About which part?
6 million Jews were killed in the holocaust. Were is the great massacre of Atheists?
Why Are Atheists Treated Worse Than Other Unbelievers?
- Thread starter StrangerInAStrangeLand
- Start date
About which part?
6 million Jews were killed in the holocaust. Were is the great massacre of Atheists?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
You said: "In history I don't hear about persecutions of atheists," which is clearly nonsense.
Does the OP mean "treated worse" as in physically? Or in terms of receiving equal hearing for their beliefs?
If the former, he's clearly done no homework whatsoever. So far as I know of, there's never been an organized hunting specifically of Atheists. There were times when being an Atheist was illegal, but face it, there was a time when nearly everybody was illegal somehow.
In terms of receiving equal hearing, I have to say that I think Atheists (in terms of percentage) are just as intolerant as any religion. Just, there are more Christians, Muslims, and Hindus than Atheists.
But even then, it only makes sense. Some scientists believe that the big bang was a product of quantum fluctuations. Some believe it is rebound from the collapse of the last universe. Yet both have a lot of common ground, and both would be much more hostile towards someone who believed the universe is eternal than they would be to each other.
Personally, I think the OP is projecting. Dunno why, but most of the more hostile atheists seem to think religious folk are out to get them. Maybe it's cause I don't live in a Muslim country or some backwater country town. I can tell you that, at least at my High School (Boston), you could get suspended for discussing religion over lunch, and apparently prayer groups are against the school's policy. I'm glad MIT is much more tolerant of free exchanges of ideas...
If the former, he's clearly done no homework whatsoever. So far as I know of, there's never been an organized hunting specifically of Atheists. There were times when being an Atheist was illegal, but face it, there was a time when nearly everybody was illegal somehow.
In terms of receiving equal hearing, I have to say that I think Atheists (in terms of percentage) are just as intolerant as any religion. Just, there are more Christians, Muslims, and Hindus than Atheists.
But even then, it only makes sense. Some scientists believe that the big bang was a product of quantum fluctuations. Some believe it is rebound from the collapse of the last universe. Yet both have a lot of common ground, and both would be much more hostile towards someone who believed the universe is eternal than they would be to each other.
Personally, I think the OP is projecting. Dunno why, but most of the more hostile atheists seem to think religious folk are out to get them. Maybe it's cause I don't live in a Muslim country or some backwater country town. I can tell you that, at least at my High School (Boston), you could get suspended for discussing religion over lunch, and apparently prayer groups are against the school's policy. I'm glad MIT is much more tolerant of free exchanges of ideas...
I am not saying that I could not find a persecution of a Atheist if I looked hard enough, I am just saying severe and therefore historical cases of religions persecuting other religions is much more prevalent than religions persecuting atheists and therefore the OP's premise that atheists get treated worse is wrong.
I don't remember Atheists getting mentioned in the Spanish inquisition.
Do you know of any historical persecutions of atheists that led to atheists being killed? Can you name one?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
First, where does the OP say that they have to be historical cases ?
Secondly, where does they OP say they have to be killed to count ?
Evidence please?
You know, it's really odd that a science forum boasts so many unsubstantiated claims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists
As a start...
Yes I know.
*gasp* it's, horrors, Wiki.
Happens all the time...
The OP seemed to be implying that religious people are more hostile towards atheists than towards theists of other faith. That is the premise that I reject.
"Historical" and "Killings" are things that I brought up to support my position that the OP is incorrect. You seem to have implied that my position on who religions have killed historically is incorrect or perhaps you meant that I was incorrect when I said the OP was incorrect.
What was I incorrect about? I did word my examples too imprecisely but what should I have not been serious about? Are you one of those atheists who resent living in a theist dominated world?
Actually, I don't mind wiki, provided the references section is thorough. It's a great way to find condensed information.
But I will contend that this article of yours does NOT in fact verify the OP. Namely speaking, he claims that atheists are being treated "Worse" than other non-believing groups.
The examples cited in the Wiki page are all cases where atheists ALONG WITH OTHER GROUPS are being persecuted because of not following the status quo's religious preferences.
Of course, I only skimmed the article and would be happy to withdraw my objection until more research can be done if you think I'm still missing something.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I already told you: post 102.
Whether or not atheists are treated worse than other unbelievers I don't know.
Agreed.
Largely correct: I gave that link in reply to your comment replying to Enmos's
Originally Posted by Enmos: You said: "In history I don't hear about persecutions of atheists," which is clearly nonsense.
fiicere: Evidence please?
Although there are indications in the Wiki article that atheists were to be treated (or considered) worse than believers of other faiths:
Locke's call for denial of citizenship.
Shelley's expulsion from Oxford (wouldn't have happened if he'd been Catholic).
More's assertion that tolerance should be extended to all except those who did not believe in a deity...
Stranger,
in all seriousness man, you and people like you are the ones with hate.
You don't appear to have anything but toxic contempt for God, religion, the religious, and theists. It's really obvious.
Why do you harbour such negativety?
jan.
in all seriousness man, you and people like you are the ones with hate.
You don't appear to have anything but toxic contempt for God, religion, the religious, and theists. It's really obvious.
Why do you harbour such negativety?
jan.
