deserved to have more rights. How dare the protesters tell them they are wrong.

Please tell me how someone holding up a sign saying that they are OK without god resulted in "results (that) were not pretty"? Do you really believe that is the same as burning a cross?

[humblebum]

15. They are demonstrating against group another when they revel in tearing pages from that group's

sacred text. Yes, I do equate them with the Klan, the nazis who held anti-Jewish rallies and degraded them in public, and the the Militant Atheists who did exactly the same thing in the 20th century.

[Goblinmonger]

16. They weren't pages from their sacred text.

They wrote the passage on a piece of paper and tore that paper. But don't let facts get in your way.

So you do agree with those passages? You should cut your good eye out if it causes you to lust?

[humblebum]

19. Actually they did both. Re-listen to the vid. In any case, most bibles are copies

and they tore up copies, so i see no difference. The subject of their protest is the beliefs of another group of people. Clear bigotry. And they need to be called on it.

[NMMNG]

43. Bullshit

It's not bigotry to disagree with or protest the beliefs of another person or group.

[Goblinmonger]

70. I haven't seen you in the Rio thread calling them bigots

They are protesting and telling others (fundie Christians) what to do and think (be more accepting of other religions and stop the persecution). I'll be looking for you in there calling those liberal religionists bigots.

[intaglio]

42. H'mmmm, odd

Klan - Christian, killed and terrorised people quoting the Bible for support.
Nazis - Christian, killed and terrorised people quoting the Bible for support.
Communists - mainly atheist, killed and terrorised people but didn't quote Das Kapital or Origin of Species for support
Tutsi - killed and terrorised people quoting the Bible for support.

And don't get me started on leaders. Atheists may have set the bar high with Stalin and Mao but virtually every other murderous or callous leader has been Christian or some other variety of monotheist ...

[humblebum]

68. You are right. Atheists did set the bar high with Stalin and Mao.

And the resulting atrocities have never been equaled.

[darkstar3]

71. You make it sound like you want vengeance.

[humblebum]

72. No. But that does seem to be a motivator for organized atheism. nt

Hitchens called for "ridicule, hatred, and contempt" to be shown for religion. That is a pretty good indication.

[darkstar3]

87. "the resulting atrocities have never been equaled. "

A better indication. You harp so often (and incorrectly) that atheists have killed more religious people than the other way 'round, and then you drop this jewel. It says far more than you realize.

[LeftishBrit]

99. 'never equalled' - what about the Holocaust? The genocides of native peoples in several countries?

More people were killed by Stalin and Mao, because they were in charge of particularly large countries, but murderous dictatorships have been a terrible danger throughout history.

People can and do commit horrific atrocities when 'just obeying orders' from psychopathic and power-mad leaders.

The horrors of Stalinism and Maoism were not *caused* by atheism. Some atheist groups acted as enforcers, as did many other groups. But Stalin's and Mao's main purpose was not to establish atheism! Their main purpose was to establish their own power, and enforce their own, often changeabley, interpretations of communism, and this involved suppressing *any* rival ideology: whether religious, scientific, pro-capitalist, or any version of communism that they considered 'deviationist'.

I will agree that government enforcement of atheism is just as bad as government enforcement of a religion. Governments should simply not be in the business of enforcing belief systems.

[humblebum]

100. The numbers that were murdered under Stalin and Mao, etc.

in the 20th century dwarf those of the Holocaust and native genocides many times over.

[Meshuga]

139. It does not matter how you try to connect the dots...

...as a religious person I feel safer in a country where we have atheists organizing to promote a secular state than in a society driven by religious insanity like we have here in America. Even when they think my religious beliefs are stupid.

So what if atheists have a beef with religion? Who can blame them when it is the religious who want to deny the civil rights of others in this country and it is the religious who try to dictate what our children should learn in schools and it is the religious who are actively trying to limit planned parenthood just to name a few of items?

We can sit all day trying to connect the dots closely to link atheists to Mao and Stalin but when we return from la la land we can see that it is the religious who are the ones doing the real harm in this country.

[darkstar3]

141. Well said.

[darkstar3]

17. Funny you should invoke the Klan, considering they're Christian,

and constantly talking about how evil it is that people speak up against them. Sounds awfully familiar to me...

[humblebum]

21. I'll stick with the Klan comparison. A hate group is a hate group. nt

[darkstar3]

26. Once again, you completely fail to get irony.

[humblebum]

31. No. Actually a hate group is a hate group, regardless.

[darkstar3]

53. And your views mesh nicely with one.

[Deep13]

47. Really? Who did they lynch?

What burning objects are they putting on other people's lawns (because it probably isn't a cross.) And criticizing an idea for being a bad one is different than denigrating a person for what he or she is.

[humblebum]

56. Actually militant atheists have a history of violence and repression

than makes the Klan look like a drive by face-slapper.

[darkstar3]

57. Only in your own mind.

[humblebum]

58. My mind and the history books. Certainly, no more ridiculous than planting

the image of Christians lynching. And certainly the numbers of those murdered by militant atheists were the highest in all of human history.

[darkstar3]

59. Your interpretation of history is all you have,

which is why you continue to push the lie in every post. The problem is that people have realized that repetition doesn't equal fact. Your propoganda fails.

[humblebum]

60. The thing is that my posts are generally always in response to

your repetitive anti-religious mantra. I start very few threads. The forum is strongly anti-religious in nature. The FACTS need to be stated.

[darkstar3]

61. Those aren't facts. They are your distortions.

[humblebum]

62. Only in your mind. nt

[Deep13]

74. If you are about to play the Stalin card, it has already been debunked.

Followers of irrational, revolutionary ideology don't count because it is as irrational as religion. Well, almost.

Please give me an example of an organized mob of atheists lynching someone.

[humblebum]

102. Oh so now you are telling me what cards can be played? That's rich.

"Followers of irrational, revolutionary ideology" - Kinda depends on the perspective, doesn't it?

[Deep13]

113. Reality does not depend on perspective.

That's why it's reality. Forcing people to affirm atheism as a matter of faith in revolutionary ideology is not the kind atheism anyone is talking about. Besides, it ignores the fact that the revolutions in the USSR and China were in part reactions to centuries of theocratic, authoritarian rule. So, yeah, debunked.

Still waiting for an example of lynchings by atheists.

Also, still waiting for any evidence at all that god is real.

[humblebum]

114. "Still waiting for an example of lynchings by atheists." Do you realize

I don't have a clue of what you are talking about?

[Deep13]

117. In your post 12...

...you compared these protesters to the Klan. The Klan is most notorious for lynching black people in the 1930s.

on edit:
Someday I will learn how to spell.

[humblebum]

121. I think they also refused to serve lunch to non-whites.

That aside, I do consider radical atheism to be a bigoted movement and quite potentially dangerous.

[Deep13]

123. If it ever becomes radical, I'll probably agree. nt

[A HERETIC I AM]

140. I for one, certainly hope so.

"I do consider radical atheism to be a bigoted movement and quite potentially dangerous."

I absolutely hope so.

Rationalists, Atheists and other Free Thinkers have been dragging the religious, kicking and screaming all the while, forward technologically and culturally for hundreds of years.

Let's hope it gets dangerous. To backward, primitive thinking, if nothing else.

"What's the difference between the believers in Zeus and the believers in Yahweh?

