The Temptation of Faith Fibbing for Jesus

We all know that Christians and other religious folk NEVER lie, unlike us amoral atheist folk...:sarcasm:

in hell so that old curse didn't bother me.

I think about the oil spewing into the Gulf. That is hell. These people have created hell right here - right now.

That scares me much more than their fictitious bullshit.

ridiculed and misrepresented. Dennet is one of the recognized leaders of the New Atheists and from Hitchens, another de facto leader, "religion should treated with ridicule, hatred, and contempt". Now, it may be just me but he not exactly spreading the love and toleration around there. And Hitchens isn't only New Atheist to call for such behavior. Ridicule is encouraged and shown regularly. I make a big distinction between New Atheism and atheists. That is very necessary, but from what I can see, New Atheism needs to be challenged because it breeds intolerance and a host of other negatives.

I make a big distinction between New Atheism and atheists.

Why? "New Atheism" is nothing but a fairly recent media catchphrase. It's useful to pearl-clutching believers who always see themselves as persecuted, even when they massively outnumber non-believers and Off-Brand Religions.

"Whoa! Big new threat! New Atheism! Wow! Get out the rack and the stake, the bastards are back! We thought we settled their hash during the Inquisition!"

And of course, that phrase is also useful to their fellow travelers, the 'umble House Atheists who love groveling to the wonderfulness of religion.

There's absolutely nothing new about atheism, not even the use of "ridicule, hatred and contempt" against religious fairy tales.

In the 19th century, Robert Ingersoll stood on stage during lectures and dared the Xian god to strike him dead. Sounds pretty contemptuous to me.

In the Fifth Century BCE, Anaxagoras ridiculed the idea that the sun and moon were gods. (And was nearly executed for it.)

In between, lots of snarky atheists in every known culture belittled the governing superstitions of their day. Even the Buy-bull recognizes atheism, in the verse from Psalms, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no god.'"

IMO, anyone who uses the phrase "New Atheism" exposes themselves as a historical ignoramus about the history of disbelief. A history as long, varied and rich as religious belief, and almost as well-documented. And it might be better documented if the believers hadn't burned so many of our books.

probably isn't the best term to use, but since that is what they are calling themselves, it's bound to stick.

The media, whiny believers, and various Internetz blowhards seem to be the only ones using that term.

The following people have been credited/blamed with inventing the term "New Atheists:"

1. Gary Wolf, WIRED magazine, "The Church of the Non-Believers," November 2006 - http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html?pg=1&topic=atheism&topic_set=

That's the first mention of the specific term I could find. But there may be others, I didn't spend a lot of time looking.

As noted in this article on Atheism-about: Wolf seems to have only meant it to describe the increasing self-assertiveness of some atheists today and the unapologetic nature of their atheism — and to that extent, the term might be considered justified.

Many critics of atheism, though, invest the label with everything they don't like about atheists. The goal, then, appears to be to shut down the self-assertiveness and unapologetic atheism in favor of a quiet, meek, and submissive atheism...

Yep, exactly. Or to use another term for it, "Victorian Atheism." In the cited article, Phil Nichols whines up a storm about those tacky New Atheists:

http://atheism.about.com/b/2007/03/20/phil-nichols-using-new-atheism-to-misrepresent-atheists-atheism.htm

2. The NATION used the term in its cover story of June 25, 2007, "The New Atheists."

3. Andrew Brown in the Guardian. But Brown was apparently a late-comer. This article is from December 29, 2008, and drew comments from Richard Dawkins personally:

"The New Atheism, a definition and a quiz" - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2008/dec/29/religion-new-atheism-defined

A couple of Brown's commenters hit the nail right on the head:

imogenblack: Who has coined this phrase 'new atheism'? As far as I can tell it is a phrase mainly used by non-atheists and the media - do any atheists actually call themselves 'new atheist'?

Brown's response: As far as I know, the phrase originated with American publicists a few years back.

Even creationist Ken Ham was using the phrase as far back as January 2007.

Just as some African-Americans use a distasteful word for themselves. Does that make it okay for ME to use the label?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The first was a cut-n-paste from the article headline, which BTW is the RIGHT way to refer to articles when posted here at DU, and the second was a non-capitalized and clear reference to the idea of "people who are new to atheism."

