How should I deal with nasty atheists?

[AuntiePinko]

Dear Auntie Pinko,

You have identified yourself as a religious person in the past, so I want to know how you think we should deal with the kind of nasty atheists who insult religion and religious people, calling God “invisible friend” and things like that? I am not a fundy and I hate what fundies are doing to real religion but it’s just as hard to have anything in common with the nasty atheists even though politically they have most of the same views I do.

How can we work together when as soon as any mention of religion or faith comes up they start talking about how evil religion is and how deluded people of faith are? I don’t talk about my faith a lot but it’s part of who I am and I don’t make fun of them for being atheists.

Andrea
Salem, OR


Dear Andrea,

Well, if your faith is Christian, you might consider turning the other cheek, although that seems to be out of favor these days. Remember that there are still states in which discrimination against atheists is legal, even institutionalized. While the latter half of the 20th Century saw a move toward greater secularization in American Society, even at the height of that trend, there remained many, many places where atheism was actively sanctioned in very negative ways. Many atheists have had very negative experiences with people of faith, and all atheists have good reason to fear the ongoing attempts to “theocrize” our government and public institutions.

But people of faith have good reason to fear those attempts as well, since we will suffer just as much if the sad, angry people whose notion of “Christianity” is subverting the Constitution to force others to conform to their beliefs prevail. Although it’s easy for some atheists to see all religion and all people of faith as equally threatening in the political sense, most do understand that not all people of faith want to live in a theocracy. And even those who have strong negative feelings about religion and faith understand that many religious folk share their views about keeping religion out of the government and public sector.

Sometimes just being aware of differences can help head off problems. You mention the ‘nasty kind’ of atheists, and I think you mean the ones who do not hesitate to express dismissive contempt for all religion and people of faith. While there is no real excuse for that kind of childish bad manners, there are mitigating factors to take into account. One is the ‘last nerve’ factor that can impel even the most even-tempered, good-natured individual to lash out when they are defending, for the X,XXXth time, an important personal belief that is integral to their identity. The well-meant assumptions by many people of faith that someone who is an atheist just “hasn’t figured it out yet,” or “doesn’t know any better,” can build to a high level of grating monotony pretty fast!

People of faith often assume that atheism is simply a ‘lack of belief’ or an unwillingness/inability to experience faith. On the contrary, atheism is a belief as richly grounded in experience and thought as any faith. Do atheists the courtesy of assuming that their belief is based on thoughtful consideration and analysis, and is as important to them as your faith is to you. They may be willing to engage in a mature discussion of their beliefs versus yours, but constantly having to defend the very existence of their belief is oppressive enough to make anyone a little snarky.

Some faiths embrace proselytization. If you believe that your faith holds the key to salvation and that making that salvation available to others is a good work demanded of you, you might feel impelled to let others know. There is a difference, however, between letting people know, and haranguing them, threatening them, lecturing them, etc. Atheists in America recognize that they live in a diverse, pluralistic society where people of faith are in the majority and they will often experience proselytization. But they do expect people of faith to take “no” for an answer, and (hopefully) quit trying.

It is equally unreasonable for atheists and people of faith to expect each other to stop being what they are. A religious person shouldn’t expect an atheist to express respect for their religious symbols and certainly not accept or tolerate them in a sphere where religion doesn’t belong (such as in a public or government institution.) An atheist, on the other hand, shouldn’t expect people of faith to refrain from expressing their faith anywhere except hidden behind closed doors to avoid offending atheists. And both should try to compromise or find middle ground in integrating the historical and cultural role of faith into the larger context of contemporary life. In other words, sometimes a cross (or a star of David, or a reverently calligraphed verse from the Q’ran, or a statue of Ganesh,) is a symbol of worship, and sometimes it’s a work of art and a representation of culture and history.

Still, just as there are rude, childish people of faith who continue to pester atheists about how they’re ‘going to hell’ or whatever, there are rude, childish atheists who have only to learn that someone is religiously devout and they start insulting religion. In a case like that, it’s perfectly alright to express your discomfort and ask them to stop, and if they don’t, to avoid them. There are plenty of atheists who don’t indulge themselves in petty displays of intellectual and philosophical one-upmanship to work with on our common ground of keeping the Constitution vibrant and protecting our faith (as well as the belief of atheists,) from the threat of theocracy. Thanks for asking Auntie Pinko, Andrea!

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[demosincebirth]

2. Good analogy.

[southpaw]

6. Bad Analogy

Shit like this is the problem!

I was raised in a fundamentalist baptist church in Alabama. I know what it means to be a 'person of faith' and I can speak from experience on the prevailing mindset and the 'nature' of christians. Have you ever been an atheist? How do you know what our 'nature' is?

Also... atheism is a 'faith' in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

[pokercat999]

21. A better analogy; I was standing at the roulette

wheel in Harrah's Atlantic City. I placed a red $5.00 chip on the red square. An old man walked up next to me and put a red chip on the black square. The ball bounced into a red number, I won, he lost. The old man then started shouting about how you should never put a red chip on a red square or it throws off the whole wheel and everyone KNEW that etc, etc obviously a very RELIGIOUS person. I knew of course that the chance of winning was about 48%....for either of us. Blind faith or superstition has no place on the roulette table nor does it have any place in reality by any sane person.

Until PROVEN different I know his religion has as much validity as any other.

[shain from kane]

22. No further proof than your reply is needed. n/t

[JAbuchan08]

30. You need to get off your high horse

"No further proof than your reply is needed"? That's a pretty self-important and smug reply that you have there yourself. Why don't you put that one back under your hat so you don't sound so pompous.

[southpaw]

106. Shain...

Reply to the question I posed above.

How can you claim to know the 'nature' of anyone, let alone a large group of diverse individuals?

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

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

[southpaw]

126. Just as I expected...

But, FYI, antagonizing athiests until they respond and then shouting 'persecution' is the definition of lame.

[and-justice-for-all]

71. All Ideaologies are open to criticism!

There is NO acception when it comes to Christiandom or any other religious believe system, there are no specal rules for addressing it nor a need to wear kids gloves for its sake. What often happens that makes Atheist look as though we are "bashing", is the fact that someone (an Atheist) is willing to stand up to these "believers". They find it surprising that someone would question their believe system, when we do they then say "We are under attack".

Christianity thinks its immune from all criticism and should not be talked about badly or ever questioned, EVER. I show it no compromise and neither should any other Atheist, Blasphmey is a victimless crime and I take full advantage of it.

Religion is a social set back and its old world function is dated; yes, religion is a social poison that needs to pass into oblivion. Those suerpstitions and tall tales do nothing thats contributial to society, it delays progress on a level that should be a crime.

Atheism is not a faith.

Please read this speech by Madalyn Murray O’Hair:
http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/atheism.html

[readmoreoften]

77. Madalyn Murray O’Hair. She's the atheist they found dismembered right?

Yeah, no prejudice in American against atheists.

[shrike]

109. O'Hair was killed for money

Or by a former employee, if memory serves me correctly.

Very bizarre case. Don't think it had much to do with atheism OR religion -- for a while there were some who even believed O'Hair engineered her own disappearance.

[erknm]

118. Interesting conclusion, but wrong

Just follow your handle and read more often. Events are not always the result of some grand conspiracy that can only be understood by folks like Oliver Stone.

O'Hair's death was a kidnapping/robbery. O'Hair was suspected of stealing over a half million dollars belonging to the American Atheist's. It was later discovered that she was kidnapped and forced to hand the money to her kidnapper, an ex-con who worked for the AA named Waters. He was captured and confessed to a lesser crime in a plea deal in exchange for taking authorities to where he disposed of the bodies of O'Hair and her kids. When he discovered how much money the group controlled, he cooked up this scheme.

[Bette Noir]

7. What the...???

Are you trying to imply that atheists are poisonous, vicious
even to the point of self destruction, or that religious
people are?  I'm not self-identifying as either, but the fable
is dangerously intolerant.

[shain from kane]

23. No further proof than your reply is needed. n/t

[Name removed]

20. Deleted sub-thread

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

[jahyarain]

140. the only thing i could find that could possibly merit deletion was...

"Do not post messages that are inflammatory, extreme, divisive, incoherent, or otherwise inappropriate."

i've not seen ANYONE follow that one. can't really have a debate if so.
and i must say, i'm nicer about my points than most, but, what the fuck ever, man.

Peace.

[Goblinmonger]

31. Your analogy is the root of the problem

So theists are helpless little frogs hopping about life and atheists are mean, evil scorpians using any possible means to kill the defenseless theist.

Give me a damn break. Deal with the plank in your own eye before coming after me.

[girl gone mad]

70. It's a sign of his or her own weak faith, nothing more.

People who have strong faith in their religious convictions do not feel threatened and intimidated by non-believers.

