Why are atheists on this website always attacking Christianity? (1 Viewer)

[Ksubi]

Religion makes me lol.

Guyz srsly, srsly...

please explain.

 

[loquasagacious]

Interesting article from todays smh A plague of atheists has descended, and Catholics are the target

Attacking Christians is not really clever, witty or funny.

FROM time immemorial, this world has been troubled by plagues. From bogong moths in Canberra to frogs in biblical Egypt, unwelcome and unlovely creatures have the awkward habit of turning up in bulk.

Just now, we are facing one of our largest and least appealing infestations. Somewhat in advance of summer's blowflies, we are beset by atheists. Worse, they are not traditional atheists. These tended to be quiet blokes called Algie with ancillary interests in nudist ceramics, who were perfectly happy as long as you pretended to accept a pamphlet in Flinders Lane.

No, the new hobby atheist is as brash, noisy and confident as a cheap electric kettle. They want everyone to know that they have not found God, and that no one else should. Their particular target seems to be Catholics. On the surface, this is odd, as there are plenty of other religious targets just waiting to be saved from a vengeful, non-existent deity. Smaller herds, such as the Christadelphians or the Salvation Army, might seem more manageable. But the Catholic Church has two incomparable advantages as an object of the wrath of proselytising atheists. First, it is the biggie. Taking out the Catholics is the equivalent of nuking the Pentagon. Guerilla bands of Baptists and Pentecostals can be liquidated at leisure.

Second, the Catholics have the undeniable advantage that they do still demonstrably believe in something. Attacking some of the more swinging Christian denominations might mean upsetting people who believe a good deal less than the average atheist.

Mind you, the appeals of atheism as a diverting pastime are not immediately obvious to those of us who are on relatively easy terms with God. Why would anyone get so excited about the misconceptions of third parties as to the existence of a fourth party in which they themselves do not believe?

The answer is twofold. First, the great advantage of designer atheism is that you get to think of yourself as immensely clever. After all, you are at least much brighter than all those dumb-asses who believe in a supreme being, such as Sister Perpetua down the road, Thomas Aquinas, Isaac Newton and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. So satisfying.

The second factor has to do with wit. For some reason, contemporary Australian atheism seems to consider itself terribly funny. Its proponents only have to wheel out one of the age-old religious libels to lose control of their bladders. To outsiders, of course, it is a bit like watching a giggling incontinent drunk at a party. This is not to say that believers - and perhaps especially Catholics - do not get seriously irritated by atheists. They do, but not because atheists are fearfully clever or Wildely funny.

Frankly, the prime reason the average believer finds the common or garden atheist as appealing as a holiday in Birchip is because they consign them to that sorry category of individuals who spend their lives loudly congratulating themselves on their own intelligence without noticing that no one else is joining the chorus. Thus, as a Catholic, I do not normally sense in some tabloid atheist the presence of a supreme discerning intellect. I simply place him or her in much the same pitiable bin of intellectual vulgarians as the chartered accountant who cannot see the art in Picasso, the redneck who cannot admit of indigenous culture, and the pissant who cannot see the difference between Yeats and Bob Ellis.

It is not deep perception we encounter here, but a critical failure of imaginative capacity. It is a bit like the old joke: how many atheists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? None - no matter what they do, they just can't see the light.

The second wearying thing about the new atheism is that it is not new at all. It is so banally derivative of every piece of hate mail ever sent to God that I am amazed Satan has yet to sue for copyright infringement. No old chestnut is too ripe, rotten or sodden, especially when it comes to the Catholics as accredited suppliers of what apparently is the Christian equivalent of methamphetamine.

In an average week of atheistic bigotry in the Melbourne media, we can expect to learn that Catholics endorse child molestation, hate all other religions, would re-introduce the crusades and the auto de fe at the slightest opportunity, despise women, wish to persecute homosexuals, greedily divert public moneys for their own religious purposes, subvert public health care, brainwash children, and are masterminding the spread of the cane toad across northern Australia.

