"The Roots of Hatred and Bigotry Against Atheists" column

[MarkCharles]

"Austin Cline (About.com Agnosticism/Atheism) recently asked about the origins of the hatred and bigotry directed at atheists in the U.S. He notes,
The extreme hostility towards atheists in America can probably be traced to two related factors: America's view of itself as a religious nation entrusted with a special mission from God and America's fight against communism in the Cold War.
I think he's right to mention these historical factors, as they are certainly relevant. However, I think that there are deeper psychological processes going on. Austin mentions scapegoating and refers indirectly to others like fear of modernity and loss of privilege. These bring us closer to what is likely happening.

For the most part, I'm not so sure that hatred and bigotry against atheists is so different from any other case where an out-group has been demonization and dehumanized. I suspect that the heart of the matter is that atheists have been despised because we are different. We have always been perceived as failing to conform with a standard that has been equated with morality (i.e., religious belief)."

http://www.atheistrev.com/2011/11/roots-of-hatred-and-bigotry-against.html

.................................................

"There is something inherent in saying, “I’m an atheist” that implies, “You are mistaken to be a believer.” Even if you’re not saying it explicitly. Even if you couldn’t care less about persuading people out of religion. Even if you’re actively opposed to the idea of persuading people out of religion. There is no way to say, “I don’t believe in God,” without implying, “If you do believe in God, you’re wrong.”

http://www.atheistrev.com/2011/10/confrontational-nature-of-coming-out.html

Thoughts? Reactions?

[Vincardog]

1. There is no way to say “I don’t believe in God,” without implying, “If you do believe in God, you’re

Wrong".

SO? If we have a difference of opinion how does that engender HATE?
I believe the hate comes from the small minded individuals who are insecure in their belief.
If they were secure they would be serene in the knowledge that the "nonbeliever" or infidel would not share in the eternal reward that the "believer" 'Knows' they will.

[Old and In the Way]

2. The reverse logic also applies.

There is no way to say “I believe in God,” without implying, “If you don't believe in God, you’re wrong." The belief certitude from both sides are untestable and unprovable. I guess that's why I'm an agnostic on the subject of God's existence.

[Vincardog]

4. But does the statement of belief engender HATE? I do not believe that either statement standing

alone causes much emotion. Nor do I believe that your statement should, are you any less inflammatory in your statement than a believer or non-believer?

[Old and In the Way]

20. Hmmm...can't say I've ever heard of any great wars started by non-believers.

Which kind of makes sense because most atheists don't think there's a hereafter, so this life would be too precious to waste over a dogmatic devotion to a particular belief system. And there's a distinct lack of social institutional organization by atheists...it's not like they meet in great halls and churches to validate their lack of belief in God.

But there are plenty of examples of wars that have been fought based on a righteous belief of God with the heretics/infidels that oppose these beliefs...no?

As far as my opinion goes, I suppose I'd inflame both sides of the coin. :-)

[LeftishBrit]

134. There have been wars started BY nonbelievers; but not in the cause of nonbelief

E.g. some communist dictators, but in the cause of communism and/or just maintaining their power.

[cleanhippie]

17. Most atheists are agnostic on the subject of the existence of god.

One has nothing to do with the other.

[Old and In the Way]

22. There is a distinction between the agnostic and the atheist.

The agnostic argues that it is impossible to confirm with certainty whether God exists or not. The atheist believes God does not exist. At least that's how I view it.

[laconicsax]

28. Your view is incorrect.

Atheists don't believe that God does not exist, they simply don't believe that gods do exist.

Also, agnosticism and atheism are answers to different questions--one of knowledge and the other of belief and they aren't mutually exclusive.

[Old and In the Way]

30. Not really.

I find the first statement you make contradictory-

Atheists don't believe that God does not exist, they simply don't believe that gods do exist.

Canceling the double negatives, it reads: Atheists do believe that God does exist, they simply don't believe that gods do exist. Unless there is a distinction being made between God and gods, I don't find a lot of meaning in that statement.

I do think that theism and atheism are belief based. The agnostic stands in the middle, unable to use existing knowledge to conclude with certainty either position. I suppose there are leaners that may gravitate towards one pole or the other, but the key point is the agnostic doesn't claim with 100% certitude for either position. I see it more in a linear framework, rather than a matrix:

Belief in God - 100% certitude / Agnostic (leans to belief)~ Agnostic (leans to non-belief) / Belief in no God - 100% certitude. There's little gray area on both ends, but there is a lot of degrees to agnosticism....a place where ideas can change over time, but never reach either of the poles.

[laconicsax]

43. You're right about some and wrong about the rest.

There's a difference between the belief that a god does not exist and not believing that a god does exist.

Simplified, it's the difference between answering "yes" or "no" to the question, "do you believe X." You don't need 100% certainty to (not) believe a proposition--suppose I suggested something completely ridiculous, you wouldn't need to know with any certainty whether I was right or wrong to say "I don't believe you." If you did, no one would neither believe nor disbelieve anything.

You're absolutely right about (a)theism being belief-based and (a)gnosticism being knowledge-based, but wrong about agnosticism being a middle-ground. Agnosticism is an answer to a different question entirely. I'm an agnostic atheist: I don't believe in any gods and readily accept that I don't know either way. Not believing something is about being convinced, not knowing for certain.

[Old and In the Way]

58. Guess I'm just not on your philosophical plane.

There's a difference between the belief that a god does not exist and not believing that a god does exist.

Lessee, in my simple mind, you are arguing a difference between a "god does not exist" belief and not believing that God exists. That appears to be a distinction without a difference. Perhaps I slept through that class, though. Seems to me that the question of God's existence breaks down to 3 simple positions - "yes it does", "no it doesn't", "I don't know".

[laconicsax]

59. One is a positive belief, the other is not.

To give a (perhaps) more familiar example, suppose that someone told you that Obama is going to announce a modern WPA initiative that he's sending to Congress. (Let's abbreviate it as OWPA for Obama's Works Progress Administration)

Would you believe them? If not, you'd be an a-OWPAist (pardon the term). If you don't believe that he will, but are open to the possibility that he might, you're still an a-OWPAist even though you don't believe that he'll never propose something like that.

The difference between not believing in a god and believing there are no gods is similar to the difference between not believing that the OWPA claim is true and believing that Obama will not ever do it.

[Old and In the Way]

64. The problem with examples...they will eventually get tested.

In the OWPA case, either Obama does or doesn't submit the legislation to Congress. That belief will eventually be validated or invalidated.

AFAIK, the question of God's existence is untestable and (at least up to this point in human history) unknowable. One could argue that Christ was the son of God, therefore it's proven...but it's based entirely on a non-scientific collection of stories written 2000+ years ago. I think it's safe to say that, had that book been lost to antiquity before mass publication, there'd be no record from which to base any conclusive evidence of God's existence....to date. That's doesn't preclude that God could reveal him/her self at some future point. Hopefully, God would make himself or herself (is God a sexual being?) available for rigorous scientific validation so we can end this open question once and for all. :-)

[laconicsax]