[Evoman]

53. Um..thats a very prejudiced response

Unless I'm not understanding something. What exactly is OUR nature? We are all rude? We are all bigots? We want to kill or convert christians? We are judgemental and make broad, sweeping assumptions about those who are not like us? I'm not getting it....will you please explain to me what my NATURE is?

[NMMNG]

64. Untrue

Claiming that anger and nastiness are the "nature" of the atheist is just as false as claiming that self-righteousness and bigotry are the "nature" of the believer.

Please put away your broad brush.

[Jamastiene]

80. I do so love how people assume that all atheists

hate all Christians. Many atheists work very closely with Christians for a better world. How exactly can one assume that something is in our nature when they don't even know us?

[NMMNG]

82. That's just it

They work from assumptions--ones that quite often are full of half-truths and outright untruths.

And you know what they say about assuming, don't you?

[Random_Australian]

66. You know, I would rather prefer it if you were more polite.

Also, I would have you bring logical arguments forward for your opinion before posting suchlike broad brushed attacks.

What is the nature of atheism, then?

[readmoreoften]

76. Thanks for calling all atheists liars and murders.

Why not just exterminate us now? Have any special opinions on gays? What about Jews? Any wisdom there?

[sinkingfeeling]

3. Auntie Pinko, as a converted-atheist, I think there are some who would

question your definition of atheism as a 'faith'. I do believe there is a spiritual side to most human beings and feel that mine is renewed by experiencing the beauty and wonder of the world. I spent my childhood regularly attending Sunday school and church (mainline, non fundamental). My ex-church was truly based on the teachings of Jesus.

However, over the years, listening to people describe their view of what heaven or hell would be like and finding no consensus on what an individual should do to obtain 'reward', I began to question the logic of it. I was flooded with doubts: why would God care about humans on a one-to-one basis? Why should he answer prayers? Why are people more interested in gaining heaven for themselves, riches on earth, or feeling superior to others, than in trying to live a Christ-like life? I just reached a point where I could no longer believe in God. I still think Jesus was a real man with powerful ideas and he tried his best to pass 'love one another' on to us. As a race, humans have failed all of their gods.

[LanternWaste]

9. oft-cited definition of 'faith'

The most oft-cited definition of 'faith' (at least in the church) is "trust in that which you do not fully understand".

That being the case, I think the word 'faith' applies equally well to both the believer and the aethiest.

[jilln]

10. But aren't you assuming there's something there to understand?

Atheists believe there is NOTHING there to understand, so that's pretty easy to fully grasp. I don't believe atheism is a "faith".

It would be interesting to see if the courts have held it up as such, since they do give religious faiths certain privileges such as special meals in jails, etc.

[LanternWaste]

13. Even a negative needs to be comprehended

Even a negative needs to be comprehended. We understand a vacuum although it is simply the absence of a thing, we comprehend darkness although it is simply an absence of light.

[jilln]

16. Is it a negative, or just an "imaginary friend"?

Assuming it's the negative still assumes it's SOMETHING.

Although I do kinda like your analogy that religion is like an absence of light ;-)

[pnwmom]

41. The OP agrees with you: "atheists believe there is nothing there to

understand."

Auntie Pinko did not use the word faith, with respect to atheists.

[Hamlette]

69. US v Seeger

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=380&invol=163

Seeger applied for conscientious objector status during Vietnam. the statute then said you could only be a CO based on your belief in god. Seeger argued that as a secular humanist he should be eligible for CO status. US supreme court agreed yet near the end of the decision there is a comment like: "however, our dedcision doesn't apply to atheists." or something like that. Been years since I read it.

We all know (except the US Supremes?) that secular humanists are....atheists. Maybe the court thought not all atheists are not secular humainist? They don't elaborate. They just say their decision doesn't deal with atheists, just people who don't believe in god but do identify themselves as secular humanists.

[RealAle]

92. faith

I am an atheist. I have faith. Let me explain.

Theist have faith in things they can't explain or are not logical, such as someone rising from the dead. Atheist, and scientists, have faith too. It's faith in what we observe and base our conclusions on are always going to be the same.

If a stone is dropped a million times it falls to the earth. We then can do various experiments until we have the theory of gravity to explain why the stone drops. BUT! But we have no real assurance that the next time we drop the stone it falls. We have faith that is will because we have observed it many times and the laws of physics can explain it.

I have been an atheist since my teens and I'm 53. I'm amazed that in 2006 religion is playing such a major, and destructive part in our world. 30 years ago I envisioned a more enlightened world. Before all those "of faith" get all up in arms think about it. We have King George, the Ignorant, basing his policy on his fundamental religion. We have the middle east a mess as well Iraq in a civil war and all based on whose imaginary friend can beat up the other guys imaginary friend. The Scopes monkey trial was in 1925 and schools are still fighting to teach real science versus ID!

A world without religion would be a better place. There would be fewer wars, the science and technology would make people's lives better and there would be far less hate and bigotry.

[jahyarain]

129. welcome to DU!

very thoughtful first post! :hi:

[cyborg_jim]

137. No faith

We have faith that is will because we have observed it many times and the laws of physics can explain it.

No, you have evidence that it will based on the observations you made before. To have faith would require you to simply assume that it would be true without having any evidence for it.

Faith is belief without evidence. When you have evidence it is no longer faith, it is fact. You do not need to remain faithful that the laws of physics remain constant. If they change you can always get new evidence to see the new chain of causality. We have never observed a change so do we really need to ave faith that it won't change? No, we just go on what we have observed.

The word faith has very particular semantics when used in religious context. It requires belief without evidence. It is the very opposite of what you describe.

[goondogger]

14. Ummm, no

I may not "understand" all the intricacies of how a light bulb works or an airplane flies or the mechanism of evolution, but there is supporting evidence, corrabotation, repeatability (every time I flick the switch the light comes on) and the ability for me to understand (i.e. I can get a book on the subject, experiment, etc.).

Faith, on the other hand, is belief without (or even despite) evidence. It is the *opposite* of reason and understanding.

In fact, it is the very concept that divinity is ultimately unknowable that creates the need for the believer to have faith. Such a tidy system:

Theist: Believe this.
Atheist: How do I know it's there?
Theist: You can't. You just have to believe.
Atheist:

......................................__................................................
.............................,-~*`¯lllllll`*~,..........................................
.......................,-~*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll¯`*-,....................................
..................,-~*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll*-,..................................
...............,-*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll.\.................................
.............;*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll,-~*~-,llllllllllllllllllll\................................
..............\lllllllllllllllllllllllllll/.........\;;;;llllllllllll,-`~-,...........................
...............\lllllllllllllllllllll,-*...........`~-~-,...(.(¯`*,`,..........................
................\llllllllllll,-~*.....................)_-\..*`*;..)..........................
.................\,-*`¯,*`)............,-~*`~................/.....................
..................|/.../.../~,......-~*,-~*`;................/.\..................
................./.../.../.../..,-,..*~,.`*~*................*...\.................
................|.../.../.../.*`...\...........................)....)¯`~,..................
................|./.../..../.......)......,.)`*~-,............/....|..)...`~-,.............
..............././.../...,*`-,.....`-,...*`....,---......\..../...../..|.........¯```*~-,,,,
...............(..........)`*~-,....`*`.,-~*.,-*......|.../..../.../............\........
................*-,.......`*-,...`~,..``.,,,-*..........|.,*...,*...|..............\........
...................*,.........`-,...)-,..............,-*`...,-*....(`-,............\.......
......................f`-,.........`-,/...*-,___,,-~*....,-*......|...`-,..........\........

And, to AP, atheism *is* indeed simply a lack of belief (a- without, theism- belief in divinity). If being without belief is having a belief, then being unemployed is a career (although * may work that into the next jobs report).

[valerief]

39. Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.

--Napoleon

Great picture.

[dunn]

131. Faith is borrowed from the outside. Trust, is something from within.

I like what John Hogue said about faith:
"Faith and Trust aren't the same thing. Faith is borrowed from the outside. We are trained to have faith in this or that. Trust, however, is something from within. It is a force, and expression of our consciousness and innate love. It needs no one to be trustworthy of its trust. It can even trust the unknowable. Trust gives wings to the soul's flight through
pathless awareness of its being. "

[abester]

34. Indeed, and it is time to move to something greater

and more noble than we have been before. It is time we put aside our petty little differences and become gods ourselves!

[pnwmom]

35. She didn't say that atheism was a faith. She said that atheism was

a belief "grounded in experience and thought."

[pnwmom]

42. self-delete (dupe)

[RethugAssKicker]

4. Excellent !

[adamuu]

5. Perfect.

I'm an atheist. Auntie Pinko, you've just described exactly how I feel. You tell it like it is.
Thank you.

