The "God Hates you hate him back" Guy Discovered my Article

Atheist intellectual conduct seminar on religion and society


The Blog is called "Rationalist Blog" I think he's the one who did the book God Hates you, Hate Him back, but i"m not sure. But his blog has a big banner that says it. It appears to be him, C.J. Werleman.

This is such a profound intellectual book, it's on the level of some of Jack Webb's best rants on DragNet 1967, and his logic is about on a par with Webb's as well. Here are some of the most superficial reasons to think religion is addictive I've ever seen. These are up there with "90% of heroine addicts started with Pot, therefore, Pot causes heroine addiction.

your arguments are ludicrous.


Werelman

1. “Religion is the opiate of the masses” -Karl Marx

Meta:>>>proves nothing, Marx was a jerk


Werelman

2. All children are born atheists, thus religion is indoctrinated/socialized into you. Just as no children are born drug addicts. (not withstanding ‘crack babies’)

Meta:>>>that’s silly, we have innate ideas of God. that’s what the God part of the brain proves. We have the idea of God hard wired into our brains, therefore, we are not born atheists we are born believers. It doesn’t make any difference if you need socialization to teach it that doesn’t prove it’s a drug, you need socialization to become a drug addicts. that’s why addcis are a “sub culture” that’s what sub cultures are, counter socialization.


Werelman

3. Drugs help you escape from reality. Drugs dupe users into escaping the harsh realities of dealing with everyday life. Similarly religion will make its users believe they can transcend reality i.e. without wings, or as recommended by Jesus – handle snakes, and/or drink poison. I know smack addicts that have the same delusions.

Meta>>>Of course its’ just your little mad up opinion based upon ignorance that God isn’t real. Real thinkers and smart know he is. Therefore, youa re argumetn is jsut another stupid assertion.

you can’t account for the innate ideas of God that proved by the “God part of the Brain.” That is a good reason to believe there is a God. your argument is begging the question.

that has nothing to do with proving addiction anyway.


Werelman

4. Drug addicts often show signs of schizophrenic and delusional behavior, including talking to themselves. How is this different to prayer?

Meta:>>>(1) you have no study to back that up. I’ve never heard that and it’s not proved and you offer no evidence to confirm it.

(2) you are begging the question because it’s just your opinion that belief in God is tha way

(3) at leas 12 studies prove there is no relation between religious experience and mental illness.

(4) you can’t link drug addiction to mental illness anyway.

(5) if you could it would just be an argument from sign. you don’t have a causal mechanism.


Werelman

5. Drug addicts are often incoherent when high. Take a visit to any evangelical church and watch that congregation speak in tongues and thus complete babble.

>>>that is nothing but ignorant mockery. speaking in tongues is not the same as incoherence. Anyone speaking in tongues can stop doing it and talk rational instantly. Its not something that comes over you that you can’t control. I can speak in tongues and work hard math problems at the same time. It’s something one chooses to do, it’s not an epileptic fit.


Wereleman

6. Like a drug, the intoxicating effects of religion cannot last forever. Questions of faith begin to creep in. Questions regarding the suspension of natural laws begin to seep in..Thus the faithful have to increase the religious dose to stay high, to ward off contradictions, absurdities, and inconsistincies.

Meta>>>that is not a proof that it’s addictive. you can spin it that way or you could say doubt in any proposition occurs to anyone at any time and they need to re think or hear the answer. you can define haring answers as getting a fix. you are merely twisting the fact to suit a superficial case that you can’t back up with any kind of data or any kind of support. You have no studies, you haven no scientific proof of any kind that supports your raving.

you are doing nothing but mocking and ridiculing things that are over your head.


Werelman

7. Religion, like a drug, has a tendency to steal your life. A voluntary trade: accept the lies and illusions in return for mind numbing escape. Addictive traits.

Meta>>>that is clearly and obviously just your emtonal hateful opinion. 300 empirical studies say you are wrong! The stuidies done by psychologists not by preachers, not by christian, non christain shrinks, show you are wrong! Religious belief is good for you, it makes your life better, it makes your mind better. Religous believers who have experiences of God’s presence are much less likely to experience depression than are unbelievers. Religious experience people are much less likely to be mentally ill than are unbelievers, that is an established fact by 300 empirical studies..