65. Do you believe in any of the following gods?

Zeus, Marduk, Amaterasu, Enlil, Rudra, Demeter, Odin, Helios, Myesyats, Ra, Teshub, Hephestus, Hanuman, Tian, Sebek, Hermes, Umai, Njord, Al-Uzza, Hazzi, Bishamon, Lakshmi, Vesta, Min, Anubis, Fukurokuju, Mot, Quetzalcoatl, Nut, Tefnut, Nergal, Vajravarahi, Aglaia, The Lu, Hevajra, Balor, Rhiannon, Atlas, Honir, Nusku, Kurukalla, Don, An, Macha, Jurojin, Govannon, Abarta,Hepat, Hahhimas, Apsu, Hyperion, Rhea, Aizen-Myoo, Nephthys, Potrimpo, Mati Syra Zemlya, Eos, Ea, Anu, Men Shen, Ansa, Cybele, Vohu Mano, Lao Jun, Gukurokuju, Yama, Manat, Itchita, The Lah-Dre, Nodens, Ebisu, Jumala, Coeus, Dana, Heimdall, Daksha, Gungnir, Hestia, Jupiter, Mahatala, Kataragama Deviyo, Mitra, Pusan, Perkuno, Epona, Allah (pre-Islam), Ceridwen, Wakahiru-Me, Dumuzi, Forseti, Nammu, Zao Jun, The Gulses, Ahura Mazda, Kwannon, Durga, Inaras, Arianrhod, Lir, Metis, Nga, Ouranos, Cliodhna, Attar, Yuqiang, Reshef, Taranis, Isis, Hannahanna, Teutates, Morrigan, Menulis, Pattini, Mahadevi, The Marutus, Goibhniu, Dylan, Aine, Aphrodite, Coatlicue, Kadaklan, Bragi, Hodr, Izanami, Boru Deak Parudjar, Fjorgyn, Otshirvani, Shamash, Dionysus, Aten, Heruka, Euphrosyne, Adad, Nekhbet, Saturn, Inana, Guanyin, Clotho, Astarte, Inari, Gefion,Yam, Dagda, Shiva, Etain, Wayland, Nechtan, Hera, Men, Bastet, Agni, Svantovit, Aryaman, Poseidon, Hinkon, Hupasiyas, Camulos, Manawydan, Mithra, Hecate, Anat, Tomam, Al-Lat, Surya, Kumarbi, Attis, Taiyi Tianzun, Setesuyara, Tishtrya, Boreas, Aonghus, Shu, Leto, Sif, Santas, Hubal, Anahita, Faunus, Ishtar, Skuld, Veles, Adonis, Atropos, Tapio, Badb, Wadjet, Mandah, Freyr, Nerthus, Dyaus, Asclepius, Athena, Basamum, Amida, Anshar, Sadb, Wadd, Murukan, Kied Kie Jubmel, Uu,Cerdandi, Ereshkigal, Dazhbog, Lelwani, Sin, Ullikummi, Balder, Tsukiyomi, Artemis, Thoth, Tezcatlipoca, Dian Cecht, Utu, Baal, Iskur, Wen Chang, Ame-No-Uzume, Xolotl, The Daevas, Hades, Circe, Telepinu, Thor, Ninlil, Ganesha, Donn, Hachiman, Frigg, Vulcan, Saule, Ec, Nanna, Indra, Nu Gua, Tlaloc, Ninurta, Vidar, Patollo, Madder-Akka, Bhaga, Nemglan, Korrawi, Mnemosyne, Cernunnos, Es, Caer, Grid, Brigid, Perunu, Seth, Cronos, Juno, Lachesis, Tuoni, Tammuz, Khosadam, Prometheus, Persephone, Svarazic, Tyr, Hathor, Cupid, Vishnu, Maat, Moloch, Geb, Ukko, Apollo, Boann, Aglibol, Suku-Na-Bikona, Ruda, Varuna, Ulgan, Dhatr, Brahma, Eros, Anbay, Ninhursaga, Semara, Kishimo-Jin, Ganga, Llyr, Kurunta, Ida-Ten, Benten, Ogma, Freyja, Oceanos, Osiris, Susano-Wo, Horus, Vayu, Kegutsuchi, Vayu, Belenus, Loki, Ki, Nudd, Pan, Aditi, Karttikeya, Thalia, Taru, Minerva, Nasr, Idun, Neptune, Natha, Shou Lao, Gadd, Uke-Mochi, Mars, Leib-Olmai, Lugh, Mac Cecht, Izanagi, The Dagda, Marishi-Ten, Jurojin, Apep, Lei Gong, Khyung-gai, Huitzlopochtli, Eileithya, Taranis,Khnum, Amaethon, Geb, Hotei, Manannan Mac Lir, Prithivi, Shen Nong, Ebisu, El, Bellona, gShen-lha-od-dkar, Batara Kala, Psyche, Venus, Ningal, Urd, Ptah, Zarpanitu, Kuvera, Amon, Num, Searbhan, Shoten, Luonnotar, Neith, Daikoku, Kubaba, Indra, Aegir, Ariniddu, Mimir, Ares, Soma, Shaushka, Lugus, or Janus.

None of these gods (and more) have been disproven so by your own argument, you can not believe in them, yet I'm willing to bet that you've never believed in more than a few of them.

[Old and In the Way]

74. That's an impressive list!

You're right, I've unfamiliar with most of them...I guess I don't get around very much. And I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of any of them.

Perhaps someday we'll be subjected to a cosmic version of 'What's My Line'..."will the real God please reveal itself". :-)

[laconicsax]

86. Is it fair to say that until now, at least, you didn't believe in most of them?

How can you believe in a god you've never heard of?

[Old and In the Way]

89. I always lean disbelief with Gods I'm unfamiliar with. nt

[MarkCharles]

91. SO, as far as all those gods are concerned, you're an atheist, too! n/t

[Old and In the Way]

104. Nope...agnostic...don't know. Could be a winner in the bunch, but I have no way of knowing. nt

[Silent3]

60. Lack of belief vs. assertive disbelief

Not believing can mean assertive disbelief, a strong positive claim that God (or whatever else is in question) most certainly does not exist, but not believing can also simply mean not knowing.

It's like the difference in mathematics between the "negative" and "nonpositive". Negative numbers are less than zero. Nonpositive are less than or equal to zero.

To be an atheistic you merely need to lack belief, you don't have to (although in some cases, you might) assertively disbelieve.

Most atheists I've spoken to in these forums simply lack belief. Depending on which of the many very fluid definitions of God is in play at the moment, most atheists here (like myself) rate the likelihood of the existence of any given God quite low, but they'll leave at least a small hypothetical window of possibility open rather than being adamantly insistent that God absolutely does not exist.

[Old and In the Way]

63. " Most atheists I've spoken to in these forums simply lack belief."

Well, I'd probably call them agnostic because they lack belief. If someone says "God does not exist" that's an assertive belief that can't be tested and I'd label them as atheists. If someone says "God does exist" that's an assertive belief that can't be tested and I'd label them theists. Everyone else who hedges, qualifies or modifies their opinion on God's existence would fit somewhere between these poles which I would label agnostics.

Of course, what's interesting about the question is that one can start life at one pole and through one's life experiences and accumulated knowledge, can end up at the other pole. Another could start life at the other pole, with similar experiences and accumulated knowledge, arrive at the other pole. I suppose some have made the trip back and forth between the poles more than a few times.

[cleanhippie]

68. There is a distinction, but you are just a bit off.

Theism is about belief. A-theism is about a lack of belief.

Gnosticism is about knowledge. A-Gnosticism is a lack of knowledge.

[Old and In the Way]

75. Thanks...that's a real good explanation.

Are there Gnostic theists? Because that infers their beliefs in God are based on knowledge. Thomas Aquinas would have been considered a Gnostic Theist, right? I dimly recall from my college philosophy classes that he used logical proofs to validate God's existence. But then you get counter arguments that chip away on a knowledge based path to answer the question...I was curious and needed a refresher on the 5 Proofs and found this interesting: http://vorpal.us/2007/10/the-five-ways-of-st-thomas-aquinas-are-all-dead-ends/

So, are there any real knowledge based paths to proving God's existence or, at the end of the day, does it simply boil down to untestable belief?

[cleanhippie]

78. I do not see any other possibility other than untested belief.

[westerebus]

102. As a fellow agnostic I vote for boiling.

It's like being asked for directions to someplace you don't know exists.

The only logical answer is: I don't know.

[humblebum]

77. Tell me, would that knowledge of Gnosticism that you refer to be an empirically

verifiable objective type, or would it be another type of knowledge that is more equivocal in its nature?

[Sal316]

3. I disagree.

Simply saying "I don't believe in God" is a personal statement that applies to the speaker.

