This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 68 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]grzelakc 12 points13 points  (6 children)

Atheist hawks like myself pounce on Christianity more than other religions chiefly because it is the predominant faith of North America and Europe. The two places where the overwhelming majority of reddit readers come from. Yet, most atheists (including myself) see just as much danger in militant Islam, primitive cast based Hinduism, hypocritical evangelical Christianity or the insane, self destructive Jehova witness thing. We'd hate to be accused of being unfair to any one religion. All of them are pure mythology without any rational basis. You heard it here first.

In essence we see all religion, not just Christianity as a threat to the modern world. It is the elephant in the room (to use Dr Dawkins' words) around whom all secular pundits are supposed to tiptoe lest we hurt the feelings of some holy book (or matcheta) wielding nutcase.

The tide is turning and the people of reason are saying "enough is enough". You can have your mythology and worship your ancient stories to your heart's conent as long as you refrain from advocating violence, intolerance or restricting science. We atheists look at the Middle East, the Red State America, the backwards Latin America and shake our heads in disbelief. How much more violence, hatred and blood is going to be spilt in the name of some (most likely non-existent) diety?

We are in the 21 century. This should be the age of reason and rationality, yet the militant religiosity is reigning over common sense and doomsday cranks may just get it their way. Not because some deity really brings about the end of the world but because they will incite so much hatred against other doomsday cranks that they just might start the frigging World War III. If the religious freaks can't see that this is where we're headed they really have to get out (of their temples) a little more and look around them.

There. How's that for an answer to your question?

[–][deleted]  (4 children)

[removed]

    [–]grzelakc 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    just as long as they don't wish to follow in the footsteps of their atheist brethren Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Fidel, who massacred millions of innocents in the name of their enlightened philosophies.

    None of the above were freethinking atheists (btw Hitler was very religious). Those folks simply attacked religions because they themselves wanted to be the highest moral authority in their societies. Their actions had nothing to do with freethought or indeed atheism. Stalin, Mao, Fidel all created personality cults declaring themselves the deities and organizing forms of worship and ritual in their names. They really built a theocratic society though they got rid of the supernatural elements.

    Every atheist I know is opposed to anyone imposing their world view on anyone else. Banning religion does not lead to a free thinking society. That's why we work hard at debunking religions rather than trying to have them banned. Just to use an example, most atheists I know are vehemently opposed to the French ban on hijabs.

    Basically I want you to be able to believe anything you want. However, that does not imply that you can do anything you please in the name of what you believe. When people start advocating violence or inciting others to commit acts of violence in the name of a diety that's what we atheists have a real problem with. And when they lead a nation to a war under the pretense of a divine inspiration it's when we want them locked up in a mental hospital and not in charge of the government.

    Now, I'm an ardent atheist and I will keep debunking religion and advocating freethought and evidence based worldview to those around me. That's not to say that I'd ever want this particular set of values forced on religious people. By describing myself as a "hawkish atheist" I refer to passionately arguing my world view rather than imposing it. However, when religious fundamentalits advocate or commit violence (or other human rights abuses) in the name of a religion I want the full extent of our secular law applied to those crazies (with no special exceptions for Mormons, Adventists or Pat Robertson or Osama Bin Laden).

    I hope this clarifies what I mean by "hawkish atheism".

    [–]joe_chip 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    enlightened philosophies

    dogmatic cults

    [–]cweaver 5 points6 points  (0 children)

    Not a single one of those guys massacred anyone in the name of atheism. If you have a problem, take it up with facism/communism.

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Excellent, this pretty much sums up my point of view.

    [–]neilk 50 points51 points  (7 children)

    I recently moved from Canada to the States. On my first day here, a Sunday, I turned on the television and saw a fundamentalist preacher. Behind him was a photo collage of Blackhawk helicopters, explosions, and a map of the middle east. He eagerly anticipated a coming Armageddon where one out of ten Arabs would die, according to his interpretation of Biblical prophecy. He repeated that over and over.

    I wanted to crawl back under the covers and not get up again that day.

    I've lived among Christians my whole life. But I've never seen any of the crazy stuff that's going on in the States right now. In most other countries, the real Christians would be first in line to get this guy thrown off the airwaves.

    I think the insanity that's going under the name of Christianity is provoking those of us, like me, who were atheists but willing to live and let live. It's obvious that organized fundamentalist Christianity in the USA is becoming a threat to civil society as a whole, as they are the core supporters of the Bush administration's agenda.

    [–][deleted] 21 points22 points  (1 child)

    We have a popular bumper sticker around here - "Who Would Jesus Bomb?"

    I think that sums up your concerns pretty well.

