Atheists are 'discriminated against'?

[stubbornone]

Well, here is the story:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blake-pag ... 32279.html

"While there are certainly numerous problems with the developmental program at West Point and all service academies, the tipping point of my decision to resign was the realization that countless officers here and throughout the military are guilty of blatantly violating the oaths they swore to defend the Constitution. These men and women are criminals, complicit in light of day defiance of the Uniform Code of Military Justice through unconstitutional proselytism, discrimination against the non-religious and establishing formal policies to reward, encourage and even at times require sectarian religious participation."

Yep, in this 'long gray line' of hypocrisy and discrimination, our hero above lists ... not a single instance of this supposedly pervasive trend in the military. So, here are some things that our oppressed atheists have to ... painfully tolerate.

#1 - Prayers, those who are religious, and there are many different denominations BTW, will pray. Those who wish to pray collectively are allowed to do - freedom of religious expression is a protected right. Being unconscionably offended by someone else's expression of religion is ... aside from making you a total wanker ... also not about the US Constitution.

#2 - No doubt, just like our hero here, religious groups are afforded space and time to pray and organize, as does the author of this article. Somehow though, allowing others to practice their faith is intolerable to him? But his .. er, religious? views must be afforded sole consideration?

Beyond that, the military really doesn't give a hoop about your faith. It encourages you to have one, in anything, but only because it helps, scientifically proven, to deal with the rigors of combat. You want to be Pagan? More power too ya. You want to be atheist? Great, but we'd encourage you to explore secular humanism, if only to have a non-affiliative source that will help you deal with the emotional aspect of combat.

Somehow, this approach is ... intolerable to young atheists? Science and the effects of combat on human beings are to be rejected in favor of hyperbole?

Well, I for one hope the Army recoups its entire investment in this gravely discriminated dork - who is SO discriminated against that they allowed him into the school, trained him, educated him, allowed him to freely practice and organize his faith - indeed even be a student leader ... and this was intolerable disrespect because the Army didn't shut down everyone else's faith? Prevent the criticism of his precious choices?

Not only will this be an expensive life lesson, but when young atheist super hero joins the actual work force, he'll quickly discover that no employer anywhere appreciates a young crusader who pisses off all their religious clients. What then atheist hero?

The Army is there to win wars. Businesses are there to make money. This guy? Has a lot to learn about how the world works and the costs of excessive pride and rationalization.

I for one advocate that we let him learn that lesson. The last thing our boys need in combat is some wanker talking about how much worse he has it than everyone else around him.

[stubbornone]

Christians apparently have to put up with whiney atheists asking us stupid, highly bigoted questions like: IS THERE ANYTHING MORE EVIL THAN YOUR GOD!!!

We have to deal with every religion saying that their god is the source of absolute morality and we are immoral. So yes we point out his immorality.

Why would you care if you don't believe in the God? WHo cares?

We have to deal with your rejection of everything we stand for, but we rebut ... rather than claim discrimination.

Why is atheism different?

Since when does not believing in a deity be a 'Rejection of everything you stand for'? That statement is either building up a big straw man against atheists, or being overly self absorbed...... although those two options are not mutually exclusive.

Because of the silliness of the original claim.

#1 - Atheists, as quoted above, are claiming that it is discriminatory, down right evil, that religions dislike, which isn't quite true, those who disagree with them.

#2 - The fact of the matter is that atheists think EVREYONE else is wrong, and even go so far as to create things like the FSM to deliberately rub their derisive opinion into the face of everyone who disagrees with them.

For some reason, the former is a sin of deep seated prejudice. The second is a sign of great rationalism and scientific expertise.

Worse, Christians, who think they are right, but preach tolerance and pluralism, are expected to politely defend their position in a debate forum - even from deliberate pejoratives like, "You God is evil because I am deliberately twisting things effectively to simply debase you based on my own deliberate misconceptions - as clearly Jesus is the most evil thing the world has ever seen!"

(Of course, God forbid you dismiss that illogical rant as sheer idiocy and miseducated silliness, that would be downright uncivil, and as we know Goat, right?)

