If people hate god, they should never acknowledge god unless they really need to. God may not attack the the population (assuming god exists) openly but perhaps through over people. It may not even be god that is actively doing anything on this world, but the theists who would serve him before all else. The ultimate way of attacking god is to refuse god exists? If god does not actually exist it cannot be attacked and its enemies are just 'attacking' a story book character.
It is interesting that your link considers the new atheists to come after Hagel.
It is odd that Mad. O'Hare who has been dead for a while and who was a certified nut job is mentioned. It is not an accident that her own son, converted to Christianity to rebel against her. She was president of her society only because she founded it.
Try not to quote so much though. Still, lets deal with some snippets.
No street preaching or home Bible studies can be permitted. Converting children or anyone to your religion is made a crime. Even the singing of Christmas carols must be forbidden.
The vast majority of modern atheists would consider this a violation of free speech. There is a huge difference between preventing the government from promoting a religion and using government to suppress it. Your article ignores the fact that the guy ohare suppresded was as much an atheist as she was. She certainly was not a very good person.
Many atheist writers quote the bible extensively and suggest reading it. Naturally, thry emphasize the bits that do no mesh with our morality. In particular, slavery is quoted and so is genocide against tge Canaanites.
There is a vast difference between trying yo convince somebody and forcing him to agree with you. Some atheists are evangilical in the sense of preaching what they believe to be true and engsging in debates along these lines. Applying the term militant to them is ridiculous. When we speak of militant christians or muslims, the people in question actually kill people.
Now traditional communists certainly are militant atheists but their main agenda is aimed at getting rid of private wealth. Of course, without checks and balances, we all know how that worked out. A new ruling class was established ... The vast majority do not support communism. Indeed, even the few communists in the west, do not support
We can say many things about the Communists, but we cannot say they are stupid. They know that if religion is allowed freedom of expression, the vast majority of people will be religious. Unbelief will always lose out in the end. The religious nature of man cannot be suppressed as long as man is man.2
Actually the main critisms against communists was that tgey were stupidvand idealistically impracticle. Ppl frequently discuss a lack of incentive, a lack of cfeativity and a lack of checks or balances against tyranny, as the reasons it is destined not to work. The typical communist was motivated by a desire to eleviate poverty and establish a world where we would all be happy and equal.
Communism, as a idealogy functioned in many ways like a religiin. So, yes, in the same way that ancient churches burned heretics alive at the stake, from the get go, going back as far as Marx, they had concerns about counter revolutionaries. Counter revolutionaries were seen as a threat to the eutopia that they be,ieved was being estab,ished. The ideas of free speech and multiple parties were apparently also seen along these lines.
Second, the government applies direct pressure to the populace because even after the courts make laws against religion, the people will keep right on believing. The basic necessities of life must be denied those who continue to believe. Religious leaders must be either killed or placed in slave camps. Church buildings must be either destroyed or used as antireligion museums and warehouses. Seminaries must be shut down to prevent the education of future religious leaders. Young people must be denied higher education and better careers if they are believers. The children of believers must be taken into the state’s custody and sent to atheistic state homes.
Sure, this seems true. Oddly, christians were successfully in stamping out paganism in this manner though.
If believers were denied the basic necessities of life, higher education, better jobs, the custody of their own children, and if they were persecuted even to death for their faith, it was assumed by Communist leaders that believers would give up their religion in order to escape persecution. Those leaders now realize that even such harsh persecution has not destroyed the faith of their enslaved peoples.3
Again, they were trying to do what the christians did ti the pagans ...
In fact, there are actually more evangelical Christians in the atheistic Soviet Union, China, Cuba, etc., than before the people were enslaved by their Marxist dictators. The Catholic church is stronger in such places as Poland than ever before in their history. Islam continues to grow even in the Soviet Union
I do not know if these claims are true. Certainly religious expression exists in those places.
The moment that China relaxed its persecution of religion, the temples and churches filled to overflowing. In every instance where unbelief is the policy of the state, and religion is severely persecuted, the people have never given up their religion, although they may have had to go underground with their faith.
Sure but there are huge numbers of atheists in china too. Many people go to thrir temples rather casually and do not adhere to a particular religion per se.
Its true christianity and islam and budhism are well represented there.
State persecution of believers may actually increase the number of believers. In China, after the communes were set up, the order was given to count the Christians in each commune. If there was more than one believer in a commune, the other Christians were distributed to communes which had no Christians-under the assumption that if believers were separated from each other, they would eventually lose heart and give up their faith. But the opposite occurred.
The muslims and christians eventually caused the numbers of their oppone ts to decrease. Egypt, when it was conquered was a christian country.
The Politics of Atheism
“But,” someone may ask, “what does all this have to do with the various atheistic groups in America? Are you trying to say they are all Communists?” As a matter of record, many atheists who have gone public with their campaign to secularize America do not hesitate to admit they are Communists, leftists or socialists
This is a lie.
First of all, it is a huge lie to claim mild socialists are similar to communists. The only simularirity is they both believe in some measure of wealth redistributiin. This part of the quote is smite worthy.