Applied to the average totalitarian dictatorship, this charge sheet would be over the top. Ascribed to virtually any ethnic minority, it rightly would result at least in public revulsion and quite possibly in criminal charges. But applied to Christians, it seems to be accepted as just another modern blood sport, like the vilification of refugees and the elimination of the private life of the families of public figures.

At the bottom, of course, lies hate. I am not quite clear why our modern crop of atheists hates Christians, as opposed to ignoring or even politely dismissing them, but they very clearly do. There is nothing clever, witty or funny about hate.

 

[anonymous.92]

Um.



You condone child rape just because it was "common". Just because the definitions have apparently changed.

She was nine years old.

You disgust me.

Like I said before, I will repeat, she was at the age of puberty. That, at that time, was considered the age of adulthood. Are you saying, that you completely, utterly, irrevocably agree with Australia's age of consent? Sixteen in today's society is considered acceptable, so why wouldn't puberty be acceptable 1400 hundred years ago? By saying that today's definition of what constitutes being a child
is accurate and universal, you just come across as bigoted.

 

[ComingUpForAir]

Interesting article from todays smh A plague of atheists has descended, and Catholics are the target

Australian catholic university...
..what a disgraceful organisation, we wont forgot what it was like living under catholic rule anytime soon (the writer mentioned Thomas Aquinas, a disgusting supporter of public executions)

But this guys done quite a solid job on getting everything precisely wrong, atleast it's consistent with his superiors I guess.

 

[ComingUpForAir]

Like I said before, I will repeat, she was at the age of puberty. That, at that time, was considered the age of adulthood. Are you saying, that you completely, utterly, irrevocably agree with Australia's age of consent? Sixteen in today's society is considered acceptable, so why wouldn't puberty be acceptable 1400 hundred years ago? By saying that today's definition of what constitutes being a child
is accurate and universal, you just come across as bigoted.

You can babbel away on seedy internet forums all you want, yes your posts are utterly nauseating and they expose your foul backwater-like mind,

But, you're not to act out these repulsive bronze-age rituals, society has progressed very far inspite of these religious customs, women are no longer grouped with the 'oxen' as if they we're a mans property, and they are no longer sold of to disturbed old men in horrid tribal 'deals'.

Such crimes are not to be favourably 'interpreted', do not appeal to some 'cultrural context', they must be condemned.

 

[Iron]

Interesting article from todays smh A plague of atheists has descended, and Catholics are the target

lol a bit brash considering his position, but a good read! However I basically wouldnt say that I feel singled out as an Catholic, bc most atheists I know are dumb arses anyway who are content in attacking the softer-targets of belief and masturbating over their own supposed intellect. There's the odd dumb comment on here about contraception, homosexuals and child abuse re the Church, but nothing beyond a drive-by shooting. We can take it

 

[Kwayera]

Like I said before, I will repeat, she was at the age of puberty. That, at that time, was considered the age of adulthood. Are you saying, that you completely, utterly, irrevocably agree with Australia's age of consent? Sixteen in today's society is considered acceptable, so why wouldn't puberty be acceptable 1400 hundred years ago? By saying that today's definition of what constitutes being a child
is accurate and universal, you just come across as bigoted.

If your daughter achieved puberty early - most don't go through it until 12-15, so 9 is unusual - would you be comfortable with her marrying and having sex with a man three times her age?

It doesn't matter if she had reached puberty. At that age, her body has not yet developed enough to safely carry a child. This is why so many women in Africa have fistulas - early pregnancy. Rape is rape is rape, even if your religion condones it.

Disgusting.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Well, there's rape and there's rape. As long as it wasn't rape rape.

 

[mirakon]

If your daughter achieved puberty early - most don't go through it until 12-15, so 9 is unusual - would you be comfortable with her marrying and having sex with a man three times her age?

