everyone (else) seems to be hating on atheists

[Aiza]

Your rhetoric is getting stained, dear. Your pope does not agree with you.

Yes he did. Your quote is from a totally different context.

Standing next to the Queen, the Pope delivered a highly-politicized speech that was long on intolerance and hatred and short on accuracy. The Pope used this speech to warn Britain about "aggressive forms of secularism" and "atheist extremism" in society. He recounted Britain's stand against the Nazis, then stated "As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the Twentieth Century."

lol what? Intolerance and hatred? Would you feel the same if he talked about "aggressive forms of religiosity" and "religious extremism"? Is that also "intolerant" and "hateful"? Because I can tell you I hear those sorts of statements every day. If this is what you call "persecution of atheists" then welp!

Again, a very very number of Christians were killed in the 20th century in the name of state atheism. Thousands upon thousands of times the number of atheists who were killed in the entire history of state religion. Learning lessons from that isn't "intolerant of atheists".

[Shell B]

Again, a very very number of Christians were killed in the 20th century in the name of state atheism.

Sure they were. It was state atheism. Why do you even bother? Do nuns have to recite bullshit they read on the internet?

[Epimethean]

Apparently it is now a requirement, Shell: Two Our Fathers and a thousand La-La-La's.

[Creed of Heresy]

Aiza, you keep asserting that Christians were killed in the name of state atheism. I don't think you quite understand the paradox with what you speak. They were killed BY atheist states, yes, but not in the name of state atheism. They were killed in the name of the totalitarian dictator's power. Men, trying to play as god. This is why there are antitheists like me, who reject the godly idea in all of its forms; supernatural or in the form of men. No man has an intrinsic right to pass total judgement and those who feel they do have no real valid claim except by force, and if such is the case then the people he dominates have every right to use strength of their own to resist, and resist they must, that they may establish a non-god-like form of government, whose power must come from agreement, not strength. And god is an unproven entity in its supernatural form, constantly requiring faith to believe in, so allowing the mindset that we must submit ourselves to an invisible deity is also abhorrent to me and anti-theists like me.

To reply back a bit from earlier: Yes, it does prove it because the man was basically punished specifically for atheism. The article and its sources were very clear on that. And even today in an age of nearly-endless data redundancy we STILL have records and information that end up completely lost. The church may have some stellar record-keeping but it's far from perfect, especially considering how it was mostly all written in paper and paper, not stored in a precisely controlled environment [something only possible very recently] will decay and fall apart in less than a couple centuries. Information is bound to slip through the cracks, and those cracks can get pretty big if you think about all the factors that come into play in record keeping, such as passage time, clerical error, decay of the recording medium, destruction of property, revisionist leadership, and all that good stuff.

And yeah they tend to have the higher-educated bombers target more important locations. Unsurprising, that; you give the more important missions to the more capable men. These men can still be religiously brainwashed, though; education does not make someone foolproof to brainwashing, just less susceptible. Pardon the jab here but you were a woman on her way to getting a PhD and you're dropping that to become a Sister. I know, it is what you feel you must do...but from my perspective, I who went the opposite direction [faith to disbelief], it looks more like you succumbed to the kool-aid. Respectfully, I must point out that there are several topics [killing in the name of atheism for one, atheism is punishable by the church is another] that have been discussed where you are refuted on them, but you then bring them back up as if you have forgotten. This is often a clear sign of an unwillingness to change your opinion, and it is likely an unwillingness you are not even aware of. Me, I might continue to fight sometimes but I will never bring up a point I have lost at if I will simply be repeating my assertions unless I can bring up a new point, a new course to take [no argument that is wrong stands up forever after all].

