Are some Atheists JUST like Fundamentalist Christians?

age of the internet

by Kenneth Justice


~ Having grown up in Fundamentalist Christian culture I learned at an early age that if you rock the boat and ask questions or disagree with the status quo, you are very likely gonna get an ass whooping.

Whether it is questioning the fact that the church leadership of a local congregation involves a Grandfather, his two sons, and the grandson (talk about nepotism and family cultish control!) or whether it merely has to do with questioning all of the rules and weird hypocritical legalism that the church teaches; when you stand up and state your mind about these things, you are likely stirring up a hornet’s nest.

Over the course of my two years writing here at The Culture Monk, I’ve said some things that my Fundamentalist Christian readers didn’t like and it resulted in massive levels of nasty diatribe and quite a few of them “unsubscribing” from my blog.

It’s no surprise to me then, that as I asked some questions and made some statements regarding atheism this past week that the level of vehemence directed toward me personally reared it’s ugly head from the keyboards of my atheist readers and fellow bloggers.

While none of my articles directed any personal attacks against individual atheists, bloggers, or writers (I mentioned no names), some of my atheist blogger cohorts and readers couldn’t resist the urge to leap at the chance of hurling insults at me and attacking me personally.

We all know the common polemic that Atheists espouse regarding those of us who believe in a metaphysical world and/or a god, they often refer to such a god as a spaghetti monster in the sky or in more congenial terms they tell us we believe in fantasy and have vivid imaginations that lead us to silly beliefs.

I have good friends who are atheist and agnostic and they have made similar statements to me about a belief in god, but none of them have ever directed personal attacks against me for believing in god, and while I have said to them that I believe atheism lacks a foundation in providing hope for the hurting or meaning to eternality, they too have never taken my statements to be attacks against them personally.

My Master’s degree is in philosophy and later this year I will begin my Phd in philosophy; I mention this to point out that the core of philosophy (and the core of my studies) lies at the foot of analyzing worldview’s. The philosopher considers and studies a worldview and makes observations about the particular worldview and the implications of it; of course every observation is open to interpretation and argument, and that is the beauty of philosophy, things are always open for debate and conjecture.

We live in a culture however, where people are easily offended. If you suggest that a particular worldview they hold could be connected to something they don’t like; their response is often similar to a starving lion.

— Tell a fundamentalist Christian that their theology leads to a myriad of people living in a subculture that disconnects them from the larger society, and the Fundy Christian will get pissed of at you

—) Tell a fundamentalist Christian that the majority of children raised in Fundamentalist Christian Culture end up abandoning a faith in god because that kind of culture drives them nuts and overwhelms them with rules, and the Fundy Christian will get pissed of at you

— Likewise, as I did this past week, suggest to an Atheist that the atheist worldview contributes to a lack of hopelessness, and they will respond with personal attacks as is evidenced in these statements by my fellow bloggers and readers this past week;

Fuck you Kenneth, and Fuck you blog

Nothing is worse than sublimated self-righteousness and false humility. Nothing denigrates another person’s experience more than a pat on the head and a soporific dose of metaphorical opiate. Maybe you’ll get it in the next life (how does that feel?)” 

——side note, I do really love this reader’s use of the phrase “sublimated self-righteousness  which they infer that I’m guilty of, it has such a nice ring to it, I wish I had come up with it

I feel like the offer of sipping coffee with you “down at the bottom” smacked of falsehood and condescension

It’s not that atheism offers them no hope, rather it is that YOU offer them no hope. You have condemned them from the start by defining what a standard existence is and what a good life is. Fuck you. You disrespect them from the start and have the audacity to tell them what it is to have a good life?

Interesting isn’t it? Instead of arguing philosophy, these Atheists, just like Fundamentalist Christians resort to personal attacks; according to them I’m guilty of “falsehood” (lying), “condescension”, “sublimated self-righteousness” (I really do love that phrase), “disrespecting” the poor, and a few “fuck you’s” thrown in there to ice the cake off.

