digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

American Atheist Soldiers Mistreated in Iraq

scienceblogs.com — No, not by radical Muslims but the U.S military. Here is an email that was forwarded from a soldier in Iraq whose friend is being harassed at another base for organizing a meeting of atheists on the base. The email was originally sent to Kathleen Johnson, the military director for American Atheists, who is currently serving in Iraq herself.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • max420, on 10/14/2007, -62/+379All forms of religion foster the development of bigots, racists and idiots. This major is one of them. Religion is stupid. The world would be a much better place if religion didn't exist.
    • DeskFlyer, on 10/10/2007, -23/+116As much as I hate to say it, I'm fairly confident that something else equally asinine would take religion's place at one point or another.
      • Zarokima, on 10/14/2007, -15/+79Human stupidity is limitless, eh?

        Regardless, I find it nearly impossible to conceive something as idiotic and detrimental to society and humanity as a whole than religion.
        • Birdoftruth, on 10/10/2007, -39/+14"I find it nearly impossible to conceive something as idiotic and detrimental to society and humanity as a whole than religion"

          What about greed and selfishness? That is the bad stuff that forms off of everything (religion, life, etc..) So it is not religion that is stupid, it is how people use it.
          • ahammett, on 10/10/2007, -6/+40The difference is that it's politically correct to call greed and selfishness for what it is, UNLESS it has to do with religion--then we're not allowed to question it.
        • zweben, on 10/14/2007, -16/+59"So it is not religion that is stupid, it is how people use it."

          No, it's both. Get rid of religion and the world will be a better place. Not perfect, but better.
          • DocHoliday22, on 10/14/2007, -3/+20God told Bush to go to war... Nuff said...
        • brokencrystal, on 10/10/2007, -29/+8Just get rid of people. Don't blame religion.
        • thcobbs, on 10/14/2007, -1/+12"Regardless, I find it nearly impossible to conceive something as idiotic and detrimental to society and humanity as a whole than religion."

          I find your lack of faith in the ability of Man to create things that are idiotic and detrimental to society is disturbing.
        • Neiby, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6While I agree that religion is bad, I think we need to differentiate it from spirituality. I think it is okay, and possibly healthy, to ponder the potential spiritual side of humanity. It isn't until you convert that spirituality into dogma, ritual and tradition that you get religion, and that's when it pretty much always turns bad.
          • UglieJosh, on 10/14/2007, -0/+5Agreed. Also, since most people incorrectly label Buddhism as a religion, it is important to add an "(except Buddhism)" when calling all religions evil. I am not a Buddhist, by any means, but I hate seeing a great example of what a spiritually motivated group SHOULD BE, being lumped in with the fanatical occults like Christianity, Islam, Scientology, etc..
          • GeneralFault, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That depends. Is the study of ones "spirituality" a study of their own psyche and the natural interaction with others? Or is it used as a crutch to defend against the inevitable conclusion that humans are physical, limited, creatures that are governed by the same laws of nature that everything else is?
            Too often I find people using "spirituality" as a way to prop up the idea that they are more than they are; that there are supernatural forces, just not any that are defined by religion, that somehow impose their will upon us. I find that kind of thinking even more ridiculous than many major religions.
      • tdowling, on 10/10/2007, -2/+26Yup, dogmatism will always pushed to the mindless masses. Religion is just a really convenient vessel for it.
      • arjie, on 10/10/2007, -3/+21I think that 'something else' is blind nationalism disguised as patriotism. And its here.
        • Tilon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5And it used religion to propogate itself, just like 99% of other nationalist controlling govts in history. The whole genius of it is that it uses the state RELIGION to convince people they are DIVINE and therefore SUPERIOR to other peoples.

          You lose.
          • UglieJosh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Sounds like another fascist government that we are taught about in school. Couldn't be, though, we were taught that they were evil, racist, corrupt murderers who's lives were motivated by increasing the wealth of the elite and a massive superiority complex. We are nothing like that at all, right?

            P.S., I didn't mention the name, so the rule is NOT in effect.
          • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I mean, we wouldn't do anything like, say, arrest a US citizen inside the country and hold them in solitary confinement in a military prison for years without ever allowing them to see a lawyer or even filing any sort of charges.

            Oops.
      • ICSU, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Well, some things have already done that - nationalism, communism, Nazism, fascism.
        • alf86, on 10/10/2007, -13/+2What, do you keep a dictionary of 'isms next to the keyboard? I can do that too...

          ... alcoholism, idealism , objectivism, immoralism, indifferentism, positivism ... This is fun!... ism.
        • arjie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Well, I must disagree there. It's not communism per se that caused any troubles, it was the dictatorships that came with it, or the nationalism that came with it, or the fact that it wasn't communism at all. I mean, the DPRK claims to be 'communist', but that's ridiculous because that state is certainly not classless.

          But that's an argument for another day.
          • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's a matter of whether labels are descriptive or prescriptive.

            I mean, "DPRK is not Communist" is sort of like "Bush is not Conservative". One's not classless, the other's not trimming the size of government budgets... Prescriptively, both statements are arguably true. Because of what "communism" and "American classical conservatism" mean. Descriptively, they are false since each philosophy would be defined by what self-claimed adherents do.
      • elliott203, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Yeah, I can see Flying Spaghetti Monsterism and Rational Humanism appealing to the darkest sides of the human condition.
      • joe7845, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1There are many such things already, such as alternative medicine or conspiracism. You can't expect 100% of the people to be rational.
    • cusoman, on 10/10/2007, -65/+38Yeah, forget about all those wonderful humanitarian people that helped people around the globe like Mother Theresa, John Paul II, and countless others with less recognition. For every development of bigotry, racism, and idiocy you can cite, there are just as many examples of deep showings of love, compassion, understanding, and giving that some religions have fostered the development of.
      • Birdoftruth, on 10/10/2007, -36/+14yea, people only like to dwell on the negative stuff from the other side in order to promote their own views. This is a general issue and not cornered towards religion or politics. When is the last time you have seen in the news "Local church's donation drive saved 25 lives in a tribal village of Haiti"
        • cusoman, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4I agree, but there are alternatives... http://www.happynews.com/ is one such place :)
        • mithrasinvictus, on 10/10/2007, -7/+8you must be kidding. things don't cancel each other out like that, evil is evil, even if its one of yours doing it.
        • siszam, on 10/10/2007, -7/+18You shouldn't be reading about good deeds in the paper. The Bible says to do them in secrete so only God knows of them. Otherwise you lose your reward.
          • chocolatetacos, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3The Bible also says that those who touch the skin of a dead pig are unclean. Should the Redskins be permitted to play football on Sundays if they wear gloves?
        • cusoman, on 10/10/2007, -7/+7If someone goes yelling what they did on the mountain tops, that's one thing. A media outlet reporting something because they found out about it and considered it a great special interest story is something entirely different. Jesus healed the sick and dying and you didn't hear him boast about his actions, but you can be darn sure word of what he did spread like wildfire through the people.
          • CrackIsWack, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13"Jesus healed the sick and dying and you didn't hear him boast about his actions"

            That's because he never did in the first place. I challenge you to name ONE historian during that time period that even mentions a Jesus from Bethlehem performing miracles. Don't you think something of that magnitude would have made it into the history books?

            Reminder: the burden of proof lies on the CLAIMANT.
          • darthmiho, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5I know that a man by the name of Jesus who was listed in roman records as having been born in Bethlehem existed. Weather he performed miracles is very much up for debate. I consider myself agnostic but to debase known records is not right.
          • cusoman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2CrackisWack - Luke mentions a Jesus from Bethlehem/Nazareth performing miracles. The Bible has more manuscripts backing up its historical evidence than any other ancient work.
        • thumperings, on 10/10/2007, -12/+10mother teresa was a bitch look it up .. it was all a PR campaign.
          • Monk22, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Penn and Tellers show ***** does an episode about mother teresa, ghandi, and the dali lamma. youd be suprised what you find out about them.
      • Locke2053, on 10/10/2007, -14/+51According to Penn and Teller, Mother Teresa wasn't very saintly. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8q1m-8npkJ4

        But I agree with you that good people, religious or not, will tend to do good things, evil people, religious or not, will tend to do evil things, but for good people to do evil things--that takes religion. [can't remember original source]
        • mrASSMAN, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6I was just about to mention *****! They did a good job at trashing that myth.
        • Chaostician, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Steven Weinberg, a theoretical physicist said that. Dawkins quoted him in "Root of All Evil?". Weinberg is a Nobel laureate and is a professor at The University of Texas at Austin at the moment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Weinberg
        • UberNick, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Here's a link to the documentary they mentioned: http://www.meteorbooks.com/introduction.html
          • floodyberry, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7The author, Aroup Chatterjee (a native Calcuttan), was also on the show and talked about some of the stuff in his book.