Meh. I'd have asked that if I thought we could ever get an answer.
TBH, I don't think he could give us an honest answer if he wanted to. I've realized that there are a few things which piss me off and I have no good reason for them. Some of them even sound stupid to me.
Seems everyone has a little anger in them, and some have more than a little. I don't even know if that kind of anger can be satisfied, even if the whole world were to burn. kinda sad, really.
it exactly does not reinforce your position. Apostasy is the rejection of your former religion, and that includes becoming an atheist, as well as converting to another religion. People are persecuted for losing their faith, and becoming atheists, therefore. You lose the point.
Perhaps because religion has caused the persecution and death of many innocent people, and religion is generally organised hypocrisy? Also, being proselytised at, called heathens, heretics and blasphemers, and having laws that protect religious nonsense from criticism, and religions dodging taxation pisses off atheists?
Why should the people that provide your religious entertainment escape paying tax?
Zeus is a very cool god, one couldn't harbor negativity towards him. Was that the god you were referring or was it some other god? There's so many to choose from, perhaps there's a god you hate, Jan? Or a religion, perhaps?
It wouldn't occur to you that people who believe magic and mystery should lead the lives of people is not a positive or beneficial concept. The persecution, hatred and bigotry your religion alone which has caused much of the worlds misery throughout the ages is reason enough to despise it and have it eradicated.
And THAT, Jan, is what's REALLY obvious.
So have governments. Are you an anarchist?
No, hypocracy is going to a forum of reason and science to see its advocates shrouding their arguments with obvious bias, ad hominem attacks, and a refusal to judge all evidence equally.
Ummm. That's definitely false. My pastor pays income and property taxes. My church pays tax on the land it owns.
And if you're talking about entertainment, I could ask you the same question.
As for proselytising, isn't that what you're doing right now? Actually, wait, it's not. That's what's known as ranting and insulting.
Yawn. The intolerance of your beliefs leads me to believe you should be eradicated. Except I'm not you, and I am nowhere near as comfortable groundlessly dismissing any possible benefit of a belief system as you are.
Or would you prefer the line "The foolishness, and recklessness of scientists who designed such things as the Atomic Bomb is reason enough to have science eradicated"
Or the line "The death and destruction brought about by governments fighting wars is enough to have governments eradicated"
Or even "The hatred, bigotry, death, destruction, pain and sorrow inflicted by humans is enough to see them all eradicated"
Let everyone here be both judge and witness. Is it called Tolerance for one group to call for the destruction of the other belief system in its entirety? Is it called open-mindedness to call another group groundless and with no basis in reality? Is it called rationality to revert to ad hominem and call one's opponents deluded and foolish with evidence not being taken into account? As both a religious man and a scientist I am disgusted by the blatant hypocrisy and bias found in a place which claims to be a place of a free exchange of ideas, by a group which claims to support science, where all evidence is weighed equally regardless of who is putting it forward.
We have governments now, so we don't need superstition to make us behave. Sure, governments do bad things from time to time, but that's not the argument, is it?
No.
Obvious bias? Hmm, somehow, I doubt that people who have religious beliefs have examined all religions equally, given them equal consideration, and chosed the one that makes most sense to them. Somehow, I think there is HUGE bias in the way the majority ended up believing what they believe.
I however don't believe _any_ religious dogma. How can that be biased, when I disbelieve all, equally?
Oh please substantiate that one.
There is no evidence. That's why they are called 'faiths'
http://atheism.about.com/od/churchestaxexemptions/a/whatarethey.htm
I pay sales tax on the concert tickets I buy. So some pastpr does his act on a Sunday for his audience, and some aspects of his life are tax exempt, and that's bogus.
Insulting? Oh, boo hoo for you. I have not insulted a person, but their faith. If you can't separate the person from their beliefs, I think you are looking for offense, where there is none.
Are you sleepy? Maybe, you should get some rest? What beliefs do you refer? Please explain.
What benefits. Please explain. Why aren't you comfortable, are your shorts riding up?
Did those scientists drop the atomic bomb or did a bunch of theists drop it?
Agreed.
Wouldn't it make more sense to simply eradicate the ideology causing the hatred, bigotry, death, destruction, pain and sorrow, rather than the people themselves? Seems like such a waste of humans, don't ya think?
If the religious ever offered a speck of evidence, you might have a case, but in essence, you've offered little but blow hard pontification and hypocrisy.
The belief that faith is blind and composed of "magic and mystery"
For one thing, I can give an objective value to human life. And say that something is right just because it is, not because we decided it to be.
Are you implying WWII was a religious war? Or that there was a religious motivation for dropping it? Or that Truman was particularly religious?
Actually, humans have been killing each other for a very, very long time. It's possibly ingrained, and more than likely to be irremovable from our psyche. Just saying, your logic that removing something because it has failed in the past is, well, thoughtless at the least, and downright silly at best.
http://www.4shared.com/account/dir/18296364/49f11f08/sharing.html?rnd=96 (Username: fiicere@yahoo.com, Pword: free)
TBH, I'm surprised at how little read you all are. One would think you never even read any of the arguments posed by the religious, and just kind of jumped to the conclusion that you were right without considering both sides!