IMO, where it goes wrong is when it progresses to where atheists tell believers that their faith is irrational, illogical, etc. That moves the subject from the speaker to the listener. Communication is not only being responsible for what you say but understanding that you're also responsible for how that message may be received.

I do agree with you that "hate comes from the small minded individuals who are insecure in their belief", and those are the ones that will take an atheist's lack of belief as a personal assault.

[Vincardog]

5. WE agree. I was quoting the OP to give my comment context.

[Sal316]

8. Ok, got ya.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[humblebum]

11. Agree totally. When you said,

"...it progresses to where atheists tell believers that their faith is irrational, illogical, etc." - you ID'ed the chief cause. There will always be those who judge atheists for simply being atheists. But, today the badmouthing of religion and the religious has become too common and the result is a growing backlash against atheism.

[Goblinmonger]

12. Do you hold the same standard to those that badmouth RW Christians?

Or are some beliefs OK to call out and others not? Do you have the list for us?

[humblebum]

14. That would depend upon what actions of RW'ers you are speaking about.

Against many of their political positions definitely. Most of their core religious beliefs, no. Their perspectives on homosexuality and creationism, for example, I do not share.

[MarkCharles]

18. I thought you have recently been admitting that people who only think rationally and logically

cannot understand religion, because religious beliefs are beyond the rational and logical.

I tend to think that many religious people will openly admit that their beliefs are not "logical" but based upon "faith", rather than reason. But now when an atheists says it, it's offensive?

Please explain the difference between what is offensive coming from an atheist, and NOT offensive when a believer says his beliefs are based not upon reason but upon faith and "another way of knowing".

[Goblinmonger]

21. Good luck getting a straight answer to that one.

ATHEISTS ARE EVIL

[MarkCharles]

23. Thanks for the good luck wishes! Yes, I find the duplicitous nature

of religious believers claims rather confounding, it's OKAY when a believer says their beliefs are not within the realm of the "limits" of scientific reasoning, but offensive if an atheist says the exact same thing.

Not holding my breath waiting for an explanation of this voluntary emotional duplicity.

[humblebum]

24. That sounds more like one of your purposeful misinterpretations of something I

may have said, rather than something I actually said. There are any number reasons why people believe. I did say there is no way to prove empirically, and objectively, that God exists. But, that is not the extent of rational or logical thought.

[MarkCharles]

25. OKAY, give us some EXAMPLES of other "rational and logical thought" that is NOT

empirical and objective!

I don't want to tax you too much over this.

Let's see what exactly are other extensions of "rational and logical thought" that are NOT empirical and objective?

And, once again, wasn't it YOU that condemned my "limited" view that ONLY chose to look at things in a rational and logical way? I could have sworn that was you, who said that my refusal to look at anything other than in a "logical way with empirical evidence was the problem!

[humblebum]

26. We have been this route many times before. Nothing to see here. nt

[MarkCharles]

29. Yeah, I know, bash me for seeing things ONLY through the eyes of logic and reason, but then

claim YOU have other "logical and rational" ways of seeing things but fail to come up with a single one.

Why am I not surprised?

Oh wait, you see things so much better than I do, through my "limited" view that demands logic and evidence.

Then when you claim you have "logical and rational" ways of examining things outside of empirical evidence, you can't produce a single example of a person, place, thing, idea or concept, and you end your post headline with the traditional "no text"! That kind of claim is just not logical, plain and simple.

Yep, I agree, you have no text, just jabs and disrespect for skeptics and rational thinking as being too "limited", then claim the thinking of believers is also "logical and rational", even without empirical evidence, but fail to provide a single example.

And then there was the thread I started about the 10 "logical fallacies" in debate and argument we see in apologias for a god, and you claimed that that thread was "propaganda". Now, you want to claim religious folks have logic without empirical evidence, and they are "logical" when doing so?


No surprise here.

[humblebum]

48. No. We have never discussed other ways of knowing before. And yes,

you do rely on atheist propaganda to support your positions.

[MarkCharles]

49. So tell us all about "other ways of knowing" that are rational and logical, and

tell me, specifically, how I rely upon atheist "propaganda" instead of simple logical argument, which now, YOU claim is the frontier of religion, which can make logical rational claims without evidence. Tell us how logical rational claims can be reasonable to a rational mind without evidence.

I certainly look forward to your logical winning arguments without empirical evidence which shows me that I am a victim of "propaganda".......albeit with empirical evidence, contrasted with your "logical" arguments without any evidence to go with what you claim is logical.

This should be fun for both of us. Me with logic and evidence, you with logic and no need for empirical evidence, and I'm supposed to be the guy with the propaganda? Humorous, at least, to think that way.

[humblebum]

50. I think you've lost it. nt

[MarkCharles]

51. NO, I'm simply asking you to back up your claims! If that is how you define that I...

"lost it", by asking for evidence, examples, convincing arguments from you, if you cannot do that, I have NOT "lost it"! I have asked you for something more than the claim that religious believer folks ALSO know and argue from logic.

Now that I asked for you to argue from logic, your singular response when put on the spot is to claim that *I* have lost it.

Interesting, illogical response! Do tell me how you ever win arguments with tactics and strategies as silly as these!

[humblebum]

55. What I think you have lost is everything that has been discussed about ways of knowing over the past

couple of weeks. Otherwise, you would immediately have at least an inkling of what is being discussed. However, if you are as learned as you claim, then you cannot help but be familiar other philosophies, epistemologies, and methods, etc., which are a significant part of core graduate courses. I haven't mentioned anything that hasn't been covered by relatively recent scholars such as Dewey, Whitehead, Popper, Peirce, William James, or Gould, etc.

[ZombieHorde]

45. Translation: Atheists are getting uppity and need to learn their place. nt

[Major Nikon]

57. I agree with your disagreement, but not your explanation

If I say, "I do not believe in god", that is clearly my opinion. It doesn't mean I'm right and you're wwrong, it simply means we do not agree.

However, if I tell a believer I think a certain aspect of what they believe in is irrational, illogical, etc., I don't see the hate there. Again this is my opinion and I don't really know how you can have a meaningful discussion on such a topic without espressing those types of opinions. If someone takes offense to having their beliefs or non-beliefs challenged, they ought not to engage in discussion on those topics with those who aren't like minded. It's not the same thing as saying I think you're stupid for believing in that, or you're going to burn in hell for all of eternity for not believing what I believe.

[Quartermass]

7. There is nothing inherent in a lack of belief. Any arguments against atheism can be used

to show that you should believe in things like Santa Clause and Unicorns and Dragons and that diet cola tastes like the real thing.

And those same arguments can be used to show that you should believe in evolution.

Because if lack of faith is a faith, then you obviously have faith in all of these things.

But faith is a belief in a higher power other than oneself.

So atheism is not a faith.

In truth, what drives bigotry and prejudice is xenophobia, or the fear of anything that is different. And Americans have a strong distrust in anything that is not themselves, whether it be religious ideology or non religious ideology.

Imo.

[dtexdem]

9. The sense of "you are mistaken to be a believer" is a cousin of ...

"you are mistaken to believe as you do -- differently from me."

And that attitude is all-too-common among the "religious" -- as well as, unfortunately, among nonbelievers.

[trotsky]

10. "you are mistaken to believe as you do -- differently from me"

We Democrats say that to Republicans all the time. But that's OK, because religion is supposed to enjoy special protected status. I guess.

[MarkCharles]

19. Yes, religious believers seem to reserve the right to feel offended, depending upon

who claims that their beliefs defy rationality. If a religious person says that their faith is based upon "another way of knowing", (a way of knowing that is beyond logic and scientific reasoning) that's fine. But if an atheist says religious beliefs are not based upon logic or reasonable evidence, that's when believers reserve the right to feel offended.

[humblebum]

13. Such a well-rounded perspective from such a broad range of sources,

as usual.

