The New Atheists Fight Back

Wired has recently published a long article, titled Battle of the New Atheism, about the inroads made by prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett and the attacks they have launched against faith. The article does not treat their views inaccurately or with malice, but nevertheless the author, Gary Wolf, seems scornful and dismissive of the idea that he or anyone else should actually pick a side in the debate. He begins and concludes his essay in much the same tone:

This is the challenge posed by the New Atheists. We are called upon, we lax agnostics, we noncommittal nonbelievers, we vague deists who would be embarrassed to defend antique absurdities like the Virgin Birth or the notion that Mary rose into heaven without dying, or any other blatant myth; we are called out, we fence-sitters, and told to help exorcise this debilitating curse: the curse of faith.

Where does this leave us, we who have been called upon to join this uncompromising war against faith? What shall we do, we potential enlistees? Myself, I’ve decided to refuse the call. The irony of the New Atheism — this prophetic attack on prophecy, this extremism in opposition to extremism — is too much for me.

Wolf’s principal objection, apparently, is that the “New Atheists” are attacking not just the evil done by fundamentalists, but the faith of all religious believers. The point as made by Sam Harris and others is that religious moderates, though they do not do any direct harm, do indirect harm by teaching and contributing to an atmosphere where faith alone is an acceptable standard for decision-making and where it is considered impolite to criticize the beliefs of others. Both of these teachings make possible the more toxic brands of fundamentalism that pose a danger to all civilized people. Wolf seems offended by this argument and considers it to be misguided:

The New Atheists never propose realistic solutions to the damage religion can cause. For instance, the Catholic Church opposes condom use, which makes it complicit in the spread of AIDS. But among the most powerful voices against this tragic mistake are liberals within the Church — exactly those allies the New Atheists reject.

Wolf’s suggestion is that, rather than opposing liberal Catholics, atheists should support their efforts. The problem with this is that the liberals have no voice in the Catholic church. The church is not a democracy, and its members cannot vote on which course of action they think best. It is an oligarchy, run by a small group of conservative men who choose their own successors. If a lay believer disagrees with the politics of the Catholic church, they have only two options: either suck it up and remain in the church, continuing to obey and support a faith whose moral injunctions they do not accept, or leave. People who will do neither are usually silenced or expelled. And other established churches are the same: the only effective way to oppose them is by disassociating from them entirely, cutting off the flow of their support. This is exactly what Dawkins, Harris and others are proposing, and this is what Wolf does not seem to grasp. What is his preferred alternative? Remain in the churches and denounce their harmful social policies while continuing to contribute the money and support that permits them to continue those policies?

For the record, we atheists do propose a realistic solution to the harm done by religion: we propose that people should stop being religious and embrace reason and conscience, not superstition and dogma, as the guides to our lives. Wolf apparently thinks this is unrealistic, but I do not. Other once widely held beliefs, such as racism and sexism, have withered within the space of a single lifetime. Perhaps religion is different, but we will never know until we try – until we provoke a widespread and vigorous debate over the merits of theism and see what the results will be.

(“The entire thrust of my position is that Christian theology is a nonsubject,” Dawkins has written. “Vacuous. Devoid of coherence or content.”) On the contrary, I find the best of these books to be brilliant, detailed, self-assured. I learn about kenosis, the deliberate decision of God not to disturb the natural order. I learn about panentheism, which says God is both the world and more than the world, and about emergentist theology, which holds that a God might have evolved. There are deep passages surveying theories of knowledge, glossing Kant, Schelling and Spinoza… It is all admirable and stimulating and lacks only the real help anybody in my position would need: reasons to believe that specific religious ideas are true.

Contradicting himself within a single paragraph, Wolf first rejects Dawkins’ assertion that theology is a vacuous subject, then agrees with it. As Wolf discovers for himself, despite all of theology’s byzantine and imaginative complexity, it lacks the most fundamental and important thing: reasons to believe that any of it is true. This is exactly what Dawkins is saying: it is a nonsubject, devoid of content. For all the artful effort and imagination that has gone into it, theology consists of castles in the air, built on nothing substantial. How can one possibly study in a field that possesses no solid evidence for the very object of its study?

The New Atheists have castigated fundamentalism and branded even the mildest religious liberals as enablers of a vengeful mob… But, so far, their provocation has failed to take hold. Given all the religious trauma in the world, I take this as good news. Even those of us who sympathize intellectually have good reasons to wish that the New Atheists continue to seem absurd. If we reject their polemics, if we continue to have respectful conversations even about things we find ridiculous, this doesn’t necessarily mean we’ve lost our convictions or our sanity.

