Today, was Holy War declared on atheists?

[flobadob]

We've all heard over the past couple of days that atheism is coming to the fore around these here parts. Now apparently atheism is being linked to Naziism. In fairness, it seems obvious that the more atheists there are, the less religious people there are, hence less money flowing into their(Vatican) coffers. These guys are just doing what any other gangster would do, protecting their own interests. The worrying thing is that their gang is bigger and, I would go out on a limb and say, more extreme than the atheist's gang. Should a fight break out, I wouldn't give atheists a hope in heck of winning what would most likely be a bloodbath(look at the history). Is this a declaration or war on atheists?

[Mamyalynne]

NO

[NOX]

I think with the recent (and not so recent) damage done to the Catholic Church that that apology for a human being that is currently Pope is clutching at straws and has come up with the one thing that pushes most people's buttons- being allied with the Nazi's. Few things are so offensive to most people than even the merest hint that they have persuasions such as that.
The Nazi's were fond of genocide- which to me is no more than the Pope is doing in not advocating condom use in AIDS torn Africa- babies are dying unnecessarily and in their thousands because of this maniac's way of thinking, so despite his tyrannical ranting that desires to take away free choice, I think actually he and his Catholic Church are far nearer the NAZI party's ideals than ever Atheists are, so yeah it's a fight for his survival and make no mistake about it, the church would take out anyone and anything to survive. I'm now a Pagan, having been born a Catholic- but I could not with good heart follow a man whose word condems millions to death, denigrates women and shows none of the love and compassion that it's always banging on about.

[Zabadak]

"The church would take out anyone and anything to survive". What, like a nice chow mein and a couple of spring rolls?
Sooner or later, if you keep going on about Atheists not being dangerous when in power, someone's going to start mentioning some who were. I'd stay off that line of argument, if I were you.

[flobadob]

That sounds like a threat zabadoo. The thing is that generally atheists are very open to having their views and ideas challenged so I don't think your comment will stop anyone putting forward their own argument.

[Zabadak]

No Flobadob, it's not a threat. I just wanted to head off the round and round in circles arguments about whether this or that dictator was an atheist, and which one scored more kills, and whether he/she did it because he was an atheist and blah blah blah. In recent history, "atheists" have more of a record on declaring war on "believers" than the other way round, but I'm not currently worried about being splatted by an atheist. I don't think you should worry quite as much about the Church militant. In fact, could I ask you why you appear to be so worried?
For what it's worth, I agree strongly with the point NOX made about the impact of anti-contraception teaching on Africa, though I think the comparison with Nazism is a little far fetched. The teaching IMO is wrong in principle and possibly stupid, but not malicious.

[beso]

Indeed flobadob.

Ratzinger and his cronies are trying to encourage people back to the idea that outspoken secularism is a bad thing because they are extremely disturbed at the accelerating influence of rational secular thought on western society.

Atheists actually encourage the religionists to speak out on any aspect of their beliefs and enthusiastically engage in open debate. We have nothng to fear in any of the believers' arguments because their incoherent rhetoric cannot withstand sensible criticism.

Each ridiculous statement such as comparing secular attitudes to Nazism further exposes their unsustainable position and provides atheists more opportunities to undermine them. Ratzinger has misjudged the field if he think he has a strong position on this one.

Pointing out examples of athesist regimes will do them no good either because religion has a long history of fascist ideology. Hilter used religion in his own manifesto. Countering with arguments that fascism associated with religion is an abberation in an otherwise sound philosophy can just as easily be used to discount accusations of atheism being connected to unsavoury regimes.

Moreover, the fundamentally fascist attitudes embedded in Abrahamic religion are clearly and unambiguously expressed in their Holy texts. There is no equivalent vulnerability in secular philosophy since, by definition, it does not uphold exalted texts or support personality cults.

[beso]

Yes Zabadak. In revent history the atheist regimes probably do have a longer record of attacking religion than vice versa.

This is largely because where religion is powerful they have a long history of brutally and utterly supressing atheistic thought and organisation through laws against heresy.

