This is why I hate people who hate "fucking christians"

[*Deidre*]

I think I get the the point.

Atheism can never become a religion, by definition. However the group which identifies as atheists does stand in danger of developing some of the more loathsome characteristics of a religion.

Blanket denunciations, prejudice, persecution complex, paranoia, hyperbole which becomes interpreted as fact, patronising superiority, all aspects found in spades among theists. However I've caught a few whiffs of it on this forum too.

Don't underestimate the power of community. Whenever a group comes together from a common belief (or lack thereof) themes start to develop. A sort of gestalt personality, a shared ethos. That's what can turn sour.

You have seen it many times in religious groups across the world. The sheer variety of these group personalities should be Testament to the fact that they arise from the group, not the core belief. That's why the "God hates fags" brigade and the christians who stand at gay pride marches wearing "We're sorry for hateful Christians" signs can exist. They may share aspects of their faith but their religion, their shared identity and values, are diametrically opposed.


An atheist group or community is just as vulnerable to that as a theist one. To think otherwise is, I suspect, the slippery slope to which diedre alluded. You won't ever make a religion. But you are vulnerable to the same pitfalls.

Thank you, Jacob! Yes, this is exactly my point, and well stated.

[Jacob(smooth)]

I think I get the the point.

Atheism can never become a religion, by definition. However the group which identifies as atheists does stand in danger of developing some of the more loathsome characteristics of a religion.

Blanket denunciations, prejudice, persecution complex, paranoia, hyperbole which becomes interpreted as fact, patronising superiority, all aspects found in spades among theists. However I've caught a few whiffs of it on this forum too.

Don't underestimate the power of community. Whenever a group comes together from a common belief (or lack thereof) themes start to develop. A sort of gestalt personality, a shared ethos. That's what can turn sour.

You have seen it many times in religious groups across the world. The sheer variety of these group personalities should be Testament to the fact that they arise from the group, not the core belief. That's why the "God hates fags" brigade and the christians who stand at gay pride marches wearing "We're sorry for hateful Christians" signs can exist. They may share aspects of their faith but their religion, their shared identity and values, are diametrically opposed.


An atheist group or community is just as vulnerable to that as a theist one. To think otherwise is, I suspect, the slippery slope to which diedre alluded. You won't ever make a religion. But you are vulnerable to the same pitfalls.

Thank you, Jacob! Yes, this is exactly my point, and well stated.

You are entirely welcome.

[Tonus]

And, apparently, their are also atheists who are willing to state that they "hate xtians". Apparently collectively and indiscriminately. Lumping them all together and apparently experiencing strong negative emotional feelings towards them because they believe something you don't.

I think that this is often driven by bitterness, and sometimes by the circumstances of their deconversion. I abandoned religion slowly and uneventfully for the most part, and had a network of support that made it easy to let go. So I don't hate Christians (or any other person, now that I think about it). I know some people who are quite bitter in their opposition to religion, and my impression is that there was some event or problem that led to such a rigid and unforgiving view. I think the term used today is that for them, Christianity is a "trigger" that automatically elicits an emotional response.

Religion is --for most religious people-- the most important aspect of their lives and one which may resonate for eternity. Having such an important belief system suddenly and violently undermined can leave a person with deep emotional scars. It is likely a reaction that they have little control over.

[Jacob(smooth)]

And, apparently, their are also atheists who are willing to state that they "hate xtians". Apparently collectively and indiscriminately. Lumping them all together and apparently experiencing strong negative emotional feelings towards them because they believe something you don't.

I think that this is often driven by bitterness, and sometimes by the circumstances of their deconversion. I abandoned religion slowly and uneventfully for the most part, and had a network of support that made it easy to let go. So I don't hate Christians (or any other person, now that I think about it). I know some people who are quite bitter in their opposition to religion, and my impression is that there was some event or problem that led to such a rigid and unforgiving view. I think the term used today is that for them, Christianity is a "trigger" that automatically elicits an emotional response.

Religion is --for most religious people-- the most important aspect of their lives and one which may resonate for eternity. Having such an important belief system suddenly and violently undermined can leave a person with deep emotional scars. It is likely a reaction that they have little control over.

That's probably it.

Rep point for thee.

[Brakeman]

Repeated because it was obviously overlooked..

That presumes two things. One is that logic and reason are the only tools people use (they are not) and two is that only the tools people use define them as a group.

Bullshit, name these other, non-dialog, tools that atheists use that might define them and could lead to a negative outcome if overused.

[Jacob(smooth)]

Repeated because it was obviously overlooked..

Bullshit, name these other, non-dialog, tools that atheists use that might define them and could lead to a negative outcome if overused.

Hyperbole, verbal abuse, peer pressure, mockery, argumentum ad hominem, generalisation, Reductio ad hitlerium, straw man, and the needless use of bold type.

For a start.

Want examples? I'm sure you can find all of those from atheists if you have a look.

Unless, like so many Christians, you are blind to the faults of people and groups who support your position.

[freedomfromforum]

People are shite.

All people? Maybe it is this mentality that fuels the assumption?

ETA: People are also great.

[Jacob(smooth)]

People are shite.

All people? Maybe it is this mentality that fuels the assumption?

