Never seen atheists tell people they are anti-semites on this website personally, however we have had jews calls various people that because they wouldn't stop typing out God instead of G-d, but that's a difference issue, as well the 25 million wasn't done by Hitler alone, at least not from what I have studied about the topic, now, there was maybe 25 million civilians killed on the allied side estimated of course, and the total death on the allied side was 39 million (military and civilian) for a total of 48 million  to about 60 million total killed in the entire war (again estimated). Now the Germans have been given the largest total, about 20 million they killed, but that includes military and civilian. The largest by far that were killed where the Russians. Now in the death camps and the total killed intentionally by Hitler (that being not due to the fact that they were fighting the war per se) were the jews, at around 4.1 to 6 million jews, Homosexuals, Gypsies and the handicaps make up maybe 1 to 2 million. Soviet soldiers that were capture about 3 to 3.1 million.

Now what comes to mind is when people bring up that Hitler was an atheist and that he killed the most, when most of history shows a few things, A) a historical hatred of Jew in Europe that Hitler used during the war and the Nazi party to get elected (as the national socialist party, the precursor to the Nazi part, generally attributed the treaty after WWI to the jews and Communists that were trying to destroy Germany) and B) thay Hitler had used the church (most specifically the German Christian Church) agains the jews and other undesirables. If you were not aryan and christian in germany in the  late 1930's and of course from 1940-1944 you where not considered a german citizen, even if you were born there.

Now many that you meantion (for example Mao) it's to the world really chinese on chinese violence, same goes in rwanda (black on black violence) and lets admit the truth that's how many do perceive it, even though I agree with you that it is just as horrible if not more so than jewish holocaust, however when it comes to WWII it's religious ideologies, and the jews are a every indentifiable group, as where the Nazi's for the most part and this was really a clash of ideologies that was taken to the extreme by the Nazi's.

Is this really the impression you got from the site?

Try this thread.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/16901

Sadly, yes this is the impression I get.

Thanks for the link, read it and I have 2 comments. 1. The not too subtle difference with this thread is it was initiated by someone promoting Judaism, not denouncing it. I specified "a post criticizing Jews" but it was encouraging to read some of the tangents. and 2. Read the responses and (not including the original poster of this thread) I found

• tons of references to Yahweh
• a defense of a reference to Jews attempt at genocide with "populations at those times weren't that big that those genocides would truely be comparable to modern genocides" - ie Jewish genocide isn't as bad as everyone elses
• no less than 9 references to the Holocaust not including responses to someone else referring to the Holocaust.

I don't think jews are alright. Would you like to hear some of my anti-jew rhetoric?

I don't deny that there are non-religious aspects of jewry and that one of them is racial. While I'm not going to criticize people for their racial identity or ethnic origin, it would be dishonest for me to pretend that I only want to disparage their religion when there's also a cultural and political aspect that I would also like to degrade.

I see no reason for an atheist (especially if that atheist is me) to be sensitive to people attaching their racial identity to other aspects of their cultural identity which would otherwise be open to criticism and accusing people who level criticism of bigotry. This is an obvious and pathetic ploy to avoid criticism.

If anything I feel duty bound to expose that kind of nonsense by using what has been wrongly classified as bigoted language to bash jews with anti-jew rhetoric.

PS. A Jewmocracy is a democracy where you can do anything except critcize jews. I don't know if someone else made that word before I did.

I've read your posts and many others. I wasn't targeting you or any of the other contributors here who have the balls to call a spade a spade. I just don't understand why people get so defensive about Jews and why the biggest defense is "what about the Holocaust!"