The believers in Zeus are all dead."

[humblebum]

115. So now it's "Forcing

people to affirm atheism as a matter of faith in revolutionary ideology is not the kind atheism anyone is talking about." Excuse me but the atheistic movement in Russia was widely accepted. And it was praised by people abroad such as Bertrand Russell and Joseph McCabe who said:

“No wonder they hated and libeled Russia! For the news is spreading, and is triumphing even over reactionary opposition that Russia is doing the finest and soundest reconstructive work of our time, and it is doing this, not only without God, but on a basis of militant Atheism.”

The philosphic roots of the atheist movement in the USSR are identical to those of the new Atheist movement today. Prime example is C. Hitchens, who is/was a Trotskyite (bolshevik), and an admirerer of Marx and Lenin.

[Deep13]

119. I'm talking about the masses, not the intellectual leadership.

And yeah, openly doubting the official dogma was a good way to end up in a gulag, especially during the Stalin regime.

Skeptics including atheists have existed since ancient times. Even the Psalms acknowledge their existence by claiming them to be fools. I rather doubt that they were Marxists.

Your example of Hitchens is way off the mark and I think you know it. First, Hitch was always a critic of Stalin and subsequent Soviet rulers. Marxism is primarily an economic theory and historical lens. It does not mean one supports 20th century communism. Second, Hitchens for the past twenty years or so has been aligned with the political right, not communism.


Anyway, all of this misses the point. I'm not claiming that it is impossible for atheists to do bad things. For the purposes of this thread, I am only claiming that the atheists in questions are not doing bad things.

I DO think that irrationality, whether religion or some other kind of dogma, will cause well-meaning people to do bad things often with horrific results. Religion is simply the most common form of organized irrationality.

[humblebum]

120. Trotsky was also a critic of Stalin. And the atheist movement

in Russia was heartily supported by intellectuals (as you call them) and the masses. I am completely serious about what I have said and stand by it.

[Deep13]

122. If so, it kind of figures.

The Tsar was the bad guy and he and the R.O. church had been thorough in oppressing ordinary people for centuries. It was a natural reaction. Usually people do not simply abandon a belief system, but rather replace it with another one. Catholicism for Calvinism for example. I call them intellectuals because that's what Gramsci calls them in discussing cultural hegemony. I'm not conceding that they were right.

[skepticscott]

80. Here's your authority's summary, cited by you

The League of Militant Atheists comprised workers, peasants, students, and members of the intelligentsia. Organizations were founded at plants, factories, kolkhozes, and educational institutions. By early 1941, the league consisted of approximately 3.5 million working people of 100 nationalities. The number of groups reached 96,000. Guided by Leninist principles of antireligious propaganda and by the party’s decisions on these principles, the league dedicated itself to ideological struggle against all forms of religion and the development of a scientific world view among working people. It disseminated propaganda on the natural sciences and atheism, offered believers individual counseling, and trained propagandists and atheist agitators. It also published scientific and popular scientific works and a number of periodicals, founded museums and organized exhibitions, and conducted scientific research in the field of atheism and criticism of religion. Working under the motto “The struggle against religion is a struggle for socialism,” the league coordinated atheist propaganda with economic, political, and cultural tasks. The league maintained extensive international ties; it belonged to the International of Proletarian Freethinkers, and then to the World Union of Freethinkers. In 1947 the league turned over its tasks of disseminating scientific-atheist propaganda to Znanie (Knowledge), a newly created all-Union society.
REFERENCES
Konovalov, B. N. “Soiuz voinstvuiushchikh bezbozhnikov.” In the collection Voprosy nauchnogo ateizma, no. 4. Moscow, 1967.
Konovalov, B. N. K massovomu ateizmu. Moscow, 1974.


Wow...just look at all that violence and repression.

[humblebum]

101. It 's a summary alright, but not to the question that you claim it

was an answer to. Kinda like me asking how many words are in this post and you answering "red." But at least I now know you can read and learn for yourself.

[whathehell]

20. Thank you...and militant atheism is hardly a "mythical creature"

You can see it on this board.:eyes:

[humblebum]

24. I agree, but that is not the opinion of many here on the R/T forum.nt

[whathehell]

35. I'd suggest It's not the opinion of

the other militant atheists on this board..Many of

the rest of us try and ignore them.

Half of my screen, in fact,

has "ignore" indicators on it right now.:rofl:

[darkstar3]

25. Aw, I must have missed out on the terrorist training, the arming, and the dogmatic indoctrination...

[Arugula Latte]

188. Come on, you've gotta keep up, man!

Remember what we said at the indoctrination? CHECK THE WEB SITE DAILY -- MilitantAtheistsForSlaughteringThePious.com. Remember, the next meeting is Tuesday at 7. You're signed up to bring an appetizer.

[darkstar3]

194. Would you prefer baby legs, or bloomin' believer heart?

I don't have the time to make both. ;)

[Arugula Latte]

199. Well, I was kind of hoping for some baby...

You know how we atheists like to devour human children. so, preferably some organic newborn legs on a bed of seasonal greens, if you can afford it.

[darkstar3]

202. It IS the other, other white meat.

I can probably get what I need for free. You know how we atheists have no morals, and nothing stops us from lying, stealing, and murdering...

[Arugula Latte]

209. That's very true.

We have no reason to NOT slaughter and pillage, you know, because only the fear of a vengeful deity would keep us from carrying on in the way we like to! So, go ahead and take some fresh ones from the Labor & Delivery floor! :9

[Silent3]

34. At what time in history was gouging your own eyes out "pertinent"?

Feel free to answer or (*cough* evade *cough*) not answer that question. I wouldn't want it to appear I was telling you how you may or may not act.

Wait... sorry... I shouldn't tell you how to feel, even if it's to "feel free". There's just this suggestion sort of laying out there that one may or may not feel free, as one wishes, you know. Avoiding militancy is such tricky business.

[Deep13]

48. They were never good ideas.

And atheists are only suggesting how to act. It's not like we have an inquisition or divine right ruler to enforce it.

[laconicsax]

9. People with Biblical citations on signs are "Militant Atheists?"

:rofl:

[Deep13]

46. I'm sure the atheist suicide bombers will begin any time now.

:eyes:

Talking, even with props, is not militancy.

[whathehell]

118. Yeah, because no one murders for reasons other than religion, right?

Back at you.:eyes:

[Deep13]

135. Didn't say that.

Usually if a decent person is going to do something horrible, it will be based on some kind of persuasive authority. It can be any perceived authority, but the most influential is often divine authority. If a person really believes that god has told him to do something, it is pretty hard to ignore that. So religion becomes a justification for preexisting malice or else it persuades a well meaning person to do something dreadful. Other things can do that to, but religion is the main irrational, authoritarian compulsion.

So yeah, nonbelievers can do bad things (although an examination of the prison population suggests it is pretty rare), but they will never do bad things because god, the Bible, the Koran or a priest told him to do so. Likewise, a skeptic is less likely to accept immoral orders without question than a serious believer will.

[whathehell]

158. "If a decent person is going to do something horrible it will be based on... persuasive authority"

Probably...Except that "persuasive authority" could, and does,

come from other ideologies with no religious basis at all.

Think Khmer Rouge and Stalin...Think studies on the willingness of

students to torture when under academic "authority"

Consider sociological findings on "crowd behavior".