But those “respectful conversations” are the very thing that Wolf’s subjects are calling for! We want there to be a free, open and healthy debate about whether or not we should believe. This is the very thing that is currently lacking in society’s discourse. Again, Wolf castigates today’s atheists for making a certain point and then goes on to agree with that point. Unless, that is, he meant something different by “respectful”, such as that any discussion of religion should not upset or anger people who believe in that religion. But if that is our standard, there will be no discussion of religion, because there are a great many members of every faith who view any doubt or disbelief whatsoever of their faith as the gravest of crimes. That definition of “respect” would lead to mutual silence, not debate, and again, this is the very standard that prevails in most parts of the world today and that atheists like Dawkins and Harris want to see changed.

My pilgrimage is about to become more difficult. On the one hand, it is obvious that the political prospects of the New Atheism are slight. People see a contradiction in its tone of certainty. Contemptuous of the faith of others, its proponents never doubt their own belief. They are fundamentalists.

It is a sure bet that any atheist confident enough about their own position to defend it in public will immediately be labeled as “no better than a religious fundamentalist”, and this predictable and tired line of attack is the one Wolf next turns to. His logic would entail that we should never claim to know or believe anything, that we should always remain too skeptical of our own beliefs to take any action because of them. Needless to say, if doing so is fundamentalism, then the alternative to fundamentalism is catatonia.

If the obvious needs to be said: Yes, any of us might be wrong about what we believe – even atheists. We should always keep that in mind, and not allow excessive confidence to become arrogance and dogmatism. On the other hand, however, we should proportion our doubts to the evidence, and not doubt just for the sake of doubting. When there is evidence indicating that atheism is false – and Wolf has already admitted that he knows of none – then I will doubt atheism, but not until then. Becoming dogmatic is a danger to watch for, but the excessive dogmatism we should be wary of is the one that gives us such confidence in our own beliefs that we attempt to impose them on others by force. That is what religious fundamentalists do, all the time. That is not what atheists do, however. Wolf denounces the New Atheists as “fundamentalists” not because they have any desire to force their views on others, but merely because they have any views at all.

The equation of atheists with religious fundamentalists is an appalling insult. Over the centuries, religious fundamentalists have waged wars and bloody crusades in the name of their beliefs, have tortured and executed countless innocent people in the name of their beliefs, have created violent and dictatorial theocracies in the name of their beliefs, have waged savage and barbaric acts of terrorism in the name of their beliefs. And what is the crime atheists have committed, that we are compared to them so casually? Apparently, it is saying mean things about the beliefs that have led to such horrifying atrocities. When Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris start setting up inquisitions in the countryside or persuading their followers to chop off the heads of their opponents, then I will admit Wolf’s point. Until then, his glib comparison of atheists to fundamentalists is just another variation of the “pox on both your houses” fallacy frequently committed by those who refuse to support either side of a debate just so they can fancy themselves intellectually superior to both. (That stings, doesn’t it, Mr. Wolf? Perhaps now you understand how atheists feel when we see those same accusations of condescension directed against us in your writing.)

Another section of the article suggests what Wolf’s true concern is:

Were I to declare myself an atheist, what would this mean? Would my life have to change? Would it become my moral obligation to be uncompromising toward fence-sitting friends? That person at dinner, pissing people off with his arrogance, his disrespect, his intellectual scorn — would that be me?

…As one [of Wolf's friends] said, “Atheism is like telling somebody, ‘The very thing you hinge your life on, I totally dismiss.’”

This seems to be the real basis for Wolf’s objection to the works of Dawkins, Harris and Dennett. It is not that he disagrees with their position, but that he fears he would become unpopular if he were to advocate it in public as they do. (Nevertheless, he already agrees with them to a greater extent than he apparently realizes. As previously cited, at the beginning of this article he called the virgin birth of Jesus a “blatant myth” and “antique absurdity”. This idea is still believed literally and taken very seriously by probably in excess of a billion people around the world, most of whom would be extremely offended by his cavalier dismissal of it.)

Despite that exception, this is the first point of legitimate concern I think he raises. It is a good thing that he does not want to be rude or arrogant, and admittedly, some atheist individuals and groups have not been good examples of what an atheist should aspire to be.

On the other hand, the time for polite silence, if there ever was one, is long past. In recent times, religious beliefs have wrought horrendous evil in this world, and they are continuing to do so. Islamic regimes that openly teach the heroism of suicide bombing and praise their terrorist martyrs to the skies are now in pursuit of nuclear weapons. Christian theocrats who welcome the apocalypse and the annihilation of humanity as a consummation devoutly to be wished are now in power in the United States, and are making policy decisions based on those beliefs. India and Pakistan, nuclear neighbors, are divided by conflicting faiths in whose name much blood has already been spilled. Adulterers and apostates are already subject to stoning, beheading and other barbarities in numerous countries under sharia law. Reason and liberty are under siege worldwide, and there can no longer be any excuse for remaining passive, silent, quiescent. Either we care about our ideals and are willing to defend them, or we are not. The passionate advocacy that Wolf so deplores is our only hope for this crisis; the fanatics who menace us are not going to go away if only we are sufficiently respectful of their beliefs.

I will not apologize for my convictions. These are things that need to be said, regardless of how popular they are. But what Wolf has not realized is that, if he does not wish to be branded an arrogant atheist, then he does not need to be arrogant. We can, and should, express our position with force and passion without personally attacking people who believe otherwise or labeling ourselves superior to them. We can and should criticize faith without implying that all believers are the moral equivalent of the Taliban. And we can and should respect other people’s right to hold certain beliefs while making plain the reasons for our disagreement. If you do not want to be that person at dinner, Mr. Wolf, then do not be him, but that does not forbid you either to be an atheist or to speak out about it.

Constitutional Crisis in Alabama?
Weekend Coffee: March 28
You Got Your Ideology in My Atheism!
Why Atheism Is a Force for Good
About Adam Lee

Adam Lee is an atheist writer and speaker living in New York City. His new novel, City of Light, is available in paperback and e-book. Read his full bio, or follow him on Twitter.

  • Freeyourmind

    You know it’s funny, I read this very article today because it was linked on Fark. I definitely enjoyed reading you break down his cowardly comments. How many times are people going to sit in the middle of this debate and try to play both sides? It doesn’t accomplish anything but demonstrate their own mental weakness.

    Dawkins is absolutely correct; Christian theology is a non-subject.

  • Padishah

    Whilst I agree with much of this, I am disappointed that Dawkins dismisses theology as a ‘non subject’. Can people not see the use of abstract reasoning and logic?

    How can one possibly study in a field that possesses no solid evidence for the very object of its study?

    Such as mathematics for instance?

  • Chad

    Whilst I agree with much of this, I am disappointed that Dawkins dismisses theology as a ‘non subject’. Can people not see the use of abstract reasoning and logic?

    Relevance, please? Unless you think of gods as abstractions of physical objects and processes, in which case I’d very much like to know how you do that.

    How can one possibly study in a field that possesses no solid evidence for the very object of its study?

    Such as mathematics for instance?

    If the objects and techniques of mathematics were not real, as psychological constructions at the very least, science as we know it would not exist. Do you know of any fields which rely upon theology in this manner, besides theology itself? If not, I don’t think you have a valid parallel.

  • Secular Planet

    Excellent entry. I enjoyed reading it.

  • Todd Sayre

    “The very thing you hinge your life on, I totally dismiss.”

    Every Jew says that to every Christian. Every Christian says that to every Muslim. Every Muslim says that to every Hindu. etc. Just about every major religion says that to every other religion.

    Take all the evidence Chrisitans have that says every religion other than Christianity is false and all the evidence any other religion has that says Christianity is false and there you have all the evidence you need for atheism. And none of it even has to come from a bloody atheist!

  • Freeyourmind

    Haha well put Todd.

  • Andreas

    I’d say this is one of your best posts so far. Why, oh why, should atheists be the only ones to sit down and shut up?!

  • Anthony

    Whilst rigorously logical theology would seem to inherently possess value insofar as it might be viewed as an exercise of reasoning within an axiomatic system (which I claim holds at least some value regardless of connection or lack thereof with reality), one might still viably view it as a ‘non-subject’ otherwise insofar as it’d result from an arbitrary set of assumptions unrelated to anything substantive and lacking predictive or descriptive ability.

  • Alison

    After reading everything I could get my hands on about atheism, checking out books, blogs, even YouTube, I have to say that the most arrogant thing about most atheists is their gosh-darned insistence on PROOF! The NERVE of them, insisting that something must be actually true to be called true. I have seen a few angry atheists, but not too many of them were that way without provocation. The most nasty, threatening, terroristic, in-your-face arguments for a religious philosophy always seemed to come from Christians. Good folks who learned their morality from the Bible. I look at it like this – if you had to have major surgery, you’d want the surgeon who said “this is what we’re going to do because it’s been proven effective in nearly every case, and I’ve never lost a patient because I’ve done this and seen it works over and over.” That’s your atheist. You’d never go to a surgeon who said that if you had the support and prayers of friends and family and deep faith in your healing ability, he’d go ahead, open you up and see what happens. That’s your theist. The “arrogance” comes from certainty derived from evidence and proof. And there’s the rub – the strongly religious have just as much arrogance, but they have no concrete proof, so it’s frustrating to keep on having to argue in favor of something against people who have more evidence than you do. Religion depends a lot on fear, and what could be more fearful than losing faith when you’ve been brought up to believe that means horrible punishment?

  • Infophile

    Whilst I agree with much of this, I am disappointed that Dawkins dismisses theology as a ‘non subject’. Can people not see the use of abstract reasoning and logic?

    How can one possibly study in a field that possesses no solid evidence for the very object of its study?

    Such as mathematics for instance?

