Atheist Chat v1.1

new topic:

what's the deal with all these anti-atheist hate threads?

threads such as:

how can you tell right from wrong evolutionists?
(apparently evolution now = atheism on ATS)

are atheists airbrushing history?

and

is there a conspiracy of atheists to overthrow christianity?

these threads are filled with ignorance and bigotry, very little of which is being stopped by the mods...

so the question stands
is ATS becoming part of the Anti-Atheist Conspiracy?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
what's the deal with all these anti-atheist hate threads?

Oh, I think the opposition (they see themselves like that even if we don't) are getting a little rattled. So many defeats... the intransigent rejection by ordinary folk and their elected representatives of all efforts to teach Genesis instead of biology in schools, the continuing legality of abortion, the advances made by homosexuals and other hated minorities, the growing disgust with Catholic priests, Charismatic pastors and their peccadiloes, the ongoing liberal swing in the United States, the never-ending advance of the science juggernaut, crushing their illusions beneath its treads...

You have to expect some reaction.

Is ATS becoming part of the Anti-Atheist Conspiracy?

I'd say no. But there has been a lot of activity by a group of posters (you'll find them on all those threads, many of which they started) who act as a sort of born-again tag team. They haven't been very successful so far; most of these atheist-bashing threads tend to wither and die after a few pages of heated argument because there really isn't a conspiracy being disclosed -- just enough of a lame excuse for one to let the believers get their feelings of rejection, neglect and denial off their chests. Actually, if sceptics ignored these threads they would die that much faster. But then, there's always the possibility that a young person, seeking answers, will read what they say and actually have his or her life ruined by taking such tripe seriously.

But really, I'm not worried.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


I do not think athiests are a large group.
I have yet to meet, in person, an athiest.
It could be that the few who are out there, are very vocal, and like to go on about how they have been opressed by religion.
So, they may just seem to be a large group.

reply to post by jmdewey60


well, we're a "big" group by some standards
atheists are the second largest "religious" group in america
...there's a 50-60% margin between atheists and christians...but still, second largest.

worldwide, the non religious constitute one of the top 5 groups.

reply to post by Astyanax


but my problem is that lack of mod activity to stop the violations of the T&C that these threads are saturated by

...one poster got away with questioning my sexual identity, a blatant violation of the T&C

i just see that the mods have become more lax towards the misbehaviors of the fundies and more strict with the heathens...

Well I have met two Atheist... My Uncle and my boss......

so they may be bigger then expected.

peace.

Originally posted by jmdewey60

I do not think athiests are a large group.
I have yet to meet, in person, an athiest.
It could be that the few who are out there, are very vocal, and like to go on about how they have been opressed by religion.
So, they may just seem to be a large group.

I think that is probably because atheists don't tend to congregate together every week and discuss how evil the rest of the population is.
Atheists don't need to be validated by a whole group of people that think the same as they do by meeting up in large groups all the time, why is that?

...nobody got that i was blatantly trying to plug that last thread?

and here i thought i was being too obvious, i guess the rum must be getting to my head.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

one poster got away with questioning my sexual identity, a blatant violation of the T&C

Tell me about it.

Take a look at this. Never mind violations of the T&C, it sails pretty close to actual libel.

Still, I don't mind. I think most readers are smart enough to see this kind of behaviour for what it is. People who indulge in hurt their own case, not their opponent's.

reply to post by Astyanax


...how coincidental that they came from the same person...

or not...

did i mention the part where it was implied that all pedos are atheists?

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

one poster got away with questioning my sexual identity, a blatant violation of the T&C

Tell me about it.

Take a look at this. Never mind violations of the T&C, it sails pretty close to actual libel.

Still, I don't mind. I think most readers are smart enough to see this kind of behaviour for what it is. People who indulge in hurt their own case, not their opponent's.

That poster seems to be unable to debate/discuss points without resorting to personal insults or innuendo.
You should be proud that he/she needs to resort to looking for personal info in your profile to use against you in an effort to hold up their argument, it proves that their argument has no substance.
Just another Internet Hero without a real life.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Are you sure?
I could believe that that many people have no religious afiliation.
That is not the same as being an atheist.
Just saying that.
Sorry, but I do not have any other thoughts about atheism on account of never having to have a discussion with one, in person.
I guess this is the purpose of this thread, to be able to talk to an atheist.
The one person I knew who claimed to not believe in God, ended up seeing Jesus. That changed his mind. I do not wish that on you.
You do not need me, or anyone else to try to change your mind, that always has the opposite affect.

reply to post by jmdewey60

Hello there and welcome to the thread. Now that you've actually met some atheists here, is there anything you would like to know from any of us? I don't mean asking provocative questions in order to start an argument (there are other threads for that) but simply to satisfy any curiosity you may have about atheism and things atheistical in general. I, for one, will try to answer you as honestly and decently as possible.

Originally posted by mojo4sale

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

one poster got away with questioning my sexual identity, a blatant violation of the T&C

Tell me about it.

Take a look at this. Never mind violations of the T&C, it sails pretty close to actual libel.

Still, I don't mind. I think most readers are smart enough to see this kind of behaviour for what it is. People who indulge in hurt their own case, not their opponent's.

That poster seems to be unable to debate/discuss points without resorting to personal insults or innuendo.
You should be proud that he/she needs to resort to looking for personal info in your profile to use against you in an effort to hold up their argument, it proves that their argument has no substance.
Just another Internet Hero without a real life.

It happens more often then you think... because most theist usually try to prove their points by using faith and writings in their holy books, and when that fails they have few resources left to fall back on.