            From the introduction: "I had no interest whatsoever in Mother Teresa before I came to England. Difficult it may seem to a Westerner to comprehend, but she was not a significant entity in Calcutta in her lifetime; paradoxically posthumously her image has risen significantly there - primarily because of the Indian need to emulate the West in many unimportant matters."

            Once you start to find out more about her, you'll cringe every time someone tries to link her to positive aspects of religion. I think it would be safe to say that she cared more about spreading religion and preventing abortion (no matter the situation) than alleviating the suffering of the poor (which she actually did very little of).

        • cusoman, on 10/10/2007, -10/+7That was interesting, however it doesn't dissuade me from believing that there is good that comes out of religion.
          • UberNick, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13Maybe you're looking too hard. Or not hard enough if you can't see the drastic imbalance in good vs evil. Look at the most religious locations in the world-- or the most religious times in history. Do positive images come from dark-age Europe or Taliban-run Afghanistan, or Texas?
            Now consider the opposite times and places. The Enlightenment, for instance.
          • cusoman, on 10/10/2007, -12/+3Maybe I am, but the same could be said of you in pointing out all the negatives. We live in a very religious time in history, whether or not you choose to believe it, and there is plenty of good left in this world. I'm not sure what you mean by opposite times and places... they're not opposite, just different. Different political beliefs, different advances in medicine and technology, different opportunities for the people inhabiting the world. Religion has been an active part of society for centuries, even The Enlightenment where "Piety and belief in this period were integral to the exploration of natural philosophy and ethics, in addition to political theories of the age" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Enlightenment ).

            To attribute the major presence of religion to evil in certain times and places is to ignore as many instances of good where religion flourishes.
          • chocolatetacos, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2@ UberNick

            "Do positive images come from dark-age Europe" Who preserved texts of the ancient Greeks and Romans during this time period, including the works of Aristotle, Ptolemy, and Socrates? The Catholic Church.
        • Junkyarddawg, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I think you guys may be a bit confused about what it means to be "saintly".
          Hint: it doesn't actually have anything to do with being nice, but does have a lot to do with being unquestioningly, fanatically, pious and performing at least one miracle.
      • WarpFox, on 10/10/2007, -7/+15@cusoman

        you know what, i'd be more than willing to give up all the religious humanitarian efforts if it meant NO MORE WARS.
        • cusoman, on 10/10/2007, -3/+18So you honestly believe that religion is the root of all wars? Not oil, not resources in general not politics, not MONEY, but just religion?
          • UberNick, on 10/14/2007, -1/+10Religion certainly enables it. How about "believe your leader, cause God tells him what to do". Or "those towel heads deserve to be invaded". Or "I have FAITH that we're doing what's right, not based on evidence, rationality, and observation, but from being told so and blindly listening."
          • cusoman, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3If what the leader says goes directly against what is taught by what they believe to be God's word, then they should know that it is not God speaking to them through their leader. The Bible, for example is chalk FULL of people asking questions. By example, a Christian who follows that word is going to do the same and be weary of man's word over divine word.

            Those who blindly listen are being deceived by themselves if they so easily fall.
          • Scheissen, on 10/14/2007, -1/+7um Religion leads the army to war. You're right that it doesn't start it, the political figures have something else in mind but will mention God in their speech to get the nation to go to war.
          • brufleth, on 10/14/2007, -0/+5Religion is rarely a root cause. It is a means. It is a tool. It is how a small group of social and economic elite can alter the mindset of a much larger group without reasonable justification. It allows that minority to make inaccurate or misleading statements and instead of framing it with "because I said" they can dress it up with "as our lord commands" and such. Religion is a means of control that is happily accepted by the masses because it lifts a lot of the heavy decisions off their soldiers and gives promises of everlasting life, salvation, paradise, etc.
        • brokencrystal, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2@ cusoman: My Thoughts exactly!
        • cusoman, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1brokencrystal, sometimes I swear you follow me around... :)
          • jessicass, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Let it never be said that no one has ever found love on digg.
      • brokencrystal, on 10/10/2007, -8/+10I don't think that religion is the reason for ALL wars!
        • ejan, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9But it is usually the excuse.
        • ath1337, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5You're right, it's MONEY. Religion is usually just a mask.
        • pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9it's not the reason for all wars. but it is a tool to unify one people against another. a large part of why we are in iraq is the support of evangelical voter blocks.
        • darthmiho, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1So how did religion play a role in the soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 80's? If I remember my history correctly it had as much to do with geopolitical tensions as it did with instability.
      • UberNick, on 10/14/2007, -6/+44On Mother Teresa:
        Even patients in unbearable pain were refused strong painkillers, not because the order did not have them, but on principle. "The most beautiful gift for a person is that he can participate in the suffering of Christ," said Mother Teresa. Once she had tried to comfort a screaming sufferer, "You are suffering, that means Jesus is kissing you."
        -http://members.lycos.co.uk/bajuu/

        Don't get me started on John Paul II... (cough*AIDS*cough). Want to try naming a few more? Try to avoid the child-raping, Nazi sponsoring, anti-intellectual bigots (if you can).
        • cusoman, on 10/10/2007, -16/+3Again, dwelling on the negative. Can any one person in this world say that every action they performed was positive and good for this world?
          • UberNick, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18Your only examples "humanitarians" turn out to be monsters. Let observation shape your conclusion, not the other way around.
          • cusoman, on 10/10/2007, -11/+2My observations come from the real life experiences I have had, not sensationalist journalism that drills a hole into one area of a subject while ignoring the sum of its parts. Unfortunately if I were to use my real life examples, they wouldn't matter as I don't expect people to relate to them, thus I had to use surface examples that are well known by the general populace. Of course I should have realized the folly in this method when dealing with cynics.
      • victoitor, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15Yeah... so they wouldn't be doing good deeds if it wasn't for their religion? They only do it because of fear of being punished, is that it?

        Or maybe they are just good people and would be doing the same thing if they were not associated with a religion.
      • breadbin, on 10/14/2007, -1/+14People often bring up "the good that comes out of religion" but that's really the last resort argument of people who know they can't justify religion on any other basis. For every person who does good work and says their religion encouraged them to do it there are at least as many, if not many more, who use the bad parts of religion to justify terrible acts, promotion of some very dubious morals and generally keeping people down-trodden and making them feel thankful for it! People are cowed into surrendering their individuality and promised the worst punishments imaginable if they question their religion. Religious people know this all to be true but they keep telling themselves the lie that what they really believe in is the good stuff. If you wake up and accept that virtually none of what religion claims is even remotely possible then all the dressing falls away and you can see it for what it is, which is a system of control with just enough sugar to keep you coming back for more.
        • chocolatetacos, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Atheist nations don't prove to be any better. See: Soviet Russia, China. Hatred of a single religion leads to genocide. Truly secular governments are clearly the best solution, and this requires a tolerance of religion.
        • thehead1138, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I don't like it.... but you're right.
      • dming, on 10/14/2007, -0/+10What does being good/humanitarian or not have to do with religion? If there weren't religion those people you mentioned would likely still be "wonderful humanitarian people". On the other hand, if the only reason that someone is being good is due to the religion he/she believes in, then is that person really good or is he/she simply being good as not to receive divine punishment?
        • AceLy, on 10/14/2007, -0/+7You're not truly good if you need religion to reward you for it. You're just a greedy ***** in disguise.
      • DangerMouse9, on 10/14/2007, -0/+4So are you saying they were only that way because of religion, instead of caring about their fellow man? If that is the case, it's all the more reason to have a disdain for religion. If you only act a certain way under threat (such as going to be tortured and burned in hell) or desire for praise, instead of acting that way because you know it's the right thing to do then you are a very poor excuse for a human.
      • cusoman, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Ah I see the "I don't agree with what this person is saying so I'm going to down digg him, completely missing the point of the mod system" crew is awake and at it again.

        Reevaluate yourselves. You're being no different than the people you're lambasting.
      • joe7845, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Because without religion humanitarians would not exist? I've never understood that argument.
    • cusoman, on 10/10/2007, -5/+13And let me just say, in addition to what I said above, that I believe what the major in question did was wrong and he should be punished for behaving in such a way.
    • osoosi, on 10/14/2007, -18/+26Gee, how insightful. Calling people with different beliefs than yours names. You are truly enlightened.
      • upsilonh24, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Alright then. I'm calling the Klu Klux Klan a bunch of dicks.

