One thing I get sick of is this ranting and raving over "extreme" atheism...

[Cleobulus]

or "fundamentalist" atheists. This is a misuse of both terms used lately by religious people, and frankly do they even want to compare the behaviors of "extremist" atheists with extremist religious people?

Seriously, when was the last time atheists flew planes into buildings? Or murdered doctors? Or even filed death threats against those who disagree with them?

I mean, what the fuck? The examples are laughable as well, I mean, complaining about Blasphemy Day is particularly amusing. "They are disrespecting my religion, they are as bad as our extremists!" Don't make me laugh, your extremists will kill me if they get the chance and opportunity, don't deny it, you know it is true. Our "extremists" as you call them do stuff like DEBATE and ARGUE, and sometimes, horror of horrors, desecrate and disrespect your beliefs. Boo fucking hoo. Allow me to show absolutely no fucking sympathy for your fucking sacred beliefs.

Hell, look at the current crop of "extremist" atheists, people such as PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins, both of which criticize religion, by publishing books, or by posting on blogs, hell, even making shows. Oh, and let's not forget that they both commit that most horrid of "sins", they educate people. How fucking atrocious, yes, they are just like Osama Bin Laden, or Falwell, or Pat Robertson. :sarcasm:

Seriously, there is no equivalence here.

Why not compare them to the Pope as well? Might as well, he decided to insert his big fucking gilded hat into the ring after all. A man who heads a church that is killing people through misinformation in Africa by the millions, a church that denies women their personhood, a church that protects pedophiles, a church that promotes homophobia and denying GLBT people their civil rights. Seriously, does anything any prominent contemporary atheist said or done that is that atrocious, or even close?

Oh, and if you want to get into the "But...but...Stalin...Communists!" game, fuck it, you lose before its over, should I mention Hitler? That "good" Christian man and along with him Spanish dictator Franco, or how about Mussolini, or the many dictators of South America, many of which secured their positions with the low key support of Catholic Church hierarchy I mentioned above?

Frankly I find this whole thing to be rather lopsided, I mean, the worst that atheists could be accused of is being offensive, and no offense, but that's fucking weak. The fact that the religious turn violent very easily seems to show how wicked their beliefs really are, even the so called "moderates" aren't nearly that moderate when faced with direct challenges to their ever so precious faith. Here's a newsflash for you, your beliefs are not sacred, I don't give a shit if you are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Taoist, Shinto, Pagan, Buddhist, none of those beliefs are sacred to me. If this gets me labeled as an "extremist", fine, I'll proudly wear that label because I know that just like other extremist atheists, we will NEVER be as evil as the extremists present in all religions.

[ck4829]

1. It's funny they bring up communists, just how atheist were they anyway?

Stalin pretty much viewed himself as a god, and the Viet Cong were very superstitious, the US did psychological warfare on them on several occasions, using their beliefs in ghosts and the spirits of their ancestors against them.

[jgraz]

4. Most importantly...

none of them were killing people because some magic atheist book told them to.

[Cleobulus]

5. They trade one dogma for another, and perform extreme acts in the name of advancing...

the dialectic, no surprise there. The problem is dogma, and faith in general, having beliefs that can NEVER be questioned leads down a road of extremism that leads to committing atrocities.

[damntexdem]

12. I swear that Stalin modeled his approach on the Catholic Inquisition.

But, then, maybe it was just parallel evolution.

[Jester Messiah]

2. Fully concur.

As the saying goes, it takes nothing special to make a good man do good, or to make an evil man do evil. But to make a good man do evil... for this, you need religion.

[jgraz]

3. It's not possible to disrespect a "belief"

Since there is no respect owed to a belief. Even today, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of scientists working to disprove Einstein or Darwin. No real scientist would love anything more than to overthrow an accepted, established belief.

[bananas]

36. What about a "theory"?

In the Environment/Energy forum, I called a crackpot theory a "crackpot theory".
My post was improperly deleted.
If it was in the Religion/Theology forum, it would not have been deleted.
Maybe I should have called it a "crackpot belief".

[jgraz]

41. Join the crowd

I had one of my posts deleted for calling the bible a "magic book".

[Warren Stupidity]

6. an atheist fundamentalist or extremist is any atheist who

publicly admits to being an atheist.

[damntexdem]

13. No, a fundie atheist is one who touts his/her beliefs as absolute truth ...

and slams all who think or believe differently as stupid, illogical, misinformed, and/or evil. In other words, they act much like Christian fundies.

[Goblinmonger]

14. Nice strawman you built there.

I don't think it exists in real life though. I do see lots of time that religion is called stupid, illogical or evil (misinformed? really? that somehow hurts your feelings?). But that's not the same as saying the religious person is that.

But why not address the OP. Even if your fancy strawman actually exists in real life, so fucking what? I'll put that guy up against the bullshit in the OP any damn day.

[cleanhippie]

22. I think you may be mistaken.

An atheist is someone WITHOUT beliefs. Kind of difficult to tout a LACK OF BELIEF as absolute anything, don't you think?

