Atheist Propaganda Machine and List of atheist organizations around the world

the Man from C.A.R.R.I.E.R

Central Atheist Research and Rhetoric
Institute for the Eradication of Religion.

Atheists are always harping about how they don't have a movement, its just the absence of a belief, they are all different. They will spend days and weeks vehemently declaring that there is no organization and not movement and they are all different, they have no agenda, no ideology. They have such an effective propaganda machine that they have pulled off a highly effective snow job in spreading this garbage. Of course it's all a huge lie. Of course now they are going to play the conspiracy buff card. If I think they are pulling the wool over our eye then I must think they are Thrush on the Man form UNCLE. They all have secret meetings under shopping centers and they are in contract with Aliens and tea party people. What I'm saying doesn't have to be even slightly in that direction to be real and obvious and a proble. We all know what a political machine is.

We don't have to be saying that they have a secret conspiracy to say that they have a political machine. When we see how far flung and fictive their organizing is, when understand how their brain washing works to socialize adherents over the internet we can see there is obvious problem. What's even more obvious when we look at the atheist movement in all its organized ferocity it becomes very plain that they are lying when they say there's no movement, nor organization and that it's not an ideology. I'm demonstrated the ideology. I've shown the psychological motive. I'm demonstrated that it's moving in like with the FBI profile of a hate group. There's a continuum from a mild organization aimed at getting people interested to an extreme fringe of hate group mentality. Not all all atheists are in the hate group end of it. The hate group end is not a plot it's not connected to the valid organizations but it's there and it's growing. When we see the obvious nature of a political machine then it should be clear the line about not being organized is bunk. Therefore, when we see them all thinking the same way and saying the same thing sit should be clear there's an ideology.

When we observe their success and we see the organizations working toward their goals it's pretty organized theya re organized. How could they not be organized and this this plethora of success and groups behind the success:

Freedom From Religion Foundation:

• Won the first federal lawsuit challenging direct funding by the government of a faith-based agency
• Overturned a state Good Friday holiday
• Won a lawsuit barring direct taxpayer subsidy of religious schools
• Removed Ten Commandments monuments from public lands
• Ended bible instruction in public schools after 51 year practice
• Halted prayer at public institutions
• Stopped direct subsidy to religious schools
• Ended commencement prayers at a Top Ten University after 122 years of practice
• Ended distribution of Gideon bibles in public schools.
• Brought nearly 30 First Amendment lawsuits since 1977, and keeps several Establishment law challenges in the courts at all times.

<http://www.ffrf.org/legal> (18 Feb. 2007).

Approach Used to Spread Agenda

• Files lawsuits!
• Publishes Freethought Today
• Sponsors annual high school and college atheist based essay competitions with cash awards
• Conducts, annual national conventions, honoring the "Freethinker of the Year" for state/church activism, a "Freethought Heroine" and student activists
• Bestows "The Emperor Has No Clothes" Award to public figures for their criticism of religion
• Promotes freedom from religion with educational products, bumperstickers, music CDs, winter solstice greeting cards and literature
• Publishes useful atheist books
• Provides speakers for events and debates
• Established a freethought book collection at the University of Wisconsin Memorial Library as well as a 2,000-volume office collection

OTHER SUCCESSES

- University Graduation Invocations Ended at Top Ten University
- Prayers Stopped at Public Institutions
- Public Sponsorship of Nativity Pageant Halted
- Crosses Downed from Public Land
- Abuse by Preacher Exposed
- City Sponsorship of Knights of Columbus Signs Ended
- Ethics Probe Called for Preaching Governor
- Proselytizing Crossing Guard Fired
- Post Office/Catholic Entanglement Ended
- De Facto Sports Chaplaincy Stopped
- School Boy Scout Subsidy Stopped
- Bible Proclamation Rescinded
- Illegal Public Help Halted for "Our Lady of the Rockies"
- Creationism Removed from City Zoo
- Discount for Catholics Ended
- Red Rocks Easter Service Subsidy Ended
- Nativity Scene Moved Off Government Land
- Ten Commandments Monuments Moved from Public Property
- Religion Removed at Playground

Who has time to work on this? All of these struggle take big money and big legal talent. These are not things pulled off by a diverse group who share nothing more than the lack of a belief. This is clearly a vast political organization it has to be.

Phony Scholarship Machine

They also have a propaganda net work that cranks out phony scholarship. Let's look at the work of Richard Carrier long time Secular Web member and history student. Carrier appears to be an academic who just shares an interest in certain issues and just happens to be an atheist. When we dig more deeply into some of the organizations he's involved with it looks like more to it than that.

Richard Carrier has a couple of articles on his blog about a big conference for the Jesus Project
held at Amherst last December. O it sounds very scholarly. It presents the image of a group of major scholars meeting to mull over the lattes scientific findings that proving that Jesus never existed. This creates the idea that there is a climiate of opinion in the acadmeic world to expose the lies about Jesus as fiction and show that he never existed. But if you follow the trail to see where his lie originated, and the trail is clearly marked, one can see clearly that there's nothing scholarly about it. It's nothing more than a put up job, but it's no accident that the Jesus Myth stupidity though expossed time after time as bancrupt lives on and continues to draw in a group suckers who are hood winked into believing that they are on the cutting edge of scientific search for truth.

The tail begins with the first major clue, the website of an organization called "The Jesus Project." Carrier links to this site on his blog: http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2008/12/jesus-project.html. The site preports to be focual point for cutting edge academic research which suppossedly takes up where the Jesus Seminar left off:

The Jesus Seminar, founded in 1985 by the late Robert Funk of the University of Montana, was famous for all the wrong reasons—its voting method (marbles), the grandstanding of some of its members, the public style of its meetings, even its openly defiant stance against the claims of miracles in the Gospels—including the resurrection of Jesus. Except for the marbles, none of this was new. The use of additional sources, such as Gnostic and apocryphal gospels, to create a fuller picture of the Jesus-tradition and the focus on context as though it provided content were at least innovative. But the Jesus who emerged from these scholarly travails was so diminished that—as I wrote in a FREE INQUIRY article in 1993—he could not exist apart from his makers: “The Jesus of the [Jesus Seminar] is a talking doll with a questionable repertoire of thirty-one sayings. Pull a string and he blesses the poor.”

What the Seminar had tacitly acknowledged without acknowledging the corollary is that over 80 percent of “Jesus” had been fictionalized by the Gospel writers. That is to say that, if we are to judge a man’s life by his sayings, the greater portion of the literary artifacts known as the Gospels is fictional. If we are to judge by actions, then what actions survived historical criticism? Not the virgin birth, or the Transfiguration, or the healing of the sick, or the purely magical feats such as Cana, or the multiplication of loaves and fishes. The Resurrection had quietly been sent to the attic by theologians in the nineteenth century. The deeds—except, perhaps, the attack on the Temple (Mark 11:15–19)—had preceded the words to the dustbin years before, yet scholars insisted the historical figure was untouched. Only faith could explain this invulnerability to harm....

...

Of course buying into this assumes that the Jesus seminar did it's work well, which almost no scholars outside of the Jesus seminar agree with. The Jesus Porject, of course, aims to do better. They are off to a smashing start wtih the selection of a highly original name. But find some telling things in the recounting of their mission:

....On a pleasant day in January 2007, at the University of California, Davis, the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion (CSER) asked the question that had been looking for a serious answer for over a hundred years: Did Jesus exist? The CSER fellows, invited guests, present and former members of the Jesus Seminar, and a wide variety of interested and engaged attendees applauded roundly after three days of lectures and discussions on the subject—appropriately—“Scripture and Skepticism.” The Jesus Project, as CSER has named the new effort, is the first methodologically agnostic approach to the question of Jesus’ historical existence. But we are not neutral, let alone willfully ambiguous, about the objectives of the project itself. We believe in assessing the quality of the evidence available for looking at this question before seeing what the evidence has to tell us. We do not believe the task is to produce a “plausible” portrait of Jesus prior to considering the motives and goals of the Gospel writers in telling his story. We think the history and culture of the times provide many significant clues about the character of figures similar to Jesus. We believe the mixing of theological motives and historical inquiry is impermissible. We regard previous attempts to rule the question out of court as vestiges of a time when the Church controlled the boundaries of permissible inquiry into its sacred books. More directly, we regard the question of the historical Jesus as a testable hypothesis, and we are committed to no prior conclusions about the outcome of our inquiry. This is a statement of our principles, and we intend to stick to them.

