Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity?

Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity?

There are 9880 comments on the Free Republic story from May 5, 2011, titled Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity?. In it, Free Republic reports that:

'RELIGION SHOULD BE TREATED WITH RIDICULE, HATRED AND CONTEMPT' Atheism, or 'antitheism,' which was once considered taboo in America, has gone somewhat mainstream in today's society.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Free Republic.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#5888 Nov 1, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>You're civil enough with this account but I suspect you might not be as well mannered with your other ones. ;)
I hate to think of you acting Bobesque.:B
Oh looky! My stalker is back... spewing bullshyt as usual.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#5889 Nov 1, 2013
greymouser wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, the Karl Marx Communism fails because it can't counter greed.
Capitalism harnesses greed to some extent but needs to be held in check by an entity powerful enough to do so.
Labor unions and government (in the US, T. Roosevelt+) stemmed it for a while, but even then greed is taking hold to counter the check.
I want to be optimistic but the pattern I'm seeing is Corporate Feudalism disguised as a Democratic Republic.
Yeah... I agree with you-- the unions worked for awhile, but then that ugly greed thing again. Coupled with people in power beginning to feel "entitled", as the power slowly corrupts... meh.

I'm beginning to wonder if the anarchists were right, in that you have to just tear it all down occasionally, and start over from scratch.

I hope not: anarchy is always ugly while it lasts, and quickly descends into a Rule Of the Strong/Bullies. We have plenty of examples of **that** both in history and in the world even today.

I do think Shakespeare had it right, though, with his comment about lawyers...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#5890 Nov 1, 2013
greymouser wrote:
Afterthought there...
Is the Divine Right of Kings superseded by the Prosperity Christian Divine Right of CEO's?
Kings were restricted by national boundaries. Corporations, not so much.
Government/rule by the World Corporations?

It's just another name for an oligarchy. And many corporations have already descended into hereditary conditions.

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#5891 Nov 1, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Re: German bishop-- did you see why?
The man had a million-dollar bathroom makeover for his personal luxury suite -- and that was just the beginning...
... that greed again.
<snerk>
Yeah, I saw that.

That the Pope called him on the carpet for that (and reported in the news) is almost as extraordinary as a Pope resigning.

There's no way this is going to turn me back into a flaming Catholic. That ship has long sailed.

What I'm seeing is this Pope is trying to push the rudder of a juggernaut battleship into changing course.

In some respect, this Pope has already done something.

Instead of me being utterly cynical about the RCC, I'm in a watch and wait mode, hoping for the best, expecting the worst.

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#5892 Nov 1, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah... I agree with you-- the unions worked for awhile, but then that ugly greed thing again. Coupled with people in power beginning to feel "entitled", as the power slowly corrupts... meh.
I'm beginning to wonder if the anarchists were right, in that you have to just tear it all down occasionally, and start over from scratch.
I hope not: anarchy is always ugly while it lasts, and quickly descends into a Rule Of the Strong/Bullies. We have plenty of examples of **that** both in history and in the world even today.
I do think Shakespeare had it right, though, with his comment about lawyers...
Unions have the same problem as a special interest group like MADD.

Once you have achieved a reasonable goal, you should diminish into a watchdog type thing.

But the threat of waking up that watchdog should be a check on the powers that be. Or that watchdog sees another bone to chew on <cough>Walmart<cough >.

And I think there's two things we've lost sight of - the spirit of the law and a jury of our peers* with the ability to negate a law.

*considering how specialized we are now, perhaps a professional peer review model of qualified jurors is in order for trials.

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#5893 Nov 1, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Government/rule by the World Corporations?
It's just another name for an oligarchy. And many corporations have already descended into hereditary conditions.
Would it change your perspective if you looked at international corporations as a nation?

Their boundaries aren't by easily quantifiable by geographical markings but by shifting market shares in a region.

If you look at it that way, there are wars going on. Corporate mergers are just treaty alliances.

(ok. you can be Duke, but I'm the King. Get 3/5 Dukes to agree and I may reconsider. or not. Don't worry about the shareholders. The serfs hold less than 50% so we can override them every time. But we'll give them the illusion they have a say with shareholder elections.)

Corporate Coup d'etat's happen all the time. Except CEO's don't actually lose their head when ousted.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#5894 Nov 2, 2013
greymouser wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, I saw that.
That the Pope called him on the carpet for that (and reported in the news) is almost as extraordinary as a Pope resigning.
There's no way this is going to turn me back into a flaming Catholic. That ship has long sailed.
What I'm seeing is this Pope is trying to push the rudder of a juggernaut battleship into changing course.
In some respect, this Pope has already done something.
Instead of me being utterly cynical about the RCC, I'm in a watch and wait mode, hoping for the best, expecting the worst.
I wish the new pope all the luck he's going to need, if he wishes to try to drag that cult into the 21st century with the rest of us.