Second, left on what issue? I have .et atheists who voted for ronald reagan. There aee a large number of libertarian atheists who belueve in total free market capitalism.
This is enough for me.
Let me know how much of this stupidity you actually believe.
Of course, a few atheists would deny that their atheism is connected with socialism or communism. Upon closer questioning, however, these individuals virtually always have a hidden political agenda that includes the denial of religious freedom.
Bullshit. Freedom of speech is a rally cry for the vast majority of american atheists and it includes tge right of religious people to say and read what they want
It does not include the right of ppl to force prayers on no. Believers in schools or for the government to endorse god as being associated with its policies
But while there may be somewhere a few patriotic atheists who are capitalists and proud of it (although I have yet to meet such a person), our main concern should be with the various organizations and leaders who make up the modern movement of anti-theism
It is wrong to consider only one polliticsl party as being patriotic. You can be left wing and love your country.
Capitism causes some suffering. If you do not know this, walk outside and see the beggars ln the street.
Some believers have naively assumed that modern atheistic attacks on religion are made by sincere people honestly searching for the truth.
Some theists can read, yes.
They mistakenly believe that if they answer these anti-theists with equal sincerity, these infidels will come to the faith. Yet, if history teaches anything, it teaches that answering professional skeptics is a never-ending task. As soon as one argument is answered, the infidel simply pulls another one out of his hat.
It requires little intelligence, however, to contrive groundless theories to attack something. The trick is to deny having to prove the theory. Arguments from silence are always the easiest method in this kind of deception. And, as shown below, the atheists use arguments based on silence for most of their attacks on the Bible.
This ignores how sparse the evidence actually is.
Consider, for example, the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. When Jean Astruc, an apostate Jew, initiated the attack on the morality of the Ten Commandments, he saw that the best way to destroy it was to deny its historicity. He did this by claiming Moses did not actually write it
Even if moses wrote them, does thst mean they are from god?
When scholars demonstrated that writing existed before Moses’ day
Most atheists should know about ancient Egypt.
It is a lot of work deleting this crap on my tablet.
Please dont quote so much shit.
rica is the cause of all the evil in the world and why the Soviet Union is the working man’s paradise. Marcus, Angela Davis, and a host of other leftists have done exactly this for years in state universities.
In addition, censorship certainly should not be practiced on the university or college campus. All ideas should be expressed freely. We should not go back to the Dark Ages when no one was permitted to question the “orthodox” view, or suggest an alternative view. Modern liberal education has always prided itself on the student’s right to question the position of the teacher. Let all ideas compete freely in the marketplace of education.
The above tenets are championed when atheists and other unbelievers desire the right to attack religion and teach their own world view, but once they have gained the right to air their ideas in the name of academic freedom, they have no intention of allowing creationists the same freedom to state their case. Creation scientists are to be censored. There is no academic freedom for them.6
The average atheist sees no contradiction in his hypocritical attitude that demands academic freedom for himself but denies it to believers. For example, in one state college an atheist is always appointed to teach the religion course. The administrators claim that if a believer taught it, the course would be biased. When someone suggested, however, that a theist should be allowed to teach an “unbiased” course on atheism, the hoots and howls could be heard all the way to Moscow. The atheists would not extend to believers the same freedoms they claim for themselves.
Many evolutionist professors will not allow creation scientists to speak because the professors have misrepresented creationists as stupid, lacking intelligent spokesmen or arguments. If the creationists received freedom to speak, the students would discover that creation scientists hold Ph.D.’s as do the evolutionists and are capable of presenting intelligent arguments and scientific evidence for their position. The typical atheistic professor is attached to the theory of evolution for political and ethical reasons and will recoil in horror at the thought of their students hearing the creationist position.
When Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World, was asked on TV why his generation leaped to accept the theory of evolution, he was honest enough to admit they adopted evolution because they wanted to be rid of the moral restraints of religion.7 They accepted evolution for moral reasons, not scientific reasons. This emotional attachment to the theory of evolution makes it difficult for evolutionists to have any scientifically based discussion of the subject. For them, evolution has to be true. The moral implications of creation would be too dreadful to bear.
In my many encounters with atheists, skeptics, freethinkers, and the like, I have yet to meet one who does not feel “there ought to be a law” to curb religion’s freedom of public expression. They all seem to agree with O’Hair that the courts should ban prayer in the schools; restrict any public religious ceremonies or display of symbols; dismantle the system of military chaplains; revoke the tax-exempt status of church buildings; obliterate “In God we trust” from U.S. currency; and delete “One nation under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance.
Many of these atheists make it abundantly clear they even want the evangelistic outreach of believers banned. And they are succeeding. For example, it is now illegal in New York City and other large cities to hand out religious literature in public parks or on public beaches; it is illegal to preach on any public property. In some cities such as Atlanta, Georgia, it is now illegal to hold a Bible study or prayer meeting in a private home without permission from the city. Clearly, the day of religious freedom in America has passed. Believers must wake up to this while they still have time to recoup their losses. The longer they remain inactive, the harder it will be t
It is not illegal to have bible studies in geirgis. This is bullshit.