This sounds like a fair and scholary statment. But consider the words in blue. What that really says is "we support the Jesus myth theory." What tells me that, aside from everything coming out of their work that is (see Carrier's blog linked above). That they aim not to understand the Gospel writers as thoguh that would be some kind fo big error. Secondly, the line about "figures similar to Jesus," in other words, they are going to try to argue that they prove the dying/rising savior God bit. Mixing theology and history is inexcusable, but of course doing history as a cover for destruction of a religious belief they despize is fine and dandy. They are not biased they just have the answers before they ask the questions.

All of this is trivial, I'm getting to the point...

At the end of its lease, the Jesus Project will publish its findings. Those findings will not be construed as sensational or alarming; like all good history, the project is aiming at a probable reconstruction of the events that explain the beginning of Christianity—a man named Jesus from the province of Galilee whose life served as the basis for the beginning of a movement, or a sequence of events that led to the Jesus story being propagated throughout the Mediterranean. We find both conclusions worthy of contemplation, but as we live in the real world—of real causes and outcomes—only one can be true. Our aim, like Pilate’s (John 18:38), is to find the truth.

Who wants to bet his house against my assumption they they will find that Jesus didn't exist and that the Bible is totally wrong? Anyone willing to bet his house on that? Of course to be what they call "probable" they would have to conclude that the bible is a lie and Jesus never existed, because they are totally to religion and ideas connected with religion. One hint that this may be the case is who is publishing the results of the seminar:

In general the conference revealed some cutting edge stuff in the works. Later this year or the next, Prometheus Books will publish the conference papers (or rather, improved and lengthened versions of them, e.g. my chapter in that book will be rather different from my actual talk, which was largely off-the-cuff, but most of the content will be the same)

Prometheus books only does atheist books.




But none of this is the point. That just sets up a clear look at their true motives. They are not the least bit interested in scholarship. But what's really interesting is what it says at the top of the page on "introduction:" Jesus Project, "a product of Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion"So now Jesus Project is a project of this Committee. Who are these committee people? what is this organization? Trying to answer that question led me to another website:CSER "center for Inquiry"

Here's what they say about themselves:

The Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion (CSER) is a research division of the Center for Inquiry. Since its 1983 founding in Washington, DC, the Committee has worked to encourage humanistic, critical and non-parochial approaches to the study of religious traditions and institutions and to develop programs that promote the public understanding of religion in an international context.
CSER is an international research and educational consultation comprised of members (appointed fellows) who are nominated by an executive board. The current chair of CSER is Dr. R. Joseph Hoffmann, who succeeded Dr. Gerald Larue in January 2004.

The Jesus Project i not the world of scholars who organized their project as a group of truth seeking academics doing scholarly research, they were recruited by an organiztion whose praimry purpose and goal is to destroy christianity. Their statement above says they just to contribute to understanding of religion. But to understand it in what way? We already see they are not satisfied with the 2000 years of scholarship on Jesus becasue they consider that dominated by the chruch. Does that mean their "schoalrship" will be free and unecumbared? yet they recruted as the special as the special project of this organization, does that seem real open and fair. Let's look further and see who else is inoloved in this group.



The Head quarters of the group is in Amherst where the conference was held. So the conference is not related to the university, just held in the town. The same town where the organization that sponsors the project is.

P.O. Box 741
Amherst, NY 14226

This is under the tab on the website marked "advocacy." A group that does advocacy is not a scholarly group. They are not interested in truth, they are interested in selling their idea of the way things are, they want to dominate thinking. This is why they put up a big web of deception to create an imporession of impartical scholarship and truth seeking when in reality what they have is a put up job the purpsoe of which is to destory bellief. How do I know this, because look at the other wings of their organization. First of all this is their mission:

The Center for Inquiry is an active agent for social and cultural change in the courts, in the U.S. capital, at the United Nations, and at the grassroots level. Its advocacy work centers on three broad areas.

Fringe science and extraordinary claims

Through its Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI), Skeptical Inquirer magazine, and other initiatives, CFI advocates responsible, evidence-based treatment of extraordinary claims and fringe science, such as psychic phenomena, intelligent design creationism, and conspiracy theories. Council for Media Integrity presses for fair representation of naturalistic outlook in mass media.

In other words they are out to destroy faith and the concept of miracles. That means they are not going to allow scholars in the Jesus project who have any sort of religious belief. Its' going to be totally duobting, atheistic unbelieving and out to disprove any notion that gives religion even a slight benifit of the facts. Another wing of their group is dealing mental and medical health. Now does that include findings that religious belief is mental illness?

Medical and mental health

In age of alternative and complimentary medicine and New Age therapies, CFI advocates evidence-based medicine and mental health through its Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health Practice (CSMMH), publisher of the Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine and the Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, as well as in Skeptical Inquirer and its “Healthy Skeptic” online column.




Do New Agers typically push mental health alternatives? We know form the past that KGB played with the idea of mental health. Dissenters in the USSR were seen as mentally ill. Will these people allow alternative views of medicine and mental health? Are they trying to frame administrative medical people as mentally ill?

The organization is totally committed to a world without religion and a world in which religion is no longer vital force of any kind:

Religion, ethics and society

CFI is a leader in the struggle for a more rational, secular world. CFI’s Council for Secular Humanism (CSH) and Free Inquiry magazine promotes secular perspectives on contemporary issues; African Americans for Humanism assists humanist groups in America and Africa; the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion stimulates critical scholarship; and the Institute of the Secularization of Islamic Society stands up for the right to apostacy and blasphemy and the separation of mosque and state.

They are so concerned about the right to blaspheme, do they give a damn about the vast majority of humanity that thinks they are nuts and believes in God? This is just a nother look gorup of tin pot dictators who are convienced they they are special and they need to lead the ignorant masses, like Stalin, Like Hitler, like Pol Pot. One example of their work is this:

Amicus Brief Submitted in Americans United for Separation of Church and State v. Prison Fellowship Ministries (U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit)
Question Presented: Whether a state-funded program that seeks to rehabilitate inmates through religious conversion violates the Establishment Clause and whether the organization that operates the program can be required to return to the state the funds that it has received.

So even though the most remarkable success in American history for prision rehab has been religious conversion (Quaker ran jails of the nineteenth century) they want to disallow it because it's somehow violating them even though they are not in prsion and it does not effect them. But they can't stand the idea that others are being saved and led to God. Now would they force a voluntary program to shut? Are people beign forced into prision ministry? I don't think so.


Here's therir example of safe guarding religious liberty:

Safeguarding Religious Liberty in Charitable Choice and Faith-Based Initiatives

The Obama administration recently announced an expansion of government funding for so-called "faith-based initiatives," in which taxpayer dollars are doled out to sectarian religious organizations for the performance of social service programs. This government funding raises legal and constitutional concerns that the administration has yet to address directly. In February, the Center for Inquiry produced a position paper that called for an end to government funding of faith-based programs. Because government funding is scheduled to continue, the Center for Inquiry further recommended the adoption and vigorous enforcement of specific minimum safeguards to protect church-state separation and religious liberty.
CFI performed a detailed historical study of federal funding for faith-based programs, extending from the rise of "charitable choice" legislation during the Clinton administration through the explosion of taxpayer funding for religious programs under George W. Bush's Faith Based and Community Initiative. The position paper that resulted from this study expresses deep misgivings about government funding of sectarian religious programs. CFI cited concerns that these programs may use taxpayer dollars to support or favor religious activities and beliefs; that government may give preference to particular religious organizations in doling out funds; and that under current standards, recipients of taxpayer funding for faith-based programs are allowed to engage in employment discrimination on the basis of religion.
CFI's position paper recommends that government funding of faith-based programs be eliminated entirely. CFI's paper endorses a limited exception for truly secular social services programs, such as Catholic Charities, that have some affiliation with a religious institution but are provided by independent 501(c)(3) charities. CFI maintains that such charities must conduct social service programs without religious content or materials and without engaging in religious discrimination. (Catholic Charities is a non-profit corporation separate and distinct from the Catholic Church.)

Their example of safeguarding religious liberty is to close it down because it's somehow hurting them that religious groups are allowed to help people.