Werelman

8. Religious fundamentalists, particularly those that convert as adults i.e new born Christians, in more instances than not – lose their old friends. Meth addicts lose their friends because of the constant requests to borrow money, and skittish behavior. Evangelicals tend to lose their old buddies because we tire of the constant evangelizing. And ultimately drug addicts prefer the company of their own, as do fundamentalists with their own flock.

Meta>>>very stupid and shallow argument from sign. you might as well said 98% of all heroin addicts drink milk as babies, therefore, milk causes heroine addiction.

you actually don’t have any data to back up your assertion about converts losing friends. some do some don’t, you are really quite shallow.

Werelman

9. Religious need their ‘hits’. Sunday Church.

Meta>>>atheist need hits by mocking Christians on message boards.

This guy is a real obvious proof of hate group atheism. His blog is on the puerile level of name calilng. He writes about things like why Obama is really an atheist (basically "I like Obama therefoer he must believe like I do). Ten reasons why Jesus sucked at sports, and so on. this is nothing moer than a third grader writing on bathroom walls.

If you hate God how do you feel about who believe in God? This guy doesn't have enough mental maturity to distinguish between hating God and hating people who believe in God.

When God Becomes a Drug: An Excercize In Atheist Propganganda

Poster Bill Walker (a follower of this blog) going for the "big one" trying to de-convert me )on (Metacrock's Blog) introduces a book:

There is a book that I think may help you. "When God Becomes a Drug.By Bart Aikins. Please vdon't feel that this is a criticism of you. You are a victim- one of countless millions. I am rooting for you.

On the comment page he says:

Joe, I read all of you post. I know you had a tough time. I'm glad you have that bgehind you. Bu god/jesus had nothing to do with it. Ple4ase Joe, read " When God Becomes a Drug." Joe this book w2as written for YOU. You have nothing to lose but your delusions. Join us at ExChristian.net. You will be as welcome as the flowers in May. Share your experiences & your thoughts with us. You may write as a Xian or a former Xian. Many people start with us as Xians, & are 'won over'. But you are very welcome to make posts as a Xian. It is POSSIBLE that you can make some4one revert to Xianity, thru reasoning, tho I haven't seen anyone who did that, to my knowledge. But I reaslly think it will give you the experiences & thoughts of other people who have suffered as you did.

So I looked for this book. I found that He got the author's name so totally wrong it makes me think he's putting me on. Instead Bart Aikins it's Leo Booth. Booth is an Episcopal priest who wrote this book not as a denouncement of all religon but as a warning against the kind of rigid fundamentalism we all know and hate. He is in no way saying that all religion is like this. As one book reviewer says:

"And yet he says that there is nothing in the nature of religion which makes it unhealthy in itself, and that it is possible for a neurotic to use a healthy belief system in an unhealthy way. Booth writes that it is not necessarily the contents of the belief that make a system addictive, but rather the personal rigidity of its purveyors who discourage any kind of questioning or disbelief."
--John A. Speyrer

In spite of this we find the atheist having a field day in their propaganda using this book as though it totally disproves all religion. Shy David's Religion page, (there's a scholarly source for you) does a hack job on the book. Sky David is so balanced and fair minded he opens with the balanced and articulate statement:

Religion has always been used by evil men (and some times women) to inflict evil upon the world. The evil enacted is always either by design or by consequence. The latter generally has two causes: the person engaged in evil believes he is doing good, godly works, or another person or groups of people take the result of someone's good works and builds upon those works with evil acts. A specific example I can readily think of is Islam: when Mohammed founded his religion, he taught liberal reforms such as equality for females and tolerance for infidels. One problem, though: he was illiterate. When the Koran / Qur’an / Alcoran was written by his followers, Mohammed's teachings were drastically altered. Slavery of women became law; infidels were taken hostage and, upon threat of death, ordered to convert; women who did not sexually submit to their owners could be beaten, with the authority of law.

nothing polemical there is there!? He has a link to a page using the book for propaganda. He presents a chart used in the book but takes it out of context by giving no basis in understandign what the book is really about:

THE TWELVE STEPS FOR RELIGIOUS ADDICTS
(TWELVE STEPS TO RELIGIOUS ADDICTION)

1. We admitted that we were powerless over our dysfunctional religion or beliefs -- that our lives had become unmanageable.

2. Came to believe that a Spiritual Power WITHIN OURSELVES could guide us to sanity.

3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to this Spiritual Power as we understood this Spiritual Power.

