THIS BLOG IS NOW IN STASIS.


PLEASE VISIT MY NEW WEBSITES:


My other projects include:


TrueFreethinker.com


My side projects are:


Worldview and Science Examiner


Fitness Trends Examiner (wherein I review individual exercises and workout routines, diet and nutrition, supplements and healthy snacks)


My YouTube channel

8/12/08

Please tell us about it!

There seems to be a general opinion amongst Atheists that they are the victims of severe abuse at the hands of Christians. I invite these who have experienced such abuse by Christians to tell us about it, the situation and the effect of the abuse, as well as the type of Christian(s) and their beliefs, if these facts are known.

Thanks in advance!

56 comments:

  1. ummm, how about the fact that George Bush said he didn't think atheist deserved to be considered citizens. How would you feel if your president said you weren't a citizen. And by the way Atheism isn't a belief system, it is the absence of a belief system. Thats where the name came from A - theism, without theism. All atheists haven't different beliefs. There is no atheism movement. However there is a movement to promote rationality and reason due to the damage religion has done to humanity. If your gonna bash people please at least try to learn a little bit about what your talking about. Otherwise your just perpetuating stereotypes equivocal to claiming all blacks are criminals. This behavior isn't acceptable in real life and shouldn't be here either.

    ReplyDelete
  2. My parents raised me to believe that my Jewish friends were going to burn in eternal hellfire. That was pretty abusive.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well, people who have been killed by Christians for crimes against Christians won't be posting. More to the point those who did it to Islam won't be posting. You did state in your mission statement you are defending theism.

    As for myself... none. That is because I live in the better part of the country, I'm not social and religion is quiet here. I mean, California is up to its eyeballs in mumbojumbo.

    I do know a girl who got dumped because she wasn't of the right religion (could have been BS on his part, but was the explanation he used). And a funie who dumped all his Magic the Gathering Cards because they were "tools of Satan".

    Sort of odd since I don't know that many people... I hope my info is outliers.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mormons have interrupted nap time. Come on, there isn't any torture worse than that!

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Severe abuse"? More like just being looked down on:

    The usual juvenile stuff: April First is the Atheists' National Holiday (see Ray Comfort's blog), or if you believe in evolution you will go to hell (see Jack Chick's stuff "Evolution, Apes, and Mrs. Henn"), that kind of crap.

    Some more interesting examples:

    Cris Comer

    Teaching evolution, the problems one professor has had Gary Sloan, and of course the now famous cracker kerfluffle with PZ Myers. You can look up other posts in his blog to see the full inanity of that, though he does print some of the insults and threats he's gotten in this post.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Now, what exactly are you basing the judgment you just made on? When you say, "There seems to be a general opinion amongst Atheists that they are the victims of severe abuse at the hands of Christians", what factual basis do you have for that statement? Have you done proper sampling of opinion, or have you talked to some guy on a street corner? Or, probably more likely, you're just inventing an opinion of "the enemy" for your own purposes.

    Of course, judging by the bold sentence below me saying that you have to approve all comments, you're probably not going to post this. But I'd at least like you to think about using, you know, facts, every one and a while.

    ReplyDelete
  7. *Sex-free sex ed in schools
    *Evidence-free/denying policies, from environmental to medical.
    *Pharmacists overriding doctors' prescriptions
    *Creationism/progressive creationism in schools>
    *The Catholic League lambasting Myers for his stand, while ignoring/helping to persecute the kids that accidentally and stupidly started it all. (Much as the Danish Cartoon "Incident" ignored the thing that lead to the "Incident")
    *Climate-change denial. Apparently God won't let Man destroy the Earth (that's His job).
    *Anti-gay rights. (Not where I'm from. Gay marriage is legal here. The walls, it must be mentioned, have not caved in)
    *"Christian Nation". Bible in schools (it was never banned. It was only "class-mandated prayer/bible readings" that were. Some people want to bring them back. I assume that they'll change there minds once their Protestant kids get an earful of Mary from their Catholic teacher).
    *Anti-State welfare. Charity is okay, I guess, but it lacks the State's economy of scale. That and the State's social safety net's primary purpose isn't to Witness.

    That's seven. None of which are specifically aimed at me. All of which do/can/will effect me or those I know (or those they know). You, as well.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The ironically named "Reason" said:

    how about the fact that George Bush said he didn't think atheist deserved to be considered citizens.

    Oh, someone said something! Oh, noes! Did it give you a boo-boo?

    How would you feel if your president said you weren't a citizen.

    I wouldn't care. The president doesn't have the power to determine and enforce who is or is not a citizen.

    And by the way Atheism isn't a belief system, it is the absence of a belief system. Thats where the name came from A - theism, without theism.

    Wow. Never have I seen such a tortured and completely wrong definition. "Theism" does not mean "belief" in general. Nor does it mean "belief system." It means belief in a god or gods. Atheism means no belief in a god or gods. Being a theism does not absolutely mean you have a belief system and being an atheist doesn't absolutely mean you don't have one.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Oh, and...

