Theories on Why Atheists are met with Hostility

[Quantum Windbag]

No he doesn't. If he had balls, he'd stop backpedaling and face up to being wrong.

What, exactly, am I wrong about? Every single example he gave fails to prove that anyone has a right to tell anyone else what to say.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

Is English not your native language? You are confusing words here. You stated that "No one has the right to tell anyone else what they can, or cannot say." The laws I mentioned are precisely that....telling people that they cannot slander, or perjure themselves, or reveal classified information, etc. And there are penalties for saying things they cannot say. But now you've shifted goalposts by saying no one can actually prevent people from saying what they want. And you're confusing that with prohibiting slander etc. The government does have the right to tell people what they can and cannot say under certain very limited circumstances. Of course that doesn't and can't prevent it except in the cases where people are afraid of the penalties. And of course certain speech can be prohibited, but that's not the same as prior restraint.

Except, as I already explained, nothing actually prevents anyone from saying whatever they want. That makes you wrong, no matter how you twist and turn.

That was not your original claim.
So what you've done is make a statement, and then when shown your statement is clearly untrue, you now pretend you said something completely different. And you accuse ME of twisting and turning? You have balls.

No he doesn't. If he had balls, he'd stop backpedaling and face up to being wrong.

You, of all people, have no grounds to call someone ball-less.

And would you care to elaborate on why? Or would you prefer to decline and grant me the opportunity to laugh at the irony?

 

[AtheistBuddah]

No he doesn't. If he had balls, he'd stop backpedaling and face up to being wrong.

What, exactly, am I wrong about? Every single example he gave fails to prove that anyone has a right to tell anyone else what to say.

You're wrong in saying that didn't make a claim. You did. You claimed that a God exists and that you talk to it.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Is English not your native language? You are confusing words here. You stated that "No one has the right to tell anyone else what they can, or cannot say." The laws I mentioned are precisely that....telling people that they cannot slander, or perjure themselves, or reveal classified information, etc. And there are penalties for saying things they cannot say. But now you've shifted goalposts by saying no one can actually prevent people from saying what they want. And you're confusing that with prohibiting slander etc. The government does have the right to tell people what they can and cannot say under certain very limited circumstances. Of course that doesn't and can't prevent it except in the cases where people are afraid of the penalties. And of course certain speech can be prohibited, but that's not the same as prior restraint.

Except, as I already explained, nothing actually prevents anyone from saying whatever they want. That makes you wrong, no matter how you twist and turn.

That was not your original claim.
So what you've done is make a statement, and then when shown your statement is clearly untrue, you now pretend you said something completely different. And you accuse ME of twisting and turning? You have balls.

No he doesn't. If he had balls, he'd stop backpedaling and face up to being wrong.

You, of all people, have no grounds to call someone ball-less.

And would you care to elaborate on why? Or would you prefer to decline and grant me the opportunity to laugh at the irony?

Because when you show yourself to be a pussy, that automatically precludes you from having balls. Wicked "rebuttal" of my arguments there, Mr. Ball-less.

 

[AtheistBuddah]

Is English not your native language? You are confusing words here. You stated that "No one has the right to tell anyone else what they can, or cannot say." The laws I mentioned are precisely that....telling people that they cannot slander, or perjure themselves, or reveal classified information, etc. And there are penalties for saying things they cannot say. But now you've shifted goalposts by saying no one can actually prevent people from saying what they want. And you're confusing that with prohibiting slander etc. The government does have the right to tell people what they can and cannot say under certain very limited circumstances. Of course that doesn't and can't prevent it except in the cases where people are afraid of the penalties. And of course certain speech can be prohibited, but that's not the same as prior restraint.

Except, as I already explained, nothing actually prevents anyone from saying whatever they want. That makes you wrong, no matter how you twist and turn.

That was not your original claim.
So what you've done is make a statement, and then when shown your statement is clearly untrue, you now pretend you said something completely different. And you accuse ME of twisting and turning? You have balls.

No he doesn't. If he had balls, he'd stop backpedaling and face up to being wrong.

You, of all people, have no grounds to call someone ball-less.

And would you care to elaborate on why? Or would you prefer to decline and grant me the opportunity to laugh at the irony?

Because when you show yourself to be a pussy, that automatically precludes you from having balls. Wicked "rebuttal" of my arguments there, Mr. Ball-less.

