I Got My Post!

atheism, atheist, evangelical, witness, religion, christian, bible, jesus, stupid, fundamentalism

This post from euripidesraper is funny. It may not seem funny, but trust me, it is. You see, once you've made an online career of hating gays and feminists (or "woman's libbers". haven't heard that one in a while), you don't really need to mention that you hate atheists. We're generally included in the group of people that theocraphiles* love to hate.

Unless you're trying to poke one specific atheist . . .

I found another interesting article over on the American Atheists web site, this one entitled To Bash or Not to Bash.

I don't have time to read the article right now (legal crises abound), but I will say this: if you read my posts at all, you will note that I respond to what Christians already have posted on the internet. I didn't make them post hateful, stupid, and simply wrong statements about atheists, they chose to do that all on their own. I'm just keeping them honest.

Also, euripidesraper- YOU. ARE. IN. THE. MAJORITY. You can dream of being persecuted all you want, but you live in a country where around 75% of the citizens follow your religion. All of your high holy days are federal holidays. You have never been fired for being Christian. You don't fear to tell people you are Christian, nor have you ever been assaulted or had your property vandalized for being Christian. You don't fear to carry around a Bible.

"They're hitting me back" is NOT persecution. Get over it.

What do I have against atheists? the godless part, would be my guess. we don't hate gays?Absolutely nothing. uh-huh. sure. (I could insert here that some of my best friends are atheists, but no one believes that is a valid argument anymore. this never was a valid argument, nor was it ever a form of logical argumentation. "Some of my best friends are . . ." is simply verbal shorthand for "I will now say something bigoted and hateful, but I don't want you to think I'm bigoted and hateful." We're not allowed to like or love individuals if they belong to a particular group, especially one we don't agree with. i don't agree with my boss being a republican. i don't think he's going to hell for this, however, nor have i ever attempted to strip him of civil rights. see the difference?)

I do have a problem with Evangelical Atheists so do I. it's a mixed message at best. These are the people who find it their responsibility to preach the gospel of atheism. there is no "gospel of atheism". how could there be? do you know what "gospel" means? These are the people who live with the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may actually believe in God. i read this recently somewhere else. it's been around for a while. euripidesraper might think he's being clever, but he's not even being original.

Look, one more time with feeling: I don't care what you believe. You can worship yhwh, shiva or my socks. I don't care. I do care when the POTUS feels free to question my citizenship due to my atheism- and nobody cares. I care when you attempt to legislate your religion all over me. I care when your religion overtakes science and the US wastes billions of dollars teaching useless programs.

You are free to worship however you please. It is neither bashing nor persecution to ask you to keep it to yourself and leave the rest of us out of it.

These are people who just can't seem to leave religion alone. other way around, buddy. These are people who reach out to convert others to secular humanism. yeah, how many door to door atheists have you seen recently. Ah! You've found my little trap. You, the clever reader, have already noted that I have engaged in atheism bashing. oh, shut up. Why is it, you ask, that I can't leave atheism alone? I can answer that, but you, gentle reader won't like the answer. I bash atheism for the same reason that some atheists bash religion. because atheism is the majority and . . . no, wait . .. doesn't fly, buddy.

Although, of course, I'm right and they're wrong. Show your work.

Back to the article. Eddie Tabash, the writer's article, makes the following claim:

When we fear being accused of "religion bashing," we are buying into the trap our opponents have set for us. Republicans can criticize the political philosophy of Democrats and vice versa. Socialists and capitalists can criticize each other's basic worldview. Religionists, however, have insidiously snuck into the public consciousness the notion that religious doctrines deserve special insulation from criticism, ridicule, and doubt. Religionists have poisoned the debate about religion by passing off this concept that, from the outset, religious claims must be treated with a kinder and gentler type of criticism than that leveled at other types of belief systems.

Actually, I think Eddie may be right. Democrats and Republicans go after each other like rabid wolverines on meth, and nobody cries foul, so why is religion, which has so much influence on public policy, an untouchable subject?