4. Made a searching and fearless inventory of our dysfunctional religious beliefs and behaviours.

5. Admitted to our Spiritual Power, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of those behaviours.

6. Were entirely ready to work with our Spiritual Power in replacing all those old behaviours.

7. Worked with our Spiritual Power to help replace our dysfunctional patterns.

8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.

9. Made direct amends to such people whenever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.

10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we made mistakes, promptly admitted it.

11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with our Spiritual Power, as we understood Spiritual Power, praying only for knowledge of that Power's guidance and the willingness to carry it out.

12. Having had a spiritual awakening as a result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to others, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

Of cousre he offers no data whatsoever that religion is addiction, that one can make an analogy form drugs/alcohol to religion or belief systems. No studies, no evidence, the whole thing is based upon hating religion enough to compare it to soemthing it's nto even remotly like but something negative (alcohol). The whole thing is nothing but argument from analogy.

He also offers a list of 'signs' of addiction similarly glaned form misreading the book:

Taken from When God Becomes A Drug by Leo Booth.

SYMPTOMS OF RELIGIOUS ADDICTION

1. Inability to think, doubt, or question information or authority

2. Black-and-white, simplistic thinking

3. Shame-based belief that you aren't good enough, or you aren't "doing it right"

4. Magical thinking that God will fix you

5. Scrupulosity; rigid, obsessive adherence to rules, codes of ethics, or guidelines

6. Uncompromising, judgmental attitudes

7. Compulsive praying, going to church or crusades, quoting scripture

8. Unrealistic financial contributions

9. Believing that sex is dirty -- that our bodies and physical pleasures are evil

10. Compulsive eating or excessive fasting

11. Conflict with science, medicine, and [secular] education

12. Progressive detachment from the real world, isolation, breakdown of relationships

13. Psychosomatic illness: sleeplessness, back pains, headaches, hypertension

14. Manipulating scripture or texts, feeling chosen, claiming to receive special messages from God

15. Trancelike state or religious high, wearing a glazed happy face

16. Cries for help; mental, emotional, physical breakdown; hospitalization

Most of those could also be used of atheism, or fashion deign or just about anything you wanted to compere.

Inability to think, doubt, or question information or authority

Black-and-white, simplistic thinking

sure sounds like atheism to me. Here's a trick. he doesn't give any page numbers or context so you have no idea how faithful he is to what the book is saying. Now does an Episcopal priest really say that reading the bible to clam oneself is the begining of religious addiction?

Y STAGE:

• * Ordinary religious or spiritual lifestyle
• # Using Bible to calm nerves

• * Excessive church-going / Bible study
• # Praying before attending functions
• # Church / Bible becomes greater focal point

• * Using church / Bible / prayer to avoid problems
• # Black-and-white thinking increases
• # Missing family gatherings or work because of religious functions

• * Compulsively thinking about or quoting scripture
• * Preoccupation with church / Bible study
• # Thinking only of church

These could apply to any Christian, non Christian even non religious people. It could apply people who like classical music. Anyone who lived through the 60's remembers arguments about pot leads to heroine. This is the same kind of reasoning. Those arguments were usually countered by Milks leads to pot.

This really represents the most innane slip shod thinking. If this does not qualify as a hate group strategy what does? It's on a par with Blacks are lazy and Mexicans steal. Or is it Mexicans are lazy and blacks steal? I'm forgotten my old time Texan prejudice 101.

Of course the atheist propagnda brigage who comment on books on Amazon, books they probalby have not read:

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:

Helped me see my fears that i displaced for "God", January 3, 2008

By	A. Mendelovitz - See all my reviews

This review is from: When God Becomes a Drug: Book 1; Understanding Religious addiction & religious abuse (Paperback)

This book is amazing. i read the older version. It taught me how what i thought was certain powers and divine messages and things the world was showing me were really my own fears that i misplaced and transformed into a god. This book and the help i later recieved from a therapist were able to return me back to society in a more wordly way. This book was fantastic in that it helped show me how when i was suffering i was creating false illusions and ways out of it through God thinking that God would solve all my problems, when in fact i needed to confront my emotional issues in real life. I am very greatful for Father Leo for taking me out of my religous persecution i was brining on my self and showing me how i was torturing myself emotionally in the name of God. How these tortures were not based on God but on my own fears and my desires to heal myself. I would highly recommend this book to anyone who feels that they are treating themselves poorly in the name of god. For example anyone beaeting themselves up believing sex or masterbation is wrong while it is a gift the earth has granted us.