These were the public comments, if you were to see my emails you would realize the hand full of “fuck you’s” I received were nothing.

One of the greatest people I have ever known always told me, “The truth when first presented is always rejected” and “People are always first defensive when you present to them something that opposes their worldview”. No truer statements have I ever known and experienced in life over and over again.

Western Culture has led to these subgroups of people who don’t know how to disagree without hurling personal insults. They don’t know how to disagree on an intellectual level and drink coffee together afterwards.

John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were two peers who vehemently disagreed with each other. Adams after becoming President of the United States passed the Alien and Sedition Act which gave the Federal Government the power to throw journalists in prison who wrote scathing articles about the President (among other things). Jefferson passionately disagreed with Adams on this, and on MANY MAJOR constitutional law issues. Their correspondence and public arguments are among the most famous in the history of the United States. Despite the anger and arguments the two men had over the years, in the end the two became friends and enjoyed one of the longest periods of correspondence of their era.

While ideologically I’m not a always big fan of what these two men stood for, I really appreciate the way they constantly dialogued and kept the lines of communication open. Sadly, I fear that what these two men represented is all but dying here in our modern day culture.

Instead, we are left with Fundamentalist Christians and Atheists who are well versed in personal attacks and fail in their attempt at civil discussion, disagreement, and argument.

Thankfully however, there were a number of Atheists and people yesterday who made some AWESOME points in defense of atheism and who did not resort to personal attacks. Of these people I wholeheartedly encourage you to read their blogs, they are;

Mr. Wapojif

Jaffakintigh

Mike Steeden

M.M.J. Gregory

Not a Scientist

Thank you to each of these bloggers for their well thought out statements, perhaps these bloggers are more representative of the average atheist, and perhaps the Atheists who resort to personal attacks are merely a small subset of atheism. After all, Fundamentalist Christians definitely DO NOT represent all of Christianity.

Just a few thoughts as I sipped my coffee this morning,

Kenneth



Categories: Culture & Society

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

45 replies

  1. YES.

    I haven’t even read the post yet, but had to reply to the subject questions.

    I once wrote on FB that I dislike zealotry of any kind. That means atheist or religious.

    I have many religious and atheist friends who have no desire to club anyone over the head with their ideals, but then … there are the others. The zealots on both side of that wall who seem to live to club, and not the happy kind with lots of dancing.

    No, thanks to either!

    (Now to actually read your post. Ahem.)

    • Deborah, i have the same kind of friends as you; we get along just fine. We say, “I disagree with you on this” but then we go get a beer and move on….just because we have disagreements on philosophy, it doesn’t mean we have to hate on each other.

    • There is nothing necessarily wrong with zealotry. Because of the connotation we give the word — because passion in others tends to frighten us — we tend to regard the zealous with suspicion, but what matters is what we are passionate about.

      Think of it this way. When we we wish to express approval, we call a zealous fanatic a passionate advocate.

      By nature, we are lazy. To act we need sufficient motivation. Until we believe in something we will do much of anything about it. If what we wish to do is difficult, then we must fervently believe, or we will not act.

      Consider the men and women who with their families set off across the ocean long ago in wooden ships. Many were driven by visions of wealth, but many others sought a land where they could practice their faith. Whom do we now owe the most. Is it the zealot for wealth or the religious zealot?

  2. Now, having read the post, I would add a simple:

    Yep. People are–in the end–but people, no matter their religious or non religious persuasion 🙂

  3. I’m continually amazed at the horrific insults and hateful comments people are willing to put out there on the internet for the entire world to see. Fuck yous are nothing in comparison to some of the truly vicious attacks I’ve seen in comments to people who did nothing more than state an opinion that differed from the commenter. Why, seriously why, do people think it’s perfectly acceptable to tell other people they should be dead, or deserve to be raped, have their families killed, or some other extreme violent outcome just because that person has said something opposing to their viewpoints? Why so much hostility?

    • D, totally with you, what is wrong with people? Are we a culture full of angry people who are waiting to unleash their meanness at the drop of a hat?

    • I don’t necessarily think that’s it but I do think that people will treat you as badly as you’ll let them and there’s no accountability on the internet for respecting other people therefore they feel like it’s ok to say those sorts of things because no one is really telling them what an insecure sick move it really is. Racism, sexism and all the other isms could damn near disappear if people would just stop holding on so tightly to them and not pass them down to the next generations. We are what we’re taught to be. The internet currently teaches that it’s acceptable to leave such hate-fueled comments for others.

  4. Ir really is frightening how quickly people resort to verbal violence and become a mob. Social media makes this alarmingly plain. It doesn’t take much, and people will seemingly believe anything and not go to the effort of research. It’s very hard to deal with them. Though I am holding out hope, what with the new research into psychedelics. (Interesting article in the New Yorker.)

    • Carl, right on and well said. it scares the hell out of me. I still can’t get over how crazy some people are; i mean loot at ISIS, what the hell were they thinking by killing the dude from Jordan? Some people are void of logic.

  5. Many athiests won’t deny you the right to your beliefs and most won’t descend to that level of language to do their arguing. They are the subset of athiests/agnostics that fundamentsalists are in every religion or non-religion going.I’m happy yo co-exist if you don’t try to use church dogma to convince me I’m wrong and I will always allow my children the right to make their own choices when they’re old enough without indoctrinating them for or against religion.
    Two sugars in mine please Kenneth,
    Hugs

    • well said David, and I’m with you, I’m totally happy to co-exist, my closest friends in life are atheists and agnostics 🙂

    • Yes, well said David! Certain personalities often seem to be inclined to resort to name calling and diatribe, regardless of their worldview. I was once a religious fundamentalist, but I never resorted to name calling. I prefer calm discussion and respectful exchanges of ideas. Now I’m an atheist, but that didn’t change my desire to show respect to others.

  6. So this is why I stay out of the mommy wars. In general, these arguments spiral into mud slinging and threats to call social services over the way someone buckles their car seat. Once I mentioned that colorado’s car seat law was that any child under 6 or 60 lbs needed to be in a child seat. That was it. There is no mention of positioning or whatever. I got lambasted! How dare I not follow the guidelines?! All children should be middle seat, rear facing, and wrapped in bubble wrap until they are at least 18 and if I end up in an accident, God help me… It was a whole thing.

    In other news, I got called a notch yesterday on the phone because Medicare doesn’t cover bathroom equipment… So I’m with ya, Kenneth.

    People say what they say because they are angry I guess.

    • Apparently my phone doesn’t like the “b” word because it autocorrected it to “notch.” LOL!!!!!

    • so true Callie, and I’m with you; i don’t want to join the mud slingers, if only people could see that there is a huge difference between personal attacks, and arguing philosophical issues….for some reason people don’t see the difference.

  7. you mean stupid? Sure, lots of them are – like Sam Harris. It doesn’t take a genius to not believe in fairy tales.

  8. Yep. There are people on the fringes of any culture that do their best to give the majority of that culture a bad name. Fundamentalist Christians and Atheists are two amazing examples of this.

  9. Kenneth, I’m what some would call a defensive atheist. I usually don’t talk about my personal beliefs unless asked. I typically don’t post about atheism unless provoked to do so after reading some other blogger’s post where the blogger is passing on misleading or incorrect, or derogatory statements about atheism and atheists.

    Your two recent posts, the one in which you blamed atheists for loss of hope in western culture and the one in which you admitted that atheists aren’t without hope but then asked if that was enough, did provoke me into writing my own two posts in response, since I felt what I had to say in my reaction to your posts was too long to fit into the comments on your posts.

    I did not use the f-word in either of my posts; I did not personally attack or ridicule you, although I was critical of much of what you wrote. but I tried to be rational in expressing my criticism.

    You did comment on my first post. You wrote, “It definitely wasn’t my intention to anger you.” And then you invited me to watch your streaming show on the topic, which I did. But you failed to address anything I said in my post.

    I’m surprised you didn’t comment on my post yesterday, the one entitled “Dear Culture Monk.” I tried, in that post, to correct some of your misconceptions, such as that atheism is a “world view” or a “system of beliefs.” I tried to explain that atheists should not be expected to offer hope to anyone because atheism is not a religion. It is merely the disbelief in the existence of God. Nothing more than that.

    In your post today you complain that “fundamentalist atheists” were not very nice in their criticism of you.
    How can you write a post where you blame atheists for the fall of western society, and not expect blowback?

    You know, Kenneth, Christians make up about 75% of American society. Atheists make up somewhere between 2% and 4%. Don’t you think that blaming atheists for our crumbing western culture is like blaming the tail for wagging the dog?

    And you should know, Kenneth, that when you poke a hornets’ next, Kenneth, you shouldn’t be surprised if you get stung.

    • Doobster, great comment. I didn’t have a problem with anything you wrote, and even your post today is of the utmost class 🙂 If you’ll notice in my article today, i linked a few blogs by atheists, whose comments were similar to yours; well stated and full of class.

      My article today stands on its own merits; there were atheists this week who publicly (and privately through email) cussed me out and made personal attacks. I think i have made a very valid point that (some) atheists are no better than fundamentalist christians in their militancy and in their personal vendetta…..

      like i said, i don’t have a problem with anything you’ve written that I read, unfortunately, i don’t always have time to read everything, but i will try and set aside time to read your article that you are referencing 🙂

      regards .

  10. I noticed that you’ve qualified “Christian” with “Fundamentalist,” but there was no qualification for Atheists. I’m not suggesting a deeper meaning other than perhaps unintentional word choice.

    Personally, though, I do not think that people need a label in order to engage in personal attacks on others (subsets of the whole included). Some people equate threats to their ideas with threats to their person, and they behave accordingly. Perhaps instead of suggesting coffee, one might wish to recommend decaffeinated blends that are just as tasty as the real thing.

    • Siriusbizinus, you make a valid point; i didn’t really use a ‘qualifier’ for the atheists who made personal attacks, i guess because i’m not really familiar with a popular term for them; perhaps militant atheists? fundamentalist atheists? i’m not sure. As i finished my article, i definitely made sure to point out that perhaps these kind of atheists who make personal attacks are definitely not representative of the majority; but just like with fundamentalist christians, it seems like the people who yell the loudest get the most public attention.

    • People are drawn to conflict, so the heated exchanges might get the most attention. And usually “Militant” is the qualifier for angry Atheists, though you could go with “Fundamentalist Atheists” for a bit of irony. The only difference between the two at that point would be that one will threaten others with eternal retribution.

    • “the only difference between the two at that point would be that one will threaten others with eternal retribution”

      lol !!! Awesome, great sentence 🙂

  11. I’ve noticed that we’re much more likely to receive a bashing on the Internet than in real life. We think we can be someone else behind the screen. As someone who is interested with having discussions with people of the opposite worldview to understand a position, that concerns me. I recently got into a two-hour discussion on Twitter with a vegan about my livestock operation. I wanted to present what I do on a daily basis, but was attacked, instead. I was interested to hear the viewpoint from the other side, but did not come away with an idea of that viewpoint because of the nature of the conversation. I wrote it out: https://indfarmsoul.wordpress.com/2015/01/07/in-which-i-attempt-to-describe-my-farm-life-philosophy-in-less-than-140-characters/

    The elementary school where I sub right now has this poster in their computer lab: “Don’t be mean behind the screen.” I think that saying should be taken to heart by all of us. We often call for an open dialogue between peoples, but that dialogue is easily shut down by someone attacking who we are instead of calmly discussing the idea.

    • Great comments Elise, as a vegetarian, i know the vegan crowd well. While there may be some exception (i hope i don’t get in trouble for saying this) it seems like most of the vegans i’ve met are, uh, quite militant. I’m not anti-eating animals. if someone begins with an evolutionary worldview, than we are nothing more than evolved animals, so it seems weird to me that people hate on meat eaters…..

      My biggest reason for no longer eating meat has to do with the mass production of animals and what i personally perceive as unethical treatment of animals in certain situations. Small farms rarely mistreat animals (at least in my limited experience). I also am much more lenient with people who actually slaughter their own animals; because i feel at least they know what they are doing. it has always been odd to me that people go to the grocer and buy dead meat packaged in plastic wrap; it somehow creates a disconnect between them and the animal….

      but for a native american hundreds of years ago; (at least in my imagination) i can see them being thankful for the life of the animal that was giving them sustenance; they weren’t disconnected from the animal the way suburbanites are in our day and age

      sorry for a long-winded response, but I think its a great subject to discuss 🙂

    • No problem! And it’s so nice to hear a well written response on the topic. A vegetarian friend told me, “Haven’t I ever told you not to argue with those guys?” It was one of those things where I just started and was trying to find a polite way to end the convo and never could!

      Yes, unfortunately, there have been situations where caretakers have mistreated animals, but I can personally vouch that is not the majority. : ) How the animals are taken care of has less to do with the size of the farm, big or small, and more to do with the farmer or herdsmen’s characters. In agriculture, there is much more good character than bad, but there has been enough bad to be in the news : / As in other areas of life, there will unfortunately be people who abuse the privilege of being charged with caring for resources, whether that be money, people or animals.

      With mass production, what sector do you have in mind? What would be the ideal situation for raising animals to you? I ask because we field a lot of questions from consumers about housing and other choices and why we do certain practices.

      I can see where you’re coming from with the disconnect. As an ag educator and farmer, I have seen that with stories about students believing milk and meat just comes from the grocery store with nothing before that. There are also concerns with children not spending enough time outside in nature, with books such as Last Child in the Woods. I also am concerned about that disconnect. I have always been of a personality that goes absolutely stir crazy when I’m inside all of the time, and last year when we had that crazy winter, I went outside for 45 minutes in negative degree temperatures and thought it was great! It takes a concerted effort not to take away all our green space and agricultural land and to develop wisely so that we can still enjoy nature even if living in the city or outskirts.

  12. Thanks for being balanced. Keep making people be accountable to the worldview they profess.

  13. Anytime you meet people with strong beliefs, you will incite a very strong response. I would not say they were alike, because the reason their beliefs are so vastly different. An interesting article.

  14. I say this as someone who is trained in science, and who is not a christian: Depending on my mood, I can be annoyed or amused by those militant scientists who ague forcefully against religion / god as if it is a scientific question, as if not being able to test something scientifically is proof of its non-existence.

    • Thank you so much. it is frustrating for me, since it’s not as if I’m sitting here saying to everyone “i can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that god exists”…..i’m as open to being wrong as anyone, militancy is quite annoying

    • Yes! I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian faith, and I see so many similarities in the inability to consider that any other belief may have any truth to it in the fundamentalist “scientific” atheist folks. Sad

  15. I had to think this one over and over I think in any system there are people who take it up to the letter. Fundamentalism extremism whatever name we might give it we are all vulnerable for it.
    It be using our own heads to choose not to. Following protocol or do what is right by your own senses. Either way we stand up for what we believe in. Just as you mentioned, also understand you yourself can be wrong.

    The worst pick up arms to protect their beliefs, where as one who does not belief might just pick up arms to protect human kind.

    A maybe very fundamentalistic answer or even a bit extreme but still what is worth protecting? In this day and age different groups join up protecting humankind. It is not about any system or group of religion.

    It might be the fundamental singularity between who we truly are. Human before anything else.

    This is so new to me. I had to extend my knowledge on English LOL

  16. This is the same for other religions and schools too. The problem is actually with people! When someone thinks that his own path is the only correct path existing on the planet, well, that’s close-mindedness…

    I personally think that whatever your personal belief is, what counts is how you respect others and how much love you share with the world you live in to make it a better place.
    And in order to grow and understand each other better, it’s always good to study and analyze other opinions and beliefs. I haven’t yet discovered on what scientific basis atheists claim that this world is the only existing world! Maybe they must study more science, specially Quantum Physics. Now scientists are proving the existence of parallel worlds, and besides they are working on “Many Interacting Worlds” theory. It’s not a fiction anymore! Now believing in the worlds or beings that can not be perceived by our normal senses is becoming more scientific than denying them, for the latter there’s no scientific proof!

  17. I think what got this all going might be the reference to people who are often in “hopeless” situations and how atheism isn’t necessarily able to give them hope.

    Unless you’ve sat down with someone who murdered a spouse and who truly needed to believe in life after death, the chance to atone to a higher power, etc. then you have no idea how being told, “Sorry. This is it. One shot at the brass ring on the merry go round. She’s dead. She can’t forgive you. There is no god. There is no forgiveness to be had. Bootstrap yourself up, dude and realize that your life will be spent in an institution the rest of your life and there is no way out spiritually for you.” Really????

    The vast majority of people need hope. And they need a hope that: “This is it, get it right the first time because you don’t have any other chances – ever.” cannot provide. People who are in the Marianas Trench of despair need something more than that. For those people who don’t need it: “Good on ya!”

    To give a real world example – do you think the parents of the pilot who was burned alive by ISIS want to hear, “Your son lives on in another world.” or “Your religion is crap. There is no god. He’s dead. He died and suffered for nothing. Sorry.” I can guarantee you which message brings hope and comfort. I have long ago learned to determine the beliefs of one who suffers and to offer comfort in terms of those beliefs. I have rarely come across someone who didn’t want to believe that there was some hope of meeting a loved one again. To forgive. To be forgiven. I’ve adopted the saying “Love never dies.” because it offers such comfort to so many. I have atheist friend in exceedingly poor health who can hear nothing of comfort except that one term.

    I actually gave atheism a shot about 20 years ago. Ultimately, it didn’t meet my needs. Agnosticism is sort of okay. I’ve got my own beliefs that are sort of neo-Pagan/Buddhist with some Tao thrown in here and there. One of my friends (a retired Methodist minister) said my religion was physics. (LOL) I adapt quite well to the 12 steps/higher power because I am not in a hostile relationship with the concept nothing can be larger and more powerful in my life.

    I do have numinous experiences and recognize liminal areas in my world. I have a friend who desperately wants belief/faith who has never had a numinous experience – and may never. He’s becoming a more and more militant atheist as if “that’ll show you for not giving me a faith-based experience, dammit!” applies. I think that angry atheists largely have that experience. There’s anger and resentment that others have what they cannot find. My brother is sort of a blend of atheist and agnostic, but he’s not an angry/resentful one.

    Just because someone can’t “find god” or have a numinous experience cannot be used as a yardstick to prove there is no god. There is no yardstick to prove a god exists, either. However, if we follow the reasoning behind the anthropology of god (ala Evolving God by Barbara J King) there seems to be something even in our closest relatives that points to a biological/anthropological basis for belief.

    Mostly, though, I am perturbed by the tendency of small minds (and I admit there have been times I have been one) lash out through the relative anonymity of the Internet. Would you walk up to Kenneth and say what you just said to his face. Probably not. Because bullies are cowards I do my utmost to make sure that what I put out on the net is nothing more nor less than what I’d do/say in person.

    There are studies that are coming to light in larger media context (they’ve been in journals for years) about the type of person who engages in trolling and it isn’t pretty.

    http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150130-the-man-who-studies-evil

    http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/climate_desk/2014/02/internet_troll_personality_study_machiavellianism_narcissism_psychopathy.html

    Fortunately you are not a female or they’d also be threatening to rape and torture you to death. 😛

  18. Ouch. I don’t think its really a stereotype of a person, FC or A, that responds like this. Zealots, yes. Sub-empathetic, yes. Been there done that (minus the foul mouthedness). My regrets to those I knew at that point of life. We have to live in understanding of one another. And for those of us who openly share our opinions, we must agree to discourse. But discourse, not attack. Hard to let that roll off your back, but it’s the only way.

