Kalbear Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 That's not really true. At best it's true for a small subset of the Christian time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LOLStorm Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Scot are the 1965 Indonesian killings good enough for you? These certainty qualify as mass executions and atheists were targeted. Quote The Abangan felt pressured into choosing either Hinduism or Christianity in the aftermath of the killings to avoid being classified as atheist communists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_killings_of_1965%E2%80%9366 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jo498 Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 8 hours ago, TrueMetis said: I can absolutely discuss it's scale and prevalence, for thousands of years people couldn't openly profess that they didn't believe in deities. I can't give you population numbers with certainty (though I'm sure I could get a reasonable estimate if I wanted too) but again so what? That's really not the important part. You seem to assume that there is some "natural" quota of atheists (or anti-religious persons), or at least that there must have been a reasonable number of them at almost any time. This seems historically extremely dubious. Even followers of some (comparably small, intellectual and elitist) "atheist" ancient schools, like the Atomists were usually neither atheists (more like skeptics) nor persecuted. War and persecution was almost always between different religions or between orthodox and heretics. I doubt that there were any atheist minorities worth persecuting before the 17th or 18th centuries and then they were usually highly privileged intellectuals who were, if at all, persecuted, because they clashed with political authorities as well. Usually, they would have ruined their careers (and this can happen today as well when stubbornly sticking to anti-establishment positions), but not been killed. But I do agree that a lot of Western Christians do sometimes have some kind of persecution complex, although some of it seems a (often stupid) reaction to similar (maybe not quite unfounded complexes) by real minorities and to culturally stupid pc (like making a point to avoid "Merry Xmas). And this does not change the very real suffering of Christians and others in 20th century Russia, China etc. I find it cynical to call both the "war on Xmas" and repression in some 20th century dictatorship "persecution". The former clearly isn't, it's a silly bit of "culture war". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DireWolfSpirit Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 13 hours ago, TheMightyKC said: Mr. Ellison, I salute you! I have felt increasingly uncomfortable over the last 8 or so years that I will be persecuted for my love of Christ. Just reading some of the opinions from atheists in this thread, I am convinced that what you speak of is certainly possible. He who forgets history is doomed to repeat it. I also agree with solgdin that the real danger is liberalism, and it certainly can be gross when it starts attacking others for their faith. Just like KC threw his grandfathers old hunting rifles into the river (really, listen to "Come as you are" and see what I mean), and then dragged them forth from the mighty Wishka to pawn and buy a guitar, I think we who believe will be called upon to make some hard decisions in the next fifty years. Europe is already embroiled in a culture war of faith, and the US is no different with liberalist attacks on Christianity (see war on Christmas). I have been mocked on Facebook for merely reminding folks that Christmas is about Christ first and foremost. I have been mocked for pointing out the science still hasn't answered some of nature's (God's) greatest mysteries. We may be the dominant religion here but only the true believers will remain when the government is taken over by violent atheists. And then we will be few and there will be no one left to speak for us. My google's broke, could you tell me about this war on Christmas? Kurt Cobain, 19 years old, arrested for spray painting "God is gay ... Reddit › atheism › comments › kurt_cob... Feb 18, 2013 - discussions in /r/atheism. <>. X ... Kurt Cobain, 19 years old, arrested for spray painting "God is gay" ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 2, 2016 Author Share Posted February 2, 2016 Jo, No argument about the "war" on Christmas. It's an overblown Fox news talking point. Not a historic example of "oppression". LOL, I'm embarrassed to say I'd never heard about that genocide before you posted that link. I need to read more before answering your question. It seems to have been targeted at the Indonesian Communist party and if my earlier point about atheism being a sine qua non of Marxism is true your point would seem to be well made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyKC Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 3 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said: My google's broke, could you tell me about this war on Christmas? Kurt Cobain, 19 years old, arrested for spray painting "God is gay ... Reddit › atheism › comments › kurt_cob... Feb 18, 2013 - discussions in /r/atheism. <>. X ... Kurt Cobain, 19 years old, arrested for spray painting "God is gay" ... Out of fear of being politically incorrect, people now say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas". We have freedom of religion here, there's no need to dumb it down or sugar coat it. I wouldn't be offended if someone wished me a blessed Festivus. And Kurt did a lot of things in his wayward youth that I might find troubling, but I believe he did come to know and love God. Just listen to his music-- you can't write things that powerful if you aren't basking in God's love. Also, a lot of his anti-establishment persona was crafted mostly for the marketing angle. Sorry for straying off topic, can we get back to talking about anti-theism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 2, 2016 Author Share Posted February 2, 2016 TMKC, Either greeting is perfectly appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ormond Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 32 minutes ago, TheMightyKC said: Out of fear of being politically incorrect, people now say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas". We have freedom of religion here, there's no need to dumb it down or sugar coat it. I wouldn't be offended if someone wished me a blessed Festivus. A Sorry for straying off topic, can we get back to talking about anti-theism? Look. I'm sorry, the above is simply not true. I am a 64 year old American Christian. I have NEVER in my life been criticized for saying "Merry Christmas." But in the last few years some people have been "offended" and complained when I've said "Happy Holidays" --even when I say "Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays" -- because of this "War on Christmas" nonsense. The idea of the "War on Christmas" was invented by Focus on the Family, the extreme right wing anti-gay group headquartered in Colorado, and was taken up by right wing radio hosts and Fox News as something to make their listeners/viewers angry, but it has never existed. "Happy Holidays" is not a recent invention of "political correctness" but has been a phrase used on Christmas cards and in other places for over a century -- the plural "Holidays" was a way to say "Merry Christmas" and "Happy New Year" at the