    Here’s the difference: Mathematics is a tool. A tool that exists only in concept, but a tool nonetheless. There are other such conceptual tools as well, such as Logic (with its own different brands) and the Scientific Method. The goal of all these tools is to assist in fields of study that are more empirical. These empirical fields include almost all sciences, and study things that we have evidence exist in the universe. Once we’ve gathered that information, its passed on to fields such as Engineering, which look for ways to apply that knowledge to improve life.

    Now, let’s look at Theology. The primary tool it uses is faith, which comes with a ton of drawbacks, and leads to contradictions all over the place. It then uses faith to study that which it has no reason to believe exists, coming up with new data through faith alone. It then uses this data to prescribe laws for people to follow, hoping that it will improve an afterlife or spiritual life that again, it has no reason to believe exists.

    When you look at it like this, Theology is like a cruel mockery of the Math->Science->Engineering process. The latter looks at what we know exists, and uses it to improve our lives in noticeable ways. The former, on ther other hand, takes that which we don’t know exists, and claims to use it to improve our lives in completely unnoticeable ways.

    Now, if religions would just admit their texts were fictional, then we could give them a more appropriate analysis. As it is, people analyze them as if they’re completely true, which leads to no good. If we took a book like the Bible, and treated in the same manner as Lord of the Flies, we could make it a lot more useful.

  • lpetrich

    To call theology a non-subject is a bit excessive; I’d prefer calling it the study of fictional entities, the study of a fantasy world.

    Which is what believers in one religion say about the theologies of other religions. Protestants believe that the Catholic theology of saints is pure fiction, non-Muslims believe that the Muslim theology of the joys of Paradise is pure fiction, etc.

  • Freeyourmind

    Well that’s why he says it’s a non-subject. There’s nothing that can be proven and therefore it IS a fantasy in the realm of science. Hence, a non-subject.

    To follow your point, I could technically study how golden unicorns mate. But technically speaking, it’s a non-subject.

  • Christopher

    Theist #1: My god is better than yours.

    Theist #2: Well, my god is better than yours!

    Theist #1: Proove it!

    Theist #2: My holy book says right here that (insert chapter/verse here…) my god created the world with (insert common substance here…). Can your god do that?

    Theist #1: Well, my holy book says that (insert chapter/verse here…) my god will uterly destroy all other gods and everyone that follows them. Your god can’t stop him.

    Theist #2: My god said here (insert chapter/verse here…) all other gods will bow down and hail him as lord! Your god will be one of them!

    Theist #1: Nuh-uh!

    Theist #2: Uh-huh!

    (repeat ad naseum)

    This is the core of theology: arguments about hypothetical entities without any proof more solid then “I have more/better scriptures than you.” It reminds me of that old dog food jingle: “My dog’s better because he get Kennel-Ration! My dog’s better than yours!”

  • samskeptic

    I think I understand what Dawkins is trying to get at with the whole “theology is a non-subject” statement, but I would worry that people might use that to surmise that one cannot learn anything interesting from studying theological works. Indeed, I think that some interesting philosophical problems like free will, distinctions between essence and substance, meaning of the terms “infinite” and “eternal”, the nature of time, etc are discussed in interesting ways in theological texts. A person’s theological position will influence how they answer those questions, but watching their process of reasoning is interesting and informative nonetheless.

  • Anthony

    Why is theology any more of a non-subject than, say, literary analysis (which insofar as the Abrahamic religions, minimally, derive much of their creed from fictional texts, it can amount to)? I haven’t read this book, but at least one volume purports to approach what might be called theology in this manner.

  • Todd Sayre

    “I would worry that people might use that to surmise that one cannot learn anything interesting from studying theological works”

    Spider-Man teaches that “with great power comes great responsibility”. I think most people can simultaneously recognize the value in that lesson and that Spider-Man is a fictional character. How people define and understand concepts like “power” and “responsibility” are a valid area of study. I’m sure differing interpretations say alot about different people and their culture. But all of that is separate from the question of whether or not Spider-Man is real. I don’t they’re trying to devalue the questions, they’re wanting people to answer them without appealing to fairy tales. Dawkins, for example, really does want an answer as to where Jesus’ Y Chromosome came from.

    I think there is far more to fear from people taking theological works too seriously than not seriously enough. As Sam Harris points out, it isn’t religious moderates flying planes into buildings.

  • Padishah

    Infophile [and many others in like vein]:

    The primary tool it uses is faith, which comes with a ton of drawbacks, and leads to contradictions all over the place. It then uses faith to study that which it has no reason to believe exists, coming up with new data through faith alone.

    I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of theology. Thelogy, at least as taught at reputable universities, is a serious academic discipline encompassing the study of peoples belief system and religious behaviour, philosophy, ethics and logic. It is not a matter of indoctrination, or of making things up on the spot, and it certainly does not involve faith.

