How dare an atheist fight for his country! The only thing worse in a REAL soldier’s eyes would be if this scumbag were also gay. Right? I SAID RIGHT, MAGGOTS! I CAN’T HEEEEAAAARRRR YOU!
Atheist soldier claims harassment
Like hundreds of young men joining the Army in recent years, Jeremy Hall professes a desire to serve his country while it fights terrorism.
But the short and soft-spoken specialist is at the center of a legal controversy. He has filed a lawsuit alleging that he’s been harassed and his constitutional rights have been violated because he doesn’t believe in God. The suit names Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
[…]
It eventually came out in Iraq in 2007, when he was in a firefight. Hall was a gunner on a Humvee, which took several bullets in its protective shield. Afterward, his commander asked whether he believed in God, Hall said.“I said, ‘No, but I believe in Plexiglas,’ ” Hall said. “I’ve never believed I was going to a happy place. You get one life. When I die, I’m worm food.”
The issue came to a head when, according to Hall, a superior officer, Maj. Freddy J. Welborn, threatened to bring charges against him for trying to hold a meeting of atheists in Iraq. Welborn has denied Hall’s allegations.
And in a vaguely, yet not totally unrelated story, an anthropologist describes how religion is a figment of human imagination.
#30, Mustard;
Oh, wait, atheism is an “ideology” now? I thought it was a religion? You’re getting weak…
“Why do you think the atheist singled out believers to slaughter? Luck of the draw?”
A) What specific event are you talking about?
B) Uh, probabilities? Given that there are very few atheists on this planet, sheer chance would make you more likely to randomly select a religious person in the first place.
When I was inducted into the Army in 1970, after my inoculations at basic training I went through a line and was asked what my religion is. I replied, “Agnostic.”
Shortly thereafter, I was handed my dog tags which had my name, blood type, social security number and the words “Non-Denominational Christian.”
Natefrog, see my previous 209809830945 posts on this same topic.
Your POV is trash.
Thanks for your attention to this matter.
#33;
You’ll find that you are the one that said it, not me.
Now, answer my questions if you can, else you’ll do nothing but prove your point is trash:
Of course, it’s 108 years late, but welcome America, to the Twentieth Century.
Mustard–I think I tried this before, but once again into the breach:
can you at least admit that “some” atheist make a religion out of their set of beliefs but that some don’t?
Or are you in fact, on consideration, being as absolutist as you post?
29 natefrog
“Apparently you don’t have anything to bring to the conversation.”
I need something like that. It just saves so much time. Would you be upset if I used that once in a while? I just need to find a vacuous response.
RBG
#30 – Mr. Comdom-mint,
From Merriam Websters:
I think I disagree. Got another definition you’d like to try? Or, would you like to shoehorn atheism into one of these?
As for Stalin, wikipedia says 100,000 religious victims out of 20,000,000 total victims. I have a hard time stating that his primary goal was one of atheism from that. Got any other numbers you’d like to share?
Money quote: “professes a desire to serve his country while it fights terrorism.” ‘Fight terrorism’??? LOL how naïve these people are…
#39–ethanol==why don’t you post the articles that reflect the accuracy of wiki to be on par with Britannica and other paid for services?
Far better to use almost any “source” than post from thin air.
If you post back that I didn’t post any source for my position, you’ll get my point.
Bobbo,
You are one of the many I was complimenting above. I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy of denigrating Wikipedia repeatedly and then consistently using it as a source for arguments. That is like calling a person to the stand in court, calling that person a liar when they say something you don’t like, and then referring to that same testimony as factual evidence in your closing statement.
I know you see that hypocrisy as well…
#26, it is very likely he is telling the truth. My husband was not an atheist, but he was not religious. during his MC experience, he and his fellows were given two choices on Sundays: go to church, or do drills as punishment for not going to church.
#42–ethanol==I reread your post. I don’t see any compliment to anyone there. Even if you had, my post would remain valid.
I use wiki a lot, but mostly because it comes early in a general google search and often times it is structured and easier to understand.
As I have posted before, sometimes I use some more academic site to gain greater depth but then will post to wiki as being consistent but easier to understand.
Give this a shot==some people criticize wiki, others cite to it. “People” are not being hyocritical because to be hypocritical the SAME person has to do both things. Now, when you find that same person, then you have a specific valid complaint==assuming both statements are made about the same article?
The ambiguity of generalizations is easy to make, but easy to correct.
Keep your good stuff coming.
GOD..
the person to blame for the GOOD, BAD and ugly of your life. when MOSt of MANS problems come from MAN doing his worst to SCREW his fellow man..
#45–ECA==I thought all our problems were God’s revenge, kicking us out of the Garden of Eden and visiting all kinds of ill on us and that poor snake. All for wanting to eat an apple and be left alone. Who is screwing whom?
#36 – can you at least admit that “some” atheist make a religion out of their set of beliefs but that some don’t?