I don't have a problem with Jews as a whole any more than I have a problem with humanity as a whole. I guess it probably stems from my misunderstanding of Jews as a race rather than Jews as a religion. I've hunted far and wide and I can't find any other religious faith that claims the leap to a race - if anyone else has, please let me know. Just because a person follows traditions of a faith doesn't mean they are belong to a faith. I'm not Christian because I celebrate Christmas any more than a Christian is an Anglo-Saxon pagan for celebrating Easter. I can only assume that because I can't get my head around the idea of an ideology transforming into a race, I perceive those defenders of the faith as closet Jews. Take note of the amount of people who jump on anti-Jewish threads and look at the sheer volume of replies compared to pretty much any other posts. Then compare how many responders tip-toe around 'anti-semetic' responses or respond with unwarranted vitriol compared to posts on another topic. Then, just for kicks, have a Tequila shot every time you read "Hitler" or "Holocaust". Just make sure you have a big bottle!

I'm curious as to how you made the leap from the initial post to your reference of a Zionist plot. Makes me laugh as most conspiracy theories do. If there is a Zionist plot to take over the world, all power to them - they can hardly screw it up more than the current world leaders If I can't be "Supreme Ruler of the World", I don't really care who is (oh and before you tell me to see a shrink for delusions of granduer - that was a joke!). Perhaps you may want to see someone for a mild case of paranoia?

As to the rest of your reply you're right on track, so thank you. I don't mean exclusively right-wing though. And if I do get banned for pointing out something, so be it.

Well, to be fair Jesus WAS a jew, if accounts of his existing are taken as factual. He spent almost a year wandering around "preaching" what he viewed to be as the best interpretations of jewish law, which by the way is plausible as it was verrrrry common. In fact, we have records of a large number of individuals within the supposed timeframe of Jesus that could fit that description, and nearly all of them have supposed records of "miracles". There are writings that survived that speak of putting down many people with claims such as this, who were doing it to stir up violence against the Roman empire's rule. Pretty much all of them were only given a small notation however, being recorded by the Roman empire...except for one that gathered a somewhat large following of people under the understanding that he had performed some miracles and was going to destroy the empire through trumpet blasts and music, which attained a slightly larger notation for bloodshed involved in removing him.

I love this history class I'm taking on the religion. It is very entertaining so far. The sheer number of loons at the time making claims in rural areas (ALL the claims of individuals with miracles seem to have developed in places with VERY sparse populations, never in a city with many people to record it...and of course are only put to writ as secondhand gossip told by people, much like a farmer making a claim he knew a guy that had his cattle abducted by aliens) makes me wish I could see exactly how the story believed by so many today originated. I can speculate though.

As for Hitler, he was very very devoted to his religion of Roman Catholicism. In fact, he mentions it in his book. He even goes as far to state he believes he is purging the jews as the will of the christian god.

Gott Mit Uns was still used by the German military through World War II, until the end of the Third Reich. It means "god with us", and originated long before that war...but during it, it was worn on their belt buckles, like the one shown above. Much of the military believed they were in the right with what they were doing. Hitler himself pushed policies, but the military was the one that carried them out. The majority of the population is what supported this, through religion and loyalty, and the remainer by silence in fear of the majority.

In the interests of fair play and equal treatement, give it a go.

I don't think that savage, genital mutilating religion spends enough time in the barrel. The Reform movement has cleaned up its act but they are a minority and the Orthodox consider them to have a separate religion. The Orthodox Rabbis and the Shia Ayatollahs are cut from the same cloth. During the recent slaughter in Gaza they were urging troops to do a Old Testament extermination on all of them including the children. It was well reported in all the Israeli newspapers but not a word of it in any news source outside of Israel that I could find.

Gaza is a godsend to atheism as is the title of the thread I started.This is particularly true in America where redneck klansmen provide the majority of political support for Israel.

When I point out not only is the OT BS only religious grounds but also the non-religious parts are total fabrications, i.e., it is not a civil history with religious trappings but not any kind of history, that is it an invented religion with an invented history like the Book of Mormon, I get all kinds of arguments against those ideas. Yet the arguments are silly versions of the pro-religion arguments these same people say they reject.