        Does that make me a dick?
    • estvir, on 10/10/2007, -10/+16The hypocrisy is overwhelming !
    • brokencrystal, on 10/10/2007, -31/+9Maybe Atheists can be persecuted just as much as Christians? No! That could not happen.
      • breadbin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+21Atheists ARE persecuted and Christians are assumed to be people of upstanding character and sound morals. Tell me it isn't so, and then remind why it's almost impossible to get elected into office in the US if you openly state your non-belief? You've got the White House and most of the US government, what more do you want?? Religious groups have persecuted each other throughout history and across the globe. Wherever people of faith congregate they actively seek out those who don't believe exactly what they believe and someone ends up getting bullied. You can't even agree among your different sects WITHIN the same religion, so don't talk to me about persecution. I'm sick of this circular lie about religion and tolerance. All major religions preach intolerance of other religions and non-believers, yet when someone questions religion all the faithful complain they're being persecuted. It's *****, pure and simple.
      • Me1000, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1Im sorry you get dugg down by a bunch of dicks, but you are right!
        I have to defend my religious beliefs all the time to atheists, why can't they accept people dont agree with them and move on. I dont give a ***** what they think, I wont convert because of them!


        • DangerMouse9, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Then don't try to convert them, or tell them they're going to hell. See, I can make it look like you're a representative of everyone of your "faith" as well.
        • Me1000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1^ ***** you, I have never tried to convert anyone in my life!

          I could care less what other people believe!


    • guyinthechair, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4This major is a form of religion? :P
    • ctrldotlife, on 10/10/2007, -23/+4i love how there are so many Athests in this country, whats more is that the majority of them are geeks... almost makes you wonder if theres a corelation between geeks and athiests
      • realclark, on 10/10/2007, -3/+25Yes, geeks are intelligent people, and intelligent people see no value in religion.
      • UberNick, on 10/10/2007, -2/+27there is a definite correlation between education and atheists. also between intelligence (through most accepted metrics) and atheists. and scientific achievement and atheism. The more achieved you are as a scientist, the less likely you are to be religious. It hits about 0% once you get to nobel-prize level. by most considerations of "geek", yes, there's a very strong correlation
      • gropo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8So let's recap: smart person = no belief in giant space fairies.
        Yes, I believe there is a strong correlation.
      • Rsardinia, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Ya thats right, try and put down atheists because they use their "God given" brain.

        If by geeks you mean well educated people that study facts and the scientific theories that have been proven time and time again by testing them, and when they fail they are updated and altered.

        Thats one of the major problems with religion, it is absolute. Ideas and theories can evolve and change as new evidence arises, religion is stuck on the same "facts" they claim to have, and when proven wrong, they try and make up an excuse for why they are right and the evidence proving them wrong is nonsense.
    • RobotChicken1, on 03/07/2008, -12/+2Actually, my geography teacher always liked to think that if everyone followed one religion, and that if everyone followed the rules of that religion, the world would be a better place. And I think I believe him, even though I'm still agnostic :)
      • AceLy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Might as well say the world would be a better place if everyone followed communism.
        • DangerMouse9, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3As long as they weren't corrupted (yes, I know it's hard to grasp that something other than capitalism that was free from corruption might be beneficial).
          • UglieJosh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yes, communism and capitalism have an equal amount of inherent weaknesses. They can both work very well on their own when fused with a certain amount of democracy. The reason most communist nations fell was because the people had no power to govern themselves.

            America, for example, is getting closer to oligarchy. If that happens, the nation will fall, capitalist or not.
          • UglieJosh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Double Post

            ((Insert obligatory whining about the comment system here))
      • gropo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yeah what a wonderful utopian pipedream... Quite a few mass murders have arisen from just such a scenario. Shall we start with the Spanish Inquisition? The problem with believing in a non-empirical faith-based reality is that the 'rules' of which you speak will always be up for interpretation by self righteous douchebags.
        • DangerMouse9, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Why would their be an Inquisition if everyone in the world believed the same thing at the same level? If we were all mindless, drooling zombies whose to say that the world wouldn't be a better place? You're interpreting what was said to mean that someone else would come along and corrupt what was already established, but that goes against following the rules and thus violates the established scenario.
    • 0ceanic, on 10/14/2007, -0/+15iraq is the last place america needs to allow those americans who are religiously intolerant.
      does anyone believe his attitude against atheists (cause they aren't christian) wouldnt extend to muslim iraqis?
      everytime he disrespects a muslim, he is working for the terrorists.
    • mikesbaker, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4s9F7p3w9jQ
    • cococooky, on 10/10/2007, -9/+0Um... I had something to say to max420, but its taken so long to get here i no longer feel the urge, or even remember what he said.
      • DangerMouse9, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4And yet you felt the need to tell the rest of us, like we'd magically understand what you were going to say... or is it one of those things where you're new to the internet and just wanted to see your name posted?
        • cococooky, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0It was a ***** attempt at humor, and i wanted to see if other diggers -after having read all the replies to a post that garnered a lot of responses- forgot what the original post was without rereading. Obviously diggers didn't smoke as much pot as me when they were young.
          For the record i agree with max420.
    • gadgetuk, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5I can't really agree with that, the formation of all civilised society has had a driving firce of religion behind it. Romans and Greeks being the obvious ones to quote but don't forget Egypt, Ottoman empire etc...
      However, in our current time the idea that any religion is allowed to hold sway over any government function is ridiculous, whether that be central government or armed forces.
      • the6thReplicant, on 10/14/2007, -0/+6Yeah those Dark Ages were really great.
      • Rsardinia, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Ya, and that was also at a time when science was very primative and a lot of the world could not be explained by anything other than "God did it." The sun rises and sets, God did it. The ground just shook, God did it. Ash and fire was spit into the sky, God must be mad with the people that live next to that VOLCANO.

        Yes religion was a major part of human societal growth and evolution, but as the evidence comes up and as we as a people get more educated about the world around us its time we evolve religiously too away from the nonsense that is religion.

        We are smart enough people that we can see that treating each other well as humans living together peacefully is most beneficial for us, we don't need fear of God's wrath to make us do so. You do know that there were philosophers back in ancient Greece and Rome (Socrates, Plato, etc.) that discussed human interaction and how we can be better men and women to each other for a common good.

        Essentially it comes down to just moving on. There is always the fear of the unknown, but when the evidence we have shows us we live on this earth for a period of time then we die, and the cycle of life goes on, we should embrace our short time on earth and make it the best possible for ourselves and others also.
    • athrasher, on 10/10/2007, -10/+11Religion isn't the problem. Part of the human condition is the fact that we can sometimes be cruel to each other, but you would have a difficult argument to make that religion "fosters the development" of racists, idiots, and bigots. You're broad generalization of religious individuals is easily one of the most bigoted statements I have read in quite some time, and racism is fostered not by any religion, but rather by our own pride and fear/mistrust of things that are different. Also, to imply that one's beliefs have any effect on their intelligence is ludicrous.
      • sodade, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6"Also, to imply that one's beliefs have any effect on their intelligence is ludicrous."
        Are you kidding me? A system that teaches people to believe in things that they have no empirical evidence for doesn't have a negative effect on intelligence? WTF ever.
        • athrasher, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0There's no empirical evidence for any theory as to how the Earth came to be, so using that to argue against religion is weak.
    • TylerNew, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Praise Science!
    • TylerNew, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Science Damnit!
    • misconstrued, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Amen to that.
    • octophobic, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10Bigots, racists, and idiots will continue to exist whether or not religion does.
      • DangerMouse9, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4True, but if you don't "teach" intolerance through your own actions, and instead "teach" an understanding of why others are different then they will eventually diminish to less threatening numbers.

        You don't see little three and four year olds calling the other little three or four year olds in the sandbox, all the derogatory names they learn from those in society that are more hateful.
    • minorthreat, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3 Im just as atheist as you, but I must disagree with you, religion has brought many people hope and gives them something to hold onto when they have nothing. In alot of cases religion is bad, but then again it has helped out many people. I believe the world would be better off without bigots, deceivers and assholes who use religion to promote their own agenda.