[Goblinmonger]

16. Exhibit C n/t

[Angry Dragon]

15. Religious people are wrong to call out others because they do not

believe as they do .......
Is that a Christian thing to do??
Is that a godly thing to do??

[rug]

27. " the heart of the matter is that atheists have been despised because we are different"

How are you different?

[NMMNG]

31. "How are you different"?

We don't believe in gods.
We have no dogma.
We make decisions without consulting religious authorities, holy books or dogma.
We have no "rule books".


The fact that we can't be conveniently pigeonholed (without resorting to stereotypes) makes some people very uncomfortable.

[rug]

32. Ok. Now how are you not different?

[MarkCharles]

33. Is a Republican no different than a Democrat? I think the prior poster to

your question laid out a pretty comprehensive list of differences between the believer religious folks and us atheists.

That was not enough for you? You think we are "all the same" and kum buyah and all that?

OKAY! I'd agree, now explain the hatred, distrust, bigotry, and denial of equal tax status we folks DO NOT have that you religious folks are fortunate enough to enjoy.

Tell me once again how this "secular" U.S. government is out to destroy religious freedoms, when they give you so many tax breaks just because you believe in a guy in the sky.

[rug]

35. Really? What tax breaks am I getting?

[MarkCharles]

40. If you're a cleric, your housing cost is exempt, if you're a normal working taxpayer, your ..

contributions to your church or whatever church activities you want to contribute to are tax deductible.

You make, for the sake of argument, $100,000, and give $10,000 to your church and church's activities....you get to declare that money as non taxable.

Pretty big gift to the church, for people who want to "tithe" 10% o their income, in my opinion.

There's about 1000 others, if you want to search the 14,000 plus pages of the tax codes.

[rug]

42. I'm not a cleric and all my charitablee deductions, religious or not, are deductible.

[NMMNG]

34. Countless ways

But we're targeted for discrimination and hatred because of our differences.

[rug]

36. Except 3 out of the 4 differences you cite can be shared by nonatheists.

[NMMNG]

41. They can also be shared by fuzzy kittens

But they're typical of atheists.

[rug]

44. Maybe atheists are not as atypical as you think.

[NMMNG]

46. Tell that to the people who insist on denigrating us

We are, after all, the most despised minority in the US.

[rug]

61. Persecution?

[NMMNG]

69. Bigotry and discrimination

You can call it persecution if you have an affinity for that particular term.

[rug]

72. I rarely use it but I've seen it in here quite often.

[NMMNG]

82. Me too

Paired with "religious" and "Christian".

[rug]

124. I've seen it in connection with adopt-a-highway signs and municipal trees.

Go figure.

[LeftishBrit]

112. To some extent, 'how are you different?' depends on the mindset of those who despise/ fear the

'different'.

The obvious difference is simply that we don't believe in God.

This may lead to opposition on a number of grounds:

'Atheists don't belong to my social group. My community is based around my church (or synagogue, mosque, etc.) and in this context, those who don't belong to the group are oddities.'

'Atheists can't be relied on to follow the rules of my religion. Therefore they are sinners, and moreover might tempt others into sin. In particular, I don't want my children being tempted away from the rules of their faith, and so would rather they didn't play too much with the outsiders!'

'Atheists are a political threat to the basic values of my country. My country was/is founded on faith, and those who reject the faith cannot be relied on to obey my country's implicit or explicit rules; may even be likely to be traitors against it, or collaborators with other nations who don't share our faith; or at the least cannot be considered as full citizens.'

'Atheists are not likely to be pro-life/ guardians of sexual morality; therefore we must reject and oppose the influence of atheism, otherwise abortion will be condoned; marriage and the family will break down; etc.'

I only have much personal experience of the last of these - but I know people who've experienced the first and second, and gather that all of them are much commoner in America than Britain. In any case, atheists *aren't* nearly as 'different' in terms of being a small minority in the UK or much of Western Europe as in America.

[NMMNG]

37. Indeed

"There is something inherent in saying, “I’m an atheist” that implies, “You are mistaken to be a believer.” Even if you’re not saying it explicitly.


It's a hyper-defensive nature present in some believers. Mention "I don't believe" and the hackles raise. I've encountered the same behavior in omnivores. A person innocently mentions they're a vegetarian/vegan and gets bombarded with Defensive Omnivore Bingo.



Atheists get their own variety of Bingo lobbed at them any time they dare to come out of the closet.

[MarkCharles]

38. Nice Bingo boards! I played Bingo and won a few bucks at a

Christian church Bingo night.

I doubt any one of those Christian Bingo players knew that their money went to an atheist.

By the way, whatever money I won, I have given 10 times as much to sectarian charities over the years, probably 50 times.

I probably won $100, 20 years ago... I have given over $400 to sectarian charities this year

[Goblinmonger]

39. One of our very own posters

often gives us the whole N column in one thread.

[NMMNG]

47. Maybe we should start playing for $$$

One night in this forum could be very profitable.

[trotsky]

52. The roots of hatred and bigotry against atheists...

are on display in this thread. Mocking the complaints of a minority experiencing discrimination is a classic sign.

[MarkCharles]

53. very astute observation! I agree, we see the religious folks so willing to

do that.

And they are PROUD of their behaviors here?

Interesting!

[NMMNG]

54. Did you expect them to acknowledge and address their own bigotry?

:rofl:


Not a chance. Instead they ignore and deny it, deriding the targets for daring to speak up. If they do acknowledge it they blame the victims.

[humblebum]

56. Boy, the violins are humming now. nt

[Hassin Bin Sober]

62. Are you TRYING to make their point for them?

[humblebum]

66. "...show ridicule,hatred, and contempt for religion"- C. Hitchens nt

[Goblinmonger]

70. You beat that drum pretty hard.

You have one quotation from one guy. It get's old.

Henceforth, when you pull out that quotation, I will reply with:
"AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals." Jerry Falwell

[humblebum]

76. Have at it. Many applauded Hitchens and are following his lead.

No one that I know takes Falwell's rants seriously, especially since he's dead. you don't see any religious people here acknowledging Falwell as an example to be followed. But, Hitchens sentiments run rampant in the R/T forum and in many other places.

[LeftishBrit]

79. You seriously think that more people are influenced by Hitchens than by Falwell?

Wow just wow.

And most people on DU in particular have reservations about Hitchens due to his support for the Iraq war, and certainly would not follow him blindly.

Here is Pat Robertson, who is NOT dead, and who is listened to by many:

"(T)he feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians "

I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected him from your city. And don't wonder why he hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for his help because he might not be there." (Because Dover voted against a school board that supported intelligent design.)

(On Ariel Sharon, the former Prime Minister of Israel, who suffered a stroke that left him in a vegetative state): 'God considers this land to be his. You read the Bible and he says 'This is my land,' and for any prime minister of Israel who decides he is going to carve it up and give it away, God says, 'No, this is mine.' ... He was dividing God's land. And I would say, 'Woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the E.U., the United Nations, or the United States of America.' God says, 'This land belongs to me. You better leave it alone.'

Hateful enough?

What about the British Tory MP Nadine Dorries: 'I am not sure why anyone would admit to being a humanist'.

Not that she's any less vile about liberal Christians, including the Archbishop of Canterbury:

'What people don’t want is an Archbishop hijacking their church as a platform for his own Sharia friendly, socialist, personal political views....The buzz word around Westminster is ‘Who will rid us of this troublesome priest’. The answer is ultimately his flock, as they stay at home week after week. The Archbishop is feeling the effect of true democracy as they let him know what they think of his ridiculous uttering’s, with their feet.

[beam me up scottie]

80. One atheist encouraged people to mock religion, how many christians encourage people to kill gays?

Quite the disconnect there.

[humblebum]

84. It hasn't been ONE atheist that "encouraged people to mock religion".

That's ridiculous. I happens often here on DU. And, I sure there are some, but I have never heard any Christian encourage the killing of gays, except for those of the Westboro church, and they're at odds with every other Christian Church and denomination.