[WolverineDG]

57. Exactly nt

[_ed_]

105. People that "believe"

in fantastic things without evidence are illogical. That's what logic is: rigid coherence to rational inquiry.

How could a person who believes in magical gods be logical?

[DeSwiss]

7. K&R

[trotsky]

8. The Fallacy of the Golden Mean

By inventing a class of "extreme" or "fundie" or "militant" atheists, the moderate believer can then place themselves right in the "sensible middle" and thus feel secure that their position is the most correct and most rational.

Excellent post.

[GoneOffShore]

9. And how long before our favorite antagonist weighs in on this?

I'm expecting bibbling in 3, 2, 1

[damntexdem]

15. Well, actually I think that we agnostics are the most sensible and rational.

But, then, anyone with a belief presumably feels that way, without a need to "place" themselves in some middle somewhere. The issue with fundie atheists is largely the same as that with fundie Xians, or fundie Muslims, or fundie whatever-else: their arrogance and assertions that only their view could be correct.

And by the way, I do feel that agnosticism is "correct" -- not about the reality of the universe, rather about what humans can know about the reality of the universe. But I could be wrong.

[trotsky]

19. Congratulations on using a strawman atheist.

You're also confused on what the terms "agnostic" and "atheist" mean. Hint: they're not mutually exclusive.

[Cleobulus]

30. Do you believe in God, yes or no?

Simple question, simple answer.

[Warpy]

10. (Insert pejorative) atheists are just the same old atheists

who got sick of being stuffed into a closet and stifling who they are because a few Christians might get offended that some people don't agree with them.

Well, guess what! Christians do not have a constitutional right to go through life unoffended by people outside their religious group. That means we all have a right to exist in this country: Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Shintoists, Hindus, tribal religions of all types, and even atheists.

Any Christian who thinks atheists should be stuffed back into that closet needs to visit a country that's hostile to Christianity and find out first hand just how uncomfortable that closet is. It's a lot less comfortable than the knowledge that people exist in this world who don't think the same things you do.

Barring that, dropping the pejoratives used for fellow Americans would be a nice first step toward growing up and realizing we all have the same right to be here. It would also contribute to a more civil society for all of us.

[damntexdem]

17. Hear, hear. Unfortunately, fundie atheists don't seem to take this perspective.

And for that matter, we agnostics have the same issues about being in the minority as do atheists (and as do believers with many unpopular beliefs). But none of us need react to that by acting like the swaggering fundie Xtians (who are also still in a minority, although an immensely larger one).

[cleanhippie]

21. What is a "fundie Atheist"?

You keep using this term but won't define what it means.

[Warpy]

23. It's just one of those pejoratives

used by people who have been stung by criticism of their own religion against other people who have nothing to do with them, at all.

It's a way of saying "I'm offended by your very existence. Back in the closet or I'll call you more mean names!"

Since there is no holy writ, liturgy, dogma or anything else to be fundamentalist about for atheists, it's an incredibly stupid term that says much more about the speaker than the targets.

[damntexdem]

11. I get upset by fundamentalist atheism -- which IS real.

As to "extreme atheism," do extreme atheists believe in fewer than zero gods?

;-)

As to comparing fundie atheists to the Pope, I find the more-appropriate comparison to be to Jerry Falwell.

[Goblinmonger]

16. Please explain, with the actual definitions of the words,

what exactly a "fundamentalist atheist" would be. Good luck.

And then, when you fail at that, respond to the point of the OP that even if it DID exist, how it is anywhere near the level or horrid shit that has come from the extreme ends of religion.

And give me one example of a "fundamentalist atheist" that is the level of bigoted, racist, fucking asshole that Falwell was. Go ahead. Because if you think you can paint Harris, or Dawkins, or even Hitchens in the same light as Falwell, you don't really understand much of what it means to be progressive.

[cleanhippie]

20. What exactly IS a "fundamentalist atheist"?

Am I one? How would I know?

[dimbear]

27. Isn't fundament a polite term for butt?

So it would be a proctologist who's not superstitious.

[Cleobulus]

33. Can you name one fundamentalist atheist? Go ahead, this should be a hoot. n/t

[Goblinmonger]

18. I so need to buy you a drink for that.

Well put. Well written.

Now I will soon be disappointed yet again by the usual suspects.

[Cleobulus]

32. Hmm...well in that case, I'll take a screwdriver, don't drink beer...

;)

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[GliderGuider]

25. something I wonder about from time to time

is how often religion actually "causes" violent actions, and how often it's just a smokescreen of justification for people or institutions who need something to let them do what they want and make their conscience stop barking at them. Even if it's just the latter, it would certainly seem harder for an atheist to commit violence, because there is no handy cover for your morality -- you have to own the consequences of your actions personally.