      And all cause hate? Study a religion other than Christianity. Take Buddhism for example. The only hate it generates is by the Christians for hating anything other than a Christian.
      • chobbney, on 10/14/2007, -0/+4Just because religion gives people (false) hope is no reason to accept or condone it. People only find 'strength' in religion because they believe in religion in the first place. I’m an atheist and I find strength from things other than religion.
      • Pyroteq, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yes you ***** idiot, I hate my atheist friends /sarcasm
      • L33tmaster, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The problem with religion is that it's not true. And the status of Buddhism as a religion rather than a philosophy is debatable.
    • zubaz91, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0if atheists were the most populous, they would just oppress the minority of believers and since we don't have a god to answer to, who can restrict our brutality?
      • tylerjames, on 10/14/2007, -0/+5hahahahaha
        you say that in ignorance of the fact that periods of devout belief were also periods that bore the most devious and sinister acts of brutality imaginable. who was restricting the brutality of the church during the Inquisition?

        to answer your question: no one (not even an imaginary god) can restrict our brutality except for rational, reasonable, and compassionate people that fully recognize the negative consequences of acts of brutality and condemn those acts
      • AnitraWeb, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1How you treat other human beings has nothing to do with what you believe about god/gods. If it did, we would have no basis for calling people of differing beliefs accountable to common like do not murder, steal, or rape. If you care about other people, you don't need the threat of punishment to make you treat them well. If you do not care about other people, you will not care about them even if a god orders you to and threatens you with thunderbolts.
    • rberk72, on 10/14/2007, -4/+1And atheism breeds apathetic, self centered whiners who believe in nothing more than their own self-interests. While the religions of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Moslems, Hindus, et al, have also bred, throughout human history, and in numerous ways, respect and charity for the downtrodden, acts of charity and altruism; atheists, well, they gather on Digg and complain all day.
    • AnitraWeb, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1Bigots, racists and idiots foster use of religion, OR any other ideology, OR atheism to justify their behavior. It is as bigoted to categorize all theists with the same traits as it is to categorize all atheists with the same traits. To blame a set of beliefs for all evils creates a scapegoat to avoid addressing our real problems: the destructive behaviors common to all humans of all belief sets. We cannot eliminate bigotry, racism, stupidity, or violence by eliminating religion any more than we can do so by converting everyone to the same religion. The faults are in ourselves, not in our gods (or in the absence of them).
  • Junkyarddawg, on 10/14/2007, -17/+115It is well known that the evangelicals have infiltrated the US military, and that they do try to convert or drive out not only atheists but also all non-christians (notably jews). See e.g. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/12/13/weinstein/
    • HughSucka, on 10/14/2007, -8/+28They have also infiltrated the foundation of our government. Separation of Church and State? The movie “Jesus Camp” has an interesting, I mean infuriating, I mean insightful look at this.

      I am more concerned about fighting for freedom at home than abroad.
      • Daedalus17, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Jesus Camp was run by the government? News to me. Oh yeah and wasn't it shut down by Christians once they saw what was going on in there? Yep I think it was...
      • Junkyarddawg, on 10/14/2007, -0/+9No, it wasn't, but it was run by the same movement from which the Bush administration has preferentially hired his people:
        http://www.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=99
        The Bush administration has preferentially been hiring people who attended the fundamentalist evangelical Regent university.
    • inhaler, on 10/14/2007, -2/+24When my brother was overseas in Belgium, he had to opportunity to do more PT, or attend church on Sundays. You can guess which one he chose. Glad to see the military is still promoting religious choice and freedom.
      • BlueThunderKuno, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Actually it is almost he exact opposite in most places. You give up some of your actual free time, as in time that they can't bother you. While in boot camp your choices are go to church or write letters to family, read the paper, do whatever you want (these options aren't possible the majority of the time).
        I have yet to be with a single unit where they have PT on Sunday, even a fun game type of PT.
    • UberNick, on 10/14/2007, -7/+15Sorry but if you're dumb enough to fall for the American military's propaganda ("be all that you can be" "see the world" " two weekends a month" "money for college") then you're probably dumb enough to fall for religion too. Try to find a Nobel-prize winning scientist who belongs to a religion.
      • subterfuge, on 10/14/2007, -3/+35Quote from a girl in my sunday-school class at church: "How come all the smart people are athiests?"
        • UberNick, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5What's more telling is the negative perception she probably has of both groups. Ask her if she was excited to hear that Paris Hilton found Jesus in jail.
          • ElwoodHerring, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5What had he done to be in there?
    • brokencrystal, on 10/10/2007, -18/+2"Try to find a Nobel-prize winning scientist who belongs to a religion."

      Albert Einstein was a Christian. There are many, many more. I can tell you will not be getting one.
      • Bamborzled, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8He wasn't a Christian. He might have said he was a Christian, but just like all the other atheists of the time he was hiding his atheism. Even though he refers to 'God' in many of his sayings, he didn't believe in a god that partook in personal affairs (i.e. the Judeo-Christian god).
      • pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15no he wasn't. he was born jewish and became agnostic.
      • imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14Bloody idiot. He was bloody Jewish became a pantheist in the end.
      • the6thReplicant, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4***** hell brokencrystal that is the most stupid ignorant thing ever said by anyone on digg

        Do you have no knowledge of the world other than what you've been brainwashed with?

        When I was 11 I knew Einstein was Jewish and I didn't even know what that even meant.

        Do you also believe that Darwin became Christian on his death bed? That we are coming close to the End Times?
    • manixrock, on 10/14/2007, -2/+2don't get me wrong here but: WHAT THE HELL IS AN ATHEIST MEETING? perhaps there is something I am missing, but holding a meeting to talk about a subject, any subject, including religion, should be an open invitation to anyone and everyone. An atheist meeting is a meeting closed to anyone whom is a "believer". Since when did meetings to discuss matters of religion become closed to those whom are theists? Since when did atheism become a religion of itself, lending to theist-like practices of keeping closed meetings for it's members only? I see the triviality of the question of religion as much as any freethinker out there. But keeping meeting closed to those who don't is not, in my view, moral. Such practices should be avoided. Atheism is not a religion. I do not believe, I deduce conclusions based on evidence.

      And I think this MAAF association is a step in the wrong direction. We shouldn't need to call our-selfs freethinkers, were it not for those whom choose to ignore basic truths. But making of this an association to defend our, and only our rights may achieve it's purpose, but it is a purpose I would rather not take a part in. If we are to cry freedom and justice, let us cry for all, even for those whom would not cry for us.
  • Drazzard, on 10/14/2007, -20/+32Maybe a reason for Pat Tillman's death?
    • Osjpr, on 10/14/2007, -1/+13Why was this buried?
    • Junkyarddawg, on 10/14/2007, -1/+15That was actually implied in the very first reports after Tillmans death (which also implied he'd been murdered - this was before the cover up). There was mention that there had been tensions in his squad due to him being a very outspoken atheist. To the best of my knowledge this has never been confirmed, though.
    • MikeMigs, on 10/14/2007, -2/+14Pat Tillman was an Atheist!?!?! Just another reason hes an inspiration
  • edmoney90, on 10/10/2007, -24/+7Oh heaven forbid
  • tehbored, on 10/14/2007, -27/+158***** evangelical scum. The assholes just seem incapable of leaving people who are different alone.
    • 7Mystery, on 10/10/2007, -4/+25Let’s declare Jihad on them.
      • skyfire1, on 10/10/2007, -21/+5There is no god but Science, and Darwin is his prophet. LALALALALALA!!!
      • josh1413, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1So now the atheists are proclaiming to kill all the Christians. Wow, what a bunch of "tolerant atheists" we have here on digg. Hypocrites.
    • FXPooky, on 10/10/2007, -15/+6Touché. tehbored is being rather hypocritical, here.
      • mohaine, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Ah, exactly how is this hypocritical? Unless tehbored makes a habit of attending religious ceremonies just to harass the attendees this is not hypocritical.

    • hoovcluck, on 10/10/2007, -19/+4Yet you call them "***** scum" and "assholes"?

      It sounds like you need to go through some tolerance training yourself.
      • arjie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+27I don't think one needs to tolerate intolerance. That's ridiculous. If need be, we must condemn people like this Major, not tolerate his nonsense.
        • athrasher, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0But generalization that all people of a certain belief system behave intolerantly is certainly wrong, or should the way that individuals within the military act be the standard for which we stereotype people based on race, religion, etc.
        • warriorscot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6As far as i know most evangelicals are like that its a part of their particular brand of faith, you also don't have to like someone to tolerate them and in a public forum can say whatever you want without being intolerant. I reserve the right to criticise the beliefs of another person just as they are to me in a public forum without being called intolerant, going into a church and berating people is wrong but speaking out in a public forum against a group isnt wrong, maybe all that group isnt like that but if enough are its a valid argument.
    • realclark, on 10/10/2007, -5/+27Im glad jerry falwell is dead
      • quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13dont forget tammy faye!
        • brokencrystal, on 10/10/2007, -13/+1Yea, and Hitler. Why would you asses say that? WTF is wrong with you?