Can you imagine people who reject an known quantity like Thomas Aquinas in the matter of religion but who cite a professor they otherwise never heard of to support some "real" existence of a bible king solely because he supports their desired belief? While I have yet to see it here in the soc.history.ancient newsgroup I have had these unknowns defended because they are in university publications. When I track those down I find them in the religion or even specifically the bible colleges of those universities. I expect no research into the source of logical fallacy of "appeal to authority" here than I find any place else.

I can't say this is all deliberate. In fact it is difficult to talk about bibleland without falling into common usage terms which have only a religious foundation. And it is common for completely secular works on ancient history to use terms like "around the time of Solomon" as though there really were a Solomon or a biblical Israel.

There is an analogous issue with many Brits. They want their King Arthur to have been a real person. In the last few years they have fixed on one man who had a different name, did entirely different things, had entirely different interactions with people yet they want to declare him the same person as Arthur. Doing so requires a new definition for the word same. Bible thumpers or perhaps in this case Torah thumpers are often willing to take a tribal chieftain in place of their precious king Solomon. They do not even notice not one single researcher actually claims there was such a chieftain. IF there was a Solomon THEN he was no more than a hilltop chieftain is what they like to cite from Israel Finkelstein. That is not a claim such a person existed. But in their desperation to believe they either do not notice or pretend not to notice it does not support their desired belief.

Their holy holocaust is a all purpose excuse for just about anything they do. As one wag said, Oh yeah? You think you know suffering? My grandmother died in a concentration camp. -- Anonymous Moshe

It justifies the Zionist treatment of the Palestinians even though they decided to go to Palestine and drive off the locals and steal their land before Hitler was born. Israel stirred up both Iraqi wars using their holy holocaust. Israel is now trying to stir up a war with Iran using their holy holocaust.

It is an all purpose excuse mainly because it has never been defined such that the definition can be used to establish what is and what is not included in the term. (Anyone who disagrees post the functional definition.)

On a personal level it is like it is for Anonymous Moshe. His grandmother may have died of old age in a concentration camp as did many Japanese in American concentration camps but Oy the suffering! It gives Moshe a borrowed sense of righteousness as it does to Jewish Israelis.

Imagine Christians doing the same thing based upon their (largely mythical) persecution by Rome. Consider the Christian martyrs. The term means they VOLUNTARILY died. But here holohuggers claim their ancestors were martyrs. I didn't know it was voluntary. Nor am I aware the meaning of the word has changed. But they are sacred martyrs.

Perhaps it has to do with the ancestor worship aspect of Judaism. After WWII Israel treated the "survivors" like dirt, scum who did not have the balls to resist and perhaps rightly so. But if they had died instead of survived they would have been heroic "martyrs" instead of castrated cowards.

And then to willfully exaggerate their holy holocaust they introduced a very self-serving definition of survivor. A survivor is a person who was at any time a citizen of a country that was ruled by the Nazis. This means people who left Germany as infants in their mothers' arms in 1933 get to declare themselves holocaust survivors. But that does not slow down the infantile desire to be a survivor. I know of one man whose family left Germany in the 1920s who was born in the US and still claimed to be a holocaust survivor. There is also the case Irving made famous of the man who was born in 1947 claimed his parents died at Auschwitz.

This exaggerated definition also allows some three million Jewish Russians who never saw a German and who were never near the front in WWII to declare themselves holocaust survivors.*

If you are in the US you are likely aware of the imaginary superiority of those who trace their ancestry to the Mayflower or to being a descendant of the first residents of a city such as San Francisco. Consider the imagined superiority of those who claim to be descendants of martyrs. Read Israeli newspapers and see how common it is as a point of personal pride.

Jews can do no wrong because they were holocausted. Just ask them. It has even been introduced as a legal defense in the US. Descendants of holocaust survivors have been trying to get on the reparations gravy train for decades because of their messed up childhood.

And back to the war on Iran, you can't read a word of hype for that war without the word holocaust being used.

=====

* This is half the solution to the minimum of 5 million holocaust survivors alive in 1945. Anyone want to take a shot at the other half before I debunk the "killed those to young to work" myth by pointing out if that were true there had to have been 27 million survivors in 1945 of that were true?

