6 ms·

That’s... just evil. Even atheists generally support people’s freedom to read and believe as they please.

EliRivers 9y ago
"Even atheists"? Are atheists pretty evil, but not quite this evil? Are atheists well-known for being anti-freedom? Why "even atheists"?
- wand3r 9y ago
  I think they meant that it is evil; also atheiest-- people who do not believe in any religion, would not do such a thing.
- TaylorAlexander 9y ago
  I think just because atheists don’t tend to care for the book. But yeah we’re typically less in to banning books than religious people so it is an odd comment.
- whatshisface 9y ago
  Athiests (the community) are known for being outspoken about the damage that certian religions have caused and are causing, but they're also known for supporting the free exchange of ideas including those that they think are harmful. Atheists (the definition) aren't known for anything because atheism doesn't demand any specific behaviors.
  - tjoff 9y ago
    I haven't seen that and is starting to believe that might be something typical for the US.
  - lurquer 9y ago
    I wonder if there have been any explicitly Athiest regimes? That is, governments based on an ideology that explicitly denies the existence of God and devalues all religions? If only we had historical examples of such regimes, perhaps we could see if they were benign or murderous. Oh what a pity we don't have such examples.
    - harimau777 9y ago
      My understanding is that most Communistic regimes were explicitly Atheist. I'm not a historian so I may not have my facts completely correct, but my understanding is that: The Soviet Union more or less outlawed religion. China is officially Atheistic but tolerates certain recognized religions. My understanding is that they outlaw/suppress certain things they view as "superstition" (such as supernatural and moral aspects of Qigong) in a way that would be considered questionable in the west. On a more positive side, I wonder if there are any of the Scandinavian countries that could be considered to more or less implement Humanism. I say that because it seems like Humanism fills a lot of the same roles for Atheists (moral system, providing hope, providing meaning etc.) that religion does for theists.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > I wonder if there have been any explicitly Athiest regimes? Some, but not all, regimes in the Leninist (and Stalinist, etc., derivatives) tradition were/are, and early the French Revolutionary regime briefly was during the period of the establishment of the Cult of Reason (which, while called a “cult” with good was, was atheistic and thus not a religion in the theistic sense), but that was soon replaced by the Cult of the Supreme Being (which was deistic, but not atheistic) during the Terror.
      - lurquer 9y ago
        I seriously doubt you're correct. The communist regimes (as well as their demented cousins such as DPRK, Pol Pot, Viet Kong, etc.) murdered millions upon millions of their own people in the 20th century. These regimes could not have been atheistic as such horrendous genoicidal bloodshed is typically the result of Christisnity. I know this to be true, as I've read it many times here. Stalin and Pol Pot and Mao and Kim were undoubtedly Christians. Atheists are generally rational and not given over to such genocidal tendancies. You need to check your facts.
        reitanqild 9y ago
        > Stalin and Pol Pot and Mao and Kim were undoubtedly Christians. This is just plain wrong as can be verified by reading up on history. And this is circular reasoning: > These regimes could not have been atheistic as such horrendous genoicidal bloodshed is typically the result of Christisnity.
- harimau777 9y ago
  Atheists have a reputation for being anti-religion. This certainly isn't inherent to Atheism or reflective of all Atheists. However, I have met many Atheists who were highly intolerant or disrespectful of religion.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    I'm disrespectful of many things, that doesn't mean I want to ban them. Even if they're as dangerous as Christianity.
    - acqq 9y ago
      ...or as one another which can’t be named, as it would be “racist.”
    - harimau777 9y ago
      I agree that we shouldn't ban something just because we dislike/disrespect it; instead I meant that, unfortunately, many people (on both sides) don't see things that way. Sorry if that's not what it sounded like I was saying in my original post.
      - icebraining 9y ago
        I understood what you're saying; what I'm saying is that we should be careful not to assume someone want to ban something just because they're being disrespectful to it.
  - acqq 9y ago
    The religious people of all monotheisic religions don’t believe in almost all the same gods as the atheists. The atheists just don’t believe in one more.
- jsonne 9y ago
  I'm really not trying to start a tit for tat who is worse argument as all religions, including mine (Christian/Catholic) has their fair share of atrocities, but certainly many people were murdered and otherwise oppressed under state atheist regimes in Communist countries. It's worth calling out and remembering.