  • Todd Sayre

    Theology, as I understand it, includes topics ranging from the more philosophical or ethical question of the problem of evil to the more scientific or historical claim of the assumption of Mary. It seems to mean both the study of religions and their effects on societies and the collection of beliefs, stories and practices that constitute a particular religion. The Internets seem to back me up on that. Bearing all that in mind, it does seem to be a good target for equivocation.

  • Explicit Atheist

    samskeptic | October 25, 2006 wrote “I think I understand what Dawkins is trying to get at with the whole “theology is a non-subject” statement, but I would worry that people might use that to surmise that one cannot learn anything interesting from studying theological works. Indeed, I think that some interesting philosophical problems like free will, distinctions between essence and substance, meaning of the terms “infinite” and “eternal”, the nature of time, etc are discussed in interesting ways in theological texts. A person’s theological position will influence how they answer those questions, but watching their process of reasoning is interesting and informative nonetheless.”

    But all of those examples are secular science or philosophy topics and the point here is that the influnece of “theological position” adds nothing of substance to those discussions.

  • Ebonmuse

    Some thoughts for people who take issue with the characterization of theology as a non-subject.

    Mathematics has what theology lacks: a demonstrable connection to the real world. Mathematical constructs, when applied properly, can help us gain insight and understanding into the way the world works. The same cannot be said for theology. As far as literary analysis, I think this is somewhat beside the point. One can study any book (including the Bible or the Qur’an) as a book, and thereby gain knowledge into the mindset and social conditions of its authors. But theology is not about this – theology is the field of study concerned with arguments about the nature and beliefs of God. The books which we study definitely exist, as did their authors. They were objects in the real world. But theology, again, has yet to show any similar connection to reality. It is a subject of study based on no evidence, and that is why Dawkins dismisses it, I think rightly, as a non-subject.

    But all of those examples are secular science or philosophy topics and the point here is that the influnece of “theological position” adds nothing of substance to those discussions.

    Explicit Atheist makes a good point, one which Dawkins touches on as well: Anyone can study ethics or philosophy and draw their own conclusions. Theologians are often considered to be experts in those areas, but that notwithstanding, there is no obvious reason to believe they are any more qualified to discuss them than anyone else. Dawkins’ humorous example (in The God Delusion) is about a scientist who says that science can take us back to the Big Bang, but before that is the province of the theologians. Why the theologians, Dawkins asks – why not the cook or the gardener?

  • Alex Weaver

    I think the cook or gardener are better choices, actually. The universe at that point must have been “sizzling hot (due to the high energy density, unless I’ve been learning too much from high school textbooks again), and it certainly “grew,” whereas I’m not really sure what theologians even deal with that would be applicable…

  • John A. Johnson

    When I read Wolf’s article a couple of days ago, I immediately had some of the same objections that are expressed so eloquently in The New Atheists Fight Back. But I don’t think I could have written anything close to The New Atheists Fight Back if I devoted full attention to it for a week. It is a brilliant tour de force. Its incisive, cogent logic is a thing of beauty. It completely exposes all of the flaws in Wolf’s thinking, some of which had not quite occurred to me. This piece is the most pleasurable bit of reading I’ve done since–well, since The God Delusion and Letters to A Christian Nation.

  • Roonie

    I’m an Atheist of Germany. Because there is now a lot of Censorship i have my say here