          You act like these people went on a killing spree or something.
          • pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+17falwell worked to eliminate the separation of church and state, a founding principle of this country. tammy faye lived off of the ill gotten gains she and her husband stole.
          • scoot2006, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Killing someone is far from the worst thing you can do in life.
      • josh1413, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Why? Isn't his life just as valuable as yours? This atheist propaganda has just as much HATE then any other religion. But of course you don't see that but it is evident by your words. Soon your words will form into actions.
        • tehbored, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Is it wrong to be happy when somebody who is generally "bad" dies? Now I'm not saying Falwell was as bad as Hitler Saddam or anything, but it's the same principle. Doesn't the fact that they're dead make you happier than you would be if they were alive? At least a little bit?
    • guerrero83, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1you guys seem so quick to judge on mistreatment of atheists but would you be so quick to defend a christian or a scientologist? hypocrites..
      • kinneas666, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3definetly not a scientologist, and please please Puuuuulease. Don't put the words christian and scientologist next to each other ever again. Even though i'm not a christianity fan its still a religion, scientology isn't.
      • octophobic, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Anyone who is behaving lawfully but is being persecuted for their religious beliefs or lack thereof should be defended. Scientologists, Christians, Athiests, Flying Spaghetti Monster worshippers, etc..
      • frsrblch, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Yes, because the Christians are soooo persecuted.
        • FatherVic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You obviously have not been reading these comments.
          Enjoy your ignorance.
      • ICSU, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Yes, I'd defend them if their problems were similar to this one.
        What fallacies do you have left now?
      • tehbored, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'd defend a Christian if they were being mistreated I suppose. Not a Scientologist. They deserve whatever they get, if not something much worse.
  • reddevil3, on 10/14/2007, -18/+86Goddamn...what the ***** is wrong with this country?
  • smurf22, on 10/10/2007, -49/+8Why would you meet? First on our agenda god doesnt exist, ok second off etc....
    • BobbyMC, on 07/21/2008, -4/+7I'll just give you the benefit of the doubt and assume whatever you are, you have no comprehension of the kind of hatred seen there being a lifelong thing. You meet because everyone else hates what you are. That means go with being hated or constantly be something you aren't and exist in a state of neverending comatose.
      • smurf22, on 10/10/2007, -11/+2If you dont want them to hate you, dont tell them you're atheist, and dont walk around with a big ass sign thats says god doesn't exist. I can agree lots of religious people are ass holes, I personally dont believe there is some big guy up in the sky watching us. I used to be Catholic and they do teach good morals, but some people take it to the extreme and dont follow the bible. For example the people who held up signs saying god hates fags even though in the bible it says love thy neighbor. Take it as you will, I see no reason for a meeting.
        • subterfuge, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9"love they neighbor, unless he has homosexual tendencies, in which case bomb thy neighbor's village with meteors."
        • breadbin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9The bible DOES say god hates fags. And he promotes slavery, oppression of women, infanticide, genocide, you name it. Why is all that okay just because in other places it says "love thy neighbour?" If this is supposed to be the ultimate moral and ethical code which the human race can live by, why does it make no sense unless you're living in the Stone Age Middle East with a very warped notion of good and evil?
        • cusoman, on 10/10/2007, -11/+2breadbin, you fail to understand the significance of the new testament, ie. the new covenant. I have a feeling if you spent a little less time cherry picking from the old testament and reading there, it would make a bit more sense.
          • cococooky, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6The old testament just happens to take up 80% of the bible, if you ask me it should make sense too.
          • Junkyarddawg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8It's not him that's cherry-picking, it's he christians. The "ban" on homosexuality is an old testament rule, sandwiched between bans on wearing clothes of mixed fiber, on eating seafood, on boiling a young goat in goats milk, and a ban on cripples visiting church - yet somehow christians today consider the ban on homosexuality to be an important rule while igoring the rules around it.
        • brokencrystal, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1Thank you cusoman. "The new testament, ie. the new covenant." Many atheist do not know about this, so they attempt to use the old testament to make claim that Christians are somehow cruel or something. It just shows their ignorance to the Bible and what it teaches. They are using faulty logic against Christians. Some know about this, but continue to do this to push their agenda. I have to give some credit to the atheists. They seem to be trying harder to reach people than the Christians are, even though the Bible tells us to be fishers of men, the atheist appear (based on digg.com) to be trying harder. Note to atheists: Read the NEW testament. Try to understand it.
          • imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9So all the old testament is ***** and irrelevant? Sure.
          • Junkyarddawg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Is your point that the New Testament rules override he Old Testament ones?

            OK.

            Where's the New Testament rule which overrides the ban on eating seafood or wearing clothes of more than one type of fibre, or the ban on cripples visiting church?

            Actually, wouldn't Jesus message of tolerance and love overrule the OT death penalty on being gay? Jesus associated and forgave the people considered the worst scum of his day (hookers, tax collectors, foreigners, and lepers), you can bet he wouldn't have condemned someone who was gay.

            And if the NT is the new covenant, why don't more christians follow it? It's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to heaven - yet I can't remember when I last heard a televangelist donate all his wealth to the poor.

            Fact of the matter is that the Bible isn't the base of christianity - tradition is. The Bible is just kindof a context for that tradition.
    • brokencrystal, on 10/10/2007, -16/+2"First on our agenda god doesnt exist, ok second off etc...."

      First on our agenda? What agenda? Oh, the atheist agenda you all claim does not exist? Hey, your words, not mine...
      • Dumbledorito, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13Do you understand any meaning of "agenda" other than what Fox News tells you it means? Go find a dictionary. Then please unplug your computer. It contains evil spirits and could steal your soul.
    • joe7845, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I don't know.... to discuss discrimination against atheists, for example?
    • diggbot7, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2To have some intelligent conversation for a change?
  • 7Mystery, on 10/14/2007, -18/+118Great to see the radical Muslims & the U.S military have one thing in common.
    • acid0426, on 10/10/2007, -16/+11Mistreated is a far way off from declaring someone the devil and strapping a bomb to yourself and killing people. At least Evangelicals are peaceful for the most part.
      • ruddy, on 10/10/2007, -14/+3hey dont make annalysis like that on digg. religion sucks and leave it at that. :/
      • Rossoneri22, on 10/10/2007, -6/+11different evils work in different ways
      • mithrasinvictus, on 10/10/2007, -5/+15muslims are also peaceful "for the most part"
        the trouble is with the jihadists and the pro-lifers.
        • UberNick, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6The trouble is those who actually take their religion seriously. The ones who just pay it lip service are the good "moderates" because it doesn't affect the ways they live their lives in a healthy society. On the other end, if you really do believe it and let it guide your life, then you're a "fundamentalist" or "extremist". Those people are the best metric of any religion.
          • Gizza, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6But if you're not an extremist then that means you're not taking your religion seriously, or completely by the book. And if that is the case then are you really part of that religion? Any other type of "club" you can't just join and then only obey half the rules and expect to not get kicked out.

            So anyone who isn't a "fundamentalist" or "extremist" shouldn't really be part of the religion at all. But for the most part people don't realise there is a difference between believing in a god and being part of an organised religion.
          • athrasher, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2The very same could be said for any sort of life philosophy, whether a deity is involved or not. Life isn't black and white, and it shouldn't be generalized as such, but rather many shades of gray.
        • breadbin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6@UberlNick is quite right. Those that try to defend religion on any kind of "moderate" basis are not justifying it, they're simply apologising for it. If you reduce religion to charitable works then there's nothing left that isn't already covered by secular philosophies, so you might as well give it up. At the very least if you truly consider yourself a moderate believer then you should go through the bible and redact all the stuff you don't think is right and see what's left..
    • quaxon, on 10/14/2007, -2/+8they have alot more than this in common my friend, in fact the neocons (who control the military) are exactly like the fundemental islamists, if you care to further your knowledge on the subject you should check out this documentary, very interesting facts spewed all over the place.

      http://digg.com/politics/The_Power_of_Nightmares_How_Neocons_and_Islamic_Fundamentalists_are_Alike
  • ZephyrNinety, on 10/10/2007, -15/+52This just in! All soldiers are mistreated in Iraq!
  • digger1942, on 10/14/2007, -16/+26I'm a heathen that was imposed on as well in the military. Here's my story: http://www.evilbible.com/BB3/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=1648&p=26926&hilit=#p26926
    • brokencrystal, on 10/10/2007, -25/+4Dugg down for reference to Atheist propaganda site evilbible.com Also, if atheism isn't a religion, then why do they congregate at evilbible? This is where they come up with the ritualistic replies to the questions they are asked. This is no worse than organized religion!
      • breadbin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12I'm an atheist and I've NEVER heard of evilbible.com. How do you explain that?
      • imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11I've never heard of evilbible. Ritualistic replies? It is called logic. Are you mentally retarded?
      • manicleek, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Do you know the meaning of the word religion? Why do assume being an atheist means a person is not religious?

