everyone (else) seems to be hating on atheists

[Reforged]

I cannot fucking believe this. I'm glad you guys have the patience to deal with this because this level of cognitive dissonance is blowing me away.

I find it entertaining to be honest. Probably says more about me than anything. lol

[Aiza]

Is the ages past where people have been butchered for not believing in a particular God not enough? Just because the inquisitions ended doesn't mean you get to act like they never happened.

I am not. But the Inquisition targeted mainly Jewish converts and Protestants (heretics). Not atheists. Atheism back then didn't even mean what we meant it today, so the two people I could find accused of "atheism" back then were a non-Trinitarian Christian and a pantheist. (Similarly, in much earlier times, an "atheist" was one who didn't respect the government of the state--so many early Christians were charged with "atheism". Interesting how language evolves over time). Also makes it very weird when some atheists try to throw the Inquisition in the face of Protestants, when Protestants were the primary victims.

Atheists did not endure any period of violence like those of African descent. Over a million African people were killed directly and/or enslaved, vs. atheists who experienced what, exactly? Trying to compare it to the persecutions of those of "African descent" is what is insulting.

Atheists are one of the least violent minorities, thats a fact.

Really? Atheists perpetuated the vast majority of anti-religious persecutions of recent history. Irreligious are also statistically more aggressive (see studies posted prior), and irreligious youth in particular are more likely to get into fights and carry weaponry. I mean, I don't think this justifies anti-atheist attitudes, but that's a weird "fact" you just gave there.

if he responds to the threat then he is assaulted. Thats facts.

Is it? Because incidents of anti-atheist motivated assault are tiny. You just got through saying that people can be persecuted in non-violent ways (which is fair), and then you try to bring in stuff like assault or the persecution of black folk and compare that to "anti-atheist discrimination".

An "atheist kid", really? Tell me, did you tell anyone you were an atheist? I sincerely doubt it. What changed your mind about evidence being a better alternative to faith? What age were you when you abandoned relying on your faculties to discern reality?

Well yes, most of my friends all knew I was atheist, and many of my family (not my mother though and I am glad for that).

Also nothing changed my mind about evidence, I don't think the word "Faith" means what you think it does.

It's nice that you denounce them. It'd be nicer if you didn't perpetuate them.

Pointing out that atheists have perpetuated the majority of anti-religious persecutions of the last few centuries isn't really news to anyone who paid attention in history class. I only mention it as a factor which contributes to anti-atheism, sort of like how 9-11 contributed to a spike in Islamophobia.

Although Hitler did brag about stamping out the atheist movement in Germany, he didn't find too many to execute.

He didn't find "too many"? I didn't know he executed any at all, at least not for being atheist.

You're not being murdered, so suck it up! Really?

I said no such thing. But it would be nice to show some historical awareness and tact when discussing this issue, because religious people actually are murdered. It would be like if I made a thread called "Jews are hating on Gentiles",complaining about how a full half of Jews are slightly uncomfortable with marrying a Gentile, when meanwhile ignoring the entire historical context in which Gentiles have actively persecuted and yes, killed Jews en masse in living memory. You know?

Especially when atheists are trying to say they are the "most loathed group". Oh geez.

What do you think they will do to you if you tell them?

Who knows? At worst, no more than some shocked or nasty comments and maybe even a degree of social alienation.

One of the ways in which anti-atheist prejudice is demonstrated is lumping us all together and holding us accountable for the actions of atheists we have nothing in common with. It's properly ludicrous to try to hold Christians accountable for the offerings of human hearts by the Aztecs, but holding humanists responsible for communist pogroms is somehow fair game.

Who is holding you responsible for that? But the fact is that it does bleed over and color your opinion of the label "atheism". I don't know about Aztec hearts, but I've seen plenty of atheists try to hold all Christians accountable for the Inquisition.

They're atheists, it counts as killing by atheists, although the characteristics of the victims seem to mostly have been 'perceived threat to the regime' rather than 'Christian identified, put them in a camp!'.

Except religion itself was classified as a "threat to the regime", so I'm not sure the difference here is as great as you make it out to be.
[quote']
If only Stalin had been a Catholic communist, he would have been much nicer? Can you hear yourself?[/quote]
We've had Christian communists before actually, and they never killed anyone. That being said, Stalin himself may not have been "nicer" but he also would not be killing and persecuting religious people, get it? Maybe he would have persecuted atheists or something.