With almost nothing left to present, some of them do the next best thing... that is where the name calling and character attacks usually begins.

The atheist relies mainly on logic and science to prove their points which I think means that they have much more resources at their disposial to present.

When it comes to certain kinds of discussions, the atheist usually have the upper hand, mainly because most people can identify better with common logic and science then on someone else's particular brand/type of faith, even within that of the same religion.

I wonder if these particular theists know that they are causing more damage to their type/brand of faith/religion when they resort to name calling and character attacks on their opponents....

[edit on 24-3-2008 by ixiy]

mel brought this set of videos up in another thread, and i forgot that i'd been meaning to post them here

it's called "Baby Bible Bashers"

part 1:


part 2:


part 3:


part 4:


part 5:


i honestly find this to be chilling, wrong, and abusive to these kids.

[edit on 3/24/08 by madnessinmysoul]

Originally posted by Astyanax
Oh, I think the opposition (they see themselves like that even if we don't) are getting a little rattled.

Aye, most definitely. The interesting thing is that they actually need to misrepresent the position of most of the supposed 'radical' atheists to paint them as the bogeymen.

What have the likes of Sam Harris, Dennett, Dawkins, and Hitchens actually done?

Wrote a few books and talked. That's it! Voiced an opinion. Raised a question and stimulated discussion.

They haven't barged into churches forcing their opinion on theists, like the creationists attempting to force their theology into science.

Nope, just opened their mouths. Even the likes of Matt Nisbett (an eejit atheist) has had a go at Dawkins and PZ Myers for speaking out about the dishonesty of the Expelled film-makers. He wants them to leave it to the likes of Ken Miller and other theistic evolutionists. Poppycock and piffle!

reply to post by melatonin


It's not eejit, it's Idjit!
Why would we 'barge' into science, when we're believers in God?
That's mighty presumptuous!
(But, You do need more voices of reason in sy-uns!)

Originally posted by Clearskies
It's not eejit, it's Idjit!

Nope, I have it from a true Irish friend that it is 'eejit'. Well, that's what she wrote on a possession of mine all those years ago, heh.

Why would we 'barge' into science, when we're believers in God?
That's mighty presumptuous!
(But, You do need more voices of reason in sy-uns!)

I don't think you'll find a bigger group of reason lovers than in sy-uns. Doesn't mean scientists always are, of course.

Some theists are 'barging' into science, CS. It's undeniable. What you teach or say in church is really the business of your congregations. However, many theists do want to control what goes on in the science classroom.

...................

Anyway, back to the cool topic of atheism...

So. I thought thought the matt nisbet issue was interesting, been brewing for a while, they do despise each other:

Matt Nisbet - 'Chamberlain' atheist

PZ Myers - 'radical' squid-loving atheist

So should PZ just shut-up? Is his opinion too hot to handle? Should some atheists be 'framing' their opinions for some greater cause? That is, basically hiding under the bed so as not to scare theists?

and just for fun, via PZ's blog:

Voodoo witch-man trys to kill atheist with magic

On 3 March 2008, in a popular TV show, Sanal Edamaruku, the president of Rationalist International, challenged India’s most “powerful” tantrik (black magician) to demonstrate his powers on him. That was the beginning of an unprecedented experiment. After all his chanting of mantra (magic words) and ceremonies of tantra failed, the tantrik decided to kill Sanal Edamaruku with the “ultimate destruction ceremony” on live TV. Sanal Edamaruku agreed and sat in the altar of the black magic ritual. India TV observed skyrocketing viewership rates.

...

India TV, one of India’s major Hindi channels with national outreach, invited Sanal Edamaruku for a discussion on “Tantrik power versus Science”. Pandit Surinder Sharma, who claims to be the tantrik of top politicians and is well known from his TV shows, represented the other side. During the discussion, the tantrik showed a small human shape of wheat flour dough, laid a thread around it like a noose and tightened it. He claimed that he was able to kill any person he wanted within three minutes by using black magic. Sanal challenged him to try and kill him.

The tantrik tried. He chanted his mantras (magic words): “Om lingalingalinalinga, kilikili….” But his efforts did not show any impact on Sanal – not after three minutes, and not after five. The time was extended and extended again. The original discussion program should have ended here, but the “breaking news” of the ongoing great tantra challenge was overrunning all program schedules.

...

After nearly two hours, the anchor declared the tantrik’s failure. The tantrik, unwilling to admit defeat, tried the excuse that a very strong god whom Sanal might be worshipping obviously protected him. “No, I am an atheist,” said Sanal Edamaruku. Finally, the disgraced tantrik tried to save his face by claiming that there was a never-failing special black magic for ultimate destruction, which could, however, only been done at night. Bad luck again, he did not get away with this, but was challenged to prove his claim this very night in another “breaking news” live program.

More via linky

[edit on 24-3-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin

Nice. Now there's a question: should those who care deeply for humanity, rationality and science, and who are outspoken in our condemnation of religion because it threatens these things, now draw in their horns in order to avoid a backlash from the faithful that may damage our cause? Or should we just steam ahead with all guns blazing as the enemy falls back before the onslaught?

PZ Myers is obviously of the Dreadnought persuasion.

History teaches us that he's right. If the Greeks hadn't gone after the Persians in the aftermath of Salamis, if the Allies hadn't gone after the Nazi leadership after Germany was obviously defeated, history would be very different now. Never stop when you're winning.

reply to post by melatonin


...yet the Christians say we don't challenge other religions because Atheism has some sort of vendetta against Christianity

Sanal Edamaruku might get the same accusations from Hindus that Atheism has some sort of vendetta against their religion...

it has to do with geography

oh, and epic win for Sanal.