        "Religion: A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion"

        So I am 'Religiously' atheist
    • brokencrystal, on 10/10/2007, -14/+4Also, why is it called evilbible? Why not evilkoran? Why discriminate against Christians only?
      • breadbin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Why indeed! You seem to agree that other major monotheisms deserve to hear their critics. I can only applaud this and say well done, sir!
      • TsuruchiBrian, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Since when do Atheists only discriminate against Christians?
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7l-FzyXtfM
        We think all religions are wrong
      • daggah, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Cry more.
      • josh1413, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Jesus even said that this would happen. You know He is coming soon when stuff like this becomes prevalent like it has.
    • ganjadude4391, on 10/14/2007, -0/+7very interesting story digger, id like to hear more about this if you got anywhere for me to take a gander
    • cnot3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1pagan!
  • mrlinux, on 10/14/2007, -8/+11Everyone needs to understand that there are other religions, even though they may contradict their own, they have to respect them and not discriminate because of them.
    • Onetrack, on 10/10/2007, -12/+5You guys are all douches for knocking mrlinux down - yes there are other religions, just as there are other countries in the world. You thick necks only think there are 3 - Musilm, christianity, and atheism - well jesus christ on a cracker there are thousands.. I myself am a naturalistic pantheist but you don't see me waving my arms in the air saying if you don't believe what I say I'll kill you.

      Christians = good, radical christians = assholes.

      baptists, mormons, 7th day adventists, reform, evangelical, who cares.. if you want to believe in a 7 armed goat, or a lightening bolt wielding norseman, its totally up to you, but don't use your religion to justify this rediculous invasion you yanks are doing. Has nothing to do with it.

    • DFrag, on 10/14/2007, -8/+5Mrlinux please be sure to say that in the several Christian bashing threads that are posted on Digg every day.
      • daggah, on 10/14/2007, -0/+3Oh noes, DFrag is offended, how dare atheists share their viewpoint on Digg! That's totally just as bad as what religious people have done to atheists, even recently! I know of atheists who received death threats on their answering machines in the mail in the last few years. I know I myself was forced to break up with an ex-girlfriend because her overly zealous religious parents actually thought I was evil.

        So you'll have to forgive me when I roll my eyes at Christians who claim to be bashed and persecuted. You don't know what real persecution is!
    • subterfuge, on 10/14/2007, -1/+13unfortunately, disrespecting other religions is the cornerstone of some religions.
      • arjie, on 10/14/2007, -2/+8Agreed! When you declare that 'there is only true god' or that 'one can only reach Heaven through [prophet's name]' then they are automatically saying that all other religions are false.
      • ICSU, on 10/14/2007, -0/+5Some? It's the main thing. We are right so everybody else must be wrong.
    • Water13ottle, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Couldn't agree more.
    • namelyk, on 10/14/2007, -2/+1Thats true but in this case, it is only this Major needs to chill. This article makes it seem as if all religious military people are guilty of doing this. Which isn't true! Btw generalizations make me mad!
    • cranium, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Baloney. When you see atheists showing up in church just to disrupt the service, then you can start talking to us about "respect".
      • Aticper, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0More specificially, when athiests start a jihad, get back to me.
  • jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -38/+14wait, I thought atheism wasn't a religion? Why do they need to meet up? What do they discuss? What the hell is the point for atheist meetings?
    • mrlinux, on 10/10/2007, -8/+7Actually, the supreme court declared that atheism is a religion.
      • cusoman, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Source? Because that pretty much goes against everything the Diggers here use as ammo in anti-religion stories.
        • napsack, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5In any case, just because the supreme court says so doesn't mean it is.
      • guyinthechair, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.
        • brokencrystal, on 10/10/2007, -15/+2That's so old. Just because you are bald on your head, doesn't mean you aren't hiding hair somewhere in your shorts. Atheist just hide their hair color.
      • tylerjames, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2If atheism is a religion then health is a disease
    • idontlikeyou2, on 10/10/2007, -6/+28What a dumbass comment, bird watching isn't a religion either but they meet. The point is that people that share similar interest likes to gather togeather share ideas and experience. Thats the point.
      • brokencrystal, on 10/10/2007, -14/+3Yea, but birdwatchers aren't there to come up with a set of 'answers' to be used against religious questions. It's a site for propaganda. Birdwatchers is not a very good comparison to the atheist religion.
        • inhaler, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8You think that's what atheists do? As I mentioned in a previous article, when my brother was stationed overseas in Belgium, on Sundays he had the option of doing more PT, or attending church/chapel (whatever they called it). Sounds like a real fair choice to me. Maybe these guys, instead of working out more, or attending a religious service they disagree with, wanted to utilize the same time the devout soldiers spent in prayer, not praying, and not being punished for not praying. Sounds like a fairly legit reason to me to form a group.
        • DFrag, on 10/10/2007, -15/+2Bird watchers don't hate you and call you names if you don't watch birds with them. Atheists can't stand it when you have faith and joy. I don't understand why someone who believes in nothing hates someone who believes in something. Overall, the atheists I see are the most angry, hateful people. Their anti belief doesn't bring them much happiness.
          • TsuruchiBrian, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7You sound pretty angry to me
          • imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6No, they'd call you names if you killed those birds or claim that birds did not exist.
          • Turambar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5i get plenty of joy from laughing at the poor saps who still believe in god.
          • daggah, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2And yet you're the one on Digg doing the bashing. Guess your religion doesn't do much to keep you from being angry and hateful either!
          • Aticper, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Bird watching is actually a bad analogy.

            A more appropriate one would have christians being the snargle watchers, who watch mysteious creatures who don't actually exist, and then insist loudly that you're not looking properly when you glance around and inform them that there are no snargles around.
        • brokencrystal, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2If you said that you don't believe birds exist... birdwatchers would be pissed!
          • imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8That would make you delusional...hmmmm I wonder what believing in something without evidence is...
        • scorpokat3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Atheists don't sit around and discuss ways to battle religion. Instead of being ignorant and making stupid and blind comments you should clear the fog in front of your eyes. Like "idontlike2" said, people like to share similar interest and share ideas and experiences. Atheists are still able to maintain a moral standing.
      • Croaton, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7A meeting between atheists can be about feeling kindship an support of the lifelong prosecution against you just because you choose not to belive in "thier" god and "thier" set of rules.

        Freedom of religion also includes the right NOT to have a religion. A for you to say "just suck it up and shut the f*ck up" is degrading against a big silent majority in the US.

        The US is acctually so messed up right now that the right religios belife is more important then relevant political issues when running for office anywhere in that country...

        An for people there just silently accepting that is remarkable. People (like yourself) that activly support the discrimination and try to discern people from working against it is just disturbing.
        • roguetrick, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Silent majority, not so much. Silent minority, that we may well be.
    • dlomax, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17I'm going to treat your questions as though they were sincere. Atheists often meet up for the same reasons that religious people do. Sometimes, they wish merely to join in fellowship with like-minded people. They want to create community. Sometimes they wish to do good. Humanist associations throughout the world are involved in charitable programs and education. Sometimes they wish to promulgate their views and beliefs. Many atheists believe, for example, that religion is dangerous, an outmoded set of beliefs causing much conflict at a very dangerous time. Of course, not all atheists believe such things. The ones who don't probably don't have gatherings. Just a thought.
      • subterfuge, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5also, atheists congregate to get away from all the retards who think there's a god.
        • brokencrystal, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1What do the other atheists do to get away from retards like you?
        • dlomax, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well, yes. Point.
    • siszam, on 10/10/2007, -34/+7It's a hate group. They have meetings just like the other hate groups.....KKK, Neo Nazi's, etc.
      • pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13the klan is a protestant organization.
        • Aticper, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Tell you what, I'll stop thinking that you're a dumbass when you can point out any large-scale killing started by an athiest in defense of his faith.

          If it totals up to more than the crusades, witch trials, jihads, and inquisitions, THEN you can call it a hate group.