I didn't see any proof in that post. Just a temper tantrum.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You're wrong in saying that didn't make a claim. You did. You claimed that a God exists and that you talk to it.

That was a different thread, oh he who can't think.

The only claim I made when I responded to this thread is that no one can prevent me from saying whatever I want. Feel free to prove that claim wrong while I continue to say whatever I want.

 

[pinqy]

That was not your original claim.
So what you've done is make a statement, and then when shown your statement is clearly untrue, you now pretend you said something completely different. And you accuse ME of twisting and turning? You have balls.

My original claim, unless I am mistaken, is that no one has the right to sell anyone else what they can, or cannot, say, if that isn't what I said feel free to correct me. Until then, you are twisting because I am 100% correct, nothing you cited as an example in any way prevents anyone from saying something.

You did say no one has the right to tell anyone else what they can, or cannot, say. But when I gave examples of government and professional organizations doing just that, you switched and insisted that my examples didn't show anyone preventing a anyone from saying what they want. Which has nothing to do with your original claim.

Telling someone they cannot do something is not the same as preventing everyone from doing it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You did say no one has the right to tell anyone else what they can, or cannot, say. But when I gave examples of government and professional organizations doing just that, you switched and insisted that my examples didn't show anyone preventing a anyone from saying what they want. Which has nothing to do with your original claim.

Telling someone they cannot do something is not the same as preventing everyone from doing it.

Damn, I thought you were smarter than the average bigot.

Did you know that there are laws that require the members of various professional organizations to violate the very rules you say prohibit members of those organizations from talking? Can you explain the conflict between your childish view of the way the world works and the actual laws that exist?

As for your claim that the government can, in any way, restrict my speech, I once again refer you to the doctrine of prior restraint. They might be able to punish me for saying things, but they are specifically prohibited from claiming that I can't actually say it.

 

[sealybobo]

Certainly we want to keep it out of our government. And you really should keep that shit to yourself. If you want to think about god all day and go to church on Sunday, cool. If you don't like gays, that's your choice.

We just want your god out of our government. It doesn't belong. Not to us it doesn't.

If that was all you "just" wanted there would be no issue with me. But that's obviously not all you want is it?

(Why the comment about gay people? Are you showing your ignorance again?)

What justification do you use to discriminate against gays? YOUR RELIGION! If it weren't for god(s), what other reason could you have for discriminating against gay people?

Ask the Russians. The USSR did not use religion as an excuse to persecute homosexuals.

WRONG!

Before the revolution, Czarist Russia was hardly friendly to gays. In 1716, homosexuality among military men was made punishable by flogging, rape and forced labor.

The revolutionaries threw out the Czarist legal code and drew up their own, which did not criminalize homosexuality/ The new leadership was following a tradition set by the French Revolution that dumped religion-based laws.

So the Russian's reasoning for being anti gay is/was religious/moral.

They did have other reasons. IGNORANCE was one. The confused homosexuality with pedophilia and rape.

The Russian Orthodox Church is a major driver of anti-gay public opinion, Mikhailova said, but there is a paradox at play.

In most countries, religiosity is linked to anti-gay attitudes. Among Americans, 74 percent of nonreligious people approve of gay marriage, compared with only 23 percent of white evangelical Protestants, according to a Pew survey. Likewise, the most religious countries tend to be less accepting of gay rights, Pew has found.

Russia (along with China) is an outlier. Few Russians say religion is central to their lives; the country scores on par with many Western European countries in terms of lack of religiosity, but only 9 percent of Russians say homosexuality is acceptable in the new survey.

While the average Russian may not attend church frequently or pray fervently, the Orthodox Church still holds sway over public opinion.

"The church is taking a more and more prominent place in Russia, and Putin and his government constantly talk about spiritual values," "Traditional" values are portrayed as what makes Russia strong.

 

[sealybobo]

"OVERTHINKING"
The art of creating problems that weren't even there.

A year ago one of the nicest people I have known in my life passed away. His name was Dave. A simple man, nice to everyone, giving, thoughtful and genuine. Everyone on the office liked him, it was basically impossible to dislike him.
He was an atheist.
He wasn't disliked by anyone, despite everyone knowing this. He was, however, never judgmental or "holier than thou". He never talked about atheism or religion. Why would he? Usually if a person doesn't believe in something, they don't really think about it. I do not believe that Big Foot exist. I never talk about Big Foot.
Many atheist love to talk about themselves. And love to tell everyone about this badge of honor as they perceive it. That they are enlightened. Smart, not gullible and dumb like everyone else.
An asshole.
Stop being one and people will like you. The best advice anyone can give an atheist.