Sorry, I don't think your theory holds.

[Deep13]

165. I know it can come from other sources.

Stalin and the rest of them relied on an authoritarian ideology that in many ways was similar to the theocracy it replaced.

Crowd behavior is instinctive and strictly speaking it is not authoritarian. I guess I was not including purely emotional reactions. I notice that authority often manipulates those instincts to get what it wants. For example, exacerbating the fear of "the other." And religion does that particularly well.

[whathehell]

173. Yes, but you didn't mention it and so I had to..

Fear of the "other" is no more pertinent to religion

than culture, race, nationality, etc.

Please stop trying to make religion the

source of all evil...It's clearly not,

what with greed, and power lust

coming in strong, along with those

other ideologies we've mentioned here.

[Deep13]

177. Not suggesting it is the source of all evil...

... but it is a convenient vehicle for evil. If one is made to believe that ones government insists on some evil action, it is pretty hard to resist doing it. How much harder is it when that order comes from an all powerful creator who can never be wrong?

Let me ask you, if religion were not such an effect lever for controlling people, why have almost all rulers and hegemonic cultures relied on it? Find a widely-practiced evil in the world, and there is almost always some kind of priest urging it on. The only real exceptions seem to be based on similar unquestionable ideologies--either communism or the capitalist nation's reaction to it. And the enforced atheism of communists only exists because of Marx's and others reaction to religion.

I find the basic values of the Abrahamic faiths to be servile, sado-masocistic, demeaning of humanity, misogynistic and ethnocentric. I'm not talking about TV preachers or foam-flecked mullahs either, but the basic doctrines. Plus, their teachings are based on lies. Actually two lies. The first involves their particular mythological claims that they hold out to be fact. Second is the general idea that knowledge comes from revelation rather than investigation.

[whathehell]

180. Really?....You could have fooled me, LOL

You say that "religion is a convenient vehicle for evil"?

As stated before, there are so MANY "convenient vehicles for evil".

You just don't want to look at them...Try Greed, Anger, Jealousy, power lust,

to name just a few....In addition, you make make sweeping generalizations

about "religion", when in fact, they are highly

disparate...Hinduism is not like Judaism, or Christianity, or like Islam.

All religions are NOT the same...Say it again:..All religions

are NOT the same...It's clear you need some education on that

when you characterize it as an "unquestionable ideology"...Let me tell you

something, my friend, I was raised a Roman Catholic, which is considered by

many to be a "doctrinaire" religion....I began questioning my religion at about the age of nine or ten

years of age...Fearing it MIGHT be a sin, I consulted a priest who not only

denied it's "sinfulness", he thought it was a great thing that,

in his words, I had "the kind of mind that can think", so, you see you are

WRONG in your characterization.

That being said, you are clearly a dyed in the wool anti-religionist, and

that being the case, I doubt anyone could change your views, so,

at this point, if you don't mind, I think I'll say

"adieu" as I have better things to do than bang my head against

that particular wall...Have a nice day.:hi:

[Deep13]

184. "Try Greed, Anger, Jealousy, power lust,"

Well I have. So have most people. They are basic human emotions and are morally neutral. They are not vehicles for evil. They aren't going anywhere. Classifying them as "sin" and making people dwell in guilt for having emotions does not help matters.

No all religions are not the same, although they all share some characteristics. And the four Abrahamic religions are all extremely similar. Actually, that ought to tell you something about their universal application. Well, they are all the same in one respect. They are all false. They all promise what they cannot deliver. And they all exist to serve the basic power structure. That's why they all encourage servitude and an acceptance of authority. And they all devalue human life by pretending that it is inconsequential compared to the afterlife.

You went to a Catholic Church in a secular country in the 20th century. In another place or another time, that church would have punished you for your doubts. Had you made them public, it would have killed you and seized your property. Your anecdote proves nothing. And how would that priest have felt if your thinking mind came to the conclusion that there was no god and that it was all a lie? The NT says that anyone who offends the holy spirit can never be forgiven and since it is clear that Christianity recognizes thought crimes, I used to worry when I was a teenager that I had inadvertently done so and doomed myself to eternal torment. I went to a liberal Episcopal church that was not exactly fire and brimstone either. Also, is the RC church really what you want to point to as an example? They still promote the idea of hell, proof positive that god is evil if he and it really existed. They also oppose the use of contraceptives anywhere including condoms in AIDS-ridden parts of Africa. They still deny the equality of women and of homosexuals.

Yeah, the evidence has convinced me that 1. religion is based on lies and is therefore bad and 2. on balance it is a force for evil in the world.

[whathehell]

195. Anger and Jealousy are "basic human emotions"...Greed and and an overweening desire for power?

Not so much.


Either way, they can, and certainly have been, "vehicles for evil"

How many people do you think have been killed in the service

of greed?...Or an overweening desire for power?

I'm not sure we can count that high.

"You went to a Catholic Church in a secular country in the 20th century. In another place or another time, that church would have punished you for your doubts. Had you made them public, it would have killed you and seized your property"

In another time and place I might have been eaten by cannibals...Or, as the founder of the Anglican Church, killed you for not

bearing male children.

"Your anecdote proves nothing"....My anecdote proves your very broad brush doesn't sweep..Sorry.

"And how would that priest have felt if your thinking mind came to the conclusion that there was no god and that it was all a lie"?

The Catholic church holds that one's conscience is the ultimate arbiter...Sorry again.

FWIW, I've been an agnostic for thirty years, so please get hold of your

obvious need to repeat your OPINION that "religion is a lie", because our watchword is

"I don't know and you don't either".

As stated before, this is a fruitless discussion, as neither of us

is going to change the mind of the other.

I'm sure you have better things to do.:hi:

[Deep13]

198. Maybe not the overweening part.

They are not vehicles at all. They are basic, natural emotions. If anything they are the root causes of evil, not vehicles for it. And yeah, too much of them will lead to bad results. But so will not enough of them. What if we did not get angry when someone did something horrible? And isn't it jealousy that makes us realize how unfair the present economic situation is? If we feel it, it is a natural part of being human and cannot, therefore, be inherently evil.

My point about another place and time was that the only reason the RC Church does not do such things here and now is because we no longer allow it. In places where religious authority is strong, it still commits atrocities.

I have better things to do, but I don't have to do them all the time. I did not expect to change your mind. I only engage in these kinds of arguments because it is not a private conversation.

[whathehell]

205. Any online conversation demands that both conversants actually READ the other person's posts

and it seems you haven't been, e.g...You don't have to TELL me jealousy and anger are emotions

as I already told you that and never claimed them to be "inherently evil".

If you imagine that you are the first person to be "holding forth" with non-original, non-responsive remarks

on religion, I'm afraid you would be quite mistaken. As for having an argument that is meant for "all" of us,

you should first seek to engage "all of us" and that would require at least some originality, not

to mention being responsive to others. Strange as it might seem to you, most people aren't interested

in being a "sounding board".:eyes:

[Deep13]

211. Oh for Chrissake. Really?

I did read it, such as it is. I don't know what you mean by being a sounding board, but it is pretty obvious that anyone can read or respond to this thread. It's a message board, not a private conversation. Anyway, I responded to what I thought was worth responding to. As far as unoriginality goes, glass houses. If I am unoriginal it is because the facts don't change and neither do the arguments. If you repeat the same argument every time, you have to expect the same response every time. I'm not a professional theology writer, just a concerned citizen, so I don't appreciate your sanctimonious, hypocritical attitude.