          Until that time, STFU.
    • brokencrystal, on 10/10/2007, -17/+3My thoughts exactly.
      • ganjadude4391, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5something tells me suiszam was being sarcastic and forgot the tags... you on the otherhand.... are very confused how do you like it when we tell you you are wrong??? not too good right??? so stop telling other people they arre wrong problem solved
    • UberNick, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3@mrlinux
      source please.
    • UberNick, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12Neither is homosexuality, but sometimes discriminated-against people bind together for support.
      Not trying to play the victim card here, but less people would trust an Atheist in office than any other group. Funny considering that the top moralists, philosophers, intellectuals, and scientists in the past few centuries have all been Atheists.
      • subterfuge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4an excellent point. but the truth is that most people are not the top intellectuals, and we live in a democracy. wouldnt it be nice to live in a place where everyone was smart?
    • diggbot7, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2To have some intelligent conversation for a change?
  • tehpwnrate, on 10/14/2007, -2/+17I'd like to see some more info than an isolated incident of a douchebag Major. You could very well find bosses in private industry who would berate atheists under them, which is unfortunately worsened by the military structure where the "boss" (Major) is less likely to get in trouble and more free to do what he wants to them. I was under the impression that in general people in the military were actually fairly accepting of other religions, because they're all in the same boat and depend on each other in a deeper way. But that was my impression, obviously could be wrong. I'd like to see some input from Diggers who were open atheists. Either way, I hate when the radicals are intolerant. It makes real, average, normal Christians look bad.
    • joshoisasleepg, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3yeah just like the real, average, tolerant muslims. Amazing the similarities isn't it? I don't differentiate much between the two religions... they both scare me just as much, the only difference is the amount of each on my continent.
    • tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2* I meant to add: I meant "I'd like to see some input from Diggers who were open atheists in the military." Also, I always thought military atheists and agnostics were in a way perhaps a little braver, because they didn't think that when they put their life on the line that they would end up in any sort of heaven.
    • annenk38, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2From my experience (around the time of the first gulf war), tolerance was the order of the day, at least if you were affiliated. Every once in a while, usually prior to deployment, the platoon leaders would verbally collect everyone's affiliation to ensure everyone's dog tags are up to date. So everyone knew everyone else's affiliation. There were quite a few "no prefs", and only one guy actually said he was atheist. No one gave him any dirty looks either. If there were any fatalities, it was customary to attend memorial services whether you were affiliated or not, but typically the entire unit would be ordered to attend. The thing about the military is that you do not really have the same constitutional rights as a civilian does. Orders from a superior that may come into conflict with you religious beliefs are still "lawful orders". They can and do supersede your constitutional rights. The Major who reprimanded those guys was morally wrong, but there was nothing unlawful about it. He may have thought it was disrespectful. There is two ways you can address this. One is to lodge a complaint via the chain of command all the way up to the secretary of defense (or is it the commanding general? don't remember). The other is to write to your congressman. Of course, it is much easier if you are affiliated, and there is a chaplain who can fight on your side. If you are not affiliated, as an atheist would be, then you're on your own.
      • daggah, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1On the other hand, it is fairly common in the military for an atheist to say "atheist" for the purpose of his dog-tags and receive a dog tag that said "no preference" or even "christian."
      • flashmc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1In six years I could not get a single person to ever issue me dog-tags with Atheist on them. They said I could have 'No Relig. Pref'. I asked what would happen if I were to die; the closest chaplain regardless of denomination would give me last rites. I explained that I don't want last rites, I want to be left alone, and that I wanted 'Atheist' on the tags, they wouldn't do it. I even asked my Company First Sgt. and he said to not fight it, just get 'No Relig. Pref'. I finally went to a surplus store off base and had them made. As far as religion in the military is concerned, it seems the normal troops couldn't care less, and to be honest, I don't recall too many conversations every coming up regarding religion. In boot camp however, I do remember that every Sunday, you could go to Catholic services at 9, or Protestant services at 10, or do push ups from 9 until 11, whichever you prefer. Jewish folks could go to a service, I think Saturday evening, but we had no Jewish folks in our platoon.
        • annenk38, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0LOL! One thing I noticed about officer cadre is that you can't swing your elbow without hitting a lutheran. And the higher you go up the rank structure, the higher the concentration. You probably had one of those as your CO. Those guys watch you with their eagle's eye and last thing they want is a godless communist under their command. They are too used to thinking "there are no atheists in the foxholes", and so your mere presence offends them. As I recall, our atheist guy actually did get "atheist" dog tags issued to him, so I guess no one in the company gave a *****.
  • iJessicaRabbit, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3Wow that is too bad but you'll find the polar opposites of every religion most places. It's unfortunate that the event that was meant to bring together like minded people ended up scaring and pushing people apart. The major had no right pushing his opinions on these people. I would think the more groups and social circles on a base to try to get everyone involved the better. Guess that only works if you believe in what the upper ups believe in... sad.
  • bruinexmo, on 10/10/2007, -6/+73It looks like there are plenty of atheists in foxholes.
    • endyminion, on 10/10/2007, -25/+4Since when is 3 plenty?
    • drmangrum, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5There are actually a ***** load of atheists in foxholes. The vast majority of people I knew while in the military were non-believers. Those that were believers were mostly in name only, holiday christians for the most part.
  • ShinRaTDR, on 10/10/2007, -14/+7Its simply a defense mechanism, In this case, fear what you do not understand because it could kill you. When we were fending for ourselves, that would have been a predator, now its channeled into the way we treat others. People don't understand the concept of atheism because their belief in God is so ingrained within them, people who live without that belief are strange and should be demonized, for their own saftey. Its not a logical process, no thought is really involved, at least little you're aware of. That's not absolving their responsibility, it's their choice to act on it. For the record I think resigning your self to the fact that there is no God is equally stupid as saying there is a God, you don't know, just ***** admit it.
    • siszam, on 10/10/2007, -21/+3No, people who don't believe in God demonize themselves by actively attacking anyone who does.
      • TsuruchiBrian, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Some Atheists can be very confrontational, and some are not. Just like most religions (Although Atheism is not a religion). I would imagine that you only see the atheists that attack you, because you don't know that the Atheists who do not attack you are Atheists. We just sort of assume that every American is a Christian unless they are obviously not or you know otherwise.
      • ganjadude4391, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5and people who do believe in a peticular god tend to attack those who do not believe in said god
    • rheaume, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14"For the record I think resigning your self to the fact that there is no God is equally stupid as saying there is a God, you don't know, just ***** admit it"

      ***** NO. Lets try that sentence this way and see if it still works shall we?

      "For the record I think resigning your self to the fact that there is no Santa Claus is equally stupid as saying there is a Santa Claus, you don't know, just ***** admit it"

      Since i cant prove it either way, is it more likely that some dude from the North Pole makes 1 billion gifts and flies around on Xmas eve to hand them out, or that society has trained us to SHOP SHOP SHOP for others?
      • ShinRaTDR, on 10/10/2007, -10/+1Are you ***** kidding me? thats such a stupid analogy, something like santa claus which has direct roots and and a full explained history (check out the wikipedia article on santa if you must) compared to something we don't have an answer for like how life began. We may have good theories on how the universe was created, but we have little information before that. So yes, once again, resigning yourself to the fact that God, or any form or sort of life creating figure of any type or force does not exist is still stupid. Just keep an open mind, why is that so hard for people, they always have to fit into a category or have a set position on every issue.
        • guyinthechair, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Ah ha! You are using the god-of-the gaps explanation. You say we don't know how life began. Then you default to god. It doesn't work that way

          The "if not theory A, then theory B" logic is faulty, because there is almost always a theory C.

          I'm open to any explanation that uses real hard data as evidence, not some faith-based healing ***** or some ancient musings from Bronze Age theologians. In fact, I won't believe any theologians.
        • Osjpr, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6"Are you ***** kidding me?"
          You are kidding yourself you ***** idiot.
        • ShinRaTDR, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1I never said believe this, believe that, just keep an open mind. Why is that so hard? And I didn't "default to god", I defaulted to ANYTHING, because WE DON'T KNOW. "I'm open to any explanation that uses real hard data as evidence" We don't have any real hard data on anything before the big bang, so therefore there are lots of possible explanations, one of which is some kind of force or power, or god-like figure. Its truly sad that people think they have so much information on this they can disprove god or some sort of force. I would never argue to teach creationism in schools, becuase we don't have any evidence of it, we should only be teaching what we have evidence of, like the big bang, or evolution. But still, you people are fanatics, so desperate to be right you'll cling on any idea for dear life, its sad.

          "You are kidding yourself you ***** idiot." A little hostile are we? You could have at least provided some constructive criticism.
          • imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Good point but you're still believing in something with zero evidence. Scientist stop at the Big Bang. They do not claim to know how anything started before(some cosmologist are trying to figure it out). Fanatics? I'll believe in your mythic god if you can actually provide some evidence but there is none so why should anyone believe?
          • fivefootfour, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1How many times does ShinRaTDR have to say "noone knows" before you people stop interpreting that as "Believe in my god?" I completely agree that, lacking evidence, the only sane answer is to say "I don't know." What is with the imperative to take sides in every argument?
        • Aticper, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0It is IDIOTIC to accept something with no evidence. Or even to accept it as plausible.

