Why is it always Atheists vs Christians?

[amrchaos]

Atheism is more of a philosophical backlasklash to metaphysical absolutes as purposed by Christian scholars.

S, in truth, it would seem odd for Atheism not to focus on Christianity...

 

[FA_Q2]

"Why is it always Atheists vs Christians?"

Because Christians won't rise up and cut their heads off.

It's because the concept of individuality and liberty is based on Christian, particularly protestant, tradition. Locke was an extremely religious Christian and promoted the concept that man is responsible to no one other than god. To the left, which is authoritarian by nature, this is the most dangerous philosophy in history.

Christianity leaves little room for the rule of masters, of over-lords, be they Stalin, Pol Pot, or Obama. For the left to truly control the nation, Christianity must be crushed and purged. The USSR fell, but we have lost our liberty. No war by foreign invader ended civil rights. It was instead the culture war, where the CONCEPT of liberty was purged from the public conscience that rendered civil liberty null.

That’s not true at all. Some of the most oppressive governments in the past were Christian. The dark ages existed largely because of the Christian attachment to government. There are Christian sects within this country that are extremely anti-freedom. There is nothing that protects Christianity from the violence and extremism that Islam is now experiencing.

IMHO, the difference is not the religion itself but the fact that Christianity already went through those growing pains and has learned to separate itself from government (or the people learned that they needed to separate it) so now you have nations like ours that do not integrate religious leaders and churches into the running of the government. Islam is not there at the moment and still has many governments closely tied with the church giving rise to militants using it to gain power, influence and control over the people that live in those nations.

Christianity is not inherently different from Islam (whether or not you believe that it is the ‘right’ religion is not important in this context) BUT it has learned where Islam seems to not have yet.

 

[koshergrl]

Yet you don't name any of those "oppressive" Christian governments.

You people make these vague historical allegations...but you NEVER specify.

Could it be because..you're just making shit up?

 

[koshergrl]

I continue to be amazed at the depth and breadth of the ignorance of history that our most rabid anti-Christians enjoy.

The church ORIGINALLY existed separate from the government. The CATHOLIC church in Rome has a very definite political history, which is also the history of the republic of ROME, incidentally...and the Catholic church is not the ENTIRE church and never has been.

Likewise the rise of Protestantism has a very definite political trajectory that exists apart from the whole of the church... In both cases, the cause of Christianity was picked up by different POLITICAL powers, and used to justify/further their politics. But anti-Chrsitian zealots insist that these political movements represent the core and the foundation of the church...which completely flies in the face of the events as they occurred.

In ever instance that atrocities have been committed in the name of God, you see a POLITICAL power that has inserted itself INTO religion. It is not a case of the politics of "the church"...but the politics of individuals and governments that dare to impose themselves as the arbiter of correct application of faith.

And in every single case, the atrocities are committed by zealots who seek to remove religion..either a particular unfavored religion, or all religion, by means of making it illegal to worship as dictated by one's conscience.

Which is, of course, the stance of the hysterical anti-Christian/progressive bloc....that religion is bad and the government must restrict/confine/control it, and people should be prosecuted for adhering to it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That’s not true at all. Some of the most oppressive governments in the past were Christian.

All things are relative. But I challenge you to support your claim in contrast to other governments of the same era.

The dark ages existed largely because of the Christian attachment to government. There are Christian sects within this country that are extremely anti-freedom. There is nothing that protects Christianity from the violence and extremism that Islam is now experiencing.

Ah, ignorance.

The Dark Ages were driven by a host of factors, one of the most prevalent being the invasion by the Vikings.

Ever notice that Europeans, from Denmark to Spain and into England all look the same? It's because the Vikings won. They conquered all of Western Europe. They Christianized, but brought their feudal structure with them Fused with the Catholic church, thus arose the notions of the divine right of kings and natural hierarchy. None of this has any basis in the Christian religion, quite the opposite.

What protects "Christianity from the violence and extremism that Islam is now experiencing" is the simple fact that Islam and Christianity are radically different. One is the faith of a pacifist carpenter, the other the cult of a violent warlord. Muhammad has far more in common with Genghis Khan than with Jesus.