Meanwhile, atheists don't have to defend their positions, they can just claim that someone rejecting their position is 'poisoning the well' and a bigot, and ... well you see the point.

So please Goat, feel free to stake out a position and defend it regarding atheists boy and his resignation, or the uptick of hypocritical demands that atheists are making from the military. Ban Chaplains but give us our own! The word faith offends us so get ride of it entirely! You allow people to pray and even have opening prayers, so block everyone else's expression to prevent me from being ... sillily offended. Your religion is like being force to watch gay sex!

Or, you can feel free to discuss why an atheist screaming discrimination is NOT like the boy who cried wolf?

So, how about you let me make my arguments, as opposed to telling me what my arguments are going to be with your pejorative attempts to poison the well, and you can ... start making an actual argument in this this thread?

If however, you are simply looking to bait me so you can report me and drag in the moderators? Well, I would ask that you engage that superior intellect and actually make an argument that is something beyond, "All arguments against atheists are actually bigotry!"

[Goat]

Christians apparently have to put up with whiney atheists asking us stupid, highly bigoted questions like: IS THERE ANYTHING MORE EVIL THAN YOUR GOD!!!

We have to deal with every religion saying that their god is the source of absolute morality and we are immoral. So yes we point out his immorality.

Why would you care if you don't believe in the God? WHo cares?

We have to deal with your rejection of everything we stand for, but we rebut ... rather than claim discrimination.

Why is atheism different?

Since when does not believing in a deity be a 'Rejection of everything you stand for'? That statement is either building up a big straw man against atheists, or being overly self absorbed...... although those two options are not mutually exclusive.

Because of the silliness of the original claim.

#1 - Atheists, as quoted above, are claiming that it is discriminatory, down right evil, that religions dislike, which isn't quite true, those who disagree with them.

Yet.. by your very attitude and actions, you are proving the the original claim is true, and not silly at all. Imagine that.

#2 - The fact of the matter is that atheists think EVREYONE else is wrong, and even go so far as to create things like the FSM to deliberately rub their derisive opinion into the face of everyone who disagrees with them.

Gosh, that seems to be exactly what you are doing.. As for the FSM, that was a satire piece when someone was trying to get the Christian version of creationism taught in public school.. and it took off. Your attitude to it shows that the way it got picked up as a meme hits the mark. The hostile attitude you are showing far exceeds the concept.

For some reason, the former is a sin of deep seated prejudice. The second is a sign of great rationalism and scientific expertise.

Worse, Christians, who think they are right, but preach tolerance and pluralism, are expected to politely defend their position in a debate forum - even from deliberate pejoratives like, "You God is evil because I am deliberately twisting things effectively to simply debase you based on my own deliberate misconceptions - as clearly Jesus is the most evil thing the world has ever seen!"

perhaps it is not so much God, or the concept of God, but how believers promote their God.

(Of course, God forbid you dismiss that illogical rant as sheer idiocy and miseducated silliness, that would be downright uncivil, and as we know Goat, right?)

Being civil doesn't mean you have to accept ignorance, and prejudiced. You can even challenge ignorance and prejudice.. and be civil about it. Some people just react more hostile. As for the 'evil' thread, if you notice, I have not participated in it.

Meanwhile, atheists don't have to defend their positions, they can just claim that someone rejecting their position is 'poisoning the well' and a bigot, and ... well you see the point.

It is far easier to defined 'there is no evidence for your position' than to defend claims that are unsupported. The burden of proof is on a person making a positive claim, and the existence of anything is a positive claim. Personally, I don't worry about the conclusion so much as the train of thought and logic that the person is making .. and frankly, I find the methods for the positive claim to be highly lacking. I find that a certain percentage of people have chips on their shoulders.. and frankly, that is far more likely to be on the religious side of the equation than the skeptic.

So please Goat, feel free to stake out a position and defend it regarding atheists boy and his resignation, or the uptick of hypocritical demands that atheists are making from the military. Ban Chaplains but give us our own! The word faith offends us so get ride of it entirely! You allow people to pray and even have opening prayers, so block everyone else's expression to prevent me from being ... sillily offended. Your religion is like being force to watch gay sex!