[beam me up scottie]

85. Um, wtf? You're the one that keeps quoting him.

I was talking about your favourite atheist, Hitchens.

And there is nothing wrong with mocking religion, something so hateful and influential NEEDS to be mocked. It needs to be marginalized so that people can't keep getting away with doing evil things in its name.


If you really believe that the Westboro church is "at odds with every other christian church and denomination" you're shamefully uninformed about your own religion.

You do realize that your bible commands people to kill gay men who have sex with each other?

[NMMNG]

87. Westboro is hardly the only group that promotes virulent hatred of gay people

(I know you know this, but certain other people choose to pretend otherwise so...)

Scott Lively of Abiding Truth Ministries, Steven Anderson of Faithful World Baptist Church and Gary DeMar of American Vision promote the death penalty for gay people, and they're hardly alone. Here are some more choice tidbits from some official anti-gay hate groups.

<snip>

Christian Anti-Defamation Commission
Vista, Calif.

<snip>
The CADC is heavily focused on the alleged evils of homosexuality. It has called the idea of allowing gays to serve openly in the military “evil”; opposed hate crimes legislation (which many religious-right groups falsely assert would make it easy to send pastors to prison for condemning homosexuality); and raged against a judge’s overturning of California’s Proposition 8, which had invalidated same-sex marriages. With regard to that last, it said: “Homosexuals have turned away from humbly worshipping the true and living God and his transcendent moral order in order to make an idol out of their sexual perversion and chaos.”
<snip>



Faithful Word Baptist Church
Tempe, Ariz.


<snip>
Much of his venom was aimed at homosexuals, who he suggests should be killed (“The biggest hypocrite in the world is the person who believes in the death penalty for murderers but not for homosexuals”). In an August 2009 sermon, he attacked the United Methodist Church, saying “10% of their preachers are queers” and adding, “they got a dyke and a faggot behind the pulpit.” He has described gays as “sodomites” who “recruit through rape” and “recruit through molestation.”
<snip>


Family Research Institute
Colorado Springs, Colo.


<snip>
Some of Cameron’s more infamous claims include the idea that homosexuals molest children at far higher rates than heterosexuals and that homosexuals have extremely short lives. Last February, he wrote on FRI’s website that “(i)f homosexuals are allowed to serve in the military, they will be recruiting in showers, having sex in the barracks… . Before long, the U.S. may be defended by the sex-obsessed and those who can tolerate kowtowing to them.” After all, writes Cameron — a man who proposes that parents promote teen heterosexual activity to keep kids straight — “homosexual sex overwhelms rationality (and) overwhelms the desire to serve.”

Cameron’s colleagues have condemned him repeatedly. In 1983, he was thrown out of the American Psychological Association for ethical violations. In 1984, the Nebraska Psychological Association disassociated itself from Cameron’s statements about sexuality. In 1985, the American Sociological Association adopted a resolution saying Cameron “has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality” and “repeatedly campaigned for the abrogation of the civil rights of lesbians and gay men”; the following year, the same group formally condemned Cameron for that misrepresentation of research.
<snip>

The fact is, Westboro is a joke compared to the likes of these groups. Westboro goes around waving day-glo signs and making asses of themselves. These people spread insidious lies and foster hatred of LGBT people. They create the false dichotomy whereby you support equal rights for gay people or you support religious freedom. They pretend they're being persecuted if they cannot oppress gay people. They push anti-gay legislation and ensure that LGBT people will remain second class citizens. These are the people who do real damage, yet Westboro is the group that always gets denounced as "hateful" by the fine Christians. Go figure.

[beam me up scottie]

90. Sickening, isn't it?

I recently watched the Vanguard documentary "Missionaries of Hate" showing how christian evangelicals are exporting hatred of homosexuals overseas.

:mad:

[NMMNG]

95. Yep

I recently watched the Vanguard documentary "Missionaries of Hate" showing how christian evangelicals are exporting hatred of homosexuals overseas.

They realize they're losing the battle here so they're exporting it to places where they can fulfill their desires to see gay people executed merely for being gay.

[humblebum]

93. If I understood correctly, the accusation was encouraging the "killing" of gays.

you are sides-tepping the issue to change the subject. Again, I don't know of any christian group that encourages killing of gays with the exception of the Westboro gang. And I do consider some atheist groups to be every bit the hate groups that the Westboro baptists are.

[beam me up scottie]

100. I guess we must all look alike to you 'bum.

You don't even know who you're talking to.

And as usual you compare the mocking of your religion to the actual persecution that is happening all around you.

Predictable.

[LeftishBrit]

113. 'any Christian group that encourages killing of gays'

The Ugandan Christian politicians who promote the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. Much more influential than Westboro.

And while such attitudes are unusual in the West, there are some people who defend this. E.g. see this:

'http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=20117#more-20117

The pressure on the Church of Uganda to respond to legislation that will be placed before the Ugandan Parliament on homosexual behaviour is not restricted to Uganda. This issue is affecting other democratic nations in Africa and Asia.

With Sharia laws on homosexuality, Islamic nations have a structured response, though it is undoubtedly draconian. In fact, some wonder at the lack of outrage, and why only certain countries' gay minorities seem worthy of western attention. But African and Asian democracies will be under increasing pressure to react to the aggressive agenda of liberal western lobbies, and in particular, to discard existing legislation and introduce laws, similar to those in the West, to provide rights for active homosexuals...

Returning to Uganda, the situation is much the same. Westerners are radicalizing gay Ugandans and Ugandan culture, and Ugandan parents are worried about their children. The Archbishop of Uganda spoke for them when he warned that ""I am appalled to learn that the rumours we have heard for a long time about homosexual recruiting in our schools and amongst our youth are true.

For these families, as for others in traditional Asian and African societies, traditional family life and customs are not just 'traditional' but sacred. Minimizing or replacing them is a violation of the sacred. When such attempts are being engineered by powerful forces from outside, in ways that are reminiscent of colonial powers imposing their agendas, traditional societies feel they must resort to legislation to protect their sacred traditions, particularly those to do with the family..

There are many in England who are tut-tutting about this issue in Uganda. But what would they say to these fearful parents? Moreover, what have they done to support the black Christians in this country who are victimized and marginalized when they refuse to register same-sex civil partnerships or counsel the "marriage' problems of those in same-sex relationships? Are they aware of the massive social engineering project presently being foisted on this country which is stripping heteronormativity from the culture and re-writing its history (e.g. like Jesus, Churchill was gay), and if so, what are they doing about it?'

Chris Sugden, who wrote this, is very atypical of British Christians, BUT he isn't a totally marginalized lunatic like Fred Phelps.He is the executive secretary of the very misleadingly named Anglican Mainstream and director of academic affairs of the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies (which is rather too close to my doorstep for comfort!) He was, for a while, a member of the General Synod of the Church of England, though he fortunately lost his bid for re-election in 2010. Fortunately, his views are *not* mainstream in the C of E, and he is a rebel - but he has influence.

[humblebum]

88. I am very aware of what the bible says. And yes, no church that I know of gives

the Westboro baptists any credibility. And you one of ones here I was speaking of. And I will continue to quote him and others, who encourage ridicule and hatred.

[beam me up scottie]

92. So ridicule of religion is the same as the systematic persecution, torture and murder of homosexuals

We've heard this from you before.

Guess who the little violins are playing for now...

[humblebum]

94. Who is encouraging "the systematic persecution, torture and murder of homosexuals?"

Or did I miss something? But, there has never been greater acts of persecution, torture, and murder carried out than by radical atheists. The history ain't pretty.

[beam me up scottie]

97. Your brethren, using your instruction manual.

Focus, 'bum, focus.

But, there has never been greater acts of persecution, torture, and murder carried out than by radical atheists

Christians have spent the last 2000 years trying to exterminate non-christians and all other infidels. And they're still at it.