We certainly shouldn't, if you would cite the post of anyone here saying people commit atrocities 'because of theism' I'll be happy to give them what-for for saying stupid things.

Um, the very person that post was in reply to said that people committed atrocities simply because of "belief in God". And that is really silly.

The biggest culprit was totalitarianism.

Not all totalitarian governments persecuted religious people. All anti-theist (or 'state atheist') governments have.

I won't argue that. How about the study that shows atheists and rapists are equally trusted?

Which study? The only study I know of is the laughable one which asked people that if their car was damaged in an accident and the suspect left the scene, was it more likely to be a "rapist teacher" or an "atheist teacher"?

And I am sorry but I don't think I can take that study's methodology seriously at all, other than people think atheists are more likely to damage cars than rapists.

[Annik]

@Aiza: Look into some stats about the prison population, sorted by religion. You might be surprised.

[Ace Otana]

Theists have got to give the whole Stalin, Hitler shit thing a rest. Hitler was a Catholic end of! The others were atheists but were also corrupt communist dictators acting on their political stance. They killed atheists too, that's a fact.
Besides, how can you kill for a lack of theism? Atheism simply means without theism. What point would there be to kill for a lack of belief?

Until you can prove that atheists are evil, violent, immoral baby eaters or whatever......kindly piss off.

[Jesus Pipes]

A lot of atheists just like to bash theists. Probably most of the users on here joined to say how much religion sucks. I'm not saying this is the reason everybody hates on atheists, but I'm sure it doesn't help. Everyone would hate an atheist even if they were nothing but tolerant and accepting. It's just not good for politics to like an atheist. It's hard not to return the hate cast upon you.

[Reforged]

I am not. But the Inquisition targeted mainly Jewish converts and Protestants (heretics). Not atheists. Atheism back then didn't even mean what we meant it today, so the two people I could find accused of "atheism" back then were a non-Trinitarian Christian and a pantheist. (Similarly, in much earlier times, an "atheist" was one who didn't respect the government of the state--so many early Christians were charged with "atheism". Interesting how language evolves over time). Also makes it very weird when some atheists try to throw the Inquisition in the face of Protestants, when Protestants were the primary victims.
Atheists did not endure any period of violence like those of African descent. Over a million African people were killed directly and/or enslaved, vs. atheists who experienced what, exactly? Trying to compare it to the persecutions of those of "African descent" is what is insulting.

Atheism is a lack of belief. They did not believe in your interpretation so your kind butchered and tortured them along with anyone who decided they didn't believe any interpretation. Everytime one of your moronic denominations decided to have a pissing contest we get caught in the middle. The fact that the word "atheist" was used to demonize should tell you everything you need to know. It comes from the original greek word "atheos" which means without God. Your kind twisted it to mean something else, thanks for demonstrating that. I already made it clear that I was talking about civil rights. If you continue to falsely suggest that I was talking of their enslavement we will end this conversation. I will not tolerate you twisting my words like your religion has done with so many other peoples words. You also have no right to be insulted on the behalf of another minority, none.

Really? Atheists perpetuated the vast majority of anti-religious persecutions of recent history. Irreligious are also statistically more aggressive (see studies posted prior), and irreligious youth in particular are more likely to get into fights and carry weaponry. I mean, I don't think this justifies anti-atheist attitudes, but that's a weird "fact" you just gave there.

Prove it, now. I would also like to point out that catholicism isn't just responsible for death via violence. I wouldn't even dare to guess at how many more have died as the result of STDs in the world alone thanks to your Popes golden advice. Who knew the voice of God could say such ugly things? Oh thats right, we did.

Is it? Because incidents of anti-atheist motivated assault are tiny. You just got through saying that people can be persecuted in non-violent ways (which is fair), and then you try to bring in stuff like assault or the persecution of black folk and compare that to "anti-atheist discrimination".

Because we do not often respond to your kinds insults. You tell us we're going to hell, that we're less than human. You say we are immorale and you attempt to isolate us. Why? Because we do not attribute our morality to something we cannot prove exists. We are persecuted in both violent and non-violent ways. Most of it occurs through threats, propoganda and demonization. What do you find so hard to grasp about this? Its disgusting behavior and I find it positively repulsive you would attempt to suggest it doesn't even occur. It does, whether you admit it or not. Your lack of experience on this subject is painfully obvious.

Well yes, most of my friends all knew I was atheist, and many of my family (not my mother though and I am glad for that).

Also nothing changed my mind about evidence, I don't think the word "Faith" means what you think it does.

You were afraid to tell your own mother and you're trying to tell me atheists aren't penalized?
Ha ha ha, ok. I mean I've only got the dictionaries definition to go by... oh and I've read the entire Bible cover to cover.... oh and I was a catholic for about half of my life... oh and I was a buddhist for three years... oh and I learnt about every other religion to one extent or another through study. Lets hear your particular definition of "faith". Let me just buckle up for this rip roaring and highly educational ride.

Bottom-line? We're done hiding while your more fanatical factions screw up the world in ever more colorful ways. We will fight your dogma in the way that best reflects our minority, with reason, knowledge and logic. Not with the aggresion and hatred we have come to expect from theism.
That is not and never will be our way.

---

A lot of atheists just like to bash theists. Probably most of the users on here joined to say how much religion sucks. I'm not saying this is the reason everybody hates on atheists, but I'm sure it doesn't help. Everyone would hate an atheist even if they were nothing but tolerant and accepting. It's just not good for politics to like an atheist. It's hard not to return the hate cast upon you.

Quick question, am I going to hell to burn forever and ever for not believing what you believe.
Don't be shy, I'm very politely asking you an honest question.

[Creed of Heresy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in...ristianity

Many Nazis promoted positive Christianity a militant, non-denominational form of Christianity which emphasized Christ as an active fighter and anti-semite who opposed the institutionalized Judaism of his day. Even in the later years of the Third Reich, many Protestant and Catholic clergy within Germany persisted in believing that Nazism was in its essence in accordance with Christian precepts.

Oh indeed, Aiza? Do not get me wrong, there were many that opposed him but yes, yes the Catholic Church DID support the nazis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Ch..._Holocaust

This article is filled with BOTH sides of catholicism; the good, and the bad. The good, who resisted, and the bad, who supported.

According to historians David Bankier and Hans Mommsen a thorough knowledge of the Holocaust was well within the reach of the German bishops, if they wanted to find out. According to historian Michael Phayer, "a number of bishops did want to know, and they succeeded very early on in discovering what their government was doing to the Jews in occupied Poland". Wilhelm Berning, for example, knew about the systematic nature of the Holocaust as early as February 1942, only one month after the Wannsee Conference. Most German Church historians believe that the church leaders knew of the Holocaust by the end of 1942, knowing more than any other church leaders outside the Vatican.

However, after the war, some bishops, including Adolf Bertram and Conrad Grober claimed that they had not been aware of the extent and details of the Holocaust, and were unsure of the veracity of the information that was brought to their attention.

Do I say ALL catholics sided with Hitler? No, no I do not. But do I say that the leadership of the church is directly responsible for supporting Hitler throughout his time as dictator? Yes, yes I do.

So. You want an example of the church's stance on atheists in the middle ages?

Ok, if you insist... Let me start with Thomas Aquinas, shall we?

Clearly the person who accepts the Church as an infallible guide will believe whatever the Church teaches.
-- Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

If forgers and malefactors are put to death by the secular power, there is much more reason for excommunicating and even putting to death one convicted of heresy.
-- Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power.
-- Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

That the saints may enjoy their beatitude and the grace of God more abundantly they are permitted to see the punishment of the damned in hell.
-- Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

This man is one of the 33 Doctors of the Church and is therefore one of the "greatest" members of it, apparently. And he pretty much said that killing people who were not believing in Christianity was justified because the "secular powers" [in which he was referring to the non-church-aligned empires and kingdoms of the time, and as I am reading, they are pretty few] would kill "forgers," who were basically people who were counterfeiters, and "malefactors," who were people who were thieves, murderers, anything of that ilk. Basically he equated non-belief with being a counterfeiter or murderer or thief or rapist or just a criminal in general.

http://markhumphrys.com/science.religion.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...Christians

So yes, while there are not many listings of atheists being specifically targeted, the term heresy is often used to encompass "non-belief," and atheism WOULD fall into that category. Given the existence of atheists in the times of Rome and Greece [yes, as we know them today] up UNTIL the rise of the Church, and again, when we consider that the Church was well-known for killing people who did not adhere to its beliefs, is it really any wonder why we don't hear much about atheists in a time and region where the church was virtually unopposed in its power??

You say "silence implies nonexistence." I say "silence implies fear of speech," and for good reason, as opposed to your view which basically takes a view that somehow there were no atheists in that time period when yet there have been atheists throughout recorded history prior to it. Did atheism just undergo a two millenia-long extinction, conveniently at the same time that one of the most oppressive religions was in power?

---

Really? Atheists perpetuated the vast majority of anti-religious persecutions of recent history. Irreligious are also statistically more aggressive (see studies posted prior), and irreligious youth in particular are more likely to get into fights and carry weaponry. I mean, I don't think this justifies anti-atheist attitudes, but that's a weird "fact" you just gave there.

Quit making bullshit up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Ass..._behaviors

Sociologist Phil Zuckerman analyzed previous social science research on secularity and non-belief, and concluded that societal well-being is positively correlated with irreligion. His findings relating specifically to atheism include:[61][62]

Compared to religious people, "atheists and secular people" are less nationalistic, prejudiced, antisemitic, racist, dogmatic, ethnocentric, close-minded, and authoritarian.
In the US, in states with the highest percentages of atheists, the murder rate is lower than average. In the most religious US states, the murder rate is higher than average.

In the US, states with highest percentages of atheists have lower murder rates and religious states have higher ones.

Gee, it's almost like whatever statistic you made up you pulled right out of your ass Please, if you're going to debate with us, debate with us, but don't make shit up, that's the only thing that genuinely pisses me off about people.

[Jesus Pipes]

That is not and never will be our way.

---

A lot of atheists just like to bash theists. Probably most of the users on here joined to say how much religion sucks. I'm not saying this is the reason everybody hates on atheists, but I'm sure it doesn't help. Everyone would hate an atheist even if they were nothing but tolerant and accepting. It's just not good for politics to like an atheist. It's hard not to return the hate cast upon you.

Quick question, am I going to hell to burn forever and ever for not believing what you believe.
Don't be shy, I'm very politely asking you an honest question.
[/quote]

No not at all. If anyone says you will burn in hell for having different beliefs is just brainwashed by religious dogma. Jesus himself never preached that. Whether he was God's son or just a man, he only preached tolerance and acceptance of others, even those that did not share his beliefs.

[Mister Agenda]

Really? Atheists perpetuated the vast majority of anti-religious persecutions of recent history.

And theists perpetuated all of the other persecutions throughout history. See how meaningful that is?

Irreligious are also statistically more aggressive (see studies posted prior), and irreligious youth in particular are more likely to get into fights and carry weaponry. I mean, I don't think this justifies anti-atheist attitudes, but that's a weird "fact" you just gave there.

Irreligous is not a synonym for 'atheist'. In the study, irreligiosity was measured by church attendance. Hint: only a small fraction of those who don't attend church regularly are atheists. Hint: some atheists do attend church regularly (I'm one of them, Unitarian). There is a correlation between high organic (as opposed to state) atheism and low violent crime rates though, perhaps that's where the factoid comes from.

if he responds to the threat then he is assaulted. Thats facts.

Is it? Because incidents of anti-atheist motivated assault are tiny. You just got through saying that people can be persecuted in non-violent ways (which is fair), and then you try to bring in stuff like assault or the persecution of black folk and compare that to "anti-atheist discrimination".

I agree that some of us can be imprecise when comparing persecution of atheists, which is mostly verbal, to persecution of other groups. It seems to be a human trait, considering how many people who find themselves in a literal and political majority seem to think they're being persecuted.

[quote='Aiza' pid='290429' dateline='1337980620']
Pointing out that atheists have perpetuated the majority of anti-religious persecutions of the last few centuries isn't really news to anyone who paid attention in history class.

Pointing out that it was communists would be more accurate, seeing as that would not include pretty much every atheist in the West and probably every atheist to whom you're talking.

who I only mention it as a factor which contributes to anti-atheism, sort of like how 9-11 contributed to a spike in Islamophobia.

If you agree it's unfair to hold something we had nothing to do with and can't change and think was wrong over us; perhaps you could let it drop.

He didn't find "too many"? I didn't know he executed any at all, at least not for being atheist.

Leaving out atheist Jews and Soviet communists for obvious reasons, I only know of Max Sievers, the chairman of the German Freethinkers League after Hitler outlawed all atheistic and freethinking groups in Germany.

I said no such thing.

Of course you didn't. You merely implied it.

But it would be nice to show some historical awareness and tact when discussing this issue, because religious people actually are murdered.

You know what? It wasn't the freakin' topic. You couldn't let us gripe about the actual discrimination we do face without belittling it.

It would be like if I made a thread called "Jews are hating on Gentiles",complaining about how a full half of Jews are slightly uncomfortable with marrying a Gentile, when meanwhile ignoring the entire historical context in which Gentiles have actively persecuted and yes, killed Jews en masse in living memory. You know?

Gee, wouldn't want to gripe about being hated on by Jews without Aiza providing a full historical context, would we?

Especially when atheists are trying to say they are the "most loathed group". Oh geez.

We're not trying to say it. That's what researchers are telling us.

[quote='Aiza' pid='290429' dateline='1337980620']
Who knows? At worst, no more than some shocked or nasty comments and maybe even a degree of social alienation.[quote]

I find it rich that you have the nerve to express concern about shocked and nasty comments when religous people in several countries are being murdered over their beliefs, right after chiding atheists for complaining about the equivalent of shocked or nasty comments (and death threats) and a degree of social alienation. It's almost like being concerned with how you are treated personally doesn't detract from acknowledging that there are people who have it worse.

[quote='Aiza' pid='290429' dateline='1337980620']
Who is holding you responsible for that?

Who, indeed?

[quote='Aiza' pid='290429' dateline='1337980620']
But the fact is that it does bleed over and color your opinion of the label "atheism". I don't know about Aztec hearts, but I've seen plenty of atheists try to hold all Christians accountable for the Inquisition.

Unlike the Aztec priests, the Inquisitors were Christians. We're not communists. See the difference? However, I would be glad if neither issue was brought up because it doesn't get us anywhere, but all I can do is not be the first to bring it up. In this case I only mention it as a factor which contributes to anti-theism, sort of like how 9-11 contributed to a spike in Islamophobia.

[quote='Aiza' pid='290429' dateline='1337980620']
Except religion itself was classified as a "threat to the regime", so I'm not sure the difference here is as great as you make it out to be.[quote']

Considering how many Orthodox churches were left alone, it sounds like Stalin may have been at a loss as to how to deal with threats to the regime. To the casual observer it looks like Christianity was tolerated under the Soviets provided it supported the regime.

[quote='Aiza' pid='290429' dateline='1337980620']
We've had Christian communists before actually, and they never killed anyone. That being said, Stalin himself may not have been "nicer" but he also would not be killing and persecuting religious people, get it? Maybe he would have persecuted atheists or something.
[quote]

I hope I don't get it. You make it sound like the problem was who he was committing genocide against rather than that he was committing genocide. You'll find that's the opposite of what most humanists think: Stalin was murderous butcher who would have killed millions of people no matter what totalitarian regime he was in charge of, and even if it had been a totalitarian Catholic regime (not out of the question for a man who went to seminary) it is a better argument against totalitarianism than it is against theism or atheism.

[quote='Aiza' pid='290429' dateline='1337980620']
Um, the very person that post was in reply to said that people committed atrocities simply because of "belief in God". And that is really silly.

True. I'll be back in a minute.

[quote='Aiza' pid='290429' dateline='1337980620']
Not all totalitarian governments persecuted religious people. All anti-theist (or 'state atheist') governments have.

I suspect we have a definitional problem. Which totalitarian government doe you think got it right when it came to persecution?

[quote='Aiza' pid='290429' dateline='1337980620']
Which study? The only study I know of is the laughable one which asked people that if their car was damaged in an accident and the suspect left the scene, was it more likely to be a "rapist teacher" or an "atheist teacher"?

It should be pretty clear-cut that a rapist is less likely than an atheist to do such a thing. The respondents certainly thought it was clear that a Christian or a Muslim would be less to, didn't they? Acknowledging the Muslims took an unfair hit there, too, just not quite as bad as we did.

[quote='Aiza' pid='290429' dateline='1337980620']
And I am sorry but I don't think I can take that study's methodology seriously at all, other than people think atheists are more likely to damage cars than rapists.

If you didn't read the study carefully, why do you think you're qualified to laugh at it? It wasn't about who was more likely to damage a car, it was about who was more likely to own up to it.

[Reforged]

No not at all. If anyone says you will burn in hell for having different beliefs is just brainwashed by religious dogma. Jesus himself never preached that. Whether he was God's son or just a man, he only preached tolerance and acceptance of others, even those that did not share his beliefs.

Agreed. I appreciate the fact you realise that, its a rarity in most Christians.
However, Jesus reportedly said that the old testament holds true, did he not?
What of the Bible? Supposedly the word of God. It has quite alot to say on the subject.
You disagree with it on this subject?