Saturday, May 22, 2010

Hate group still there

Photobucket Christian apologists confronts
message board Athesits



I thought I perceived an actual decline in the hate group effects of atheism, but of cousre just when you start relaxing a bit here it comes back on you.

Username the anti-education guy posts this on CARM:


A Nigerian Witch-Hunter Defends Herself
Michael Stravato for The New York Times

HOUSTON — At home in Nigeria, the Pentecostal preacher Helen Ukpabio draws thousands to her revival meetings. Last August, when she had herself consecrated Christendom’s first “lady apostle,” Nigerian politicians and Nollywood actors attended the ceremony. Her books and DVDs, which explain how Satan possesses children, are widely known.

So well-known, in fact, that Ms. Ukpabio’s critics say her teachings have contributed to the torture or abandonment of thousands of Nigerian children — including infants and toddlers — suspected of being witches and warlocks. Her culpability is a central contention of “Saving Africa’s Witch Children,” a documentary that made its American debut Wednesday on HBO2.

Those disturbed by the needless immiseration of innocent children should beware. “Saving Africa’s Witch Children” follows Gary Foxcroft, founder of the charity Stepping Stones Nigeria, as he travels the rural state of Akwa Ibom, rescuing children abused during horrific “exorcisms” — splashed with acid, buried alive, dipped in fire — or abandoned roadside, cast out of their villages because some itinerant preacher called them possessed.



In the past when this kind of charge has been made I have responded:  Atheist murdered 100 million, they will say, as they have said before, "those are a special type of atheists that aren't' like us. they are making a special kind of argument called "special pleading." Of cousre we are supposed to think this is really representative of all Christianity. He doesn't make any attempt to qualify it. Nigerian witch hunter Pentecostals are really so much like the White upper middle class professors I had at Perkinks. They are not even like the Balck prof I had at Perkins.

Originally Posted by Username View Post
First, the major mistake you make in thinking that Christians through the years have fought the good fight. They have fought a fight that THEY THOUGHT was good. Fighting against homosexual marriage, gay adoption, condoms, sex education, teaching evolution, etc (And at times fighting against women's rights, equal rights, etc.)

 Meta:
and of course that's a silly little selective BS list that has nothing to do with Chrsitians.
The real list of Christianity's accomplishments.

(1) most world hunger organizations
(2) red cross
(3) YMCA
(4) modern hosptials
(5) public schools
(6) labor unions
(7) abolition of slavery
(8) votes for women
more


Username

See, to Xians they think the whole world is evil and they have done nothing but tried to bring Goodness and Lollipops in the world via God, prayer and sugary sweetness. Oh, the poor Xians, they have only wanted what is Good and Right and Just... meanwhile we look at the history and we see some of the greatest atrocities commited and only after the rest of society said "Enough!" did they stop and suddenly make the counter position their official platform. Slavery is one of those very obvious ones.
of cousre that's not a bais apprasial that sees only the funides as crhistians is it?

Meta
you are so ignorant. this is the kind of narrow minded hate group banter that makes me talk aobut how ignorant atheists are.

this is just a hate group atheism thread started by some guy who needed in fix for venting his hatred agsinst thigns he doesn't understand.

Photobucket

Michigan Sate University



"A hate crime (bias crime), loosely defined, is a crime committed because of the perpetrator's prejudices. This is a controversial political issue within the US. The US Congress (HR 4797 - 1992) defined a hate crime as: "[a crime in which] the defendant's conduct was motivated by hatred, bias, or prejudice, based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or gender identity of another individual or group of individuals." In 1994, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act added disabilities to the above list. Visit the Hate Crime entry from the Wikipedia for more information."


U. of Oklahoma Police Dept



"Not limited to individual activity, many organizations have been labeled as "hate groups" where their group objectives and activities promote prejudicial behavior and even organized criminal activity targeting groups of citizens."


I don't really think it's a hate group, and I know most atheists don't "Hate" Christians. but these provocative threads that are intended to stir up feeling of mocking and ridicule against Christianity as a whole, when what the mean is one extreme type, have got to go. I do think a segment of atheist community is becoming a hate group.

you don't like being treated unfairly through guilt by association, but you are willing to do that to Christians.

this is just a taste of your own medicine (for those who would put up threads like that--which I know is not all atheists).



I have mad this post in response to the thread "why is Christianity evil?"