I know religion is stupid now. I can't wait to get on the secular web and be patted on the back and called "smart" for a change. that god stuff is all for stupid people. They keep slinging words around like "addiction" and 12 step with no medical evidence, no psychological studies. No spiritually mature person would give up a relationship with God just because some ultra liberal unbelieving priest suggested that belief in God's spiritual reality is an "addiction." That person is a mindless drown who can't think for her self. This just continues to prove that atheists can't paly fair, can't think, don't understand very much.

"The Painful Truth"
book Review by Gary L.

Anyone who has ever tried to challenge a religious addict's belief system has undoubtedly been met with hostility bordering on fury. People who are spiritually healthy will not react with fear and anger to questions about their beliefs and practices.

Healthy spirituality in contrast is freeing; differing beliefs or even outright opposition do not threaten you. The symptoms of religious addiction point to a narrow, restrictive belief system, which limits your spiritual growth and victimizes you as well as those around you

Again, no data, no proof ther is such a thing as "religious addiction." If that is the case is there Addiction to art? To classical music? To being nice? Isn't everything and addiction? How about breathing and eating food? It started out with just a little milk now and then and now I have to have red meat all the time.

The real tragedy is how these people will never bother to read the real studies about religious eperince and its transfomrative effects on people's lives. 300 studies show that religion is the best thing for you. It transformas your life dramatically, it's taken people off drugs and stopped Heroin addiction and Alcohol. They want to shut down trust of God and they want you to stop praying to stop believing that God will help you. Instead of trying to understand these things in wisdom and not be stupid about it they are so self serving they have to try and destroy the best thing there is. The research I've done for my book points me toward the Rosario study which shows that religious experience and spiritual practice turns the lives of chronically ill and "challenged" ("handy capped") into positive growth situations that make them able to cope and enable them to grow as people. These are not things that drugs do for you. This is the not the result of addiction.

Now you can believe the hate group propaganda which lies and distorted the evidence, (Booth has no evidence to begin with he himself is a recovering Alcoholic so he's just following the only model he knows becuase he has not had the good religious experiences) or you can look at the scientific studies and see what's proved about the nature of religious experience. But we see the atheist hate group propaganda for what it is.




My religious experience argument which talks about many of the studies

Argument from religious instinct which employs many of the studies and talks about their Trans formative effects

The Mohan article with bibliography where he describes what many of the most recent studies say. Mohan is a practicing psychiatrist unlike Booth.

there are books arguing that atheism is personality disorder. For example Atheist Personality Disorder: Addressing a Distorted Mindset Fr. John J. Pasquini (Author)

That book is not very good either, it's as bad as Booth's. It's the same thing the atheist are doing. but two can play at this game. All this atheist propaganda is going to accomplish is just more of the same.

Another example of Orwellian atheism

This time from T WEb. An atheist makes the statement that God is "only imaginary." I put up a great argument that belief in God is rationally warranted and that is certainly strong enough to be thought of as more than "Imaginary." The he tries to soft peddle the insulting implications, which I find is an Orwellian use of language.\

Me: that's more than imaginary, remember the title of the thread?"

him: Only if there happens to actually be a God.

My argument is that we have strong reasons to bleieve there's a God. He wants to be able to continue the insulting connoations while deying that he means them. But when I claim that string tehory is imaginary too what does he say?


Im Lriginally posted by JimL
Neutrino's are detectable and are known to exist, there is nothing imaginary about them,


Meta:

atheists just really have a problem with understanding what is said don't you? Go is real and can be detected. What the person I was responding to said about the meaning of imaginary would apply to anything that is not directly and unarguably proved. Neutrinos are not directly oversexed. they are not directly observed. You can detect them but only by their effect upon other particles. There still remains no direct picture of one. They cannot be directly observed.

We can detect God by his effects upon people, that's what RE is. It's God's effect, the trace of God.


Jim L

and string theory is just that, a theory, based on the physics of the natural world, whereas God is merely an unscientific concept that gives to us an imaginary explanation as to the meaning of it all.