Atheist reporting for duty sir!

I hate Atheists like we're seeing in this thread. My lack of belief is my own business and I'm not inclined to jam it in anyone's face. It's not my business to convert anyone. I respect religious people for trying to live by a code which gives meaning to their life. I don't dwell on the fact that I find the source of the code to be nonsense, the real world benefits of the code that Christians live by are many and so there's no need for me to go out and "save" people from their religion.

I do not attack people. In fact, I resent the accusation. I try very hard to be respectful and maintain my decorum during discussion on this forum. However, voicing a difference of opinion is the name of the game here and if you see that as an attack I'm sorry for that.

You're like a Hare Krishna at the airport, constantly badgering people with your Atheism. I keep seeing you starting Atheism threads. You're a damn embarrassment to me and other Atheists.

You are ignorant.

We are not trying to impose our beliefs

For some reason Atheism and Leftism have a high correlation. If you object to religious people trying to inject their beliefs into the political system then why aren't you actually launching a damn revolution and rounding up Leftists who have had far more success in terms of IMPOSING their beliefs onto an unwilling society. Leftism is just as much a religion as Christianity.

The reason you haven't is because you like those Leftist beliefs and you have no problem with imposing them on the unwilling. At least be honest - you don't object to Christians advocating their beliefs because this violates your principle, you object because they're your competitor and if you can knock them out then you have a clear field within which to operate and impose your beliefs onto others. You're just using Atheism as a cover for Leftism.

What justification do you use to discriminate against gays? YOUR RELIGION! If it weren't for god(s), what other reason could you have for discriminating against gay people?

I'm not religious, and I'm full out in favor of discriminating against anyone and everyone. It's my human right to do so. You're so damn transparent - discrimination concerns are a LEFTIST worry, they don't arise from Atheist positions. Quit sullying the reputation of Atheists with this Leftist garbage.

Ever notice the lower the IQ the more belief people have in god? Go down south to the bible belt and see if those people will even let you suggest that god is fake.

Clearly you must be the outlier here, right? How to explain your idiocy and your proclaimed Atheism? One would think very few scientists would believe in God and yet many do. Don't they have the mental firepower to figure out what you've figured out?

Don't flatter yourself with the IQ association, trying to capture the spillover effect from some smart people being Atheists. Other smart people believe in God, so does that mean Christians can use the same tactic as you?

Ah an Ayn Rand Athiest Republican. Welcome to the discussion and fuck off.

 

[sealybobo]

That's the thing. How many religious assholes say he's going to burn in hell when he dies?

We think/talk about god because it is such a pervasive concept.

And if your side didn't do things like insist America is a christian nation or use religion as a wedge issue to sucker gullible voters into voting against their own financial interests, I wouldn't care much what you guys think. So want to blame someone for this? Blame yourselves. What does Christianity say for you to do? Spread the word? Well if you are going to tell us about god, expect to hear what we think about your god.

And don't tell us we'll go to hell if we don't believe and then get offended when we call BULLSHIT on your story. Any logical thinking person would.

^ that

Thumpers are told to convert people and when repulsed, lash out.

Sent from my BN NookHD+ using Tapatalk

that explains the bodies left behind when Jehovah's Witnesses canvas a suburban neighborhood....

Atheists are most often called ‘militant’ when they passionately defend reason and advocate critical thinking. The bar theists set for perceived hostility appears to be any atheist simply voicing an opinion in dissent of religious belief. In contrast, the bar atheists set for perceived theistic hostility is any form of religiously motivated violence or oppression.

Atheism does not preclude someone from being argumentative or insensitive; those things are simply seen as being preferable to killing one another over an imaginary friend.

A ‘militant’ atheist will debate in a University or appeal for the separation of religion and government. A militant theist will kill doctors, stone women to death, incite religious war, restrict sexual and gender equality and convince children they are flawed and worthless – all under the instruction of their imagined ‘god’ or holy book.

