Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity?

Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity?

There are 11913 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.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#5908 Nov 2, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Not really-- anyone who thinks pure, unregulated capitalism is the only way to go, has to be nuts-- or extremely wealthy.
I don't think you are super-rich, so that leaves...
... and Faux SNooze is one of the "patron saints" for a pure greed-based economy (unregulated capitalism).
<quoted text>
It was a safe assumption-- you said my comment was wrong, then linked to a Faux SNooze-like super-biased website for your "proof"...
...riiiight.
<quoted text>
Our economy is not regulated any longer-- the ReThugs have been stripping out regulations since Ronnie-Ray-Gun's Star-Wars boondoggle.
That's what happened to it-- the super-rich **hate** regulations, because it **forces** them to play **nice** with their slaves--erm-- "employees".
And they really **hate** that....
<quoted text>
See? You suck at the teat of Faux SNooze-- the mindless robots on that channel say the exact same thing....!
<quoted text>
Is that the **best** example you can come up with? Did you research further? It was eventually dropped out of embarrassment... or did you just conveniently forget that fact?
How about the super- DE-regulated Oil Industry? Hmmm?
Where they were permitted to deep-water drill WITHOUT safety equipment in place...
... and look how well **that** worked out... the Gulf is **still** suffering from the toxic oil damage...
<quoted text>
Indeed-- we cannot.. which is why the Rule Of Law is so vital.
A **law** doesn't care-- it just is. It is much easier to apply a **Law** equally than it is to apply personal opinions...
Your problem is, you want to throw out the bath, the baby, the water, the table the bath was sitting on, the towels, the soap, the rug under the table, the window-panes, the curtains and even the door into the bathroom....
.... total anarchy, in other words.
Try Somalia-- no government to speak of... but rampant **piracy***...
.... I bet you'd **love** living there....!
Yet another idiot that thinks that Somalia is Anarchism. Ever hear of the non-agression principle?
No Somalia is not a sufficient example of anarchy, at least not to the extent that warlords are still in control. Also attempts to establish a new centralized government are ongoing there as well.
Warlords (as with any other dominant collective social formation) obviously destroy the prospects for a society free from such coercive power regardless as to weather it comes from well established modern states, or temporary semi feudal gangs. I think the confusion derives from the oversimplified and ideologically charged use of the word "anarchy" which means no rulers, not just a mere absence of a modern state.
There are no anarchists in somalia , and that the state there was deliberately destroyed not by anarchists, but by the u.s. military, and the u.s. military is neither a humanitarian nor a progressive outfit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_p...

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#5909 Nov 2, 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
This is the only account I use, babycakes.
:)

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#5910 Nov 2, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Nothing more than control freaks trying to control people. What is next licenses for having babies?

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#5911 Nov 2, 2013
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>This is the only account I use, babycakes.
:)
Ok, not that it really matters.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#5912 Nov 2, 2013
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>Yet another idiot that thinks that Somalia is Anarchism. Ever hear of the non-agression principle?
No Somalia is not a sufficient example of anarchy, at least not to the extent that warlords are still in control. Also attempts to establish a new centralized government are ongoing there as well.
Warlords (as with any other dominant collective social formation) obviously destroy the prospects for a society free from such coercive power regardless as to weather it comes from well established modern states, or temporary semi feudal gangs. I think the confusion derives from the oversimplified and ideologically charged use of the word "anarchy" which means no rulers, not just a mere absence of a modern state.
There are no anarchists in somalia , and that the state there was deliberately destroyed not by anarchists, but by the u.s. military, and the u.s. military is neither a humanitarian nor a progressive outfit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_p...
You are an idiot-- Somalia is an **excellent** example when government **fails**.

Bullies **will** rise up-- history teaches us this lesson all too well, time and time again.

The **only** thing stopping bullies? Is the collective power of government.

The US is a little different, in that it tries to achieve the ideal of rule by impartial **law**, instead of presuming on the possible good graces of a single powerful individual.

The fact is, a benevolent king has many advantages over a democratic process--- until the benevolent king dies or goes corrupt, of course. Then it becomes the worst possible government: corrupt leadership. A bully for short.

But anarchy? That just leaves room for multiple bullies to fight each over the bodies of the little people.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#5913 Nov 2, 2013
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>Nothing more than control freaks trying to control people. What is next licenses for having babies?
What is? You write in incomplete sentences, without identifying your subject.

Making whatever you intended to say, impossible to decipher.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#5914 Nov 2, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
What is? You write in incomplete sentences, without identifying your subject.
Making whatever you intended to say, impossible to decipher.
My subject was your entire post and practically every post you ever made.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#5915 Nov 2, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
You are an idiot-- Somalia is an **excellent** example when government **fails**.
Bullies **will** rise up-- history teaches us this lesson all too well, time and time again.
The **only** thing stopping bullies? Is the collective power of government.
The US is a little different, in that it tries to achieve the ideal of rule by impartial **law**, instead of presuming on the possible good graces of a single powerful individual.
The fact is, a benevolent king has many advantages over a democratic process--- until the benevolent king dies or goes corrupt, of course. Then it becomes the worst possible government: corrupt leadership. A bully for short.
But anarchy? That just leaves room for multiple bullies to fight each over the bodies of the little people.
If you were King.