[man4allcats]

8. There really is no excuse for rudeness either from

people of faith or from atheists. As per the question; however, if one does encounter a nasty or rude atheist, one could simply do what is often done when dealing with obnoxious, childish individuals:

Tell 'em to go to hell. :evilgrin:

[galileo3000]

11. Auntie Pinko is The reason I joined DU

I always have appreciated the calm, conscientious tone within your replies. You are a source of strength to which others can gravitate. Even when I don't agree with you, I respect you.
- galileo

[mrreowwr_kittty]

12. And where does this person encounter all those 'nasty' atheists?

Most of us are reluctant to publicly admit it due to the flack we've learned we'll get. When people trash atheists it annoys me and sometimes scares me (because non-believers have been targets of violence and harassment) but it doesn't hurt my feelings. I don't give a shit that religious people think I'm wrong or going to hell or whatever. And I don't see why they give a shit what I think of them. If you're right and we're wrong, what difference does it make what we say about you?

I can only surmise that the writer is referring to things like blogs as sources of the grievous insults. That's where you'll see the 'invisible friend' stuff. The reason for that is that the Internet provides us with a safer forum to express our disenchantment with the religiosity of society than most other occasions. Stay out of web forums, particularly lefty political ones, if you are so thin-skinned about your faith. DU has an ignore function. Use it.

[CrispyQ]

17. I remember working for a woman who was appalled

when she discovered her boss was an atheist. She carried on & on about what a shock it was to her to discover this. I asked her why it mattered & she responded, "I'm just not comfortable working for someone who doesn't believe in G-d." Absolutely no logic expressed, no negative experiences with the guy, just emotional reaction to his lack of belief. Needless to say, I did not offer her my own atheist views!

[LittleOne]

103. I worked with her sister...

She was freaked because myself and the Wiccan receptionist had "tools of divination" at the office. The receptionist had a pendulum and I had a meditation book. There was no talking to this poor woman bless her heart.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

18. In person occasionally

Very occasionally, but when they're nasty, they're nasty.

I once spoke to a man at a political gathering who exemplified the nasty type.

His crusade in life was convincing people that all religion is stupid. He was also very left and an advocate for many worthy causes.

I remarked that he'd never convert masses of people to his political views if they thought that they'd have to give up their religious beliefs to do so, if they thought that you couldn't be a leftist without being an atheist (an impression that the right wingers like to promote).

He was vehement in that he'd rather alienate people from left-wing politics than give up his insistence that all religion is stupid.

Thanks, I thought. Nothing like reinforcing a right-wing stereotype.

A rare example. but they do exist. He was the only such example I have met in person.

The other example, far more numerous, is the type of DUer who bursts into any thread in any forum that discusses religion and starts making snide comments about "leprechauns" and "tooth fairies." They are also rare examples, but they exist.

I have no problem with the type of atheist whose understanding of religion doesn't come entirely from growing up in a fundie family or from sometimes historically inaccurate atheist websites.

[PurpleChez]

24. It's not necessarily in blogs. I've known people first-hand...

who were good friends, good people, but who were just ob-frickin'-noxious when it came to their atheism. They were at least as condescending, in your face, judgemental, etc., as the unbearable fundies and thumpers we all vent about here at DU. Perhaps their most aggravating trait was that they demanded unlimited tolerance from others, while offering little-to-none themselves. I remember most vividly one of my oldest & best friends, and his (then) long-time girlfriend. They used to fantasize about "losing control" of their car and killing pro-life supporters. A newspaper article mentioning that organizers of the county fair were "praying" for good weather sent them into fits. They condemned the tackiness of Christmas lights as proof of the evils of Christianity -- as we drove to the mall so they could buy each other Christmas presents. My friend has mellowed in the years since then, although he has remained true to his beliefs. His girlfriend left the picture some years ago. The point is...just as there are Christians whose certainty in their faith makes them into royal pains in the ass there are also atheists whose certainty makes them into assholes. Both groups might be a small minority, but they are vocal minorities, and they are equally annoying.

[TankLV]

44. My own personal experience is that the obnoxious relilgious are all too

familiar and widespread, from the government to the airwaves, while the so-called obnoxious atheists are almost invisible.

In fact, I've never met such an avowed athiest, but regularly encounter obnoxious self-proclaimed "religious" persons everywhere.

I'm sure obnoxious athiests exist, but I rarely, if ever, have encountered one.

Most of the religious persons I know personally, from friends, to family and coworkers, are wonderful people, are would never be in the same universe as that defined by the word "obnoxious".

I consider myself a person of faith, and am not hardly an atheist, but I am no longer "catholic" in the present sence, altho it is a big part of my heritage (Ukrainian Catholic - Easter Rite Church and all that).

Unfortunately, all of the obnoxious persons I have ever know are religious persons I don't know - the hypocrits in government, on TV and in the news.

[PurpleChez]

49. Certainly, there ARE many more obnoxious religious folks than there are

obnoxious atheists, if only because there are many more religious people than athiests. As for the obnoxious atheists I mentioned -- I've only ever met a few myself, most are all members of the same family, and they're some of my best friends. Very best. The obnoxiousness was annoying at times, but it was never anything that stood in the way of friendship.

[readmoreoften]

87. And the religious right is larger than the religious left.

So the number of nice Christians who are kind to atheists is way lower than you think. I think atheists would be less "obnoxious" if fundamentalists weren't so rabid these days. Atheists are bombarded with proselytizing and assaults on the things they often do believe in: science education, a woman's right to choose, and-- if they're progressive-- assaults on gay and lesbian people. I think the reaction, usually in the younger folks, is to attack because they've been so attacked themselves.

Also, rabid Christians tend to feel victimized when people deny their evangelical designs on them. When the fundamentalist says, "Hey, come fight abortion, save our families from the gays, and get raptured with me!" a part of him is saying "hey! be my friend!". When an atheist says no or disagrees, I think they feel jilted.

I think that when the religious left takes over again (oh how I don't pray) then all of the rabid arguments will go away. My most vicious atheist friends have nothing at all against nice christians who care about progressive issues-- they've just never really met any because there are so many right wing cultists.

[PegDAC]

51. Exactly.

I've encountered far more obnoxious religious proselytizers than obnoxious atheists. I figure that if someone needs a "god" to get them through life, that's their thing, but I constantly have people, when I identify myself as an atheist, attempt to tell me how deluded I am and shove their religion down my throat.

[Jo March]

110. Well, sometimes we run into nastiness right here at DU

Like this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1724646&mesg_id=1724671

Calling believers "irrational fools" is what I'd consider nasty.

I've read posts here on DU where Christians are called idiots, fools or crazy people. I've read where God is referred to as the Invisable Cloud Monster and compared to the tooth fairy and Santa Claus. Not very tolerant.

One particularly nasty post stated that believers were mentally ill for believing.

Yes, Ignore is my friend, but I'd like the same tolerance for my beliefs as I show to others.

The left should be a big tent that includes everyone. I have friends who have all sorts of beliefs and no beliefs at all. My "irrational" religion teaches me to love everyone equally, as much as I love myself.

[jilln]

114. You are of course right that your beliefs deserve tolerance... until

actions start to affect others. Believe whatever you want, but don't push it into my life.

In this country, those of us who do not believe in God are termed "nonbelievers", an automatic negative. Then we are made to use money which mentions God, recite the pledge which mentions God, wait for prayers to be over at ball games, etc., and lately even use our tax money to support "faith-based initiatives". Remember the blue laws, which stated that certain items could not be bought on Sundays because apparently they went against the "day of rest"??? When a person can't buy a toothbrush on a Sunday because religious people think that's wrong, it's a huge problem which should not be tolerated.

Obviously you personally are not responsible for all this, and also obviously religions have been the root of much good in the world, but they have also been the root of a lot of suffering and if anyone is NOT tolerated, it is us "nonbelievers". We get religion thrown at us every day.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

120. Excellent points

I find that many people are oblivious to the way that religion and religious symbolism permeates the civic and cultural environment. I started noticing it much more when I became more comfortable admitting my atheism. Plus, those Blue Laws still exist in many places and there are efforts in state legislatures all over the country currently to pass laws based on religion. Contrary to what the religious right would have everyone believe, the vast majority of nonbelievers silently acquiesce to this endless promotion of religion.

[jilln]

127. Right, and I forgot to mention holidays...

which even when called "winter break" or whatever, are centered around Christmas and Easter.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

130. That is another irritation with me

Holidays! Bleech....:puke: I'm single, my parents are dead, I've got no children, and I work an unusual type of shift where I get what they call floating holidays rather than the regular ones. Most holidays I'm at work. All they mean to me is that I better make sure I got groceries the day before or I won't have anything to eat because everything's closed. The only ones I like are Halloween and New Year's Eve because they involve drinking and goofy clothing. You can shitcan the rest of them for all I care. I say we should all get 6 weeks vacation like they do in Europe and take it when we damn well please.