That's one of the things that would make it impossible for me ever to serve in a military -- I wouldn't even have the flimsy refuge of "god says they're evil" to hide behind. I guess a government could try to use patriotic nationalism to achieve the same ends, but once a person has rejected one divisive shadow puppet it's easier to recognize the others as they come along.

In the end it's probably best to simply reject all manifestations of coercion and hierarchy, whether they purport to come from God or Caesar...

[Cleobulus]

44. Think about this, the 9/11 hijackers knew they were going to die, and they...

sincerely believed that their actions lead them to an eternal paradise. They no longer feared death, and moreover, they also thought their actions were right. What, outside of religion, particularly religions that practically sanctify so called martyrs, creates that type of motivation?

[GliderGuider]

58. Nationalism and patriotism also create that type of motivation.

"They no longer feared death, and moreover, they also thought their actions were right." That applies to a lot of the descriptions of heroic acts in wartime. They are often done with no thought of God, but plenty of quasi-religious belief in cause and country.

Humans need to believe in something beyond themselves in order to make the ultimate sacrifice. Sometimes it's God, often it's not. Sometimes it's as simple as giving your life to protect your children.

[Cleobulus]

59. The difference is that all those don't offer a reward after death. n/t

[Evoman]

26. I equate extremist atheists less with extremist christians, and more with Extremist bikers.

Like, totalllllly EXTREMMMMMEE!!!11111one111

I mean, seriously, even if I accepted it as it's meant by the moderate morons (as a prejorative, nonsenical attempt at drawing false parallel), it wouldn't offend me because it describes about 4 people in the universe (mao, pol pot, joseph stalin, and his brother Jerry Stalin).

And even if all of these Fundie atheists are everywhere and have an agenda, we absolutely need them so that we can combat the people who stone women, hijack airplanes, throw acid at faces, beat up gays, and laugh at the thought of the rest of us who will burn in hell. We combat them with our own form of extremist behaviour....like writing books! That's right bitches, EXTREME book writing. And then we'll fuck your shit up by going on a lecture circuit and appearing on hostile christian panels. And then we will try to convert you by posting videos on youtube and writing books that you can choose to buy..hahahaha...take that!

[Goblinmonger]

29. Missed you.

Haven't lost your sense of humor.

[Evoman]

35. Actually I did lose it for a bit...working at an abusive job and got depressed.

Then I got laid off, and hit by a car while walking.

Got some sense knocked into me, and now feel better than ever. Hell, I feel motherfucking bulletproof.


edit: however, scrambled my brain so much I'm unable to spell prejotive right. <---see?

[trotsky]

37. Yeah but you should see the car.

;-)

Good to see you again Evo.

[Evoman]

52. Didn't really go anywhere...just lurking, nothing to post.

Kind of lost interest in RT. Lots of rehash. But I did miss all you fundie bastards.

[TZ]

38. So says the militant fundie atheist himself...

:P
Good to see you. I am hoping things are getting much better for you...Heh. I bet there are more than a few here who are NOT happy to see you back..;)

[Evoman]

51. Except for a broken arm, I'm in tip top shape.

Depression melted away once I got out of that lab. I've never been better.

[intaglio]

28. Concerning violence

Archbishop Desmond Tutu, in January 2000 at the American Council of Churches observed

"It was Christians, you know, not Pagans, who were responsible for the Holocaust. It was Christians, not Pagans, who lynched people here in the South, who burned people at the stake, frequently in the name of this Jesus Christ."

Violence is inherent in religions but it is not normal within atheism. It is normal for religions to expand by conquest and killing, for others to kill in the name of that religion and to suppress dissent within that religion by murder and torture. The most successful attacks within America have been carried out by religious terrorists, whether Muslim (9-11) or Christian e.g. the Oklahoma bombing, or the ongoing campaign of murder and terror against abortion providers.

In contrast atheists do not kill in the name of Atheism; there have been atheists who were part of terror groups but they terrorised for social, not religious, reasons. The biggest complaint about atheists is that they are rude, insulting and patronising - well, welcome to our world.

For years, when I was younger, I was patronised, insulted and demeaned by people of religion; tracts were given out, advice on reading the pretty bits of the bible, suggestions that I speak to Reverend So-and-so or Father Such-and-such and, of course "Come to our meeting, we're non-denominational". When I first started working back in the 60's and early 70's you were expected to fill in your religion on an application form (this in the UK) and luckily CofE covered all bases for even agnostic was regarded as "weird". If you were lucky you found out about the British Humanists but even then you were given the impression that it was barely worth considering, just a few nutcases.

Well, now there is the internet and now we too have the resources to answer the outright lies and deceptions foisted on people by religious apologists. If you tell us "Jesus was a man of peace," we can ask "well, why the temple moneychangers?" or, "why was the naked man told to buy a sword?" There is even some justification for us saying "Jesus did not exist, nor did Moses;" we can turn to Muslims and say the Q'ran does not contain the words of Mohammed but was written some 40 years later from the fading recollections of old men. Buddhists can be asked why a perfectly fine piece of philosophy has been turned into a faith with a host of gods and demons and we can all laugh at Scientologists (Xenu? O RLY?).