“Sombrero Galaxy”

Since: Jan 10

I'm An Illegal Alien

#5916 Nov 3, 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.
But how does one explain the non rich republicans? The ones who vote against their own interest, like anti feminist women?

“Sombrero Galaxy”

Since: Jan 10

I'm An Illegal Alien

#5917 Nov 3, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
You are an idiot-- Somalia is an **excellent** example when government **fails**.
Bullies **will** rise up-- history teaches us this lesson all too well, time and time again.
The **only** thing stopping bullies? Is the collective power of government.
The US is a little different, in that it tries to achieve the ideal of rule by impartial **law**, instead of presuming on the possible good graces of a single powerful individual.
The fact is, a benevolent king has many advantages over a democratic process--- until the benevolent king dies or goes corrupt, of course. Then it becomes the worst possible government: corrupt leadership. A bully for short.
But anarchy? That just leaves room for multiple bullies to fight each over the bodies of the little people.
That is another thing the right doesn't understand. Their motto is to make government so small as to flush it down a toilet. Weaken the government and private tyrants will take their place. Ayn Rand said that government should not run the roads, but private industry should. Could you imagine having a road system completely governed by ceos?
Ceos telling people they don't like not to use their roads or having their own private investigators instead of state patrols?
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#5918 Nov 3, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>
But how does one explain the non rich republicans? The ones who vote against their own interest, like anti feminist women?
I'm sure there are many perspectives, such as 'people are motivated by ideology' and 'some people don't follow the news, they follow the herd", but I offer this point of view...

If people will believe in an Abrahamic god they'll believe anything and, in my experience, many people don't change their minds based solely on evidence and reason. Many people only 'change their beliefs' i.e. their opinions when they are forced to do so. That's why I think that it is important only to believe anything to the extent the belief is supported by reason and evidence. Believing something as an 'act of faith' causes difficulty when one finds one is wrong about something having believed it to be true for a long time. Opinions (or beliefs) should always be limited (never absolute) and dependent on evidence and reason (not faith).

Critical thinking is important. However, not everyone practices it or even wishes to do so.

I'd say there was a similar phenomenon in the UK in the 1960s with working-class people voting Tory (Conservative Party = Tory). I think that class-come-ideological battle, which some people see as "won" by Maggie Thatcher (The "Iron Lady") taught the British electorate the idiocy and destructiveness of ideological voting. It was a period in the UK of bitter political division between Labour and Tory. In the UK today, suggesting someone supports a policy for ideological reasons implies something deeply discreditable - and that's the way it should be.

Show me a good "ideology". I think it is one of the three main causes of human conflict - Ideology, nationalism and religion - try having a war without any of them.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#5919 Nov 3, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>
That is another thing the right doesn't understand. Their motto is to make government so small as to flush it down a toilet. Weaken the government and private tyrants will take their place....
An interesting and very US perspective. Maybe thinking in terms of small or big government isn't very helpful? Most countries seem more interested in the efficiency of government than its 'size'. I read little talk of size outside of the USA. Most USAmericans of all political hues seem to scoff at the very idea of efficient government, but efficiency is a matter of degree not perfection.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#5920 Nov 3, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>
But how does one explain the non rich republicans? The ones who vote against their own interest, like anti feminist women?
And some people don't distinguish between wealth-creators and the merely wealthy.

“Sombrero Galaxy”

Since: Jan 10

I'm An Illegal Alien

#5921 Nov 3, 2013
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>I'm sure there are many perspectives, such as 'people are motivated by ideology' and 'some people don't follow the news, they follow the herd", but I offer this point of view...
If people will believe in an Abrahamic god they'll believe anything and, in my experience, many people don't change their minds based solely on evidence and reason. Many people only 'change their beliefs' i.e. their opinions when they are forced to do so. That's why I think that it is important only to believe anything to the extent the belief is supported by reason and evidence. Believing something as an 'act of faith' causes difficulty when one finds one is wrong about something having believed it to be true for a long time. Opinions (or beliefs) should always be limited (never absolute) and dependent on evidence and reason (not faith).
Critical thinking is important. However, not everyone practices it or even wishes to do so.
An example of what you are saying would be the many republicans who insist that the president is a communist, despite all evidence to the contrary.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#5922 Nov 3, 2013
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>My subject was your entire post and practically every post you ever made.
LOL!

Too much for your puny little brains (what's left of them) to comprehend, then?

Okay... I can see that would be a serious problem for you.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#5924 Nov 3, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>
But how does one explain the non rich republicans? The ones who vote against their own interest, like anti feminist women?
Faux SNooze?

Rich "pastors" doing politics from their pulpits?