ETA: People are also great.

Ha! Good point. People CAN be shite.

[Brakeman]

Bullshit, name these other, non-dialog, tools that atheists use that might define them and could lead to a negative outcome if overused.

Hyperbole, {=dialog}
verbal abuse, {=dialog}
peer pressure, {=dialog}
mockery, {=dialog}
argumentum ad hominem, {=dialog}
generalisation, {=dialog}
Reductio ad hitlerium, {=dialog}
straw man, {=dialog}
and the needless use of bold type. {=dialog}

For a start.

Want examples? I'm sure you can find all of those from atheists if you have a look.

Unless, like so many Christians, you are blind to the faults of people and groups who support your position.

All of your examples were forms of dialog that are given in the contrary position of those given by theists. Furthermore these dialogs are typical of how humans talk to each other on today's internet. The same styles would be used if we were talking about peoples' favorite band or their favorite cars. While sure, it would be nice if everyone used proper argumentative styles and politeness, it says nothing about ATHEIST's tools that can be carried too far, these points of "impoliteness" aren't related to the belief or unbelief of gods, but solely on the manners of individual atheists. None of the above are true tools of atheism, all atheist's attacks on the delusions of religion can be conveyed easily without malice. Desiree's comment was not that atheists shouldn't attack religion because atheists might pick up rude bad habits from theists. Her point was that we should live and let live on the stupidity of religious thought, that there is folly in countering the tenants of religion if you don't "have to."

You said there was a slippery slope that atheists could fall in, but none of the examples you gave are indicative of any "slippery slope." Are you taking that comment back yet, or do you really have any examples of tools that constitute a slippery slope danger?

Maybe it would help you if I gave you some slippery slope pitfalls that the theists have and maybe you can find an atheist counterpart.

1. Violence against heretics
2. child abuse by circumcision, male and female
3. Endangering people through the handling of poisonous snakes in rituals.
4. Ritualistic human sacrifice
5. Inhuman cruelty to prisoners
6. Hanging gays
7. burning witches
8. burning jews alive for host nailing desecrations
9. Stymieing science that does not support creationism
10. Prohibiting helpful medical procedures.

Those are just a few to get you started.. I'm sure you'll get the drift with these. I don't see any of those becoming a risk for atheists.

[Lion IRC]

...Maybe it would help you if I gave you some slippery slope pitfalls that the theists have and maybe you can find an atheist counterpart.

1. Violence against heretics

The way humans resort to violence to resolve conflict is instinctive and anthropological. It’s embedded in our selfish DNA. On naturalism/Darwinism, it’s quite normal.
So your beef isn’t against theism, it’s against human nature.

If you say (my) religion is false, abnormal, irrational, etc. that may be because the notion of unselfishly loving your enemy goes against your basic human nature – being told why and how to change that deepest ugly instinct bothers a lot of people.

2. child abuse by circumcision, male and female

You rail against circumcision of infants but abortion of unborn babies doesn’t get a mention. Yeah. I’ve seen that double-standard a LOT.

3. Endangering people through the handling of poisonous snakes in rituals.

If people want to handle snakes to get a religious “high” that bothers you but you don’t see the anti-religion whiners saying that drugs should be banned.

4. Ritualistic human sacrifice

Is there any modern day equivalent of human sacrifice? Yep. YOU BET!
We sacrifice human babies by the thousands every year just so we can continue to worship the gods of sexual hedonism and mammon/wealth. Ancient human sacrifice was widely expected and accepted as OK by the societies in which it was practiced. (Societies like the pagan Phoenicians, Canaanites and the worshippers of Baal, Molech, etc.) If you had gone to those people and said…this is wrong, they would have reacted in much the same way as if you tried to tell a bunch of selfish Western liberal feminists that abortion on-demand is immoral.

5. Inhuman cruelty to prisoners

Yeah, I know right! It’s horrible how they treat them like common criminals - murderers and robbers and rapists.

6. Hanging gays

The Old Testament doesn’t condemn people for being “gay” it condemns sex outside marriage and two men can’t be ‘married’
Interestingly, there arent any examples in the bible of gay people being subject to Mosaic Law capital punishment. Tough penalties probably provided sufficient deterrence.

7. burning witches

Hansel and Gretel were kidnapped by a witch – a proper evil witch, not a fake, incense and quartz crystals pretender. In that story, the witch was planning to murder and cannibalize innocent children. Wouldn’t YOU kill such a criminal to prevent such a horrific crime?
Funny how many ppl are opposed to capital punishment shown in the bible, but hold a double-standard when it comes to killing Usama bin Laden or dropping atom bombs on Japanese cities.

8. burning jews alive for host nailing desecrations

Disgusting. Where is that in the bible?

9. Stymieing science that does not support creationism

What? Science doesn’t need to be “stymied”. Science has done more to validate theistic cosmology than it has to invalidate anything biblical. What I find bizarre is the way people who are supposedly open-minded and willing to consider all theories as tentative, fight tooth and nail to stop schools discussing the probability of intentional design/teleology. Why the censorship of ideas?

10. Prohibiting helpful medical procedures.

Whats the issue here? Are “helpful” medical procedures going to become mandatory?