O but let's back up and look at the frienge scinece bit. The organization that put up the Jesus Porject also sponsers Skeptical Inquirer magazine, as their special mission of "advocacy." It's clear what they are advocating is the destruction of Christianity. This means the secular web and all the major force of internet atheists are just their little army of brown shirts running around persecuting Christians.

Its' the crystal night.
I'm sure I'm being alarmist. I'm just building a conspiracy theory out of think air. Do you really foresee the Jesus project not coming out with findings about Jesus not existing and the Bible being untrue? They will hood wink people into thinking that this is a scholarly mission and that it's fair and honest scholarship when the results are pre determined because it's professional wrestling. This is the work of real scholarship like Firts Von Erich was really an athelete and not an entertainier.


Look at it honestly, the Jesus Project is sponsorded the same organization that runs the Skeptical Inquirer magazine



Atheist Organizations Around the world.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_secularist_organizations

O it's not a movement. It's just a bunch of people who don't believe in God and who happen to start several hundred organizations around the world.

International

Atheist Alliance International[4]
The Brights' Net is a nonprofit educational organization dedicated to "building a constituency" and "constructively address[ing] the marginalized situation of persons who have a naturalistic worldview."[5]
European Humanist Federation is a union of "numerous humanist organisations from most European countries" whose purpose is to promote humanism and secularism in Europe.[6]
International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) is "the sole world umbrella organisation embracing Humanist, atheist, rationalist, secularist, skeptic, laique, [sic][7] ethical cultural, freethought and similar organisations world-wide." IHEU is a union of over 100 Humanist or secularist organizations in more than 40 countries. It is an international NGO (Non-governmental organization) with special consultative status with the United Nations.[8]
International League of Humanists
International League of non-religious and atheists
Living Without Faith is an unincorporated association of atheists, agnostics and freethinking secular humanists. The LWF online community consists primarily of former religious adherents who provide moral support to fledgling freethinkers that live within religious-based communities.
Rationalist International

[edit] Australia

Atheist Foundation of Australia
Council of Australian Humanist Societies
Rationalist Society of Australia
The Secular Party of Australia

[edit] Brazil

Sociedade da Terra Redonda
Secular Humanist League of Brazil
Associação Brasileira de Ateus e Agnósticos (ATEA)

[edit] Canada

Humanist Association of Canada
Halton Peel Humanist Community
Humanist Fellowship of Montreal
Association Humaniste du Québec (AHQ)
Mouvement laïque québécois
Secular Connexion Séculaire (SCS)
Society of Ontario Freethinkers
Toronto Secular Alliance
Fondation Humaniste du Québec (FHQ)
Centre for Inquiry Canada
Humanist Association of Ottawa
Freethought Association of Canada
Canadian Secular Alliance

[edit] Croatia

Protagora - Croatian irreligious association[9]

[edit] Germany

Central Council of Ex-Muslims
German Freethinkers League
Giordano Bruno Foundation (Giordano Bruno Stiftung)
International League of non-religious and atheists

[edit] Iceland

Sidmennt

[edit] India

Indian Rationalist Association
Atheist Center
Bihar Buddhiwadi Samaj (Bihar Rationalist Society)
Dakshina Kannada Rationalist Association
Federation of Indian Rationalist Associations
Hyderabad Rationalist Forum
Indian Humanist Union
Kerala Yukthivadi Sangham
People's Science Center
Rationalist and Humanist Forum of India
Science and Rationalists' Association of India

[edit] Indonesia

Indonesian Atheists

[edit] Iran

Iran Secular

[edit] Ireland

Atheist Ireland
Humanist Association of Ireland
Humani

[edit] Italy

Italian Union of Rationalist Atheists and Agnostics (UAAR)

[edit] Kuwait

Youth Association of Kuwait (yakuwait)

[edit] New Zealand

Humanist Society of New Zealand
New Zealand Association of Rationalists and Humanists

[edit] Norway

Human-Etisk Forbund HEF has over 78,000 members,[10] making it "the largest group [in Norway] outside the State Church."[11]
Norwegian Heathen Society

[edit] Philippines

Philippine Atheists and Agnostics Society (PATAS)
Filipino Freethinkers

[edit] Serbia

Ateisti Srbije

[edit] Singapore

Humanist Society (Singapore) - [12]
Singaporean Atheists
Drinking Skeptically

[edit] Sweden

Swedish Humanist Association

[edit] Turkey

Atatürk Thought Association

[edit] United Kingdom

British Humanist Association
Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association
Humanist Society of Scotland
Leicester Secular Society, founded in 1851, bills itself as the "oldest secular society in the world."[13]
National Secular Society
North East Humanists
Rationalist Association
South Place Ethical Society, founded in 1793, identifies itself as "the oldest freethought community in the world."[14]

[edit] United States
Freedom From Religion Foundation billboard

American Atheists
American Humanist Association, according to its website, is the "first and largest organization promoting Humanism in the US."[15]
American Secular Union
The Atheist Agenda
Atheist Community of Austin (TX) is a nonprofit educational corporation to develop and support the atheist community, promote secular viewpoints, encourage positive atheist culture, to defend the first amendment principle of state-church separation, and fight anti-atheist discrimination. It broadcasts and streams online The Atheist Experience, a weekly general-interest atheist television program[16] and the Non Prophets online radio/podcast biweekly.
Atheists for Humanity, a 501 c(3) charity non-profit dedicated to raising money for secular charities and the destigmatization of atheists and atheism."[17]
Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, "The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty" represents multiple Baptist groups (but not the Southern Baptist Convention) in supporting religious liberty and the separation of church and state.
Camp Quest, "The Secular Summer Camp", is the first residential summer camp in the United States for the children of those who hold a naturalistic world view.[18]
Center for Inquiry CFI is dedicated to promoting and defending science, reason, and free inquiry in all aspects of human interest.
City Congregation for Humanistic Judaism
Council for Secular Humanism is a non-profit educational association and, according to its website, "North America's leading organization for non-religious people." The Council aims to "meet the needs of people who find meaning and value in life without looking to a god." CSH publishes Free Inquiry.
Fellowship of Freethought "To create a positive impact on our shared world, our mission is to provide a community that values and promotes a freethinking life unencumbered by the biases of tradition, dogma, and authority and that encourages people to live a reason and evidence-based life characterized by close fellowship, ethical contemplation, critical thinking, community service, and the appreciation of scientific knowledge and understanding of the universe and our place in it."[19]
Fellowship of Humanity
First Humanist Society of New York
Freedom From Religion Foundation, according to its website, is the "largest group of atheists and agnostics in North America." The Foundation represents the interests of freethinkers, with an emphasis on gender equality and reproductive rights, and the separation of church and state. It publishes Freethought Today, "the only freethought newspaper in North America."
Hispanic American Freethinkers
The Humanist Institute
Institute for Humanist Studies
Internet Infidels is a "a nonprofit educational organization dedicated to defending and promoting a naturalistic worldview on the Internet."
Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers
North Texas Church of Freethought
Rational Response Squad
The Reason Project
Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
The San Diego New Atheists and Agnostics is the largest and most active secular organization in San Diego, Ca."[20]
Secular Coalition for America
Secular Student Alliance
United Coalition of Reason
National Atheist Party
Practice What You Preach Foundation is a "non-profit organization that builds bridges between faith communities and secular organizations in the Greater Los Angeles Area."