Three points to make:

(1) that OP has no analysis at all so to Why!. NO social theory is discussed, no sociological analysis is given.

(2) the thread is pure hate. it's put up becuase teh author needed his mocking ridicule fix. this is the kind of garbage that I started atheist watch for and it's proved it's case. Atheism is a hate group. you despise Christians, most of you becuase you are gay and tey think they would stop you from that, or other things. most of your complains about the evils of Christianity revolve around their take on your pet sin.

The social take on most such threads is always historically shallow and superficial. Christianity is always viewed as only the extreme fundies and all other contributions (such as abolition of slavery) are just sweep aside and they pretend the don't exist because they know nothing of history.


(3) It's pretty well proved that practicing abuse of particular groups is addictive and leads to the need to mock ridicule more.

Atheists mock and ridicule because they need to feel good about themselves and they can't. They are bound up with guilt to suppress the guilt they have to pick out a target hated group to better than.



"The greater the feeling of inferiority, which has seen the most powerful is the desire of conquest and the more violent the emotional agitation." — Alfred Adler
source of quote an article here


they are so concerned about it:


Valekhai



Valekhai is online now
Atheism Forum Member Reputation: 24



"Dear oh dear. Atheist have made sweeping generalizations about Christians that are not so! Whatever shall we do? I know, I shall make sweeping generalizations about atheists that also are not so! That will fix it!"








U. of Oklahoma Police Dept

http://www.ou.edu/oupd/hate.htm

"Not limited to individual activity, many organizations have been labeled as "hate groups" where their group objectives and activities promote prejudicial behavior and even organized criminal activity targeting groups of citizens."


I don't really think it's a hate group, and I know most atheists don't "Hate" Christians. but these provocative threads that are intended to stir up feeling of mocking and ridicule against Christianity as a whole, when what the mean is one extreme type, have got to go.

you don't like being treated unfairly through guilt by association, but you are willing to do that to Christians.

this is just a taste of your own medicine (for those who would put up threads like that--which I know is not all atheists).


they can't analyze it fairly:

Oh yes. Combat the generalization by putting up one of your own. Helpful, much?


O did i? I thought I put up a definition. where is the generalization?

in the old days we used to say "if the shoe fits..." do you know that one? Is that a generalization?

What I did was to document that hatred agaisnt religion is the kind of hate our society is agaisnt, and they can't stand and label is as "generalization" against them!

18 comments:

A Hermit said...

Don't you think killing children in God's name is a problem? Why doesn't that upset you more than someone being rude on the internet?

Loren said...

Metacrock, your complaint would be a little bit more convincing if you directly found fault with the likes of Helen Ukpabio and pushed for witchcraft-debunking efforts -- and efforts against the Religious Right in general. Instead, all you do is indulge in the No True Scotsman fallacy and patting yourself on the back about what a wonderfully virtuous religion you believe in.

You seem to imply that Christianity should be given credit for just about every good thing that anyone has ever done, but some of your claims are just plain wrong.

Let's see about some of your examples.

Hospitals were invented by pagans, like worshippers of Asclepius. Where do you think that medical-emblem coiled snakes came from? And the Hippocratic Oath? Though his oath invoked some Greek gods, Hippocrates nevertheless took a scientific and rationalistic approach to medicine that continues to be a big success. Although epilepsy had gotten called the "sacred disease", Hippocrates had found that rather unconvincing.

It also must be noted that though Jesus Christ was described as practicing exorcism, that therapy is no longer very popular. Neither is salivary therapy, which JC was described as having practiced.

Public schools? That's a secular thing, and something distinct from church-run schools. Furthermore, look who invented schools -- Greco-Roman pagans. Guess what was first called "Academy" -- anything in the Bible?

Labor unions? Don't make me laugh. That's a largely secular sort of thing.

Abolition of slavery? That was Christian vs. Christian. A common pro-slavery argument was that God had cursed Ham with the curse that Ham's descendants (black people) were to be servants and slaves of Shem's and Japheth's descendants (white people). Is that a secular sort of argument?

Votes for women and feminism in general? I have to suppress a very loud laugh here, because women voting and feminism were fought very hard by much of the clergy, who were presumably very expert on Christianity.

Metacrock, your argumentum ex cerasicarptione won't work.

Metacrock said...

I deleted Rex's comment because I'm not going to allow more mocking and ridicule with no substance behind it. I twas convent for a while because it gave me something to post. But that's the thing I'm trying to stop so why allow it further?