    Warum darf man die Kirchen nicht mehr kritisieren
    Kirchen die grauenhafteste Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit begangen haben und immer noch begehen. In christlichen Erziehungsheimen und heute in den (angeblich) säkularen Erziehungsheimen, wo Kinder gefoltert wurden und werden um sie zu brechen damit man ihnen den widernatürlichen Wahn, die korrupte Ersatzwelt, das mystische Empfinden eintrichtern kann.
    Grauenhafteste Verbrechen der Kirche und Lügen ohne Ende.
    Die Kirche die zu Genoziden aufgehetzt hat, die systematisch ganze Völker mit vernichtet hat. Die schlimmsten Massenmörder, inklusive Stalin (Priesterseminar in Tbilsi) und Hitler Benediktinerstift), wurden christlich erzogen.
    In christlichen Erziehungsheime wurden noch im 20. Jahrhundert grauenhaft gezüchtigt und gefoltert und immer wieder auch sexuell missbraucht von Frauen und von Männern die ihrerseits aber verheiratet waren, also kann es nicht das Zölibat gewesen sein!!!!
    Es war die christliche Sexualmoral die sie selbst zu solchen Verbrechern hat werden lassen, diese wurden bis heute nicht bestraft, die Opfer wurden und werden von den christlichen Staatsmännern (demokratisch gewählt!!!!!!!!!) eingeschüchtert und auch von der Kirche. Man droht ihnen dass, wenn sie nicht still halten, sie in psychiatrische Kliniken eingewiesen werden und entmündigt werden.
    Die Kinderschänder der Kirche leben heute zum Teil im Vatikan.
    Nach einer BBC Sendung vom Oktober 2006
    Die Kirche wehrt sich mit allen Mitteln wo immer Aufklärung stattfindet.
    Gleichzeitig ist die Kirche gegen jede Form von Sexualaufklärung!! Warum bloss?
    Menschen die sexuell frei und gesund sind haben weder Mystizismus nötig, noch sonst irgendeine Verbrecher Korruption gegen den Geist. Kinder, die über Sexualität aufgeklärt sind und sich nicht ob dem Körper schämen, haben weder die künstliche mystische Ersatzwelt nötig, noch sind sie autoritätssüchtig oder obrigkeitshörig.
    Solche Kinder sind von der heutigen machthabenden Verbrecherbande nicht zu gebrauchen.
    Hirnlos rumjammern, mitleiden, Fernsehschauen und glauben, das ist die Aufgabe der Masse.
    Und jedes Mal wenn etwas geschieht stärkt man die Seite der repressiven Unterdrücker der Christ- Faschisten. Und es passiert immer mehr.
    Nahmen in den 80- 90er Jahren sexuelle Gewalt ab unter einer liberalen Gesetzgebung, so nimmt heute die sexuelle Gewalt unter mehr Repression und Sexhysterie zu!!
    Das ist Absicht.
    Je elender es den Massen geht, je mehr Gewalt und Wahn es gibt, desto stärker strömen die Massen hin zu einem heilsversprechenden Wahn und stärken den Wahn, den Mystizismus und die Korruption, die immer mehr Rechte bekommt und immer schlechter kontrollierbar ist. Da die Leute sofort religiöse Gefühle haben, „die verletzt werden“, darf es keine Kritik mehr geben, höchstens lächerliche, nichtsaussagende Kritik, wo sich die Massen belustigen können und in Wirklichkeit sich die christliche Obrigkeit eins lacht. Aber es sind künstlich anerzogene Gefühle, die anstatt der natürlichen Sexualität in den Körper gezwungen werden!!!! Mit systematischem Zärtlichkeitsentzug in der frühesten Kindheit, und mit totalem ausseinanderhalten von Mädchen und Jungen bis sie Jugendlich sind.
    Die Zwängereien der Pädagogen, der „Ideal Erziehung“ der Moral führen erst zu Gewalt und sexueller Gewalt. Kleinkinder und Kinder können sich gegen die an ihnen begangene Geistes Korruption und Geistesschändung nicht wehren.

    Hitler arbeitete zusammen mit der Kirche, Hitler wurde von der katholischen Kirche massiv gestützt. Der Kammerherr des Papstes war auch zeitweilig Hitlers stellvertretender Parteichef: „von Papen“.
    Hitler schloss den ersten Staatsvertrag mit dem Vatikan, das Reichskonkordat von 1933.
    Hitler wurde von den katholischen Richtern und Politikern geschützt und gestützt.
    Konfessionslose, weltlich denkende Menschen wurden zahlreich von den Nazis umgebracht. Kirchentreue Vasallen keineswegs.
    Konrad Adenauer war zurzeit von Hitler, Bürgermeister von Köln und unterstützte die Kirche wo er nur konnte und gratulierte dem Mussolini bei seiner Machtübernahme in Italien die von der Kirche gestützt war und vor Hitler stattfand. Pavelic und Franco waren beide Freunde der katholischen Kirche!! Alle rechtsgerichteten Diktatoren waren sehr der Kirche angetan. Ngo- Diem wurde in einem katholischen Kloster ausgebildet und war Laienbruder der katholischen Kirche und baute in Südvietnam Konzentrationslager auf.
    Sein Bruder der Erzbischof von Hue unterstütze ihn bei all den Verbrechen.

    Die Inquisition, die Reconquista, die Conquista, die Kreuzzüge, die Heidenvernichtung waren Verbrechen die nur von den Kirchen begangen wurden, von niemandem sonst.
    Die systematische Vernichtung aller Kulturen ausser der christlichen und islamischen war und ist christliches Ziel.
    Würden die Christen auch nur ein Wort über das Tibet verlieren wenn sie dort die Tibeter umgebracht hätten??
    Wo auch immer die Kirchen Verbrechen begangen haben leugnen sie diese und mit ihnen die christgläubigen Journalisten, Redakteure und Medienschaffende und Honoritäten. Was sind das für Menschen?? Verbrecher sinds und weitere Verbrechen ermöglichen sie!!!! Gleichzeitig schämen sich diese nicht auf andere zu zeigen und diese irgendwelchen Verbrechen zu beschuldigen, selbst wenn sie welche erfinden müssen!!!!
    Heute kommt der Mystizismus wieder auf, wird von allen Seiten gefördert, gleichzeitig findet eine ununterbrochene Hetzkampagne gegen alles Sexuell- Lustbejahende statt.
    Das schweizer Fernsehen macht ununterbrochen mystische Werbung zeigt mystische Filme und Serien und christliche Horrorfilme um die Jugend und die Erwachsenen so richtig zu bearbeiten!!
    Gleichzeitig hetzt das Fernsehen ununterbrochen gegen alles Sexuelle. Gegen die Jugendliche Sexualität. Die Kindliche Sexualität wird verleugnet und wo sie doch vorkommt sperrt man die Kinder ein, „zu ihrem Schutze“. Aus diesen „geschützten“ Kinder werden später Gewalttäter und Autoritätssüchtige.
    Vergewaltiger und Kinderschänder kommen immer aus sexuell repressiven Elternhäusern, dies ist wissenschaftlich bewiesen, meist entstammen sie aus einem religiösen Elternhaus.