Did you see the latest? The pope dismissed the selfish now-former bishop, and has declared he's going to use the expensive building as a poor house-- or so I read.

Again, I wish him well-- he's like a little dog, barking at a bear... but once in a while, the bear listens...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#5895 Nov 2, 2013
greymouser wrote:
<quoted text>
Unions have the same problem as a special interest group like MADD.
Once you have achieved a reasonable goal, you should diminish into a watchdog type thing.
But the threat of waking up that watchdog should be a check on the powers that be. Or that watchdog sees another bone to chew on <cough>Walmart<cough >.
And I think there's two things we've lost sight of - the spirit of the law and a jury of our peers* with the ability to negate a law.
*considering how specialized we are now, perhaps a professional peer review model of qualified jurors is in order for trials.
I agree re: walmart-- it is too dependent on food stamps. meh.

I also agree, re: unions. Some have grown to large, and are top-heavy.

As for a jury of one's peers? Would that include religious affiliation too? I think it ought to... but I'm silly that way.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#5896 Nov 2, 2013
greymouser wrote:
<quoted text>
Would it change your perspective if you looked at international corporations as a nation?
Their boundaries aren't by easily quantifiable by geographical markings but by shifting market shares in a region.
If you look at it that way, there are wars going on. Corporate mergers are just treaty alliances.
(ok. you can be Duke, but I'm the King. Get 3/5 Dukes to agree and I may reconsider. or not. Don't worry about the shareholders. The serfs hold less than 50% so we can override them every time. But we'll give them the illusion they have a say with shareholder elections.)
Corporate Coup d'etat's happen all the time. Except CEO's don't actually lose their head when ousted.
Yes, I can see that-- the problem is, they are beyond the law in some cases, due to being so big.

Take the car corps-- so large, they could not be permitted to fail, even though they created conditions *to* fail themselves.

Personally? Had I been in charge of that boondoggle, I'd have eliminated all management above a certain level-- all the way to the top, as a condition of the bail-out. I'd have kept the workers, and the low level management, but dumped all the rest-- no pensions for the sacked management either, no "golden parachute" none of that-- out they go, on their fat azzes, without so much as dime-one.

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#5897 Nov 2, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree re: walmart-- it is too dependent on food stamps. meh.
I also agree, re: unions. Some have grown to large, and are top-heavy.
As for a jury of one's peers? Would that include religious affiliation too? I think it ought to... but I'm silly that way.
I haven't quite worked out the jury of peer's yet.

Some cases would be obvious - Medical Civil trials should be overseen by people in that field. Software civil suits should be reviewed by people who have a clue in that field.

Criminal trials are a bit more perplexing.

I'm still working out the idea of a "professional" juror there. They might not be quite as susceptible to the n00bie tricks the professional DA or Defense attorneys play
.

“Sombrero Galaxy”

Since: Jan 10

I'm An Illegal Alien

#5898 Nov 2, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
The Depression was also because of little or no oversight-- no regulation in other words.
Anytime you de-regulate a capitalistic system? Sooner or later, it crashes and burns.
This is because **pure** capitalism is just another word for exploitation and greed.
What seems to work best, is a mix of regulated capitalism and some modest use of social programs.
Certain things should **never** be greed-based, such as medicine or medical drugs or research for either of those.
Why?
Because in a capitalistic based "research" system (private enterprise-- or greed-based), there is no incentive to actually **cure** diseases-- but tons of money to be made in **managing** or so-called "controlling" disease.
Whereas in a not-for-profit, or even a tax-funded research program? It is quite possible to place strong incentive to find actual cures.
Proof is the **university** based research programs, where cures bring in lots attention, which in turn brings in more and better researchers.
In contrast to for-profit(greed) based systems where they just look for ways to keep a disease from killing the patient outright, but lets them charge them constantly instead-- a sort of ugly balancing act, where the patent is not killed immediately (no profit in that--the dead do not pay) but he's never completely cured either-- so he keeps paying.
... meh.
Exactly. What is the incentive to keeping patients healthy, if one can make money off of them being sick. That is what republicans cannot understand.

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#5899 Nov 2, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I can see that-- the problem is, they are beyond the law in some cases, due to being so big.
Take the car corps-- so large, they could not be permitted to fail, even though they created conditions *to* fail themselves.
Personally? Had I been in charge of that boondoggle, I'd have eliminated all management above a certain level-- all the way to the top, as a condition of the bail-out. I'd have kept the workers, and the low level management, but dumped all the rest-- no pensions for the sacked management either, no "golden parachute" none of that-- out they go, on their fat azzes, without so much as dime-one.
From a pitchforks and torches perspective, that sounds good.

I'd do something much more sinister - stock options can only be cashed in 10 years -after- they left the company (gives incentive for the long term as well as depending on the next C-critter).

No golden parachutes when fired. They can apply for unemployment.

Board of Directors may not give bonuses. One person may not sit on more than 3 boards and be C-level with another company.