But don't let facts and simple reading comprehension stand in your way. God forbid (indeed) you should actually learn something about the people you disagree with.

My thread title was copied from the linked article, written by a theist.

KansasVoters thread isn't using the term "new atheists" but addressing those who are new to atheism, much the same way individuals starting at a company are often referred to as new employees.

How hard did you look before deciding to make shit up?

If you criticize the actions of one or some Christians, at least one Christian DUer will accuse you of making an attack on all Christians. It would follow that if a Christian DUer sees one or some atheists calling themselves "New Atheists," then clearly all atheists call themselves "New Atheists."

“If you criticize the actions of one or some atheists, at least one atheist DUer will accuse you of making an attack on all atheists.”

Care for links to examples of criticism of “actions”/behaviour/s that evoked baseless/unsubstantiated accusations of “hatred of atheists”, telling atheists to “shut up and go away”, “campaign of hatred against atheism”….?

One need not even be a Christian or a theist to evoke such precedents…one need only speak of religion from a positive and negative perspective to have breached the sanctity of the exclusively anti religious code.

Especially the ones that wonder why atheists post in R/T. Its there for those WILLING TO SEE--Including a post of MINE where I was told by deists what I as an ATHEIST think.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I don't see why I should have to support claims I didn't make. Burden of proof really isn't your strong suit, is it?

It's lying. The author of the piece quoted in the OP, a theist just like you, admitted he is a Faith Fibber for Jesus. The "New Atheists" are generally just taking religious statements to their logical conclusions. The response to the "New Atheists" has been completely false claims like they're some kind of religion with Dawkins as a "pope."

Besides, as the author also pointed out (and you of course ignored), aren't you the ones laying a claim to the higher moral ground? If your response to your religion being ridiculed is to respond with attacks and falsehoods, how can you still claim that higher ground? Why, you're no better than those evil dirty atheists that you LIVE to bash and demean.

You're still making baby Jesus cry.

Thomas Jefferson said it, and I agree.

I should also make comment on your use of the word "intolerance." I must say Christians have a pretty comfortable position in this country when they consider ridicule "intolerance." In 2006 Abdul Rahman was sentenced to death in Afghanistan when he converted to Christianity. If ridicule is intolerance, what's an execution?

considers the atheist's proposition "unintelligible", which many do, then ridicule would certainly be in order according to you. And I also was not aware that "intolerance" had anything to do with numbers.

An unintelligible position remains unintelligible regardless of who espouses it. You seem to be imputing in me a request that I not be judged under the same rules I demand for others. I make no such special reservations for myself and I don't appreciate the implication that I do. It should be noted however that Jefferson was referring specifically to religious views when he made that statement.

And I never said intolerance had anything to do with numbers. I referred you to the case of Abdul Rahman, who was sentenced to death for his religious views, in contrast to your characterization of Hitchens's unkind statements concerning Christians as "intolerance." What I had hoped to illustrate was that it's a little bit silly to talk about something so innocuous as being "intolerant" in the face of so many worse treatments meted out to believers around the world. Perspective is good.

a beginning at some point with intolerance. Seemingly insignificant events can lead to more serious incidents. That has been shown to happen throughout history.

Words can lead to violence, but that doesn't mean that all words lead to violence always. Unkind words do not inevitably cause political violence. You cannot baldly assert that the words and attitude of Hitchens is dangerous without something to back it up. The political and religious climate towards Christians in this country is a far cry from what is experienced in Afghanistan, which is my point.

Not that it matters to my point, but Rahman was sentenced but never executed - he was reprieved due to pressure from Western human rights organizations. But my point stands that he would have been killed if the Afghans were left up to their own devices.

Marxist, Trotskyite, and Leninist. In the last century, people of that persuasion declared themselves atheists, made official policy of ridiculing religion, and eventually killed more people than in all religious wars combined. So don't tell me that a policy of ridicule is OK.

In the last century, people of that persuasion declared themselves Christians, made an official policy of persecuting Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, and many others, and eventually killed millions of people. So don't tell ME a policy of ridicule against non-Christians is OK.

You self-identified Christians are DANGEROUS!