But you just keep on parroting your own brand of revisionist history, maybe someday someone will believe you.

You're nothing if not predictable.

[humblebum]

98. That so-called "revisionist history" has been heavily documented. And the

attitude displayed by you was very common to those "other" atheists.

[beam me up scottie]

101. Revisionist history is not history. And my "attitude" is like that of those "other" atheists?

Explain.

:popcorn:

[humblebum]

103. That "revisionist" history is your version of history, and much of the

condemnation you express for christians parrots those of those "other" atheists.

[beam me up scottie]

105. I don't express "condemnation" for christians, I loathe their god and religion.

Which is the only appropriate response to ANY ideology that would cheerfully burn me at the stake if it was still legal to do so.

If it makes you feel better about your religion you can continue to ignore the 2000+ years spent trying to annihilate non-christians, go for it.

Just don't expect me to do the same.

[humblebum]

106. All righty then!!? And we have more revisionist history! It just keeps on comin'.

[beam me up scottie]

107. “when most of a society is Christian, is biblical, then it [execution of gays] is perfectly normal"

*American Vision

Led since 1986 by Gary DeMar, American Vision is one of the primary exponents of the doctrine of “Christian Reconstruction” — the idea that the U.S. was founded as a “Christian nation” and that its democracy should be replaced with a theocratic government based on Old Testament law. As a practical matter, that means American Vision, which describes its goal as “restor America’s Biblical foundation,” backs the death penalty for practicing homosexuals.

DeMar has modified that dictum slightly in the past, saying that homosexuals wouldn’t all be executed under a “reconstructed” government, but that he did believe that the occasional execution of “sodomites” would serve society well because “the law that requires the death penalty for homosexual acts effectively drives the perversion of homosexuality underground, back into the closet.” More recently, while hosting American Vision’s “The Gary DeMar Show” in December 2009, Joel McDurmon, the group’s research director, agreed that the Bible does call for killing homosexuals. And, he said, “when most of a society is Christian, is biblical, then it is perfectly normal; it should definitely be in place.”

***

DeMar has also said that a “long-term goal” should be “the execution of abortionists and their parents.” Islam is another enemy, he said in August 2010: “The long-term goal of Islam is the abolition of our constitutional freedoms.”

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/the-hard-liners

[humblebum]

110. Yes, I agree the executions must stop. nt

[beam me up scottie]

108. "homosexuality is a personality disorder that involves various, often dangerous sexual addictions...

*Abiding Truth Ministries
Springfield, Mass.

(Scott) Lively is best known for co-authoring, with Kevin Abrams, The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party. The book makes a series of claims that virtually no serious historian agrees with: that Hitler was gay, that “the Nazi Party was entirely controlled by militaristic homosexuals,” and that gays were especially selected for the SS because of their innate brutality. The claims are entirely false; in fact, the Nazis murdered significant numbers of gays and made homosexuality a death penalty offense in 1942. In the foreword, Abrams adds that homosexuality is “primarily a predatory addiction striving to take the weak and unsuspecting down with it. … They have no idea of how to act in the best interests of their country… . Their intention is to serve none but themselves.”

Lively has taken his message abroad to Eastern Europe (see Watchmen on the Walls, below), Africa and Russia. In a 2007 open letter to the Russian people, he asserted that “homosexuality is a personality disorder that involves various, often dangerous sexual addictions and aggressive, anti-social impulses.” In 2009, he went to Uganda to speak at a major conference on the evils of homosexuality, saying, among other things: “The gay movement is an evil institution. The goal of the gay movement is to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity.” He also met with Ugandan lawmakers. A month after Lively left the country, a bill was introduced that called for the death penalty for certain homosexual acts and prison for those who fail to disclose gays’ identities.

In 2008, Lively started the Redemption Gate Mission Society, a church that seeks to “re-Christianize” the city of Springfield, Mass., where he lives.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/the-hard-liners

[beam me up scottie]

109. "Hitler sought out gays "because he could not get straight soldiers to be savage and brutal...

*American Family Association

The AFA seeks to support “traditional moral values,” but in recent years it has seemed to specialize in “combating the homosexual agenda.” In 2009, it hired Bryan Fischer, the former executive director of the Idaho Values Alliance, as its director of analysis for government and policy. Taking a page from the anti-gay fabulist Scott Lively (see Abiding Truth Ministries, above), Fischer claimed in a blog post last May 27 that “homosexuality gave us Adolph Hitler, and homosexuals in the military gave us the Brown Shirts, the Nazi war machine and 6 million dead Jews.” (Ironically, the elder Wildmon was widely denounced as an anti-Semite after suggesting that Jews control the media, which the AFA says “shows a genuine hostility towards Christians.”) Fischer has described Hitler as “an active homosexual” who sought out gays “because he could not get straight soldiers to be savage and brutal and vicious enough.” He proposed criminalizing homosexual behavior in another 2010 blog post and has advocated forcing gays into “reparative” therapy. In a 2010 “action alert,” the AFA warned that if homosexuals are allowed to openly serve in the military, “your son or daughter may be forced to share military showers and barracks with active and open homosexuals.”

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/the-hard-liners

[beam me up scottie]

111. “If you’re a homosexual, I hope you get brain cancer and die like Ted Kennedy.”

Faithful Word Baptist Church
Tempe, Ariz.

Steven Anderson, formerly affiliated with Sacramento, Calif.-based Regency Baptist Church, started Faithful Word Baptist Church in Arizona on Christmas Day 2005 as a “totally independent” organization. With “well over a hundred chapters of the Bible memorized word-for-word,” Anderson quickly led his congregation into a series of extremely radical stands.

Much of his venom was aimed at homosexuals, who he suggests should be killed (“The biggest hypocrite in the world is the person who believes in the death penalty for murderers but not for homosexuals”). In an August 2009 sermon, he attacked the United Methodist Church, saying “10% of their preachers are queers” and adding, “they got a dyke and a faggot behind the pulpit.” He has described gays as “sodomites” who “recruit through rape” and “recruit through molestation.”

***

Anderson brought his church national notoriety in August 2009, when a member of his congregation, Christopher Broughton, went to an Obama appearance in Phoenix legally carrying an assault rifle and a pistol. It turned out that Anderson had preached a day earlier to Broughton and others that he “hates Obama” and would “pray that he dies and goes to hell.” Two weeks later, he told openly gay columnist Michelangelo Signorile that he “would not judge or condemn” anyone who killed the president. Then, for good measure, he told Signorile at the end of the interview, “If you’re a homosexual, I hope you get brain cancer and die like Ted Kennedy.”

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/the-hard-liners

[humblebum]

114. These side shows are not even a drop in the bucket compared

to the bloody history of organized atheism.

[MarkCharles]

115. I don't know which fairy tales you're reading instead of history books.

But to call the worst, most demonic, psychopathic 20th century leaders, the result of "organized atheism" is certainly only a view a devout Christian could believe, just like believing in a fairy tale about a singular "virgin birth", or talking snakes, or rising from the dead. Nice stories, with a moral behind them, but certainly NOT factual history.

"To deny the influence of Christianity on Hitler and its role in World War II, means that you must ignore history and forever bar yourself from understanding the source of German anti-Semitism and how the WWII atrocities occurred.

By using historical evidence of Hitler's and his henchmen's own words, this section aims to show how mixing religion with politics can cause conflicts, not only against religion but against government and its people. This site, in no way, condones Nazism, Neo-Nazism, fascist governments, or anti-Semitism, but instead, warns against them.