    There is no atheism movement.

    And yet...

    However there is a movement to promote rationality and reason due to the damage religion has done to humanity.

    So, yes, there is an atheism movement.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well, people who have been killed by Christians for crimes against Christians won't be posting.

    Such as... whom, exactly? I mean in this country (U.S.) during the last, oh, 50 years.

    ReplyDelete
  11. reynold:

    More like just being looked down on

    Oh, poor baby. You mean like how atheists (Dawkins, Hitchens, Myers, the "Rational" Responders, etc. ad nauseum) look down upon Christians?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Now, what exactly are you basing the judgment you just made on?

    He can read.

    ReplyDelete
  13. richie said,
    "Now, what exactly are you basing the judgment you just made on? When you say, "There seems to be a general opinion amongst Atheists that they are the victims of severe abuse at the hands of Christians", what factual basis do you have for that statement?


    It's difficult to visit an Atheist website without encountering the idea that Atheists are the victims of Christians. That's why I said there "seems to be a general opinion ..." This is especially true at PZ's place, and was one of the justifications for the desecration episode iirc. I was wondering what abusive episodes Atheists were encountering and who pertpetrated them. I didn't declare a fact, I said that it "seems" that such an opinion exists. I think the other responses are clues that such an opinion does exist amongst the readers of this blog. If you are objecting to the use of the word "general" - and I don't know if that's your beef - I suspect that it might be shown to be the case if an accurate poll were to be taken. After all, the increase in the Atheist population is attributed to "coming out of the closet" where they were previously holed up, presumably due to fear.

    But then again, just what is your beef?

    BTW, I appreciate the responses.

    ReplyDelete
  14. jinx mchue said:

    Oh, and...

    There is no atheism movement.

    And yet...

    However there is a movement to promote rationality and reason due to the damage religion has done to humanity.

    So, yes, there is an atheism movement.


    So when you read 'movement to promote rationality and reason', you immediately think: "Atheists!"?

    That's interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hilarious!

    *Sex-free sex ed in schools

    Where exactly?

    *Evidence-free/denying policies, from environmental to medical.

    Such as?

    *Pharmacists overriding doctors' prescriptions

    Oh, noes! Private companies determining what they do or do not sell! Teh horror! Teh horror! Teh absolute horror!!! (Show me where anything says all pharmacists must offer all drugs and fill all prescriptions.)

    *Creationism/progressive creationism in schools

    Because belief in Creationism is going to destroy science!!!

    *The Catholic League lambasting Myers for his stand,

    Which they wouldn't have had to do if Myers wasn't such an arrogant bigot.

    while ignoring/helping to persecute the kids that accidentally and stupidly started it all. (Much as the Danish Cartoon "Incident" ignored the thing that lead to the "Incident")

    Oh, it was an accident. Of course! Yeah, just like PZ, you ignore/justify/gloss over the incident in order to draw attention to yourself and your ideals.

    *Climate-change denial. Apparently God won't let Man destroy the Earth (that's His job).

    Yeah, just like all these ignorant, uneducated fools.

    *Anti-gay rights. (Not where I'm from. Gay marriage is legal here. The walls, it must be mentioned, have not caved in)

    Massachusetts is starting to feel the negative effects of their legalizing gay marriage. And let's not forget that gay marriage has opened the door to bi-/polygamy.

    *"Christian Nation". Bible in schools (it was never banned. It was only "class-mandated prayer/bible readings" that were. Some people want to bring them back. I assume that they'll change there minds once their Protestant kids get an earful of Mary from their Catholic teacher).

    Even though you say the Bible was never banned, it's very odd how many students over the past few decades have been reprimanded for reading Bibles, sharing Bible stories, praying, saying table grace, mentioning their faith in assignments and graduation speeches, etc.

    *Anti-State welfare. Charity is okay, I guess, but it lacks the State's economy of scale. That and the State's social safety net's primary purpose isn't to Witness.

    lol! Atheists need state welfare (i.e. forcing people to give to "charity") because they such so much at individual charity (as proven by more than one study of giving between theists and atheists).

    ReplyDelete
  16. The guy who was assulted for playing with the cracker... can we get him to post?

    It is noticable that most of the incidents occur in the third world... unless you are gay, tranny or differant. Than you can find those things easily- I mean, "gay panic" being a defense and all.

    As for words don't hurt... I believe the GW senior may or may not be true. However, there are others and they are more disturbing. Type in American Taliban-it is the first hit.

    My personal "favorite" bad thing done by religious believers in our country? War on drugs. As Jinx McHue delightfully pointed out you don't need the state to do welfare or paternalism... unless it is drugs.

    For those of you not aware one in one hundred American adults is behind bars. The US is indead the leader of the free world and an inspiration to despotism everywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Yo, jinx. You makes me laughs.

    If we want to expand the discussion to Christian moralists sticking their noses in people's personal business, I've got a couple more examples.

    In Texas, I can't buy liquor on Sundays. I guess that I'm supposed to be praying that day or something.

    If I have a chronic illness that makes me feel nothing but constant agony, I do not have the legal right to end my life. And if a compassionate doctor were to help me, he would go to prison.

    Oh, and hey, look at that. There's a wikipedia article on this:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists

    ReplyDelete
  18. Jinx McHue *Sex-free sex ed in schools "Where exactly?"
    Abstinence only sex-ed? Seriously? Just google that term. You'll mostly come up with stories about it's failure...and the fact that it's still in use. Like so.

    *Evidence-free/denying policies, from environmental to medical. "Such as?"
    Like every decision that BushCo (a partly owned subsidiary of the Christian Right) has ever made. Most recently, the push to redefine some contraception as an abortificient, based on negligible clinical evidence (oddly, there's no push to reclassify coffee and exercise).

    *Pharmacists overriding doctors' prescriptions. "Oh, noes! Private companies determining what they do or do not sell! Teh horror! Teh horror! Teh absolute horror!!! (Show me where anything says all pharmacists must offer all drugs and fill all prescriptions.)"
    Oh noes! The only pharmacy in town refuses to fill my prescription for the pill, a duty for which they are licensed and regulated! "My beliefs override your doctor's expert opinion about your own body. Yes, we sell the pill. No, I'm not going to sell it to you. No, you can't speak to my manager, sinner. Etc."
    A pharmacist's objection should not override your health. It's not their body. It's yours.

    *Creationism/progressive creationism in schools "Because belief in Creationism is going to destroy science!!!"
    On this, we are in agreement. Kudos!

    *The Catholic League lambasting Myers for his stand "Which they wouldn't have had to do if Myers wasn't such an arrogant bigot."
    Pointing the finger at people who are trying to get a kid (and now his friend as well) kicked out of school for attempting to remove a cracker from a place in a non-approved manner is bigotry now? Is protesting the death threats bigotry too?

    "Oh, it was an accident. Of course! Yeah, just like PZ, you ignore/justify/gloss over the incident in order to draw attention to yourself and your ideals."
    "Dude, when I get the eucharist I'll totally bring it back here to you to look at. It'll be so cool! There is no way that people will overreact!"

    *Climate-change denial. Apparently God won't let Man destroy the Earth (that's His job). "Yeah, just like all these ignorant, uneducated fools."
    That there isn't 100% agreement isn't surprising. That doesn't excuse manipulating or burying data from reports that conflict with their ideology.

    "Massachusetts is starting to feel the negative effects of their legalizing gay marriage."
    What, that a small number of "the gays" got married? That it proved less popular than those who were against it feared? The worst thing that it's lead to here so far is divorce. That's a side-effect common to man/woman marriage, too.

    "And let's not forget that gay marriage has opened the door to bi-/polygamy."
    Your words would carry more rhetorical weight if that wasn't one of the arguments brought up when
    anti-miscegenation statutes started to get overturned forty years ago.

    "Even though you say the Bible was never banned, it's very odd how many students over the past few decades have been reprimanded for reading Bibles, sharing Bible stories, praying, saying table grace, mentioning their faith in assignments and graduation speeches, etc."
    ...and the ACLU should be (and often
    are) on the forefront of defending those rights. You can read the holy text of your choice between classes. You can pray. What public schools can't do is mandate them (or ban them if they're on your own time).

    "lol! Atheists need state welfare (i.e. forcing people to give to "charity") because they such so much at individual charity (as proven by more than one study of giving between theists and atheists)."
    Lol, indeed. State social services have only one purpose. Religious ones frequently have two. Putting food in poor Africans' bellies is more important than buying them Bibles.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Jinx McHue said...

    reynold:

    More like just being looked down on

    Oh, poor baby. You mean like how atheists (Dawkins, Hitchens, Myers, the "Rational" Responders, etc. ad nauseum) look down upon Christians?

    Jinx let me try to explain...aren't you the one who just said:
    The ironically named "Reason" said:

    how about the fact that George Bush said he didn't think atheist deserved to be considered citizens.

    Oh, someone said something! Oh, noes! Did it give you a boo-boo?
    Well, then, to your complaints about Richard Dawkins, Myers, etc. I can just say right back to you: Oh, someone said something! Oh, noes! Did it give you a boo-boo?

    Nicely hypocricial Jinx.


    Get the point yet? Doubt it.


    Something else: Someone points out that the leader of a nation doesn't believe that certain people are "citizens" of that nation and you don't see any problem with that?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Jinx McHue:
    *Pharmacists overriding doctors' prescriptions


    Oh, noes! Private companies determining what they do or do not sell! Teh horror! Teh horror! Teh absolute horror!!! (Show me where anything says all pharmacists must offer all drugs and fill all prescriptions.)
    We all know what is being referred to here: those pharmaicsts who refuse to give contraceptive medication to their patients because of the pharmacists' religious beliefs. Well, to that I'd say:

    Try reading the Pharmacist Oath and Code of Ethics.

    III. A pharmacist respects the autonomy and dignity ofeach patient.

    A pharmacist promotes the right of self-determination and recognizes individual self-worth by encouraging patients to participate in decisions about their health. A pharmacist communicates with patients in terms that are understandable. In all cases, a pharmacist respects personal and cultural differences among patients.


    Catch the bolded part, Jinxy? That's kind of the opposite of what your kind of pharmacist would do when he imposes his religous values on a patient by not giving the pills.


    Odd how Jinx complains about people talking down to members of his religion, but then gets all sarcastic when it's pointed out to him that members of his religion regularly talk down to, and in some cases, try to push their religous views on others.

    Oddly enough, he hypocrically banned me from his blog because I insulted his faith. Yet when people point out that members of his faith look down on others, what's his reply?

    Oh, poor baby.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Reynold, I don't look down on people because they are atheists. I look down on people for being stupid and making baseless statements. I've never looked down on anyone I know or have known because they've been atheists. I've had several atheist friends who are a hell of a lot smarter and credible than you idiots and they don't complain that they're being discriminated against because it simply isn't happening.

    ReplyDelete
  22. reynold, you left out some other pertinent statements from the pharmicist code of ethics. I have chosen a few myself and "bolded" them:

    IV. A pharmacist acts with honesty and integrity in professional relationships.

    A pharmacist has a duty to tell the truth and to act with conviction of conscience.

    VII. A pharmacist serves individual, community, and societal needs.

    However, the obligations of a pharmacist may at timesextend beyond the individual to the community and society. In these situations, the pharmacist recognizes the responsibilities that accompany these obligations and acts accordingly.

    VIII. A pharmacist seeks justice in the distribution of health resources.

    When health resources are allocated, a pharmacist is fair andequitable, balancing the needs of patients and society.


    The Pharmacists code is "based on moral obligations and virtues".

    For you apparently, the assertion of moral obligations and virtues is against your own moral obligation which is... death on demand...(?) Moral codes are not a specific, absolute value for Atheists, so how can one be codified to the satisfaction of all Atheists? Answer, it cannot. So any and all attempts at moral behavior are subject to criticism and contempt from at least some Atheists, at all times. It becomes boring after awhile, hearing each and every ethical move screamed about by the amoralists.

    ReplyDelete
  23. reynold, you left out some other pertinent statements from the pharmicist code of ethics. I have chosen a few myself and "bolded" them:

    IV. A pharmacist acts with honesty and integrity in professional relationships.

    A pharmacist has a duty to tell the truth and to act with conviction of conscience.

    VII. A pharmacist serves individual, community, and societal needs.

    However, the obligations of a pharmacist may at times extend beyond the individual to the community and society. In these situations, the pharmacist recognizes the responsibilities that accompany these obligations and acts accordingly.

    VIII. A pharmacist seeks justice in the distribution of health resources.

    ... a pharmacist is fair and equitable, balancing the needs of patients and society.


    The Pharmacists code is "based on moral obligations and virtues".

    For you apparently, the assertion of moral obligations and virtues is against your own moral obligation which is... death on demand...(?)

    Moral codes are not a specific, absolute value for Atheists, so how can one be codified to the satisfaction of all Atheists? Answer, it cannot. So any and all attempts at moral behavior are subject to criticism and contempt from at least some Atheists, at all times.

    It becomes boring after awhile, hearing each and every ethical move screamed about by the amoralists. This is because any actual assertion of "moral obligations and virtues" obstructs the pursuit of wantoness and personal indugence that is the real underlying value of the moral relativists.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Moral codes are not a specific, absolute value for Atheists, so how can one be codified to the satisfaction of all Atheists? Answer, it cannot. So any and all attempts at moral behavior are subject to criticism and contempt from at least some Atheists, at all times.

    It becomes boring after awhile, hearing each and every ethical move screamed about by the amoralists. This is because any actual assertion of "moral obligations and virtues" obstructs the pursuit of wantoness and personal indugence that is the real underlying value of the moral relativists.

    BS. Stan, that's all I've got to say. You've got a real false and stereotyped view of what us "moral relativists" belive. "Wantoness"? Baloney. What? You think that we don't believe in any laws whatsoever or something?

    Another thing: You worship the being who orders the killings of pregnant women and children who are born outside of the womb and you call us "amoral"?

    Pike off. The bible is the perfect textbook for moral relativism and situational ethics. Just look at the excuses you apologists use to justify out-of-the-womb killing.

    For you to claim that you have anything resembling "absolute morality" is pure bs. For you to act preachy and self-righteous about it and to say that we are the "amoralists" is pure hypocrosy.

    By the way, genius, I am pro-life, not "death on demand" as you ignorantly think...I just realize that my views can't be pushed on these people. What are you going to do? Put them in jail for nine months?


    Now, back to the case at hand...
    VIII. A pharmacist seeks justice in the distribution of health resources.

    When health resources are allocated, a pharmacist is fair andequitable, balancing the needs of patients and society.

    Since you've noted that part of the oath, how's about if it turns out that having the baby will jepordize the women's welfare?

    There is something else. Things like the morning after pill that end pregnancies do so pretty early in the gestation cycle. It's not like there's a fully-developed baby already in there. We're talking a zygote; a fertilized egg. No organs developed, no nervous system developed, and no blood. You remember blood? What the bible says contains the "breath of life"? If there's no blood, then biblically, there's no real life.

    Look in the OT: if the pregnant women gets caught in a fight and is killed, whoever killed her is also killed. If just the baby dies, the guy just pays a fine.


    There's something else. Where, in any of the oath that you pretend to understand does it say anything about the pharmacists religious views should be imposed on the client?

    If the pharmacist refused to give service to someone who was susceptible to heart attacks because of their lifestyle would you support him then? That's the kind of question that the oath was meant to handle.

    Not something that the pharmacists' personal religous opinion (even though it's an opinion I share) says so.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Here's another case for you to consider: ‘Christian’ Pediatrician Turns Away Child Because of Parent’s Tattoos or how about denying the HPV vaccine to young women because of the belief that it'd encourage them to have sex?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Not by Christians, but by religion in general:

    - I'm missing a part of my penis.

    - Although I, after much thought, have figured out that homosexuality is perfectly fine, I still see homosexuality as disgusting when I do so superficially. This has made it difficult for me to have gay friends.

    - My aunt was a very skilled nurse but then decided to become a nun. My uncle died and my dad payed for my 4 cousins tuitions. If he didn't, they wouldn't have had the money to go to college.

    - A member of my girlfriend's family was killed in the 9/11 attacks.

    This is all I can think of in 10 minutes...

    ReplyDelete
  27. Stan "IV. A pharmacist acts with honesty and integrity in professional relationships.
    A pharmacist has a duty to tell the truth and to act with conviction of conscience."

    and then...
    "A pharmacist avoids discriminatory practices, behavior or work conditions that impair professional judgment, and actions that compromise dedication to the best interests of patients."

    "VIII. A pharmacist seeks justice in the distribution of health resources.
    ... a pharmacist is fair and equitable, balancing the needs of patients and society."

    Yes. "fair and equitable". Your needs for girls who have the audacity to have sex getting pregnant does not override girls needs to avoid getting pregnant. It's her body, not yours.

    "For you apparently, the assertion of moral obligations and virtues is against your own moral obligation which is... death on demand...(?)"
    Birth control is "death on demand"? I can sort of understand the "life begins at conception" thing, and from that the refusal to fill an RU486 prescription, but there are stores refusing to sell condoms or the pill. Is it "life before conception" now?

    "This is because any actual assertion of "moral obligations and virtues" obstructs the pursuit of wantoness and personal indugence that is the real underlying value of the moral relativists."
    Wow. That's quite the, um, thing that you said. So, it's okay for a pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription for, say, the pill, because the person who wants the pill is "wanton" (even if she is married or is using the pill for a secondary effect, like less severe periods)? Good luck with that. If they're aloud to have sex, while minimizing the risk of pregnancy, next they'll be wanting the vote! Oh, the moral outrage! You stick it to those whores!
    It's nice that your "absolute morality" gives you an in to try to control someone else's body.
    Do you know what the difference between that and Stalinism/totalitarianism/etc is? Not a god damn thing.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Everyone, not just atheists, are victims of the church/state violations seen around the country. Whether it's a state legislature imposing it's personal moral code on everyone in the state, or having the Ten Commandments posted in front of courthouses and other government buildings. These kinds of violations are fundamentally victimizing because they contradict what the law itself says.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Well, I was invited to participate in an internet forum run by a theologian and when I tried to participate in the conversation there I was called a fool, a Bolshevik, a Nazi, a butt-fucker, a piece of shit and a warped little ass" (the last two came from the forum administrator...)

    Seemed pretty abusive to me at the time...

    ReplyDelete
  30. *the fact that George Bush said he didn't think atheist deserved to be considered citizens.*

    No worries. As a Christian, I don't know if Bush is actually a Christian.

    *I do know a girl who got dumped because she wasn't of the right religion (could have been BS on his part, but was the explanation he used).*

    Now there is some abuse!


    If other Christians have seriously abused or hurt anyone here, I am sorry for that. That's not what Christianity is about.

    Christ came to reconcile us back to God.

    ReplyDelete
  31. umm, im a thirteen-year-old never-baptized athiest daughter of two mostly athiest parents. My mother was catholic, and my father was Jewish. My mother was raised in an boarding home, where she lived day and night for all days except sunday, her mother was severly mentally...ill, an addict. Her father was, doing the best he could. However my dad lead a normal life, in the suburbs of New York with three brothers. He went to MIT, and after alot of struggle, he has succeed in starting up his own factory.

    As you can see, both of my athiest parents came from very different situations, but both of them over-came their struggles without religoin, and as far as i know, thier choice to become athiests were not influenced by any bad expeircences they had with religios people. My parents are very honest with me, if they had any serious childhood problems, i would know about it.

    personally, I have never been mis-treated by a religios person, and i am a full atheist. My parents raised me to believe in the morals of a good human. I am not perfect. I lie ocationally, and I cus very often in my head, but of all of my religios friends, I am incredibly well behaved.

    I truly believe that athiesm is a way of thinking, a true freedom of religion. I do not think that athiesm is some by-product of deep emotional injury.

    I am an athiest, and I am a good person.

    ReplyDelete
  32. iibelaughing, thank you for your comment!

    One thing I'd like to point out. Having a religion doesn't mean a person becomes perfect... far from it. What it means is that a person accepts a code of morality, and a source for that code of morality. Then the person either does or doesn't try to behave according to that code. There are many who accept a religious code with their mouths but not with their behaviors.

    Living up to the morality of perfection, such as in Christianity, is not possible for us defective humans, but it is a desirable goal.

    You have a concept of being a good person, and that brings forward the question: what standard are you using to measure "goodness" by?

    I personally suspect that you are using the standards of our culture, which is derived largely from religious standards. If you are using an atheist standard, which standard is it that you compare yourself to? I urge you to think carefully about the various standards and whether they have a foundation that is constant, consistent, and valid.

    Thanks again for your comment.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I've been lucky: no really unpleasant run-ins with Christians so far (I do have a history with Frank Walton, but that is more amusing than abusing; and anyway, Frank is sui generis). But I suspect that part of my luck is geographical: I grew up in Sin City (the SF Bay Area) and now live in Godless Socialistic Europe (Austria). There are atheists to burn (so to speak) in both places, so my worldview is no big deal.

    iibelaughing- I, too, liked your comment. Good on you! Stan gave you a bit of advice that I would agree with, as far as it goes:

    what standard are you using to measure "goodness" by?
    I personally suspect that you are using the standards of our culture, which is derived largely from religious standards. If you are using an atheist standard, which standard is it that you compare yourself to? I urge you to think carefully about the various standards and whether they have a foundation that is constant, consistent, and valid.


    That is indeed good advice. I would only add this: while it's true that many of the standards of our culture are derived from, or at least influenced by, religious standards, those religious standards are in turn derived from our biological nature as social beings, and our need to make rules to build societies.

    And while you are thinking about how "constant, consistent, and valid" your atheist standards are, think also about how "constant, consistent, and valid" religious standards are. What matters is how people behave, not what they claim to be the source of their morals.

    In any case, go well.

    cheers from starry Vienna, zilch

    ReplyDelete
  34. Since atheists have no foundation for moral law, you have basically invited people to post lies about Christian abuse. As a Christian who often finds himself in fruitless debates with atheists, I have found that most of them excel at contriving lies about how we Christians are derogatory towards them. Then, they are good at showing us in the very Bible that they do not believe in on how we ought to act.

    Most atheists I have found to be annoying, young, loud-mouthed, punks who have one agenda only... cause trouble.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I'm a little surprised that the Christians at this blog would trust the words of you God-hating morons.

    (And yes...you DO hate God. Romans 1:30)

    You all will have three problems to overcome before you make another post.

    1. You must present some epistemologically conscious philosophical system that will allow you to make positive claims about the past. (How can you talk about what has or has not happened to you if you don't have a worldview that will provide for the conditions of history???)

    2. Once you present a philosophical view that will allow you to discuss historical claims; you must then provide some consistent ethical theory that will allow you to designate particular experiences in the past as "good" or "bad."

    and then finally:

    3. If it happens to be the case that you hold as one of your beliefs that all mankind arose from the lower animals through natural processes, then you must give us all some reason why we should trust you when you talk about the past.

    Sound confusing? Think about it...

    If you believe on the one hand, that animals have survived by using deception (camouflage or some other similar defense mechanism) and you also believe that YOU are an animal...then it would be completely logical for you to lie to us Christians in this blog about your personal experiences...(you're just trying to get pragmatic results after all.)

    Answer these three issues, or...frankly, content yourself with not being taken seriously.

    (As a side note, I personally wouldn't have encompassed ALL religion in this discussion, since there are many difficulties in defining and applying the term...also, as a Christian, I say that all belief systems, worldviews, philosophies, or "religions" other than Christianity are at base, Satanic, and serve to promote the "kingdom of man" over and above the "kingdom of God.")

    www.shotgunwildatheart.wordpress.com

    ReplyDelete
  36. "Since atheists have no foundation for moral law,"

    "I'm a little surprised that the Christians at this blog would trust the words of you God-hating morons."


    Leaving aside the question of whether stuff like this qualifies for the abuse stan was asking for, I have an open question to everybody. Can anyone argue that the ignorant hate speech excreted above is not the result of religious brainwashing? Are these rational people, shouldering the "intellectual responsibility" that is cited on the AiD front page?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Golly there, Shotgun. Thats quite a list of things to answer, but frankly I don't think it would do me any good anyway. I don't believe that you could ever let yourself accept such a thing, because, and this is important, there would be no god as the absolute morality.

    I am an atheist, but that never enters my thinking. I don't have moments where atheism springs to the fore and resolves some moral puzzle for me. The main reason for this is that atheism is not a moral code, nor does it aspire to be.