IMHO, the difference is not the religion itself but the fact that Christianity already went through those growing pains and has learned to separate itself from government (or the people learned that they needed to separate it) so now you have nations like ours that do not integrate religious leaders and churches into the running of the government. Islam is not there at the moment and still has many governments closely tied with the church giving rise to militants using it to gain power, influence and control over the people that live in those nations.

There is some truth to that. But the foundation of Islam is violence and conquest. Those returning to the fundamentals of Christ will beat their swords into plowshares. Those returning to the fundamentals of Muhammad will rape and pillage.

Christianity is not inherently different from Islam (whether or not you believe that it is the ‘right’ religion is not important in this context) BUT it has learned where Islam seems to not have yet.

Your claim is as ignorant and saying that a gopher snake is not inherently different than a Cobra.

 

[hoosier88]

(My bold)

The Reformation & Counterreformation may have given rise to political individuality & liberty (I'd count in Shakespeare for psychological individuality), but Christianity isn't interested in liberty. It's interested in Salvation, & adoring the Godhead.

Perhaps, but it is irrelevant to my thesis. Paul championed the idea that man is apart from the state. The reformation disseminated this idea to the people at large. I mentioned Locke, but clearly there were legion involved, including Gutenberg. Once access to scripture was had by the masses, then the Catholic farce of "Divine right of Kings" was rendered null.

The Left is authoritarian?

Do you think of Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin as civil libertarians?

Yes, the left is authoritarian - always. That doesn't explain Allende in Chile, Arbenz in Guatemala, & I'm sure there are others.

Not at all. The left seeks to end the constitutional republic, and replace it with a totalitarian system. Allende & Arbenz were lawfully elected.

State control of the means of production is hardly "financial liberty." Political correctness speech cods are hardly a rejection of authority. Rigid prohibition of judeo-christian utterance is the opposition of religious freedom. I don't remember that financial control was an issue in Chile & Nicaragua. I don't think that religious freedoms were suppressed either.

The current erosion of civil rights in the US is due to the ovine stampeding of Congress & the nation post 09/11. If you want to point fingers on that one, it's PNAC & their enablers - most of the neo-cons - the Prexy W admin, the MSN media that learned to bleat like the champion sheep they mostly are, in time & on command.

Well, good to know Dear Leader and his minions stood fast against the expansion of the police state.

{In response to the controversial indefinite detention provision from last year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) introduced an amendment in December 2012 that would have forbid the government from using military force to indefinitely detain Americans without trial under the 2013 NDAA. Although that provision, dubbed the “Feinstein Amendment,” passed the Senate unanimously, a select panel of lawmakers led by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Michigan) stripped it from the final version of the NDAA two week later before it could clear Congress.}

Obama signs NDAA 2013 without objecting to indefinite detention of Americans ? RT USA

Say, do you Obamunists know who wrote the Partiot Act? I assumed that it was a wish list compiled by the PNAC. You're saying that it didn't originate there.

{After the April 19, 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, a domestic terrorist bomb attack that destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, Biden drafted anti-terrorist legislation, which was ultimately defeated. He later claimed publicly on several occasions that the USA PATRIOT Act – which eased restrictions on the Executive branch in the surveillance and detention of those suspected of terrorism or facilitating it – was essentially a duplicate of the anti-terrorist legislation he had drafted years earlier.[16] Biden supported the PATRIOT Act}

Political positions of Joe Biden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The W admin, of course, gave a lot of lip-service to Christianity - but I have my doubts about whether the so-called elites actually have any religious feelings whatsoever. I think part of the Skull 'n' Bones nonsense is meant to stomp out any such tender feelings left in their acolytes.

So you are partisan drone and hate Bush. I dislike W & his admin - I think they took the US down a rathole in Afghanistan, Iraq & the related War on Terror, & left us with a generation's worth of no-win situations.

That does nothing to refute the fact that the left is authoritarian by nature.

(My bold)

I disagree with you on the Left = authoritarian. That's true of Stalin, Mao, not true of Allende, Arbenz, Dubcec in Hungary (?), not sure where Joseph Broz Tito of Yugoslavia would fall on this scale. I think you've overgeneralized - when Communists shot their way into power, then they may go rigidly authoritarian.

 

[FA_Q2]

Yet you don't name any of those "oppressive" Christian governments.

You people make these vague historical allegations...but you NEVER specify.

Could it be because..you're just making shit up?

I have given the examples to you before and you promptly ignored them then too. Stop being a dishonest hack.

The crusades, the witch trials, the French inquisition all cases of Christian churches intimately related with government and law that ended in horrible tragedies. There are examples aplenty, even if you want to ignore them.

None of this has any basis in the Christian religion, quite the opposite.

That’s not the point. The fact that there is no basis for this in Christianity has nothing to do with the church doing it anyway and atrocities occurring from it. I never said that the Christian religion is one that promotes this. It is a matter of churches which are corruptible by power.

What protects "Christianity from the violence and extremism that Islam is now experiencing" is the simple fact that Islam and Christianity are radically different. One is the faith of a pacifist carpenter, the other the cult of a violent warlord. Muhammad has far more in common with Genghis Khan than with Jesus.

That is your belief but I do not hold you as one that is impartial in this. I disagree with your idea that this is the nature and basis of Islam and I think that you would be hard pressed to support those allegations.

I can point to places where the bible is incredibly violent and advocates killing. Those would be taken out of context and presented in a biased light, IOW, incorrect. What you claim MIGHT be true of Islam but I don’t believe that. Either way, remove the connection of the church with the power of the state and you largely remove the power for these religious zealots to do such harm. It will still be there, hell there are even Christian terrorist groups, but the ability to cause death and harm will be greatly reduced and the fringe idiots that use religion to hate can be dealt with.

 

[dblack]

Why is it always Atheists versus Christians? Why are they seldom against Muslims, or hindus or Jews?

As the article I linked to earlier pointed out, when it comes the the most vocal of modern atheists (Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, etc...) they are markedly more critical of Islam than they are of Christianity - though obvious opponents of both. Since they are usually speaking to audiences of Christians, their views are usualy presented in contrast to Christian beliefs, but if they had to 'grade' them, I suspect most atheists would see less virtue in modern Islam than in modern Christianity.

 

[koshergrl]

You just contradicted yourself. How are they markedly more critical of Islam, if they are usually criticizing Christian beliefs and addressing Christian audiences?

How does that pan out?

 

[dblack]

You just contradicted yourself. How are they markedly more critical of Islam, if they are usually criticizing Christian beliefs and addressing Christian audiences?

How does that pan out?

You don't get the difference between frequency and intensity? (e.g. I've criticized my children a lot more often than I've criticized Islamic Fundamentalists.)

 

[Uncensored2008]

I have given the examples to you before and you promptly ignored them then too. Stop being a dishonest hack.

The crusades,

Defense of Europe from Invading Muslims. Without the Crusades you would be bowing to the idol in Mecca 5 times daily. IF you don't think it wouldn't make a difference to your life, move to Saudi Arabia.

the witch trials, the French inquisition all cases of Christian churches intimately related with government and law that ended in horrible tragedies.

The Catholic Church in all cases. I specified the reformation as the turning point. The Catholic Church is a corrupt cesspool. Though even in the excess of the inquisition, the Catholics killed less in 500 years than the Muslims do in an average month.

There are examples aplenty, even if you want to ignore them.

Most are not particularly valid, but if there are atrocities by Christians, they are few in contrast to the Muslims.

That’s not the point.

That is exactly the point. You seek to support Islam through the logical fallacy of false equivalence.

The fact that there is no basis for this in Christianity has nothing to do with the church doing it anyway and atrocities occurring from it.

Even if I were to agree that the Catholics were as bad as the Muslims, this would still be irrelevant as the crimes of the Catholics were 500 years in the past, where the Muslims continue to this day.

I never said that the Christian religion is one that promotes this. It is a matter of churches which are corruptible by power.

Then why is it that no such violence has been perpetrated by these churches in hundreds of years? Why is it that no such violence has EVER been perpetrated by the mainstream protestant churches?

That is your belief but I do not hold you as one that is impartial in this.

It is my belief that water is wet and ice is cold.

I disagree with your idea that this is the nature and basis of Islam and I think that you would be hard pressed to support those allegations.

You may as well disagree that water is wet. To deny that Islam is based on conquest is absurd. If you are utterly without knowledge of Islam, simply say so.

I can point to places where the bible is incredibly violent and advocates killing.

Irrelevant.

Orders in 5000 year old myths that a long ago people kill another long ago people has no bearing on anything. We don't even know that the events occurred. The evidence of Israelites defeating Jericho is lacking, as is the conquest of Canaan.

Those would be taken out of context and presented in a biased light, IOW, incorrect. What you claim MIGHT be true of Islam but I don’t believe that.

I can't help those who depend on ignorance and prejudice. The conquest of the Arabian peninsula, the Indian sub-continent, North Africa, Iberia, the Balkins, etc. are historical fact. But do ignore them and cling instead to ignorant prejudice.

Either way, remove the connection of the church with the power of the state and you largely remove the power for these religious zealots to do such harm. It will still be there, hell there are even Christian terrorist groups, but the ability to cause death and harm will be greatly reduced and the fringe idiots that use religion to hate can be dealt with.

More logical fallacy.

Posit; Islam is a violent religion based on the foundation of the warlord Muhammad and historical fact.

Christianity is not violent, based on the character of Jesus as presented by the Gospels and Paul.

Your conclusion, I advocate theocracy.

Now how you GET THERE must be an amazing bit of acrobatics.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

Wow. All these Christians do is point fingers elsewhere. What a bunch of sellouts to their religion and faith.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You don't get the difference between frequency and intensity? (e.g. I've criticized my children a lot more often than I've criticized Islamic Fundamentalists.)

Where and when has Dawkins written about Islam? As a Brit, he could be jailed for criticizing Islam.

 

[Montrovant]

You don't get the difference between frequency and intensity? (e.g. I've criticized my children a lot more often than I've criticized Islamic Fundamentalists.)

Where and when has Dawkins written about Islam? As a Brit, he could be jailed for criticizing Islam.

He already posted a link to an article about Dawkins and other 'prominent' atheists criticizing Islam pretty strongly.

EDIT : In fact, if you go up to post 228, he reposted the same article link.

 

[koshergrl]

You just contradicted yourself. How are they markedly more critical of Islam, if they are usually criticizing Christian beliefs and addressing Christian audiences?

How does that pan out?

You don't get the difference between frequency and intensity? (e.g. I've criticized my children a lot more often than I've criticized Islamic Fundamentalists.)

So upon what do you base your assertion that they are more critical of Islam than of Christianity? What led you to believe that, if there's zip evidence of it?

 

[Montrovant]

You just contradicted yourself. How are they markedly more critical of Islam, if they are usually criticizing Christian beliefs and addressing Christian audiences?

How does that pan out?

You don't get the difference between frequency and intensity? (e.g. I've criticized my children a lot more often than I've criticized Islamic Fundamentalists.)

So upon what do you base your assertion that they are more critical of Islam than of Christianity? What led you to believe that, if there's zip evidence of it?

He may be drawing an incorrect conclusion, but as he's posted evidence of Dawkins and others being critical of Islam, I don't think there's 'zip evidence of it'.

 

[koshergrl]

I'm not denying they're critical, but he asserted they were MORE critical of Islam than of Christianity.

Except there's no evidence that that is true.

 

[Montrovant]

I'm not denying they're critical, but he asserted they were MORE critical of Islam than of Christianity.

Except there's no evidence that that is true.

The article he linked provides some quotes and reasoning for why they conclude these atheists are more critical. I don't know enough of these men's works to be able to say if it's true or false.

 

[Uncensored2008]

He already posted a link to an article about Dawkins and other 'prominent' atheists criticizing Islam pretty strongly.

EDIT : In fact, if you go up to post 228, he reposted the same article link.

Didn't see it, but I'll look.

Dawkins is a pile of shit, but maybe he got something right.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm not denying they're critical, but he asserted they were MORE critical of Islam than of Christianity.

Except there's no evidence that that is true.

Further, the linked article is from Salon - not something I would believe without independent verification. The leftist hate sites aren't known for accuracy and integrity.