You're viewing a single thread.
The best example of an asshole atheist they could find was one making a shitty anti-theist meme, meanwhile the examples of asshole Christians and Muslims are violent
well you can find them on social media hating on women instead. a lot of early atheist youtubers went on to become gamergaters.
or look at a popular one like Dawkins who is busy being a transphobe nowadays. imagine being an atheist and wasting the remainder of your precious and only life trying to make the precious and only life of the most marginalized people in society even worse.
or sam harris who literally defended torture.
Still. Putting Dawkins up against the KKK is a reach.
each of them doing what they're capable of. the kkk used to have a lot of power. dawkins is just a misogynistic, transphobic nerd. it's all circumstance. full time hating can lead to a lot of places. for bitches like him it's mostly trying to get others to do the dirty work.
There are a lot of edgy athiests using all their time attacking trans people these days, because an unfortunate number of them are mainly athiests as a way to hate Muslims. And the ones taking the time to attack trans people have almost all joined the alt right, which has been responsible for a lot of attacks on innocent people.
They may not be killing in the name of atheism, but they have been in the same of "reason" and "defence of women".
I haven't seen that. Why would they need to be atheist to hate Muslims? You can do that from anywhere.
You can really change that to "should" instead of "can".
They literally defend a pedo prophet. I don't know how exactly they justify that, but I don't really care. I will actively hate them for this one detail and feel pretty fucking justified.
When you actively go out of your way to be terrible, you intentionally choose to be considered low class until you wake up and choose a decent path.
Just be decent. That's not a high bar to clear. Muslims and Christians fail this test. Probably a lot of others, but staying on topic of the post context here.
Mao, Kim jong un, Stalin..
They weren't killing in the name of atheism though
You can sugar coat it however you like and No-True-Scotsman till the cows come home, but North Korea, iirc, even today, kills, imprisons and tortures more people for their beliefs than any other country.
Believing that atheists are somehow immune from shittiness is absurd. No broad category of people is immune from shittiness.
Again they don't kill these people cause they believe in god and they are against god, they kill them cause a large group of people who believe in a higher power could undermine their own dictatorial power and control, there's a reason a lot of these assholes try to elevate their image to a god like being, they want to desperately control the narrative.
"The Soviet Union (1922–1991) had a long history of state atheism, whereby those who were seeking social success generally had to profess atheism and stay away from places of worship; this trend became especially militant during the middle of the Stalinist era, which lasted from 1929 to 1953."
"The Communist Party engaged in diverse activities such as destroying places of worship, executing religious leaders, flooding schools and media with anti-religious propaganda, and propagated "scientific atheism".[55][56] It sought to make religion disappear by various means.[57][58] Thus, the USSR became the first state to have as one objective of its official ideology the elimination of the existing religion, and the prevention of the future implanting of religious belief, with the goal of establishing state atheism (gosateizm)."
I've went through that personally so I'm very well aware but still I don't think its very much of the same thing. It's less due to atheism per se and more to do with the fact that people groups were just dangerous to the regime and this extended way beyond religion.
Finally someone who can think
And when the Cathars, or the Templars were eradicated, or when Protestants and Catholics went to war, do you really think it's because of sincerely held beliefs regarding their God, or because one group threatened the hegemony and material wealth of the other? In the case of the Protestants, the single most critical doctrine they went after was the Catholic belief that doctrinal authority came in part from the Bible, and in part from the Church; whereas Protestants argued for Sola Scriptura - the belief that doctrinal authority came from the Bible alone. And even the 95 theses clearly had the goal of ending a system of exploitation and financial parasitism by the Catholic church. Welcome to real politics.
None of this does anything to change that cases of church authority are still functionally the same as those of state atheism and anti-theism. In the case of Christian churches, you have the view that only Christianity is the truth and everything else is both the result of the devil, and leads to evil, and therefore all other beliefs are invalid and ultimately must be eradicated.
In the case of these varying state atheist groups you have governments expressing that atheism is the only valid belief system, and again, all others must cease. And anti-theists are explicit about their view of all other religious beliefs being invalid and needing to be eradicated.
If persecutions and executions against religious people by governments that are saying everyone has to be atheist isn't killing in the name of atheism, then what the fuck is?
Many atheists take part in racism and violence. There was plenty during the Cold War, collapse of Yugoslavia, Gulf War, post-9/11 and both Trump terms.
Yeah but they don't do it in the name of atheism. Being an atheist doesn't mean you can't be a cunt just the same as being religious doesn't mean you can't be a cunt.