    When I make moral judgements I find I use reason and empathy. It's not a concious decision I made, thats just how it seemed to work. Hey look! I'm a moral person AND and atheist! Why, it's almost like there might be some biological basis to basic morality!

    ReplyDelete
  38. Adonais,

    The two excerpts you quoted may or may not be "hate speech" (any sane person can see that it isn't), but I'll let it slide for the moment, and instead point out how completely pointless it is for you to "harp" on such things.

    I mean, the text you quoted (in your worldview) is comparable to waves crashing on the shore, or wind blowing through rocks...it's completely natural...

    So stop crying.

    And to Mr. John:

    Spare me your dime store psychoanalysis and provide some sort of answer for the problems I've raised.

    Until you do, then you are doomed to irrelevance.

    You then go on to say this:

    I am an atheist, but that never enters my thinking. I don't have moments where atheism springs to the fore and resolves some moral puzzle for me. The main reason for this is that atheism is not a moral code, nor does it aspire to be.

    Wow, quite the thinker aren't you John?

    You're only half right though.

    While it's true that it is impossible to utilize your religion of "atheism" consistently for any sort of pragmatic philosophical usage, that still doesn't mean that your hate for God does not consume your fallen mind from sun up to sun down.

    You see Mr. John; it is the Christian God, and the Christian philosophical system that you use to solve problems in your day to day life.

    This is the ONLY reason you can say "Hey look, I'm a moral person!

    Without the aid of the Christian philosophical system of thought you wouldn't be able to say such a thing.

    Stick to my suggestion Mr. John...answer the problems as I've posed them.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Ahhh,

    And to correct a previous error...

    Good ol' Stan DID write this blog with persecution by Christians in view.

    To open it to all other "religions" would essentially open the initial request to an exposition on ALL evil in the world; a straw man that the God-hating morons who frequent this blogsite would no doubt find very entertaining.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Dr. shotgun:

    I would have been inclined to think your contributions here symptomatic of a troll, or possibly false flag attacks, if not for your Wordpress blog.

    It would seem that you really are the bellicose ignoramus that you appear to be.

    I doubt any Christian on this blog will cover for your asinine behavior, and you should be ignored.

    ReplyDelete
  41. God-hating morons? Try "god-disbelieving" for accuracies sake, and also try not to be such a tool next time, eh, "shotgun"?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Reynold said...

    Here's another case for you to consider: ‘Christian’ Pediatrician Turns Away Child Because of Parent’s Tattoos or how about denying the HPV vaccine to young women because of the belief that it'd encourage them to have sex?

    You've done it! You've proven that the reeducation camps are right around the corner!

    ReplyDelete
  43. Jinx McHue said...

    Reynold, I don't look down on people because they are atheists. I look down on people for being stupid and making baseless statements. I've never looked down on anyone I know or have known because they've been atheists. I've had several atheist friends who are a hell of a lot smarter and credible than you idiots and they don't complain that they're being discriminated against because it simply isn't happening.

    Baloney Jinx. You've been shot down here by "modusoperandi" and others, whom you've yet to refute, much less justify calling "idiots", and you've been shot down numerous times on TheologyWeb before you had your hissy fit and left.

    There, you were complaining of "attacks" on Christians...well, to that I can just point you to what you said to us earlier...Oh, someone said something! Oh, noes! Did it give you a boo-boo?

    Get the point, Jinx?

    I invite anyone here to go to TheologyWeb, and look at the posts started by "The Laughing Man" or "Jinx32"

    No matter how badly you got trounced, you still acted like a jerk.

    From what I've seen, you give no indication here, on TheologyWeb, or on your own blogs that you have anything but contempt for non-believers and "liberals".

    ReplyDelete
  44. Stan: "God hating"? You're adorable. Don't ever change.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Wups. I think I wrote "Stan". That should be "Shotgun". While we're on the subject, Stan is also adorable and should never change.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I AM adorable Mr. Modus, thanks...

    All your (no doubt legitimate) psychoanalysis aside;

    None of you God-haters have attempted to answer the problems raised.

    If a "troll" is someone that shuts you down on a normal basis Mr./Ms. Adonais...then a troll I shall be.

    Thanks for the thoughtful response though...I'm sure God can use it for good...although for the life of me, I can't see how.

    Oh, and P.S.

    Quit crying…

    ReplyDelete
  47. WayneDawg said...
    *the fact that George Bush said he didn't think atheist deserved to be considered citizens.*

    No worries. As a Christian, I don't know if Bush is actually a Christian.

    Wow! That's just what George Bush said about you.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Amen bro, in reality it's Christians who fought long and hard for the RIGHT OF ATHIESTS TO BE ABLE TO EXPRESS THEIR SATANIC CRAP. And yet they have absolutely no gratitude whatsoever. If it was'nt for Christians, athiests would be hunted down and killed. It's because of Christians that we have this country, George Washington, Ben Franklin, etc, had a goal in mind with this country and it was a Christian goal.