It doesn't matter if she had reached puberty. At that age, her body has not yet developed enough to safely carry a child. This is why so many women in Africa have fistulas - early pregnancy. Rape is rape is rape, even if your religion condones it.

Disgusting.

Using your sources that claim she was 9 years old, you are implying that you see these sources as reliable. These sources also claim that the marriage was consensual, meaning that it would not classify as rape, like you claim.

Also, the cultural standards were at the time different. Morals are defined by society, what we may see as 'right' now is not necessarily 'right' in a different time and place. The reason you see the consensual marriage of a 9 year old and someone three times older as 'wrong' is becuase the society we live in has deemed such an act in present times to be wrong (which I believe it is, so in this case if such an incident happened nowadays I would disagree with it).

However, Arabia approximately 600 AD was entirely different. This is not the fault of religion or Prophet Muhammad, as in their society such an acty was perfectly normal, particularly considering thaat Aisha wished to marry Muhammad in the first place anyway, so no harm was done.

Finally, the fact is that the initial topic was:

Why are atheists on this website always attacking Christianity?

The question of Muhammad's marriage is completely irrelevant to why atheists attack Christianity as Christians don't believe in Muhammad anyway.

 

[Sprangler]

How can a 9 year old consent to marriage let alone sex? If she didn't "consent" she would have probably been stoned to death by the barbarian anyway.

Fact: Muhammad had his penis inside a 9 year old girl. Gross.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Using your sources that claim she was 9 years old, you are implying that you see these sources as reliable. These sources also claim that the marriage was consensual, meaning that it would not classify as rape, like you claim.

Yeah a 9 year old totally has the capacity to consent to marriage and sex with a fully grown man. It not like she would have been pressured or coerced in ANY WAY.

Also, the cultural standards were at the time different. Morals are defined by society, what we may see as 'right' now is not necessarily 'right' in a different time and place. The reason you see the consensual marriage of a 9 year old and someone three times older as 'wrong' is becuase the society we live in has deemed such an act in present times to be wrong (which I believe it is, so in this case if such an incident happened nowadays I would disagree with it).

Explain why it was okay? Just because people agreed with it? If people started believing pedophilia was okay now, would it become okay again?

Are you suggesting that a 9 year old girl would not have felt physical pain from having sex with an adult male?

It is not as though we have become more enlightened on this particular subject because of technology or something they didn't have access to then. It would have been obvious to a fully grown man that the 9 year old girl he was shoving his cock inside was not enjoying the whole thing?

Furthermore, scientific research has confirmed that most men are not attracted to pre-pubescent children. It does not make biological sense for men to be attracted to children, and it would not have made sense then. Even if as you say without evidence pedophilia was more "accepted" then, I very much doubt whether most men would have had sex with children. So even in the context, Mohammed was still a dirty pervert.

However, Arabia approximately 600 AD was entirely different. This is not the fault of religion or Prophet Muhammad, as in their society such an acty was perfectly normal, particularly considering thaat Aisha wished to marry Muhammad in the first place anyway, so no harm was done.

Well I think the whole context thing is sickening drivel, but suppose for a moment that I accept it. This might be a good enough excuse for the common man who is simply a product of his time. But this guy was supposed to be a fucking prophet. Surely a man being guided by the divine, all knowing light of god would have enough moral fibre to refrain from RAPING CHILDREN.

Finally, the fact is that the initial topic was:

The question of Muhammad's marriage is completely irrelevant to why atheists attack Christianity as Christians don't believe in Muhammad anyway.

We don't care. We we're going to talk about it anyway.

 

[David Spade]

The 9 Most Badass Bible Verses | Cracked.com

 

[alisondance]

Im sympathetic for that, and i will admit i am guilty of doing so aswell, but my parents (Christians) grew up in Iraq and in school they were forced to learn about Mohamed and the Islamic faith, even though it was the LAST thing they wanted. My point is, such pressure is exhibited in all faiths, it just depends on where you are.