Unfortunately where atheist regimes have dominated they use identical methods as used by the religious oppressors, effectively constituting an atheist religion. Similarly the French used extemist thinking to destroy the monarchy only to find themselves with an Emperor within a few years. It is the inevitable consequence of "revolution" because a revolving wheel returns to its initial position.

In contrast modern atheism has grown up in an environment of declining church influence and increasingly secular politics. Atheism is not a revolution but an evolution that adapts and grows. This is why the intelligence of secular philosophy will ultimately and inexorably replace the myth and ritual of religion.

The more the church struggles the more they will entangle themselves in their own rambling web of tacky philosophy.

[Zabadak]

I can hardly wait.

[Zabadak]

Ah yes, but some of us are better at waiting for the New Dawn than others. Christians, for example, have had nearly 2000 years of practice 8-)

[beso]

Religion has promised the New Dawn from day one while it wreaks havoc upon us all. The bast history of all the churches has been one of bigoted dominance and violent supression of heretics.

Only comparatively recently have any of them moderated and some haven't at all but demand we all live in a totalitarian fascist state that dictates every detail of life.

The believers wait for a bolt from the blue to set everything right. It is not going to happen and meanwhile the planet and its people are being destroyed. It is the very idea that a saviour will come to fix everything and reward the obedient that makes religion not only futle but dangerous.

[Zabadak]

Gee, some of you guys have no sense of humour whatsoever. Beso, you raving heretic, when was the last time the church - any church - threatened you with a kneecapping or worse?
I don' t see why anyone should do anything with your sweeping generalisations than have a good laugh at them 8-))

[naomi24]

Zabadak, sarcasm is not a rational argument and neither is the round and round in circles comment about this or that dictator being an atheist. Both are pathetic crutches for the floundering case for the religious.

[Zabadak]

Hi Naomi: you're quite right: who says I was making a rational argument?
I would like Bero to pick up my question: when was he last threatened with serious violence by any church for being an atheist? And I don't mean being told he'll burn in hell for spurning the merciful and all loving god, because doesn't believe that's real anyeway! This thread does seem to me to be particularly paranoid: atheists are not a persecuted minority. We haven't burnt any in years, and tended only to burn our co-religionists for being in the wrong party anyway. But even that was along time ago.
Naomi, I don't know (perhaps no-one really does) whether Stalin murdered 20,000,000 of his people (a statistic!) because he was an atheist or because he was a mean, paranoid Little Bustard. Likewise Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung and many others. Both atheists and Christians have tried to outdo each other in the past claiming Hitler, usually as a representative of the other side. I don't think there's a great deal to be gained from debating the points, especially if people already have fixed positions. Maybe we can get in some proper historians and get some proper answers.
I am aware that, across the planet there are many millions of Christians who daily face persecution and extinction. I have heard it said that more Christians were killed because they were Christians in the second half of the 20th Century than in all the previous centuries put together - not all, of course, at the hands of militant atheists. I for one am delighted to be living in a nation - the UK - where the worst I can really expect is some sarcasm and a volley of well rehearsed propaganda from people who think they are atheists or rationalists or logical positivists and have a duty to pour scorn on "religionists", and even then only if I stick my head above the parapet on a site like this.
I beg forgiveness for leavening my entries on this thread with a little humour, but really, Holy War? Real ph

[Zabadak]

I beg forgiveness for leavening my entries on this thread with a little humour, but really, Holy War? Real physical violence directed at atheists by the Catholic or any other Church? It's a joke, isn't it? 8-)
PS, Sorry about the Little Bustard reference: I'd forgotten the sometimes eccentric censorship on this site. What can you do if you want to write about William the Conqueror using his real name?

[jomifl]

do you mean Guillaume le Vainqueur? or perhaps Willy Wonker

[jomifl]

both of those came up OK no problem.

[jomifl]

'raving heretic' didn't know there were any left, I thought they had all been burnt years ago.

[Zabadak]

Guillaume le Bâ*** - probably would get censored on Banque Réponse 8-)

[Zabadak]

Blimey - it got censored here too!