Hitler Speaks: A Series of Political Conversations With Adolf Hitler on His Real Aims
By Hermann Rauschning
London: 1939
Thornton-Butterworth
<see page 57>
http://books.google.com/books?id=htfLPlvxVzIC&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=hitler+cannot+be+both+german+and+christian+Hermann+Rauschning&source=bl&ots=9nRxuynvdZ&sig=k4ktkguMamA4ana_LRjpRtWIwp0&hl=en&ei=tdggTOn6K8L78AaIoJCgAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

I'm perfectly willing to play dueling quotes.

and social Darwinism. It was also largely Christians who liberated the concentration camps and tried Hitler. Many Christians also died under Hitler for refusing to go along with his policies.

For all the bullshit you lob about atheists, it's equally (in)valid about Hitler & Christians.

Nietzsche's sister controlled the Nietzsche archive and was a dedicated Nazi; in order to obtain funding for the archive, she promoted the idea that Hitler was Nietzsche's "superman," and of course Hitler made the obligatory reciprocal noises and posed for the requisite PR photographs

Nazi "Christianity" was a peculiar construction, that sought to eliminate the Old Testament and the Pauline texts, as well as any evidence of Judaic influences in the New Testament, under the excuse that these were Judaic influences on an Aryan religion. Suzanna Heschel has done extensive work on this topic, and I've posted excerpts from her work previously in this forum. This strange "Christianity" already appears in Rosenberg's Myth of the Twentieth Century; Rosenberg, who was hanged at Nuremberg, was appointed by Hitler to lead the NSDAP during the period that Hitler was in prison for treason after the Beer Hall Putsch, and during the so-called Church-Struggle period in 1933, Hitler appointed Rosenberg to handle Nazi "spiritual education," which Rosenberg did by advocating a neo-paganism

and as you've pointed out, the Soviets were almost universally atheists.

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005131

The Soviets liberated five camps, including Auschwitz, the largest and probably most famous. American GIs liberated five, and British forces two. Soviets also captured the sites of three former camps, which had been closed down largely because most of the Jewish population in those areas had already been eliminated.

That wasn't my point. But the Soviets also built an "Iron Curtain" around those they "liberated" and forced state atheism upon them. They also dramatically increased the population of their own gulags after the war.

To me, that clearly implies that the number of concentration camps liberated by non-Christians is insignificant. It seemed to me like that was your point.

But the Soviets also built an "Iron Curtain" around those they "liberated" and forced state atheism upon them. They also dramatically increased the population of their own gulags after the war.

What abuses and atrocities the Soviets committed later isn't relevant to whether or not it was primarily Christians who liberated the concentration camps.

The Jewish population in the gulags was disproportionate to the general population.

It seems to be rather well-known at this point that Hitler's public pronouncements served particular political ends, and so one ought not wave public quotes without looking at the date and the actual political context

He could very well have been a Christian the way he felt Christianity was supposed to be expressed. Certainly there is no lack of history of Christians oppressing and executing Jewish people.

In Breslau as early as 1930, Cardinal Bertram had described Nazi racial ideas as "religious delusion." A number of Catholic bishops denounced Nazism as inconsistent with Catholicism, for example, and in various dioceses Nazis were denied communion, prior to Hitler becoming chancellor in 1933. However, the Nazi seizure of power in 1933 was associated with an immediate effort to control anyone who might stand in the way of Nazism, includes the churches. Throughout first half of 1933, the Nazis not only engaged in organizational efforts to consolidate the Protestant churches in a "Reich Church." The Hitler salute became mandatory, and Jehovah's Witnesses were among the earliest people sent to concentration camps for refusing to give the salute. The Nazis also set out to break the power of the Catholic youth organizations and Catholic political parties: for example, the head of Catholic Action, was murdered on the Night of the Long Knives in 1934

We can keep playing this game as long as you'd like. You won't win.

