|
Post by amyghost on Oct 1, 2023 12:53:25 GMT
Good post overall, but, Forbes notwithstanding, no...I don't buy into the notion that Christians are suffering any manner of 'persecution' in the US that warrants the term. As to globally, I can only say: Welcome to the party, as one of religion's most unpleasant and most enduring aspects is the eagerness with which it tends to engage in persecutions of all those sectarian permutations of any and every stripe. "Persecute not, that ye be not persecuted in your turn" might have been a good precept for all religions to follow from the very outset--clearly, almost none did with the none too surprising result that none find themselves free from undergoing it in various places, at various times. Sometimes Christianity and Christians don't get along very well. lol. But the song remains the same: Turning away from religion isn't the same as turning away from God. Ironically, it seems churches have produced a lot of atheists, many with chips on their shoulders.That's likely inevitable. But I do think it's a bit of a mistake to regard all atheists as simply disaffected former believers. Not accusing you of that--simply pointing out that for many believers, that argument is often an immediate go to for discounting, or discrediting the simple fact of basic unbelief. I've not infrequently heard Christians say things such as "Oh, this person is young; they're just rebelling/lost or seeking/trying to be different/etc.,etc". posited as reasons for the atheistic viewpoint; when the non-believer is an older person, reasons often include such rationales as the person's being bitter or disappointed with God, or disillusioned by life in general. It honestly seems to be outside of the believer's scope that anyone could have logic-based non-grievance related grounds for their rejection of the whole 'god' idea.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 2, 2023 2:10:51 GMT
Sometimes Christianity and Christians don't get along very well. lol. But the song remains the same: Turning away from religion isn't the same as turning away from God. Ironically, it seems churches have produced a lot of atheists, many with chips on their shoulders.That's likely inevitable. But I do think it's a bit of a mistake to regard all atheists as simply disaffected former believers. Not accusing you of that--simply pointing out that for many believers, that argument is often an immediate go to for discounting, or discrediting the simple fact of basic unbelief. I've not infrequently heard Christians say things such as "Oh, this person is young; they're just rebelling/lost or seeking/trying to be different/etc.,etc". posited as reasons for the atheistic viewpoint; when the non-believer is an older person, reasons often include such rationales as the person's being bitter or disappointed with God, or disillusioned by life in general. It honestly seems to be outside of the believer's scope that anyone could have logic-based non-grievance related grounds for their rejection of the whole 'god' idea. There are bad apples in every basket, I suppose. I think that whether or not they realize it, arguments between believers and non-believers are almost always grounded in a disagreement over what God is, or at least what each has in mind when they say "God." I've had some rather lengthy discussions before realizing that from their perspective, I had been arguing for the existence of an old bearded man in the clouds smiting sinners with lightning bolts and stillborns. So with that said... What's "the whole 'god' idea?" No, really. Because I have yet to meet anyone who think it's logical to believe in flying spaghetti monsters. On being disappointed with God, I'm certain you know that any atheist would say there is nothing to be disappointed with, but I do find it funny that when they presume God's existence for the sake of discussion, He's always an asshole. lol
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Oct 2, 2023 11:05:42 GMT
I've had some rather lengthy discussions before realizing that from their perspective, I had been arguing for the existence of an old bearded man in the clouds smiting sinners with lightning bolts and stillborns. A few years ago, I was grabbing a cup of tea with a bunch of young Trotskysits (as one does) who were talking approvingly about Khrushchev's policy of declaring that the cosmonauts never saw God when they were in space in order to encourage atheism in the Soviet Union. I kept quiet at the time, but all I could think was 'Really? Do these people think religious belief is that fickle that the lack of bearded guys floating in space can destroy it?' Quite telling that even Yuri Gagarin himself remained devoutly Christian despite being in space (though Khrushchev kept quiet about that of course). Yep, it's a terrible attempt at a reductio-ad-absurdum since if you were to apply all the things people actually believe about God to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then it's just God with a silly name since all its supposedly pasta-ey features make no sense for an immaterial being. So these features become metaphorical, much like picturing God as a bearded guy sitting on a cloud is a metaphor that no theologian actually believes in. I remember Richard Dawkins and William Lane Craig having a bit of a tiff a few years back. Dawkins said he would never debate Craig because the latter considered the Israelites massacring the Canaanites justifiable and he would not debate apologists for genocide. Craig pointed out that his apologism here is based on the premises that God exists, God is the source of all good and the massacre of the Canaanites was a genuine commandment from God. Since Dawkins doesn't believe the first premise is true then, from Dawkins' perspective, Craig is not an apologist for genocide. Fair point I thought, regardless of what one thinks of Craig's stance in general. All these observations aside, I think there are plenty of atheists who do actually engage with the proper theological perspective on God and still find it wanting.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Oct 2, 2023 20:20:44 GMT
I remember Richard Dawkins and William Lane Craig having a bit of a tiff a few years back. Dawkins said he would never debate Craig because the latter considered the Israelites massacring the Canaanites justifiable and he would not debate apologists for genocide. Craig pointed out that his apologism here is based on the premises that God exists, God is the source of all good and the massacre of the Canaanites was a genuine commandment from God. Since Dawkins doesn't believe the first premise is true then, from Dawkins' perspective, Craig is not an apologist for genocide. I am not sure about this. Just because one does not believe in a deity that does not mean one cannot condemn those believers who argue to an immoral conclusion. Likewise I do not believe in the truth of a coming Communist utopia once class divisions have supposedly fallen away, but still condemn the mass starvation under Stalin who paid lip service at least to that view of history. That is, at the end of the day, CLR is still justifying genocide, a crime so reprehensible that it doesn't matter whether it is ultimately 'justified' for true or spurious reasons - even if these could be known and decided for sure. It is not whether God exist or not, it is that WLG thinks it does, enough to approve of the worst actions. He is justifying mass killing of men woman and children. for which we can condemn as a moral absolute. As for the, I agree, simplifled and hackneyed image of the Christian God being in the clouds with a beard, atheists cannot be blamed for something which originated from the faithful on their own account: 1 Thessalonians 4:17 Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord. Revelation 14:14 : Then I looked, and behold, a white cloud, and sitting on the cloud was one like a son of man [God for some], having a golden crown on His head and a sharp sickle in His hand. Psalm 97:2 Clouds and thick darkness surround Him; Righteousness and justice are the foundation of His throne. etc Let us not forget the Bible tells us how Jesus (or 'God' according to your belief) ascended upwards "carried up into heaven” (Luke 24:50-51),that would be the sky, where the clouds are. In addition God is usually depicted as having a long beard because beards symbolize(d) wisdom and holiness throughout many cultures. In Jewish mystical thought, it symbolized holiness so it would be natural, for those who had a literal belief in God to ascribe to the supposed deity the same get up. I am not suggesting that is a belief shared by sophisticated believers, no more than they take all those typical images of non-Jewish white Jesus seriously. But it is a trope with a long history. One can hardly blame those atheists who note such a tradition of viewing God like this and take advantage of it. Personally rather than laughing at God's facial hair I am intrigued how a being alleged to be without spatial or temporal existence can logically be held to have presence at all in these terms, let alone have mental processes.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Oct 2, 2023 23:08:47 GMT
