You don't get it, do you? When the next big swathe of religious violence starts happening it won't be the religious people who are doing it, it'll be the aethiests. Aethiesm is turning into what christianity was hundreds of years ago; an intolerant faith that has to break down or sideline anyone who won't convert to its beliefs. At the current rate I'd say it'll be about ten years before we start seeing laws introduced to remove the rights of religious organisations, and twenty years before we start seeing aethiest violence against priests and members of christian organisations.
62 comments
At least he's honest about Christianity being an intolerant faith that has to break down or sideline anyone that won't conver to its beliefs.
He's just wrong about that having been hundreds of years ago.
Atheism is not a faith.
And, wasn't this quote on here before?
"You don't get it, do you?"
At the current rate I'd say it'll be about ten years before we start seeing laws introduced to remove the rights of religious organisations
You mean as opposed to the laws granting christianity special privledges and funding that we see being proposed in state and federal legislatures these days?
-N
Yeah, and farmers talk about tyranny every time someone suggests subsidies should be trimmed, too.
Some translations from Fundy to Reality:
* religious violence = exposure to fact,reason,logic
"Atheism is turning into what Christianity was hundreds of years ago; an intolerant faith that has to break down or sideline anyone who won't convert to its beliefs."
Atheism has turned into no such thing. And Christianity... really hasn't changed from "an intolerant faith that has to break down or sideline anyone who won't convert to its beliefs."
I must admit that I just love that description of Christianity, so I'm giving sand-12 some brownie-points for putting that one together.
And in thirty years I'll bitch-slap you and say "YOU RETARD!"
Because there will still be churches everywhere and the only ACTUAL opposition you fools will EVER get is from other theists.
Because no TRUE atheist....
I dunno. I won't be oppressing you anyway.
Aethiesm is turning into what christianity was hundreds of years ago
Whey are you fundies going to learn how to spell "Atheism"? Also, this:
an intolerant faith that has to break down or sideline anyone who won't convert to its beliefs.
From what I see, Christianity is an intolerant faith that calls for anyone who doesn't bow down to whatever flavor of the month sect is the loudest to be put to death.
Well, the Bible itself does actually say, in very clear, English terms, to move on if someone won't convert. Which actually makes it a shitload more tolerant than you fellas realize.
And the killings done hundreds of years ago was done by an army of Catholic extremists anyway. Most of us Christians aren't bad people or anything, it's just the minority that rise up and earn their label as "fundies". In fact, I think a lot of them are more distant from Christian teachings than the non-fundie Christians they sometimes reprimand. The Catholic Church even condemned and apologized for it in recent times.
But I am sick of seeing my fellow believers mispell words like "atheist" and "evolution" as "aetheist" and "evilution/devilotion". It's just as bad as those women who purposely mispell "woman" as "wimmin" to remove "man" from their gender name as a show of their supposed feminist strength or whatever.
"Atheists try to get people to unjoin whatever they are in by using evidence and reason."
To be fair evidence and reason are both like nerve gas to fundies, so I can see how he thinks mass murders will happen.
First: *atheist.*
Second: "When the next big swathe of religious violence starts happening it won't be the religious people who are doing it."
Well, then it won't be religious violence, then, will it?
YOU don't get it. Some atheists do kill people, but it's not in the name of atheism. That's like saying that left-handed people kill, so it must be in the name of their left-handedness. Atheism will never be an "intolerant faith," not because there aren't any intolerant atheists, but because atheism is not a faith to begin with.
As for the rest, persecution complex, piechart, yada yada.
Whine a little more why don't you? Where's my pie chart?
On the other hand, you just admitted that christianity was once a horrible evil orginization of oppression.
"At the current rate I'd say it'll be about ten years before we start seeing laws introduced to remove the rights of religious organisations"
By which I guess he means laws removing the special privileged position that religions enjoy (automatic charity status, etc.)?
All hail Aethe!
"what christianity was hundreds of years ago; an intolerant faith that has to break down or sideline anyone who won't convert to its beliefs. "
Except Christianity became less intolerant because of the trend toward secularism and atheism in society. Which makes your scenario less likely to happen in the future, not more.
When religious violence happens it is always priests and christians doing it. Atheists are on the receiving end of this violence. I don't see that changing any decade soon.
"When the next big swathe of religious violence starts happening..."
Wake. Up.
Atheism. Is. Not. A. Religion.
I don't know a single atheist who gives a damn what others think and certainly wouldn't bring others down in order to force others to believe or disbelieve.
Generally, although not always, a person who claims to be an atheist pretty much removes themselves from all things religious, including the need to convert others to their own belief.