    Welche Verbrechen wurden auf diesem Planeten nicht von Christen begangen?? Wenige sinds.
    Warum darf man die Kirchen also nicht mehr kritisieren. Weil sie es nicht ertragen und weil sie an der Macht sind.
    Verbrecher an der Macht hören nicht gerne, dass sie Verbrecher sind.
    Die Christen sind Lügner und Verbrecher. Wie lange noch wird dieses Dreckspack an der Macht geduldet.
    Auf welchem Kontinenten haben die Christen keine Verbrechen begangen?? Auf allen Kontinenten haben die Christen Verbrechen begangen.
    Der Wurm der Sünde ist das einzige Gewissen des Christen und es verhindert, dass der Mensch ein natürliches Gewissen entwickeln kann. Der Wurm der Sünde nährt sich von den, durch die mystische Moral kriminell gemachten, sexuellen Taten des Kindes und Jugendlichen bis er genug gross ist um auch Mord und Raub zu begehen. Raub auf ganzen Kontinenten. Mord an Millionen von Menschen!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Das gleiche Gewissen hat der christliche Lügenhistoriker und Politiker.
    Ein widernatürliches Gewissen, das zuerst die Natur des Menschen korrumpiert um ihm dann die obrigkeitliche geistliche Korruption anzugewöhnen.

    Übrigens zu Kirche und Krieg
    Die Kirche war nie gegen Krieg, sie wollte den Krieg, förderte den Krieg.
    Ein kleiner Krieg, ein grosses Geschäft.
    Und zur Predig: Die Predigt stimmte noch nie mit den wahren Absichten der Kirchen überein. Aber es tönt schön.
    Die Kirche ist wohl die einzige Institution die nicht an ihren Taten gemessen sondern an ihrer Predigt gemessen wird.

    Immer mehr wird im interesse von Kirche und Saat verboten, das muss aufhören.
    Atheiten vereinigt euch und kämpft.

    Freiheit, Gleichheit, Brüderlichkeit
    Erkenntnis der Realität

  • Infophile

    Here’s a quick Altavista on Roonie’s comment, for those who don’t speak German. Sorry for the Giant Block of Text problem; Altavista doesn’t preserve line breaks for some stupid reason.