It can be argued that there is no such thing as a ‘militant’ atheist, that the term is itself a misnomer, because there is simply no ideology or philosophy in atheism to be militant about. If an atheist is someone who lacks belief in gods, then a ‘militant’ atheist is apparently someone who passionately lacks a belief in gods.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Atheists are most often called ‘militant’ when they passionately defend reason and advocate critical thinking. The bar theists set for perceived hostility appears to be any atheist simply voicing an opinion in dissent of religious belief. In contrast, the bar atheists set for perceived theistic hostility is any form of religiously motivated violence or oppression.

Actually, they are only called idiots when they attack people who disagree with them, like you always do. Come to think of it, that might be why you think you are being persecuted.

Atheism does not preclude someone from being argumentative or insensitive; those things are simply seen as being preferable to killing one another over an imaginary friend.

Do you prefer to kill people over imaginary facts?

A ‘militant’ atheist will debate in a University or appeal for the separation of religion and government. A militant theist will kill doctors, stone women to death, incite religious war, restrict sexual and gender equality and convince children they are flawed and worthless – all under the instruction of their imagined ‘god’ or holy book.

By that definition I am a militant atheist.

By the way, doesn't telling children of color that they cannot get by unless the government protects them amount to telling them that they are flawed?

It can be argued that there is no such thing as a ‘militant’ atheist, that the term is itself a misnomer, because there is simply no ideology or philosophy in atheism to be militant about. If an atheist is someone who lacks belief in gods, then a ‘militant’ atheist is apparently someone who passionately lacks a belief in gods.

It can also be argued that the sun doesn't exist.

Any other stupid arguments, or will you simply admit you are an idiot?

 

[PostmodernProph]

Ah an Ayn Rand Athiest Republican. Welcome to the discussion and fuck off.

Theories on Why Atheists are met with Hostility

 

[pinqy]

Certainly we want to keep it out of our government. And you really should keep that shit to yourself. If you want to think about god all day and go to church on Sunday, cool. If you don't like gays, that's your choice.

We just want your god out of our government. It doesn't belong. Not to us it doesn't.

If that was all you "just" wanted there would be no issue with me. But that's obviously not all you want is it?

(Why the comment about gay people? Are you showing your ignorance again?)

What justification do you use to discriminate against gays? YOUR RELIGION! If it weren't for god(s), what other reason could you have for discriminating against gay people?

Ask the Russians. The USSR did not use religion as an excuse to persecute homosexuals.

WRONG!

Before the revolution, Czarist Russia was hardly friendly to gays. In 1716, homosexuality among military men was made punishable by flogging, rape and forced labor.

The revolutionaries threw out the Czarist legal code and drew up their own, which did not criminalize homosexuality/ The new leadership was following a tradition set by the French Revolution that dumped religion-based laws.

Yes, homosexuality was decriminalized in 1917, but was re-criminalized in 1934

154-а. Половое сношение мужчины с мужчиной (мужеложство) - лишение свободы на срок от трех до пяти лет.
Мужеложство, совершенное с применением насилия или с использованием зависимого положения потерпевшего, - лишение свободы на срок от пяти до восьми лет. [1 апреля 1934 года (СУ № 15, ст.95)
Criminal Code of the RSFR 1926

Translation: Sexual intercourse of a man with a man (sodomy) - restriction of liberty for a period from 3 to 5 years.
Sodomy, committed with violence or with the dependent position of the victim-restriction of liberty for a period of 5 to 8 years.

In 1960, it became Article 121, set the penalty at 5 years, and penalty for forcible sodomy, with a minor, or dependency of the victim at 8.

So, it was illegal in the Soviet Union, and you can't claim religion is to blame. Under Stalin? ridiculous.

 

[shart_attack]

Because they swoop into threads and redex totally innocuous posts like ...

When Jesus.......... US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

... without taking the time to explain why.

 

[bodecea]

Interestingly enough...I have yet to have Athiests come to my door pressing their literature on to me.

 

[asterism]

Interestingly enough...I have yet to have Athiests come to my door pressing their literature on to me.

Is that your bar for civility?

In addition to my work as a philosopher at Harvard, I’ve been a political activist since my teens, working with the UK’s Liberal Democrat party in various roles as a volunteer in political campaigns. There I learnt how to go door to door convincing people to put up signs in support of our candidate, how to respond to constituents’ concerns over the phone, how to conduct effective petitions, and the traits of good political candidates. I continued my activism as a student at Cambridge, where I was Education Campaigns Officer for my Student Union. As an actor and singer with over 50 public performance credits to my name, I have honed the art of using my body as an instrument to convey ideas and emotions. As a high school debater, and later a high school teacher, I learned how to speak effectively in front of a hostile crowd, and win them over.