If you want comments posted here you have to make rational substantial ones. no historical claims now widely emotional unfair bs no unfounded assertions and childish accusations.

Metacrock said...

Blogger A Hermit said...

Don't you think killing children in God's name is a problem? Why doesn't that upset you more than someone being rude on the internet?

yea that's what I really said. I sure do I have a long history of workings to support the murder of children. that's why I was Marxist and supported Nicaragua against the contras.

spare me the ultra sanctimonious self righteous self hating liberal crap.

Metacrock said...

Metacrock, your complaint would be a little bit more convincing if you directly found fault with the likes of Helen Ukpabio and pushed for witchcraft-debunking efforts -- and efforts against the Religious Right in general. Instead, all you do is indulge in the No True Scotsman fallacy and patting yourself on the back about what a wonderfully virtuous religion you believe in.

this is absoltey purilie. you are surpassed your own usual bad logic to a utter inablity to think.

you are actually trying to say that unless I snap to and joing your slander fest agsint Christnaiity then I'm in ther ewith the child murderers?

you are a child murderer! atheist mudeerd 100 million people! you are guilty of thier blood.

we've talked about this stupid ass no ture scotsman life before.

(1) its' a propagdna lie not logic

(2) totally hyupocrtical. it's jsut an exculse to slander freely and not be bothereed by the sins of your side.

(3) it's obviously not analogs becuase the implication (no true Scotsman) deals with birth and Christianity is a volunteer organization. there can be such a thing as a true Christian because its' not something you are born into (like being Scotsman) you have to join. It's based upon following teachings.




You seem to imply that Christianity should be given credit for just about every good thing that anyone has ever done, but some of your claims are just plain wrong.

that list is accurate. you are just amazed because the tartet group your brain washing tells you to hate is really damn good.

Christianity has ehanced the lot of humanity in a super way.




Let's see about some of your examples.

Hospitals were invented by pagans, like worshippers of Asclepius.

bull shit! that is a propaganda lie. that world which contained something somewhat like hospitals furnished. it was gone. there were not such things. Christians started them. Christianity built modern hospitals.

the major hospitals in America for many decades were Presbyterian, Methodist, Catholic.




Where do you think that medical-emblem coiled snakes came from?

DNA--archtypical

And the Hippocratic Oath? Though his oath invoked some Greek gods, Hippocrates nevertheless took a scientific and rationalistic approach to medicine that continues to be a big success. Although epilepsy had gotten called the "sacred disease", Hippocrates had found that rather unconvincing.


do you have any knowledge of history at all? What happened to the Roman empire sweetheart?

It also must be noted that though Jesus Christ was described as practicing exorcism, that therapy is no longer very popular. Neither is salivary therapy, which JC was described as having practiced.

he didn't kill anyone doing it either. He lived in an era when it was common.

Public schools? That's a secular thing, and something distinct from church-run schools. Furthermore, look who invented schools -- Greco-Roman pagans. Guess what was first called "Academy" -- anything in the Bible?


who stareted them? who made it possilbe that they were in all communities accross the country. you know nothign of hsitory you have never studied the history of socia movmeents have you?

you have all the sanctimonious BS of the liberal feminist with none of the knowledge to back it up.

who made public schools happen in the 19th century? social movements ran by Christian. social gospel, abolitionists, woman's sufferance, labor unions.

that was the coalition that built public schools they were built by major Christian leaders in every segment of that movement.


Labor unions? Don't make me laugh. That's a largely secular sort of thing.

Metacrock said...

what in the hell do you know about labor histoyr. obviously have never studied it?

who was Joe Hill? Who were the Wobblies. I bet you don't know.

ever heard of Mother Jones? guess who she was? A Christain leader.

its' so utterly stupid to think That's secular" becuase it's secular now that has nothing to do with how they got started.

huge social movement in the 19th century that said Christ will come back and find a Christian world with no problems. So they worked on social problems.

this also highlight how little you know about Christianity. just ignorant people slandering a good thing becuase you are stupid to study it.



Abolition of slavery? That was Christian vs. Christian.


super ignorant! atheists in the 19th century were all Utilitarian so they tended to be pro slavery.