All these are up for discussion. I don't have a magic bullet for everything.

If I did, then I'd command you to vote for greymouser as Tyrant of the World!

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#5900 Nov 2, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. What is the incentive to keeping patients healthy, if one can make money off of them being sick. That is what republicans cannot understand.
I'd say they understand it very well.

Profit is all that counts.

And justify it with their "calculus for dummies" and "lying with statistics" courses in the MBA program.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#5901 Nov 2, 2013
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>I am not a creationist and you know it. I left because I have other things to do than be an angry douche-bag like some others on here. Go ahead say what you will, it doesn't matter.
Nice try but you're fooling nobody. You and your buddy nano anomaly troll this forum as creationists. We suspected that you were not an agnostic for months and then the pattern emerged.

No amount of lying by you is going to hide the fact that you're a creationist troll.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#5902 Nov 2, 2013
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>I do not use or care about judge icons. So, what ever gives you your jollies, that doesn't harm others, have at it.
First you replied with "You and all your judge icons" implying that you cared.

When I explained to you that I didn't use any aliases, suddenly, you don't care about judge icons.

Classic creationist moving the goal posts.

What are you going to try arguing now another general case?

Lil Ticked: "Since history many a person has moved the goalposts in order to try to win an argument, so lying like I do and moving the goalposts like I do in every encounter is A OK!"

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#5903 Nov 2, 2013
greymouser wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't quite worked out the jury of peer's yet.
Some cases would be obvious - Medical Civil trials should be overseen by people in that field. Software civil suits should be reviewed by people who have a clue in that field.
Criminal trials are a bit more perplexing.
I'm still working out the idea of a "professional" juror there. They might not be quite as susceptible to the n00bie tricks the professional DA or Defense attorneys play
.
Well... the first thing I'd do? Is eliminate the lawyers from either side, from having **any** say in jury selection. For starters.

There ought to be an unbiased person or group who does that, perhaps the judge? Who ought to be familiar with the case, at the very least-- but the lawyers on either side always use tricks to eliminate any potential juror with any brains... which is part of the problem.

Because the first elimination process starts with how juries are selected in the first place-- and that anyone who's the least clever (unless they are also an idealist) will seek to avoid jury duty.

But I like your professions' matching idea-- that is good.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#5904 Nov 2, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. What is the incentive to keeping patients healthy, if one can make money off of them being sick. That is what republicans cannot understand.
I think they don't care to understand-- they prefer cashing those bribe checks instead.

In recent years, they have evolved into the party of the "me-me-me" or in one word, "greed".

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#5905 Nov 2, 2013
greymouser wrote:
<quoted text>
From a pitchforks and torches perspective, that sounds good.
I'd do something much more sinister - stock options can only be cashed in 10 years -after- they left the company (gives incentive for the long term as well as depending on the next C-critter).
No golden parachutes when fired. They can apply for unemployment.
Board of Directors may not give bonuses. One person may not sit on more than 3 boards and be C-level with another company.
All these are up for discussion. I don't have a magic bullet for everything.
If I did, then I'd command you to vote for greymouser as Tyrant of the World!
I like your ideas-- yes, not-cashing in for at least 10 years is an excellent plan.

Just the cashing in, if the person owns a large chunk of stocks, can easily affect it's price-- which affects all sort of things beyond mere stocks. For one thing.

I would also say, that if a company failed, then any stocks owned by any of the top-level management? Is automatically forfeit, and any value of those is re-channeled **back** into the company they were supposed to be making profitable.

I'm not talking about stocks in the failed company-- but **any** stocks are automatically forfeit-- foreign and domestic.

That ought to put a bit of incentive in their minds to try to keep the company going strong: they would then have an actual personal stake in it's survival.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#5906 Nov 2, 2013
greymouser wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd say they understand it very well.
Profit is all that counts.
And justify it with their "calculus for dummies" and "lying with statistics" courses in the MBA program.
I think they just do not care... at all.

So much so, that they not only do not understand, they can't be bothered to even muster up enough empathy to **try** to understand.

As you said: it's all about feeding their own, personal fortunes.

ReThuglican Party: or how to become a multimillionaire by selling out to corporations and billionaires.
LCNLin

United States

#5907 Nov 2, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I think they just do not care... at all.
So much so, that they not only do not understand, they can't be bothered to even muster up enough empathy to **try** to understand.
As you said: it's all about feeding their own, personal fortunes.
ReThuglican Party: or how to become a multimillionaire by selling out to corporations and billionaires.
Yes... Agree.

Libertarian = A person with a Government Job who is against Government

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 min ChristineM 15,883
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 min Regolith Based Li... 40,399
A Universe from Nothing? 1 hr IB DaMann 45
For Atheists: Why do You Call Theories "Scient... 1 hr IB DaMann 200
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 2 hr Thinking 4,642
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 2 hr ChristineM 255,945
News Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 3 hr Thinking 24,067
More from around the web