He probably could admit that, but he’d still be wrong.
Atheism has a definition and that definition, as irrefutably established in the responses to over 209809830945 posts, precludes atheism from being an ideology or a religion.
Or are you in fact, on consideration, being as absolutist as you post?
You spelled dishonest wrong.
#39, ethanol,
What the fuck are you babbling about ???
Any source is only as good as those who believe the author is correct. For every effen “expert” out there one could call on to testify (see your #42 post), there is another expert who can give another version, explanation, or opinion.
You don’t use Wikipedia. Good for you. I do. I also know that it is as accurate as Britannica. Or World Book. Or any other encyclopedia written by human hands. It is also more complete, more detailed, and easier to read.
No one accepts Wikipedia as the ultimate source. But it is a damn site better than nothing. And far less biased than a Papal Bull(shit).
You guys like the new handle ???
Think it matches my style ???
Bobbo,
You need to relearn (or learn) how to read and comprehend the regular posters are a fun bunch to banter with . Typically, that is a complement. I now revoke any such complements.
Mr. Stupid and Impotent (#48 & 49),
On controversial topics, Wikipedia is highly suspect at best. Thus the links to prior postings on Dvorak Uncensored. In addition, your lack of vocabulary is astounding as you are unable to express yourself without swearing. Try reading a book or websites other than DU and Wikipedia, maybe you can expand your grasp of the English language.
#50–Ethanol==ok, rereading for the third time, I can see your meaning being there. Your phrase though could have been meant sarcastically, especially when only a comma separates that statement from a clearly negative one?
Why don’t you consider THIS to be banter?
>>precludes atheism from being an ideology
>>or a religion.
Oh sigh, OFTLO. How naive you are.
39 Ethanol
“Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that relies on volunteers to pen nearly 4 million articles, is about as accurate in covering scientific topics as Encyclopedia Britannica, the journal Nature wrote in an online article published Wednesday.”
USA Today http://tinyurl.com/ywur2m
Wikipedia reports the same thing.
RBG
>> # 31 natefrog said,
>> Oh, wait, atheism is an “ideology” now? I thought it was a religion? You’re getting weak…
In my experience, most atheists simply don’t believe.
However, is a wing of atheism that can be called pseudo-religious.
The trouble is, they don’t draw from the best parts of religion… they almost exclusively draw from the worst.
Chris Hedges has written a pretty-good book on it: “I Don’t Believe in Atheists”
http://tinyurl.com/2u6xtv
The story behind the book is kind of interest. He had finished writing a book about Christian fundamentalism when he noticed that a sub-set of atheists had all the same traits.
Religionists can’t really ever make a argument on merit. Instead they just distort the meaning of words. We all know atheism is not a political system, and dogma doesn’t equal atheism. But, they ignore you when you point to democratic countries with large numbers of atheists who are more peaceful and secure than the US.
Or they just get smug like Mustard and act like an intellectual.
Republicans are either of two types of people.
1. Rich
2. Tricked into voting against their own economic interest because of gay marriage and abortion.
>>He had finished writing a book about
>>Christian fundamentalism when he noticed that
>>a sub-set of atheists had all the same traits.
Thank God somebody had the balls to point that out.
>> # 55 julieb said,
>> Religionists can’t really ever make a argument on merit. Instead they just distort the meaning of words.
What in the world do THOSE words mean? Seriously dude, most of what you said barely makes sense.
But this does:
>> But, they ignore you when you point to democratic countries with large numbers of atheists who are more peaceful and secure than the US.
If you made that point, I wouldn’t ignore you but I might remind you of the old dictum “correlation does not imply causation.”
If I’m not mistaken one of the most peaceful national on earth is not Christian and I suspect there are next-to-no atheists: Bhutan
Furthermore, it seems to be making a peaceful transition to democracy.
So, can I conclude that Bhutan’s strong Buddhism makes it so peaceful?
Nah. It’s probably a bunch of stuff.
>>> # 56 Mister Mustard said,
>>> Thank God somebody had the balls to point that out.
While Hedges does say that this specific movement of atheists are just one more wing of fundamentalism that is so screwing up the earth, he makes it clear that Christian fundamentalists are the much bigger threat.
(if anything, because they are so much bigger and better organized than the atheist fundamentalists)
>>if anything, because they are so much bigger
>>and better organized than the atheist
>>fundamentalists
I agree with you, Mr. Allen; the Christian fundies ARE a bigger threat. However, that doesn’t negate the threat (smaller though it may be) of the Atheist fundies, or make them any less despicable.
Intolerant fanatics, whatever their beliefs (or “non-beliefs”) may be, are a danger to us all.
#59;
“Intolerant fanatics…”
Funny. You’re at least 50% of that statement.
I’m still waiting for an answer to my questions. I guess you admit defeat.
#55 – julia
Thank You!
I’m glad someone has finally come along to stem the tide of logic.
and dogma doesn’t equal atheism unless your at the snack bar