Valerie Tarico, Atheist Psychologist, Explains Why Religions Are Guilty, Not Guilty and Are Guilty of Violence.

Valerie Tarico gives us another lesson in the Atheist attack on religions, this time throwing in a little false psychological melodrama to boot things down the path. It's a twisty, turny ride toward Christian guilt. Well, all religions, but let's face it: Christians are the most hated; this time around it's for their violence.

When going after religionS (frequently plural and non-distinguished or differentiated), Atheists always ignores their own Marxist history, and the Enlightenment's creation in the genocidal French Revolution. Tarico is certainly in line with that.

”Is monotheism inherently violent? Is religion an excuse or cover for other kinds of conflict? Are Western colonialism and warmongering in the root of the problem? Do blasphemers make themselves targets? Is the very concept of blasphemy a form of coercion or violence that demands resistance? Is killing in the name of gods a distortion of religion? Alternately, is it the real thing?

Each of these questions is best answered “yes, and” rather than “yes/no.”

With the possible exception of Buddhism, the world’s most powerful religions give wildly contradictory messages about violence. The Christian Bible is full of exhortations to kindness, compassion, humility, mercy and justice. It is also full of exhortations to stoning, burning, slavery, torture, and slaughter. If the Bible were law, most people you know would qualify for the death penalty. The same can be said of the Quran. The same can be said of the Torah. Believers who claim that Islam or Christianity or Judaism is a religion of peace are speaking a half-truth—and a naive falsehood.”

Fortunately for us, Tarico answers her own questions because we might have gotten it wrong. For example, that religion is the root of the problem. I, for one, would not have guessed that the KGB or the Maoists were all that religious. But they are not the “root”; religion is. Further, it is a naïve falsehood to claim otherwise, so all the Atheist Marxists are safe from her condemnations, as are the Atheist heirs of the French Revolution.

The AtheoLeftist always goes straight to the biblical rules made for historical Jewish communities while they wandered without a homeland, and ignores the New Testament completely (almost), or at least trivialize it as much as possible. By basing their rhetoric on the Old Testament they can claim that Christians must be violent, despite all the empirical evidence to the contrary. Evidence is important only when it confirms the narrative, and that also explains the lack of interest in the Atheist bloody ravages in just the past 100 years, far more bloody and moral-free than Christianity has ever been, even cumulatively. And it is always necessary to associate Christianity with Islam; otherwise the accusation would fall flat, even on cynical Atheist ears.

Further, her reference to the Christian “ethnic cleansing” in the Central African Republic seems to be false: there is no reference for this at the UN Security Council page specifically for the CAR itself, and all other reports seem to be based on a circular rumor, while none give any link to an actual report.

The obvious fallacy, Guilt By Association, is the only weapon that the AtheoLeft has against its major enemy, Christianity. And to do that AtheoLeftists must accept the fact that Islam, their own partner in Christian-hating, is extremely violent. That partnership is temporarily ignored just so that Christianity can be falsely associated with the violence and totalitarian barbarism of Islam. The ploy is so transparent as to be obvious at the primary school level.

”I would argue that, like alcohol, religion disinhibits violence rather than causing it, and that it does so only when other factors have created conditions favorable toward aggression. I might also argue that under better circumstances religion disinhibits generosity and compassion, increasing giving and helping behaviors. Religion often is centered around authority and text worship (aka “bibliolatry”). Because of this, it has the power to lower the threshold on any behavior sanctioned by either a sacred text or a trusted religious leader and is at its most powerful when one is echoed by the other.”

This psychologist gives nothing but her Atheist opinion, no evidence, no references. Actual evidence consistently shows that in the west, Atheists give almost nothing to charity while the religious give generously to secular as well as religious charities. Further, studies show that Atheists have a decreased empathy level compared to Christians, in that they are far less likely to help a particular needy individual. Atheists think they are empathetic if they get teary eyed over a TV documentary alleging society’s persecution of polar bears. AtheoLeftists are known to be tax dead-beats as well, putting the lie to any claim that they “gave” to the government for distribution.

Also she promotes the concept of Authoritarian or forced worship, despite the lack of authority in western religions (save cults). She is thus equating the generic class, “religion”, with cult properties in order to support her Atheist needs. Atheism comes closer to cult thought, enforced by peer ridicule, but she ignores the worshipful reverence for Richard Dawkins who has “saved” millions for Atheism. That would not be helpful for her narrative.

”Despite the fact that violence is repeatedly endorsed in sacred texts, most Christians, Muslims and Jews never commit acts of violence in the service of their religion. Similarly, millions of people consume alcohol without insulting, hitting, kicking, stabbing or shooting anyone. Most of us are peaceful drinkers and peaceful believers.

You know there is another shoe to drop:

” Yet, [here it is, the contradiction of the previous statement] statistically we know that without alcohol assaults would be less common. [Start with False Association; justify what "we all know": Fallacy Argumentum Ad Populum ] - So too, we all know that when suicide bombings happen, or blasphemers and apostates are condemned to die, or a rape victim is stoned to death, Islam is likely to be involved. And when we hear that an obstetrics doctor has been shot or a gay teen beaten and left for dead, or a U.S. president has announced a “crusade”, we know that Christianity was likely a part of the mix.”

This is the ultimate in stretching reality via demonstrable logic fallacy in order to support an ideology. First compare religion to alcoholic violence; then compare that to Islamic violence; find the remote violence by alleged Christians which occurs once every decade or so. Claim that Christianity, despite previous disclaimers, is known to be actually violent, imply that it is to be feared more than the excesses of world wide Atheism. Claim that war on terrorists is an illegitimate “presidential crusade” and thus Christian violence, as if no Atheist or Leftist approved it.

Only the deranged would believe these claims.

And the final claim, dredged from past millennia:

”American Christianity retains shadows of the inquisitor’s hood and implements of torture.”

If this is so, then Atheism is to be fully condemned based on the hundreds of millions killed by atheists in very recent history, and even their brutality in major Atheist nations still today. So I feel free and comfortable in condemning her as an Atheist under her own principles of condemnation.

”As Evangelical and Pentecostal Christianity spread across Nigeria and Congo, thousands of children are being beaten or burned or disfigured with acid after being condemned by Christian ministers as “witches.” ”

There is nothing in Christianity about witches; the Vulgate says “wizards”, not witches; i.e., treasonous deceivers. Period. And the right of all punishment belongs not to Christians, it belongs to the deity, to be meted out only by the deity. The doctrinal abuse of Cults are again being equated as if they are exemplary of Christian doctrine and Christians in general.

”Meanwhile in Uganda, American Evangelicals have helped to advance prison terms and death penalties for African gays. The Family, an American Christian organization with members in congress helped to convert Uganda’s president to their form of politicized Christianity. American activists attended a conference in Uganda aimed at “wiping out” homosexuality. ” [It’s Family Research Council, not “the Family”; obviously no research done here for supporting her false conclusion].

That is true, they (FRC leaders) did go to the conference, but not to support the “wiping out”; they went to attempt to instill tolerance per the actual Christian faith which is voluntary, but they failed, probably because of the AIDs epidemic which homosexuals spread throughout their country. The lie, once told to liars, becomes truth; what she and the Atheists push is the lie which by its prevalence is now a received, dogmatic “truth” despite being a lie. Narrative always trumps truth.

”Were the Fort Hood and Charlie Hebdo murder sprees or Boko Haram massacres caused by Islam? Are the Central African murder sprees caused by Christianity? A yes answer is far too simple.”

Oh really? Religion is not the cause? That sudden disclaimer seems out of place, being lost amongst the other prior claims to the contrary. After all, it's "what we all know".

”But violence, tribalism, and mutually exclusive truth claims are built into in our sacred texts and traditions. As a consequence, religion around the world continues to disinhibit lethal violence at a horrendous rate

Oh. OK, then. Religions ARE guilty after all.

” For us to vilify Muslims or Christians or any group of believers collectively is to engage in the familiar act of cowardice we call scapegoating. It means, ever and always, that we end up sacrificing innocents to appease our own fear, anger and thirst for vengeance.”

Oh. Wait. Religions are NOT guilty again. It’s the Atheist’s own “thirst for vengeance”? Hmm.

”But for us to ignore the complicated role of religion in violence is a different kind of cowardice, one that has been indulged by peace-lovers among the faithful for far too long.”

OK, now we’re back to “religions ARE guilty after all.” Whew. I'm glad she stopped here. I was getting whiplash.

HT: Anshuman Reddy - thanks for the link!

Greta Christina Nukes a Black Atheist Clear Into a New Identity

A Black Atheist On Being Blocked By Greta Christina While Discussing Ferguson


"I’ve always respected Greta Christina immensely as a social justice warrior. I’ve never met her, but I’ve asked her for advice on a couple occasions and have generally liked what she had to say, although I haven’t always been sure about her apparent “my way or the highway” approach to social justice issues. I would like to think I believe in protecting the marginalized, but I also would like to be convinced, because I think that convincing arguments go further than mere shame, oftentimes, in making change happen (shame can be a useful tool, true, but I think convincing arguments need to be made, as well).

So when Greta Christina stated:
"There are some debates I am willing to have. The question of whether police should be able to shoot unarmed black men with their hands in the air, and not even get fucking indicted, is not one of them. If you want to have a calm, civil debate about this, save us all some time and stop following me right now. I don't want to have to say "Go fuck yourself, blocked" to every one of you."

I was a bit taken aback. Blind acceptance was not healthy, I thought -- it would hurt, rather than help, the rational argument that there were other very real, substantiated problems, and make it seem as if those that wanted these problems discussed were irrational ignorers of evidence. So I said something briefly -- and, in spite of the prior statement (and partly because no black individuals from the United States had yet seemed to comment on the situation), I thought there was a chance to make a difference with a relevant statement. I was sorely disappointed:
"

Christina has had her Messiah Narrative challenged by a designated Victimhood individual, one who thinks that Rush To Judgment based on racial prejudice might not be a good thing. Even if it satisfies the Oppressor Class/Victimhood Class Social Justice Moral needs of the AtheoLeft. That presents an unsolvable paradox for Christina: the Victimhood Class is always morally right no matter what; But this Victimhood Class individual is contradicting her Victimhood Narrative which is also morally right no matter what. The resulting mental collapse which Christina has is inevitable.

Undoubtedly Christina will continue with her demand for Social Justice, meaning that regardless of the situation, the black is always right and the white male is always wrong. And she will shut out of her mental landscape any thought that another black might also be right - that she is wrong.

Because here is the thing about being right: messiahs as a class are always right - always. So if they are challenged, even by a black, the black becomes an Oppressor, automatically. This black had his identity changed in the twinkling of Greta's keypad.

Still Another Atheist Bumper Sticker Quote

I have no reason and no intention to "respect" a religion that violates basic human rights.

But I'm an Atheist, so whatever the Atheists do in China, Russia, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. is not a problem... they're just weeding out the misfits, and that fits in with evolution: it's science you know. And of course human rights are whatever the state says they are, so if a religion violates the state-declared human rights, they get what they deserve, because that's treason.

Another Atheist Bumper Sticker

"Atheists have been among the most abused parties in the history of the church."
Richard Newton
facebook.com/AtheistCosmos

To which I must remind Atheists:

Atheists have tortured and killed FAR more humans than Christians have, and by orders of magnitude. And that within the last century, under Scientific Humanism and New Man evolutionary theories of eliminationism.

One of the main attractions of Atheism is its detachment from moral systems, giving the Atheist the often touted feeling of the exhilaration of freedom, i.e. personal anarchy with respect to moral restraint. When Atheists clump together, it results in the focus on elimination of moral restraint from the society which gave them the freedom to associate. In societies where they succeeded in their revolutions against moral restraint, hundreds of millions died at their hands.

An Atheist with only his own "wisdom" to guide his behaviors is far more dangerous than "the church".

Atheist Hypocrisy

Atheism as a Religion: A Book Excerpt

"A quote on the monument states, "An atheist believes a hospital should be built instead of a Church." Little do they acknowledge it was religious temples in Greece, Egypt and other places that first served as hospitals, the numerous hospitals built by Christian charities in the United States, and that atheists have yet to build a hospital in the USA. In the article, the atheists are very explicit about where their priorities are: building 50 more religious monuments to atheism. Perhaps a better quote for the atheist monument would read, "An atheist is someone who says they want a hospital in place of a Church, but then settles for erecting a religious monument to atheism instead." Not soon after this monument was erected, the Sunday Assembly began its cross-country trip across America raising money for…the atheist Church. Atheists may say they want a hospital instead of a Church, but as atheism in practice demonstrates, their first priorities are monuments and places of atheist worship."
[Emphasis added]