Don't be mistaken; aggressive though I may be in the pursuit of my argument and despite what I will often jokingly say [hard to tell; I have a very dry sense of humor it seems] I do not come to a debate or argument thinking I am right. I want to be proven wrong because then I can learn from my mistakes. The joy of learning is far longer-lived than the far more temporary joy of winning a battle of wits. I would LIKE to be shown that atheism was never a punishable offense by the RCC, but at this point in time we have evidence that, indeed, it was, and no evidence against it beyond a "lack of documentation." I suspect there hasn't really been a huge inquiry into how many atheists were killed by the church for the crime of it; atheists are not a majority anywhere in the world and never really have been, and the idea of the "aggressive atheist" is a relatively new concept. Consider also the secretive nature of a lot of things involving the church and just how many records they really do have and also consider how much of a bureaucracy the church really is [consider its size and scope; over a billion adherents and the entire hierarchy that entails "attending to the flock" as it were] and then consider how very little demand and pressure there is for the church to admit to persecuting atheists given how small our numbers and, worse, how disorganized we are [largely because of the fact that atheism itself is not much of a unifying force, if it is at all]. So virtually no pressure [and where there is, it's from small, poorly-organized groups], being exerted by the little guy, against the secretive behemoth that is well-known for refusing to admits its complicity in things that could make it look morally bankrupt [consider that the church didn't revoke its support of fascism until years after fascism itself had pretty much died, for example]. Whereas at least the pagans were organized [they tended to share very similar beliefs after all and were oftentimes just as organized and tight-knit as the church itself], as were, of course, the Protestants [VERY organized in fact], so naturally the records were bound to be teeming with information about them. Plus they often violently opposed the church. I can't really imagine atheists, who were similar only in that they were atheists and therefore shared no real "belief" or religious customs, really warranted such furious attention by the scribes.

There are far too many indicators that support my argument, some of which I have brought up already, none of which have been decisively or even convincingly refuted yet, so you see where I build my case from on this point. We may never know the exact number of atheists persecuted...or, hell, maybe there WILL be an organized outburst directed at the church to release all records on atheists who were persecuted.

But given how the current pope has stated that atheism is a clear and definite evil and bane of a good society...I don't see that happening until the old Nazi-youth bastard dies. Hopefully sooner rather than later; I'd like to put this argument to bed once and for all at some point in my life, regardless of it being in my favor or another's.

[Mister Agenda]

Aw, I saw the Freethought Society of the Midlands and thought it was a local thing - local to me anyway. Then I found it's in South Carolina. I don't think there's a bus that goes quite that far.

Sorry to raise your hopes and then dash them.

[Aiza]

Aiza, you keep asserting that Christians were killed in the name of state atheism. I don't think you quite understand the paradox with what you speak. They were killed BY atheist states, yes, but not in the name of state atheism. They were killed in the name of the totalitarian dictator's power.

I think this is splitting hairs in a rather silly way. They were specifically killed because they would not become atheist. I generally avoid saying "killed in the name of atheism" because many atheists get hung up on the "in the name of" phraseology and try to dance around it somehow, even though the exact same argument can be made for any given religious killing.

Their brand of atheistic ideology explicitly called for the abolition of religion, since religion and theism itself were seen as detrimental to society and anti-scientific. They took it to its natural conclusion when they found out that just ridiculing religious people, shutting down religious institutions, etc. didn't work. Antitheism isn't about rejecting the "godly idea in all its forms" and proceeding to jam whatever you dislike into the definition of "god". It's specifically an active opposition to theism.

Information is bound to slip through the cracks, and those cracks can get pretty big if you think about all the factors that come into play in record keeping, such as passage time, clerical error, decay of the recording medium, destruction of property, revisionist leadership, and all that good stuff.

Sure, maybe. Either way I think its fair to say that they were extremely few and far between.

These men can still be religiously brainwashed, though; education does not make someone foolproof to brainwashing, just less susceptible.

I think "brainwashing"someone into a religion is what people told themselves in the 1960s to explain the newfound popularity of some NRMs. Its a pretty debateably issue to say the least:

James Richardson observes that if the NRMs had access to powerful brainwashing techniques, one would expect that NRMs would have high growth rates, yet in fact most have not had notable success in recruitment. Most adherents participate for only a short time, and the success in retaining members is limited.[42] For this and other reasons, sociologists of religion including David Bromley and Anson Shupe consider the idea that "cults" are brainwashing American youth to be "implausible."[43] In addition to Bromley, Thomas Robbins, Dick Anthony, Eileen Barker, Newton Maloney, Massimo Introvigne, John Hall, Lorne Dawson, Anson Shupe, Gordon Melton, Marc Galanter, Saul Levine (amongst other scholars researching NRMs) have argued and established to the satisfaction of courts, of relevant professional associations and of scientific communities that there exists no scientific theory, generally accepted and based upon methodologically sound research, that supports the brainwashing theories as advanced by the anti-cult movement.[44]

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

It's rather sketchy to say they were ever "brainwashed" into anything. I think its also sketchy to say that an educated person would be less susceptible to brainwashing because brainwashing itself can often take the form of education (and indeed, whether or not you consider a general cultural or historical curriculum to be brainwashing or not often depends on your own POV).