The fact--and it is a fact--that religion is founded on lies is a threshold problem. NOTHING can possibly justify it even if it were the sole cause of human happiness in the world if it is false. It isn't some theoretical side note. Talking about whether it is good or bad in this situation or that one is academic because it is false. What is the true meaning behind Jesus's admonition to be charitable? Doesn't matter, he wasn't real, one can't turn water into wine or cure lepers by touching them. Not possible. (There may have been a preacher named Jesus and the Romans may even have killed him, but he's not the guy the Bible talks about). The Bible loses pretty much all of its appeal once the force of divine authority is discredited. Does the Koran really prohibit suicide? Doesn't matter, it's not the word of god and, BTW, horses can't fly. We may as well refer moral or other supposedly deep questions to the Illiad, or Tolkien or Danielle Steele.

And "I don't know and neither do" is semantic bullshit. Ye gods! look at the actual evidence and have a little courage.

[LeftishBrit]

95. So you think that 15 people pointing out antiquated and violent Bible verses and tearing them up is

equivalent to acting as an enforcer for a regime murdering millions? Or even creating laws to forbid worship? (Which is your view of 'militant atheism'.

I actually think the group's tactics were foolish, for reasons I'll state in another post. But you sometimes come across as supporting political anti-atheism. And I have no problem with *any* religion, but I do fear political anti-atheism.

[humblebum]

105. I see it as a form of bigotry, yes.

Tell me. What would be your reaction if the had been tearing stars of David or menorahs? It does not matter what you think of the Bible. The fact is that it is sacred to many people. I need say nothing more about it.

[darkstar3]

142. Tell me, do you eat beef?

Cows are sacred to many people, in fact they are sacred to almost as many people as the Bible. Your logic dictates that if you eat beef it is a form of bigotry.

[humblebum]

146. Against the steer it probably is. You are in your rationalizing phase

now, I see.

[darkstar3]

147. I have rationalized nothing. You said that violating something

"sacred to many people" is bigotry in your eyes. Cows are sacred to many people, and killing them for food is most certainly a violation. If you participate in that violation of something "sacred to many people", then you are by your own logic a bigot.

Seeing as how you have attempted to dodge this point, I consider it incredibly safe to assume that you do, in fact, eat beef. So, either you admit here and now that you engage in bigotry (just as you accused these protesters of doing) every time you eat beef, or you admit that you are a hypocrite.

This is called "painting yourself into a corner," and it happens frequently when you allow your strong emotions about a specific group to override your entire thought process on a subject.

[humblebum]

148. I think that there is the little matter of intent and norm that you purposely

leaving out. And this rally was not an isolated event. Atheistic bigotry against religion is becoming more common all the time. Not a good sign.

[darkstar3]

149. Uh huh...

So what you're saying is that when you violate something that is "sacred to many people", it's really OK because you're not doing it specifically to protest their religious practice, but rather because you just don't give a fuck?

How is that better? And how does your clear violation of something "sacred to many people" not qualify as bigotry under your own logic? Because you made the goalposts and you get to move them at will? Doesn't work that way. You applied a judgment (even if you did make it up on the spot), and when you apply a judgment to others and refuse to allow it to be applied to yourself, you're a hypocrite.

So which is it? Hypocrite or bigot? Not that I'm accusing you, but your own logic has led to this fork and I'm genuinely curious as to the answer. And while you're trying to come up with it, ponder this: In your world, where the violation of anything "sacred to many people" is bigotry, the sheer callousness contained in the eating of beef while being fully aware of its sacred nature to millions and caring nothing about it is actually worse than a protest, because you've moved beyond recognition to simple apathetic contempt. You knew exactly what you were doing, and you did it anyway because you just didn't care enough to stop yourself. Forget slaughtering the cow just to piss off the Hindus, you've gone at least one level above that.

[humblebum]

150. You are the one definitely moving the goalposts here buddy.

Little Johnny Smith sitting in McDonald's eating a a double cheese burger is definitely not practicing bigotry. Except under your rules. Norms and intent. Now if I entered an ashram and started scarfing down a hamburger and sausage pizza, no doubt that would be bigotry.

[darkstar3]

151. They're YOUR rules.

You're the one who came up with the ridiculous idea, put forward in #105 and so cemented in your mind that you "need say no more about it", that violating something "sacred to many people" is a form of bigotry.

I, of course, don't believe that, but obviously you do, or you wouldn't have said it so clearly. If Johnny's not a bigot, then neither are the people who tore some paper with pretty words on it. You can't have it both ways. Johnny, and you, and me, are all committing a form of sacrilege or blasphemy when we eat beef. It's just that the religion which believes such an act is blasphemous doesn't enjoy much of a following here.

Which is it? Is blasphemy/sacrilege bigotry, or not? If it's only bigotry when it's committed against your sacred cow, then all you've done is engage in worthless hypocrisy. Remember, these are YOUR rules, not mine. You set them in #105.

[Name removed]

152. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[darkstar3]

153. Spin all you want, you're still in the corner.

I've already shown you why your attempt to move the goal posts by claiming "intent" has something to do with this is bullshit in #149. You still have a choice to make. Of course, nothing's stopping you from continuing to write and showing us you choose both.

[humblebum]

154. I am in nobody's corner. Go ahead and make a fool out of yourself.

I find it comical. You've been doing it for a long time now. If you are correct however, those atheists on the street are bigots both against christians and hindus. They probably eat beef too.

[darkstar3]

155. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

But I have my answer, no matter how hard you tried not to give it. Bye now.

[humblebum]

156. My we are original aren't we?

"There are none so blind as those who will not see." That's funny. Say, maybe you could have a barbecue next time you are ripping up bibles on the street corner. You'd draw more people that way.

Maybe even throw on a little pork and rip up some Korans. Might as well make it a multi-cultural affair.

[Kurmudgeon]

4. That's how intolerance always starts out, small then works up to larger actions.

Freedom of religion does not equal to freedom from religion.
You have to be able to tolerate your fellow citizens and that includes not demeaning their beliefs with overt actions.
Or you can escalate it to something similar to the Sunnis and Shites in the Middle East, won't that be fun.
I don't envy the young the world this generation is creating.

[humblebum]

5. Yep.

Bigotry: "The predominant usage in modern English refers to persons hostile to those of differing sex, race, ethnicity, religion or...." It's becoming increasingly obvious that organized atheism is just another bigoted hate movement with a very long history.

[Lionessa]

29. The way I see it; sex, race, ethnicity, and sexual preference are NOT choices, religion is

and therefore should not be a part of the bigotry issue. Only those things that one is born with should be considered bigotry, as we should all be open to being quesitoned or even harrassed about our choices, just as you are harassing atheists in this thread, clearly our choice and our burden to withstand.

[humblebum]

33. Well. Since the law considers it as such and not a choice, it really

doesn't matter what you think, and if you act like these people, I will treat you no differently.

[NMMNG]

49. Actually, the law doesn't cover bigotry

merely acts of discrimination. If the law concerned itself with bigotry millions of Christian groups like the KKK, Focus on the Family, NOM, Concerned Women for America, Tradition Family and Property, etc, would all be in deep shit.