THIS IS COMPLETLEY DIFFERNET TO WHAT THE CHRISTIANS DO AS YOUR MOM WAS FORCED TO LAERN ISLAM AS A PART OF HER SCHOOL CURRICULUM. WHEREAS CHRISTIANS KNOCK ON PEOPLES DOORS AND TALK TO PEOPLE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET TO PEOPLE WHO DONT WANT TO BE BOTHERED.[/QUOTE]

not to mention we have to learn about christianity in our schools - scripture. we are surrounded by this religion which is why its a prime target. as you say it all depends where you are, if we were surrounded by Buddhist depending on their approach to encouraging their religion they would become the prime targets.

 

[PhilosopherKing]

Interesting article from todays smh A plague of atheists has descended, and Catholics are the target

I chuckled at "designer atheists". An intentional pun?

 

[alisondance]

oh good so seeing as though you are all disgusted with another persons religion even though many of you don't want to have your own religion targeted hence the start of this thread, you must all be disgusted with many of the leaders of the Christian faith. That is the pedophile priests etc, only this is occurring in modern times when there is a legal sex age. now that is disgusting, and further more many acted in a homosexual manner as they were young boys!
You've all already shown your disgust for such actions, they're happening in your own religion so stop attacking others if you're not willing to have your own attacked. practice what you preach or whatever.

 

[John McCain]

Also, the cultural standards were at the time different. Morals are defined by society, what we may see as 'right' now is not necessarily 'right' in a different time and place.

Religious morals are absolute, they are either absolutely right or absolutely wrong. The whole point of following a religious text that's thousands of years old, is that the morals in it are supposed to be unchanging and absolutely correct from the beginning to the end of history.

If the qur'an can be wrong about the appropriateness of sex with children in contemporary society, why would you trust it as an authority on anything else?

Morality is defined by god alone, and god's morals never change, sin is always sin.

 

[ad infinitum]

oh good so seeing as though you are all disgusted with another persons religion even though many of you don't want to have your own religion targeted hence the start of this thread, you must all be disgusted with many of the leaders of the Christian faith. That is the pedophile priests etc, only this is occurring in modern times when there is a legal sex age. now that is disgusting, and further more many acted in a homosexual manner as they were young boys!
You've all already shown your disgust for such actions, they're happening in your own religion so stop attacking others if you're not willing to have your own attacked. practice what you preach or whatever.

The majority of people who were simply pointing out the well known fact that Muhammad had a 'favorite' lover- a 6 year old girl, who when reached age 9- finally married Muhammad, are in fact Atheists, not Christians.
Yes the Catholic church is hive for pedophiles and homosexuals (after all, who else would want to join an organization in which you cannot get married and must swear to chastity....?). However, at least these 'relationships' are viewed as crimes by Catholics, however in Islam these dirty, seedy relationships are seen as OK, and in some cases even mandated.
It is quite revolting that someone such as yourself could even defend such a vile practice, what grotesque plays you must be wickedly cheering in that fowl Cartesian theater of yours.

 

[John McCain]

oh good so seeing as though you are all disgusted with another persons religion even though many of you don't want to have your own religion targeted hence the start of this thread, you must all be disgusted with many of the leaders of the Christian faith. That is the pedophile priests etc, only this is occurring in modern times when there is a legal sex age. now that is disgusting, and further more many acted in a homosexual manner as they were young boys!
You've all already shown your disgust for such actions, they're happening in your own religion so stop attacking others if you're not willing to have your own attacked. practice what you preach or whatever.

You say that as though the homosexuality is an additional indictment upon their character, beyond just the child abuse. Why does it matter if they were homosexual or not?

 

[alisondance]

You say that as though the homosexuality is an additional indictment upon their character, beyond just the child abuse. Why does it matter if they were homosexual or not?

no no by tht point i mean they are being hypocritical as in homosexuality is frowned on in the church yet the very leaders are acting in such a manner? does that make better sense now??

 

[John McCain]

Fair call.