Emergency Decree and the Enabling Act; at that point, there were not legal mechanisms preserving any democratic rights at all in Germany. The Hitler salute became mandatory not long afterwards. After about the beginning of 1934 (say), you simply will not find any photographs at all in which some people are giving the Hitler salute and others not, unless those not giving the salute belong to some ostracized group (such as Jews) specifically forbidden by the law to give the salute. Typically refusal to give the salute resulted in arbitrary indefinite incarceration, without any legal protections whatsoever

One might be disappointed, of course, that more Germans did not follow the example of the Jehovah's Witnesses in refusing to give the Hitler salute, but since many of the people who refused simply disappeared forever into the dark detention system, it may be dishonest to demand extraordinary courage from ordinary people: they typically just grit their teeth and told themselves they were simply being patriot

In any case, it's probably disingenuous of you to wave a picture like this and claim that it somehow shows Catholic clergy behaving differently than the public at large

from self-appointed followers of the "prince of peace." Bummer how all your attempts have done nothing, absolutely nothing to dispute what I originally said, namely that Hitler CLAIMED to be a Christian. You can disagree with him all you like, dredge up whatever Google contents you desire, and the fact will remain. Clearly that chaps your ass something fierce. Sweet.

What I find more telling, however, is that rather than confront the Christian who is clearly insinuating that today's non-believers are just as dangerous and deadly as the people who carried out the Soviet Union abuses, you hop on the atheist for DARING to suggest what history clearly records.

But then, that is so damn common in this forum it's ceased to be frustrating - it just is. When faced with the choice of confronting a wayward brother in the faith or engaging in a pointless side debate with an atheist, the so-called liberal believer picks the atheist. Every. Single. Time.

when you say the Hitler CLAIMED to be a Christian. He also said he would not attack Russia. But of course that is between him and God. I think one only needs to survey the list of posts to see who is generally under attack here. So Hitchens claims to be a Marxist/Leninist/Trotskyite. Is he really? Well, since he calls for "ridicule, hatred, and contempt" for religion - I would say the chances are pretty good that he is.

I do not like to pretend I am friendly with a person who paints using brushes as broad as you do, and then tries to justify it with 2nd grade playground logic.

“when you say the Hitler CLAIMED to be a Christian. He also said he would not attack Russia. But of course that is between him and God. I think one only needs to survey the list of posts to see who is generally under attack here. So Hitchens claims to be a Marxist/Leninist/Trotskyite. Is he really? Well, since he calls for "ridicule, hatred, and contempt" for religion - I would say the chances are pretty good that he is.”
52#

I could get away with calling trotsky "buddy" for a multitude of reasons. You certainly should know that you could not just in the way that I would not say that to you. Unless you meant it in an insulting, condescending manner in which case we are back at the rude point we started with.

“it was a reaction to you being rude and overly familiar.”

It wasn’t me who called him “buddy”.

I’m the guy observing the attempt to ignore the point/issue via the exclusive focus on the non issue term ‘buddy’.

Please….do try to keep up.

“I could get away with calling trotsky "buddy…"

Well, given your prior demonstrated capacity to know and speak his mind when he cannot….I’m not at all surprised ;-)

“You certainly should know that you could not just in the way that I would not say that to you.”

Why not buddy, pal, comrade, mate, old chum?
Your entrenched notions of ‘sides’ prohibits such terms?

Good Lord…Even the Diggers of WWI shouted such terms across the trenches.
“Unless you meant it in an insulting, condescending manner in which case we are back at the rude point we started with.”

Ahhhh….I see…the only possible reading and intent of such terms would be “insult and condescension”….that’s an interesting cosmology you have there.

Good luck with that Digger….but your still shooting in the wrong direction.

Oh…….and never light a smoke off the third match ;-)

about Elizabeth and her brother beginning in the 1950's. So much is unclear. However, we do know that Hitler studied Nietzsche in the early 1900's while in Vienna as well as later. One thing is certain: Nietzsche was most certainly anti-Christian.

to Vienna hoping to become a painter or architect, before failing at this and working as a day laborer while living in a homeless shelter, the depth of Hitler's "studies" in Vienna is probably questionable

It is, of course, true that Nietzsche was interested in eliminating Judeo-Christian ethics, which he regarded as a contemptible "slave morality"

influence upon Mein Kampf.

"Hitler had a passion for reading, grabbing all the daily newspapers available at the men's home, reading numerous political pamphlets and borrowing many books from the library on German history and mythology. He had a curious but academically untrained mind and examined the complex philosophical works of Nietzsche, Hegel, Fichte, Treitschke and the Englishman, Houston Stewart Chamberlain. Hitler picked up bits and pieces of philosophy and ideas from them and wound up with a hodgepodge of racist, nationalistic, anti-Semitic attitudes that over time became a die-hard philosophy, later to be described in his book, Mein Kampf."

