The Anti-Christian Movement

Published on February 14, 2005 By Gideon MacLeish In Religion

In an earlier article, I defined the difference between an atheist and an antitheist. I am noticing a lot of antitheists trending towards being specifically antiCHRISTIAN.

For example, I notice outrage lacking when California schools teach units on Islam, requiring students to take Muslim names and recite Muslim prayers. Yet, they take offense with the name of Christ. I notice further that Michael Newdow hasn't filed an injunction against the use of Roman and Norse gods in the names of five of the seven days of the week. These gods apparently are nonoffensive enough to fly below his radar.

The question I feel must be asked of those who are so virulently anti-Christian is, why does the name of Christ offend you so? In former days, even hardened atheists would cede the mantle of being a "good man" to Christ as a person; now they are inclined to question his existence despite the very obvious fact that, had Christ not existed, Christianity could have been stomped out once and for all by simply disproving His existence in the first century AD.

I have my own answers as to why I feel the name of Christ is so offensive; I will not state them here. My intent is not to inflame others but simply to assert who I am and the fact that my faith is as valid as that of any others (and we ALL believe in something; faith, not religion, is common to all). I do ask those who feel it their duty to ridicule and demean every blogger who makes a profession of faith to self evaluate and ask yourself if your hateful hurtful comments aren't counterproductive to your advancement of atheistic thought. I believe they are, and I would encourage a little self editing in certain replies rather than dogpiling on the believer. Frankly, my blacklist is developing a hair trigger, and I hate to head in that direction.

Respectfully submitted,

Gideon MacLeish

Comments (Page 4)

fmfyguy

on Feb 22, 2005

Intellectually lazy? Can you honestly call others this when you claimed that humans were chimpanzees even though a quick bit of research would have shown otherwise?

I give up with you people. You'll just have to wait for your little Rapture to get the last word. I can't believe what you wrote. It's amazing and there's just no point in debating you. Obviously, you did the "quick bit of research" and now you know. And, for the last time, we are related to chimps. It's going to be a little difficult to determine just who or what our common ancestor was since it happened about 20 million years before your bible says life on earth happened at all.

How 'bout it would you consider the foolishness of God's Word? His name is Christ and why in the world would He die for you and I? Sounds so foolish, doesn't it.

Yes, why in the world would He die for you (not I)? He must have been having a very bad day. If his "words" are not the essence of his message and his actions are not a living example of what man could be, then what is the point of it all? Did your God make him flesh so you could make him God again? Read a little book entitled "Why Christianity must change or die" and then one entitled "Liberating the Gospels."

The bottom line is that "man" can never be all that he possibly can be if he bases his existence on a very nice piece of mythology. We are what we are and we have advanced because of our adaptability and forces of nature. You have your God busying itself with lightening and earthquakes and everything else that ever happens Including nasty acts of nature that kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people and wars that kill millions and this nasty cold I have. The funny thing is that nature is not only happening here on Earth. It's also happening everywhere in the Universe, in every one of the tens of billions of galaxies and the billions of billions of stars.

As I said at the outset of this reply, I give up. You're right! You're godly and in tune with the perfect religion and all-knowing diety. Me? I struggle with balancing, analyzing and synthesizing available knowledge. But, then again, I'm just a liittle hairless chimp. I don't mind chimps or gorillas being my relatives because they are a hell of lot nicer than most humans at the moment. But, then again, they haven't received God's word about what abominations they are supposed to hate people for.

And, for the sake of all of us, get off your Anti-Christian crap! Your whining is pathetic. You are, at the moment, the majority (here at least) and you damn well run every major corporation, every part of our government and now you're trying run our public education system. Read some of Jefferson's and Madison 's writings concerning religion in our democracy. What they worried so much about and why is going on right now.

Someone pointed out that the United States and Australia were both originally popluated by English rejects. They got the convicts and we got the Puritans. Clearly, they got the better of the deal.

messybuu

on Feb 22, 2005

I give up with you people. You'll just have to wait for your little Rapture to get the last word. I can't believe what you wrote. It's amazing and there's just no point in debating you. Obviously, you did the "quick bit of research" and now you know. And, for the last time, we are related to chimps. It's going to be a little difficult to determine just who or what our common ancestor was since it happened about 20 million years before your bible says life on earth happened at all.

I like how condescending you are. No wonder you don't like a blog that criticize anti-Christian behavior.
Notice how condescending you've been to those who hold different beliefs. Meanwhile, although I think atheists and other non-Christians are wrong, I don't think they're stupid, intellectually lazy, etc. because they have different beliefs. Who's the arrogant one here?
Also, I never said that chimpanzees weren't related to humans. I just didn't say that they were, because I don't say things without making sure they're based on some evidence.

The bottom line is that "man" can never be all that he possibly can be if he bases his existence on a very nice piece of mythology. We are what we are and we have advanced because of our adaptability and forces of nature. You have your God busying itself with lightening and earthquakes and everything else that ever happens Including nasty acts of nature that kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people and wars that kill millions and this nasty cold I have. The funny thing is that nature is not only happening here on Earth. It's also happening everywhere in the Universe, in every one of the tens of billions of galaxies and the billions of billions of stars.

So, man can't be all that he can possibly be if he's a Christian, but when I look at your condescending behavior, your arrogance, and your intellectual laziness, it looks as though man can't be all he can be if he bases his life on "reason" too.

As I said at the outset of this reply, I give up. You're right! You're godly and in tune with the perfect religion and all-knowing diety. Me? I struggle with balancing, analyzing and synthesizing available knowledge. But, then again, I'm just a liittle hairless chimp. I don't mind chimps or gorillas being my relatives because they are a hell of lot nicer than most humans at the moment. But, then again, they haven't received God's word about what abominations they are supposed to hate people for.

I'll say it once more. Humans aren't chimpanzees. Stop being so intellectually lazy and research it yourself. Saying things that are obviously wrong doesn't make you seem any more logical, intelligent, or reasonable.

Also, Christians aren't supposed to hate people, but you know that, and you're simply making a strawman statement. Do you think that such statements make you seem more intelligent?

And, for the sake of all of us, get off your Anti-Christian crap! Your whining is pathetic. You are, at the moment, the majority (here at least) and you damn well run every major corporation, every part of our government and now you're trying run our public education system. Read some of Jefferson's and Madison 's writings concerning religion in our democracy. What they worried so much about and why is going on right now.

How about this? I'll stop bitching about anti-Christian crap when you stop bitching about Christians and Christianity.
As for reading Jefferson and Madison, I really wonder if you have read their writings, because you clearly haven't read a biology book. If you have, you wouldn't keep insisting that you're a chimpanzee, because chimpanzees and humans are not the same thing.

Someone pointed out that the United States and Australia were both originally popluated by English rejects. They got the convicts and we got the Puritans. Clearly, they got the better of the deal.

Yes, they obviously have. I'm sure Australians don't say things they know to be false (or don't know to be true), and I'm sure they can admit when they're wrong. Why can't you?

Ed Moore

on Feb 22, 2005

Dear Gideon,

In the interests of better understanding between christian folks and non christian folks I offer a few ideas for what they may be worth.
It seems to me that christianity has been on a collion course with non christians from its very beginnings. I f I remember correctly christ is quoted in the new testament as having said -he who is not for me is against me- so this does in fact define all non believers no matter how well intentioned towards christian folks they may be as anti christian. So there is not much room to live and let live if this is the christian attitude.

I think folks of all religious views should accept other peoples right to decide for themselves free from coersion what they want to believe. As long as relgious beliefs do not denigrate others and promote hostility in the community we should be able to believe what we like.

All people must act within the law no matter what their faith says, we cant break the law and use religion as an excuse.
Apart from all that lets all try to get along in harmony and co operate for our common good.

have a nice day
Ed Moore

Gideon MacLeish

on Feb 22, 2005

so this does in fact define all non believers no matter how well intentioned towards christian folks they may be as anti christian.

Yes and no. If you disagree, that is one thing. I have no problem with it; in fact, I welcome it to a certain extent. It is when it goes beyond disagreement to actively trying to "persecute" (I use the word loosely; being mocked in America by an antitheist shouldn't be put in the same category as being used as a tiki torch) those who do believe.

Your last sentence says it best, and expresses a sentiment I can readily embrace.

ad-nauseam

on Jun 13, 2005

We should stop feeding falsehoods to our children. religions, for the most part, removes the human from nature. The great chain of being, and all that 'in gods image' bs. Any human who claims to be made in the image of some fanatastic all knowing whatisit, has not only failed the test of intelligence- answers should be taken as infalliable to the intelligent open mind- but further failed in reconginzing the value, intrinsic value, of the natural world. furthermore, any religion that has some sort of requirement for the afterlife must admit that those who fail the test suffer great pains. In which case, how could any theist befriend an antheist? "Hi this is my buddy John, and I believe he'll spend eternity in hell. Coffee?" In short, followers of monothesitic religions distance themselves over very important issues (personally, theists that think I'll spend eternity in hell, a consequence of their religion, is, well, downright cold and demanding) but also from the value of the natural world. Which is ironic, since religions take themselves to be so open and forgiving, as long as you believe, writes the small print. That's why I'm anti monothesitic. Polythesism is a much more interesting case.

Chakgogka

on Jun 13, 2005

Christianity, like any religion worth the name, makes demands on its followers that are almost humanly impossible to live up to (that's why it's a religion, and not a course in ethics

). How many of us would really sell all we have and give it to the poor [Mark 10:21]; who's actually going to pluck out their right eye if it "offend thee".[Matthew 5:29]. Who could be perfect "even as your Father in heaven is perfect" [Matthew 5:48].

But of all those near impossible demands, probably the easiest to live up to (of a really hard bunch) is "Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not" [Romans 12:14]. Or, to put it another way, "Love your enemies; bless them that curse you; do good to them that hate you; pray for them that persecute you" [Matthew 5:44]

It should be simple - and that should be an end to the matter.

Alas, life is never that simple. As with politics, when you attack someone's religious beliefs it's hard for that person not to feel that you're attacking them personally - and at that spot in which they are most vulnerable. Christians, it seems, are people like anyone else, with fragile egos and thin skins. When the attack comes in the form of ridicule that sense of offence is magnified many times over. When people use mockery, they certainly intend to hurt and I have real sympathy with how that must feel for sincere Christians. However, I would also say, "This ain't Montgomery and you ain't Rosa Parks". There are actually a lot worse things in this sorry world than someone poo-pooing your most treasured beliefs.

I'd like to tell you about Thomas Aikenhead. He was an 18 year old student who lived (and died) in Scotland in the late 17th century. He made a lot of slighting whimsical, disrespectful and partly humurous references to the Christian religion that were considered blasphemous at the time. Truth to tell, he was a very young man, full of intellectual curiosity who was trying out new ideas as young men (and women) do. He was tried by the civil authorities and sentenced to hang.

He appealed the sentence on the reasonable grounds that he was young, foolish and (not surprisingly) very sorry. The Privy Council ruled that he could only be reprieved if the church interceded for him. Instead the Church of Scotland's General Assembly urged "vigorous execution" to curb "the abounding of impiety and profanity in this land".

So, on January 8th, 1697 the noose was put around his neck and the life was choked out of him, while those ministers of the church who had urged his death said prayers at the foot of the scaffold that were surely more obscenely blasphemous than anything the poor young man had ever said.

I do ask those who feel it their duty to ridicule and demean every blogger who makes a profession of faith to self evaluate and ask yourself if your hateful hurtful comments aren't counterproductive to your advancement of atheistic thought.

A good suggestion and a wise one. Hateful hurtful comments are counter-productive to the advancement of any kind of thought. But, in this imperfect world they will always abound, so each of us has to decide how we will live with that.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!