[humblebum]

55. I think it can safely be said that discrimination is a form of bigotry. nt

[NMMNG]

66. Discrimination often follows from bigotry

Proposition 8 in California, for example.

But unlike discrimination, bigotry isn't prohibited by law.

Of course if you're a church or other religious group, you are above the law in that you're legally allowed to discriminate against whomever you want for whatever reason you want. No other group is allowed that special right. But we still keep hearing about how persecuted they are in this country.

[whathehell]

116. Not entirely...

If one is RAISED from the cradle with certain

beliefs, they are not exactly "choices",

and could be considered "conditioning", one

they may or may not choose to "work" at altering

or eliminating to the extent possible.

Yes, going against one's childhood conditioning

usually necessitates "work".

In any case, why should anyone react negatively toward

someone for their personal beliefs if those

beliefs are in keeping with a progressive agenda?

I frankly think personal beliefs are "personal"

and on one else's business.

[NMMNG]

38. Much like organized Christianity?

Considering the content of your instruction manual...

[Goblinmonger]

7. So they can't say they disagree with those things?

Do you agree with those bible verses?

[laconicsax]

10. Freedom of religion cannot exist without freedom from religion.

You're free to practice your religion by virtue of being free of other religions.

[darkstar3]

18. delete.

Laconicsax already said it better than me.

[whathehell]

23. Yup.

[Lionessa]

28. The only ones demeaning people with false and hateful beliefs are

those that follow the Bible with all it's hatred and violence against women, children, homosexuals, adulterers, theifs, non-judeo-christians, and numerous other "offenses" that at least in our country wouldn't be treated with the intolerance that the bible suggests using, as I recall usually the bible calls for out right killing for virtually any offense, and sometimes just to prove loyalty to god and for no other reason.

It isn't atheists that are going to ruin the future, it's all the myth believers who think their myth is better and mightier than the others. Comparing Sunni/Shiite to Atheist/Christian, only shows how poorly you create analogies.

[humblebum]

69. History pretty well proves that strong support for organized atheism has always

resulted in repression and intolerance for other groups.

[David Sky]

77. You have historical examples of "strong support for organized atheism"?

I don't recall any. Perhaps my textbook left out all those chapters ...

I never knew "organized atheism" was ever "organized".

[humblebum]

78. Russia, China, France, Mexico, etc. nt

[David Sky]

79. Russia? The Russian Orthodox Church is alive and well, and the

state of Russia makes no claims whatsoever that it is an "organized atheist" state.

France? There are millions more Catholics in France than Protestants, Jews, or Muslims or other faiths....France is tolerant to all religions. France mixes Catholic symbolism in some of her government ceremonies, and calls Christmas a state holiday.

Mexico? An overwhelmingly Catholic country.

"Freedom of Religious Belief in China

Information Office of the State Council
Of the People's Republic of China
October 1997, Beijing

I. The Present Conditions of Religion in China"

"China is a country with a great diversity of religious beliefs. The main religions are Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Catholicism and Protestantism. Citizens of China may freely choose and express their religious beliefs, and make clear their religious affiliations. According to incomplete statistics, there are over 100 million followers of various religious faiths, more than 85,000 sites for religious activities, some 300,000 clergy and over 3,000 religious organizations throughout China. In addition, there are 74 religious schools and colleges run by religious organizations for training clerical personnel."

http://chineseculture.about.com/library/china/whitepaper/blsreligion.htm

etc.? never been to that country.

You might want to do some travel, or at least some reading.

[humblebum]

81. Did I indicate anywhere that I was referring to the conditions in the present tense

and have you studied any history at all? And yes, I have traveled in Russia and Southeast Asia extensively. And China is still an officially state atheist country, and though religion is allowed to be practiced, it is severely restrained constitutionally. No religion is allowed to be administered from outside the country. Even Catholicism is controlled by the government.

Perhaps you have even heard of those events such as the Russian Revolution, and the French Revolution.

[David Sky]

83. No, you just fed us generalities, and no specifics, which, of course

is par for the course with fuzzy thinking Christians and other religious fanatics who always INSIST that they are ALWAYS RIGHT, and that everyone else, ESPECIALLY Atheists, are WRONG!

Nothing could be further from your brand of bigotry and "history".

No state ever FAILED because of "organized atheism" but you are free to make it up, and make accusations without any facts.

I find that a common pattern in religiously prejudiced people: they generalize, they are vague, imprecise, they make it up and ignore any facts to the contrary.

Tell us again, when was Paris controlled by atheists? Or were you referring to the (Catholic and Protestant) Nazi anti semitic occupation of WW II.

[humblebum]

84. I don't suppose you have ever heard of the Cult of Reason?

You would have to be pretty much unschooled not to know the basics. If you are even remotely as ignorant as you pretend, then you need much education even to be brought up to the point of being able to carry an intelligible discussion on the matter.

[laconicsax]

85. You're making a fool of yourself.

First you cite a group that hasn't existed in over 60 years, now you cite another that ceased to exist 200 years ago.

[humblebum]

86. History is generally presented in the past tense. Yes, on that fact you are correct.

And the group that ceased to exist 60 years did not die out but morphed into other atheist groups. Some very active until religion was legally allowed to prosper and some still active today. FYI. History is generally given in the past tense. Really at no point has the history been broken.

[laconicsax]

88. Connect the Cult of Reason to a modern atheist group. n/t

[humblebum]

89. I give up, you do it for me.

But if you really want to see a connection it would have to be from the first Paris Commune during the French Revolution, and the later Paris Commune in 1871, that was so influential in the ideas of both Marx and Lenin, and of course The Marxist-Leninist connection to the Russian Revolution. Also, Comte's ideas on positivism came out of the French Revolutionary period. So Comte's ideas on positivism and atheism spread around the world, i.e. the church of positivism in Brazil. And, Lenin applied what he had learned from Marx' connection to the Paris Commune to his own ideas of atheism and communism, and how they should best be implemented in Russia. So, ideals of atheism and materialism survived, even though the Cult of Reason did not.

[laconicsax]

90. Glad you can finally acknowledge that any implied connection is bullshit. n/t

[humblebum]

91. On the contrary there is a direct connection in many different directions.

The philosophic roots run from the Cult of Reason directly to the Russian Revolution. Sartre and Nietzsche didn't develop their ideas in a vacuum, nor any one of another hundred or so philosophers and avowed atheists.

[laconicsax]

92. Yon can connect Sartre and Nietzsche to Christians too.

IOW, you lose.

[humblebum]

93. Just about everyone in Europe can be connected to Christianity,

But, no Sartre and Nietzsche were not pastors on the side.

[laconicsax]

94. There's a word you might have heard before:

The word is "incidental." See if you can relate it to the connection you've drawn between 18th-century French atheists, 20th-century totalitarian states, and 21st-century atheists.

[humblebum]

103. I think you just gave me the answer.

Gee. Let me see here. What do 18th-century French atheists, 20th-century totalitarian states, and 21st-century atheists have in common? Let's see, brown hair? Nope. 6 toes on each foot? Nope? Oh! Oh! Iknow! I know!

They are all ATHEISTS!

[Goblinmonger]

107. That's the standard you want to live with?

Really? Then you shall never say again that the shithead christians are not representative of all chrisitians.

Give me a break. Your double standard is just sickening.