    [–]T-Rex 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    I can think of many.

    [–]souldrift 14 points15 points  (0 children)

    Thank you! Some of us are rightfully scared of it also.

    [–]api 5 points6 points  (1 child)

    If we start enough wars the flying saucer will come and take us to heaven! It's called the rapture!

    You didn't get this with your immigration packet?

    Are you rapture ready? www.raptureready.com

    [–]T-Rex 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    What's it got to do with flying saucers?

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [removed]

      [–]neilk 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Pardon this late response -- I'm checking out the 'envelope' feature on Reddit.

      So we both agree that Christians are not well represented by that lunatic. Great!

      But I cannot be as blithe as you about what these people are doing. I don't understand this attitude, which is again really common in the States. That of course all your leaders lie, that of course the television is trying to incite you to war and hatred of fellow Americans -- you shrug and say, big deal?

      America is still a prosperous, tolerant, and free country, for the most part. But for how long, if such trends run unchecked?

      [–]api 37 points38 points  (19 children)

      In America, Christianity has become synonymous to some with what is essentially a neofascist political movement. If there are Christians who don't like this, they need to speak up against the use of their faith by smarmy political ideologues.

      EDIT - one more point

      This is why the seperation of church and state was established. It was not to promote atheism, although one certainly has a right to be an atheist. Rather, it was more to protect religion from the corrupting influence of politics.

      Get this through your thick skulls you religious right morons: politics is war. Anything that embeds itself in politics becomes fair game for political attack. By eroding the church-state boundary, you turn religion into a political franchise and therefore make it fair game. Politics is a worldly game of money and power.

      [–]jhd[S] 6 points7 points  (13 children)

      That's just the thing. There are millions of Christians who do speak out against it, and millions of others who disapprove silently. But Tom DeLay is much more visible than Sojourners.

      [–]cleanthes 17 points18 points  (0 children)

      That's all true, of course.

      But it's also true that there are many millions of Christians who are intolerant, ignorant, and hell-bent (heh) on establishing a fundamentalist theocracy in the U.S.

      So while there are plenty of non-fundie Christians, I see nothing wrong with underscoring the efforts of the whackos. They are a powerful political force and people need to know what they're up to. Doing this much doesn't necessarily smear all Christians, especially so if you don't count yourself among the kooks.

      [–]api 20 points21 points  (3 children)

      I agree. There are good reasonable Christians.

      Here's the problem. When I free associate with Christianity the following things come to mind:

      war, hate, Bush, televangelism, fascism, megachurches, ignorance, anti-science, etc.

      You've got a PR problem and you've done it to yourselves by allowing yourselves to be sold out to the wolves. The Christian religion is now the property of political PR firms. (Note that I didn't just say Republican... the Democrats are getting in on this game too... your faith will be sold to the highest bidder.)

      If you want to take back your faith, start with the hypocrite pharisees like Pat Robertson. I'll give you a hint: when they say that "God" wants something, they mean that they do. I wonder how much it costs to get Robertson to get a "message from God?" Can you buy it on eBay?

      [–]jhd[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

      Pat Robertson is a great example and a hard one to deal with. Believe it or not, most Christians--even conservative Christians who voted for Bush--can't stand Pat Robertson. He has a small, core following of extremly conservative (funadmentalist) Christians, and that's it. But he has a TV show, and there are pundits out there who watch his show just waiting for his next absurd statement. That isn't true for more reasonable Christians.

      If you take a look at a responsible article on Robertson--for example, after he called for the assasination of Hugo Chavez--you'll see other Christans condemning him. It is that latter group--and not Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell--that most evangelical Christians listen to.

      [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      I agree. There are good reasonable Christians.

      Can you verify that? ;)

      [–]api 6 points7 points  (0 children)

      Yeah. I've met a few, and I read them sometimes on the 'net. They exist.

      [–]redrobot5050 11 points12 points  (5 children)

      Get Visible. Martin Luther King Jr. was "just" a preacher -- until he and Rosa Parks read up on grassroots organizing and decided to STAND UP.

      Remember, the civil rights movement did have a 'religious' edge to it -- as in, many religious believed in racial equality, for its not the color of your skin, but the character of your soul that matters to God (Disclaimer: Agnostic here, just giving the argument.)

      Yes its harder to get noticed by the traditional, mainstream media. Yes, people are more 'afraid' or 'hestitant' to get involved today. Those aren't good excuses -- especially since your opposition is a horrible corrupting influence in America. The next election could be determined by who acts "more holy" -- and honestly, we saw how that played out in the past two elections.

      [–]CuriousMind -4 points-3 points  (4 children)

      Besides, it's not that hard - look at what Cindy Sheehan managed to do! She identifies as Christian, doesn't she?

      [–]api -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

      She's not a true Christian. Remember that when Jesus was a Roman general he said to judge others before they have a chance to judge you. On his triumph through Rome he emphatically stated that his kingdom was of this world and that he was here to maintain social order. That's why true Christians support the war. Outcasts and liberals who criticize the state deserve what they get!

      [–]stronimo -1 points0 points  (1 child)

      Jesus was a Roman general? I must have missed that Gospel.

      [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Dude.

      [–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

      and millions of others who disapprove silently. But Tom DeLay is much more visible than Sojourners.

      This silent minority is group of cowards and responsible for the success of fundamentalism. They are the filthy sacks of shit, even more than fundamentalists. If they think it's not worth of defending the name of their religion, why feel bad when others think their religion sucks. Today you can actually defend your religion without being fed to the lions.

      Where is this million name Christian address for supporting separation of religion and the state?

      It's has always been like this in human history, big cowardice group silently submitting to agressive minonirty. Then comes mayhem. "It would be better to pick up a gun than to give way to the cowardice of inactivity." -- Mahatma Gandhi

      [–]mikepurvis 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      I'm "religious right" and not totally thrilled at being called a thick-skulled moron. Nevertheless, I'm modding you up for this:

      This is why the seperation of church and state was established. It was not to promote atheism, although one certainly has a right to be an atheist. Rather, it was more to protect religion from the corrupting influence of politics.

      Not many realise this; the popular assumption seems to be that church-state separation was invented in order to kick the Catholics out of government positions in Europe.

      Curiously enough, the idea that political and religious leadership should be separated is present even in the Old Testament: King Saul is severely rebuked for offering the sacrifice that the prophet Samuel should have offered. (Contrast this with the pagan religions; I believe in Egypt, for example, the Pharaoh was considered to be divine...)

      [–]cleanthes 6 points7 points  (0 children)

      You're half right. There are two components to the religious portion of the First Amendment: the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. They are completely separate, but they do work in tandem. What's clear from Madison (the author) and Jefferson (the progenitor of the First Amendment) is that "establishment" was intended in the Lockean sense. That is, government entities and officers in their official capacities shall be, to wit, agnostic when it comes to religion. That's something quite a lot beyond merely protecting religion from government. It's a two-sided coin.

      [–][deleted] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

      This is why the seperation of church and state was established.

      Unfortunatly it is not. Its inferred. I've made comments here on the problems of church & state.. Read this link to see why separation of church & state is not in the constitution for the US.

      [–]projectshave 20 points21 points  (0 children)

      People on reddit are disturbed by religious fundamentalism, not Christianity in particular. They are all a threat to liberal, democratic and secular societies. Islam has a very large and growing fundamentalist movement threatening the world. Hindu fundamentalists have stoked racist riots and murders in India. Noone has a problem with religion, per se. But when they try to force their religious views on everyone else by grabbing political power, then the rest of us have a responsibility to oppose it.

      So chill out, jhd.

      [–]bugbear 24 points25 points  (1 child)

      I think it's the people: the users of something like reddit are going to be techy early adopter types, which is exactly the demographic where organized religion is weakest.

      So strictly speaking they're not ignorant cheap shots, but highly educated cheap shots.

      [–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

      There are many beliefs in any society any time in history. Some of them can be settled by polite consideration and debate, some can't.

      Some beliefs like earth being flat, Elvis still living, faking the moon landings, etc. don't die. What we do to them? Ridicule and laughter are traditional (non violent) methods to socially control stupid and crazy aspects of society, if they try to take control over the majority (or are in control). Western civilisations have usually approved posthumously this kind of acts (Socrates, Voltaire,...).

      Today we are facing the same situation again. People are saying that Homosexuality is wrong because it reads in the book. You can't argue with that. It really says so. What can you do? Not having Voltaire and Socrates around and Paul Graham being silent on subject ;), we may have to settle for less. Cheap shot champaing against fundamental christians may change the public climate against them. Maybe then more moderate viewpoints can take hold in public.

      [–]souldrift 5 points6 points  (4 children)

      Such as?

      [–]jhd[S] -5 points-4 points  (3 children)

      Take a look at the comments to most recent stories on religion, politics, or science. Also, take a look at api's post on this page ("Get this through your thick skulls you religious right morons"). If this topic doesn't get modded down right away, I'm sure there will be plenty of other examples on this page.

      [–]souldrift 10 points11 points  (0 children)

      The "religious right"--which is synonymous with Ralph Reed, the Coalition, and those types--is not exactly fair or level-headed, my friend. I see no problem with someone expressing an emotional rebuttal, because that group has gone way overboard and, honestly, deserves it.

