Atheism: Clear and Presnet Danger

This is a controversial ploy. It's really baiting the atheists on CARM into showing their true attitudes toward their own sense of privileged position and their bigotry against religious people. I am playing the paranoid here. I am talking them literally when I know they probalby wouldn't really mean what it sounds like they are saying. I don't seriously think any of them are Nazis or sympathize with Nazis or that they planing any kind violence. I think the fact that they wont come out and say "we don't accept hurting people" is important. They clearly have no sense of protecting the rights of others, and no understanding of that means for their own rights.

My offer to take it down if you don't' like it was for the CADRE blog. I forgot to remove it here.

I also want to point out that I don't believe that all atheists think this way. I am disturbed that one's that formerly respected are saying things I am worried about.

posted by me to atheists on carm


this is a very very serious post I wish you would address it that way.

when I was a kid I used to be very moved by stories about the holocaust. My mother once showed me a news paper clipping she saved from the war, it was an interview with someone who worked in a concentration camp and talked about sorting the clothing of the victims, and how they had children's clothes and crippled people's crutches.

I used to hear about ideas like "they came for the Jews I didn't say anything, they came after the poles an didn't say anything and they came after me and there was no one left to say anything." I would be greatly moved and think "this is the worst evil there is. anyone who would destroy a group of people just because they don't like that group for who they are is the worst form of scum."

I grew up in the south. My father told me about how he saw lynchings of blacks and some of them were led by his uncle. He was deeply ashamed that someone in our family did this. He was totally pro civil rights. he taught me that blacks had been persecuted and mistreated. This again gave me the notion that the worst kind of scum is anyone who would persecute a whole group just becasue they don't like how they are or what they believe or something about them.

Now I see the troubling signs that in the new atheism they don't understand the dangers of venting hatred for a whole group based upon their beliefs. I know you think that's nuts, and Hermit gets mad at me for saying this. Every time I expect atheist to contradict that idea I see them supporting it.


I put up a post saying Is it right to reject people's ideas without considering them just becuase of who those people are. to my horror a bunch of you agreed it is.

what is the difference in saying "we must persecute the Jews" and saying we must persecute the fundamentalists? the Jews had the OT. they have the vengeful Y God you hate so deeply. Are you then anti-emetic?

A well known atheist here made this following statement and I see in this a frank admission that it would not bother him to persecute people for their religious beliefs.


here's the statement, I will embolden the things that really bother me.:

This is one issue I take with "new atheism." I get where people like Sam Harris is coming from- liberal forms of religion tend to lend credence to religious belief. When intellectuals provide a seemingly reasonable face for belief in gods, it gives god-belief of all sorts an undeserved air of respectability. But this is a flawed view, IMO. The fact that irrational, mean people benefit from an idea doesn't invalidate the idea. It's the same error, it seems, as trying to discredit evolution because eugenicists benefit on a superficial level from Darwin's theory. The only thing I'd say is that it is important for a liberal to distance him/herself from the mean, irrational theists- just as evolutionists have unfortunately had to spend an inordinate amount of time dealing with the flaws of eugenics.



So, while I do think it's a noble goal to try to stamp out religious belief,

to me that's like saying it's a noble goal to kill people. People who resisting having their beliefs stamper out have been killed time and time again. If they wont willingly give them up, they never do, then you have to kill them or at least re arrange their lives. what right do you have to dot that?

I do NOT think one is justified in doing so "by any means necessary."

that's like saying "I don't think it's right to murder them outright, we can just take their jobs away and let them starve slowly."


The fundies should be mocked and ridiculed- not as a tactic to try to brow-beat them into submission, but because their beliefs are ridiculous and dangerous.

to me that's like saying I have the right to dictate that you die because I don't like the color or your clothes. what right do you have to determine that you are certain your views are right that you get to say what views are stupid? What if you are basing it on just not being very well read? what if all the illiterate people got together and deiced that reading is stupid? can't you see how you are taking on a privilege you have not right to assume?

who the hell are you to say that?


This is not the case with liberals. Liberals have beliefs which resemble, in certain ways, the ridiculous, irrational beliefs of fundies. But there are important and fundamental differences in the way that liberals think that sets them apart from the fundies. And it is the way in which one comes to a belief that is important, not the belief itself.

thanks, great. sot he all knowing one says I don't have to die, thanks.