Since educated people are overrepresented in terrorism, I think actually that it is because they are educated about historical and sociopolitical issues that they can channel their anger at the West.

And I can promise you I wasn't brainwashed either, I converted on my own actually, with no Catholics hanging in the shadows trying to bully me into conversion or trying to 'convince' me of one thing or the other.

I suspect there hasn't really been a huge inquiry into how many atheists were killed by the church for the crime of it; atheists are not a majority anywhere in the world and never really have been, and the idea of the "aggressive atheist" is a relatively new concept. Consider also the secretive nature of a lot of things involving the church and just how many records they really do have and also consider how much of a bureaucracy the church really is [consider its size and scope; over a billion adherents and the entire hierarchy that entails "attending to the flock" as it were] and then consider how very little demand and pressure there is for the church to admit to persecuting atheists given how small our numbers and, worse, how disorganized we are [largely because of the fact that atheism itself is not much of a unifying force, if it is at all].

I don't buy this. The Church really isn't as 'secretive' as some popular media and they aren't sitting on secret trials of certain types of heresy but releasing others as they are demanded of. Protestants didn't need to demand that the records of the Inquisition be released. They've always been there, because the Church had no reason to hide them: and no, the Inquisition covered all manner of heresies, some of which weren't at all "organized". This feels like a borderline conspiracy of which there is no real evidence, if you will.

Also fascism is typically pretty anti-clerical and I don't know of the Catholic Church ever supporting fascism itself. It was popular among Catholics to support the authoritarian Francisco Franco since he was seen as the preferable alternative to state atheism. (With notable dissenters like Sg. Dorothy Day claiming that the lesser of two evils isn't actually good). Franco wasn't technically fascist though, since fascism seeks to transform society itself. Mussolini was an atheist but made a few attempts at reconciling with the Church (much to some controversy among other fascists), though the Church never really "supported" him.

But given how the current pope has stated that atheism is a clear and definite evil and bane of a good society...

He said that about atheist extremism.

[Shell B]

Atheism: I don't believe in god. Atheist extremism: I really don't believe in god.

Catholicism: I believe in god, Jesus and the Bible. Catholic extremism: I'm going to kill everyone who is not Catholic, if I can get away with it.

Silly person.

[Aiza]

Atheism: I don't believe in god. Atheist extremism: I really don't believe in god.

Catholicism: I believe in god, Jesus and the Bible. Catholic extremism: I'm going to kill everyone who is not Catholic, if I can get away with it.

Silly person.

Hmm...

Catholic: I believe in God, Jesus and the Church. Catholic extremism: I really believe in God, Jesus and the Church.

Atheism: I don't believe in god. Atheist extremism: I'm going to kill everyone who is not atheist, if I can get away with it.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think this is splitting hairs in a rather silly way. They were specifically killed because they would not become atheist. I generally avoid saying "killed in the name of atheism" because many atheists get hung up on the "in the name of" phraseology and try to dance around it somehow, even though the exact same argument can be made for any given religious killing.

Perhaps you like to think that this is splitting hairs in a silly way because to think otherwise would force you to confront the nastiness of the history of faith and the faithful? The exact same argument is often made for other religious killings, catholics killing people in the name of god and muslims killing people in the name of god are on level ground.

Their brand of atheistic ideology explicitly called for the abolition of religion, since religion and theism itself were seen as detrimental to society and anti-scientific. They took it to its natural conclusion when they found out that just ridiculing religious people, shutting down religious institutions, etc. didn't work. Antitheism isn't about rejecting the "godly idea in all its forms" and proceeding to jam whatever you dislike into the definition of "god". It's specifically an active opposition to theism.