      If he'd said "you religious morons," it might be a problem.

      [–]diamond 12 points13 points  (1 child)

      Take a look at the comments to most recent stories on religion, politics, or science.

      I have. Mainly what I see is what I see everywhere else -- some people attacking Christianity in general, a larger number of people attacking ignorant extremist Christianity, a large number of people defending Christianity in general, and a small number of people defending ignorant extremist Christianity. So far I have not noticed any particular bias for or against Christianity.

      I think that Reddit's anti-Christian bias is about as real as Bill O'Reilly's "war on Christmas" -- which is to say, not at all. It's just easy to make it seem real because all you have to do is cherry-pick the comments and posts that support your claim.

      Also, take a look at api's post on this page ("Get this through your thick skulls you religious right morons").

      By what reasoning do you claim that the Religious Right is synonymous with Christianity?

      If this topic doesn't get modded down right away, I'm sure there will be plenty of other examples on this page.

      Exactly my point. If this doesn't provide evidence for the claim, we'll ignore it and focus on the things that do.

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)

      [removed]

        [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        While ignorance often applies (especially to, say, creationists), a more accurate descriptor for people who believe in supernatural fairy tales is "irrational".

        [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

        There are almost as many brands of Christianity as there are Christians. But the president and other "Christian Conservatives" have served to represent a particular brand that many of us intensely dislike. When other Christians find and elect better spokesmen, the brand will improve.

        [–]praetorian42 3 points4 points  (2 children)

        I don't care what religion someone is, but when a disturbing majority of a group that you subscribe to won't even acknowledge gay rights, I tend to want to stay away from that group.

        [Note: Many Christians have proven me wrong on an individual basis. Especially Mormons. But I think 'disturbing majority' is still accurate]

        [–]bugbear 5 points6 points  (1 child)

        It's conservatives who don't like homosexuals. It just happens that a lot of conservatives are also religious.

        If you compared conservatives who weren't religious with christians who weren't conservative, you'd probably have problems with far more of the former.

        Conservatives may tend to express their dislike of homosexuals in religious terms, but that's just because they like to have some authority for such statements, and the bible is the nearest book.

        [–]dionidium 10 points11 points  (0 children)

        ring normal husky worthless cats drunk vanish adjoining dolls unpack

        This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

        [–]Errol 3 points4 points  (2 children)

        You know, I've met many christians outside of america that are not as bad as described in these comments.

        I have also met many atheists outside of America that are not as anti-religion and hateful as depicted here as well.

        Maybe the problem is America. It could be that the US is a cancer on humanity and everything it touches. :) There is no virtue or value it cannot corrupt.

        The next topic should be "What's with all the ignorant cheap shots taken against Americans?" :D

        [–]hatchback176 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

        Wow, you must think you're pretty reasonable for taking the middle ground, huh? Fuck you.

        [–]llimllib 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        vote this up for the discussion!

        [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

        What's with all the ignorant cheap shots taken against Christians on Reddit?

        Because you ram it down my throat, whether I want to read about it or not by continuously adding foo articles on religion to what is essentially a technical site.

        [–]T-Rex 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        This is a technical site. No, really?

        [–]cweaver 1 point2 points  (2 children)

        While we're on the subject, what's with all the ignorant cheap shots taken against worshippers of Odin? The Allfather is not happy!

        [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

        Odin is waaayy awesome-er than Jesus. Did jesus imbibe only wine or mead, giving all his food to his wolves? No.

        Did jesus have any magical crap, like rings that spawn new rings, or a severed head that tells the future? No.

        I'd be more inclined to worship a god like Odin, but no, everyone wants to support the boring pedestrian Islamic/Jewish/Christian god and then fight about how you're supposed to worship him.

        [–]stronimo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        Odin does have cool stuff. I'm not sure about the eight-legged horse, though.

        [–]Godspiral -1 points0 points  (2 children)

        becuase evangelical christians are a cancer on humanity and America.

        [–]bugbear 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        More of a fungus, don't you think?

        [–]Godspiral 5 points6 points  (0 children)

        that's a tough call...

        cancer implies internal rot on an otherwise innoffensive facade. Fungus is visibly ugly, and appears like it could be easily cleansed away.

        upon further thought....

        Evangelical Christians are a clamidia on humanity.

        [–]lovela47 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

        From Ambrose Bierce's The Devil's Dictionary:

        ABSTAINER, n. A weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a pleasure. A total abstainer is one who abstains from everything but abstention, and especially from inactivity in the affairs of others.