    The day will come shotgun, when God will allow us to cleanse his creation according to his will. That'll be a day.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Shotgun - I hate you, I hate you, I hate you!

    Atheist - "Yes but..."

    Shotgun - I hate you, I hate you, I hate you!

    Atheist - "But shouldn't you..."

    Shotgun - "I hate you..."

    This is what I got out of the conversation. Anyone else?

    Shotgun - "You see Mr. John; it is the Christian God, and the Christian philosophical system that you use to solve problems in your day to day life."

    I am assuming that Shotgun is doing just that, when he responds to the comments here. Can any Christian please explain to me how I should view the Christian God, after reading what his representative, Shotgun, has displayed here? Is God mean and temperamental? Shotgun is using the "Christian philosophical system" when he makes his remarks. If I don't respond in kind to him, but remain civil, then what "philosophical system" am I using. It does not look like the Christian philosophical system because it does not look like the system that Shotgun is using.

    Listen, I know it doesn't matter to Shotgun. I expect, if he responds at all, that it will be more ridicule, but I just have to wonder why a Christian would want to be so venomous toward atheists, whether the atheist is vocal or not. I mean, it seems so obvious that the very last thing on Shotguns mind is "winning the lost". And when a person displays such a hatred for those who disagree with him, can you help but wonder about their ability to offer an honest response to even the most mundane comment or question? People like that are usually so consumed with self preservation that an admission or an apology are so very far from their lips.

    ReplyDelete
  50. "Amen bro, in reality it's Christians who fought long and hard for the RIGHT OF ATHIESTS TO BE ABLE TO EXPRESS THEIR SATANIC CRAP. And yet they have absolutely no gratitude whatsoever. If it was'nt for Christians, athiests would be hunted down and killed. It's because of Christians that we have this country, George Washington, Ben Franklin, etc, had a goal in mind with this country and it was a Christian goal.

    The day will come shotgun, when God will allow us to cleanse his creation according to his will. That'll be a day."


    Wow... I'm actually speechless...

    Umm, first of all, Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, etc did NOT intend the United States to be a Christian nation. The Constitution makes no mention of such a thing, nor does it even mention Christianity or any tenant of Christianity. Even if it were a Christian nation, which denomination? Roman Catholic? Southern Baptist? Mormon? Quaker? Jehovah's Witness?

    Secondly, without religion, who would "hunt down and kill" atheists? And why should anyone show "gratitude" to a system that promotes genocide in the first place? "...when God will allow us to cleanse his creation according to his will." What a truly offensive and disturbing statement!

    ReplyDelete
  51. Maybe this is what they meant by "Atheism is Dead"...it will be dead after they kill all of us? ;)


    Yes, I'm joking. Although I'm not sure that Tom Willis is.

    Ah well.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Thanks for thoroughly responding to, and subsequently answering my philosophical objections Mr. Bob...

    lol

    My sarcasm aside, perhaps you could concentrate a little more on my responses (by concentrate more, I mean, "actually read" them)and realize that unless you answer the objections I've raised (specifically my demand for you to present some philosophical basis from which to make claims about historical particulars) you cannot really expect me to take your reply seriously.

    Perhaps Hollywood will like your script writing more than I did? I wouldn't quit the ol' day job though.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Well, the worst thing that has happened to me due to my lack of religion is when the good Christian parents wouldn't allow their children to attend my son's birthday party. It was a severe blow to him when no one showed up. I asked some of the parents why and was told that they didn't want their children associating with atheists. One even used the phrase 'godless heathen'. We didn't stay long in that town.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Sorry shotgun, but your "philosophical objections" which I did read, went over my head, if indeed they are valid objections.
    I just don't understand what you are objectiong to.
    It would be entertaing to watch you present these objections to a few non believing elementary schoolers. Perhaps they, with the aid of crayons, can answer your objections?
    And I think you replied as seriously as you possibly can.
    You are just not a nice person. But what does that really matter, I mean, you are there and I am here.

    ReplyDelete
  55. How about the way religion perverts the rule of law:
    Court: Exorcism is protected by law
    ; assault and torture is OK if its done for religious purposes.

    Also, we all have to pay higher taxes because of all of the property exempt for worshiping imaginary sky-beings. That millions of it are used to hog the NCE spectrum for fairy tales and political propaganda is just salt in the wound.

    Videoevangelists. In general and in particular. By sight, sound and sense they're thoroughly offensive all the way around. Sure, their glossalalia and epileptiform antics can be entertaining, but the novelty of the spectacle wears thin quickly despite the kitsch and gaud. Anyone with sense or empathy feels abused seeing it persist into the 21st century CE.

    ReplyDelete
  56. How about almost every time someone finds out I don't believe in deities
    I'm either told I'm going to hell ostracized like there's something wrong with me. If atheism were actually dead there wouldn't be any of us around now would there? I've been reading your comments and many of them are fairly insensitive and frankly stupid. Substitute "atheist" with "black people" and read some of your comments. You're a douche.

    ReplyDelete