I have. He is absolutely and totally. I will also say that you are combining different people's concepts who do not disagree.. and that is dishonest. There is a difference between having a Chaplin, and making mandatory prayer sessions. I noticed no one is 'forcing you to watch gay sex'.. or even stop praying, or believing. I bet you would object for sure if you had to go to an Islamic prayer session all the time though.

Or, you can feel free to discuss why an atheist screaming discrimination is NOT like the boy who cried wolf?

He was willing to pay the price of dropping out on this issue. It doesn't seem to me like that is crying wolf.

So, how about you let me make my arguments, as opposed to telling me what my arguments are going to be with your pejorative attempts to poison the well, and you can ... start making an actual argument in this this thread?

If however, you are simply looking to bait me so you can report me and drag in the moderators? Well, I would ask that you engage that superior intellect and actually make an argument that is something beyond, "All arguments against atheists are actually bigotry!"

Bait you?? It seems to me that your attitude and your claims bait yourself.

[stubbornone]

#1 - Atheists, as quoted above, are claiming that it is discriminatory, down right evil, that religions dislike, which isn't quite true, those who disagree with them.

Yet.. by your very attitude and actions, you are proving the the original claim is true, and not silly at all. Imagine that.

So, in other words, there is no need for atheists such as yourself to use logic, you simply have to attack the person?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... minem.html

Its called an ad hominem and is a well known logical fallacy - one I routinely seen used by atheists. If you do it again, directly attack me in such an uncivil manner goat, I am afraid that I am just going to have to report you.

The subject is atheist boy and his resignation, not the fact that I disgaree with it and why that automatically makes me ... evil.

Such is indeed the silliness of modern atheism and the fallacious claims that they term 'logical'.

Gosh, that seems to be exactly what you are doing.. As for the FSM, that was a satire piece when someone was trying to get the Christian version of creationism taught in public school.. and it took off. Your attitude to it shows that the way it got picked up as a meme hits the mark. The hostile attitude you are showing far exceeds the concept.

And yet, here we are disagreeing about atheist boy, and all you are doing is playing victim, correct? The FSM its just satire ... not mean spirited, and certainly not when drug out of the context you present and shoved down people's throats. But disagreeing that playing a serial victim because other people are allowed to pray, and screaming that prayer is unconstitutional is silly ... is actually bigotry?

Clearly there is no pattern of atheism just being to thin skinned to accept criticism, even as it dumps it every where else and calls it healthy skepticism?

We reject atheism, believing it is not correct - therefore we are bigots.

Atheists reject ... everything. Therefore they are smart?

And God forbid an atheist defend the later rather than just scream, "Help, Help I am a victim of oppression and persecution!"

perhaps it is not so much God, or the concept of God, but how believers promote their God.

Yes, but atheists are allowed to promote their atheism as a symbol of liberty and freedom. When Christians do it ... its terrible.

You are not given a right to be free from others people expressions. You are given the right to either tolerate those opinions, or walk away from them.

Hence, North Korea beckons ...

Being civil doesn't mean you have to accept ignorance, and prejudiced. You can even challenge ignorance and prejudice.. and be civil about it. Some people just react more hostile. As for the 'evil' thread, if you notice, I have not participated in it.

Being civil does require one not to think everyone who disgrees with him is an ignorant idiot. And the fact that you are among the first to report incivility toward atheism ... even as you excuse incivility toward Christians ...

Well, there is the problem.

Standards apply both ways goat, and as pointed out in the OP, atheists really seem to struggle with that concept.

It is far easier to defined 'there is no evidence for your position' than to defend claims that are unsupported. The burden of proof is on a person making a positive claim, and the existence of anything is a positive claim. Personally, I don't worry about the conclusion so much as the train of thought and logic that the person is making .. and frankly, I find the methods for the positive claim to be highly lacking. I find that a certain percentage of people have chips on their shoulders.. and frankly, that is far more likely to be on the religious side of the equation than the skeptic.

All thesis statement require support - its how evidence and logic works. That one is easier than the other doesn't mean the burden of logic simply goes away.