A common pro-slavery argument was that God had cursed Ham with the curse that Ham's descendants (black people) were to be servants and slaves of Shem's and Japheth's descendants (white people). Is that a secular sort of argument?


of course people with something to gain finanacially use the bilbe to motivate others. why wouldn't they are you are stuat stupid? if Buddhism was the major religion here they would use the eight fold path. if society had been atheist they would have used utilariatianism.

abolitionists Chrsitain were hug! what did they gain? they had no finacial steak, why did they support something that gianed them nothing but death? HU?

why did they did that tell me?


Votes for women and feminism in general? I have to suppress a very loud laugh here, because women voting and feminism were fought very hard by much of the clergy, who were presumably very expert on Christianity.



thr first organized sufferenage group was Christain women's orgnaizaition. of you are not really dedicted to feminism because if you were you would care about its' hitory. the major pushers of women's rights have always been Chrsitains.

of course they are also against it, because many Christianity are men. men have male ego. male ego can't stand lose of advantage.

they would be doing that no matter what religion or lack of religion was the majority.


Metacrock, your argumentum ex cerasicarptione won't work.


Loren you are ignorant of hsitory. you know nothing gof hte history of social movements and you claim to be so involved in theme but you know nothing about them.

Rex said...

I wondered how long it would take before your superstitions wouldn't be able to hold up to questioning and maybe having a little fun poked at their weaknesses. It must suck to have such fragile "convictions".

Keep your useless superstitions, and hide like the weakling you are behind your censorship.

You know that the only way to keep selling your superstitions in the marketplace of ideas is to censor the opposing view. Your people have been doing that for centuries.

Metacrock said...

I wondered how long it would take before your superstitions wouldn't be able to hold up to questioning and maybe having a little fun poked at their weaknesses. It must suck to have such fragile "convictions".

Keep your useless superstitions, and hide like the weakling you are behind your censorship.

You know that the only way to keep selling your superstitions in the marketplace of ideas is to censor the opposing view. Your people have been doing that for centuries.


so you go form hysterical grossly exaggerated wailing like a hysterical old woman to petulant resentment. why can't you make analysis? you don't even realize the pasting you've gotten on every single argument because you sacrifice real argument for hysterics.

now you just lashing out in petulance is going to fix it?

Loren said...

Metacrock, there you go again, with your rewrites of history and your cherry-picking and your excessive literal-mindedness about the No True Scotsman fallacy and your willingness to believe that atheists are all evil, subhuman monsters.

And also your much greater indignation against atheists than against the Helen Ukpabios of the world. If I was in your position, I'd be pissed like hell at her for defaming my religion. You must be aware that some atheist messageboard admins have shown much more tolerance of your beliefs than some Christian ones.

You amy want to read Exodus 22:18 about what to do about anyone who practices sorcery. Nowhere does the Bible state that people should not be punished for that, and that sorcery is psychological warfare -- at best -- and not worth losing sleep over.

BTW, what religion did the witch-burners believe in?

Furthermore, do you have any DIRECT evidence that most atheists in the mid 19th cy. were supporters of slavery? If anything, it was the opposite, since atheists tended to be attracted to anti-authoritarian movements like abolitionism and feminism. Susan Jacoby has a lot of documentation of that.

Finally, argumentum ex cerasicarptione = Latin for "argument from cherry-picking".

Loren said...

For the record, I think it's wrong what Communists have done about religion. They should not have tried to persecute it out of existence. Instead, they should have disestablished all religious organizations and deprived them of all special privileges, while keeping them from being persecuted. Religious organizations would then have the legal status of hobbyist organizations and the like.

Something like the policies of zealously secular nations like France, which nevertheless tolerate religion.

Metacrock said...

For the record, I think it's wrong what Communists have done about religion. They should not have tried to persecute it out of existence. Instead, they should have disestablished all religious organizations and deprived them of all special privileges, while keeping them from being persecuted. Religious organizations would then have the legal status of hobbyist organizations and the like.


be ok with me, if hey could guarantee protections. but I would want the same status for atheism, including the protections.

Metacrock said...

Metacrock, there you go again, with your rewrites of history and your cherry-picking and your excessive literal-mindedness about the No True Scotsman fallacy and your willingness to believe that atheists are all evil, subhuman monsters.


I suppose you are too young to remember the Saturday Night Live parady of Shana Alexander and that other guy form 60 minutes done by Jane Curtain and Dan Akroid?

are you saying atheists are not evil subhuman monsters? :o

I'm going to make you eat your words on history, you know nothing about history. I'm a trained historian I don't' what you are trained in but it ant history.