[LeftishBrit]

108. What do the Inquisition ,the burners of heretics, the rival sectarian terrorists of Northern Ireland

Adolf Hitler, Joe McCarthy, the Ku Klux Klan, and the Tea Party have in common?

They are all CHRISTIANS!!!

I hasten to add: I DO NOT think that Christians in general should be tarred with the crimes of all violent and authoritarian Christian rulers or organizations! That would indeed be bigoted, much like saying that all Muslims are terrorists because of Al Quaeda.

However, if you seriously equate 21st century atheists with 18th or 20th century dictators who were also atheists, then you are guilty of an equivalent bigotry.

Oh, and by the way, the predecessors of the French and Russian revolutionary rulers weren't that great, either. Neither the Tsars nor the rulers of the Ancien Regime were known for their humanitarianism or their commitment to liberal democracy. After the revolutions - 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss' - and in the specific case of Stalin, even worse. But tyranny in France and Russia did not begin with atheist rulers. The problem with atheist rulers and dictators was not that they were atheists; it is that they were rulers and dictators. Same goes for Christian or Muslim rulers or dictators.

[laconicsax]

110. +1000

[whathehell]

181. The "sectarian" violence in Northern Ireland had as much, or more to do with "non-sectarian"

issues of politics and the unequal outlay of "benefits" toward the

"loyalist" Irish on the side of the Crown as it did religion...and

if I'm not mistaken, the brits enforcing this lovely system

of discrimation were "Christians" as well.

[LeftishBrit]

208. That is perfectly true BUT very similar points apply

to the relationship between atheism and communism in the Soviet Union and other totalitarian states! Just as the sectarianism in Northern Ireland was more political/nationalistic than purely religious, so 'militant atheism' in the Soviet Union was secondary to totalitarian communism, rather than the primary motivator for it.

[whathehell]

210. I would agree with that.

I doubt that militant atheism was the "cause" of totalitarian

communism...By the same token, I don't see many

crimes or wars in the modern western world caused

for "purely" religious reasons either.

[LeftishBrit]

207. To correct some misunderstandings that seem to have arisen..

my above post was *not* intended as a broadbrush of Christians, but rather pointing out that broadbrushing atheists is equivalent to broadbrushing Christians (or Muslims). I was deliberately imitating the tone of the post about atheists to point out the unfairness of it. I do *not* support an equivalent hostility to Christians; rather, I am equally opposed to hostility toward atheists, Christians, Muslims, or any other religious group.

[laconicsax]

109. Thanks for showing your prejudice, humblebum.

It's truly enlightening to know that you regard all atheists across history as equivalent regardless of deed. There's a word that perfectly describes such sentiments; Leftishbrit hinted at it.

[humblebum]

124. Well, the examples you gave me were fomenting hatred against

religious people back then and still are. So call it what you will.

[LeftishBrit]

125. So all 21st century atheists foment hatred against religious people?

That is just like saying that all Christians are like Pat Robertson, or all Muslims belong to Al Quaeda.

And frankly, the main problem with Stalin and Mao was that they murdered millions of people, both religious and non-religious. To be blunt: don't the non-religious victims count as much as the religious ones?

[humblebum]

126. I am speaking about radical atheist movements. As far as

"...the main problem with Stalin and Mao..." - I have never claimed that the only people who died because of their actions were religious victims.

[cleanhippie]

127. You really should just stop while you are behind.

You're in a pretty deep hole. You really gonna keep digging?

[humblebum]

129. And how is that? nt

[Deep13]

128. And that's all. nt

[yardwork]

185. Not all 20th century totalitarian states were atheist, not by a long shot.

[whathehell]

187. Yes, the word is "Incidental" and it would apply

to most of the evil doing christians cited here as well,

at least those of the last half millennium or so.:eyes:

[laconicsax]

191. That's the point. n/t

[onager]

98. Mexico? MEXICO?

WTF kind of weird connection are you going to make between Mexico and atheism? Because Trotsky once lived there?

I've heard that a few other atheists did live in Mexico - Diego Rivera, Frida Kahlo and her Dad. And I can understand how that must piss you off, with your pathological hatred of non-believers.

But you can relax - Mexico is still resoundingly Catholic, though goofy Evangelical churches are reportedly making inroads into the franchise of the One True Church.

Back when rabid right-winger "B-1 Bob" Dornan was running for office, he tried to exploit the religious angle by distributing a pamphlet with the Virgin of Guadalupe on the cover. Inside were gory, graphic photos of abortions. That thing caused a furor, and happily cost him many votes in the Hispanic Catholic community.

Here in my devoutly atheist-named hometown - El Pueblo de Nuestra Senora La Reina de Los Angeles de Porciuncula - public TV is currently running a great documentary, The Storm That Swept Mexico. It covers the history of modern Mexico from Porfirio Diaz to the present.

I just finished watching it. Atheism wasn't mentioned once.

[humblebum]

104. Under Plutarco Calles.

"The Mexican Constitution of 1917's Articles 3, 5, 24, 27, and 130 as originally enacted were anticlerical and "enormously" restricted religious freedoms.<23> At first the anticlerical provisions were only sporadically enforced, but when President Plutarco Calles took office, he enforced the provisions strictly.<23> Calles’ Mexico has been characterized as an atheist state<24><25> and his program as being one to eradicate religion in Mexico." - Wiki

[onager]

143. That was the Cristeros...Catholic heroes who murdered schoolteachers...

1940 - Between 1931 and 1940, at least 223 rural teachers were assassinated by the Cristeros and other Catholic armed groups, because of their atheist and socialist education.

http://www.enotes.com/topic/Irreligion_in_Mexico

As always, the story is a lot more complex than your cut-and-paste from the Wiki "State Atheism" article would indicate:

Let's not confuse Mexican anti-clericalism with atheism in general. (Even if Calles himself was an atheist.) Mexican anti-clericalism was really aimed at the Catholic church.

For example, President Obregón supported Protestant missionaries in general and used state funds to support the Associación Cristiana de Jóvenes (YMCA) with state funds which infuriated the Catholic church.

Interestingly enough, many felt that Obregón actually turned his back on the anti-clerical sentiments of Mexico's constitution. Calles, of course, went all out and pretty much instigated a war with the Roman Catholic Church in Mexico.

Source: "The Course of Mexican History," 8th Edition

BTW, you should have read the whole Wiki article on Plutarco Calles:

A few months before his death in October 1945, aged 68, Calles reportedly stated that he "most certainly believed" in a higher power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutarco_El%C3%ADas_Calles

So even though he may have been a brutal atheist thug at one time, Calles apparently repented, and is now in Heaven with Hitler, Franco and all the other good Xians.

[humblebum]

145. You might want to go back and read the original question. Yes,

it was about state atheism, and it is certainly not unusual for atheists to experience deathbed conversion.

[LeftishBrit]

132. This is not true of countries that simply have large atheist populations

As regards strong *government* support for atheism, no doubt yes - and ditto for strong government support for any belief system. It is not the job of governments to police people's thoughts!

You often seem to equate secularism with government-imposed atheism. Very different things.

[darkstar3]

144. That is a common tactic in the fundamentalist churches back where I grew up.

Atheism is painted as a faith, and secularism its religious observance. This way, they feel justified pushing their theocratic views.