    Why one may not criticize the churches any longer churches the grauenhafteste crimes against the humanity to have committed and still commit. In Christian educating homes and today in (allegedly) saekularen educating homes, where children were tortured and around it thereby one will break the against-natural illusion, the corrupt spare world, which knows mystische feeling in funnels to them. Grauenhafteste crime of the church and lies without end. The church instigated to Genoziden, which destroyed systematically whole peoples with. The worst mass murderers, inclusive Stalin (seminar for priests in Tbilsi) and Hitler Benediktinerstift), were educated like a Christian. Into Christian educating homes 20 still became in. Century greyful punished and tortured and again and again also sexually abused by women and by men those for their part however married were, therefore it cannot have been the Zoelibat!!!! It was the Christian Sexualmoral it to such criminals become let, these until today was not punished, the victims became and to become from the Christian statesmen (democratically selected!!!!!!!!!) intimidated and also of the church. One threatens them the fact that, if they keep, are instructed them not quiet into psychiatric hospitals and is incapacitated. The child violaters of the church live today partially in the Vatikan. After a BBC transmission from October 2006 the church resists with all means where always clearing-up takes place. The church is simultaneous against each form of Sexualaufklaerung!! Why only? Humans those sexually free and healthy are have neither Mystizismus necessarily, nor otherwise any criminals corruption against the spirit. Children, who are enlightened for the body over sexualitaet and are not ashamed whether, have neither the artificial mystische spare world necessarily, nor is them authority-addicted or obrigkeitshoerig. Such children are not to be used by the today’s make-having criminal organization. Brain lot rumjammern, television looking and believes, that is the task of the mass along-suffers. And each mark if somewhat happens strengthens one the side of the repressive eliminators of the Christian fascists. And it passes ever more. Took legislation off in the 80 90′s sexual force under a liberal, then today the sexual force under more repression and Sexhysterie increases!! That is intention. The more miserablly it the masses goes, the more force and illusion it gives, the more strongly flows the masses to a welfare-promising illusion and strengthens the illusion, the Mystizismus and the corruption, which get ever more rights and are ever more badly controllable. Since the people have immediately religious feelings, “to be hurt”, there may be no more criticism, at the most ridiculous, nothing-stating criticism, where the masses can amuse themselves and in reality the Christian authority one laugh themselves. But there is artificially instilled feelings, those instead of the natural sexualitaet into the body to be forced!!!! With systematic tenderness withdrawal in the earliest childhood, and with total outer-each other-hold from girls and boys to them young persons are. The Zwaengereien of the paedagogues, the “ideals education” of the moral leads only to force and sexual force. Infants and children cannot resist at them the committed of spirit corruption and spirit violating. Hitler worked together with the church, Hitler by the catholic church substantial was supported. The chamber gentleman of the Pope was also temporarily a Hitler’s deputy party chief: “of Papen”. Hitler closed the first convention with the Vatikan, the realm concordat of 1933. Hitler was protected and supported by the catholic judges and politicians. Denomination lots, laily thinking humans were killed numerously by the Nazis. Church loyalty Vasallen by no means. Konrad Adenauer was to time of Hitler, mayor of Cologne and supported the church where it only could and congratulated to the Mussolini with its seizure of power in Italy by the church was supported and before Hitler took place. Pavelic and Franco were both friends of the catholic church!! All dictators oriented towards the right were done very to the church. Ngo Diem was trained in a catholic monastery and was layman brother of the catholic church and constructed in south Viet Nam concentration camp. His brother the archbishop of Hue supports it with all the crimes. The Inquisition, the Reconquista, the Conquista, the crusades, which were heath destruction crimes only by the churches were committed, of nobody otherwise. The systematic destruction of all cultures except the Christian and Islamic was and is a Christian goal. Would the Christians have killed also only one word there over the Tibet to lose if it the Tibeter?? Wherever the churches crimes committed denial it these and with them the christglaeubigen journalists, editors and medium-creative and Honoritaeten. What are for humans?? Criminals sinds and further crimes make them possible!!!! At the same time these of are not ashamed to point to others and to accuse this any crimes, even if they must invent which!!!! Today the Mystizismus arises again, from all sides promoted, at the same time takes place a continuous rushing campaign against all sexual desire-affirming. That Swiss televisions makes continuously mystische advertisement shows mystische films and series and Christian horror films around the youth and the adults to work on so correctly!! At the same time the television rushes continuously against all sexual one. Against the young person sexualitaet. The childlike sexualitaet is denied and where it occurs nevertheless locks up one the children, “to its protection”. From this “protected” children become late force author and authority-addicted. More enormously and child violaters come always from sexually repressive parents’ houses, this are scientifically proven, usually come of them from a religious parents’ house. Which crimes weren’t committed on this planet by Christians?? Few sinds. Why one may not criticize the churches thus any longer. Because it it not borne and because they are in power. Criminals at power do not hear gladly that they are criminals. The Christians are liars and criminals. How long this dirt luggage at power one waits. On which continents didn’t the Christians commit crimes?? On all continents the Christians committed crimes. The worm of the sin is prevented the only conscience of the Christian and it that humans can develop a natural conscience. The worm of the sin feeds itself of that, by the mystische moral criminally made, sexual acts of the child and young person to it enough largely is over also murder and robbery to be committed. Robbery on whole continents. Murder at millions of humans!!!!!!!!!!!!! The same conscience has the Christian lie historian and politician. A against-natural conscience, which first the nature of humans corrupted over it then the obrigkeitliche of religious corruption anzugewoehnen. By the way to church and war the church was never against war, it wanted the war, promoted the war. A small war, a large business. And to preach: The lecture did not agree ever with the true intentions of the churches. But it sounds beautifully. The church is probably the only institution not on their acts based separates on their lecture is based. Ever more is forbidden in the interest of by church and seed, which must stop. Atheiten combines you and fights. Liberty, equality, fraternity realization of the reality

  • john beeler

    Other once widely held beliefs, such as racism and sexism, have withered within the space of a single lifetime.

    What alternate dimension are you living in? Please let us know the gate address, because I’d love to be in a dimension where racism and sexism a) have – heh – “withered,” and b) did so in “the space of a single lifetime.”

    ps. you’re white and male right.? even the lam-o No Child Left Behind textbooks give more historical accuracy than the complete misstatement you just made. go read them (or better, good historical writing), then let’s talk about belief.

  • john beeler

    Oh, and you don’t live in Baltimore.

  • silentsanta

    @John Beeler:

    Ebonmuse didn’t suggest that racism and sexism have disappeared, he said they have ‘withered’. Assuredly, this has occurred in some places more than others. But look- we now have a vocabulary with which to discuss racism and sexism (which was not always available), racism and sexism are discussed and examined in public schools, and with each subsequent generation there seems to be increasing distaste for racism and sexism, both institutionalized and otherwise.