[edit] See also

Lists of secularists: Agnostics, Atheists, Humanists, Nontheists

[edit] References

^ "Secularism". Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition. Oxford University Press, 1989.
^ The Secular Coalition for America, which has been identified by Brights.net as representing the interests of "secularist organizations", describes its constituency as "nontheistic Americans", including those who go by the labels "atheist, humanist, freethinker, agnostic, skeptic, bright, ignostic, materialist, and naturalist, among others." Who does the Secular Coalition for America represent? at the Secular Coalition for America website (Accessed 5 April 2008)
^ Some less common secularist labels include: apatheist, godless (in the non-pejorative, literal sense), ignostic, infidel (or unbeliever), heathen, materialist, or realist.
^ Atheist Alliance International website, 2008 (Accessed 9 April 2008)
^ The Movement, The Brights' Network, 2008 (Accessed 9 April 2008)
^ Presentation, European Humanist Federation website, 2006 (Accessed 10 April 2008)
^ Laïque (French): "secular"
^ About IHEU, IHEU website (Accessed 5 April 2008)
^ Croatian irreligious association Protagora
^ The Norwegian Humanist Association, Human-Etisk Forbund website (English version), 2011 (Accessed 5 February 2011)
^ Membership, Human-Etisk Forbund website (English version), 2004 (Accessed 9 April 2008)
^ Humanist Society (Singapore)
^ Leicester Secular Society website (Accessed 5 April 2008)
^ South Place Ethical Society website (Accessed 5 April 2008)
^ Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about the American Humanist Association, American Humanist Association website, 2005 (Accessed 8 April 2005)
^ Atheist Community of Austin website, 2009 (Accessed 16 August 2009)
^ [1]
^ "Camp Quest is the first residential summer camp in the history of the United States for the children of Atheists, Freethinkers, Humanists, Brights, or whatever other terms might be applied to those who hold to a naturalistic, not supernatural world view." Camp Quest website (Accessed 5 April 2008)
^ http://fellowshipoffreethought.org/
^ Find Us, SDNA, 2010

O it's not a movement. It's just a bunch of people who don't believe in God and who happen to start several hundred organizations around the world.

Atheism is not for intellectuals.

Westvelern

Originally Posted by Metacrock

ahahaha that' crap! that's not research that's the bogus play "study" by Zuerman.

don't' be a sucker man!

http://www.doxa.ws/social/Zuckerman.html

and

http://www.doxa.ws/social/Sweden.html

I have reference to over 400 studies that disprove it (not the religious experience studies)

http://www.doxa.ws/experience/empirical_studies.html

Westvleteren

Again nobody cares about books Meta so either you have peer reviewed research or it is irrelevant. And I have never heard of Zuerman so no that is not what I was talking about.

so fater saying he eosn't care bbout books, he links to books then talks about books in his signature.



http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies

A First Look

Gregory S. Paul
Baltimore, Maryland

Introduction
[1] Two centuries ago there was relatively little dispute over the existence of God, or the societally beneficial effect of popular belief in a creator. In the twentieth century extensive secularization occurred in western nations, the United States being the only significant exception (Bishop; Bruce; Gill et al.; Sommerville). If religion has receded in some western nations, what is the impact of this unprecedented transformation upon their populations? Theists often assert that popular belief in a creator is instrumental towards providing the moral, ethical and other foundations necessary for a healthy, cohesive society. Many also contend that widespread acceptance of evolution, and/or denial of a creator, is contrary to these goals. But a cross-national study verifying these claims has yet to be published. That radically differing worldviews can have measurable impact upon societal conditions is plausible according to a number of mainstream researchers (Bainbridge; Barro; Barro and McCleary; Beeghley; Groeneman and Tobin; Huntington; Inglehart and Baker; Putman; Stark and Bainbridge). Agreement with the hypothesis that belief in a creator is beneficial to societies is largely based on assumption, anecdotal accounts, and on studies of limited scope and quality restricted to one population (Benson et al.; Hummer et al.; Idler and Kasl; Stark and Bainbridge). A partial exception is given by Barro and McCleary, who correlated economic growth with rates of belief in the afterlife and church attendance in numerous nations (while Kasman and Reid [2004] commented that Europe does not appear to be suffering unduly from its secularization). It is surprising that a more systematic examination of the question has not been previously executed since the factors required to do so are in place. The twentieth century acted, for the first time in human history, as a vast Darwinian global societal experiment in which a wide variety of dramatically differing social-religious-political-economic systems competed with one another, with varying degrees of success. A quantitative cross-national analysis is feasible because a large body of survey and census data on rates of religiosity, secularization, and societal indicators has become available in the prosperous developed democracies including the United States.
[2] This study is a first, brief look at an important subject that has been almost entirely neglected by social scientists. The primary intent is to present basic correlations of the elemental data. Some conclusions that can be gleaned from the plots are outlined. This is not an attempt to present a definitive study that establishes cause versus effect between religiosity, secularism and societal health. It is hoped that these original correlations and results will spark future research and debate on the issue.

this guy claims to have a ph.D.! he doesn't' care about books. Intellectuals believe that books are gate way to understanding. According to this guy they are not anything. Then he says:

BTW that statement is form teh bogus study by the artist who pretends to do social scienence research, Gregory S.Paul. For a critique of the pretend study go here.


Westveleteren

Debates are worthless Meta. either you have the evidence or you don't debates don't change that fact and validity is not determined by debate.

So he's not interested in books, debate is worthless, he refuses to deal with specifics of argument, he assumes that all my schoalrs are televangelists (meaning he's never heard of Crosson) he asserts they are all in un-peer-reviewed sources, as though Crosson has never been published in a journal. He does the whole the thread like this, noting in the post except little quips and remarks the way they always do.


West:

Oh BS, there is nothing at all scientific about the way anyone looks at the Bible. If they do the Bible has to be thrown out immediately from a literal standpoint because it conflicts with reality.

He's never heard of textual criticism.


There have been many other atheist who say "your education is useless it was for nothing." Atheists don't respect learning,t hey don't respect books, as they did when I was an atheist. It was for intellectuals in that day but is no more. They still need to think they are smarter so they have all kinds of little tricks for that like the lies about the IQ studies. But what they don't have is respect for learning.

Another Example of Athist thugism: Brent Rasmussen Sight

Brent Rasmussen is so brilliant he knows theology si stupid, so stupid he doesn't have to know anything about it to know that it's stupid. How does he know that? Because it's about stuff he doesn't like so it can't have anything going to for. It's too smart to to read nay of the great thinkers in the theology tradition becuase they believed stuff he doesn't like so they are stupid. He's much smarter than Newton or Descartes or any of the major thinkers throughout history. Because he can wear a straw a hat. That makes him cool. Being cool is much better than having a brain. He discovered my sight a couple of years go (Metacrock's Blog) and he said a bunch of bunch of stupid things about it. When I called him on it and prove that he was wrong, he became so angry he stamped his little fist and got his little illiterate friends to com come to his site and say "I don't like that guy because he says stuff what I don't know.
Here is his childish article.
Go look at the page and see how brainless their comments are. I can just imagine them getting drunk and saying little things like this while they talk about my blog and mind rape all the idea they have not the slightest idea about, mock and ridicule all things to good for them.
The Childish Theology Of J.L. Hinman

Submitted by Brent Rasmussen on August 12, 2008 - 4:57pm.
he looks like the guy on the old Hawaiian punch commericials who went around going "do you want a Hawaiian punch?"

I left a comment on J.L. Hinman's blog Metacrock a few days ago complementing him on his predictable use of The Courtier's Reply when responding to an atheist. I then went on about my life and promptly forgot all about it.

Well, I stumbled back onto his blog today and noticed that he replied to my comment.

Three times. In a row. Each time becoming more incoherent than the last.

Fun!

what makes it incoherent? Because I say stuff he doesn't undersatnd because he's an idiot. Anyone who is smarter than him is stupid because he's cool and it's more important to be cool than smart.

The so called "courtier's replay" is sheer stupidity. It's nothing more than a pseudo eloquent appeal to ignorance and censorship deigned to forbid the use of the intellect in the defense of Christianity. Anyone who can't see that is a true idiot.

The original post that I replied to is here. My original reply is a few comments down.

My latest reply to his nonsense is below the fold.

[J.L. Hinman] wrong sorry. you don't know anything about christianity. you only know about fundamentalism which is a small part of Christianity.

Ah, I see. So, it is your contention that only this "fundamentalism" has a magical god-thing?

This is Stupid thing no 1. dumbo figures that any belief in God regardless of how well thought out the evidence is, it is stupid because his atheist master based the self image they dictate to him on the idea that hating Christianity is the basis of worth.So he has to believe that any form of God Belief is automatically stupid because he's too dense to read theology and find out the differences. He therefore translates what I said from "I am not a fundametnalist and the fundamentalists are the stupid ones" into "only the fundies believe in God" becuase he's too shallow and stupid to the learn the difference. It's real clear that I made the point that fundies don' thave the sophistication of liberals. noly a fool would not understand that i said that.

That's why he said:

Because I am fairly positive that ALL Christian-flavored theology sees their god-thing as an invisible magical man who lives in the sky.

Meta: Process theology sees God as bipolar, consequent pole that changes with creation, a potential pole and is never chaning.

Nicely played. Complete and utter nonsense, of course, but nicely played all the same. When you are on defense from an accusation of The Courtier's Reply, always resort to an even stronger version of The Courtier's Reply, then completely fail to see the point.

Bravo!

Metacrock:Tillich saw God as Being itself.

Schweitzer saw God as the life force.

Augustine saw God as a mind that continaed the realm of the forms of Plato.

Christian mystics see God as indescribable mystery beyond our understanding.

That's just off the top of my head. There are many many more. My own view is a synthesis of Tillich and the mystics.

Stupid thing no 2: dumbo doesn't understand the unified nature of religious traditions. He is so unread in theology he thinks it's just a matter of personalities fighting each other rather than traditions that seek to understand the reality beyond or behind reality.

Dumbo says:

How very nice for you. Now, replace the word "God" with "Zeus" or "Mithra", and the names of the philosophers with "Goofy", "Dumbo", and "Binky The Magic Space Clown" - and you have the exact same semantic content as before.

That is to say, none.

[Brent Rasmussen] C'mon, c'mon - try and deny it. You can't. You may take issue with the names I have given to your sacred mythological concepts, but it is an accurate - if irreverent - representation of the core beliefs of most religions.

Metacrock your ignorance is showing.

I argued that there are other parts of the Christian theological tradition that don't see God as a big man in the sky, it's not just a matter of one big man in the sky vs. another. There' a single reality behind all religious traditions and plenty of thinkers and movements that back this up. I mention Tillich and process theology.

of cousre this is all way over this idiot's head. He's so dense he has no concept of ideas of God, intellectual life, the notion of thought, or the history of ideas, or what it means to have a religious tradition. That's all just junck to him he's a party boy. Give him a straw hat and a beer an tell him what a cool guy he is that's all he's capable of.

He's so stupid he thinks it's just a matter of saying a bunch of names. He's so dense what do you yu expect from an illiterate? he says:

Is it? I told you right up front that you would probably take issue with the names that I would assign to your silly religious concepts - and you did. Where then is my alleged "ignorance"?

Metacrock Ok put up your duke dumb dub. let's debate. I'll tear you apart. you are ignorant, unread unlearned foolish and unwilling to learn. you don't know anything about it.

It was a big mistake expecting him to fight fair. Gutter scum like this know only one thing, someone is in your way knock them out of the way. Lazy, indolent, stupid, scum who can't reason look for short cuts and thy steal ideas they refuse to learn when someone is in their way do whatever evil little garbage they can to get them out of the way. That is no battle for a scholar

It's why atheism is anti-intellectuals and has nothing to do with learning. Its no longer for learning people or thinking people it's gone form a club for intellectuals in the universe who want to be modern, to lumpen prolongation who want leach off the working class. They are brown shirts. They are getting rewarded for being the storm troopers for the atheist movement.

Ah. And here we finally encounter the reaction that most theists do so well - threats of violence. Great job there, sparky. Why don't you just start pounding your chest and flinging your feces at me as well?

Dumbo thinks I threatened him, why? Because he himself knows violence. That is all he is capable of knowing.

[J.L. Hinman] have you ever read a single page written by any major theologians?

Yes.

[J.L. Hinman] can you even name a theologian?

Yes.

[J.L. Hinman] you probably think Jerrry Fallwell is one right?

No. I do not think that Jerry Falwell is a theologian.

[J.L. Hinman] put up your dukes know it all! put your money where your ignorant mouth is. just tell me the name of one theologian you know about.

Here's three: Anselm of Canterbury, Hypatia, Pliny the Elder.

What do I win? Candy? Cool![J.L. Hinman] you need an iq transplant

Here we see the stupidity of this cretin;. He's so unread and dense he thinks these medieval figures are major theologians today. He's not read any modern (if he had he would have named them). Don't get me wrong. I don't for minute bleieve that this intellectual cripple has Anselm, if he did he wouldn't undersatnd it. He probably looked at it for a minute or two.

He actually says that I'm laying about process theology having an impersonal view of God. This is the kind of illiterate stupidity upon which the atheist rape of Western culture depends. The only they can appeal to the masses is to carter to the ignorant and create the lie that ignorance most of Western thought, which si God oriented.. They have to ignore the major parts of modern theological thinking because otherwise they could never convened anyone with a brain that belief in God is stupid. It's only by making the real Christian thought off limits and giving it such a negative rap that on one will think about it that they can succeed in chaining the greatest thinkers in human history into people stupider than they are.

Sir you have wounded me deeply with your brilliant debating tactic. I fear that I may not be able to go on.

[Brent Rasmussen] I respect your right to hold silly, irrational beliefs. However, that also means that I have the right to call them silly.

[J.L. Hinman] you do not.

Yes, yes I do. Here, I'll demonstrate:

this is his little mocking slander of real thinking. He says that I lie about process theology it doesn't posit an impersonal God, (becuase he's too stupid to read about it) then he goes on with the pissing contest. He actually thinks acting like a eight grader is cleaver.

Dumbo says:

Your beliefs are silly and irrational. You are a foolish child for believing in them without evidence. See how that works?

I see that you are too stupid to read anything so you don't know what my beliefs are. you have a straw man argument made for you by atheists and you are convinced that's what Christianity is and you get angry and think we are lying to you when we try to tell you that you misrepresent our views. You are refuse to think and you don't know anything to begin with so you are not really a judge of what stupid is. you are censure of stupid not a judge of it.See how that works?

You have no right to say that there' no evidence because I have 42 God arguments and you are stupid to understand one of htem. Notice he wont debate me becuase I knows I would fly him.

[J.L. Hinman] .don't be a phony.

I am most certainly not a "phony". I don't even pretend to know what you mean by that comment.

you are a phony, not only that but a dumb shit as well.

Dumbo:

Has anyone ever told you that you are very difficult to understand sometimes? Maybe it's the wild-eyed looks and the froth coming out of the side of your mouth. *shrug* In any case, you should probably slow down and take a deep breath and get a hold of yourself before attempting to reply this time.

O that's so brilliant isn't it? that makes dumbo so cleaver, he's the brilliant guy in the eighth grade. I bet he has a come back for the one about sticks and stones!

Oh, and lay off the sauce before typing. It makes spelling, punctuation, and spaces between sentences so much easier, trust me.

[J.L. Hinman] you don't respect a God damn thing. You obviously don't respect knowledge.

That really proves he's right because he accuse of being what he is. He thought of that becuase he' s drunk all the time himself.

I respect quite a few things - knowledge is one of them. However, I do not automatically respect every nutball's wacky religious proclamations just because he or she says so. My respect must be earned. You have not earned my respect at this point in time.

Get used to it.

[J.L. Hinman] You don't have the slighest ideas what theology is about. you are willing to judge it knwong absoltuely nothing about it..

He can punctuate his mindless drivel with little catch phrase like "get used to it" that really proves. He's probably so drunck now he's not even cognizant of what this was about. He can call names, he can say "he's a nutball" O that's so brilliant.

How can intelligent people like Hermit alley themselves with gutter scum like this? These are the shock troops that destroyed the reasoned discourse and cleared the way for tea party tactics against religion that brought hte drinking crowd into message broad apologetic.

I appeal to the few atheists with a brains left out there. how can none thinking person be part of a movement that employs such brown shirt tactics?

The Atheist Turn of Mind

Nothing can ever count as evidence for God or against atheism in the mind of the atheist. I established this last time I was posting here. The skeptical mind forces itself into a corner which eventually, through constant use in a skeptical mode, tricks the user into thinking he/she is making some big gain of insight but he/she is actually closing off the ability to take the necessary risks to step beyond that which is proven and extrapolate to a position of belief.

I am not saying all atheists always think this way. I'm just saying these tendencies that are brought by the skeptical habit of mind.

(1) the mentality to dobut as long as possible.

If any kind of doubt is possible, however slight the probability, the atheist must take it.



(2) Unless something is totally proven it cannot be given any kind of presumption no matter how rationally warranted or how strongly evidenced.


If God is not 100% proven God is 0% proven and though one may consider God 99% proven if it is not 100% then its nothing.


(3) The "no evidence" circle.

this is a form of question begging/circular reasoning that works like this


*there is no evidence for the existence of God because God is not absoltuely proven.