Hitler wrote: "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.." As a boy, Hitler attended to the Catholic church and experienced the anti-Semitic attitude of his culture. In his book, Mein Kampf, Hitler reveals himself as a fanatical believer in God and country. This text presents selected quotes from the infamous anti-Semite himself."

http://nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

[humblebum]

116. Just a sampling of your so-called "fairy tales":

-“Godless Communists”: Atheism and Society in the Soviet Union by Husband

-Storming the Heavens: The Soviet League of the Militant Godless by Peris

-The Black Book of Communism by Courtois, et al

-Death by Government by R J Rummel

-William Henry Chamberlin – ‘The Russian Revolution…’ and ‘Russia’s Iron Age’

-'The Atheist’s Handbook' was published in Moscow in 1959 in conjunction with Khrushchev’s campaign to eliminate the remaining traces of religion in the U.S.S.R. This text attacks the Bible, the Qur’an, Christianity, and Islam. “Science,” says the Handbook, “has long since established that Jesus Christ never existed, that the figure of the alleged founder of Christianity is purely mythical.”4 And according to the Handbook, the Apostle Paul, too, turns out to be “a mythical figure.”1
1) The Atheist’s Handbook, , (Moscow, USSR: Gos. Izd. Politicheskoi Literatury, 1961), reproduced in English by U.S. Joint Publications Research Service (Washington, DC), 117.

[MarkCharles]

117. You have really convinced yourself that atheism is worse than any religious cult.

And you're doing a masterful job of exposing how you were taken in by Christian writers.



Let's review that first book, published in 1999, turns out to be NOT a history of atheism, but a history of the interplay of

atheist and theist forces in Russia before the Great Depression.

"An interpretation of early initiatives to create an atheistic society in Soviet Russia. It examines how effective Soviet antireligious policies and tactics were at achieving this goal and demonstrates that the majority of Russians stood between the extremes of church and government, with religion being just one of a matrix of social, cultural and economic changes the country faced under the new regime. Drawing on archival and ethnographic sources, journals, newspapers and eyewitness accounts, William B. Husband shows how strategies of accommodation and resistance employed by the masses had a greater impact on the future of religion in Russia than did either atheist extremists or spiritual zealots. He compares the mindset of a faith-based society with the Bolshevik materialist worldview, emphasizing how religion functioned not only as a belief in the sacred but also as an entrenched system for ordering family and community relationships, explaining natural phenomena, and marking life passages such as birth, marriage and death. The work demonstrates how developments between 1917 and 1932 shaped attitudes towards religion and atheism that still endure."

http://www.amazon.com/GODLESS-COMMUNISTS-ATHEISM-SOCIETY-1917-1932/dp/0875802575

Guess you didn't read that book, did you?


And your last choice on your library book list: (where did you come up with these, from some religious propaganda you read?)

So many organized militant atheist wars and such bloodshed and destruction started by Khruschchev in the 1960's

I have to chuckle at how the worst actual published threat you see happened just a couple decades before the fall of the USSR.


But the broader question one has to ask: Why would one think that people who are atheists in the world today, given the history of Communist movements in the last 175 years, why in the world ANYONE think that atheists are Communists?

More likely well-read, more likely logical in their thought process, more likely resistant to following like sheep, more likely to independent thinking, atheists are most often supporters of a moderately and fairly regulated system of free market capitalism.

Therefor how one dares to illogically equate atheism with the long-ago proven failed policies of communism or fascism, I will never understand.

[humblebum]

120. I read Husband from cover to cover, all of those, and much more,

and I can tell that you have not. Groups like the League of Militant Atheists, and Society of the Godless used ridicule, fear, and intimidation to combat religion.

I said that was only a sampling of writings on the subject. And, where did I claim,that "such bloodshed and destruction started by Khruschchev in the 1960's?" The bloodshed and destruction started several decades before Khruschchev. Repression of religion under his rule only represented another wave of atheistic fervor to silence religion.

And here's a gem, "illogically equate atheism with the long-ago proven failed policies of communism or fascism" - who is doing that? The acts against religion were conducted largely in the name of atheism. It's obvious that you have little or no knowledge about this subject, and I can understand that when your reading is so limited to atheist propaganda, as you have demonstrated.

There is so much more than was listed here on the subject. Solzhenitsyn wrote about it and I am sure that a scholar such as yourself has at least read something there. But, you are content to remain on your little atheist island, reading your atheist propaganda/anti-religious literature just as they did then. But, I can say comfortably that under atheist dictators, at the hands of atheists,and many times in the name of Scientific Atheism, well in excess of 100 million were murdered, dwarfing all other mass killings in human history. Too much evidence to deny it, and too many witnesses. It certainly didn't take religion to accomplish such a mess.

[MarkCharles]

122. I see I got your panties all in a wad because you failed to understand

the point of my post.

I also highly doubt your read all those books, or, if you did, what the heck you are doing here preaching against "scientific atheism" and apologizing for those "minor" incidents where hatred and bigotry is preached in the name of Christianity here in the USA. You seem to be more concerned with some aberrant form of government now well over 30+ years dead in the USSR than in the religious rumblings of many many preachers of hatred here in the USA.

I have read more widely than you surmise, my friend, but I will HONESTLY admit, no, I have not, nor will I ever read any of the books on your selective list. The history of Russia and the USSR under Communism is not a favorite historical period, nor is it very enlightening beyond a certain point in the study of emerging 19th and 20th century nations. There's a lot of NOT VERY PRETTY STORIES in each of them, not to mention the great Civil War in the USA, where BOTH sides claimed a Christian God was on THEIR side. You fail to mention Franco in Spain. There's a nice example of Christian leadership in the 20th century, (to go along with Hitler). Franco was a Roman Catholic. Should we be preaching against Roman Catholicism because of Franco?

The several reviews of the first book in your list varied from describing the book as a masterful description of the interplay of some rather thuggish Communist factions and fronts to the continued influence of the Orthodox church, which never, in over 70 years, came anywhere close to disappearing from having a profound influence upon Russian and Soviet life.

I believe you have read far and wide in the area of Christian apologetics, but I sincerely doubt you have ever read an entire book which you believe was written by an atheist, as you would find such writing to be "propaganda"..(a Russian word, by the way).


Obviously you have one single agenda here, and that is to attempt to discredit each and every person who disagrees with your views on atheism. So far, I don't think your outlandish premises and hypotheses, together with your personal insults directly toward skeptics and atheists are winning you any additional allies, and certainly not working to convince the readers here that you actually know much about philosophy, science, world political history, nor techniques of winning logical arguments. But carry on, sometimes I find what you put up there to cause me to chuckle in amusement.

[humblebum]

123. You can doubt all you care to, that's your prerogative, but in

light of the mountain of anti-Christian sentiment expressed here, I think that there is a need to understand that far from all atrocities throughout history originated from religion. And, though the history is complex, the atheist groups did not die out with Communism in the Soviet Union. They had strong ties to atheist and Freethought groups outside the country, and they still exist in China today. This all did not happen only in the USSR, but the ideas were spread to China, South Asia, Eastern Europe, etc., as well spreading influence to atheist groups in Europe and the United States. BTW, Scientific Atheism was the name given to the state atheism that replaced religion in the USSR. It was inculcated in schools, factories, public places, and every civic organization, etc.

[MarkCharles]

128. Atheism "ideas were spread to China, South Asia, Eastern Europe, etc"

Sounds a lot like the "domino theory"!

Heavens! Maybe we should have stayed and fought it with a few tens of thousands more US military deaths in Vietnam, (not to mention the half a million Vietnamese we killed there fighting Communism.)

Last I looked, not only Vietmnam, but many of the Eastern European nations you mention are now our allies, and have quite vibrant religious organizations and institutions. Atheism seems to be about as much of a "threat" or failure as Communism was.

I'll repeat my previous question which you totally overlooked, how can today's skeptics and good students of history, religion, and philosophy become victims of Communist propaganda any more than Orthodox Christians may have been in Russia? The idea of equating current day "organized atheism" (evidence of which there IS none today) with the worst historical moments of Communism or fascism is an absolutely comical and overly simplistic view, both of history and of atheism.

[humblebum]

130. "organized atheism" (evidence of which there IS none today)" -

yes, American Atheists and Atheist Alliance International are not organized, even though they are organized ... as ORGANIZATIONS with mission and vision statements just like any other ORGANIZATION. Of course there is NO evidence thereof.