Yes, I am actively opposed to the very idea of god , gods, the godly, etc. How do you propose I go about being in "active opposition" to theism without rejecting the very idea of the godly Aiza, take your time. Think it over.

Sure, maybe. Either way I think its fair to say that they were extremely few and far between.

Why do you imagine that it would be fair to say that? Your churches body count reads like a demons resume.

I think "brainwashing"someone into a religion is what people told themselves in the 1960s to explain the newfound popularity of some NRMs. Its a pretty debateably issue to say the least:

[quote]James Richardson observes that if the NRMs had access to powerful brainwashing techniques, one would expect that NRMs would have high growth rates, yet in fact most have not had notable success in recruitment. Most adherents participate for only a short time, and the success in retaining members is limited.[42] For this and other reasons, sociologists of religion including David Bromley and Anson Shupe consider the idea that "cults" are brainwashing American youth to be "implausible."[43] In addition to Bromley, Thomas Robbins, Dick Anthony, Eileen Barker, Newton Maloney, Massimo Introvigne, John Hall, Lorne Dawson, Anson Shupe, Gordon Melton, Marc Galanter, Saul Levine (amongst other scholars researching NRMs) have argued and established to the satisfaction of courts, of relevant professional associations and of scientific communities that there exists no scientific theory, generally accepted and based upon methodologically sound research, that supports the brainwashing theories as advanced by the anti-cult movement.[44]

"that supports the brainwashing theories as advanced by the anti-cult movement."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainwashing

Bolding mine, misdirection yours.

It's rather sketchy to say they were ever "brainwashed" into anything. I think its also sketchy to say that an educated person would be less susceptible to brainwashing because brainwashing itself can often take the form of education (and indeed, whether or not you consider a general cultural or historical curriculum to be brainwashing or not often depends on your own POV).


Since educated people are overrepresented in terrorism, I think actually that it is because they are educated about historical and sociopolitical issues that they can channel their anger at the West.

And I can promise you I wasn't brainwashed either, I converted on my own actually, with no Catholics hanging in the shadows trying to bully me into conversion or trying to 'convince' me of one thing or the other.

Wait..wait, so is there "brainwashing" or isn't there? Bullying is not the only way to manipulate a person, and I;d wager that among all possible ways to manipulate a person, it's the least reliable.

I don't buy this. The Church really isn't as 'secretive' as some popular media and they aren't sitting on secret trials of certain types of heresy but releasing others as they are demanded of. Protestants didn't need to demand that the records of the Inquisition be released. They've always been there, because the Church had no reason to hide them: and no, the Inquisition covered all manner of heresies, some of which weren't at all "organized". This feels like a borderline conspiracy of which there is no real evidence, if you will.

I absolutely agree with you on this one, I'm glad we could find common ground. When the church wants to douche it up it can afford to do so in the open. Besides, those jackasses couldn't organize a fucking conspiracy even if they wanted to.

Also fascism is typically pretty anti-clerical and I don't know of the Catholic Church ever supporting fascism itself.

Godwin.

It was popular among Catholics to support the authoritarian Francisco Franco since he was seen as the preferable alternative to state atheism.

Yeah, level-headedness in action right there.

(With notable dissenters like Sg. Dorothy Day claiming that the lesser of two evils isn't actually good). Franco wasn't technically fascist though, since fascism seeks to transform society itself. Mussolini was an atheist but made a few attempts at reconciling with the Church (much to some controversy among other fascists), though the Church never really "supported" him.

Godwin.

He said that about atheist extremism.

Whats the face of atheist extremism these days, do they have training camps, secret handshakes maybe?

The trouble Aiza, with attempting to play word games with Shells comment, is that Catholic extremists actually do kill people, in the name of their god.

[Shell B]

Really, Aiza, you're going to have to provide proof that a single atheist extremist has ever existed. Atheism is not the belief that people who are not atheist are somehow less than you. However, Christianity is precisely that. Now, if you can't understand that atheism has fuckall to do with anything apart from not believing in gods, you are going to have to remove your head from your ass before we can continue this conversation, if one can even call it that.

Answer this, Izzy. What is the difference between Catholicism and a cult?