Eddie has cleverly found out religionists' little trap. Insidious religionists want everyone to believe that religious doctrines deserve special insulation. pretty much. isn't that the excuse for the whole "don't hate me because i don't want gays to have civil rights" meme? they claim "it's my religion. it's in the bible" as if that is the ultimate end to the argument. I like this Eddie. That might be a valid conclusion if atheistic religion bashing were confined to arguments against doctrine. The problem is, however, that religion bashing nearly always produces ad hominem fallacies. SHOW YOUR WORK. you want to make this claim? fine. show me examples. right now, you're just pulling arguments out of your ass. These types of attacks are condemned by people who hold many differing belief systems. Why can't religionists also condemn such attacks? i do condemn ad hominem attacks. but, since euripidesraper is not proving any of this, he's now committing an ad hominem on an ad hominem.

next, euripidesraper redefines the phrase "piercing criticism":

Here are some examples. If I say, "Atheists are a bunch of sorry, intractable, obdurate, inflexible, perverse, contrary, pigheaded, stiff-necked, egotistical biggots," then atheists will feel attacked. (I would never say such a thing. I'm just the messenger. What? Please be clear. Or at least try.) The same holds true if I say, "Homosexuals are a bunch of idiots." Not in so many words, but once you've gone with "selfish" and "immature", you may as well just say "idiot". We call that gay bashing and society doesn't condone such speech. cause bigotry looks ugly on you. So why is it all right to religion bash? cause the point Eddie is making is that it isn't "bashing" to question, nor is it bashing to argue that someone's religious beliefs should not create policy in a democracy. Eddie continues:

There is no rational basis for providing religious dogma with its own special exemption from harsh criticism. We do secular humanism an immense disservice if we buy into the mindset that criticism of religion has to be more muffled than criticism of other ideologies. Religion is so entrenched in our society that its proponents have been able to foist off onto popular culture the notion that religion always deserves kid glove treatment. Because religion is so entrenched, in order to dislodge it, we have to use all available tactics, including destroying the misconception that religious beliefs are entitled to some special immunity from piercing criticism.

Does Eddie say to make personal attacks? No. Piercing criticism is not personal attacks. It might seem that way if you can't defend your own beliefs, but no, it's not personal.

To atheists, personal attacks are perfectly acceptable as an "available tactic." And if atheists allow all available attacks, why are they surprised when religionists turn around and use the same sorts of tactics? The hypocrasy hypocrisy runs thick. he didn't say to use personal attacks. the lack of understanding, it runs thick.


Helping today's university students become indignant over the absurdities of religious dogma is an essential part of persuading them to consider a secular alternative. why shouldn't we be indignant that religious dogma is making laws in this country? If we don't start, very soon, to replenish our ranks with young people, out future will be dim....

wait for it, the same guy that buys into the racist Demographic Winter garbage is going to get all kinds of bent out of shape about that.

We thus need to end the pointless debate about whether to "bash" or not "bash" religion in the process of promoting secular humanism. The opponents of religious dogma should be able to attack and ridicule religious beliefs the same as opponents of any other belief system can attack and ridicule that belief system.

Here's the atheist agenda,

what is it with these people and agendas? there is no gay agenda. there is no liberal agenda. there is no atheist agenda. i'm fairly certain the DNA crowd, however, have an agenda.

to attack religion to promote secular humanism - to convert the young people to fill the ranks of the atheistic ideal. (Ever wonder where I came up with the term Evangelical Atheists? you did not come up with that term. it's been around for a while, moron.)If atheists claim the right to oppose "religious dogma" and "be able to attack and ridicule religious beliefs" then I claim the same right for religionists. yeah, you've been exercising that right for a long time. just type in "atheist" in google and see what you get. Eddie says: "There is definitely a time and place to make religion look as ridiculous as it actually is." yeah, when godbotherers legislate based on it, and only that. So, atheists, don't be surprised when those who hold the "belief system" of religion make atheism look as ridiculous as it actually is. okay, tell me why atheism is ridiculous. just one reason, asshat.

yeesh. i expected a little more fun than that.

*Cool! I made up "theocraphiles", I think. We will now be defining theocraphile as "person who tries to legislate their religion upon a democratic society".