Again, Science is not the only form of knowledge. Understand? science is not the only form of knowledge. that means it doesn't have to be science to be true. That means bad mouthing God by saying "that's not scinece is not an argument! understand now? that's not a point in your favor. it's meaningless.

it does not make God imaginary. Just because something is not science doesn't mean it's imaginary. Logic is not science, logic is not imaginary. Phenomenology is not science, phenomenology is not imaginary. Understand now?

You are trying to privilege your position with words.



Meta

you are special pleading. You are trying to say that science is the only form of knowledge so therefore anything that is scientific is automatically redeemed from not having direct proof. But an idea that is not a scientific idea, if not proved directly must be imaginary. That's crap.

You do not have the right to privilege our position such that anything you say is exempt form direct proof but anything I say direct proof is automatically required.


Neutrinos and string theory cannot be proved directly no one thinks that makes them imaginary. God can be known by his effects and by one's understanding of being, so God is not imaginary.




Meta

Yes I sure and I have.(verify SN) See the threads I put down on how atheists have the wrong idea of the supernatural. The religious experience studies and the effects of navigation in the world are supernatural, a prori. they fit exactly what the original concept was about.Its' a Christian theological concept atheists do not have the right to define it!




Jim L

and so you are left with nothing but the imagination with which to construe an ultimate reality or God. Whether God exists or not you can only imagine.

you are not doing it again, give me some proof that anything that is not science is imaginary? why do you think you get to pronounce that? Science doesn't say that. Show me the scientific data that proves that?

Moreover, My argument is based upon 300 scientific studies and you don't have any. I can verify the SN by science because the first argument is the supernatural. Supernatural refers to God's power to transform lives, taht's exactly how the word was first. That's what it means that's what these 300 studies prove. you don't have any studies. you have no studies.

score, 300 to 0.

Theists = 300 studies proving our position

ahteist= 0 studies proving your position.






MEtaI am left with 300 empirical studies which show that the experiences that led to the creation of religion are real, they are experiences of something, they fit the criteria we use to determine reality so we have every right to think of them the effects of something real; they are about god we should assume God is that "something" that is real.


Jim L
not direct proof but more than imagination!


they don't have to be direct proof. you have offered no data or any sort of argument to prove that these are the only choices, either imaginary or totally proved directly. That's a silly idea. That's not science and it's not logical it's stupid. do you hear me its' stupid. got it? it's a dumb idea.

you are making extremely statements and you can't back them up.


I have studies showing an innate concept of God in the mind of humans. That means God had to put it there because evolution can't.

[not direct proof but more than imagination!

did you read the op? do you ever read anything? The point in the op is it doesn't have to be direct proof because it rationally warranted. do you understand that phrase?

I said in the first post that my point is not that God is directly proved but that it's rational to believe. So you come along and say "not direct proof" so what does that do to the argument? It agrees with it so it must no effect it at all do you see that?




I never defined imaginary thus. It merely means the construction of concepts in the mind with no definite reality.

So now it comes out that you don't understand what is meant by "connotations?" Atheists are indeed ignorant. It's a connotation of ignorance and stupidty and childishness if not why are you not willing to say that string theory is imaginary?

Hawkings numbers are imganiary how does that make you feel?







You can't prove it directly because whether true or not for you, like it or not, God is only a concept in your own mind.


what did I say about proving things directly? when are you going to start addressing the arguments?

Orwellian Athieism

staff at atheist mental hosptial



I find atheists using terminology in such a way that it is a weapon and hurtful o religious people and obscures their true meaning. I find atheists on CARM using the term "delusional" to indicate that religious people are mentally ill. When pressed they deny that they mean that. They basically say they just mean the ideas are wrong. But they using a term that designates mental illness. A delusional person is "out of his head." He cannot be reasoned with. This is obviously way too strong a word to just designed an idea they disagree with. It makes me wonder if these people even live in the world.

CARM athist board,
Sept 3, 2009
poster named "Too"

OK theists we know you don't think you are delusional when it comes to believing god is something that is not just in your mind, but do you think it is possible for you to have a delusion?

Are delusions possible? If they are how can you tell?

How can you tell the difference between your mind and want you mind creates?

We know optical illusions exist. You see something that definitely is not there.

We know people can think they can fly but they just plummet to their deaths. They obviously were convince their delusion was real.

We know placebos work. Your mind thinks it is taking a drug and it makes things happen as if the drug actually existed.

We know you can lose an arm but the person stills thinks it is there and can feel it.

So is it the size of the delusion? Does a shared delusion carry more reality?

We know for a fact everyone is capable of delusions. We know delusions can be helpful and harmful but they still remain delusions.

Can you know if you are delusion or does someone else have to tell you?

Look how much fiction assumed to be the case is loaded into that statement? Shared delusions? Obviously he's not using this in a clinical sense yet he's giving the impression that he thinks religious people are just out of their heads.

that is a hate tactic, it dennnotes hate, and it's a tactic hate groups use. I say it denotes it I mean not that it merely implies (connotes) but overtly says "I hate you."

I asked them if the op was delusional and the the Poster Roger T steps in:

It may be the result of a delusion. But it certainly isn't a fantastic delusion. And much less delusional than one involving invisible beings capable of creating the natural world.

So does this mean he thinks religious people are out of their heads and need institutionalization? Of course he claims to know absolutely that there can't be a God. One would have to know this or a fact to declare belief in it to be designational.what about the deductive reasoning people like Aquinas did in the ontological argument and the scinece that went into the fine tuning argument. Are these guys actually having delusions as they do the math on fine tuning?

Aussie Dave says:

Before I was converted Hans, I used to think I was rational, just like you infer. However, when I was converted, I realised that that former rationality I had justified to myself was based on ignorance. To gain enlightenment, one must follow Yahweh's formula and believe - then you will "see". It is my prayer that you will take that step one day.

this makes it seem they are using the term "delusion" to just mean a different view point but one that may be somewhat self decieved. Yet the term they use has real legal implications and is extremely insulting.


The one that really takes the cake is by MarcusAurelius

Originally Posted by MarcusAurelius View Post
Conversion disorder is a shared delusion, religion could easily be compared.

Monkey see, monkey do, if you will.

He's invented his own fictional from psychological malady, which defines the basic understanding of sentient being and requires that we all have the same exact perceptions, that of the "shared delusion." do they have any sort of data to back it up. No of course not they don't even try to give any.

Roger T and I have a little tussel:


Meta: (1) it is an ideology

(2) its about hating religious people.

RT:

Your ignorance is astounding. Or are you just pulling our legs?

Quote:
Lets see how much you think you know.
What makes it atheism an ideology? What are the ideological components?

Meta
(1) you reduce all forms of knowlege to one

(2) you try to imply that that one form of knowledge is science3, but when science doesn't' back you up you don't accept it. So its not science you use but scientism or perhaps reductionism. that is famously an ideology.

(3) you only credit facts that support your one form of knowledge and reduce everything else out of existence.

(4) you all say the same things

(5) you all look at everything the same way

(6) any idea that i snot in line with this one form of knowledge you mock and ridicule.

(7) you use hate speech to designate anyone who does not accept this one form of knowledge (as we see in this thread).



Quote:RT

And where does this ideology make any declarations against religious people?

Meta:
you would have to missing a brain to not get this. your use of the term "delusional" to dscribe ideas you don't agree wtih is hate it is an act of hate. Because you saying "if you don't agree with me then you are crazy out of your head and can't think for youself." you are saying "you have zero credibility in my eyes if you don't fall in line behind the ideology.

Look at the way he expresses it when he tired to argue with someone who disagrees:


Quote:RT
You are completely off your rocker.

Meta:
he can't even accept the idea that people don't' agree with everything he says. to disagree with this guy is to be insane, no valid, not competent.


Quote:RT

If you want to be taken seriously, you should probably think about what you want to say before hitting the submit button.

Meta:
I'm the one who researched 350 studies that say religious experience makes you whole and less depressed and less mentally ill than people who don't have them. you have no data to back up your bigoted hate speech, and yet you think I have less credibility and I"m not taken seriously?

that's becuase in your eyes there's only one form of knowledge and if you don't accept it you are not a valid person you are to be hated and objectified. we call that way of thinking "ideology!"
__________________

Marcus adds:

Originally Posted by MarcusAurelius

I don't get the reference. Never read Orwell or watched (read?) Animal Farm. Maybe you could expand on this?



How would you know what I believe?

he hasn't read Orwell. but he's so intellectual he knows all about philosphy and why it can't prove God and so forth, but he's never read one of the most basic books of the 20th century. This is the problem. Atheism is not an erudite movement anymore. It's a movement of the uneducated rebel.

I know what he thinks by the stuff he says.



atheism looks like a clear and present danger.