          If you follow that philosophy, you will find yourself believing in all manner of unicorns, faeries, and a billion billion other things.

          Oh, and god actively defies most of the laws of physics, which makes him even more implausible. The universe simply does not work that way.
    • TsuruchiBrian, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Most Atheists I know including myself don't claim to "KNOW there is no God". We simply default to disbelieving in anything for which we have not observed any evidence. You don't KNOW that unicorns and fairies don't exist, but you assume they do not because you have not seen any credible evidence that they do. If I see evidence of a creator of the universe, I will be sure to refine my beliefs to include him. It would take even more convincing for me to worship him and dedicate my life to pleasing him. Even if God exists, that doesn't automatically mean he cares about us or influences our lives or that there is a heaven and hell.
      • ShinRaTDR, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3"Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism." - Wikipedia

        Sounds like you have a thought out viewpoint, but I don't think your an athiest, at least according to wikipedia.
        • TsuruchiBrian, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7I agree that there is a semantic problem here. I used to call myself an agnostic (I saw it as technically more correct), but people usually think of an agnostic as "someone who hasn't figured out which religion is right yet".

          I don't know that there are too many TRUE Atheists in the sense that if God came down and proved he existed to them, they would still disbelieve in him. Most Atheists I know are very scientifically minded and admit that there is a possibility of being wrong about almost everything.
        • ShinRaTDR, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1How about not labeling yourself.
          • TsuruchiBrian, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I don't care if people judge me based on my label. If I find my label is not as accurate as another, I will change it. My main reason for even giving myself a label is that it is quicker than explaining all the nuances of my beliefs, and I am pretty lazy.
      • UberNick, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Define God. If you refuse to pinpoint what exactly some vague, abstract notion actually is, then of course you can't prove it doesn't exist. But if you do provide some kind of description or definition, like the Catholic church does, it's almost impossible to not provide a logical contradiction. Three unique elements in almost all Gods (where only two can logically not-contradict): omniscience, omnipotence, benevolence. Logically they don't all fit together, and can be disproven on solely logical, definitive grounds.
        • ShinRaTDR, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1True.

          Whats your point?
          • UberNick, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2That TsuruchiBrian is wrong. You *can* KNOW that there is no God-- so long as you know what you're referring to.
          • ShinRaTDR, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1fair enough, good point.
          • TsuruchiBrian, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yeah but everyone just really wants to know if they go to heaven or hell. If you prove to them that the EXACT God in the Bible can't logically exist. That doesn't mean that some slightly altered version (One who is only mostly powerful, mostly knowing, and mostly everywhere, but still a jealous *****) doesn't do exactly what is described in the Bible.
        • subterfuge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2example against omnipotence: can god create an object he cannot lift?
          example against all three combined: someone dies.
        • TsuruchiBrian, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Thats a very important definition. Everyone has a different definition. I don't really see being omnipotent as logically possible by itself. Omnipresence? I never understood why that was such a cool super power to begin with. My definition of God would be "Whatever being or beings created the universe (as we know it)". It is a bit of a philosophical paradox because Universe means EVERYTHING. So by this definition God is part of the universe and would have had to create himself in addition to everything else. I am not sure if this is logically possible or not, so I would be satisfied if he created everything ELSE in the universe. But this brings up another philosophical paradox, where if there is a God, how did he get here? Can something just "have always been there"? Or is it necessary or some other Super god to have created him? This quickly degrades into the notion that there are infinite Gods. I don't think this will clear anything up except for what my thought process is and why I just call myself an Atheist.
        • ICSU, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That's pantheism, TsuruchiBrian. Something atheists more or less agree with.
        • TsuruchiBrian, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I was under the impression that pantheism was the belief that God is the universe and the universe is God (Which is not really what I was trying to say).
    • UberNick, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"fear what you do not understand because it could kill you"
      Simplified explanation doesn't fit with religion. If it's a defense mechanism to fear things that cause death, then why do religions praise death-- asking its supporters to hope for it, embrace it, and celebrate it? Seems de-evolutionary if you ask me.
    • ShinRaTDR, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5I make a good ***** point and get dugg down while you idiots digg up "The world would be a much better place if religion didn't exist". Digg is really starting to piss me off. And at siszam, Any point that goes "all of group a do this to group b" is a stupid statement, regardless of the criteria. However many vocal atheists there are, theres just as many vocal christians if not tons more. You people act like athiests are screaming in your ear everyday to stop believing in God. If thats actually whats happening, then you have a huge ***** on your hands and i'm sorry, people from all faiths or non faiths can be assholes. More likely you browsed around the site and this headline intrigued you, so you read the article, knowing it would be written by an athiest, then came down here to comment. YOU chose to read it. And as for your argument: People of faith demonize themselves by actively attacking anyone who doesn't. Same argument, holds just as much water, because I'm sure theres some group that believes in God and spends its time attacking athiests. But that in no way means that people of faith are all constantly demonizing people. I don't know how you can write out a sentance like "No, people who don't believe in God demonize themselves by actively attacking anyone who does." and not think, how the hell is this an argument?
      • UberNick, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2it's applicable when that belief *causes* bigotry, hatred, and ignorance.
        you're trying to claim "these people believe in X and are coincidentally assholes". Whereas I think X is a direct cause of immorality and evil-- and should be spoken out against.
        • ShinRaTDR, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Religion is not a direct cause of immorality and evil, the immoral and evil part of religion are people who exploit its values in the name of an evil cause, which is what has happened to Christianity, Formerly built on the fundamentals of helping your fellow man and always turn the other cheek, Christian conservatives have gone through bad translations of the bible with the strategy of a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Sure, if you ignore everything Jesus says about loving each other and accepting each other as humans, and just literally interpret small parts then the bible & Christianity look pretty bad. If you focus on the good things and the main points to the bible, It can be a good way to live for people who lack their own inner guidance, and some people need that.
    • breadbin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3You're an agnostic and that's great. If more people thought that way we'd have a better world. For me there's enough evidence to point to religion being false that god simply isn't even an option. I don't think I need to ***** admit anything more than that.
      • ShinRaTDR, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Fair enough, but "religion" isn't really something that can be classified as false or true. Please don't call me an agnostic, I resent being placed in a group, regardless of its intention. Thats the biggest problem, is humans obsession with grouping each other, which is exactly why these problems wouldn't be solved by religion, people will find another group to belong to, or race would become way more important.
    • Hacbarton, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Oh, what's that? You have ABSOLUTELY NO SOUND EVIDENCE for a god? I believe our discussion is over.
      • ShinRaTDR, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I love how you assholes read my argument and see the word god, so I must believe in god. I truly know few people more secular than me, which really illustrates how ignorant and ***** stupid you all are. Seriously, just skipping over my argument and looking for points to attack me on makes you no better than Bill O' Reily, or any of those other dicks. The worst part of all this? YOU MADE NO ***** POINT AND YET YOU STILL HAVE +4 DIGGS. i hate this site.
    • joe7845, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Is it equaly stupid to disbelieve that mermaids exist than to believe in them? Admit it, you just don't know if they exist. You don't have proof either way.
  • Gabberwok, on 10/10/2007, -19/+3What if god smoked cannabis?
    Do you suppose he had a buzz?
    When he made the platypus
  • mrlinux, on 10/14/2007, -11/+31We need to remove religion from our government and not give billions of dollars to a country an ocean away because the bible says we need to protect it. Freedom is the distance between church and state.
    • brokenspatula, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2lols, the bible doesnt say we need to protect iraq, but nice try
    • kodomosuki, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0I thought the only reason we're protecting Israel is for the control over that tasty oil-rich region.
  • DMCer, on 10/10/2007, -42/+10One thing that would make all of us happy would be for atheists to shut the Hell up! Nobody wants to here you wine, just like you don't want to here religious folks derail you.
    • Gerbil_Juice, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12If any other group had this happen to them you wouldn't be saying that.
    • guyinthechair, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15***** you, when was the last time an atheist came knocking on your door at 7 AM? That's right, never. So you and your god leave me the hell alone, and I won't shatter your delusions about this cosmic accident we call existence.
    • Angirus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Your inability to spell speaks volumes about your intelligence. It might be useful to mention that there is a well-demonstrated inverse relationship between intelligence and religious conviction: the more religious you are, the lower your IQ is, on average.
      • brokencrystal, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2"the more religious you are, the lower your IQ is, on average."

        This comment shows how low your IQ is... You are an idiot.