[jilln]

133. HAHAHA!

You made me laugh.

I "celebrate" Xmas and Easter just cuz it's nice to get candy ;-) I'm single too, but when you have someone special to make up an Easter basket for, it's fun. And my dogs each have their own Xmas stocking!

And yeah, I'll take the 6 weeks anytime. Or even better, retirement at 40 for everyone!

[Jo March]

123. Oh, I agree. No one should force their religion on anyone

That includes the folks who witness at my door and will not leave even after I've told them that I am a Christian and have my own church. They continue to try to come into the house and insist that their religion is the "only" way. So, I get a little glimpse into what atheists deal with on a daily basis from overzealous believers.

I think that tolerance is needed - from all sides. Tolerance and love - :loveya:

[mayfire62]

15. Great advice Auntie

Although there is NEVER an excuse for rude behavior I understand some of my fellow atheist's ire after being subject to wholesale venom from those proclaiming religious supremacy. As an atheist, my militancy focuses solely on the separation of church & state. Keep religion out of my govt and I'll keep my atheism out of your church :).
Stay strong people!
M_A

[byronius]

19. I'm an agnostic -- but I have NEVER EVER met an atheist...

of whom I have known many, who acted like that. I would never act like that. UNLESS -- some guy was hammering me, and I was 'under stress', as you stated. Then, I might react with sarcasm. But -- 'problem atheists'? I could see 'damaged atheists', certainly. And you know what? Take the experience of believers throughout history, and compare it to the experience of atheists -- maybe I do have a right, somewhat, to mock a belief that would torture and burn me alive for heresy.

Atheists wouldn't ever do that. No reason. No 'invisible friend' to direct the punishment, or provide the reasoning for such. Truly, the darkest feeling I have toward even the most fundamentalist of Religiousiters is fear. To allow that to blossom into active harassment would be anti-atheist. Atheists are supposed to face fear, not smother it in hostility or vent it with rage-speech. Reason. It's all about the REASON.

[PurpleChez]

26. "Atheists wouldn't ever do that" -- MY ASS!!!

How many tens or hundreds of millions of lives have been destroyed in the name of officially-atheistic Communism over the last 100 years? Stalin alone killed, what -- 20,000,000? And let's not forget Naziism -- while some Nazis held strong pagan/occult beliefs, the movement was, largely, a non-religious or anti-religious movement.

I'm not an apologist for organized religion. I'm Unaffiliated, with leanings toward Buddhism. There are many valid criticisms to be made of Christianity, but the whole "how many have died in the name of religion" bit has more to do with emotion than with history.

[cyborg_jim]

28. RE: "Atheists wouldn't ever do that" -- MY ASS!!!

Neither Nazis nor Communists killed in the name of non-belief. Such a thing does not make any sense. The common thread is fanaticism to a philosophy, of which being theistic or not is largely irrelevant. What is required is a strong emotional component which can override any semblance of rationality. Atheism is entirely without emotional connotation so it is not really possible to achieve this. Whipping up anger towards those who offend our gods or who exploited our labour is certainly possible though.

If you want people to carry out atrocities you do not try to persuade them, you try to emote them. The Nazi regime certainly understood this lesson well. Muslims do not become suicide bombers for rational reasons. America did not war with Iraq on the strength of evidence. People were emotionally, not intellectually, persuaded in this cases.

[PurpleChez]

45. Nazis and Communists most certainly did kill in the name of non-belief

although it was non-belief in Naziism and Communism, rather than non-belief in a given deity or religious philosophy. Religious movements have oppressed and exploited those who disagreed with their religious views, political movements have oppressed and exploited those who disagreed with their political views, etc. I'm afraid we're never gonna run short on imagined excuses to hurt one another. I agree whole-heartedly with most of what you said, it's just that I see the various instances of religious intollerance through the ages as a means toward an end of political power, and I am aware that other means have been used toward that same end. Which doesn't excuse any of it, of course. Not by a long shot.

[readmoreoften]

78. Nazis were absolutely Christian. Communists definitely had beliefs.

They believed in the supremecy of the state. You can be an atheist without being a communist just like you can be a christian without being a Nazi.

[PurpleChez]

83. Which nazis?

As I wrote, my reading on the matter has been that the nazi leadership (as opposed to German citizens who were not party members) were contemptuous of Christianity and gravitated toward pagan/occult practices. Hitler trashed Christianity as a religion for weaklings. If there were members of the leadership who were in fact practicing Christians (not just who used Christianity to manipulate citizens) I would genuinely like to hear about it. I'm a geek for the History Channel.

I don't understand the rest of your message. After "Nazis were absolutely Christian" nothing that you say seems to apply to my post. Of course communists had beliefs. I never said they didn't, and 'belief' doesn't equal 'religion.' You can't say Stalin was yet another RELIGIOUS wacko because he 'believed' in totalitarianism. And I also said nothing to deny that "You can be an atheist without being a communist just like you can be a christian without being a Nazi". Because you can. I don't understand the reason for that comment.

[readmoreoften]

86. On Nazism & Christianity from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism_and_religion

"Nazism and Christianity

Hitler and other Nazi leaders clearly made use of both Christian and Pagan symbolism and emotion in propagandizing the Germanic public, and it remains a matter of controversy whether Hitler believed himself a Christian, a heathen, or something else entirely. Some historians have typified Hitler as a Satanist or occultist, whereas other writers have referred to Nazism's occasional outward use of Christian doctrine, regardless of what its inner-party mythology may have been. The existence of a Ministry of Church Affairs, instituted in 1935 and headed by Hanns Kerrl, was hardly recognized by ideologists such as Alfred Rosenberg or by other political decision-makers.

Many Christians believed Nazism to be a Christian movement.<1> Even in the later years of the Third Reich, many Protestant and Catholic clergy persisted in believing that Nazism was in its essence in accordance with Christian precepts.<1>"


The difference is, there are Christians who kill for Christianity. There are no atheists who kill for atheism. There are Statists who kill for state power who may or may not be atheists, but it is disingenuous to link atheism with the holocaust and communist state suppression. The USSR and China suppressed religion because it interfered with state power. Cuba is a communist country with 5 million practicing Catholics. It's not about the religion, it's about the totalitarian regime.

I don't care if the Nazi leadership used Christianity to manipulate the population or if they "authentically believed" what they believed, no more than I care about the authenticity of GWB's beliefs.

[PurpleChez]

90. You can't have it both ways...

You can't state unequivocally "Nazis were absolutely Christian," and then when you unearth information to the contrary, offer up the revision, "I don't care if the Nazi leadership used Christianity to manipulate the population (but were not themselves believers)." Well...I guess you can...but it's shady. Instead of acknowleging a error, you said that it didn't matter. I mean, if a Freeper did that we'd flip out. If Rumsfeld did that we'd all have aneurisms. Your may be correct that "there are Christians who kill for Christianity. There are no atheists who kill for atheism," but my point (sorry if I didn't make it clearer) was that, even though I am not a traditionally religious person myself, I have little patience with the freshman-philosophy-major view that religion is the great source of evil in the world. My point is that people, like Stalin and Mao and too many others, have managed to bring about untold suffering without invoking God, and that we need to be very mindful of the distinction that you so easily dismissed above -- is religion itself the great evil, or is it "just" one of many tools abused by evil men in search of power?

[readmoreoften]

125. Well it's definitely true that states can create suffering w/o God.

I wholeheartedly agree with you on that point.

I'm not so sure that it's a freshman-philosophy major view that religion is a great source of evil in the world. Maybe if it was said to be the ONLY source of evil in the world. But many very intelligent people hold the viewpoint that religion is a great evil in the world. Sam Harris just wrote a book called "The End of Faith" that contends just that (the 1st half of the book is fairly compelling, the second half...eh). And I believe that he is a neuroscientist and ethicist. Not so much a freshman. That is not to say that a spiritual sense of the world is "evil", but that adherence to strict doctrines authorized by invisible beings who can't speak for themselves to correct their intent can most certainly cause atrocities. Especially when part of the doctrine is the conversion of your doctrinal enemies.

About "Nazis were christian", you're right I did blurt out that statement with less nuance than I would have liked. What I should have said is that Nazism was in many ways a Christian phenomenon and most certainly a spiritualist phenomenon. The point was that it was in no way an "atheist" phenomenon. Communism is a more complicated case. Two major communist regimes suppressed religion because it would rival state power. If atheists were standing up to the regimes as, say, existentialists or phenomenologists who challenged the Communist semi-divine reverence for "the worker" or "the party", these atheists would have also been slaughtered. Kim Jong Il isn't killing people because they believe in God. He's killing people because they don't believe in Kim Jong Il.