Atheists are not violent in defence of Atheism but we will be rude, insulting and patronising when presented with the same predigested pap over and over again. Use of these apologetics is rude because you assume we have never heard such tired excuses before; it is insulting because you think we have not sought answers to this particular argument; and it patronising because by using the apologetics you treat us like children in the same way that you expected to be treated as children by your deity or deities.

[Cleobulus]

31. Archbishop Desmond Tutu is an Anti-Christian extremist according to some people here...

there are people here that insist that Hitler was an atheist. You can't really debate with them.

[humblebum]

34. Led a rather sheltered life didn't you? nt

[cleanhippie]

46. Is all you have to contribute lame attempts at sarcasm and insult?

I am seeing a pattern emerging from your posts of late.

[humblebum]

62. No pattern is emerging. it has been the same for a long time.

When the concept of militant atheism is being denied, when the history of atheism is portrayed as being anything but violent, and when religion is being portrayed as the major source of war, persecution, and violence, then I become extremely critical of organized atheism. Call it fundamentalist, militant, radical, whatever - it has a history that is undeniably violent and repressive. Equal to and greater than any religious event.

[darkstar3]

64. And every time you have tried, you have failed to show definitively

how any of your accusations are true about atheists. You have a bug up your ass about Communism, and you conflate Communism with atheism to form an example of your so-called "militant atheism", and then you rail against it with the fire of a Southern Baptist minister sermonizing about who is going to hell. In short, you continually throw up and beat on the same straw man.

Your shtick is old. Your arguments are baseless. Your contributions to this particular forum have been single-topic and simple-minded. After so many posts railing against a straw man, have you no interest in any other topic discussed in this forum?

[wookie72]

39. "all religions?"

There are very few Buddhists or Jains that would fall into your description. Jains refuse to harm insects.

Here's the thing about Hitler, though... People like to quote his comments about doing the Lord's work or whatever... Most of those statements were made before he came to power. I'm willing to guess that at least some of the people who cite Hitler's Christianity are those who make dubious claims about Obama being "really an atheist." True Scotsman goes both ways.

As for Stalin and Mao (and the French Revolution, for that matter), there were active efforts to eliminate religion in their regimes. That is incontravertible.


What I personally find "extremist" is the comparison of the worst of religious people with the best of atheists. Not a fair comparison.

[wookie72]

40. There's no such thing as a "fundamentalist Atheist"

However, there's also no such thing as a "fundamentalist Muslim" or even "fundamentalist Catholic."

Fundamentalism refers to a specific Protestant revival movement started in the early 20th century, based on the "fundamentals," which included Biblical innerancy. They were a reactionary movement in response to Darwin and other challenges to a literal view of Christianity. Most Fundamentalist Christians would be aghast at comparisons to Catholics or Muslims.

I would call the more forceful atheists "evangelical Atheists," in that they seem to truly believe that the world would be a better place without religion, rather than just having their own views and letting other have theirs.

[Cleobulus]

43. True, however, it has since become a catch-all term for reactionary...

religious groups.

[Cleobulus]

42. Who the fuck calls Obama an atheist, the guy has already stated he's a homophobe due to his...

Christian beliefs. What atheist would want to claim him?

I don't see the connection there, nor does invoking True Scotsman make any sense(hint: not an valid example of the fallacy).

No true scotsman could be invoked if someone claimed Hitler wasn't a Christian because of the Holocaust, completely disclaiming the fact that Hitler performed one of the most basic of Christian acts you can think of, persecuting the Jews. Not to mention that he never disclaimed Christianity in his writings or speeches, and invoked Providence in many of his actions. If people want to claim he was a "secret atheist" or some such bullshit, go ahead, turnabout is fair play, Stalin could have been a secret Christian for all we know.

In addition, you do know about Buddhist extremists in Sri Lanka I presume? Or how about the torture and murder of Christian missionaries in Japan a couple of centuries ago by Buddhist monks? I can't comment on the Jains, however, from what I can tell, any faith is dangerous, because they are, by their nature, unquestionable, and lend themselves to extremist actions.

In addition, I invoked the best of atheists because to the religious, they are the worst, many times the religious on this board have called Dawkins, Myers, Daniel Dennet, Christopher Hitchens, and others as "extremist" atheists. Who else am I supposed to use as examples?

[thereismore]

45. If you call Buddhism a religion. It's actually an atheist worldview. Isn't it? nt

[ZombieHorde]

53. Some religions are atheist, such as many forms of Buddhism. nt

[On the Road]

47. Much as I Hate to Quote the Dictionary,

the first definition of fundamentalism is:

"A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views."

Seems completely appropriate for a category of atheists.

And I am an atheist, BTW. Just not a fundamentalist.

[darkstar3]

48. Now name one of those principles held by any atheist group or movement

that are adhered to rigidly.

[On the Road]

49. Well, the One About Their Being No God

It's a belief, not a principle, but holding rigidly to any belief is a part of any definition of fundamentalism.

It's funny to me that the term is tossed around so loosely, but is taken as so much of an affront by the same people.

[darkstar3]

50. Some Buddhists believe that their being IS god,

but that is neither here nor there. ;)

Which group of atheists adheres to this belief rigidly? Are there any people you can point out who are members of this group so that we have an example of their existence? What steps do these group members take to ensure the rigidity of this belief?

BTW: Your definition comes from Wikipedia, which cannot be counted on for accuracy. If you really want to play the dictionary game then there are several definitions out there (from more reputable sources) which specifically mention the words "religion", "sacred texts", and "core texts", not to mention "holy books".

Is atheism a religion? If your answer is yes, please show how.
Does atheism have any sacred, core, or holy texts? Be sure to consider and possibly incorporate this answer into your answer regarding religious status.

PS: I realize after re-reading this that I kind of went into professor mode here, and I'd apologize for that, but this about more than simply me being a snarky bastard. When these questions are properly answered they will show unequivocally that the phrase "fundamentalist atheist" is an oxymoron.

[ZombieHorde]

54. Doesn't that mean anyone who absolutely believes clouds exist, is a fundamentalist?

These people may say things like, "today is very cloudy."

What if someone absolutely believes many toasters have the ability to heat bread? Are they fundamentalists as well? What if they rub their beliefs in our faces by telling us about the toast they make? Would that make them militant?

[Iggo]

55. Extreme toasteists.

[trotsky]

60. Democrats hold rigidly to many beliefs.

Pro-labor, pro-choice, women's rights, gay rights, affordable healthcare. Most DUers do not want to compromise on those issues at all. Does that make all of us Democratic fundamentalists?

[muriel_volestrangler]

103. So anyone who says "Jesus was definitely God" is a fundamentalist Christian, then?

That includes the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Martin Luther King Jr., Barack Obama, George Bush, and most Americans - 59% of Americans are 'absolutely certain' there is a God (that'll include Jewish, Muslim and other religious believers too, if they feel happy with a capitalized 'God' as a basic part of their religion, but the vast majority will be Christian).

[_ed_]

104. It is not a "belief"

It is a statement of evidence. There is no evidence for the existence of god(s). You can't be a fundamentalist about a lack of evidence.

Do you call scientists who study the cosmos "fudamentalist astronomers" if they criticize astrology? Would you call a chemist a "fundamentalist chemist" if they criticize alchemy? Is saying that there is no scientific evidence for alchemy or astrology being a "fundamentalist" about science?

[Cleobulus]

56. How does that work? Are all people fundamentalists about the nonexistence of invisible pink...

unicorns?

[onager]

61. "Why I Hate the Dalai Lama" by Naomi Rousseau

I am an atheist simply because I don't believe that there is a god...

I have never seen or heard of any evidence that there is a god, an afterlife, a soul or a 'spirit world'. I don't think my view of the world lacks something without a god in it...

And don't ever call me a 'lapsed Catholic'. I may have been brought up a Catholic but the word "lapsed" implies that I just forgot to go to church a few times and was too embarrassed to show my face again and decided staying in bed was easier, when in actual fact, starting at the age or ten or eleven I began to examine and ultimately reject the doctrines I had taken for granted and then slowly and painfully dismantled the habits of belief.

http://www.physicsroom.org.nz/log/archive/10/lama/

[humblebum]

63. "The five fundamentals of Atheism," -1928

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,846754,00.html


Religion: A. A. A. A.
"The American Association for the Advancement of Atheism, Inc., issued last week the second annual report of its anti-Christian activities. This report was prefaced with a statement of the decalogue of principles upon which the "4 A" conducts its goings-on. Thus:
"The United States not being a Christian nation and its godless Constitution requiring a secular government, the American Association for the Advancement of Atheism demands:
"(1) Taxation of church property.
"(6) Removal of 'In God We Trust' from coins and of the Cross from above the Flag. . . .
"(9) Secularization of marriage, with divorce upon request. . . ."

There followed "The five fundamentals of Atheism," each neatly defined: Materialism, Sensationalism, Evolution, The Existence of Evil ("The patent fact that renders irrational the belief in a beneficent, omnipotent being who cares for man"), Hedonism. There followed, throughout the Atheists' pamphlet, notes, comments, and exhortations on the progress of this form of religion. It was observed that ". . . there is much atheism in the church," that, "there is an increasing number of clergymen who conduct 'services' at which no prayers are offered and where no reference is made to God. ..." A final paragraph expounded the slogan, "Kill the Beast," with which the cover of the Annual Report was conspicuously adorned: "The hour to overthrow the Church has come. Arise, ye prisoners of the priest! Strike down the God superstition! The Clergy are powerful because you are on your knees. Stand up! ... Be men! . . . Prepare for the oncoming religious revolution." The "greatest achievement of the year" was described as the "founding ... of the American Anti-Bible Society." This organization has been denied a charter, to secure which atheists plan a legal campaign." ...

[onager]

65. I knew the League of the Militant Godly would show up!

Don't you have a John Birch Society meeting to attend?

[humblebum]

68. Don't blame me, history is what it is and sometimes the truth hurts.

Those were true atheist fundamentalists.

[dimbear]

66. Don't forget the episode where they supported human/ape hybrids.

That's the best part.

[charlie]

67. Atheism, The Enemy of Civilization - 1917

If this wafts a familiar tang, it should. It's the same horseshit served by the truckload to this day. Any old gumflapper can appoint himself God's Official Butt Trumpet. Profound ignorance is no impediment, as long as you have enough Godly chutzpah to call opponents beasts of low character...

...and the weird schizophrenic bent of denigrating and misapprehending science while aching for its validation:

THE subject, "Atheism, the Enemy of Civilization," is an affront, but it states a fact. Infidelity is uniformly egotistical and readily imagines it is the friend of all that is good. It shall be our purpose to show that historically the exact opposite is true. It is as perfectly the enemy of man and the foe of civilization as it is the opponent of God. The sacred Scriptures are in this matter, as in all others, the last word (Ps. 14: 1), "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." History has provided thousands of illustrations of this divinely inspired assertion.

Atheism is the Enemy of Science

This statement runs counter to the boasted claim of infidelity. Unbelievers have ever been enamored of the notion that they are scholarly and even scientific. Their boasts in this matter are to be found upon every page emanating from their pens, and heard in every hall where one of their representatives secures an audience; but in spite of all that, we propose to state clearly and prove abundantly the exact opposite.

The discoveries of science clearly indicate the existence of God. If it be true as Professor Leuba, of Bryn Mawr, contends, that the majority of teachers of science in America are infidels, that is only proof of their superficiality and incompetence. It is not science that has made them so, but rather "a pseudo-science" - evolution; and a false science always makes for unbelief, while a true one eventuates in faith. The outstanding experts in the established sciences of mathematics and astronomy have been outstanding believers, while the representatives of the Darwin speculation have just as unanimously been atheists, agnostics and skeptics of all, sorts.

...There was a time when biology thought of a monad as a simple single-celled organism; that time is past. A molecule was discovered; it was so small that men declared it the smallest part of a substance that could exist separately and still retain its composition and proportion; the smallest combination of atoms that would form a given chemical compound. But alas for the recent deliverances and the instability of so-called science! We are now told that each molecule contains 740 electrons, and no man knows what will be the next deliverance upon this subject. It is evident, however, that the complexity of the simplest things is past the imagination of man. When you rise in the scale of existences and consequently advance in the study of science, you come across the most mysterious secrets in the natural world-secrets so illusive that as yet the mind of the modern man has utterly failed to uncover them. But a few days since the Associated Press carried "For Science Service" an article proving the discovery of heatless light. This suggestion is based on the fact that low forms of life have been found to generate heatless light. The bacteria and fungi that cause rotten wood to glow in the dark, and the mysterious firefly that can, with a wilful or automatic motion in his body, emit a heatless light out of all proportion to the best that man's devices have ever approached; these bugs and bacteria becoming, as the article stated, at once the admiration and despair of scientists, but clearly indicating the acceptance of a mind infinitely above that of man. Man's invention of light involves a slow combustion and always generates heat; not so with the light of the bacteria and the bug; and to date that secret is with God.
...

God-deniers are usually men of reprobate morals. You will seldom find a man who combines in one and the same person the philosophy of atheism and a course of upright moral conduct. "The American Association for the Advancement of Atheism" declares that they "will undertake to abrogate all laws for enforcing Christian morals." Later they add they wish to better civilization by "operating as a wrecking company."

http://www.biblebelievers.net/FalseTeaching/kjcathei.htm

[Goblinmonger]

70. I saw that one, too.

The author seems like someone that bumble would love to hang out with.

[Goblinmonger]

69. 1928?

Seriously? 1928? So there was some small group that organized back in 1928 that Time magazine freaked out over. Brave. Well done. Is this the "new atheism" that I hear tell of.

Did a quick little Google search and it seems that other people, like you, that have a boner for showing off this organization are people that you would fit right in with and that most progressives would abhor. Congrats.

[Goblinmonger]

71. Some good Christian activity circa 1920s

"Ku Klux Klan, often abbreviated KKK and informally known as The Klan, is the name of three distinct past and present far-right,<5><6><7> Christian terrorist<8><9> organizations in the United States, which have advocated extremist reactionary currents such as white supremacy, white nationalism, anti-immigration and anti-communism."

"The Great Migration of African Americans to the North stoked racism by whites in Northern industrial cities; thus the second Klan would achieve its greatest political power not in any Southern state, but in Indiana. The migration of African Americans and whites from rural areas to Southern cities further increased tensions. The Klan grew most rapidly in urbanizing cities which had high growth rates between 1910 and 1930, such as Detroit, Memphis, Dayton, Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston. In Michigan, more than half of the members lived in Detroit and were concerned about urban issues: limited housing, rapid social change, competition for jobs."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#The_second_Klan:_1915.E2.80.931944

So, let's compare. You posted some crazy propaganda about an atheist group in the 20s while the Christian KKK was killing blacks. Next.

[humblebum]

72. Connection between these atheists and Soviet atheists?

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


'Is the Position of Atheism Growing Stronger?' By Joseph McCabe (1936)

[Goblinmonger]

73. oooh, you're up to 1936.

Bravo.

So do you take a scalding hot shower at night to get the stench of those you side with off you or do you like wallowing in it?

[humblebum]

74. Back to 1920.

In a letter from Bertrand Russell to Lenin after his visit with Lenin in 1920, "Bolshevism deserves the gratitude and admiration of all the progressive part of mankind." And the rest was history.

[Goblinmonger]

76. I thought it was Stalin that you liked to bitch about.

Is it Lenin now?

Do have problems with the early rising of Bolshevism? Or do you think they should have just let the Czars continue what they were doing?

[humblebum]

77. I think you don't pay attention. I have never focused solely on Stalin

because Stalin was only a part of atheist history. The crimes of the Czar cannot even hold a candle to the severity of events that began with Lenin. When It is being stated that "the worst that atheists could be accused of is being offensive", the record needs to set straight.

[Goblinmonger]

78. What year did those crimes start?

Did Russel know about them? Had they even started when he got there?

Sorry to put your little quotation in context.

[humblebum]

79. When did Lenin come to power? That's when it all started.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlNDh15wscM

[Goblinmonger]

83. Here's what he was doing in 1920

when Bertrand met with him (taken from Wikipedia)

"To initiate the Russian economic recovery, on 21 February 1920, he launched the GOELRO plan, the State Commission for Electrification of Russia (Государственная комиссия по электрификации России), and also established free universal health care and free education systems, and promulgated the politico-civil rights of women.<61> Moreover, since 1918, in re-establishing the economy, for the productive business administration of each industrial enterprise in Russia, Lenin proposed a government-accountable leader for each enterprise. Workers could request measures resolving problems, but had to abide the leader's ultimate decision."

So let's stop trying to smear Russel, huh.

And that guy who puts out that youtube video series sounds like someone you would love to have a drink with. Or is it you?

[humblebum]

87. Nice cover up. But that's far from being the whole story. Men like

Chamberlin were reporting everything that was going on in real time. Russel was well aware of the realities of the Revolution.

[charlie]

101. Let's have an example of the correspondences between Russell and Lenin

you keep asserting. That quote you've been dragging around ain't it.

[charlie]

108. Yo, see #101

I can haz Russell-Lenin penpal stuff?

[trotsky]

75. His hatred of atheists is so extreme....

he doesn't care who he has to get in bed with to smear them.

[humblebum]

81. Criticism of militant atheism does not imply hatred for atheists. nt

[darkstar3]

82. No, but your history does more than imply.

You continually beat on the straw man of "militant atheism" and then use every chance you get to apply that false moniker to atheists around the world and around the forum.

[trotsky]

84. But the shit you criticize is nearly 100 years old.

And it's the only weapon you have in response to ANY atheist saying ANYTHING.

[humblebum]

86. Excuse me? The 20th century was not 100 years ago and

the Soviet Union did not collapse until 1989 and state atheism is still recognized in China. Besides, much of stuff that is brought up here against religion is 500 years old.

[trotsky]

88. If you want to get recent, religious killings are still happening every day.

And this isn't even legitimizing your incessant and desperate attempts to make atheism, and not the real cause - COMMUNISM - responsible.

[humblebum]

89. Nice dodge. You're talking communism. I'm talking atheism. If

two happen to coincide - oh well. One is political, one is not. Men like Bukarin were advocating atheism long before the Bolsheviks.

[trotsky]

90. The only one doing the dodging here is you.

I just enjoy you getting more and more bitter and angry, showing us just how the love of Jesus works in your life. You are the best example on DU of a bad Christian!

[humblebum]

91. You are SO predictable. When you can't stay with the discussion,

you ALWAYS resort to Christian bashing and ad hominems.

[trotsky]

92. Calling you a bad Christian is Christian-bashing?

I think the nice Christians of the world might disagree. I am quite happy to just string you along, watching you sputter and spit and get more and more personal and attacking - it's a great way to show more people just how nasty a self-proclaimed Christian can be. And you play right along, not even realizing it. Hilarious!

[humblebum]

93. As a matter of fact you are still doing it. My religion has absolutely

nothing to do with explaining history. I'll refer to it as christian bashing and you can call it anything you want to. But in any case, it is your default position, ad hominem, straw man.

[trotsky]

94. If exposing your behavior is Christian bashing,

then you've got some soul searching to do. Try going back and reading those parts of the holy book you claim to follow where it says things about loving your neighbors and bearing false witness. When you apologize to me and PROVE what a decent Christian can be like, I'll be happy to change my tone with you.

[humblebum]

97. You are doing it again trotsky. All one needs to do is to take a look

at the list of thread topics to see who is generally bashing who. You are a master at avoidance and projection, not to mention ad hominems and strawmen.

[trotsky]

102. Oh I totally agree that a look at the thread shows who's bashing.

Which is why I love exposing you in all these threads.

[humblebum]

106. Still twisting my words aren't you? nt

[trotsky]

107. Absolutely no need to.

You do it yourself just fine.

[Cleobulus]

95. I must seriously ask, are you brain damaged?

If you think this group is anywhere close to what I'm even talking about, your fucking nuts. How many people did this organization kill?

[humblebum]

109. Um? Where did i say they ever killed anyone. It does show however

that atheist groups do have some fundamental doctrines, therefore there are fundamentalist atheists. But if you think that atheists have never killed anyone, you are ignorant or purposely covering up.

[Cleobulus]

110. Again I must ask, are you brain damaged?

Couple of problems with you statement, first off, there are no fundamental doctrines, the statements this particular organization made are statements for that organization, not all atheists, for example, most of them apply to the United States alone, and wouldn't apply to atheists in England or France. Indeed these "doctrines" are mostly political in nature, as is consistent with a political organization. Also, I never claimed that atheists never killed people, but again, you don't see atheists going out and bombing churches.

[humblebum]

111. Any organization has some kind of a doctrine, whether it called

a mission statement or vision statement or whatever. American Atheists has one. Not all atheists belong to organizations, therefore not all atheists follow any prescribed doctrine. BTW, there are plenty of pictures and vids of atheists blowing up churches. Never again.

[cleanhippie]

112. In case there was any confusion...

I am laughing at you.

there are plenty of pictures and vids of atheists blowing up churches. Never again.


Thats a good one. Quite the belly laugh.

[backscatter712]

80. I'm an extremist for saying aloud that God is actually an imaginary friend.

Every theist can proclaim his beliefs in public - in deities that used magic to create the world in seven days, or were crucified and magically came back from the dead. They can even threaten anyone that doesn't believe in their imaginary friend by saying they'll go to hell after they're dead, and burn and suffer for all eternity.

But if we atheists pipe up and say it's bullshit, all of the sudden, we're tarred as extremists.

[trotsky]

85. Yep, you've got it.

Welcome to the free marketplace of ideas. Atheists need not apply.

[onager]

96. Bugga bugga!

Jesus gets dumped in the ashbin of history...literally! This is one of the official publications of the LMG or "League of the Militant Godless."

Which that other poster up there...the one who keeps arguing with our great-great-grandparents...insists on translating as "League of Militant Atheists."

Of course, he never mentions that the LMG went completely out of business during WWII, when Stalin needed to get the churches behind him:

In order to gain support for the war effort (both domestic and foreign; the allies would not support Stalin if he continued the campaign) against the German forces that were effectively liberating religious believers from the persecution against them, Stalin ended the anti-religious persecution and the LMG was disbanded.

All LMG periodicals ceased to publish by September 1941. Its official disbandment date is unknown, but traced somewhere between 1941-1947.

Hmm. They didn't waste any time cracking down on the atheists. "September 1941" was only 3 months after the German invasion of the USSR started (on 22 June 1941).


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

[humblebum]

98. You didn't finish the story. Things reverted back to anti-religion

after the war. The League became "Znanie" or the Knowledge Society. "In 1955, Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev said, “Communism has not changed its attitude of opposition to religion. We are doing everything we can to eliminate the bewitching power of the opium of religion.”

"The ATHEIST’S HANDBOOK was published in Moscow in 1959 in conjunction with Khrushchev’s campaign to eliminate the remaining traces of religion in the U.S.S.R. This text attacks the Bible, the Qur’an, Christianity, and Islam. “Science,” says the Handbook, “has long since established that Jesus Christ never existed, that the figure of the alleged founder of Christianity is purely mythical.” And according to the Handbook, the Apostle Paul, too, turns out to be “a mythical figure.”

[backscatter712]

99. Oooh, we're in the 50's now. McCarthy would be proud of you! n/t

[onager]

100. Got your popcorn?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

113. The most hateful reaction I got to admitting I was an atheist

was from a bunch of Pagans.

I study Buddhism and Hinduism, and consider my official label to be "secular humanist Unitarian-Universalist".

I sent a group of them an e-mail, offering to have a social gathering at my place, and closed with "Namaste" which means "I salute the Divine Force within you". They got insulted and decided that since I was an atheist I was EEEVILLLLL.

One of them started it and several others copied the exact same sentence and sent me identical hateful emails.

Whatever.

I told them, "I see. So you'd rather I say 'you're a meaningless illusory transient meatsack' instead of 'I salute the godforce within you.' Okay."

:wtf:

That was surprising to me. I am used to Christians who know nothing about any other belief system telling me I'm going to hell.