  - reitanqild 9y ago
    I'll take it a bit further: I'm no Catholic and have never been. But honestly: while Catholics has done much wrong they don't come anywere near Pol Pot, Stalin, the Reign of Terror etc
  - reitanqild 9y ago
    To late to update my post but I should add that I don't blame you or any other current Catholic for what happened during the dark ages. And by the way, since that's not clear from my first post: I'm a Christian as well, just not Catholic.
- dang 9y ago
  No religious flamewars on HN, please. Upthread was teetering, but here it plummets.
  - EliRivers 9y ago
    Sure thing, Dang. FWIW, I'd have said the exact same if it had been "even botanists" or "even car mechanics". It just seemed massively orthogonal.
lawlessone 9y ago
As an atheist i can't even see why they would ban it. It's a mish mash of traditional views, fallacies , contradictions and stories. Studying it should teach you see all these things.
- offhand2464 9y ago
  To make a bad comparison, not everyone can develop antibodies upon mild exposure to a virus.
  - j0e1 9y ago
    A bad comparison indeed.
- assblaster 9y ago
  The stories include a historical person named Jesus who started a new religion after he died and was seen by his followers being alive after he was dead. These followers went on to become martyrs voluntarily. I think it's pretty obvious why the Chinese government is so afraid of the Bible, since historically, people's lives have been changed dramatically based on what is inside the Bible. The Bible can only lead to instability.
- madengr 9y ago
  Ditto. By banning something, they just encourage people to seek it. Better to just expose the kookiness of all religions.
icebraining 9y ago
Why "even atheists"? Historically, atheists are not even close to the biggest aggressors against Christians. That would be other Christians, probably followed by Muslims (during the ascendancy of the Caliphates).
- dwheeler 9y ago
  Christians have been persecuted by polytheists, atheists, Muslims, and many others. Ancient Rome sent many Christians to the lions. The USSR had official state atheism, for example, and persecuted Christians. Certainly Christians have persecuted other Christians, but I think there's little evidence that Christians have been the dominant ones. Much more info is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians On the other hand, clearly many atheists allow others to have different beliefs, including Christian beliefs, and to allow religious texts to be distributed (such as the Bible). This seems to be much more about power and control over the Chinese people.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    That page simply ignores the Christian-on-Christian violence. Where's the Thirty Years' War, "one of the longest and most destructive conflicts in human history"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - dwheeler 9y ago
      Quote from that page about the Thirty Years War: "Initially a war between various Protestant and Catholic states in the fragmented Holy Roman Empire, it gradually developed into a more general conflict involving most of the great powers. These states employed relatively large mercenary armies, and the war became less about religion and more of a continuation of the France–Habsburg rivalry for European political pre-eminence." In particular, you have Catholic France against the Catholic Habsburgs, and the issues were not doctrinal. Not what you would expect if this was a war about religion. This was not a war about religion primarily, by the time most of the deaths occurred.
hangonhn 9y ago
This has nothing to do with religion or what people believe. This is about control. Religion is another source of authority, which the Chinese government will never tolerate. This is also why there is a campaign to promote the more traditional Confucian values: obedience to your elders and emperor (now replace emperor with government) and be a useful member of a hierarchy.
richardknop 9y ago
Do they? Many notable atheists are known for their disdain of Abrahamic religions and how they poison minds of uneducated majority of the world.
- r00fus 9y ago
  Even strident atheists (Bill Maher) are not exactly picky about mocking whatever form of "invisible friend" you delude yourself with. It's just easy to mock an overgrown persecution complex and blatant hypocrisy on high-profile Christian/evangelists.
  - richardknop 9y ago
    Bill Maher is a TV personality. I’d not consider a representative of atheism. Richard Dawkins or Christoper Hitchens would be better candidates. Bill Maher is mostly a comedian. Thanks for the downvotes btw, as a Christian critical of evangelists and similar conmen I don’t really care. You should read some writings of Einstein and other great scientists btw, hardcore atheism is very radical niche and even most evolutionary biologists and theoretical physicists don’t believe it.