Now, some beliefs are simply too ridiculous to plausibly allow for the possibility that they were rationally derived. That's where the fundies come in- if someone believes that the earth is 6,000 years old, or that the Genesis flood actually occurred sometime within the last 6,000 years, I needn't examine how they arrived at the conclusion. They are being irrational- that's the end of it. But it's a mistake to equate belief in some kind of deity with these types of beliefs.

To me this is saying that I have the right to determine who lives or who dies.

Some people resound to my horror by saying 'you are making so much out of this so what big deal" I don't' know if it's because they think "I would never say they should die." Or is it really because they are thinking "of course they should die."

If you think you have the right to destroy people's lives because their beliefs are so stupid what's the difference in you and a Nazis? Is the only differences that the Nazi's didn't hate the right stupid group and you do?

don't do the mocking thing just explain it to me.

while you are at it kindly explain how it is that mocking people becuase their beliefs are stupid is good, but when I think your beliefs are stupid I can't mock you?


If I think your beliefs are stupid and dangerous don't I have the same right to mock you that you do to mock me? If I do you go "you are so insulting!" what right do you have to complain about that? I'm only doing what you tell is fair and right and should be done!

If you think religious views are so evil and dangerous why don't you believe that religious people should be killed in concentration camps?


is that what atheist movement is really leading to?


the first answer:

Brain w:

Ridiculing beliefs ≠ persecution or advocation of genocide.

The only reason you see the dismissal and ridicule of superstition as such a heinous attack is because you have allowed these things to wrap themselves up so deeply in your personality that they now define you. That's not the problem of those who attack god belief. It's your fault for letting god belief take over your entire persona.

he doesn't even make a pretense of saying "O we wouldn't do that." Mikey has a slightly better response.

This is just an internet forum, it isn't real life. Atheists don't burn down churches in the real world, they usually don't even talk to Christians. How are you going to persecute someone if you don't even talk to them. Christians on the other hand are always talking to Atheists trying to convert them. Maybe Christians should leave people alone and Atheists won't need to come to internet forums to vent their frustration.

I think it's dangerous to just dismiss it as "o it's just the net," but makes me feel ok that at least he didn't embrace it like the other guy.

Hsmithson quotes me:

meta:Now I see the Nazis re-born in the new atheism. I know you think that's nuts

then says:

Yep, that's nuts.

Those who would kill for atheism are not nuts but I'm nuts for protesting it?

Validmir says I such at illiciting clearly and need to be very clear about what people are saying.
that would imply i that he understands them to actually not be supporting persecution.

I think they are being willfully unclear because they should understand clearly from the OP that I need to know unambiguously that they don't agree with persecuting people. I find the fact that they hold back on spelling this out to be significant.


Originally Posted by troxel

Did this fellow say anything about concentration camps?

But yes saying the "unbeliever is a sick soul" is reasonably equivalent to mocking and ridicule. You even go way out of your way in an attempt to justify you derision by appealing to authority and completely misrepresenting your source.

No it' not because it doesn't mean they are stupid or bad. It was also said by a psychiatrist it was a Junian term referring to a clinical idea.


You want to mock and ridicule religious people because you hate them then you pawn it off some noble goal like stropping dangerous ideas.You have no right to object to being mocked as long you advocate using mocking to brown people into giving their beliefs.

Actually your quote is worse than mocking as it is an attempt by you to villainize a segment of the population.

"villianize" talk about illiteracy.

which is just what you are doing. you want to put children in gas chambers.you hate Christians so deeply you are ready to murder them.

I did not say that did I? In fact I didn't even see concentration camps mention in your referenced quote - par for the course.

well what are you going to do when the 90% who believe in God decide they want be forced the the 3% illiterates to give up the most important thing in their lives? you would have to resort to something pretty harsh. where do you draw the line?

comparing sick soul (which a psychiatrist was saying) to real mocking is just whining to justify your hate.

Originally Posted by souper genyus

I can't seriously respond to a Godwin, Meta. You're *******g ridiculous, claiming the free speech of the new atheists is even remotely analogous to the Nazis murdering millions of people is insulting to every atheist alive and, especially, to those murdered or tortured by the Nazis. It's just wrong, Meta, both factually and morally wrong.

I don't know who Godwin is.