*Since there is no evidence there can be no evidence

*since there can be no evidence than anything presented as evidence must be wrong.



these are all just a large circle of reasoning based upon the false premise in no 1. There are probably corresponding problems that the faith habit of mind produces. But what this mens is that atheism is unverifiable/falsifiable. It's not an analytical position because it's not open proof or disproof.


This applies especially to atheist on message boards. I think atheist seek to gain preferences for their view. the dictum about extraordinary evidence proves this. why should religious experience be deemed "extraordinary?" when it includes 90% of the people in the world.? the assumption is that their assumptions should be the "default." That's why they are always trying to claim mass populations they are not intitleed to, like Buddhism or all new born babies.


The better paradigm would be:

(1) doubt as long as you have real doubts and be willing to assign prima facie to good arguments.

(2) rational warrant.

rational warrant is about all any world view can offer. belief in God is a world view. there is no reason to islaote it form other views or set the bar any higher for it than for any of them.


This is only to rich. I put this put on CARM atheist board. And this atheist is going to show me what's wrong with it. here are his responses:

Fixed:
*there is no evidence for the existence of God because we've for naturalistic explanations for almost everything we've ever studied.

*If the God hypothesis were correct, we'd have found evidence for it by now.

*Since there is no evidence yet, we can feel comfortable in assuming tentatively that there is no God. Taking this assumption will put us in a position where atheism may disproved by contradiction.

Is it possible to saything that would more clearly illustrate the points I just made?

Who is the Narrow Minded One?

A certain percentage of the real hateful sort of atheists are gay. For a lot of them their hatred of Christianity is in relation to that. It's no big mystery that's what I would expect.What I didn't expect was one who doesn't really care about truth he only cares about mileage. That is he wants to make political mileage from his arguments about Christianity. It's not because he's gay, a gay could be honest and really care about what people think. It's nothing to do with his sexual preference. It's nothing to do with his being an atheist either. It has more to do with this guy, just being who he is. Although I suspect it also has to do with his activism, becasue political activism--I say from experience--sort grinds you down and forces you into a mold where your true beliefs and sensibilities get turned into tools in service to the cause. I think that's the case with "Paradoxical" a poster on CARM. Its good to be aware of this becuase even tough I don't use it to draw stereotypes about people but it is a good lesson, some atheists may be reacting as they are for reasons that are not connected to atheism.

I think the hatred and zeal for anger against Christianity one finds in atheism is feeding this guy's dogmatism. The issue is gays, is being gay a sin or not? He was asking me what I thought I was dumb to think he really wanted an answer. He doesn't want an answer he wants a stooge that he can mileage out of.


the original post he asked if I think Homosexuality is a sin:

Originally Posted by Metacrock

It's a tough issue. I have gay friends and a gay relative. I can't just ignore the Bible and my gut but I accept accept those guys going to hell either.

I don't believe in treating people like sub humans even if one does believe its a sin. that is not no excuse for treating people badly. We all sin, there's no reason to assume one kind of sin so much worse than all others.

I think the key to it is I don't believe in hell.

to which he answers:

Why is homosexuality a "sin", Meta?

I didn't actually say it was and we went round and round on this point.

Meta:

Is it? Did I say that it was? I thought I said I can't ignore the Bible? Does the bible teach its' a

sin? why don't you prove to me that the Bible teaches that?

Paradoxical

Did you forget you said the below, Meta? They're not going to hell, but...??? You as much said it was below, so quit playing Mr. innocent and dumb.
PS. Homosexuality is an obomination and they deserve death....YOUR God, and YOUR bible
[yes he is a libertarian so he's making a pun on Obama]

So what's just happened? I said "if" and spoke conditionally he sys "You said this" on goes on a rampage as though I really did not speak conditionally. Why? As we will see not because he care what I said, not because he gives a rat's ass about my answer it's because he wants me to say "because they are evil" so he can say "Christians are evil." I had some real reasons for not saying one way or the other. In course of the thread I laid these out. They made no difference to him.

On the side of gayness being a sin I said that the Bible condemns it as such. Paul says it's a sin. He says it's dishonorable passions. That may be a cue as to why it would be a sin. Althlough trying to figure out why something from the first century is "dishonorable" as a passion in the 21st century is a daunting issue. I also shared the into that a certain Greek word translated "effeminate" in 2 cor really means to be on the receiving end in the homosexual intercourse act.

On the contrary side of the issue I've seen a good word study that abomination means just a violation of ritual purity laws. Since Christians are not under ritural purity laws of that OT now the OT prohibitions would not apply. Asdie from Paul's statments in Romans (dishonorable Passions) and 2 cor (homosexual intercourse) there's not much about it. Jesus never said it was a sin. No other NT writer says it's a sin. I can't tell you why it should be a sin. To say it's a sin one would have to base that purely upon Paul himself. I am not sure that's really strong enough. I am not an inerrantist. I reiterated the bit about treating people rightly. While the status of gayness is not clear to me it is clear that we are to treat all people as beloved creatures of God and give the basic human respect they deserve. None of that is good enough for him of course. We had more exchanges like hte one above where I'm dancing around saying I don't know if it's a sin because I sensed that he wanted me to make a stand so he would have be pigeon holed. He is dancing around trying really hard to force me to say Yea or nay about it being a sin.



Originally Posted by Paradoxical

Meta, psst, it's the Ugandans who want to kill millions of gay people because it's in the bible.

where in the bible does it say to kill them?

what that has to do with anything I don't know becuase I never said anything that would support killing anyone.

Paradoxocial

You aren't "sure" yourself, and you're as liberal as they get.

he's saying if the liberal Christian can't be any more determined to support gays than this then we can expect most Christians to try to kill them, or something like that.

Meta:

I'm not as liberal as they get. Real liberals like the one's I studied under at seminary would say "why would it be a sin?" In fact that seminary hired a gay to teach there, openly gay Methodist. UMC openly accepts gays.

I don't really know the official UMC position and being in the UMC (United Methodist Church) I would assume they don't know themselves. But there's a lot of acceptance for gays in the UMC.

Paradox:

Is it any wonder people justify bullying them, hanging them, and now giving them the death penalty?

Meta:

that's totally ridiculous. you are trying to make me feel guilty by saying I don't know. so why are you so admitted about forcing me to a position? what do you gain by my taking a position?

People don't harass gays because they don't know if it's a sin. People who do that know for certain what they think about it. That is also contradicted by my stance that if I don't know about that activity then I do at least know clearly how to treat people I've already nixed treating anyone as less than human. Treating people as "human" for means respecting them as humans.

It is obvious to me you are the intolerant [one] who cant' allow others to have their own views. If I don't take a stand in agreement with you then I'm one of "them." You are as brown shirt as they get without actually using your fists.

It's funny to me that you just ignore what Is aid about how to treat like I didn't even say it. It makes me wonder if it even really matters to you. I didn't think you care what I say. you have this canned response all planed out. talking to me is just part of a ploy. you don't give an rat's hind quarters about truth or thinking or anything.

Paradox

It's in YOUR bible, and the great Meta isn't even sure if it's a sin....

you are making of fool of yourself. I knew you would not be able to talk in a reasonable way about it. That's why I wasn't really willing to do it. You couldn't care less about my positional it's all matter of what can you get the mirage pout of hu?

Meta:

you are not a thinker of any kind you are knee jerk reactionary.

Paradox:

a man who studies the bible minute for most of his life does''t even know if the God he worships thinks it's a sin. What a despicable, decadent religion.

At this point I think it's more anger because I wouldn't give him an excuse to rail against Christians for being intolerant than anything else. He's clearly trying to guilt me into taking a stand.

Meta:

you probably tell people Christianity motivates by guilt and shame. what are you doing?

ok class here is the lesson in dealing with narrow minded intolerant ******* political activists. Notice he is driven to force me to declare.

if I say it's a sin then he has a foil O see I knew they are all like. I defuse that by saying "I don't know" so he can't stand it so tries to do it anyway by making me feel guilty about noting being definite.

He loses nothing whichever way I go. If I say it's a sin then's gained an example of how evil Christians are, if I say it's not a sin then he can use me as support for his views and that will the thin end of the wedge to use cognitive dissonance to get ground on other issues.

saying I don't know louses his whole deal he doesn't have any lever so he tries to shame me into talking a position.

this evening he does this one:

Originally Posted by Paradoxical

Meta, you are a self proclaimed bible expert,

self procalimed? what happened to my Masters degree. do you think you can take that away from me? Like I didn't get it because you dont' want me to have it?

