Atheists are Preachers and Killers

[Sophus]

If you can handle the stupid, stroll on over to this article from the Gazette.

Whenever a Christian zealot bombs an abortion clinic, Christian leaders quickly defend the religion and the vast majority of believers who go through life doing no harm.

“We categorically condemn the act of vigilantism and violence that took his life. … Our condolences are extended to the Tiller family,” said Dobson, then-leader of Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family, in response to the murder of abortion doctor George Tiller in 2009.

Now listen to Myers, who was quick to defend his followers after atheist James J. Lee took hostages at Discovery in an effort to force more atheist televangelism.

“There’s basically no way anyone can argue that James Lee was representative of any significant subgroup of evolutionary biologists, fans of Darwin, or freethinkers; he’s a sad, lonely outlier,” Myers wrote in his blog, sounding like a preacher after an abortion-doctor shooting, in response to Klinghoffer.

You've been warned. Darwinism will make you a psycho suicidal hostage taker.

[SSY]

Wasn't he an eco nutter? I didn't see anything about atheism in the news.

[Kylyssa]

Myers, who grabbed attention by vandalizing sacred religious property, is a young and energetic American evangelist on track to become the James Dobson of atheism.

Is this a reference to the ceremonial cracker?  Or did Meyers go on some vandalism spree we haven't heard about?

[Kylyssa]

Unfortunately, you can't hotlink in the comments there because I'd love to link to Atheist Centre of India there.  It's big, it's old, and it has saved many, many lives since it opened in the 1940s.

[Sophus]

Myers, who grabbed attention by vandalizing sacred religious property, is a young and energetic American evangelist on track to become the James Dobson of atheism.

Is this a reference to the ceremonial cracker?  Or did Meyers go on some vandalism spree we haven't heard about?

I haven't a clue. I figured Myers would respond to that part but he didn't. Maybe if we all collectively bug him enough about it....  

[epepke]

Trouble is, this is one of the criticisms of atheism I agree with.

Although P.Z. is just some dork with a blog, and one for whom I do not have much respect, many atheists gloss over the issue of atheists monsters.  Although some of the criticism is stupid (Hitler was hardly an atheist), prominent atheists do have a tendency to dismiss atheist monsters as irrelevant.  Such as stuff about how Stalin didn't do his stuff because of atheism but politics.  This is probably true, but it's also probably true of the great Christian and Islamic and even Buddhist and Hindu and Jewish monsters, so it isn't particularly good as a rejoinder.

I find it much better to say that atheism doesn't prevent someone from being a monster, but neither does religion seem to.

[Tanker]

Trouble is, this is one of the criticisms of atheism I agree with.

Although P.Z. is just some dork with a blog, and one for whom I do not have much respect, many atheists gloss over the issue of atheists monsters.  Although some of the criticism is stupid (Hitler was hardly an atheist), prominent atheists do have a tendency to dismiss atheist monsters as irrelevant.  Such as stuff about how Stalin didn't do his stuff because of atheism but politics.  This is probably true, but it's also probably true of the great Christian and Islamic and even Buddhist and Hindu and Jewish monsters, so it isn't particularly good as a rejoinder.

I find it much better to say that atheism doesn't prevent someone from being a monster, but neither does religion seem to.

The biggest difference is Atheism in and of itself does not proscibe, promote, endorse, or encourage any type of violence, hate, or negativity. Religions can't make that distinction. Usually quite the oppisite in fact. Theists and Atheists both, can do great evil in the name of power. However unlike Theists Atheists can't do harm because their ideology tells them to.

[philosoraptor]

I'm in agreement with Tanker on this one.  Sure, there are "monsters" who are atheists, but they're monsters because they are morally bankrupt, not because they are atheists.  How often, after committing an atrocious crime, do you hear such monsters claim that God told them to do it?

[Sophus]

I'm in agreement with Tanker on this one.  Sure, there are "monsters" who are atheists, but they're monsters because they are morally bankrupt, not because they are atheists.  How often, after committing an atrocious crime, do you hear such monsters claim that God told them to do it?

The biggest difference between the two is that you will not see atheists playing No True Scotsman, whereas Christians, undoubtably, will. Maybe the writer of this mistook PZ's saying, "there’s basically no way anyone can argue that James Lee was representative of any significant subgroup of evolutionary biologists, fans of Darwin, or freethinkers," as just that. When all PZ is claiming is that Lee doesn't represent everyone else with an evolutionary view.

Although P.Z. is just some dork with a blog, and one for whom I do not have much respect,

"PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris."

[epepke]

The biggest difference is Atheism in and of itself does not proscibe, promote, endorse, or encourage any type of violence, hate, or negativity. Religions can't make that distinction. Usually quite the oppisite in fact. Theists and Atheists both, can do great evil in the name of power. However unlike Theists Atheists can't do harm because their ideology tells them to.

One could as easily and correctly argue that theism, per se, does not prescribe, endorse, etc. any sort of violence.  It's the religious texts that often accompany theism that do, which are not quite the same thing.  There have been plenty of ideological texts that promote violence that have been as associated with atheism as religious texts are with theism.  Maoist texts, for example.

[philosoraptor]

The biggest difference is Atheism in and of itself does not proscibe, promote, endorse, or encourage any type of violence, hate, or negativity. Religions can't make that distinction. Usually quite the oppisite in fact. Theists and Atheists both, can do great evil in the name of power. However unlike Theists Atheists can't do harm because their ideology tells them to.

One could as easily and correctly argue that theism, per se, does not prescribe, endorse, etc. any sort of violence.  It's the religious texts that often accompany theism that do, which are not quite the same thing.  There have been plenty of ideological texts that promote violence that have been as associated with atheism as religious texts are with theism.  Maoist texts, for example.

This is essentially comparing apples to oranges, though.  Religious texts are really not the same thing as Maoist texts, or other examples you might provide.  I don't want to say that religious texts are universally accepted amongst people of certain faiths, but I think you'll find that the majority of Christians believe they should follow the laws laid out by the Bible, Jews the Talmud, Muslims the Qu'ran and so on and so forth.  These widely accepted texts do endorse certain acts of violence, prejudice, bigotry, etc...  Texts like this don't really exist in atheism.  It's not even likely that a majority of atheists go home and read The God Delusion, or quote Christopher Hitchens at the dinner table-there isn't a common unifying atheist text that is widely accepted.  It seems kind of pointless to attempt to draw the type of comparison you are making here.

[epepke]

The biggest difference is Atheism in and of itself does not proscibe, promote, endorse, or encourage any type of violence, hate, or negativity. Religions can't make that distinction. Usually quite the oppisite in fact. Theists and Atheists both, can do great evil in the name of power. However unlike Theists Atheists can't do harm because their ideology tells them to.

One could as easily and correctly argue that theism, per se, does not prescribe, endorse, etc. any sort of violence.  It's the religious texts that often accompany theism that do, which are not quite the same thing.  There have been plenty of ideological texts that promote violence that have been as associated with atheism as religious texts are with theism.  Maoist texts, for example.

This is essentially comparing apples to oranges, though.  Religious texts are really not the same thing as Maoist texts, or other examples you might provide.  I don't want to say that religious texts are universally accepted amongst people of certain faiths, but I think you'll find that the majority of Christians believe they should follow the laws laid out by the Bible, Jews the Talmud, Muslims the Qu'ran and so on and so forth.  These widely accepted texts do endorse certain acts of violence, prejudice, bigotry, etc...  Texts like this don't really exist in atheism.  It's not even likely that a majority of atheists go home and read The God Delusion, or quote Christopher Hitchens at the dinner table-there isn't a common unifying atheist text that is widely accepted.  It seems kind of pointless to attempt to draw the type of comparison you are making here.

So the standard atheist stonewalling, aggression, and denial, during the past 30 years of which we've seen some dramatic increases in fundamentalism, could you remind me what the point of that was, or is?  The arguments that there is a big difference between atheist and theist monsters due to some technicality which theists do not appreciate seems to ring hollow on theist ears, and they are beginning to ring hollow on mine.  What purpose do they serve?  A personal feeling of superiority?