[NMMNG]

36. On the contrary

Freedom of religion requires freedom from religion. If you're having other religion(s) forced on you in any way, how are you free to practice your own?

[Goblinmonger]

45. You haven't answered whether you agree with those passages.

One of them is a quotation from Christ, too. Interesting that you haven't come down on one side of the other.

[Deep13]

50. Um, bullshit.

Freedom of religion must include freedom from religion otherwise other religions and the state will tell you how to practice your religion.

Frankly, no one in the article is coercing believers. They are simply presenting a counter argument. Tolerance is not a virtue. It means that while one may hate something, he has to suffer its presence anyway. It is as if someone said, "Well I hate black people, but there is nothing I can do about them moving into the neighborhood, so I will make the best of it." That's tolerance. Realizing that there is no biological basis for race and that it has no behavioral inherent characteristics is a much better approach.

Acceptance of people despite innate differences is the goal. That applies to people of other religions (although that is not innate). It does NOT apply to religion itself. As and idea it is absolutely fair game for criticism. I can't help notice that you object to atheists making these arguments on grounds of tolerance. You do NOT claim that they are wrong. That is called "changing the subject" and "counter accusations." I have an absolute right to have and express an opinion on any subject I choose. The religious value of acceptance of the beliefs of others (a value that has been a long time in coming, btw) does not apply to me. If I want to criticize the Bible or its supposed god, draw the Prophet or eat a hamburger, I am perfectly free to do so.

It's funny that you point to two religious groups as an example of unnecessary violence. Still waiting for existentialists and secular humanists to start killing each other.

[David Sky]

76. You might make a little effort here to clarify your confused thinking.

They were NOT CRITICIZING PEOPLE they were CRITICIZING IDEAS!

That's called free speech, not "bigotry".

If you think free speech is to be discouraged, perhaps you can have your religion overtake the government and repeal the First Amendment.

Confusing critical discussion of ideas, mythologies, fantasies, and philosophies with outright bigotry against actual people
is noting new for Christians. Their holy book is filled with examples of people being condemned for thinking differently than what the book tells them to think.

In this case, no human beings were harmed by a public demonstration. Some people, (like you) seem to feel you were personally insulted, mocked, publicly humiliated because a group of people publicly disagreed with the religious ideas you hold onto.

But it's NOT PERSONAL... it's public free speech.

[LeftishBrit]

97. 'not demeaning their beliefs with overt actions'

That would rule out an awful lot of things. Are you not allowed to cheer for your favourite sports team, because it demeans the beliefs of those who support another team? (And at any rate in England, I've seen on an everyday basis more bigotry, prejudice, and even threatened and actual violence between groups who support different football teams than between believers in different religions!) Are you not allowed to participate in a demonstration against the Iraq war or cuts in public services because it demeans the beliefs of those who support these policies?

'Freedom of religion does not equal to freedom from religion.'

Depends what you mean by that. It doesn't mean that you have a right to prevent others from worshipping freely but it *does* mean that you should have a right to *not* practice religion, and to be open about it.

'you can escalate it to something similar to the Sunnis and Shites in the Middle East, won't that be fun.'

Or the Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland until very recently. Or the burnings of heretics in 16th century England, or the religious element in the 17th century Civil Wars. Sectarian violence is not a recent creation.

[Meshuga]

136. Freedom from religion is a great thing n/t

[progressoid]

22. self-professed atheists?

"self-professed"? As opposed to?

[whathehell]

27. In other news, the sun rises and sets.

:boring:

[struggle4progress]

32. "We're atheists! We like to rip pages from books!" is not a good PR campaign: it's unimaginative

and the public will regard it only slightly more favorably than a window-smashing campaign

Those guys need a new angle

Maybe highway litter collection? with a slogan like You can't pray the litter away: so we actually pick it up!

[laconicsax]

40. It's even weaker from the other side.

"Those atheists are so militant--they ripped pages from a book!."

[Deep13]

52. Well that's probably true. nt

[darkstar3]

54. Public destruction of a symbol is a recognized form of protest.

There are as many forms of protest as there are people interested in protesting something, but when you want people to quickly and easily understand what you're trying to say, you stick to a recognized form.

[Kerrytravelers]

162. Thank you.

[WolverineDG]

131. Especially when they admitted they were going to rip up a Bible at first

then switched to ripping up photocopies of pages instead...although the guy on the video gleefully announced that he did rip a page out of a Bible....yeah, way to win friends & influence people.

BTW, I think the litter campaign idea is a good one, as is the slogan.

dg

[NMMNG]

37. Not something I'd do because I cherish books too much

But they're destroying their own property. Why is it considered militant for atheists to say what they consider offensive and tear some pages out of a book? Would you rather they do like some Christians and seek to outlaw for everyone whatever they deem offensive (rights for LGBT people, abortion and birth control, sex education, etc)?

[ZombieHorde]

63. They were not destroying books, they were destroying pieces of paper with bibical verses printed on

them.

[NMMNG]

67. My bad

In that case, why the hell is anybody having the vapors? Oh, that's right. Religious beliefs are supposed to be protected from any question or criticism. But of course they can be used as a weapon in any way the believer wants because that's "religious freedom". :eyes:

[EvilAL]

39. Good.

The people saying atheists are bigots need to take a good look at their fucking religion. It reeks of bigotry against almost everything. They are the ones forcing the atheists into the streets to protest their disgusting religion. Keep your religion to your self and the mean atheists will go away. Promise.

[humblebum]

106. Your dripping with it. I call it bigotry because that's exactly

what it is. I really can't point to a single rally against atheism.--------------Yet.

[LeftishBrit]

111. 'Not a single rally against atheism'

http://www.christianconcern.com/our-concerns/religious-freedom/not-ashamed-day-report

http://agapemovement.com/one-nation-under-god-prayer-rally/comment-page-1 (all right, this is just one aspect of the rally; but as they call it the 'one nation under God rally' it's clearly a part of it)

This one was some time ago, but you're interested in the 20th century:

http://www.province23.co.uk/page16.html



And all religions seem to have them:



http://www.dawn.com/2011/07/29/egypt-islamic-activists-rally-in-show-of-strength.html

http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?id=227770


Of course, countries hardly need rallies against atheism when they have laws against blasphemy. (Britain had such a law on its books until - wait for it - 2008.)

[EvilAL]

133. Dripping with what?

Bigotry? Because I think christianity and the bible is disgusting? I think Oscar the Grouch is disgusting, I don't hate children.

[LeftishBrit]

112. Not all religious people reek of bigotry in the least

I think we should be rallying for secularism, and against political discrimination against atheists - or any religious minority, rather than against the specifics of particular religious beliefs. JMO

[EvilAL]

134. Maybe I was misunderstood,

I wasn't saying religious people were disgusting, the bible and their religion and dogma is. Of course not all religious people are bigots, then again most don't really go against it when push comes to shove.. The bible rules.. that's that.

[Taverner]

41. Why are Atheists "self-professed atheists" but Christians, no matter what they do, are Christians?

[rug]

44. Is there an initiation ceremony I missed?

[tama]

82. Because

nobady would dare to define defitionalistically sensitive atheists as atheist unless they first thusly defined themselves. :)

Only after an atheist defines himself as an atheist, it's OK for also others to say so. Otherwise, they can get definitive on your sorry ass and demand that you prove your claim with the burden of proof. Of course this is not a reciprocal relation, it's perfectly OK for (self-professed) atheist to define others as believers in sky-daddy, spaghettimonster, post-modernism and what not without self-professed identification of thusly categorized, and that is only perfectly rational atheistic behaviour. Or...?