It is not whether God exist or not, it is that WLG thinks it does, enough to approve of the worst actions. He is justifying mass killing of men woman and children. for which we can condemn as a moral absolute. The problem is that if you condemn it as a moral absolute, you have to define what morality is. Craig is essentially saying that under divine command theory, any command by God is by definition moral. That is logically true. But Craig is also pointing out that if we hold divine command theory to be false, then the command is indeed immoral. So in a way, he and Dawkins don't actually disagree, from a purely logical perspective. Going back to your Stalin example, Stalin was a utilitarian. His justification was that mass collectivisation of agriculture and rapid industrialisation - which carried the risk of famine - was necessary to achieve a greater good. There are three scenarios here: - Stalin is correct - Stalin is mistaken - Stalin is lying If either of the latter two are true, then Stalin's actions can be condemned within that utilitarian framework as immoral. However, if the first option is true, one would have to concede Stalin's actions were moral under a utilitarian framework. You could of course reject it under other moral frameworks. So Craig is saying that there are similarly three possible scenarios with the Israelite leaders declaring that God has told them to kill all the Canaanites: - They're telling the truth - They're mistaken - They're lying If either of the latter two are true, Craig would say the genocide is immoral. However if the first option is true, then that genocide must be moral under a divine command theory framework. However those not using that framework can still reject it as immoral. And I think that's what Craig's issue with Dawkins is here - Dawkins is complaining about Craig saying something is moral under a framework that Dawkins doesn't hold. It's like me telling Stalin that Kant would disagree with his justifications - he would just shrug and say 'yeah, so what?' Of course, Dawkins could then say 'But God doesn't exist, so divine command theory can't be true!' But Craig would happily concede that point - if God doesn't exist then the Israelites acted immorally by whatever non-God dependent moral framework you care to use. As you say though Craig believes God exists so from Dawkins' view, his false belief has led him to a bad moral assessment. I suppose that's true, but does it really matter? Craig is not arguing for genocide in the here and now, he's arguing that a probably fictitious tale of genocide is not immoral as it is presented. One could say that if he can justify it there, he can justify it in the here and now but look at how the story in Deuteronomy is presented - a people who are having almost daily unambiguous interactions with God follow his command - from Dawkins' perspective such a situation could never actually happen in real life so there is no danger there of reality mimicking fiction and Craig applying the same logic to endorse a current genocide. Dawkins on the other hand provided plenty of cover for the real life actual War on Terror so maybe needs to climb off his moral high horse. Perhaps not, but that doesn't stop it being a weak argument. Which is a far better approach.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Oct 3, 2023 11:01:24 GMT
That's likely inevitable. But I do think it's a bit of a mistake to regard all atheists as simply disaffected former believers. Not accusing you of that--simply pointing out that for many believers, that argument is often an immediate go to for discounting, or discrediting the simple fact of basic unbelief. I've not infrequently heard Christians say things such as "Oh, this person is young; they're just rebelling/lost or seeking/trying to be different/etc.,etc". posited as reasons for the atheistic viewpoint; when the non-believer is an older person, reasons often include such rationales as the person's being bitter or disappointed with God, or disillusioned by life in general. It honestly seems to be outside of the believer's scope that anyone could have logic-based non-grievance related grounds for their rejection of the whole 'god' idea. There are bad apples in every basket, I suppose. I think that whether or not they realize it, arguments between believers and non-believers are almost always grounded in a disagreement over what God is, or at least what each has in mind when they say "God." I've had some rather lengthy discussions before realizing that from their perspective, I had been arguing for the existence of an old bearded man in the clouds smiting sinners with lightning bolts and stillborns. So with that said... What's "the whole 'god' idea?" No, really. Because I have yet to meet anyone who think it's logical to believe in flying spaghetti monsters. On being disappointed with God, I'm certain you know that any atheist would say there is nothing to be disappointed with, but I do find it funny that when they presume God's existence for the sake of discussion, He's always an asshole. lolThere's a funny story about the time the novelist Evelyn Waugh was bunking with Winston Churchill's son Randolph, during their WWII service: Randolph, who'd never been introduced to religion at all during his childhood, and had never even picked up a bible, was regarded by Waugh (a staunch Catholic convert) as ripe for religious instruction. Waugh came to regret it; after pressing the Good Book on Churchill, he had to endure days of Churchill's laughing aloud at what he was reading, accompanied by frequent exclamations of "What a shit God is!"
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Oct 3, 2023 21:36:23 GMT
It is not whether God exist or not, it is that WLG thinks it does, enough to approve of the worst actions. He is justifying mass killing of men woman and children. for which we can condemn as a moral absolute. The problem is that if you condemn it as a moral absolute, you have to define what morality is. I would define it as principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour. If by this you meant "have to define an alternative morality to a justification dictated by the primacy of Command Theory," that is a different question. For one thing is arguable that whatever type of morality one subscribes to, the overwhelming majority in any society would assume that genocide was wrong and bad, for reasons that are easy to discern. I accept that a lot of morality is grey rather than black and white, a sliding scale of subjectivism. We all tell white lies when minor immorality is seen as acceptable.. But genocide is all black. The preamble to the 1948 Genocide Convention (CPPCG) notes that instances of genocide have taken place throughout history. More specifically , the intentional and systematic destruction of a racial, ethnic, religious, or national group is a violation of human rights and is considered a crime against humanity. Justification of genocide during ongoing killings may constitute incitement to genocide, which is criminalized under international criminal law. In addition according to modern international criminal law, t here can be no excuse for genocide. [see Jones, Adam (2006). "Is genocide ever justified?". Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction. Routledge] Genocide has been called "the crime of crimes" a quote from the Internal Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda] and is morally distinctive, a special form of wrong-doing in class and type of itself. In fact a better question might be why genocide would ever be considered moral outside out of theologians trapped by their own logic right down the line into unpalatable conclusions, and WCL's defence of it based on God's authority seems almost special pleading, representing a special exemption to an otherwise overwhelming legal and moral consensus. This seems a circular argument: God is moral and anything commanded by Him is moral because He is so. I would agree. Also, if God does not exist then the presumed morality of his commands is bunkum and moot. Another issue of course is the problem of those who assume they know a god's commands and morality and then, say, fly planes into buildings. Command theory surely depends on the supposed commands being clear and without doubt and those who blow themselves up with others are surely confused, at least would argue most theologians. Despite the fervent wishes and assumptions of fundamentalists, one has to ask: how can clarity and certainty in regards to what a deity wants ever be when the Almighty Lawgiver's existence for many lacks such qualities in the first place? All this leaves aside the chance that morality exists separately from God and so He can be judged against objective, or independent standards. As I have argued before, God is a clear personality with subjective vices including anger, jealousy, love and favouring "chosen peoples". None of which of course can be proved. Which doesn't male CLR's position any stronger, with only a 1 in 3 chance of being true. This still leaves genocide justified and ought to make Christian apologists very uncomfortable, just as many fellow travellers with Stalin grew more and more disenchanted as he increased his grip over the Russian state with his ruthless methods. This same argument could be used when confronting, say, the Nazi leaders and their actions in WW2. The answer to a "so what?" was obvious to those condemning and then fighting against them. The answer to CLR is that Genocide is always immoral, and basing an exception to that rule, especially grounded on a deity whose existence cannot be proven, seems a very weak moral position for the "crime of crimes" to be acceptable. True; for those who don't assert that God does not exist and merely have their strong suspicions, (like me) the notion of an alleged all-good deity ordering indiscriminate killing of men women and children, justified by it being necessarily a good brings an uncomfortableness and logical contradiction which only adds to the sense of doubt. It is also to be noted that no genocide was ever felt justified by the victims. Well yes, for if those a follow a supposed all-good god come to such conclusions what good is their philosophy? What is their god for? There are several accounts of God ordered mass killings and genocides in the Bible, some more historical than others. Maybe not CLR; but as already mentioned plenty of fundamentalists, especially Muslims unfortunately, act atrociously with the assumption that they are justified by their god (or the supposed commands in scripture) However there in no logical reason why CLR would not potentially accept a modern genocide if he felt it was ordered by God, since the logic would be the same. In fact lately on this board I have been assured that the recent natural disasters in Libya and Morocco may be put down to God's anger at mankind - in effect such an argument for justified mass killings. (A good read in connection with this topic btw is In God's Name: Genocide and Religion in the Twentieth Century (Berghan Books 2010)) This seems to be attacking the messenger not the message. Incidentally, there are several laws in different jurisdictions against genocide denial which also forbid the justification of genocide.(Some countries have laws against genocide justification but not genocide denial.) A good job lawmakers have better things to do than go after wayward believers! It is fairer to say that it is as weak an argument as the credulity of the faithful who perpetuated those corny images. My point was that atheists did not originate the old guy with a beard in the sky, they merely ridicule it as they do with much Biblical and Qu'ranic literalness. And who wouldn't?
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Oct 3, 2023 22:23:58 GMT
FilmFlaneur Yeah, good points. For the record, I actually think Craig's justification is crap because imo one should judge God's goodness on his commands rather than assume he is good and do cartwheels to try and explain why a good god could give what seems a bad command. A Christian committed to the idea of a good God would be better rejecting the idea it was a genuine divine command than coming up with reasons for 'genocide could be good actually'. However, I just think Craig made a fair point that Dawkins was being a bit silly for refusing to debate him because of this when Craig would only endorse genocide in a situation that Dawkins never thinks would ever happen in reality. Especially as Dawkins himself (and even more so his pals Hitchens and Harris with whom he doesn't seem to have an issue being associated) aren't exactly whiter than white in this area so his moral high ground is pretty shaky. Although I understand Dawkins did relent in the end so maybe it was just a lot of hot air. By the way, why do you call Craig CLR?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 4, 2023 3:12:53 GMT
There are bad apples in every basket, I suppose. I think that whether or not they realize it, arguments between believers and non-believers are almost always grounded in a disagreement over what God is, or at least what each has in mind when they say "God." I've had some rather lengthy discussions before realizing that from their perspective, I had been arguing for the existence of an old bearded man in the clouds smiting sinners with lightning bolts and stillborns. So with that said... What's "the whole 'god' idea?" No, really. Because I have yet to meet anyone who think it's logical to believe in flying spaghetti monsters. On being disappointed with God, I'm certain you know that any atheist would say there is nothing to be disappointed with, but I do find it funny that when they presume God's existence for the sake of discussion, He's always an asshole. lolThere's a funny story about the time the novelist Evelyn Waugh was bunking with Winston Churchill's son Randolph, during their WWII service: Randolph, who'd never been introduced to religion at all during his childhood, and had never even picked up a bible, was regarded by Waugh (a staunch Catholic convert) as ripe for religious instruction. Waugh came to regret it; after pressing the Good Book on Churchill, he had to endure days of Churchill's laughing aloud at what he was reading, accompanied by frequent exclamations of "What a shit God is!" I remember thinking that about my parents for making me eat my vegetables and not letting me play with matches.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 4, 2023 3:20:52 GMT
I've had some rather lengthy discussions before realizing that from their perspective, I had been arguing for the existence of an old bearded man in the clouds smiting sinners with lightning bolts and stillborns. A few years ago, I was grabbing a cup of tea with a bunch of young Trotskysits (as one does) who were talking approvingly about Khrushchev's policy of declaring that the cosmonauts never saw God when they were in space in order to encourage atheism in the Soviet Union. I kept quiet at the time, but all I could think was 'Really? Do these people think religious belief is that fickle that the lack of bearded guys floating in space can destroy it?' Quite telling that even Yuri Gagarin himself remained devoutly Christian despite being in space (though Khrushchev kept quiet about that of course). Yep, it's a terrible attempt at a reductio-ad-absurdum since if you were to apply all the things people actually believe about God to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then it's just God with a silly name since all its supposedly pasta-ey features make no sense for an immaterial being. So these features become metaphorical, much like picturing God as a bearded guy sitting on a cloud is a metaphor that no theologian actually believes in. I remember Richard Dawkins and William Lane Craig having a bit of a tiff a few years back. Dawkins said he would never debate Craig because the latter considered the Israelites massacring the Canaanites justifiable and he would not debate apologists for genocide. Craig pointed out that his apologism here is based on the premises that God exists, God is the source of all good and the massacre of the Canaanites was a genuine commandment from God. Since Dawkins doesn't believe the first premise is true then, from Dawkins' perspective, Craig is not an apologist for genocide. Fair point I thought, regardless of what one thinks of Craig's stance in general. All these observations aside, I think there are plenty of atheists who do actually engage with the proper theological perspective on God and still find it wanting. I'm certain there are, but I probably wouldn't recognize them because I'm not sure what the proper theological perspective on God is. The magical sky daddy is a very popular straw man, likely because it's so easy to ridicule. So easy, in fact, that those who employ it don't seem to care whether or not anyone actually believes it. All in good fun, yeah?
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Oct 4, 2023 11:35:20 GMT
There's a funny story about the time the novelist Evelyn Waugh was bunking with Winston Churchill's son Randolph, during their WWII service: Randolph, who'd never been introduced to religion at all during his childhood, and had never even picked up a bible, was regarded by Waugh (a staunch Catholic convert) as ripe for religious instruction. Waugh came to regret it; after pressing the Good Book on Churchill, he had to endure days of Churchill's laughing aloud at what he was reading, accompanied by frequent exclamations of "What a shit God is!" I remember thinking that about my parents for making me eat my vegetables and not letting me play with matches.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Oct 6, 2023 19:10:50 GMT
FilmFlaneur Yeah, good points. For the record, I actually think Craig's justification is crap because imo one should judge God's goodness on his commands rather than assume he is good and do cartwheels to try and explain why a good god could give what seems a bad command. A Christian committed to the idea of a good God would be better rejecting the idea it was a genuine divine command than coming up with reasons for 'genocide could be good actually'. The problem for me is that whether the Command given is genuinely from a deity or not, accepting it as a given is callous and inhumane enough surely to question whether such an unproven being would be worthy or our devotion and worship. And if anything can be justified in this way, then ultimately anything will be. My mistake, CLR is a recycling company we have used a lot at work!