  19. I find it all too usual to have a faitheist make the most outrageous accusations against non believers as a group and, when the blow back comes from the few, claim victimhood that those few trolling atheists are being so mean spirited that they are MILITANT and EXTREMIST and FUNDAMENTALIST (and whatever other over-the-top negative terms can be used to smear those who dare to criticize with expletive words).

    And, as usual, along comes the typical appeasement crowd tut tutting the nasty atheist for using less than polite tone while assuring and soothing the poor old faitheist that not all non believers are so rude but are quite willing to get along.

    Where is the criticism from the fawning crowd at the faitheist for making the original outrageous claims?

    Absent.

    Where is the pointed criticism in oh-so-polite tone against the original outrageous claims?

    Absent.

    But along comes a non believer who takes up this necessary if unpleasant task for being maligned and misrepresented unfairly by the faitheist who is now the problem!

    I know, I know… if only such atheists would just shut-the-fuck up and go away, kumba ya would return to the internet where outrageous claims against atheists can be supported if not directly by the mewling crowd then by the tacit approval of those appeasers who lack the intellectual integrity and intestinal fortitude to challenge the faitheist directly.

    Non believer Doobster418 goes out of his way to be ever-so polite after his character has been so intentionally questioned and accused of guilt by association. Where’s the author’s retraction and apology for exercising bigotry? Where’s the crowd of readers who supposedly hold such high regard for tone rallying to the non believer’s side and nicely asking the CM to stop spreading such falsehoods, to apologize to atheists for his lack of respect towards the nas people and to stop exercising bigotry towards this identifiable group he has so easily maligned. Where is the correction>?

    Absent.

    No surprise here.

    No, this crowd must gather and blame those other atheists – those nasty ones – for saying what they themselves should be saying (supposedly using much nicer tone). Is this lack of criticism and demand for apology indicative that those who make up the supportive and polite crowd haven’t the desire or capacity (apparently) to do so even when the opportunity becomes so readily available?

    Apparently so.

    Now consider the accurate term to describe the fawning tone police crowd ever so polite and nice: hypocrites.

  20. I read this post, too, as most of them, however, this little thoughts started to appear in my mind again and again.

    If a country (why would I refer ie USA now?) claims to have Christian roots (or states it is a Christioan country), there are thousands of churches all around in its land, how the lack of real and true sharing can occur?
    Let us close the gates at the churches otherwise homeless will come in?
    Let’s stir fear among the folks to claim some support on stealing the hope of millions who might be able to contribute more if ever were given a chance, with fences and arms at the borders?

    I more and more tend to believe and see, the so-called “christians” are not even in the level of the mosaic Laws, and those, who really could grasp the teaching of Jesus (and many great others) are struggling to distinguish themselves without any real productive effort in country/world level.

    If you ever feel yourselves hurt by any unexpected and unrighteous thoughts/e-mails/comments, just remember, what happend with Jesus, or even with God, our Heavenly Father during the course of human history and how they reacted…

    Take care, have a Blessed Night!

  21. Kenneth, I just want to thank you for continuing to write and for facing the risks of rejection and all. It isn’t something I’ve been able to do recently. I hope you can continue to be brave!

  22. arrogant jerks with no manners can be found in any system. And I tend to agree, that a similarity to fundmentalist can be found within atheism as well if a person decides they have all the answers lock stock and barrel, and that they can’t be wrong .

  23. Personal attack is often the sign of the knee-jerk reaction to being challenged, particularly at an emotional level. It is the response of adrenaline rather than the response of thought or reason.

    Current society is obsessed with tolerance but is probably one of the least tolerant in history.

    The fact that people react with such venom says a lot more about them & a lot less about the comment to which they are reacting.

    Debate is a dying art.

    I; me; mine is a dominant mantra.

    The two rarely sit comfortably together

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: