For Acharya's Main Website, go to
TruthBeKnown.com

TBK News Table of Contents

Bookmark and Share
Join the TBK Mailing List!
Enter your name and email address below to receive news and cutting edge commentary from Acharya!

Name:
Email:
Subscribe  Unsubscribe 

Friday, April 14, 2006

Christian Terrorism and the Atheist Inquisition: Two Sides of the Same Coin

Fanaticism is fanaticism, whether it emanates from theists or atheists. For over a decade, I have had a presence on the internet, and I have been pilloried by rabid proselytizers of both camps. The Christians have actually been more welcoming than the atheists, as at least they will invite me to "play," albeit in a nasty and vicious manner, whereas the atheists will attack me behind my back and recommend that I be shunned at all costs. Both groups demonize and vilify me, reducing me to a cartoon character who should be marginalized and making me into a "less than" who not only does not deserve respect but actually merits disrespect. Rabid theists and atheists are two sides of the same coin of intolerance and prejudice. I know I am not alone in my experience of this phenomenon. (And please note that I did not say "all theists and atheists" but "rabid theists and atheists.")

Although my work and I are given a "place of honor" in the "Rogues Gallery" by Christian terrorists, the Atheist inquisitors have deliberately snubbed me, calling me "an embarassment" and "a poor reflection on nonbelievers." (I call them "terrorists" not because they wield bombs but because they menace with sinister insults and threats.) First of all, I am not a hardcore atheist, so I don't belong to that cult anyway and am therefore not a representative of it. My stance has been and shall remain that it is up to the individual to do with his or her thoughts what he or she wants to within the privacy of his or her own head. I am not interested in mind control, while the fervent proselytizers of both theism and atheism evidently are, since, if by both of their standards you don't fit in mentally, you will be ostracized. To me, if you believe in God, fine; if you don't, fine. It's your mind. I am only interested in establishing what has happened or is happening on the third dimension, within the framework of history. I cannot prove or disprove any metaphysical, esoteric, mystical or supernatural experience, nor do I want to. In other words, you can "love Jesus with all your heart," but don't tell me it's a proven fact that he "walked the earth."

I have no interest in making anyone feel guilty or dirty because of any fantasy or non-fantasy they want to believe in. While the disparagement of me and my work is to be expected from the likes of Christian terrorists, I am frankly sick, tired and disgusted by the Atheist inquisitors' nasty behavior towards me because I am not rigid enough in certain of my views. Because of this fact, to these rabid detractors - who consider themselves so superior in logic and rationality to the believing faction of humanity - my entire body of work should be ignored, dismissed or assailed. In short, their minds are as narrow, bigoted and irrational as those they would like to replace.

The old adage of being careful about replacing an intolerant and tyrannical system with another is clearly pertinent here. I for one am not interested in replacing Christian Terrorism with the Atheist Inquisition. One of my major goals in life is to create greater tolerance for everyone's harmless pecadilloes, which includes what they do with their minds within the privacy of their own heads - or even in public, so long as they understand that others may not believe or disbelieve in the same way. In other words, can't we all just get along?

14 comments:

Jenn said...

I read the one person's nasty comments about your work on the Debunking Christianity blog yesterday (before they were removed). I should probably leave a comment on that blog, too. Just because you have a more open mind than others and actually have tolerance for everyone's views, you don't fit in their club? Disgusting. Seems to further prove your point at the end of your first contribution to their site. Perhaps you are there as an "innoculation."
Keep up the good fight! I, for one, believe you are doing great work!
Jenn

allan said...

Debunking Christianity or Debunking Acharya?

Huh? They invite you to contibute to their blog and within days your credibility is being challenged.

Surely your opinions and body of work were 'judged' to be credible and valued beforehand, otherwise why invite you?

I can understand your frustration. You want to move forward and have some interesting discussions but one or two bloggers must insist on steering the conversation back to attacks upon your work and yourself.

Yes - been there, read the book, got the t-shirt, seen the film - can we now please move on? - I hear you plead!

Hopefully, that blog can now move on and we viewers can look forward to some meaningful discussion.

As Jenn says, you are doing great work. There's lots of us out here cheering for you!

Best wishes

Allan :)

paul said...

Hi,
Love your work. Everything you wrote so far just reinforced my own findings.
Why, can't this people understand this solar myth, turn into religion, "the opium of the masses". I'll tell you why. It is because they won't do their homework. If they will read some of the ancient texts, starting with the egyptian, looking at the ancient artifacts, which are just clicks away, they will understand. Well, some of them. The American Mass Media, doesn't help also. It is because they constantly refer to jesus, as a historical persona, and not a character from a "Solar Mystery" play.
I so many times envision, the greeks performing this play in their magnificent amphitheatres. Hollywood still does.
If it is true that emperor Constantin designed the " Labarum" , the XP symbol of the christianity, than I have no doubt of the purpose of Christianity. It is said that Constantin said : " In this, Win" , " En Toito, Nika". Now, XP, CHI-RO, I'm pretty sure is pagan, and has to do with HR - HORUS, HORA, HOUR, CHRONOS. On the orthodox cross it is common to see IS , XP on top, left right, NI , KA on the bottom, left, right. Jesus Christ the Victor. Victor over what? I'll tell you over what. Over the minds of the masses. Control the minds, win over the minds of the masses and you shall rule over them with ease!!!
Oh , by the way LABA in romanian means CLAW. From my perspective, Religion (RE LOGOS - word of RA, LOL) is the claw that grabs the minds of the believers.
AMEN...RA

William said...

Maybe there is hope for this world... Thanks so much for your
efforts. I couldn't agree more with your recent article about
radicalism. Keep up the good work. There are people out here who
appreciate you!
Bill

OrneryPest said...

Bravo! My sentiments exactly! I'm a regular participant in a mainstream Christian denomination but also consider many ideas presented by atheists to be worthy of consideration, so I catch flak from both sides.

Daniel said...

Acharya,

Perhaps the readers of this post, and those over at Debunking Xianity, were confused because Adam Lee (of ebonmusings and daylightatheism) left a comment maligning your views on other subjects. This comment was not from anyone at DC, nor solicited from us.

Adam linked to some old pages you had written about AIDS not being a scientifically verified result of HIV infection, aliens, UFOs, Illuminate, etc. To be honest, when I first read them, I was a bit worried that your views on these other areas would reflect poorly on your membership within the blog. Simply put, I thought that those views were "fringe" and as such may reflect that the rest of us held fringe views as well.

I expressed a little of my concern to John, but emphasized that I thought we were not all responsible for what each other held views of, outside of our commitment to debunk Christianity, using logic and science and history. After all, although DC is by no means a "hardcore atheists club" which excludes any other views, we certainly advertise ourselves (within the banner) as:
"We are now either atheistic or agnostic."

That leaves some wiggle room, but almost certainly excludes Deists and weak theists. However, in talking to John, we both agree that we must not put criteria out there for joining the blog, other than a solid amount of potential to contribute to our effort, which you obviously possess.

I'm sorry the comment offended you, Acharya, and we removed it. However, many comments will be left on the blog which offend any one of us, and it is not my job to defend you, or your job to defend me. If you wish to ignore these comments, then do so, but I just wanted to emphasize that simply erasing everyone's criticisms will in no way silence them.

Thanks for joining DC. I look forward to your further comments and posts.

Best regards,
Daniel

Anonymous said...

Hang in there. For years everyone thought the world was flat. Sooner or later the truth will out -- then you will be vindicated -- for all the solace that is. There are many of us here who do know the truth, but lemmings are lemmings and will run off the cliff because of stupidity. So be it! It's their destruction, not ours.
Jakujo

Acharya S said...

Thank you, Brother Danny. I appreciate the overture and sentiment.

I've been on the net long enough for many people to know many of my views on a wide range of issues. My main work does not revolve around AIDS/HIV, aliens/UFOs or the Illumaniti. And I do not spend any time on them, although I would think that they are interesting subjects worthy of study by anyone not in hibernation.

Obviously, I don't appreciate the suggestion that I "reflect badly" on anyone. As I have stated previously, I am a respectable individual with a long history of effort in bringing about a better education and understanding for humanity in as many issues as I encounter. I could just as easily argue that it's the fanatic debunkers who reflect badly on "atheism," "skepticism" or whatever term we want to label the world of people who don't subscribe to organized religion. In reality, such individuals most definitely give "atheism" a bad name, as they appear to be intolerant, vicious, nasty and hypercritical in their judgments of others. Not exactly the paragon of love and peace that many people would like to see increase in the world. If that is what it means to be an atheist, I'm not interested, nor are many others, as they have expressed to me over the years. This isn't the first time I've heard complaints about mean, rabid and fanatic atheists.

As concerns defending myself, I certainly do not rely on others to delete messages with ad hominem attacks on me. However, it says in DC's mission statement that personal attacks would not be tolerated. Furthermore, I myself didn't delete that message, and I did respond, fairly quickly at that. I also responded twice more. Morever, as I say, I've been around a while. Attempts to characterize me apparently assume that I fell off a passing meteor yesterday. I've been in this battle a long time. Also, if you're referring to those tribal knuckledraggers attempting to bait me into a flame war on their muddy turf, homey don't play that game. In my judgment, such attention serves no purpose other than feeding psychoses.

As concerns "Deists and weak atheist," I did see the statement that "We are either atheistic and agnostic," and I thought, uh oh. "Atheistic" is slightly different than "atheists." It means you (or we) are atheistically inclined but do not impose upon ourselves hard-and-fast labels that indicate rigidity. I have many times been labeled an atheist over the years, particularly by my religionist detractors. When I write essays such as "Proof God Doesn't Exist, it would be difficult to call me a theist. (That essay, by the way, comes up no. 1 when "proof god doesn't exist" is googled.) However, I have also written an essay, "What is God?. I have recently had a request to blog that essay so it can be seen by more people. Now, should I not do that because I have just been welcomed into a society that doesn't subscribe to my observations? I don't know.

I generally am not interested in being censored and prevented from reporting on whatever I feel is interesting and worthy. Traditionally, I have not done well with constraining organizations, which is a major reason I don't belong to any organized religion.

As you may have guessed by now, I am a bit of a renegade, and I definitely march to my own drummer. However, I also am a chameleon, and I can speak the language of the natives when necessary.

Perhaps I can fit myself under the appellation of "agnostic," although strictly speaking that term generally indicates that one doesn't know something or to someone "who is doubtful or noncommittal about something." I guess my seemingly disparate stances taken in the two essays above may qualify me as an "agnostic." Perhaps you may wish also to check out my blog post "Is God with us?"

If you all at DC feel I fit in under that category, fine. If not, fine, I can make a gracious exit.

Vikram Madan said...

Great writeup. Indeed, the atheist is no different from the hardcore theist who clings to his book as if hell would break loose if he lets go. Both are the 'clinging' type, both display the inability to accomodate a competing narrative. Both are the same.

Dr. W. Sumner Davis said...

No, we can't all get a long. So long as one group feels it has a special favor of God, and hence, all others do not, there will always be those who wish to rid the world of infidels and non believers. It's archaic and it's genocidal, but humanity is a limited species that has convinced itself it is extended.

Jim Pivonka said...

It's good to know of your work, and to get your POV on the Thiest/Athiest wars. Keep up the good work.

I have not time right now to read all the materials which are apparently available in this corner of the WWW, including those originated by your detractor, who is apparentl one "Adam Lee (of ebonmusings and daylightatheism)". My instinct, after 7 years of engagement in widely varying web environments is to regard sources of this kind of controversy as purposeful instigators of conflict, confusion, demoralization, and disinformation regarding those who they attack.

Often, the attacker, by taking extreme and inflammatory positions in attacking one position from the POV of another postion is actually attempting to undermine and misrepresent both, and especially to reduce the possibility of comity, cooperation, and alliance between the two.

This is NOT a personal attack on said "Adam Lee". I don't know that persona, nor have I read his material. But I have found it useful in evaluating extreme and hostile comments which have a divisive effect, which seem to separate and isolate potential allies in any fight against entrenched opinions, powers, and groups, as purposeful.

I treat them, for purposes of "as if" thinking, as originating in purposeful and well funded efforts to counteract the potentila of the web for bringing together small and disparate groups which together might threaten the established postion of these "powers and principalities". Thinking in this way helps me to clearly identify the disfunctional nature of such attacks, and the serious threat they may be to building new communities of thought.

I believe that the effort to build such communities needs to be a primary focus of those who stand outside the established structure of power. And I think that treating venomous outbursts by "purists" is helpful to me in defanging those who would so discord and conflict among potential community members.

Carla said...

Hey Acharya, I totally agree. I have been experiencing a lot of ignorance from atheists too. Some do act like "Atheist Hitlers". And it gets on my nerves.

Anonymous said...

It's kind of silly to suggest that atheism is some kind of cult. }:-}

No, we just don't believe in any of the gods and goddesses. Period. No cult involved.

Acharya S said...

Not "silly" at all, if the word cult is properly defined.

Just like theists, atheists use cult lingo and have a group mindset. Very cultish indeed.