The majority of the laws restricting public displays and religion in school haven't been brought about by atheists; they've been brought about by religious people who objected to Christian fundamentalists trying to shove their particular religious beliefs down other peoples' throats. One of the earliest separation of church and state issues was brought up by the Baptists in Connecticut, who feared they would be persecuted by the Anglicans. President Jefferson assured them that we had a "separation of church and state" (one of the best known examples of the phrase) in the famous "Danbury Baptist" letter.
"Aethiesm is turning into what christianity was hundreds of years ago; an intolerant faith that has to break down or sideline anyone who won't convert to its beliefs. At the current rate I'd say it'll be about ten years before we start seeing laws introduced to remove the rights of religious organisations, and twenty years before we start seeing aethiest violence against priests and members of christian organisations."
Ok, who keeps leaking the E.A.C's plans to these people? How are we ever supposed to take over the world if they know what we're up to?
This dudes probably more of a moderate Christian. Seriously though, a lot of atheists are getting militant, and he has a semi-valid point. Its not like he said we're the anti-Christ or Satan. Though his point was rather stupidly put.
"When the next big swathe of religious violence starts happening it won't be the religious people who are doing it, it'll be the aethiests." You mean line the infighting going on within Northern Ireland between Catholics and Protestants?
Or the outright civil war going on in Iraq between Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims?
Or the many skirmishes that occurred back when Palestine was called the "Gaza Strip", between Muslims, Jews, AND Christians?
Yep, I'm sure they're all just atheists in disguise....
and you believe this will happen in a country that is 97% christian, whos leader declares war and invades countries because he claims your god told him to?
i cant get over the way this guy spells atheist, repeatedly, and clearly intentionally. Although, ive got to say, "Æthiest" would indeed look like a pretty fancy thing to call oneself if you were presented with the chance to write it...
"At the current rate I'd say it'll be about ten years before we start seeing laws introduced to remove the rights of religious organisations"
When one Googles the words 'Christian terrorism':
image
...well, would you Adam and believe it? What's only the first thing to come up...?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
Now, what happens when one Googles Atheist terrorists? Nope, not even a single Wikipedia entry on that particular topic. However, checking out some of the results, this proved rather interesting:
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=14769.0
Seems that the nearest things to Atheist 'terrorism' would be nothing more than pranks .
Therefore:
"At the current rate I'd say it'll be about ten years before we start seeing laws introduced to remove the rights of religious organisations"
And considering the above Wiki link, all I can say is - even from now, 2011 - It's 9 years, 364 days, 23 hours, 59.999 seconds too late .
And when your 10 year and 20 year predictions fail to come about, will you admit that you were wrong? No? Of course not, and that is a large part of why atheists get so frustrated with your lot.
I'm not sure how you extrapolate that frustration into killing though. Perhaps because that is how religious organizations have traditionally dealt with individuals who frustrated them. Rest assured though, this is one atheist who deplores such barbarism, regardless of who is on the receiving end.
Five of those ten and twenty years have now passed, and it is still almost exclusively religious people acting violently against other religious people. Atheism hasn't turned into anything new, it's still a lack of faith in deities. You simply can't evoke the kind of ferocity that is needed for a "big swathe of religious violence" without religious fervor. A lack of something just can't do it.
In Sweden, religious people are now a minority, but they are still not persecuted or discriminated against. The church bells still toll on Sundays, we still respect other people's faith or lack thereof, or rather their right to have faith, to be honest. Many of us can't really understand how you can still believe in those old fairy tales, and it will NOT help you politically to mention any gods or faith. It's like if a grown person truly believed in the existence of Father Christmas. But this slight pity or bewilderment won't bring forth any "big swathe of non-religious violence".
What happened in Cairo's Tahrir Square not 24 hours ago. Mohammed Morsi ousted by Egypt's military, and with tacit approval from the people, no less.
Mohammed Morsi: President of that Muslim Brotherhood -based government, no less. In existence since 1928. 83 years for them to ultimately gain political power. Two years in which they had it.
One reason being that this Muslim Brotherhood-led government was running Egypt into the ground economically. The second? They found the MB's Islamist Sharia regime wanting. And they no longer want it.
The protests in Istabul , Ankara etc previously; against the increasingly conservative Muslim government there. Those protesting? Secular Turks.
As proven in Egypt, the 'Arab Spring' is entering an unexpectedly new dimension. Libya: pro -UK, France, Canada & US ; they even want diplomatic relations with Israel.
Enjoy your paradox, sand-(IQ)1.2
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