[MarkCharles]

131. Which scares you more, the philosophical position which atheists take or the

few dozen who run web sites and collect a few thousand or so in dues? Those "organizations"?

Do they run candidates for public office? Do they propose bills in legislatures around the world? Do they have a standing army? Do they run hundreds of colleges and universities? Do they collect millions in contributions every Sunday? Do they run a huge monopolistic worldwide top-down business based in Rome or anywhere else?

Be afraid, be very afraid.:rofl: :rofl:

[humblebum]

133. Does China count? NT

[MarkCharles]

135. China Ready for Closer Ties to Vatican October 26, 2001 :BEIJING--China is ready to improve ties wi

"January 22nd-26th 2007 > Chinese Church welcomes Vatican moves on reconciliation"
http://www.sspxasia.com/Countries/China/NewsArchive3.htm

"Contemplative Life in China – A New Development: Cardinal Welcomes Inspirational Sister"
Copyright © 2011 .

http://cecuk.org/?page_id=1595


I'm afraid you're not thinking in contemporary terms. You seem to be stuck in the old cold war of the 1950's.

[humblebum]

138. Chapter II, Article 36 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China.

"The state protects normal religious activities. No one may make use of religion to engage in activities that disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens or interfere with the educational system of the state. Religious bodies and religious affairs are not subject to any foreign domination."

Just how much influence do you think religion has in China over the government? Zero. And vice versa? Absolute.

And, in Tibet? State Atheism is being heavily enforced in the schools and homes.

No more religious freedom is allowed in China than is decided by the Communist Party.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/monitoring/253345.stm

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2011/03/chinas_atheist_rulers_plot_end.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-briggs/study-rising-religious-ti_b_811665.html

[MarkCharles]

139. Beating another dead horse, I see. First it was the atheists, now it's the

Chinese communist government that's spreading atheism by allowing Christian religions within their nation, but only on the terms the government wants?

I'm not a fan of Communist governments anywhere in the world, and would never want to be caught "defending" restrictions upon religious freedoms by a state, but it seems like you're losing your arguments about the worldwide spread of the atheist conspiracy, when Communist China, herself, relaxes restrictions upon Christian churches so that the number of churches increases.

As we probably should ask you, "How's that organized militant atheism thingy working out for you in China?"

I already know you're not going to change your opinion of atheism being one of the worst scourges in the history of humanity since the black plague of 1350. However, to fear your Christianity is being threatened by a worldwide movement of atheists to influence open minds...I might have to agree with THAT part. Logic and reason appeal to a lot of people more than myths and false promises, and threats of eternal damnation, which, in the end, is about all Christianity has had going for it for the last 2000 or so years. Now THERE's a REAL example of worldwide coordinated effort at domination of every individual's mind!

[humblebum]

140. Um? I believe the subject is atheism and you intimated that it was no longer an issue

anywhere. That's all well and good except when it comes to its existence in the world's most populous country and those things that you say are from the 1950's are still being played out in Tibet. It's alright to rant on about things Christianity and religion were involved in 500-2000 years ago, but militant atheism has only been in existence roughly a little over 200 years. And, religion is certainly not being forced upon anyone in China. Now you can get back to your Christian bashing.

[MarkCharles]

118. Has anyone noticed how much both Republicans and Christian evangelists use FEAR

as a selling technique?

Republicans sell the fear of socialism, death panels, etc.

Christian evangelicals sell fear of homosexuals by equating them to child molesters, fear of atheists by equating them with Communists and Fascists and other demonic despots.

Anyone else picking up on the pattern here? Appealing to fear and ignorance over reason and fact?

[humblebum]

121. Atheists are particularly strong on the fear thing themselves. nt

[MarkCharles]

126. Oh? Is there an example? I am not aware that people who don't have a

belief in a god are "particularly strong on the fear thing" in any way whatsoever.

Evidently, you "know" more about this than I am seeing.

Or are you still talking about people in Russia in the 1930's? Not about today's atheists posting here on this board.

[humblebum]

129. Why are you so fixated on Russia in the 1930's? That is one small element

of a much larger story that began long before the Russian Revolution and continues today. And it certainly looks like fear when you and others continually harp about theocracy and Reconstructionism and whatever else you choose to be alarmed about. That is being used to develop hatred for religion and religious people.

[MarkCharles]

132. "one small element" (Posted about originally by humblebum ) of a much larger story"

What is the "MUCH LARGER STORY"?

Are you feeling oppressed as a Christian by that overwhelming minority (16% at best estimates)of atheists?

You brought up four polemic books about the evils of Russia, the USSR and the now quite dead Communist state where, as one of many tactics, communist leaders attempted, (unsuccessfully, but with a lot of the characteristic blood and guts typical of tyrannical governments) to wrest control and influence of the masses away from the influence and customs and culture of a centuries-old Christian faith. They failed, even while professing some absurd kinds of "scientific atheism" as a key philosophical plank.

You brought up Russia and the USSR, you brought it up after I had given citations of Hitler's professed belief in god and the almighty. So you chose Communist Russia as your next example.

Nope, believe it or not, there is no worldwide organized atheistic conspiracy to overtake and defeat capitalism and democratic governments.

[humblebum]

136. "atheistic conspiracy to overtake and defeat capitalism and democratic governments."

Where did I even insinuate such? What does atheism have to do with economics or politics? Nothing. As for your statement on "polemic books" - I was quite clear that they represented only a sample of source material.

China - still officially under state atheism, but they now allow religion to be practiced under state controls. One of those controls is that no church can have an allegiance to or controlled from the outside of China as per the latest constitution. And,acting very much like the good ol' days in Tibet.

And, of course we know any organized atheism would never go global:

http://2010.atheistconvention.org.au/

[beam me up scottie]

125. Your question was "WHO is encouraging "the systematic persecution torture and murder of homosexuals?

I answered your question and you, as usual, continue to obfuscate and go back to your default meme about organized atheism.

You can't even acknowledge the existence of these present day hate crimes because you save all of your outrage for atheistic strawmen.

Typical.

[MarkCharles]

127. It DOES get to be a bit tiring, doesn't it? Strawmen arguments and avoidance

of acknowledgement of the negative factions and individuals in Christianity.

Dozens of anti-homosexual ministers making a good living preaching ignorance and hatred, scaring their congregants about the dangers of atheism and how atheists are really Communists and murdering psychopaths when they act in an "organized" "militant" fashion, twisting and revising the history of the last 100 years to make their points.

[humblebum]

137. What's to acknowledge? Some off-the-wall fringe groups or individuals

that have very little in common with mainline Christian churches? You seem to want to deny that atheism is not the poor oppressed minority that you make it out to be. It, too, has a history, whether or not you care to believe it.

[humblebum]

83. Where did I say that? But here on DU, yes. nt

[Goblinmonger]

71. "AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals;

it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals." Jerry Falwell

[cleanhippie]

81. Case in point, right here. ^^^^

[humblebum]

67. In your case it's called projection. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

73. I think Cline gets the reasons better than Christina or Atheist Rev

Because Cline was talking about atheism in the US; and hatred of atheists does seem far more common in the US than other developed countries. The points raised by Christina and echoed by Atheist Rev would apply everywhere; Cline focuses on what has happened in the USA to make the feelings so strong.

[Major Nikon]

96. Many (if not most) Christians in the US are exclusionists

As such they will disassociate and discriminate against those who don't think as they do. I suppose they must think atheists are like communicable diseases, if they get to close they might catch it. Many home-school their children for just this reason.

[MarkCharles]

99. Well, they are at least a tiny bit right about atheism: if religious folks get close and

actually talks to atheists, ideas DO spread and get in their brains! But that makes their brains healthier, not sicker.

[Quartermass]

119. Everytime I hear the phrase militant atheist I think of this: