Agnostic.com

10 8

The religionists are getting scared. Want to fight back. Good. Bring it on.

Unmasking Atheism as a Bankrupt Religion

[newsmax.com]

"Ultimately, atheism is a belief system without hope. Atheists themselves are nihilistic and negative, and therefore fundamentally unhappy. If they left the rest of us alone, it would one thing. But unfortunately, like all negative and unhappy people, they want everyone else to be as unhappy as they are....It's time to get out there and fight."

They're getting worried, fellow "unhappy" non believers.

Occasionally they write what they really feel. They express their fear of a greater nonreligious secular world.

We should take the gloves off in the struggle against religion. I've thought so for many years. Stand up, challenge and be vocal.

David1955 8 Mar 12
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

10 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Yes I was told this sight is gay the other day by a flat earther lol

0

"...[the youth of today have] been seduced by the confident firebrand styles of atheists..."
"...Atheism is perfect for the snowflake generation..."

Much irony, much laughter!

But it's clear that he doesn't understand atheism as some of us understand religion (because some of us came from religioni):
"...the new atheism is a religion that has its own philosophy (materialism), morality (relativism), politics (social Darwinism), and culture (secularism). It even has its own sacraments (abortion and euthanasia)..."

Our philisophy isn't materialsm. There's nothing wrong with relativism. And there's nothing wrong with secularism.

I'm sure he's got it totally wrong on "Social Darwinism". I had to look it up, of course, because I didn't know what it actually stood for. But from its Wikipedia page (as much as you can trust the editors of Wikipedia - but most of them do a good job of editing each other so that the more accepted definition wins out), it seems that people of different idealogies has used the term "social Darwinism" to mean different and most often contradictory ideas. Here's a quote from the Wikipedia page: "...Social Darwinism has many definitions, and some of them are incompatible with each other. As such, social Darwinism has been criticized for being an inconsistent philosophy, which does not lead to any clear political conclusions..." Also, even if bears his name, Social Darwinism has nothing to do with Charles Darwin. Social Darwinism is a totally made up "thing".

And I don't even have to mention why we support Abortion and Euthanasia. (Spoiler alert: it's not because we're bloodthirsty heathens.)

1

Hahaha! That's quite hillarious coming from them. I call it "projection". They think that of us, because they see a little bit of it in themselves.

Let me check out the article in full.

0

That sounds like work.

0

I don't really care what people believe--as long as they don't try to shove it down my throar or use it to change my life.

1

You know, you try to be open minded and try to live and let live, and apparently because I just don't feel anything during hymn singing, I'm a "snowflake nihilist" who "doesn't want anyone to be happy", yet I get happiness out of other things. Just obnoxious.

3

Although this article is crap journalism of the worst kind, there's something reflected in it of the underlining fear that many religionists do feel as they sense this trend of secularism in the western world. I've read this kind of thing elsewhere, but this piece just perfectly expressed this hit religious nerve. I've always thought the struggle against religion is a momentum issue, pulling on the train and slowly the momentum builds.

DeStefano is a horrible hack. He just spews his bile, and tries to advance his agenda. He is not a journalist.

1

DeStefano? Really? An expert on the functioning of the atheist mind? How? How did that happen? Did he go undercover as an atheist for a few years? Perhaps he ran a long term double blind study of 10,000 atheists for 20 years?

All funning aside, don't you doubt for one minute that this book won't be the best selling book he has ever written and that we will be faced with an army of militant fundamentalist born again evangelicals armed with the gospel of DeStefano shortly. Imagine that, thousands of them with fortified ignorance. It was bad enough before.

2

That piece is almost bogus, other than it is someone's opinion. Newsmax owner, is a friend and adviser to trump. I wouldn't call them 'fake news,' but I don't trust them either! They may be running out of 'groups of people,' to condemn. How easy it is, to hold up to redicule ...a group of people that aren't even 'groupies' and most people want know many non-believers! Nevertheless, if the people on this site, are a cross section of non-believers...I would say they are as happy as any single group. And, what is better, they have comtemplative ideas on things surrounding their life. That should help any of us, find some happiness in life, if we keep up the search!

3

Then why are our numbers growing?

That's the thing. They know that and they are feeling very, very threatened. They're getting increasingly desperate, and as desperate people will do, they are scrambling and spinning, and demonizing what threatens them. In this case, it's logic and reason. So they will try to make atheists look like the worst possible people, when in all actuality, it is they who are the worst.

@TheMiddleWay DeStefano is very well-known among many evangelicals. As far as the Pope goes, he really only has influence among catholics. Most of the "christians" I know, have no use for him or catholicism in general..They don't even consider catholics to be christians.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:36112
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.