I do not know how to explain why **anyone** who made less than 200K a year, would vote ReThuglican.

I seriously do not know why anyone would.

The ReThugs had the White House for roughly 20 of the last 30 years or so.

And they have, at every junction, promised an end to abortions, an end to women's votes, an end to equal opportunities for minorities, an end to Social Security, an end to medicare/medicaid, an end to science-only in science class, and so on.

Yet none of those things has happened.

What **has** happened is more tax cuts for the super rich, more corporate welfare for the giant corporations, less regulation on the economy and environment, and deregulation of campaign contributions--creating some of the most wealthy americans that congress has ever seen.

The ReThugs lie to these simple minded idiots--and they just lap up the lies like it was Coke or Pepsi or something.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#5925 Nov 3, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>
That is another thing the right doesn't understand. Their motto is to make government so small as to flush it down a toilet. Weaken the government and private tyrants will take their place. Ayn Rand said that government should not run the roads, but private industry should. Could you imagine having a road system completely governed by ceos?
Ceos telling people they don't like not to use their roads or having their own private investigators instead of state patrols?
I don't **have** to imagine it! I **live** it here in Tulsa!

We've had a ReThug mayor for a bit, now-- and the roads are literally falling to pieces.

The major throughfares, which get federal money are doing okay-- after several long stretches were **torn** up after having **just** been resurfaced by private enterprise-- which was using substandard concrete in violation of the **federal** rules.

By the most unlikely of chances, the scoundrel got caught-- but he absconded with his profits and disappeared. I do not think they ever caught up to him.

But several stretches had to be ripped up, and **re-done** because of that lovely "private enterprise"...!

Without oversight and **regulation**?

Chaos is the result-- as greed becomes the **only** thing driving people's efforts.

Roads built by greed? Fall apart because of using crap processes.

Roads built with strong oversight, and testing at each step? Last for decades--because the testing ensures the product is strong and durable.

Trust... but **verify**.

One of the rare things old Ronnie-Ray-Gun got right.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#5926 Nov 3, 2013
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>I'm sure there are many perspectives, such as 'people are motivated by ideology' and 'some people don't follow the news, they follow the herd", but I offer this point of view...
If people will believe in an Abrahamic god they'll believe anything and, in my experience, many people don't change their minds based solely on evidence and reason. Many people only 'change their beliefs' i.e. their opinions when they are forced to do so. That's why I think that it is important only to believe anything to the extent the belief is supported by reason and evidence. Believing something as an 'act of faith' causes difficulty when one finds one is wrong about something having believed it to be true for a long time. Opinions (or beliefs) should always be limited (never absolute) and dependent on evidence and reason (not faith).
Critical thinking is important. However, not everyone practices it or even wishes to do so.
I'd say there was a similar phenomenon in the UK in the 1960s with working-class people voting Tory (Conservative Party = Tory). I think that class-come-ideological battle, which some people see as "won" by Maggie Thatcher (The "Iron Lady") taught the British electorate the idiocy and destructiveness of ideological voting. It was a period in the UK of bitter political division between Labour and Tory. In the UK today, suggesting someone supports a policy for ideological reasons implies something deeply discreditable - and that's the way it should be.
Show me a good "ideology". I think it is one of the three main causes of human conflict - Ideology, nationalism and religion - try having a war without any of them.
Well said, Ed.

:)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#5927 Nov 3, 2013
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>An interesting and very US perspective. Maybe thinking in terms of small or big government isn't very helpful? Most countries seem more interested in the efficiency of government than its 'size'. I read little talk of size outside of the USA. Most USAmericans of all political hues seem to scoff at the very idea of efficient government, but efficiency is a matter of degree not perfection.
I agree with you 100%.

Sometimes, however, having more than one government agency looking over a particular aspect of the world?

Can be beneficial-- as a second point of view can be useful, especially if one of the two has fallen into the trap of seeing only the trees-- and ignoring the whole forest/animals/land/soil/etc.

Since pretty much everyone agrees that no thing created by people can be idiot-proof?

This ought to go double or triple for government.

Efficiency-- yes, I agree 100%. But sometimes, redundancy is useful and necessary too.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#5928 Nov 3, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!
Too much for your puny little brains (what's left of them) to comprehend, then?
Okay... I can see that would be a serious problem for you.
Yup, I am stupid because I don't think that the answer to a corrupt government is more government.
Just because you can choose a new master every few years does not make you any less of a slave. Also, just because you have a need to be controlled or need the illusion that you have the ability to control others does not mean that I have to follow the masters that you choose. There is no such thing as "freedom" when you need a permit to do as you are told.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 12 min Subduction Zone 61,367
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 hr Dogen 28,320
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 3 hr Dogen 2,687
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) Fri IB DaMann 5,970
Atheist Humor (Aug '09) Mar 22 Eagle 12 452
Deconversion Mar 20 Eagle 12 138
News Quotes from Famous Freethinkers (Aug '12) Mar 18 Eagle 12 2,043
More from around the web