And also your much greater indignation against atheists than against the Helen Ukpabios of the world. If I was in your position, I'd be pissed like hell at her for defaming my religion.

O see now. You are trained mind reader!


You must be aware that some atheist messageboard admins have shown much more tolerance of your beliefs than some Christian ones.


they can afford to because they don't mods to kick people off, their own guys do that by mocking and ridiculing. I wish to God you would to an a board and be treated the way I was treated. I can't bring myself to do that to you.



You amy want to read Exodus 22:18 about what to do about anyone who practices sorcery. Nowhere does the Bible state that people should not be punished for that, and that sorcery is psychological warfare -- at best -- and not worth losing sleep over.


the original language says "poisoner" not witchcraft. It doesn't say specifically to punish witches.

It wouldn't matter if it did because they bible is only one leg of christian tradition.


BTW, what religion did the witch-burners believe in?


do know that pagans also persecuted witches? yes they did.

do you nkkow the works of histiran Keith Miller? he proved that the Catholics did not burn withches, it was only when the reformation took over and woudl not allow exorcism that they had the increase.

did you know it was the secular courts that ordered it, not the chruch. The chruch merely forbade exorcism.

Christians in the enlightenment stopped witch trials.


Furthermore, do you have any DIRECT evidence that most atheists in the mid 19th cy. were supporters of slavery?

yes


If anything, it was the opposite, since atheists tended to be attracted to anti-authoritarian movements like abolitionism and feminism. Susan Jacoby has a lot of documentation of that.


that's a fallacy. atheists are not anti-authoritarian, they are fascists who will outlaw religion as as they get a chance. You have proved that with your own attitudes. but it was the utilitarianism that drew the atheists to slavery. They may be anti-authority when it comes to their own rights. but not whwen it benefits them to enslave others.

Finally, argumentum ex cerasicarptione = Latin for "argument from cherry-picking".

thats' one of the stupidest things you've ever said. give this long list of times adn palce where Christains died figthign oppressive you call it little stupid atheist code word "cherry picking" in atheis land means "I can't answer that so ther'es a catch all phrase that sounds debater like"

don't you have books to burn?

Metacrock said...

"cherry picking" is what atheists say when they are too stupid to read and find out the facts of what's being argued.

that's' what they call textual criticism. I show textual critics say thus and so about a ver the atheist always go "that's cherry picking."

Loren said...

Metacrock, you claim that the coiled-snake medical emblem comes from "DNA--archtypical" This bit of iconography is only half a century old, and would not have existed without the work of Watson and Crick and their successors.

However, it has antecedents over 2 millennia old: the Rod of Asclepius and the Caduceus

You might also find Hippocrates interesting reading. Hippocrates's school was much more scientific about medicine than anything in the Bible.

Metacrock said...

Metacrock, you claim that the coiled-snake medical emblem comes from "DNA--archtypical" This bit of iconography is only half a century old, and would not have existed without the work of Watson and Crick and their successors.

However, it has antecedents over 2 millennia old: the Rod of Asclepius and the Caduceus

You might also find Hippocrates interesting reading. Hippocrates's school was much more scientific about medicine than anything in the Bible.

why do you act like things that are common knowledge are real unknown to people? Everyone knows about the Caduceus. The caduceus being archtypical of DNA has nothing to do with WAtson and Crick. it's an archetype. don't you know what those are?

Metacrock said...

Caduceus being DNA is basically a joke, I got it from Dr. Who. A Peter Davidson episode.

Kristen said...

Loren said,

"You might also find Hippocrates interesting reading. Hippocrates's school was much more scientific about medicine than anything in the Bible."

The various books of the Bible were no more intended to be books of medicine than Hippocrates' works were meant to be about humanity's relations with the divine. Why must there always be these apples-and-oranges comparisons around here?

Metacrock said...

"You might also find Hippocrates interesting reading. Hippocrates's school was much more scientific about medicine than anything in the Bible."

that does not alter the fact of Christian contribution to modern hospitals.



The various books of the Bible were no more intended to be books of medicine than Hippocrates' works were meant to be about humanity's relations with the divine. Why must there always be these apples-and-oranges comparisons around here?


what did I say that had anything to do with the bible? I was responding to the argument that Christabella is evil becuase it always does evil things. I was showing that it is done major good things, which you unable to refute.
what does that have to do with the books of the bible?