Indeed, it is very easy for you to support your thesis as relevant to this thread.

Atheist boy is right because ..... well, lets see a statement that actually backs that claim?

I have. He is absolutely and totally. I will also say that you are combining different people's concepts who do not disagree.. and that is dishonest. There is a difference between having a Chaplin, and making mandatory prayer sessions. I noticed no one is 'forcing you to watch gay sex'.. or even stop praying, or believing. I bet you would object for sure if you had to go to an Islamic prayer session all the time though.

He is ... because ... you are bigot. Because an atheist, one of your peers drug in gay sex and I rejected it ... therefore atheist boy is correct?

Well, if that is not a triumph of seren logic, than what is?

Are you going to report my sarcasm as ... uncivil? Or can you acknowledge that your statement is ... weak?

He was willing to pay the price of dropping out on this issue. It doesn't seem to me like that is crying wolf.

As I advocate he should in the OP. Guess what happens when Christians make dumb choices ... right its called consequences.

However, when a Christian is making a bad choice, Christians seem to have this mysterious power, apparently born only in religion, to reach out and counsel a brother or sister than they may be making a terrible mistake.

You are saying he is right, but not why, and then claiming he is willing to accept the consequences of his choice ... which somehow makes him ... right?

Again, the idea that anything an atheist does is right is silliness itself.

Bait you?? It seems to me that your attitude and your claims bait yourself.

It seems to me that your entire intent in this thread so far is one great big ad hominem, that castigating atheist boy as making a horribly stupid choice and smearing an honored institution with false allegations ... well, atheists cannot be wrong so it must be bigotry?

Yep, perhaps uncivil to call him a wanker.

So, beyond the cringing reporting ... wouldn't it be nice to see atheists screaming victim to actually demonstrate some knowledge of West Point, what happens there, and ACTUALLY make a case about the discrimination that takes place?

Nah ... that would require logic.

Full point to Danmark for at least attempting. The rest? We are victims but we are not? Well, have fun with that.

[Danmark]

What do atheists expect? When your entire religious view is based on deliberate inaccuracies of other people's faith, do you think they will simply sit there in indefinitely and take it?
....
a. Not a single atheists has acknowledged that atheist boys resignation is a bad idea. Not one. And we all know that resigning when challenged is a great way to overcome discrimination?

b. Instead, the atheist community appears to rally around his emotional plea. As yet, I cannot find an atheist who will actually describe the substance of what would drive a young atheists to feel this way - particularly when, in a martial sense, you blame us for everything martial, and yet here you are demanding we include you at the expense of our own freedom????

And how much fun is it for guys that remain in the military to have to deal with a small minority of our troops whose complaints appear to be beyond reason, and who readily resort to outside influence and interference? ....
... and the ease with which atheists, who continue to call us war mongers with one hand, turn around and scream discrimination with the other?

Atheists decrying religious symbolism that honors our war dead, are demanding their own war memorials ... to honor the atheists who have always been there right beside the warmongering religious people they hate and routinely deride?

Now you complain about Chaplains. And we see the same problem again.
....
Now what atheists would you do to help that Soldier? Would you give him every counselor you could find? If he was religious, would you invite his minister in to share and help? What would you take off the table to help that Soldier?

So when I see atheists, like the one from the OP and all his supporters on this site, who call the Army's attempts to align Soldiers and their religious faith without judgement ... discrimination? When I see them call Chaplains who help heel these thing a sign of bigotry and by gone stupidity? When I see atheists bristle at the idea that arming our Soldiers with knowledge of faith so that they can help the Soldiers like the one above?

I see the most selfish individuals I have ever come across.

And as stories like the OP stack up, as the laws suits, increasingly lost:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11 ... world-war/

Well atheists, at what point do you think organizations trying to include you as equals will simply write you off as never satisfied prima donna and know it alls?

The boy who cried wolf is a apt allegory for the atheist who screams discrimination.

I pointed out to you that it not only is against the rules to make blanket statements demeaning entire groups, it is inaccurate and unfair. Your response is to continue to make your broad statements sweeping ALL atheists with your demeaning stereotypes.