I'm only arguing these points because the notion that Nazi Germany and Communism-- the two biggest atrocities of the 20th c.-- were the result of "atheism" or a population failing to believe in God is an inaccurate and dangerous meme that fundamentalists use to spread their manure and harrass and kill non-believers.

[Prophet 451]

97. Hitler's beliefs are complicated

"Hitler trashed Christianity as a religion for weaklings."

Yep but in other places (notably Mein Kampf), he praises Christianity and he made many public comments to the effect that he considered himself a Christian (specifically, a Catholic, I think). Whether he was entirely manipulative, self-deluding or genuinely believed it is still an open question. I tend to go for teh "manipulative" answer.

[PurpleChez]

102. I think he was at least born and/or raised catholic...

...I seem to remember creepy pix of him in frilly altar boy garb. As you say, his positions as an adult become more complex, and it is very difficult to separate what he believed from what he used as a political tool.

[and-justice-for-all]

72. Isnt that Hypnosis?

Here is a nice list of Atheist "celeberty" types...
http://www.nndb.com/lists/282/000069075/

I only seen on Dictator on the list, Stalin. But I dont think his atrocities compare to those that were done in the name of "faith".

[RaleighNCDUer]

115. Actually, there are a couple more there --

Lenin, Castro, Mobutu were all listed, as were wannabes Rockwell and Metzger, but in essence it changes nothing, for what they may have done, or may wish to do, is not hinged on their atheism, but on their political/power base. And, as noted elsewhere, huge numbers of their followers were not atheists - Cuba is still a very Catholic country, the American Nazis depend heavily on RW Christians, etc.

[byronius]

29. Point sorta taken. However --

Stalinism and Nazisms were both State Religions -- the religious worship of the state and its leaders. I would define atheism as the absence of any such doctrine. Maybe it doesn't make sense to you -- but, I maintain, an atheistic Stalinite is no 'atheist'. Bad Religion by any other name would smell as stinkified.

Conversely, my grandmother was the finest argument for Christianity ever. Loved everyone, fed the poor off her back porch, helped everyone -- and never, ever, discussed her belief, at least until she got stoned with me one day in my twenties. It was all about 'walking in the garden', and 'loving people' -- not a hint of political or dogmatic imposition. I think most Christians are like this. I think most atheists, at least the ones I've met, think that most Christians are O.K. -- it's an extremely porous reality structure. Whatever gets you through the night -- as long as you don't constantly try to kill every living thing to satisfy some nutty prophecy interpretation. And I have met those Christians. Lemme tell ya.

Another good argument for Christianity?


Al Gore.

[PurpleChez]

43. I loved your example of Al Gore --

Just a week or so ago I replied to a post in which someone had broadly invoked the "imaginary sky daddy" label against religious people. I pointed out that the man whose picture he used as his avatar -- Al Gore -- was, by all accounts, a firm believer in such an imaginary sky daddy, as is/was Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, most of the Kennedys, and just about every major figure from the civil rights movement.

However, your exemption (for lack of a better word on my part) for Stalinism leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It DOES make sense to me, but I don't buy it. Just as you can say "an atheistic Stalinite is no 'atheist'" a Christian (of a left-wing bent) could say "a Christian gay-basher (or whatever) is no Christian" -- stating his belief that gay-bashing is contrary to Christian teaching, and therefore the intolerance carried out in the name of Christ wasn't really being carried out in the name of Christ. Just as you can redefine soviet communism as a religion, one could redefine the anti-gay marriage crusade as a political, rather than a religious, movement. But I think both miss the point. In my mind, the inquisitions of past centuries, as well as the right-wing family values crusades in today's US, are not about religion so much as they are about people trying to obtain or maintain power, and using whatever means were on hand to achieve that end -- be it religion, economics, bombs, or whatever. As I said in another post in this thread, I am not an apologist for organized religion -- my own sympathies are along the lines of Buddhism, which is sometimes described (not necessarily by me) as athiestic. And yet I cringe at the implication at the heart of many of the "killed in the name of religion" arguments -- that if there were no religion there would be so much less evil and suffering in the world. We are a painfully imperfect species, and if we didn't have religion as an excuse to hurt and exploit one another we have already found plenty of others.

Your own comments, particularly about your Grandmother, show that you have a clear, open mind on the subject, and I appreciated your response, even the parts I didn't agree with!

[cyborg_jim]

136. Not the problem

Just as you can say "an atheistic Stalinite is no 'atheist'" a Christian (of a left-wing bent) could say "a Christian gay-basher (or whatever) is no Christian" -

It's not analogous.

Atheism says nothing about anything other than the subject of gods. The problem I have when people pull out the old, 'number of people killed by some nasty atheist' factoids is that being an athiest says very little about you whilst being a Christian gives one quite a lot to infer. (I'll leave the Christians to argue amoungst themselves about who the true ones are.)

The fact of Stalin's atheism is not the problem - it's that I'm being associated with a man whom I share very little in common with apart from not having a god to worship.

[PurpleChez]

62. Another reason I liked your response....

So many of the other responses to the original message either sought to deny that there WERE any obnoxious atheists in the world (hey..it's a big world...there's obnoxious EVERYTHING out there somewhere!), or they seemed to suggest that obnoxious atheists were justified by the presence of obnoxious christians. In other words: YOU STARTED IT!!! Not terribly mature. But I really appreciated that you seemed to say that you can see the good and the not-so-good in both/all sides. Much more understanding than judgement. Thanks.

[springhill]

73. I am sure there are athiests who are like that......

however, I find it hard to believe they come anywhere close to the number of religious people who cram it down your throat that you are on the wrong side of the issue. Truthfully, I think most athiests and agnostics, for that matter, such as myself, are afraid to admit their beliefs for fear of the kind of reaction they will get.

[PurpleChez]

85. I agree. But they ARE out there! :)

[Goblinmonger]

32. Couple things

1. Neither of your examples killed in the name of non-belief.
2. A vast majority of Stalin's deaths were from resource problems and mismanagement (which isn't an atheistic problem) of the ecomony.
3. Very strong arguements that Hitler was a CHristian and did what he did to punish the people that killed his savior.

[PurpleChez]

47. Couple things back at ya

on point 1: I would argue that communism (at least the marxist/leninist/stalinist/maoist versions that have been put into real-world practice) and naziism most certainly did kill in the name of non-belief, albeit non-belief in their particular political/belief systems. However, I understand your point respect the gist of it.

on point 2: You are correct. Which is not to say that his and other regimes have not killed millions in the name of ideology (religious or non-religious). Nonetheless, I stand corrected. Modified, at least ;)

on point 3: there are also very strong arguments that Hitler detested Christianity as weak and self-destructive (the whole "turn the other cheek" thing), and that much of his politics, including his scapegoating of Jews and other groups, grew out of ancient Germanic notions of "übermenschen" and "untermenschen" which operated totally independent of any Christian deicide charge. But which members of the regime actually held these beliefs as a sort of religious faith and which simply jumped on the bandwagon is sometimes unclear.

[Goblinmonger]

60. I would certainly agree

that Hitler's view of "christianity" is much different than what we think of it as. From what I have read, Hitler believed that Jesus was NOT a Jew and his message was changed by Paul and other Jews which pissed Hitler off greatly.

[noobie2]

52. Gott Mit Uns

http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance26.html

As far as I know, Stalin didn't kill in the name of atheism. Nazis did believe in Christianity and more importantly, believed they were doing God's work by killing off the Jews. Martin Luther was very anti-semitic and as you may know the father of Lutheranism, the majority faith in Germany.

[PurpleChez]

59. I'm a lapsed Lutheran and well aware that Brother Martin

was quite the anti-Semite. (He also advocated the use of farts to repel the devil!) Stalin may not have killed in the name of atheism, but he did kill in the name of ideology; he did kill because others opposed or did not hold his (political) ideology, as religious zealots have killed/oppressed/exploited others who opposed their (religious) ideology. There are distinctions but also many similarities between the two, and my thinking is that it's not so much about Christianity or communism or zoroastrianism as it is about powerful people maintaining power by all means available, often including the exploitation of religion.

But did Nazis (as opposed to Germans) believe in Christianity, or did they simply exploit it to manipulate a largely christian population? Hitler spoke with great contempt about christianity and considered it to be a religion of weaklings, and many of the Nazis held (or claimed to hold) beliefs that grew out of pagan Germanic mythology, and which marginalized Jews (and others) as üntermenschen (sub-human) without recourse to a christian deicide charge.

[noobie2]

65. I find it no different than what is happening today with Bush.

I find it no different than what is happening today with Bush. Bush whether he actually is Christian or not uses a "Christian" message to gain political support. The problem is that it works. Many clergy do follow and believe in Bush. In theis case it is no different than what happened in Nazi Germany. I can not know for sure if Hitler really was a Christian, but he was able to mobilize the Germans through the use of religion and it worked.



"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited."

-Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922


He sounds like he identifies himself as a Christian. Mind you, this is not the only quote I can dig up.

[PurpleChez]

84. Neither do I. As I typed the lines about nazis using a religion they

didn't necessarily believe in in order to manipulate citizens I too thought immediately of Bush. But it was getting late and that was a whole new topic of its own.

[markbark]

96. Hey!

Hey! I got mittens too!
:P

--MAB

[Prophet 451]

99. Means nothing

Find an army in the entirety of human history which marched to war believing God was against them.

[NMMNG]

67. Always somebody has to pull out the Stalin card

While Stalin was an atheist he did not do his acts in the name of atheism. He did not do them because his lack of belief told him to. He did them because of his political and power aspirations. Getting rid of religion in his country was just part of the plan.

If the people of a nation give any of their allegiance to a deity then they are not giving all of their allegiance to the State. In fact, many people who are religious put their God above anything else. This is unacceptable to a totalitarian ruler. Therefore religion must be stamped out so that there is nothing but the State for people to devote themselves to.

It wasn't atheism, it was power and politics.

[PurpleChez]

91. Actually, I agree completely...

But I would add that, just as you state (correctly) that "It wasn't atheism, it was power and politics" a Christian could quite legitimately make similar distinctions in regard to the Crusades or the Inquisition. I'm not saying that I'd agree with it, but....

[muriel_volestrangler]

94. I think a Christian making those distinctions would be wrong

The Crusades and Inquisition both had specific religious causes (though the Crusades may have later turned into a pure fight of power and politics). More analogous to Stalin's acts might be European colonisation and slavery - while these were Christian countries doing things to non-Christian countries, they weren't caused by Christianity - though people tried to get Christianity to sanction them.

[PurpleChez]

100. as my "but..." might have suggested, I agree

at least in part. Although I do think that one could argue that the crusades were as much -- if not more -- about power that they were about God. How many times did the kings of Europe use the excuse of the crusades to stick it to each other? On the whole, though, you are right. I just think that, in general, we have to be careful about even the appearance of a double standard that could give ammunition to the other side.

[Prophet 451]

101. They'd be wrong

The Inquisitions (there were four general Inquisitions covering different areas and eras) were specifically set up for a religious purpose: the surpression of heresy. I won't argue that they became a tool of power and politics (the Spanish Inquisition especially ended up as virtually the monarch's secret police) but their stated purpose at their inception was the surpression of heresy and they were pretty brutal about it from the beginning.

The Crusades are slightly different. Discounting the Albignesian Crusade (which was to surpress the Cathar heresy in southern France), there was a confluence of forces there. Religion was a part of it but so was power and politics and so was control of the lucrative trade routes. It's a matter of debate which cause mattered more to which figure. The Popes were probably more interested in the religious angle, the various monarchs who supported them probably had a mixture of interests, the peasentry who signed on certainly had a mixture of interests, including monetary gain in the later stages (when a Crusader was offered booty, land and so on (very few actually received anything) and eventually, the right to plead "benefit of clergy" which meant they were entitled to extremely leinient treatment if convicted of a crime).

[PurpleChez]

112. Excellent Crusades info! Yowza.

My only question would have to do with your statement that "the Popes were probably more interested in the religious angle," as there have been significant periods in which the popes were notoriously irreligious, some even denounced as atheists (although perhaps by folks who were pissed that THEY weren't the pope). But I am still impressed by your observations.

[Prophet 451]

113. It's my pet subject

Like most people interested in history, I have preferred areas. One of mine is religious history.

Some of the Popes were hugely irreligious (the Medicii's actually engineered the election of a puppet Pope at one point) but I try to temper my observations to avoid offending Catholics, the majority of whom are decent people.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

132. He did try to enforce atheism in the Soviet Union, though,

letting up only when he decided that he needed the support of religious people to defeat the Nazis.

Churches were shut down, converted to secular uses, or outright demolished, clergy were imprisoned, no one under 18 was allowed to attend religious services, and being known to practice a religion was bad for one's career, to the extent that some religious people, who could have passed university entrance exams and taken prestigious jobs, chose to take blue collar jobs where no one cared what they did in their off time. Religious music could not be performed in public concerts. The number of religious books published and the number of seminary students was strictly limited, and was far below demand. Atheists were encouraged to urge people to adopt their worldview (there were what amounted to "missionary organizations"), while religious people were forbidden to do so on pain of imprisonment. Clergy of many religions were imprisoned just because.

This was true whether the religion in question was Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, or one of the dozens of indigenous belief systems practiced by the USSR's 150 ethnic groups.

For someone who had no atheistic motivations, Stalin sure put a lot of effort into promoting it. I'm not saying that it was his primary motivation, or that he was a typical atheist, but it was certainly one of his motivations, or he would not have insisted on everyone else agreeing with him.

(This information is from a 1975 book Anti-Religious Propaganda in the Soviet Union: A Study in Mass Persuasion--now out of print)

[girl gone mad]

75. The Nazis were praciticing Christians.

They used religious symbolism, prayed to Jesus and even entered into a concordat (union of wills) with the Catholic church. To say that they were atheists is simply revisionist history.

I also do not think that Stalin killed in the name of non-belief. There are a myriad of complex issues surrounding the genocide, but suffice it to say Stalin did not round people up and execute them as a means of promoting atheism. Stalin killed political opponents, and he was an equal opportunity murderer, killing atheists right alongside Christians and Jews.

I do, however, agree with your point that blaming mass murder on religious belief is simplistic. It is clear that religion can be exploited by the power-mad, whether or not they themselves are true believers. So can patriotic fervor or racial predjudice. Hitler effectively exploited all three.

[catbert836]

128. Hah!

Communist leaders such as Stalin did not kill in the name of atheism. They killed in the name of themselves and their own glory. In addition, Hitler was not an atheist in any sense, he was Catholic, and said so many times- and the NSDAP as a whole was Christian as well.

[pnwmom]

37. I've never met that kind of atheist in person, either,

but have run into those kinds of posts a lot on DU -- the ones that jump in on religious discussions with taunts about Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, leprachauns, etc.

[Random_Australian]

63. pnwmom, if you would not mind stirring the pot, I would like that.

Unless of course it has been starting up again since it was stopped some months ago, I would take it kindly if you, y'know, didn't drag that up again.

Do I drag up the "atheists are mentally ill" comment all the time? Nooooooo.

Thanks.

Knew you'd understand.

But yes, saying that people taunt is fair enough. Invoking the Santa analagy wasn't, IMO.

And yes, in summary, I will agree that you get that a bit on DU.

Just trying to make peace. If I have given offense, for (xyz)'s sake let's talk it over calmly first.

[Prophet 451]

95. They are out there

I've met a few of 'em. Athiest or believer, some people are just jerks.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

121. Fear

You got that exactly right. Rabid fundamentalists scare me out of my socks.

[Demeter]

25. NASTY ATHEISTS!!!!

Judge not, lest you be judged....etc etc.

I love throwing the Bible at the unChristians.

[greiner3]

27. The idea of an all powerful being;

Is as foreign as a concept to me as a dog matriculating to Harvard. I have a strong 'right vs wrong' conceptualization. Partly based on the supposed 'christian' ideal of The Golden Rule concept. I treat people and objects with respect because it pleases me.

I find christians, for the most part especially fundies, do good things because they expect rewards. These take on the forms of salvation, blessings, etc... Fundies believe that they were chosen by their god and therefore anything they do is the right thing. What a dangerous concept. I knew from spending years in the southern states that not only do some of them follow a secret bible, but they believe that it's not only acceptable to lie and cheat someone if they are not also born again, it's expected of them. Does anyone remember the old movie Invasion of the Body Snatchers? It was remade some years ago, however I can't recall that title. The movie was supposed to recount a small town's conversion to communism. Quite a hoot really. I believe that the movie should point out the invasion of the fundies and the dangers they pose to a free society.

What was the OP again? LOL

[Goblinmonger]

33. Speaking of dealing with something for the X,XXXth time

ATHEISM IS NOT A BELIEF SYSTEM. It is the LACK of belief in a diety of any type. Though I liked the vast majority of your response, please do not feed the "atheism is a belief system" meme anymore than it already is.

[Robeson]

36. Yep, that one always gets me, too....

...post #14 stated it well. Absence of a religious belief system does not equate to having a belief. Seems like an easy concept to grasp, to me.

[pnwmom]

40. Absence of a belief system makes you an

agnostic.

By your definition, there is no difference between an atheist and an agnostic.

[Robeson]

48. No, I was speaking of the word "atheist" in it's broadest sense...

...which would be without the the belief of a deity - religious system, if you will. That's the tone I think most were referring to in this thread. Of course, there are various philosophical viewpoints within atheism itself.

As for me personally, I probably lean more towards Ignosticism.

[pnwmom]

38. Depends on your definition of atheism.

Agnosticism is always a lack of belief. But some atheists assert the non-existence of a deity. And since the existence of a deity cannot be proven, their assertion is a belief.

From Wikipedia:

"Atheism, in its broadest sense, is the absence of theism (the belief in one or more personal deities). This encompasses both people who assert that there are no gods and those who make no claim about whether gods exist or not.

"Narrower definitions of atheism, however, typically label as atheists only those people who affirmatively assert the nonexistence of gods, classifying other nonbelievers as agnostics or simply non-theists."

[Goblinmonger]

61. Allow me to retort.

Agnosticism is the concept that we can't know. There might be a god there might not.

Atheism is a-theism, i.e. "no"-theism. It is a lack of a belief in a supreme being/deity/god. That is not a belief system just like bald is not a hair color, not collecting stamps is not a hobby, and barefoot is not a type of shoe.

[pnwmom]

89. Again, that's by your definition, which isn't universally accepted.

[raggedcompany]

46. I am atheist, but speak only for myself.

For every casual reference to God that drops from the mouths of "people of faith" that I'm expected not to laugh at, and for every condescending assumption, and for every line-of-sight-blocking Cross-shaped roadside memorial I'm made peer around, I award myself the right to the same liberties with an atheist bent. I've been known to add "or not," to the end of a beliver's exclamation that "God has a plan," or "all things work out for the best in the end." The way I see it, if have to suffer that kind of tripe, I'll be damned if I also have to withold my version of the same. For doing so, many think I'm one of those mean nasty atheists. I'm not going to break my back to convince anyone otherwise. Really, I don't care if they get upset. They've got the numbers and the money, the patronage and the land. They're gonna be alright.



As an aside, today a senior level woman resigned from the Manhattan based corporation where I work. She sent round one of those insincere good bye emails they always do, personal and professional growth, yadda yadda ya.... But this one had a little something special. It included a line to the effect of "I've realized that talent is God's gift to us, and how we use it is our gift to God." I wanted to puke. Then she went on to say she'd be starting up her own consulting firm as her way of using her talent. At that point, I puked.

For being forced to live in your world religious people, I categorically do not apologize for being percieved as a rude atheist.

[CrispyQ]

108. I couldn't believe how much god talk there was in my work place

after 9-11. People were allowed to put up patriotic commemorations & many included religious items. Funny, though, the thing that brought it all to a halt was a woman who went too far with the whole patriotic thing. She didn't have any religious stuff at all, but she was over the top with her nationalistic display. ;)

She had a framed photo of boosh. :puke:

It had to come down. :rofl:

[GOPBasher]

50. I'm a Christian, and I'll say that I see more Christians being intolerant

of atheists (or other groups of people) than I see of atheists being intolerant of us. However, that doesn't excuse that small minority of atheists who are, in fact, prejudiced against Christians. In my own experience, I've seen tons of Christians who think atheists (or homosexuals, or followers of other religions) are all evil. I really haven't felt like atheists or agnostics really ever dislike me, or have a low opinion of me, just because I believe in Christianity. The worst thing I have ever felt from atheists -- and this really isn't a big deal to me -- is that I sometimes think they disrespect my intelligence. They assume I must be an idiot for believing this stuff. (The fact that I have a BS in physics, from a liberal arts college that also made me take tons of philosophy courses where arguments can only be based on rationality, not belief, doesn't seem to matter.) Again, this is a small minority of atheists I've met; it doesn't compare to the prejudice of Christians toward atheists; and I'm really not terribly concerned about it anyway. It doesn't hurt me.

One more thing to note: Dear liberal atheists, although I'm a Christian, I have much, much more in common with you than I do with conservative Christians. Trust me.

[rambler_american]

54. The problem with religion...

(Loosely quoting Carl Sagan) The problem with religion is it keeps people from finding God.

[noobie2]

55. as an atheist myself

As an atheist myself, I get a lot of flak about being one. I usually don't volunteer that kind of information anymore unless it's on a online blog where there is some anonymity. I get a little tired of the evil atheist conspiracy theory that floats around. One of which I posted in reponse above is that atheists were responsible for the Nazi atrocities. They weren't. They were in fact Christian or perhaps it's better to say they saw themselves as Christian and believed they were doing God's work. Stalin committed atrocities because he is a huge a$$h0le, but I don't recall he waged a war on religion. The Chinese are probably more guilty of that than Stalin. They do harass Catholics and Tibetan Buddhists and such. I don't believe they speak for all atheists and they definitely don't speak for me. Besides without you Christians where else am I gonna get my Christian jokes from. :) (it's just a joke) haha. made a funny.

[TwentyFive]

56. Thanks Auntie Pinko! Rove pays trolls to visit DU and start flame wars

We ALL need to stick together and put aside our differences. Otherwise, we're doomed.

Rove must pay trolls to visit DU and goad people into a religious fight. I'm sure he laughs when he sees buddhist, jainist, non-religious, atheist, liberal christian, catholic muslim jew and hindu....all fighting each other.

Come on people. Next time you see a 'provocative' religious thread....just let it go. No matter how much you disagree with that person, just remember our COMMON and REAL enemy.

[readmoreoften]

81. I don't think Rove is hiring atheists to come to DU.

There are plenty of reasons why atheists get exhausted talking to hard-headed christians who get angry every time we criticize christianity. (That is by no means "all christians on DU". Most christians on DU are great.)

I did notice an extreme spike in conservative posters when the new Pope was confirmed. All of a sudden there were tons of DUers I'd never seen posting vicious antigay rhetoric. I wouldn't be surprised if some of those were infiltrators causing dissent. In fact, I KNOW they were. I don't know if they're on Rove's payroll. You never know. I just assume that alot of this morans are volunteers.

[catbert836]

57. One problem, Auntie

atheism is not in any sense a belief. It is a lack of belief in God or gods. However, that's an easy mistake to make. Otherwise, quite a good column.

[p12psicop]

68. You're right

I had it expalined to me this way: Atheism is not even a valid world view. One can not be defined by what he or she does NOT believe in. In the same way, Jews are not simply people that don't follow Christ, as some would say. It's a whole tradition. A more apt world view for an atheist might be nihilism, existentialism, secular humanism, or naturalism. The word atheist has unnecessary and harmful negative connotations. I do not believe there is a supreme being nor do I believe in many other superstitions, myths, or fairy tales but I would never characterize myself as "atheist". Pantheism doesn't require belief in any of those things either, but it qualifies as a world view anyway. Key word here is "world view" as opposed to "faith" or "religion".

[Prophet 451]

105. athieism CAN be a belief

Athieism comes in two varities:
"negative" or "weak" athieism simply says "I do not believe in a god(s)".
"positive" or "strong" athieism says "there is no god".

The former is not a belief but a lack of one. The latter is a belief.

[RaleighNCDUer]

116. Speaking as an atheist, I would flip those two definition.

"There is no god" is a fundamentally unprovable assertion. It is the height of dogmatism to aggressively assert the unprovable, therefore what you define as "strong" atheism seems to me to be the weaker stand. Atheism philosophically rejects theism. My personal rejection of theism is based in the contention that there is no proof. Rationally, if proof were provided, I would believe.

"There is no god" and "There is a god" are both desperate screams against the darkness.

I'm not afraid of the dark.

[Prophet 451]

117. Fine

If you'd prefer to reverse the descriptions, that's fine. As far as I can tell, they're fairly arbitrary anyway. My point was simply that the form of athieism which says there is no god is a belief in the same way as maintaining that there is a god.

[RaleighNCDUer]

119. Agree.

And there are also those who come to atheism through reason, and those who come to it through reaction -- the 'former fundie I hate religion' atheists, of which there seem to be quite a few.

Like most things in life, it's complicated.

[Imperialism Inc.]

122. Only if not believing in unicorns is the same level of belief

as believing in unicorns

Only if not believing in Thor is the same level of belief as believing in Thor. Only if not believing in a teapot orbiting Mars is the same level of belief is the same as believing in a teapot orbiting Mars. All of which are of course patently absurd statements as is your statement that belief and non-belief in God are on the same rung of the belief ladder.

[Prophet 451]

134. I'm not saying they're the same LEVEL of belief

Obviously, they're not on the same level but they are both beliefs nonetheless. And I didn't say that belief and non-belief were on the same rung. What I said was that while "I don't believe in God" is not a belief, "there is no God" plainly is. As an unprovable statement, it requires a degree of belief to accept as true. Not the same degree of belief as belief in God's existance perhaps but a degree of belief all the same.