I have a Masters degree weahter you like it or not. I read the NT in Greek weather you like it or not. That makes me much more of an expert than you will ever be.

and one who knows the history of that time period like the back of his hand.

I never said that. I have been triened as a historian. you have not be so trianed.

You know without me telling you that the bible which people contend is the word of God says they are an abomination and deserve death, and you feign ignorance as to whether or not YOUR God believes this is a sin.

where does it say they deserve death? didn't I already tell you that abomination is debatable as to what it means? why do you make up things? can't argue honestly?
you are so desperate to find the villain the evil Christian to point to you can't even listen to beings said directly to you.

In Uganda, they are using the bible in an attempt to give gay people the death penalty.

I don't live in Uganda. I didnt' go seminary in Uganda. Texas is not as primative as Uganda. I don't belong to a Ungandan chruch.

In America, Baptists use their money to deny gays the right to marry. When bullies beat them up and embarrass them to the point of suicide, it's because their parents have taught them that the BIBLE says being gay is sinful.

can you say "guilt by assocaition?"

do you know what a fallacy is? did you know guilt by association is a fallacy?

And YOU, an admitted bible expert contend you don't know?

I know what people say about it. also know it's a lot more complex than that. You are really having a hard aren't you? It would make it so much easier for you if I jsut said its' a sin so you can say "Ha! see the evil Christians Ooooooooo!"

guess what? I'm not going to prostitute my position just to make pionts in arguement like you are. Unlike you I have actual beliefs rather than just causes.

That absolute BS and you know it.

you are being simple minded.

I tried to get a yes or a no out of you and you feign ignorance again.

ROTFLOL! you failed. you are not a very good interegator are you?

By YOUR silence, Meta, YOU and others like you are responsible for the harrassment and killing of gays.

Me and others like me. that means I'm like the little red neck idiots who tied the guy to the fens because why? becasue I wont knuckle under and say what this jr. brown shirt wants me to say. That is so utterly stupid. It's obvious I'm not like those guys and it's stupid to say that not pronouncing gayness as fine and dandy is the same killings that lame brained.

ahahaahahahaah you are so desperate to have a villain and be the hero have someone to dump your bile over. That's pathetic. People like me. you don't know anything about me. You just making of bunch of silly judgments based upon the rhetorical need. You need someone to lash out at so you are going to pretend I"m some some evil fundie weather I am or not!

Their blood is on your hands because they get their nonsense from the bible. The very same one that you, as a bible EXPERT, better than a priest or pastor, contend doesn't give you a clue as to whether or not it is a sin.

I claim you bound in Jesus name> I reverse your curse in the name of Jesus.
(getting a little frivolous there)

ROTFLOL! ahahahaaha can you really be and inane! That's such a selish liittel tantrum. First of all I didn't say it was a sin. because I wont say what you want me to you are to just declair that I'm guilty.

You are not going to inteimiate me you are not going to control me. get that through your little head. I'm don't play your little games do you hear waht I'm saying?

You cannot pronounce me guilty of anything. you are guilty. you are guilty. Where were you when the people of Nicaragua were being murdered? you off at some little self gay thing instead of working to end the murder, rape, torture and lies of the contra war. I did work on it. I put my life on the line with the FBI to fight contra aid and I don't have to feel guilty about anything.

I went to the anti-Bork rally and almost got beat up by right wringers. I don't owe you anything. You are not anywhere near up to my level of activism and you are gonna have to a lot more in the struggle to match that I did 30 years ago. You not even in the struggle your a right winger so you actually guilty yourselves of the murder of the poor.

These are human beings, Meta....BORN that way, and it is despicable Christians who denigrate them, and remain silent when they commit suicide and when Uganda wants to kill them because of some Evangelical Christian having read some books that says they can change. I'm ashamed of you Meta. I thought better of you.

I said its' a sin to hurt people. I said guys are entitled to every bit the same human rights as anyone. If that's enough too bad. tugh.

you are a phony. you are not a fighter for human freedom. you are part of the problem because you don't even get the issues. Ayn Rand was a fool and murderer of the poor anyone who follows her garbage is guilty of murdering the poor.

I am not silent. I have condemned harming gays or harassing them. I have said explicitly it doesn't matter if it's a sin or not treating people that way is a sin. If that's enough then too bad. that just proves he's not sincere about his beliefs he's throughing a tantrum because I wont do things his way.


He's not upset because I might say gayness is a sin.If I said he would be happy. he' not trying to force me to say it's not a sin. If I say it's a sin he has ammunition if I say it is not then he has an endorsement. In saying I don't know he's deprived of the ammunition he wants so he's throwing a little tantrum. I don't think this is a particularly gay way to act. I'm sure there are mature gays than this guy. It's not necessarily an atheist way to act. It's a stupid way to act and we should be prepared for that.

What is my true opinion on the issue? I really don't know. I am opposed fundamentally to persecuting anyone. "Sin" does not translate into "opening season on the sinner."

Atheist Assualt on Higher Learning

On the CADRE blog I got into it again with an Atheist from the DC crowd named "Russ."

I just can't keep my foot out of my mouth. Yet in his response which are totally ad hominem we not only see the Character assassination tactics I have referred to but also the true nature of that segment the atheist community which I refer to as "ideolgoical."


Of course I've met many atheists in school who were part of the history of ideas program where I did my doctoral work. Most of them would not fall into the category of which I speak. But the those on the net tend to be non academics (maybe working class or white collar business or probably most of them are computer people). Few of them really seem to have any background in anything like Arts and Humanities. They are all very opinionated about how evil useless and stupid arts and humanities are, but they will express a fondness for art because it's pretty. Yet they have nothing but total contempt for any sort of idea that emerges from the realms of human thought governed by arts and humanities as a discipline.

Let's face it, most atheists on the internet think that the only form of knowledge is science. I suspect his is becasue very few of them went beyond the sophomore level in college and most of them are products of trade schools, the kind that advertise "you don't have to waste years learning all that book stuff just get 'hand's on' professional computer learning." Despite this bias against any form of knowledge that doesn't cater to their reductionism, they still feel that they know all about the things they have never studied.

Here is an example of one of them, Ross, who in the comment section demonstrates his utter contempt for any sort of liberal arts ideas:

First he quotes me to show what he's going to attack:

Hinman,

You said,

Of cousre if you are willing to only examine the surface, like a good little reductionist, then of course you are going to create the illusion that there's no God.

You never have to see what you do not wish to see.

I suppose he thought I was saying that he's not bright because he mistakes the term "shallow" for an appraisal of his intellectual abilities. Nothing was further from my mind. I admit I should have used more careful wording not to convey that impression. I just wasn't careful enough. What I really had in mind was that as materialist most atheists believe on in the surface of reality. A rose is a rose is a rose it has has no larger significance, no symbolic value relating to any higher metaphysical meaning. Everything is on the surface. There are elements we don't see but not because they are in other other dimensions or made out of spirit, but just because they are too tiny. In my mind this is surface level because its cutting off a connection with anything beyond, behind or above the material level.

Of course he's been angered because thinks I've said he's not deep as a thinker, which I did not mean to say. I apologize for creating that impression, but I think we can learn a lot from the nature of his response.

His first statement demonstrates true contempt for any form of thinking now sanctified by the ideology Dawkinista reductionism:

There is no reason to go beyond the surface in theology or philosophy of religion. Christianity has had lots of time, most of two millenia, to show even superficially that it offers hope to believers. It doesn't. You can shroud all your pretentions in obscurantist schlock, but in the end, whether you argue at the deepest levels your near-PhD can take you or stick to the shallows where the failures and defects of Christianity are well-lit, you will, just like every other failure of a theologian before you, arrive at nothing of use to practicing believers. You might have an article accepted for publication, but - and you know this to be true - it will, in all likelihood, never even be referenced unless you do it yourself.