same time, not a deliberate way to avoid mentioning Christmas. Most of the complaints by the "War on Christmas" people have been about ads and catalogs that they think don't use the word "Christmas" enough -- as a Christian myself I think it would be great if Sears., Macy's, etc. used the word "Christmas" a lot less in their ads and stopped the over-commercialization of the holiday. It is up to churches to "put Christ back into Christmas", not commercial organizations. And I think this topic is relevant to this thread because the stupid idea of the "War on Christmas" is one of the things that is helping to drive young people away from the church and creating "militant atheists" in droves by making Christians look like idiots with martyr complexes who want to impose their own language on the rest of society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereward Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 I'm more interested in the cultural war of faith that is already engulfing my country. How does it manifest itself and what should I do about it? Now that I come to think about it, how do I know which side I'm on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterOJ Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 28 minutes ago, Ormond said: Look. I'm sorry, the above is simply not true. I am a 64 year old American Christian. I have NEVER in my life been criticized for saying "Merry Christmas." But in the last few years some people have been "offended" and complained when I've said "Happy Holidays" --even when I say "Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays" -- because of this "War on Christmas" nonsense. The idea of the "War on Christmas" was invented by Focus on the Family, the extreme right wing anti-gay group headquartered in Colorado, and was taken up by right wing radio hosts and Fox News as something to make their listeners/viewers angry, but it has never existed. "Happy Holidays" is not a recent invention of "political correctness" but has been a phrase used on Christmas cards and in other places for over a century -- the plural "Holidays" was a way to say "Merry Christmas" and "Happy New Year" at the same time, not a deliberate way to avoid mentioning Christmas. Most of the complaints by the "War on Christmas" people have been about ads and catalogs that they think don't use the word "Christmas" enough -- as a Christian myself I think it would be great if Sears., Macy's, etc. used the word "Christmas" a lot less in their ads and stopped the over-commercialization of the holiday. It is up to churches to "put Christ back into Christmas", not commercial organizations. And I think this topic is relevant to this thread because the stupid idea of the "War on Christmas" is one of the things that is helping to drive young people away from the church and creating "militant atheists" in droves by making Christians look like idiots with martyr complexes who want to impose their own language on the rest of society. Thank you, Ormond. That was quite eloquent. You always have a way of putting into words my feelings on a subject much better than I ever could. Bless you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pebble thats Stubby Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 1 hour ago, Hereward said: I'm more interested in the cultural war of faith that is already engulfing my country. How does it manifest itself and what should I do about it? Now that I come to think about it, how do I know which side I'm on? Think it might be Corrie V Eastenders V couldn't care less And I think I already know what side you are on. or it might be Single Malt V those Abomination's who would add mixers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 6 hours ago, Jo498 said: You seem to assume that there is some "natural" quota of atheists (or anti-religious persons), or at least that there must have been a reasonable number of them at almost any time. More like I assume there are atheists now who hide that they are atheists, so there were likely atheists in the past who are the same. And we could likely get a reasonable estimate of how many by looking at modern numbers, especially if we looked in a highly religious place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 2, 2016 Author Share Posted February 2, 2016 14 minutes ago, TrueMetis said: More like I assume there are atheists now who hide that they are atheists, so there were likely atheists in the past who are the same. And we could likely get a reasonable estimate of how many by looking at modern numbers, especially if we looked in a highly religious place. That assumes there is a static level of hidden atheists within any given society. The level in a past society could easily be lower or higher for that matter. At the end of the day you'd be left with a guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: That assumes there is a static level of hidden atheists within any given society. The level in a past society could easily be lower or higher for that matter. At the end of the day you'd be left with a guess. The crucial point is that you could make a reasonable guess about past highly religious societies by studying contemporary highly religious societies. That is not remotely the same as assuming there is a static level of hidden atheists in "any given society." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 2, 2016 Author Share Posted February 2, 2016 OAR, That's assuming distinct similarities between current societies and past societies. That's a huge assumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said: OAR, That's assuming distinct similarities between current societies and past societies. That's a huge assumption. It's assuming other similarities on the basis of a similarity- degree of religiosity- that's most relevant to the question we're asking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 2, 2016 Author Share Posted February 2, 2016 OAR, That is also assuming the religiosity of the past is similar enough to the religiousity of today for the comparision to work. Still a big assumption. Today is not yesterday and today's societies, religious or not, are very different from past societies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said: OAR, That is also assuming the religiosity of the past is similar enough to the religiousity of today for the comparision to work. Still a big assumption. Today is not yesterday and today's societies, religious or not, are very different from past societies. The parts of the world that are most religious today also more closely resemble past societies in other respects, of course. In the end, I just don't see it as that big an assumption. YMMV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: OAR, That's assuming distinct similarities between current societies and past societies. That's a huge assumption. There are distinct similarities between current and past societies. Because current societies come from past societies. Ancient societies aren't alien, they're us with a different tech base. If brands, celebrities, advertisements, and bitching about the younger generation and new technology existed in ancient Rome I'm willing to bet that there are more similarities than differences between societies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted February 2, 2016 Author Share Posted February 2, 2016 TM, It, at the end of the day, will still be a guess. It will be beyond verification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.