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/homeless.htm

Germany was so different from our own, that I should think one ought to be very careful about grabbing a late 19th century author in isolation and attributing influences. I'm not an expert on the period, but the Bismarck unification was a dominant political achievement in the late 19th century, and it led to a peculiar conservative cultural nationalism that we might not really understand easily, with a substantial aristocratic component, and the collapse of the German empire in the wake of WWI probably produced a substantial nostalgia and a great deal of conservative activity resurrecting ideas from a generation earlier. You might be completely right that Treitschke (whom I have not read) was a direct influence on Mein Kampf, but it also seems more likely to me that the major influences on the text were indirect and were picked up from existing conservative culture in the course of opportunistic organizing -- which is, of course, what the Nazis did best

Vienna at that time was a cultural hub, especially for German culture. There was a variety of philosophies being debated. The elements of the Vienna Circle were developing. Positivism was a dominant method of gaining knowledge. Lenin was in Vienna around that same decade as Hitler. The influence of Von Ranke was being impressed upon young scholars, but his quasi-positivism became positivism. There was much going on in those early years.

You might be right about Treischke. But for me to decide whether or not you ARE right about Treischke, I'd need some substantial familiarity with the culture of the time. First, because political commentators are often not very original -- so that simply finding similarities with Treischke doesn't mean that Treischke was the real source. Second, because even if Treischke was culturally influential, it may still be the case that the influences were indirect rather than direct: there may, for example, have been quite a number of people who spouted stuff like "Treischke says ... " and "You ought to read Treischke ..." without having read much or any Treischke. Just finding similarities between Treischke and Mein Kampf doesn't really prove much

Of course, it is true that Vienna c 1900 had some very exciting and sophisticated cultural groups. But Hitler was living a rather marginal life at the time and probably had little or no direct contact with any of the sophisticated people

many others availed themselves to the many informal coffeehouse gatherings and very public discussions going on throughout the city, much like people blog today. And Treischke surely wasn't the only notable to hold those views.

I can Google, too.

Most historians believe that Hitler rejected Christianity, while still holding a belief in God. His rejection of Christianity, however, didn't stop him from using that religion in order to lead the German masses by the nose into whatever he wanted them to do. An example of his usage of Christianity from Mein Kampf:

Hitler's views on faith were fairly complex, and the evidence suggests that they were also changeable. This is just one of the many reasons that Godwin's Law exists.

...could lead "to more serious incidents" against atheists? The slippery slope slopes both ways.

against Germans or conservatives?

...imply some sort of equivalence between outspoken atheists and neo-nazis?

There's more that's a clear danger about neo-nazis than that they clearly speak their minds about things they disagree with. It's also what they stand for which is threatening, which includes violence against those with whom they disagree.

If you reduce this to mere outspoken disagreement with ideas as the threshold for dangerous, slippery-slope intolerance, even where, if the idea of violence comes up at all it's to explicitly disavow violence, with nothing else to justify yourself than trying to claim the mantle of intolerance against intolerance, you put yourself on the same slippery slope.

If you think all you need to extrapolate the mantle of "justified intolerance" for yourself is to point out examples of dangerous atheists like Stalin (always an old favorite), then atheists can point to the Inquisition or numerous other examples and also claim the same the mantle of "justified intolerance" against theism and religion.

ridicule goes beyond mere criticism.

...delivering only, the most even-tempered, fair-minded, judicious, and careful criticism?

a statement encouraging "ridicule, hatred, and contempt" for another group - then yes, I am guilty as charged.

...to guilt-by-association with anyone who remotely resembles or could be loosely associated with anyone who might have said something like that.

Do you add hatred and contempt to the ridicule too, since you seem to be all about imagined reciprocity, and not so much about those alleged Christian ideals of forgiveness and turning the cheek and whatnot?

You obviously have righteous anger on your side, so this is no time or place for any of the pansy forgiveness shit. You're Jesus railing against the money changers, by gosh, and it's all for the good cause of fighting against the day when Richard Dawkins leads a mob with torches and pitchforks to persecute the Christians!

...I'm not looking for any sympathy by a long shot. Do not ask for who the violin plays, it plays for thee.

Daddy always said, "Tell the truth, no matter what."