I gave you specific examples of chaplains I have met who serve well as chaplains who are atheists or agnostics despite their nominal affiliation with a particular faith, yet you continue to try to make all atheists fit into your unfair stereotypes. I'm having trouble making a distinction between your comments and those of a bigot.

I KNOW what I, as an atheist, would do when encountering some one like the suffering soldier you describe, without a thought to his religion, because I have done it. I have repeatedly done my best to help and comfort young people who have strong religious faith (or not). To me AND to most if not all atheists I know, the only response we have is to help and take no notice of a person's religious faith. Most of my clients who are suffering have religious faith, and it is my joy and privilege to be there for them and listen. And I don't do it because of some fancy altruism, but simply because it is the right thing to do and because I've learned that in doing so I help myself.

[Goat]

#1 - Atheists, as quoted above, are claiming that it is discriminatory, down right evil, that religions dislike, which isn't quite true, those who disagree with them.

Yet.. by your very attitude and actions, you are proving the the original claim is true, and not silly at all. Imagine that.

So, in other words, there is no need for atheists such as yourself to use logic, you simply have to attack the person?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... minem.html

Its called an ad hominem and is a well known logical fallacy - one I routinely seen used by atheists. If you do it again, directly attack me in such an uncivil manner goat, I am afraid that I am just going to have to report you.

Go ahead. Report me. However, if you don't want that attitude to show through, you can stop using such terms as 'whiny' and stop attacking atheists on the basis of being atheists..

The subject is atheist boy and his resignation, not the fact that I disgaree with it and why that automatically makes me ... evil.

What I am talking about in attitude is displayed by this post right here.. "atheist boy"??? I am going to assume you don't see how that is displaying a certain attitude? Language used means a lot.. and perhaps you should monitor the language use you. "Atheist boy", as terminology, is showing disrespect, and aggressive attitude. Disagreement is just fine.. but. .. well 'atheist boy??" That is unworthy.

Such is indeed the silliness of modern atheism and the fallacious claims that they term 'logical'.

And here is the 'poisoning of the well' that you were complaining about. 'Silliness'?? That is not only disrespectful.. but it has one big huge chip on the shoulder. Ads for 'fallacious claims".. that remains to be seen. 'Atheist boy" and 'Silliness of modern atheism' terminology is showing that discrimination and bigotry against atheists is a true concern. This entire op is showing that it is a true concern.

Gosh, that seems to be exactly what you are doing.. As for the FSM, that was a satire piece when someone was trying to get the Christian version of creationism taught in public school.. and it took off. Your attitude to it shows that the way it got picked up as a meme hits the mark. The hostile attitude you are showing far exceeds the concept.

And yet, here we are disagreeing about atheist boy, and all you are doing is playing victim, correct? The FSM its just satire ... not mean spirited, and certainly not when drug out of the context you present and shoved down people's throats. But disagreeing that playing a serial victim because other people are allowed to pray, and screaming that prayer is unconstitutional is silly ... is actually bigotry?

It's not 'other people are allowed to pray'. This is a straw man against what is being said. It is that 1) the prayers are mandatory and 2) it is giving evangelistic Christianity preference. Sorry.. that makes it unconstitutional... by promoting Evangelistic style Christianity. Of course, when someone thinks that they can't be given preference, they seem to cry discrimination.

Clearly there is no pattern of atheism just being to thin skinned to accept criticism, even as it dumps it every where else and calls it healthy skepticism?

Projection there? It seems to me that your entire thesis is 'thin skinned'.. for a lot less reason.

We reject atheism, believing it is not correct - therefore we are bigots.

Atheists reject ... everything. Therefore they are smart?

And, here is yet another straw man, that totally and absolutely misrepresents , just about everything.. and also paints with a huge brush. I suspect there might be some atheists that do that.. .. but I also suspect that the ones that do that are ex-Christians that have been vastly abused by their religious domination. The group of people I consider the 'angry atheist' are dominated by ex-Christians that came from fundamentalist backgrounds, rather than the more liberal forms of Christianity. The more liberal forms of Christainity have greater tolerance for other opinions, and do not evoke the anger from their ex-members.

