everyone (else) seems to be hating on atheists

[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.