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Oct 23, 2023 5:27:54 GMT
Even in the U.S. it is sometimes dangerous to admit you don't believe a God exists. People are sometimes disowned by their family members, bullied, lose their jobs etc. This tends to be the result of more fundamentalist religious people. I mean can you imagine the teenage child of some religious fundamentalist Trump supporter telling their parents they are an atheist?
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Oct 23, 2023 5:37:17 GMT
It entirely depends where you live and how religious your immediate family is.
In the U.S. people aren't generally afraid for their immediate safety, they are usually afraid of being disowned by their family, fired from their job or being treated unfairly by their boss etc.
I have heard from many young adults that are terrified of their family finding out they don't believe a God exists anymore, or even that they are just no longer Christian.
I am not afraid to admit I am an atheist.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 26, 2023 7:00:35 GMT
Oh, that's rich. Try admitting you're a Christian. And you’ll be instantly rewarded with inclusion into a protected class! How many open atheist Presidents, Senators, Congressmen, or SCOTUS justices have we ever had? Compare that to the number of who identify as Christian. How often does “god” occur in any codified and entrenched in our culture? It’s on our money and in our National pledge! How many gay couples have been LEGALLY turn away from being able to get a wedding in the name of atheism? What an absurd world you live in (instead your head). You are literally someone who is so blinded by religious indoctrination that you are incapable of seeing objective reality.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 26, 2023 7:03:27 GMT
This is comedy at it's best. You make it sound like people come out of the closet as an athiest. Are you kidding me? Of course atheists are in the position of coming out. It’s more difficult to come out as an atheist than it is to come out as gay in such a religious culture like the United States. Especially if you served in an organization like the US military. And forget letting your kid join the Boy Scouts. People can literally be fired from their jobs for being an atheist because it’s not a protected class like religion is.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Oct 26, 2023 7:12:46 GMT
It entirely depends where you live and how religious your immediate family is. In the U.S. people aren't generally afraid for their immediate safety, they are usually afraid of being disowned by their family, fired from their job or being treated unfairly by their boss etc. I have heard from many young adults that are terrified of their family finding out they don't believe a God exists anymore, or even that they are just no longer Christian. This is absolutely true. I have interviewed a deconverted Muslim and many deconverted Christians on this topic. And while leaving Islam is generally more dangerous because of the doctrine of apostasy (and the willingness of adherents in Muslim countries to enforce it), there are numerous parallels between this and coming out as an atheist in the United States. Especially if you were raised in a religious community or live in the Bible Belt!
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 26, 2023 7:25:44 GMT
Oh, that's rich. Try admitting you're a Christian. And you’ll be instantly rewarded with inclusion into a protected class! Then I've been robbed. Thanks for the underscore.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Oct 26, 2023 7:47:06 GMT
This is comedy at it's best. You make it sound like people come out of the closet as an athiest. Are you kidding me? Of course atheists are in the position of coming out. It’s more difficult to come out as an atheist than it is to come out as gay in such a religious culture like the United States. Especially if you served in an organization like the US military. And forget letting your kid join the Boy Scouts. People can literally be fired from their jobs for being an atheist because it’s not a protected class like religion is. There is such a thing as Christian persecution complex, where certain Christians will feel persecuted simply because their religion no longer holds the same level of status as it once did or because their beliefs are no longer taken seriously or because they are now required to treat people more fairly. I could bring up Communism in the past, but it wasn't just theists who were persecuted, it was anyone who didn't play nice under Communist rule. Any group that wasn't down with Communism was a threat. Nazism on the other hand was supported by German Christians and Hitler's personal beliefs are debated. Based on what I have read I suspect he was a Deist who used Christianity, at least at first, to achieve some of his goals. I suspect the same is the case with Donald Trump. Like Hitler, Trump sees himself as a God and many so-called Christians worship him as one.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Oct 26, 2023 9:14:39 GMT
Nazism on the other hand was supported by German Christians German Protestants mostly and even then there were exceptions. Catholics were generally anti-Nazi.
|
|