And God forbid an atheist defend the later rather than just scream, "Help, Help I am a victim of oppression and persecution!"

Since there is no God, god won't forbid anything.. I see you are just saying "Shut up and go to the back of the bus" with this statement.

perhaps it is not so much God, or the concept of God, but how believers promote their God.

Yes, but atheists are allowed to promote their atheism as a symbol of liberty and freedom. When Christians do it ... its terrible.
[/quote]

Depends on the Christian.. and how they approach the subject. Some people can be more reasonable that others. and some people rant and have chips on their shoulder... and show tons of anger.

You are not given a right to be free from others people expressions. You are given the right to either tolerate those opinions, or walk away from them.

Hence, North Korea beckons ...

Yet, if I tried to reverse that statement, and told you to go to Saudi Arabia or Iran, a place there theocracies have control, you would get upset. there is a difference between allowing someone to have their own beliefs, and shoving them down others throats. It seems to me that some Christians get upset if they are not allowed to shove their beliefs down others throats.

Being civil doesn't mean you have to accept ignorance, and prejudiced. You can even challenge ignorance and prejudice.. and be civil about it. Some people just react more hostile. As for the 'evil' thread, if you notice, I have not participated in it.

Being civil does require one not to think everyone who disgrees with him is an ignorant idiot. And the fact that you are among the first to report incivility toward atheism ... even as you excuse incivility toward Christians ...

Absolutely.. on the other hand, if someone is totally and consistently misrepresenting opposing viewpoints, and demonizing them, it is good to point that out. As for incivility to Christians.... well.. how do you know what I excuse or do not excuse?? Are you a mind reader?

Well, there is the problem.

Standards apply both ways goat, and as pointed out in the OP, atheists really seem to struggle with that concept.

And the law applies to all. Supreme court rulings and specified that a religion can not be given preferential treatment by the government, and that is exactly what is happening..

[stubbornone]

What do atheists expect? When your entire religious view is based on deliberate inaccuracies of other people's faith, do you think they will simply sit there in indefinitely and take it?
....
a. Not a single atheists has acknowledged that atheist boys resignation is a bad idea. Not one. And we all know that resigning when challenged is a great way to overcome discrimination?

b. Instead, the atheist community appears to rally around his emotional plea. As yet, I cannot find an atheist who will actually describe the substance of what would drive a young atheists to feel this way - particularly when, in a martial sense, you blame us for everything martial, and yet here you are demanding we include you at the expense of our own freedom????

And how much fun is it for guys that remain in the military to have to deal with a small minority of our troops whose complaints appear to be beyond reason, and who readily resort to outside influence and interference? ....
... and the ease with which atheists, who continue to call us war mongers with one hand, turn around and scream discrimination with the other?

Atheists decrying religious symbolism that honors our war dead, are demanding their own war memorials ... to honor the atheists who have always been there right beside the warmongering religious people they hate and routinely deride?

Now you complain about Chaplains. And we see the same problem again.
....
Now what atheists would you do to help that Soldier? Would you give him every counselor you could find? If he was religious, would you invite his minister in to share and help? What would you take off the table to help that Soldier?

So when I see atheists, like the one from the OP and all his supporters on this site, who call the Army's attempts to align Soldiers and their religious faith without judgement ... discrimination? When I see them call Chaplains who help heel these thing a sign of bigotry and by gone stupidity? When I see atheists bristle at the idea that arming our Soldiers with knowledge of faith so that they can help the Soldiers like the one above?

I see the most selfish individuals I have ever come across.

And as stories like the OP stack up, as the laws suits, increasingly lost:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11 ... world-war/

Well atheists, at what point do you think organizations trying to include you as equals will simply write you off as never satisfied prima donna and know it alls?

The boy who cried wolf is a apt allegory for the atheist who screams discrimination.

I pointed out to you that it not only is against the rules to make blanket statements demeaning entire groups, it is inaccurate and unfair. Your response is to continue to make your broad statements sweeping ALL atheists with your demeaning stereotypes.

I gave you specific examples of chaplains I have met who serve well as chaplains who are atheists or agnostics despite their nominal affiliation with a particular faith, yet you continue to try to make all atheists fit into your unfair stereotypes. I'm having trouble making a distinction between your comments and those of a bigot.

I KNOW what I, as an atheist, would do when encountering some one like the suffering soldier you describe, without a thought to his religion, because I have done it. I have repeatedly done my best to help and comfort young people who have strong religious faith (or not). To me AND to most if not all atheists I know, the only response we have is to help and take no notice of a person's religious faith. Most of my clients who are suffering have religious faith, and it is my joy and privilege to be there for them and listen. And I don't do it because of some fancy altruism, but simply because it is the right thing to do and because I've learned that in doing so I help myself.

And do you know who is taking these actions, collectively, against the military?

Right, atheists.

Yet rather than explain these actions or distance yourself from them ... you have become another victim of discrimination? Its apparently to broad when being hit from multiple angles by atheist organizations, to use the term ... atheists? Even though the term 'Christian' or 'religious' is routinely used by atheists on this very forum? With ONLY one exception, the support of atheist boy has been effusive and without question, yet when using statistical generalization, except alive (who appears to be the only atheist with actual military service mind you), the correct term of, "Every atheist except alive on this forum," cannot be shortened to atheist because it makes ... er, atheists ... into victims?

Anything to complain and avoid the actual issue?

And now lets look.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=20911

Yep, THAT is clearly not an over generalization of religious doctrine, and clearly quite civil in tone as well.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=21775

Why is that OP not ... the real problem with SOME forms of Christianity? And where o where is the atheist aversion to generalization?

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=20717

And that one is just plane factually wrong. We know the Bible was written by ... the Apostles, Paul, and John of Patmos. Yet where are atheists, just like you, in condemning what is not just a generalization of Biblical authorship is a single non-contextual sentence, but factually wrong too boot - of great seekers of truth?

In short, rather than addressing the substance of the issue, you are, JUST LIKE THE ATHEIST IN THE OP, finding an excuse to be a victim, correct?

And finally Danmark, when you, and atheists in general (as easily proven all over this forum and off), are suing to block religious displays in our Soldiers, calling them discriminatory cretins, and actively supporting such things ... then you demonstrate that you have little to know understanding of spirituality or of the combat we ask our Soldiers to endure on our behalf.

It isn't exactly compassion or help when our Soldiers are looking for help and have atheists being compassionate by attempting to block their access to the religion and repeatedly attempt to rhubbish their faith (which you cannot disprove) and call them and their faith ignorant and totally devoid of merit. How the hell does that help anyone? How does that make ANY atheist compassionate rather than just plane mean?

Atheists would do very well to remember what certain of their pioneers did in making atheism acceptable. Nietzsche, for example, gave some very accurate criticism of the church in his time, and his criticisms were by in large accurate. Yet Nietzsche had two things that modern atheists seem to forget:

#1 - At no point does Nietzsche ever assume that in the debate ONLY his side has any merit.

#2 - In fact, Nietzsche greatly feared that atheists would do just that, find that there opponents were utterly without merit and become the embodiment of hubris itself. The atheism of Nietzsche was respectful disagreement, with his ire focused on legitimate issues and excesses within the church and genuine scientific skepticism to correct dogma.

Nietzsche, I believe, would have been made happy by seeing the modern efforts to wed religion and science - but I fear he would be greatly displeased to atheists turning exposure to religion into permanent victim status and the aggressive efforts to attack and block religion often blindly and without thought, consideration, or regard for consequence - its just a bandwagon of discontent.

But of course, there is no need to rebut that criticism, as all criticism of atheism is of course actually bigotry ... which of course, all criticism of religion, no matter how illogical or blindly propagandistic, is rationalism itself defined ... which is why we have yet another atheist playing the victim card (in a debate forum ... as atheists are VICTIMS that were forced to come into a clearly Christian debate forum and ... not defend their faith choice?) rather than actually debate?

Wait, I know, that is too general. In a debate, one side Christians must ALWAYS make every possible delineation. Atheists do not have to, nor indeed do they care at all when such generalizations, often merely for the sake of brevity, because atheism requires different standards of judgement?

When you use one standard to judge that faith, and other to judge YOUR faith, that is simple hypocrisy ... and the victim in that case is the one subjected to the double standard, not its author.

[stubbornone]

[

Go ahead. Report me. However, if you don't want that attitude to show through, you can stop using such terms as 'whiny' and stop attacking atheists on the basis of being atheists..

No reason to move beyond the first sentence.

When someone is resigning from West Point under false pretenses and smearing an entire institution with false allegations, it is apparently highly offensive to describe such behavior, especially when publically reaching out for others to justify your false allegations, as whiny?

And of course, any criticism of atheism is ..er, because they are atheists - which therefore means that you cannot criticize them?

They will sure as hell criticize every aspect of YOUR Christian life though. Of course, as a Christian, you are expected to defend your position rather than say, "stop attacking [Christians] on the basis of being [Christians]."

Not able to defend a position? No worries, just resort to ad hominem and claim the status of wounded victims.

Because clearly atheists having to defend their atheism ... er, in a religion forum ... makes them victims?

Seriously goat, if voluntary participation in a debate forum and having to actually make a case to defend your faith choice turns you into a victims ... well, as I said, there is a perfect little spot here on earth where they block ALL criticism of atheism.

North Korea beckons for you brother.

If however, you wish to partake - voluntarily mind you - in a debate forum where you criticize other peoples faith, you may want to man up and actually defend your own as well ... especially in a debate forum.

Shocking concept I know ...

[Danmark]

And do you know who is taking these actions, collectively, against the military?

Right, atheists.

Yet rather than explain these actions or distance yourself from them ... you have become another victim of discrimination?

I don't have to read any more of your countless words to reply. You ignore everything I wrote, so you can get back on your favorite horse, riding it into the ground. What is this obsession you have with insisting that all who do not believe in your god are members of the same club, organized to do you in? Blaming every atheist for the acts of one person who happens to be an atheist is first class bigotry.

I am affiliated with no one and speak as a free agent. Like most people, and I suppose most atheists, I have many interests and beliefs. One of them is certainly not to take collective action against the military, of which my son is a member. The only one here I hear crying "I'm a VICTIM!" is you.

[stubbornone]

And do you know who is taking these actions, collectively, against the military?

Right, atheists.

Yet rather than explain these actions or distance yourself from them ... you have become another victim of discrimination?

I don't have to read any more of your countless words to reply. You ignore everything I wrote, so you can get back on your favorite horse, riding it into the ground. What is this obsession you have with insisting that all who do not believe in your god are members of the same club, organized to do you in? Blaming every atheist for the acts of one person who happens to be an atheist is first class bigotry.

I am affiliated with no one and speak as a free agent. Like most people, and I suppose most atheists, I have many interests and beliefs. One of them is certainly not to take collective action against the military, of which my son is a member. The only one here I hear crying "I'm a VICTIM!" is you.

No Dan, you are simply dissembling.

You agree with atheist boy in the OP, and yet reject the consequences of following that action - reject entirely the reality WE, who do serve, have to deal with while atheists scream victim.

Indeed, is scientifically proven that faith helps healing, its particularly relevant to combat trauma ... but when we attempt to teach that lesson to our Soldiers and care for them ... right, atheists are not publically complaining about such bigotry?

Indeed, one atheist after another seems intent on calling disagreement with their law suits and resignations, including you Dan, as a form of oppression rather than disagreement.

So once again, another post with almost nothing to do with the OP, rather another series of bland accusations aimed at ... er, anyone who disagrees with atheism.

The theme is pretty clear, agree with atheism and anything it does, and you are a hero. Disagree with anything it does, and you are ... vile and disgusting?

Interesting.

I look forward to an actual argument from an atheist in this thread.

Bottom line atheists: you are not victims - so stop acting like one.

[Danmark]

I look forward to an actual argument from an atheist in this thread.

I suppose fleas look forward to arguments with dogs, but there is little in it for the dog.