I know they are not a par with Nazis but the Nazis started with just mocking Jews. they didn't' start with concentration camps.

you are defending persecuting people for their beliefs? are you not? you don't understand why that's evil?




Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post

but it's not nuts to say we should mock and ridicule people for believing things we think are stupid?

SG

No, it's really not. That's expressing your free speech. It's using your words and your wit as a tool for social change, which is perfectly acceptable. In fact, I think it should be encouraged. It's much better to address a position you disagree with with your mind and your words as opposed to using force.

Its' not nuts to put people in concentration camps and kill them for being religious?
Yes, that's most definitely nuts. What are you thinking to even ask such a question? No one that is labeled with the "New Atheist" label that I know of is advocating an ethnic cleansing, so I don't know what the hell you are even talking about.

then what right do you have to complain if I say you are the sick soul?

Meta I need clealrity here. what is nuts?

SG:

The fact that you liken the free expression of opinion to mass murder. That's nuts.

ok, idiot.


Originally Posted by mikey_101

It hurts people to tell them that they'll go to hell (or whatever negative consequence) if they aren't Christians.

that's why I don't tell them that.

Just believing that garbage hurts the person who believes it because it makes them less human. I think all the mocking and anger towards Christianity has to do with the religious-elitist attitude being so prevalent and being around for so long. It's offensive, and when people are offended they stick up for themselves. In a forum you can say what you can't in real life.

but it seems you want the privilege o revenge without the consequence of more revenge taken back on you. You want me to respect you but you don't want to respect me.

Just believing that garbage hurts the person who believes it because it makes them less human.

aren't you stripping the humanity of fundamentalists?

Originally Posted by mikey_101

I hate to say it, but Christians kind of started this whole thing by their elitist attitude I was talking about. I think you should realize that and take some responsibility before crying 'persecution' too much. When two are angry at each other about something, the whole thing can usually be resolved by the one who starting it apologizing first, then the other person apologizes. I'm not saying you started it personally of course, the type of Christian fundies we have today have been around for, I don't know, about 300 years or so. The anti-Christian fundies are just now reacting.

Less than human is a figure of speech, not literal.

Meta:
O good, that makes me so relieved. That's such a judicious figure of speech too. I really trust someone who is cleaver to describe his opponents as less then human then deny that he meant it. so you are actually admitting that you want to persecute and trying to blame the victim. The Nazis said the Jews brought it on themselves. that's what you are arguing.

Originally Posted by Asimov

Why are you conflating the drive to remove intolerance, prejudice, and anti-intellectualism with killing people?

Meta:

from what I see so far you plan to do that by destroying people's egos, refusing to listen to their side of any argument, refusing to consider anything that would count against your view. unfairly and unjustly slandering believers, which what atheists are doing every day on the net.

Let's just take that to the logical absurdity, what's to stop you from taking it into violence? you believe Christian are inhuman, you have the right to hurt them and force them to give up their beliefs, what's to stop you from going over the line?

You don't bleieve there is such a thing as innate right and wrong. you believe that that's just a matter of social convince and survival. Right?

if one could show the it's beneficial, greatest good for the greatest number to systematically extinguish the lives of all Christians wouldn't accept doing it?

riginally Posted by drugstar

the ramblings of a madman.

Meta

that really prove your not unfair, or unjust and that your willing ot listen and your not blaming the victim. It really proves you are not shallow and stupid.



The Christian Naz kicks in
Originally Posted by naz

Meta, although I agree that ridiculing people for their beliefs is repugnant it is certainly not anywhere close to murder.

think about what Jesus said about murder. can't you just hear one of these atheists saying "how is hating someone like murdering them?"


I realize that most of these guys probalby think the idea that there could be persecution of Christians is absurd and that they think they would never take part.I know that I'm kind of skirting the edge of peranoia, at least as far they are concerned. I am playing to the logical absurdity of their values. But look at the facts:

Not one of them on the whole thread says "O of course we are agaisnt hurting people we would never persecute anyone. they can't bring themselves to make a flat out denial. The fact is they clearly do not bleieve in free speech, they want to control the thinking of others. they want the power to condemn and ridicule ideas that they disagree with and I can't help but wonder if the circumstances were right how many of them would cooperate wit murdering Christians on a grand scale.

They are clearly willing to remove the cloak of protection from the minority and then still expect that protection to be extended to them.