Comments on: Beware the Militant Atheists

By: Mark Pogue

Mark Pogue — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 22:04:55 +0000

@ Francis

Hitler was not a Lutheran, not even by culture. Catholicism was strong in Germany during Hitler’s reign. He was a professed Roman Catholic….till his death.

You would be surprised how easy it is to find that out using some type of search engine.

By: Jayson

Jayson — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 03:41:15 +0000

Stalin

By: Francis

Francis — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 02:13:24 +0000

I can’t believe anybody us still pushing the nonsensical claim that only the bad guys like Stalin are atheists.

Marx and Hitler were both products of a Protestant Lutheran culture.

The Communism of the Soviet Union was a religion that just substituted one mysticism for another – replacing “God” with “historical determinism.” Antagonism towards Christianity was hostility to a rival religion. Like Russian Orthodox Christianity, Soviet Communism’s first requirement was belief in it and its foremost ethical demand was obedience.

As for Hitler, he was a Roman Catholic who never repudiated his faith. The Nazis proudly displayed Martin Luther’s books at their Nuremberg rallies.

The worst Holocaust in history was when Christians massacred Christians, and while the Nazi attempt didn’t even come close to eradicating Judaism, the Albigensian Crusade exterminated forever and totally the Cathar culture.

Christians are the last people in the world qualified to lecture others for murderous social behavior.

By: Ancalagon

Ancalagon — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 00:24:59 +0000

TDD: You sound like someone who has not even the remotest familiarity with “ethics”.

If you knew anything about it then you would not be skeptical about the ability of atheists to make principled moral judgements.

And let me ask you: How do you propose to justify following any one of the multitude of possible ’scriptures’, and having chosen, how will you justify which chapters of that self-contradictory nonsense to throw out?

As for Peter Singer: Firstly, by mentioning him you actually refute your own rhetorical point, because despite being an atheist, his moral judgements *have* been derived in a principled manner after all.

Secondly, it’s idiotic to imply that Singer’s moral judgements follow from his atheism. No moral consequences whatsoever can be inferred from God’s non-existence. Hence, whatever morality an atheist subscribes to will have arrived at totally independently of their being an atheist. Look at someone like Thomas Nagel – also an atheist – whose views are completely different from Singer’s (and more concordant with everyday intuition).

By: sirukin

sirukin — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 23:44:42 +0000

I’ll further Bob’s rebuttal of TDD, we could characterize Adolf Hitler as very favorable if not adopting the Christian faith but that would be unfair. Notice that what’s being identified here are anonymous and wide spread groups of fringe factions within major denominations.
Being an athiest, I’d characterize the militant atheist as someone like richard dawkins who can’t seem to shut up about it. Honestly, to all you other atheists, why can’t we just leave the argument? Taking away the legitimacy of it in the first place would be a vital step in sending these groups the way of the dinosaur.

By: JLO

JLO — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 22:31:50 +0000

fetisov, you are my favorite atheist ever! Those “militant” atheists are just as bad as all the religious zealots

By: Patrick

Patrick — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 21:33:27 +0000

I think what a lot of people need to realize is that the more recent surge of “militant” atheism is a natural response to the surge of religion in media and politics.
Frankly, I couldn’t have really cared less about other people’s concept of “God” for most of my teen years and young adulthood. However, the intolerance being preached by many religious people and the rise of fundamentalism scares the piss out of me. It makes me very concerned for the future of my children and our species.

By: violent atheist

violent atheist — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 21:30:41 +0000

It is sad that the third militant is so afraid of weaponry. Does he forget a “si vis pacem, para bellum rule”?

By: fetisov

fetisov — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 19:37:27 +0000

Atheist “humor” is nearly as bad as right wing attempts to be funny, either because only a militant (thereby unfunny) atheist would bother with such a pursuit, or because it’s too boring a topic to begin with–I’m not sure which. I’ve been an atheist for over twenty years and can’t recall ever wanting to talk about it, since there’s nothing to talk about–literally nothing. Cultivate variety in your lives and leave behind this petty intolerance…it’s a waste of time, like religion, and worse, it turns you into zealots and boorish tools no one else can stand. Plus it’s wrecking the Reddit main page, Seacrest out.

By: Bob

Bob — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 19:32:52 +0000

TDD: to rebuttal your claims

1. Just because a person was an atheist does not imply that the actions taken by that person are in the name of atheism. This kind of logic is the same to saying a person collects stamps, so when he kills someone, its his stamp obsession that motivated him. The two have no correlation to each other. Similarly, your argument of Stalin holds no grounds.

2. This statement basically says nothing. To rephrase your “argument:” a person who believes in Christianity holds his morals on a set of stories and folktales written by hundreds of fanatics, and uneducated people in the past. A person who reasons argues that killing is wrong based on the foundation of reasoning and logic. Where is the problem here?

3. Now it is your last sentence that I can certainly agree with. Well said. However, if you are going to present arguments on the dangers of all religions and atheism, please do so in a fashion that actually has some basis on reality and logic.