[danhan]

58. Bravo.

[eridani]

74. There is no such thing as an ethically privileged epistemology

That goes for atheism and any religion alike. For me the critical divide is between people whose ethics are universal and those who have one set for their in-group and another set for outsiders. There are atheists and people of faith on both sides of that one.

[readmoreoften]

79. Reminds me of Badiou's book on Ethics. /nt

[Somawas]

88. An interesting ramble, but

Auntie, I don't see where you actually ever answered Andrea's question.

[Imperialism Inc.]

93. A question about fairy tales.

Related to "imaginary friend" are comments about other imaginary creatures (unicorns, etc.) or terms like "tooth fairy agnostic". People often complain about those types of terms and comparisons. I use these terms frequently because they accurately convey the atheist point of view in all its nuance. They are directly comparable ideas from an atheist point of view.

An example...

"A friend, an intelligent lapsed Jew who observes the Sabbath for reasons of cultural solidarity, describes himself as a Tooth Fairy Agnostic. He will not call himself an atheist because it is in principle impossible to prove a negative. But "agnostic" on its own might suggest that he thought God's existence or non-existence equally likely. In fact, though strictly agnostic about god, he considers God's existence no more probable than the Tooth Fairy's.
Bertrand Russell used a hypothetical teapot in orbit about Mars for the same didactic purpose. You have to be agnostic about the teapot, but that doesn't mean you treat the likelihood of its existence as being on all fours with its non-existence.
The list of things about which we strictly have to be agnostic doesn't stop at tooth fairies and celestial teapots. It is infinite. If you want to believe in a particular one of them -- teapots, unicorns, or tooth fairies, Thor or Yahweh -- the onus is on you to say why you believe in it. The onus is not on the rest of us to say why we do not. We who are atheists are also a-fairyists, a-teapotists, and a-unicornists, but we don't' have to bother saying so."
-- Richard Dawkins

Now, as you can hopefully see, the examples are used not as an exercise in belittling people but as a way to clearly convey ideas using concrete examples. Hearing the complaints I have sometimes thought that perhaps I should change the nature of the examples. For example maybe use UFO's. Would that be less offensive? Of course a problem there is that at least there is some evidence of UFOs (though I personally think that the evidence is a hoax in almost all cases). So I'm not sure UFOs is a good example. In fact, every more mild example I have thought of has the flaw that it at least has some evidence in its favor where the idea of God does not (which is problably why it is "less offensive" in the first place). But then I also think about the theist reaction. Would they be happier with a UFO comparison? I seriously doubt it. So what examples am I "allowed" to use?

I have asked a couple times for an "acceptable" way to convey the same ideas, with all the nuances, and all the compactness, but have never received so much as an attempt in response. There seems to be no "acceptable" way for me to convey my atheism and expose the illogic in many claims of atheism being a "faith". I have never seen anyone produce a coherent response to the above quote as to why we should view God as any different from the other concepts in the quote (or in my own writing along the same lines). In fact I can't say I remember anyone even attempting to address the issues raised (imo because they cannot be addressed as they are completely accurate).

So , what am I to do? If theists can't give me different yet equally compact and descriptive phrasing am I to simply shut my mouth? Am I simply doomed to being a "nasty atheist" for expressing my ideas in a coherent way? I suspect that is the case.

[muriel_volestrangler]

104. I did a poll in the Religion and Theology forum trying to find the line

between acceptable comparisons, and non-acceptable. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=59244

The vast majority (and typically, the R/T forum draws about equal responses to polls from believers and non-believers) said any comparison was fine. The few who did think there was a point at which things became offensive said trolls, Santa Claus and Tooth Fairies were disrespectful, but comparisons to effectively extinct religions are OK. So maybe the argument to use is the 'Thor' one. I wish that I'd actually listed 'trolls' and 'angels and demons' next to each other, to see if people who believe in the latter would accept they are the equivalent of the former, but I didn't think of it at the time.

As well as UFOs, perhaps astrology is a good comparison? It derives from ancient religion, and has a certain amount of people who take it deeply seriously.

[Prophet 451]

107. Totally off-topic but...

"Of course a problem there is that at least there is some evidence of UFOs (though I personally think that the evidence is a hoax in almost all cases)"

Surely, the key word there is "almost"? Even those of us who are both sane and believe in the existance of EBE's (and it must be pointed out that "UFO" does not mean "EBE", it means "something in the sky which we can't identify") will concede that 95-99% of UFO sightings have perfectly mundane explanations. It's the remaining 1-5% that interests us.

[muriel_volestrangler]

98. Strangely, I can find descriptions of God as both 'invisible' and 'friend'

in Christian hymns ("Immortal, Invisible, God only wise ..." and "What a friend we have in Jesus ..."). So I'm not quite sure why "invisible friend" is nasty. Maybe the letter writer couldn't bring herself to use the more insulting terms that others have noted in this thread.

Calling believers 'deluded' is impolite; but then so is the implication that, because there is 'real religion', there are one or more 'fake religions' too.

[neebob]

111. I have a question, too, Auntie.

Why did you choose this topic? And why did you choose to include the phrase nasty atheists in the title? It makes me wonder if DU is sanctioning the attitude that atheists are nasty and seems a little passive aggressive, frankly.

The amount of discussion about atheists on DU and the negative views I've seen expressed here don't match my experience outside of the cyber world. My being an atheist doesn't seem to be much of an issue in my so-called real life, where I feel accepted and respected. I find that identifying myself as an atheist rarely gets a visible reaction, much less a disapproving one.

I've always assumed, perhaps mistakenly, that that's because the people around me who are not atheists have also considered the, um, very real possibility that there's no god. My other assumption is that the few people I've known who had a serious problem with the idea were very insecure in their own beliefs. And of course I'm good enough and smart enough and, gosh darn it, people like me.

So then I come to DU - where, in at least one forum (and I don't mean the atheists' group), it feels like "all atheists, all the time." And I start to question my assumptions about my real life and wonder if it's really that big a deal to be an atheist. Am I bad? And now here's a front-page editorial that says yes, I am, if I dare to vocalize a thought that to me seems pretty effing obvious and basic.

My initial reaction was, "Yeah, so what else is new - Auntie must have been bored today." Then it started to bother me, and I thought about whether it's any more reasonable to bristle at a general statement that atheists are or might be nasty than I think it is to bristle at a statement that God is like an imaginary friend or that believing in God is like believing a fairy tale.

I've concluded that it is, the difference being real person vs. being of disputable reality and person vs. behavior.

I'm also giving a second thought to whether my poopy little annual donation is inadequate.

[rasputin1952]

135. Interesting...I think that people should show respect for beliefs

throughout the spectrum.

There is no need to be condescending or arrogant from any of the myriad forms of belief systems.

Everyone believes they are "right", everyone bases religion/non-religion views on a faith based system.
One must have faith that they are in correct in their POV.

Whether one believes in a deity or not, they do so on the faith that their conclusions are the correct conclusions. Since neither side can be empirically proven, faith in ones conclusion is the only open option.

A little more tolerance from all sides would make life a lot easier for everyone.

[raging moderate]

138. Hitler was reviving the ancient Germanic pagan religion

He constantly trashed the Judeo-Christian tradition, blaming it for the coddling of weaklings which he hated so much. He extolled the ancient northern European gods, and advocated a return to the good old days of human sacrifices. And he did much more than talk about it. Temples were being set up, and ancient rituals were being enacted (including, by one account, the reading of chicken entrails to forecast the future). He was not a Christian, any more than he was a Jew. Germans were practically required to worship him as a god.

[rasputin1952]

139. Welcome to DU! If you want to look at things...

from that perspective fine, but Hitler had little to do w/any "mainstream" religion. Today, we have leaders throughout the world that wish to be worshiped as some form of god.

Here is thought; many today who claim to be of any of a myriad of faiths, take those to a base line that encourages hatred and extols death as a remedy for what "ails" others. None of these "mainstream" religions comes anywhere close to the tenets that are spoken of often: Love, Justice, Compassion, Empathy, Forgiveness, to mention just a few of the positive aspects of those religion.

It takes work to make the positives happen, and people find it MUCH easier to look and see the "evil" around them and then add to said evil by spreading hatred and ignorance further.

For what it is worth, I am a base Christian. I believe that what Jesus said makes a lot of sense. But I am not a fool; there are great aspects of other religions and philosophies as well. It does a person good to encompass all of the good they read about, and incorporate it into a lifestyle. One not need believe in a deity at all to act out good. People who blindly follow any leader are essentially fools...it pays great dividends to research move forward in a positive manner. it is tough, but it sure beats the alternatives: ignorance and predisposition of unwavering 'faith' regardless of the empirical evidence presented.