Only someone who has never studied these subjects would try to say this. He's saying he doesn't have to study Philosophy because he knows it's stupid. We have seen this voiced in other ways around the net. The major one is the fallacious "Courtier's Reply" which is nothing more than a broad indictment that "your source of knowledge is not sanctioned by my ideology." As I put it on my blog:

Again their reasoning is quite circular since the reasons they would give for reducing religion to superstition don't' apply to modern sophisticated theology, but the fact that it can be labeled "theology" and they don't even know what that means, they stipulate that it must be stupid. So even though their reasons don't apply they just demand that they must do so any way.

Again they are merely stipulating truth and insisting they are right without any just reasons. It's idiotic to try and criticize a whole field you know nothing about. To make up for appalling ignorance they imply a third rate gimmick that is actually made up of two informal fallacies: ipsie dixit and circular reasoning. (Ibid: see link above)

This reminds me of an argument I had with an atheist once who asserted that all Christian theology is a about a big man in the sky, and ti's stupid to believe in a big man in the sky. I answered that Paul Tillich's theology explicitly denies that God is a big man or even a being at all. Process theology certainly denies that as well (based upon Whitehead it defines God as a "community of occasions"--don't ask). This guy asserted that I was lying. I told him well I studied theology and you apparently have not. He then said that's just the "Couriter's Reply" as though I had committed some kind of fallacy of logic. I repeated, "you are factually in error i gave two examples of schools of thought in theology that explicitly contradict what you claim all Christian theology is about. He merely retorted that it didn't count because theology is stupid so whatever the answer is it must be wrong. So he explicitly just refused to to accept a documented factual correction to his error on the grounds that he can basically say anything he wants and doesn't have to know what he's talking about because he's armed with the catch phrase "Courtier's Reply."


Then he gets into ad hominem attacks:

Your degree is largely useless to you and the rest of mankind. Your degree offers you no tools for adding to or augmenting the vast store of accumulated human knowledge.

It's pretty obvious that any Ph.D. is useless in his eyes unless the upshot of having it is to back his ideology. Dawkin's Ph.D. is good because science is the only valid from of knowledge. But if you study the history of science, that's invalid becuase it doesn't give you the sacred gate keeping knowledge of the white lab coat guy. Of course if he knew Dawkins was really a Museum keeper and that his chair was not earned but purchased it might some difference, but I doubt it.


He continues the Ad Hom:

So, you, the near-PhD, hang out on an obscure blog hoping beyond hope that someone will engage you in a way that will at least let you think your pursuing the near-PhD was not a complete waste of time. If it was anything beyond a waste of your time and money, you could solve or at least address some real problem facing humanity. You would not be left wrestling with issues that matter to none but the few helping you waste yet more time working through those fantasy issues over a few beers.

I am so very worried that it might have been a waste of time to learn things. Does not tell us his attitude, and the attitude of a segment of atheists, toward learning? Why would I have to worry that learning "might be" a waste? Why wouldn't I know up front if I thought learning was a value? Why would learning be a waste? Does this not tell us that his value is not learning and knowledge, his value system places very low capital upon actually knowing, but rewards some sort of social use, perhaps making money, but more probably confirming the ideology that he is brain washed upon. Knowledge is only of value in direct proportion to it's confirmation of the ideology, it's ability to assure him that God looks less and less likely, thus to free him from the fear of hell. Actually knowing for the sake of possessing knowledge is clearly not part of his value system. Neither is understanding the things he criticizes. In my view there is no greater intellectual sin than to criticize that of which of you have no knowledge. For the ideologue the ultimate criticism is that an idea is not sanctified by the ideology.

Sadly, your near-PhD does not even provide you with the intellectual wherewithal to respond to my comments in context. It's obvious, J. L., that you did not even attempt to ascertain the context. You quote-mined for fragments that you could attack, then dove right in.

This said by the guy who failed even once provide any focus upon the issues. This is the guy who focuses totally upon the ad hom and whose one great point of attack is that I studied a field that his ideology does not justifying as valid knowledge.

If you had a valuable degree in a useful discipline, you would have been able to discern that I was not in any way trying to disprove the existence of your Christian god. You should have been able to see that the data I noted simply clarified the point that while Christians make their self-serving claims, the veracity of those claims is simply not born out by the data.

Of course I said nothing to imply that proving the existence of God had anything to do wit the issue. He took it that way because, well for obvious reasons. Of course here he's trying to have it both ways by first asserting that it' snot about proving the existence of God then he tries to imply that somehow the data speaks again the existence of God. Of course there is no data against the existence of God, this is nothing more than the height of ignorance.

What is at issue bottom line in this venting of hatred? why do they have to drag their proletarian sense of superior intellect into it every single time as though understanding the truth of the universe is the ultimate proof of one's intellectual worth. As though somehow one's metaphysics is determined by one's IQ? I think this has to do their sense of powerlessness. They hate Ph.D.'s and learning and education and liberal arts becuase they identify it with elites, with an education they are not able to obtain. I've noticed many times that the real venting of hatred against Christians by atheists is often linked to this sense of powerlessness. It caters tot he sense of being a total minority of being looked down upon for views that castigate the vast majority of humanity.

I'm sure that all suited up in your near-PhD, you've got a million proofs for a million gods. I'm sure that any day now, Christians will no longer use the word, "faith" because your proofs will give them reason to use the word "know." I'm sure that for all of your new and improved near-PhD efforts, all Christians will have lives so distinctly superior to that of any non-Christian, that all people will immediately convert to the one true religion headmastered by the one true god.

Doesn't this tell us more about his value system? I mean when I was in the working world in my youth I often found that people on jobs just refused to believe me.It seemed the basic procedure was to doubt what any worker told them. I asked an older worker why this would be the case an he said "they lie, so they expect you to lie. They steal so they expect you to steal." I see the same psychology going on here. The only thing "knowledge" means to the ideologically motivated atheist is a standardized justification for belief system. Its' not a matter of learning, not a matter of expanding horizons, not a matter of starching yourself and seeking truth it's must a matter of justifying the ideology so you don't have to feel inferior anymore. This is his motive for learning, thus he expects it to be my motive for learning.

Millions of people are starving, J.L., and your imaginary god will not do anything about. You will, no doubt, tell me that Christians will do what they can and give the credit to their god, and attribute to god's will all the deaths. If all the time wasted getting near-PhD's and playing big fish on little blog were turned to useful human endeavors, perhaps fewer people would die. But, then if we actually took care of each other, there would be nothing for gods to do, and we know that theology near-PhD's working the religion industry would never stand for that.

I think this really proves my point about power. He equates the lack of social power with his atheism, and the presence of elitism and social oppression with the belief his ideology has singled out as the target of ridicule and the scapegoat for personal failings and the villain which explains the powerlessness they feel in society. Of course since history is not valid knowledge they are totally ignorant of the Christian left which goes back all the way to the Time Christ and finds Christians leading peasant revolts, contributing to socialist, liberation, and freedom movements from Johachin of Flora in the middle ages, to the Peasants of south Germany to the underground rail road to the abolition movement and w omen's suffrage to the civil rights movement to Obama, who is a total contradiction to everything this guy connects up with Christianity as a social ill. Not only are the Christian activist groups a total disproof of his statement (and a much more significant contributor to liberation if he only read some history and knew where to look for them) but theology as well. He's totally missed the 60, 70s, 80s and even 990s where liberation theology guided all of Latin America into revolution, and all of Western Europe into socialism and all of Asia into Min Jung theology and has created liberation and hope for people around the world. All of this escapes his notice because to know anything about it he would have to know something about the forces of knowledge that his ideology writes off as unjustified.

How can it be that a movement that bill itself as "free thought" is really based upon an ideology that excluded 90% of human knowledge as invalid and only sanctions the learning of a tiny sliver of what goes on in the academy? its' because they are not free. Knowledge is power. Instead of learning this they have told themselves and been told "only science is knowledge." Knowledge is power but the only true knowledge is science and the only true science is that which justifies a naturalistic view point. That is neither free nor knowledge. It is ideology. The atheist community is hard at work distributing an anti-intellectual gospel wrapped up in the phony garb of intellectuals. Gee if I studied history I might come with knowledge of another movement that told powerless people they could be powerful if hey eliminated a certain group that caused all their problems and stood in their way. But of cousre that's on the menu of valid knowledge so we can't learn about it.

It should be pretty obvious at this point why the ideology seeks to destroy all forms of knowledge save that which contributes to it's own propaganda. If one were to really learn history and the liberal arts one would see through the ideology.