"Even atheists"? Are atheists pretty evil, but not quite this evil? Are atheists well-known for being anti-freedom? Why "even atheists"?

wand3r 9y ago
I think they meant that it is evil; also atheiest-- people who do not believe in any religion, would not do such a thing.
TaylorAlexander 9y ago
I think just because atheists don’t tend to care for the book. But yeah we’re typically less in to banning books than religious people so it is an odd comment.
whatshisface 9y ago
Athiests (the community) are known for being outspoken about the damage that certian religions have caused and are causing, but they're also known for supporting the free exchange of ideas including those that they think are harmful. Atheists (the definition) aren't known for anything because atheism doesn't demand any specific behaviors.
- tjoff 9y ago
  I haven't seen that and is starting to believe that might be something typical for the US.
- lurquer 9y ago
  I wonder if there have been any explicitly Athiest regimes? That is, governments based on an ideology that explicitly denies the existence of God and devalues all religions? If only we had historical examples of such regimes, perhaps we could see if they were benign or murderous. Oh what a pity we don't have such examples.
  - harimau777 9y ago
    My understanding is that most Communistic regimes were explicitly Atheist. I'm not a historian so I may not have my facts completely correct, but my understanding is that: The Soviet Union more or less outlawed religion. China is officially Atheistic but tolerates certain recognized religions. My understanding is that they outlaw/suppress certain things they view as "superstition" (such as supernatural and moral aspects of Qigong) in a way that would be considered questionable in the west. On a more positive side, I wonder if there are any of the Scandinavian countries that could be considered to more or less implement Humanism. I say that because it seems like Humanism fills a lot of the same roles for Atheists (moral system, providing hope, providing meaning etc.) that religion does for theists.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > I wonder if there have been any explicitly Athiest regimes? Some, but not all, regimes in the Leninist (and Stalinist, etc., derivatives) tradition were/are, and early the French Revolutionary regime briefly was during the period of the establishment of the Cult of Reason (which, while called a “cult” with good was, was atheistic and thus not a religion in the theistic sense), but that was soon replaced by the Cult of the Supreme Being (which was deistic, but not atheistic) during the Terror.
    - lurquer 9y ago
      I seriously doubt you're correct. The communist regimes (as well as their demented cousins such as DPRK, Pol Pot, Viet Kong, etc.) murdered millions upon millions of their own people in the 20th century. These regimes could not have been atheistic as such horrendous genoicidal bloodshed is typically the result of Christisnity. I know this to be true, as I've read it many times here. Stalin and Pol Pot and Mao and Kim were undoubtedly Christians. Atheists are generally rational and not given over to such genocidal tendancies. You need to check your facts.
      - reitanqild 9y ago
        > Stalin and Pol Pot and Mao and Kim were undoubtedly Christians. This is just plain wrong as can be verified by reading up on history. And this is circular reasoning: > These regimes could not have been atheistic as such horrendous genoicidal bloodshed is typically the result of Christisnity.
harimau777 9y ago
Atheists have a reputation for being anti-religion. This certainly isn't inherent to Atheism or reflective of all Atheists. However, I have met many Atheists who were highly intolerant or disrespectful of religion.
- icebraining 9y ago
  I'm disrespectful of many things, that doesn't mean I want to ban them. Even if they're as dangerous as Christianity.
  - acqq 9y ago
    ...or as one another which can’t be named, as it would be “racist.”
  - harimau777 9y ago
    I agree that we shouldn't ban something just because we dislike/disrespect it; instead I meant that, unfortunately, many people (on both sides) don't see things that way. Sorry if that's not what it sounded like I was saying in my original post.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      I understood what you're saying; what I'm saying is that we should be careful not to assume someone want to ban something just because they're being disrespectful to it.
- acqq 9y ago
  The religious people of all monotheisic religions don’t believe in almost all the same gods as the atheists. The atheists just don’t believe in one more.
jsonne 9y ago
I'm really not trying to start a tit for tat who is worse argument as all religions, including mine (Christian/Catholic) has their fair share of atrocities, but certainly many people were murdered and otherwise oppressed under state atheist regimes in Communist countries. It's worth calling out and remembering.
- reitanqild 9y ago
  I'll take it a bit further: I'm no Catholic and have never been. But honestly: while Catholics has done much wrong they don't come anywere near Pol Pot, Stalin, the Reign of Terror etc
- reitanqild 9y ago
  To late to update my post but I should add that I don't blame you or any other current Catholic for what happened during the dark ages. And by the way, since that's not clear from my first post: I'm a Christian as well, just not Catholic.
dang 9y ago
No religious flamewars on HN, please. Upthread was teetering, but here it plummets.
- EliRivers 9y ago
  Sure thing, Dang. FWIW, I'd have said the exact same if it had been "even botanists" or "even car mechanics". It just seemed massively orthogonal.