The Freethinkers 8217 Political Textbook 8211 Setting the Stage The Humanist Community Project

 

[AtheistBuddah]

Hostility? Atheists bring that upon themselves.

Although having them culled is a far better option than endlessly arguing with them.
​

It is a wonder that you are even still here. It is a wonder that you have not been banned for your hate speech. To disagree is one thing. To call your opponent stupid or idiotic is one thing. But to advocate the mass murder of an entire group of people. That is another thing entirely and it has no place here.

 

[sealybobo]

By the way, doesn't telling children of color that they cannot get by unless the government protects them amount to telling them that they are flawed?

.

Your reply proves that even atheists can be stupid greedy and/or ignorant. I guess I shouldn't generalize huh?

Let me try to explain why you are wrong and how you are probably a brainwashed ignorant fool. In the past us white Americans felt like we were part of the ruling class. No matter how poor we were, at least we had it better than them. Those days are gone my friend, even though you hang on to the argument.

Are the ghettos and inner city blacks still worse off than poor whites in the burbs? Fo sho because they have less opportunity for upward mobility.

Let me wrap it up because I know your right wing pee brain aint gonna get this, but you need to know that today it aint about black and white, gay or straigh, christian or muslim. It's about RICH and NOT RICH.

If you notice Romney called more than just black people "takers". Do you remember that? So to a guy like Romney, even you are a N*##er. He doesn't want you to know that because you are still stupid enough to vote along with him, but by wanting or liking social security and medicare, you too sir are a taker.

The rich want to destroy what created the middle class. Lets be honest, the American Middle Class makes too much. That is the perspective of the rich. And so when you cry about blacks on welfare or food stamps, that's just you being a stupid asshole who doesn't get what's happening to America.

Need proof? 30 years ago everybody in every other country wanted to move to America. Today no more. Today the people in Seattle with they lived in Vancouver, Australia or many European countries. They now have better upward mobility and quality of life.

The American people got fat, ignorant greedy and lazy.

 

[sealybobo]

Certainly we want to keep it out of our government. And you really should keep that shit to yourself. If you want to think about god all day and go to church on Sunday, cool. If you don't like gays, that's your choice.

We just want your god out of our government. It doesn't belong. Not to us it doesn't.

If that was all you "just" wanted there would be no issue with me. But that's obviously not all you want is it?

(Why the comment about gay people? Are you showing your ignorance again?)

What justification do you use to discriminate against gays? YOUR RELIGION! If it weren't for god(s), what other reason could you have for discriminating against gay people?

Ask the Russians. The USSR did not use religion as an excuse to persecute homosexuals.

WRONG!

Before the revolution, Czarist Russia was hardly friendly to gays. In 1716, homosexuality among military men was made punishable by flogging, rape and forced labor.

The revolutionaries threw out the Czarist legal code and drew up their own, which did not criminalize homosexuality/ The new leadership was following a tradition set by the French Revolution that dumped religion-based laws.

Yes, homosexuality was decriminalized in 1917, but was re-criminalized in 1934

154-а. Половое сношение мужчины с мужчиной (мужеложство) - лишение свободы на срок от трех до пяти лет.
Мужеложство, совершенное с применением насилия или с использованием зависимого положения потерпевшего, - лишение свободы на срок от пяти до восьми лет. [1 апреля 1934 года (СУ № 15, ст.95)
Criminal Code of the RSFR 1926

Translation: Sexual intercourse of a man with a man (sodomy) - restriction of liberty for a period from 3 to 5 years.
Sodomy, committed with violence or with the dependent position of the victim-restriction of liberty for a period of 5 to 8 years.

In 1960, it became Article 121, set the penalty at 5 years, and penalty for forcible sodomy, with a minor, or dependency of the victim at 8.

So, it was illegal in the Soviet Union, and you can't claim religion is to blame. Under Stalin? ridiculous.

What's the difference between morality and religion?

The new leadership was following a tradition set by the French Revolution that dumped religion-based laws.

RELIGION BASED FOOL!!!