everyone (else) seems to be hating on atheists

[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.