lawlessone 9y ago

As an atheist i can't even see why they would ban it. It's a mish mash of traditional views, fallacies , contradictions and stories. Studying it should teach you see all these things.

offhand2464 9y ago
To make a bad comparison, not everyone can develop antibodies upon mild exposure to a virus.
- j0e1 9y ago
  A bad comparison indeed.
assblaster 9y ago
The stories include a historical person named Jesus who started a new religion after he died and was seen by his followers being alive after he was dead. These followers went on to become martyrs voluntarily. I think it's pretty obvious why the Chinese government is so afraid of the Bible, since historically, people's lives have been changed dramatically based on what is inside the Bible. The Bible can only lead to instability.
madengr 9y ago
Ditto. By banning something, they just encourage people to seek it. Better to just expose the kookiness of all religions.

icebraining 9y ago

Why "even atheists"? Historically, atheists are not even close to the biggest aggressors against Christians. That would be other Christians, probably followed by Muslims (during the ascendancy of the Caliphates).

dwheeler 9y ago
Christians have been persecuted by polytheists, atheists, Muslims, and many others. Ancient Rome sent many Christians to the lions. The USSR had official state atheism, for example, and persecuted Christians. Certainly Christians have persecuted other Christians, but I think there's little evidence that Christians have been the dominant ones. Much more info is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians On the other hand, clearly many atheists allow others to have different beliefs, including Christian beliefs, and to allow religious texts to be distributed (such as the Bible). This seems to be much more about power and control over the Chinese people.
- icebraining 9y ago
  That page simply ignores the Christian-on-Christian violence. Where's the Thirty Years' War, "one of the longest and most destructive conflicts in human history"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - dwheeler 9y ago
    Quote from that page about the Thirty Years War: "Initially a war between various Protestant and Catholic states in the fragmented Holy Roman Empire, it gradually developed into a more general conflict involving most of the great powers. These states employed relatively large mercenary armies, and the war became less about religion and more of a continuation of the France–Habsburg rivalry for European political pre-eminence." In particular, you have Catholic France against the Catholic Habsburgs, and the issues were not doctrinal. Not what you would expect if this was a war about religion. This was not a war about religion primarily, by the time most of the deaths occurred.

hangonhn 9y ago

This has nothing to do with religion or what people believe. This is about control. Religion is another source of authority, which the Chinese government will never tolerate. This is also why there is a campaign to promote the more traditional Confucian values: obedience to your elders and emperor (now replace emperor with government) and be a useful member of a hierarchy.

richardknop 9y ago

Do they? Many notable atheists are known for their disdain of Abrahamic religions and how they poison minds of uneducated majority of the world.

r00fus 9y ago
Even strident atheists (Bill Maher) are not exactly picky about mocking whatever form of "invisible friend" you delude yourself with. It's just easy to mock an overgrown persecution complex and blatant hypocrisy on high-profile Christian/evangelists.
- richardknop 9y ago
  Bill Maher is a TV personality. I’d not consider a representative of atheism. Richard Dawkins or Christoper Hitchens would be better candidates. Bill Maher is mostly a comedian. Thanks for the downvotes btw, as a Christian critical of evangelists and similar conmen I don’t really care. You should read some writings of Einstein and other great scientists btw, hardcore atheism is very radical niche and even most evolutionary biologists and theoretical physicists don’t believe it.