[LeftishBrit]

96. Well, I somewhat disagree with the tactics, on the following grounds...

I think that the problem isn't with religion; it is with religion being used as an excuse for or as fuel for authoritarian, right-wing or violent policies and actions. I don't believe in religion, but there are lots of other views and concepts that I also think aren't supported by the evidence, and I don't find them harmful unless used to justify harshness, violence or oppressiveness.

Thus, it seems to me somewhat counterproductive to imply that *all* Christians must hold views such as 'The women are to keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak'. It would be better for atheists to ally with liberal religious people against those who hold such views, than to imply that *all* religious people must hold them.

I do like the poster: "Smile. You’re not alone. Millions are good without God." Exactly!

[WolverineDG]

130. A book-burner by any other name is still a book-burner NT

[ZombieHorde]

137. They were not burning books. They were destroying pieces of paper they wrote on.

I am sure every one here has destroyed a piece of paper they have written on before.

[WolverineDG]

160. If you listen to the video, their original plan was to burn a Bible

and the idiot being interviewed gleefully admitted he tore a page out of one. They weren't out to do anything BUT garner negative attention.

There's a reason book-burning in general is unpopular & those who advocate it endlessly mocked & derided---while people may disagree with what's in a particular book, they have problems with others destroying them. Freedom of speech & all that....funny how atheists seem to have skimmed over that part of the First Amendment.

Book burning is reprehensible no matter who does it. And besides which, this activity only fed into the stereotypes many atheists here claim whine about. Instead of doing something like this, why not make a big to do about something constructive, like the litter campaign suggested up thread?

dg

[cordelia]

161. And if you look at the slide show

referenced in the link in the OP, there he is with a page torn from the Bible. At least that's what the caption says.

This guy is as big a dick as Benny Hinn, Richard Dawkins, Jerry Falwell, etc.

[humblebum]

159. This is reminiscent of the very early days in both the Soviet era

the Nazi era, and in other times and places, when open and public displays of anti-religious rallies, and propaganda, began to be tolerated as ordinary and acceptable behavior. Seems innocuous enough. And, of course, what happened there could never happen here. When open bigotry becomes common place, anything can happen given the right circumstances.

[onager]

163. And this oldie goes out to...Humblebum!

Well, I was feelin' sad and feelin' blue,
Didn't know what in the world I was gonna do,
Them Communists they was comin' around,
They was in the air,
They was on the ground.
They wouldn't gimme no peace.

So I run down most hurriedly
And joined up with the John Birch Society,
I got me a secret membership card
And started off a-walkin' down the road.
Yee-hoo, I'm a real John Bircher now!
Look out, you Commies!

Now we all agree with Hitler's views,
Although he killed six million Jews.
It don't matter too much that he was a Fascist,
At least you can't say he was a Communist...

Bob Dylan - "Talking John Birch Paranoid Blues"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AylFqdxRMwE

[Meshuga]

164. Please stop comparing this type of protest to how the Holocaust came about

It is inaccurate and offensive.

[LeftishBrit]

166. +1..

[humblebum]

167. I made no comparison to the Holocaust. I referenced the very

early days, before things got out of hand. There is a definite similarity.

[Name removed]

169. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Meshuga]

174. No similarities at all

so much so that Jews don't see antisemitism when atheists criticize belief or when atheists find general Jewish belief silly or useless. But if a group attacks Jews, then that's another issue.

In Nazi Germany, from the beginning, the main issue was "Jewish untrustworthiness" arguing that Jews could not assimilate or be good German citizens. And that Jews were a "race" and an inferior one. Belief didn't really matter because Jews who converted to Christianity received the same treatment.

No one in this rally (from the OP) is holding signs saying that Christians should not be trusted. The focus is on the scripture and belief that this atheist group obviously rejects. I see no harm if they want to reject the Hebrew Bible and quote something nasty from it to say they have no use for it in their lives. It's a victim-less crime. It truly hurts no one.

In short, there are no similarities.

[humblebum]

178. We aren't talking about criticizing christianity, which is perfectly ok.

We are talking about destruction of something considered sacred to a group of people. It would be no different if they were tearing stars of David. And, yes, this is exactly what took place in the earliest stages with the incidents in both Russia and Germany. It became quite acceptable behavior and increased in severity from that point on. They will continue no doubt because that is their right. And organized atheism will imcreasingly be labled as a bigoted hate group.

[darkstar3]

182. That's still hypocritical unless you've stopped eating beef.

And BTW, when you start arguing over whether your Holocaust reference was offensive with a Jew, you've obviously jumped the shark.

[darkstar3]

168. So you're "under attack by Commie Nazis"??

:rofl:

[Name removed]

170. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[darkstar3]

171. So you deny that you compared current atheists to both Communists and Nazis in one post?

Do you even understand how ridiculous it is to invoke those two in the same sentence?

[Name removed]

172. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[onager]

175. You just need a holiday...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwf8F6IabbE&feature=related

(WARNING - graphic violence)

[humblebum]

179. So, was that supposed to be an advertisement for atheism?

It really doesn't show it in a good light, I hate to tell you. But, yes, those were atheists.

[onager]

183. Militant Buddhists. Except for Nixon, who was a Quaker.

n/t

[humblebum]

186. So ya think the Khmer Rouge were "militant Buddhists" do ya?

Um? Does the word "Rouge" maybe ring a bell?

[laconicsax]

193. True or false:

The Cambodian peasantry that joined the Khmer Rouge were largely Buddhist.

True or False: Pol Pot was Buddhist until after he rose to power.

[humblebum]

196. To be a card carrying Communist, declaring yourself atheist is required.

It is that simple. Buddhism was squelched.

[laconicsax]

197. The answer is true for both.

Registered party members were always a minority.

[humblebum]

200. That's why so many died. They didn't conform.

Those who lived did conform.

[laconicsax]

201. Yeah. Atheists are fanatical about agriculturism and hate education.

[Name removed]

206. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[darkstar3]

203. So Communism and atheism are the same thing?

[laconicsax]

204. Well to be fair, atheism IS an economic system.

:rofl:

[Goblinmonger]

176. Oh Noes....it's complete political opposites

wrapped up in one super monster. Kind of like matter/anti-matter. It ain't going to be pretty.

[David Sky]

189. Did everyone miss the number??? "About 15 members of the group Backyard Skeptics participated"

So if 15 people of the Jewish faith stage a demonstration against Israel's militant stand on Paletinians, we are to conclude that ALL Jews would do the same?

If 15 people in a Christian church burn a cross on the lawn of a black man, we are to conclude all Christians hate black people?

Of course not! No one would EVER accuse ALL people of ANY faith as being IDENTICAL!

This is even MORE true of people who do NOT believe in a supreme being. They are ALL different, and no one requires them to think and act alike; unlike how some people of some faiths are expected to act and do, according to the teachings of their faith.


Much ado about nothing.

[laconicsax]

192. +1

Of course, the fact that those 15 disbelieve in the same gods as Stalin is enough for some people to conclude that they are, in fact, identical to Stalin.

[Name removed]

190. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.