I've not finished reading this thread, but why the hell don't you "grow some balls", and get on with it?

I'm an equal opportunity basher, if you haven't noticed. Do you need approval
of the hive before you go Borg-free, or can't you stand the heat?

As always, don't think that some of the heat might not be from myself. That's not to say that if you've got something intelligent to say that I might jump in to add my own 2 cents.

Why do I do stuff like post shit ke this? Maybe i's because if you've actually got something intelligent to say, say it and stop acting like a "pussy", i.e. waiting for approval of the Borg Queen.

Have the OP's complaints been satisfied somewhat by the arrival of A_Nony_Mouse?

It seems as though you wait for these kinds of posts. As long as I been here, I have never seen you start a thread that did not relate to Jews. I also have noticed a vast majority of your replies to other member's threads bash Jews weather or not there was any previous mention of Jews, or the thread had anything to do with Jews. You have also called people, myself included, "closet-Jews" for not agreeing with your posts. Your tactics remind me very much of McCarthyism. I get the impression that you are antisemitic from these types of behavior more so than the actual content of said posts. If you take issue with that so be it, but don't tell this sob story about how the mods treated you unfairly.

There is a code of conduct which you routinely break in order to enter your antisemitic tirades. The mods have every right to enforce it and were a fair bit nicer about it than I would've been. It's one thing to disagree with the way Israel is handling the Gaza strip and express that opinion. It's another to talk about it in unrelated threads, and then lob accusations at the mods for punishing your constant derailments.

I think most people here just ignore him now. I do for the most part. His mod bashing didn't sit right with me though so I had to call him out on it. The mods here seem fair to me, which is saying a lot given the amount of e-drama one would expect on a forum primarily discussing religion.

Actually, no.

A_Nony_Mouse approaches this topic from the extreme opposite end. Predictably he has jumped on the soapbox and put forward a number of points but the fact that he is the only one to attempt a genuine argument to support his opinions just goes to underline the OP.

I also note that in almost every reply he has asked those with an opposing point of view to prove him wrong and so far no-one has taken up the challenge.

Predictably I have also been labeled and anti-semite. Even better, labeled an anti-semite as if that's a bad thing. Why should I be offended by someone saying I'm anti any religion? I'm an out and proud atheist. Where are the accusations of "anti-mormon" and "anti-satanist", because I am these also.

I'd also like to say that upon re-reading the OP it reads a bit too harshly. I didn't mean to imply that everyone here is a Jewish defender, just that there seems to be quite a few around and precious few defenders of other faiths - this seems to me to be quite odd. I apologize if I've upset some of the other 'anti-semites' among us - for those who don't consider themselves to be anti-semite (based on the definitions this post has responded with) you can kiss my furry ass. In other areas of the site it's fine to have theists mixing it and defining arguments for or against certain beliefs but this particular forum is very specific in pointing out "No Theists allowed".

In fact at times I have made posts which could be considered defenses of Christianity, Islam and Judaism. I have done so when the accusation is factually in error. That does not mean the correction is favorable. Usually it is simply putting the criticism on a more solid basis. For example the Spanish did NOT steal the lands of the Aztecs. The women owned the land. They married Aztec women. They gained control of the land by marriage. And killing a husband to take his wife was nothing new to Aztecs. Leave out the theology and the problem with the Spanish is they went native. Nor did they introduce either slavery or forced labor into the culture.

I really did not need to know it is furry. Of course furry is a kink all of its own.

That is a provision I have also cited and then defined Jews as those who are followers of Judaism. People may not agree with me but at least they know who I am talking about when I say Jews. Yet people whom I do not consider Jews because they are atheists continue to tell me how much I hate Jews.

These are very strange people.

I think "race" may be more of a social construct than a taxonomic one. Self-identification may be enough for people to call themselves a race. At any rate I'm not going to argue with someone over it, but if you want to then have at it.
 

I think it's pretty apparent that there's a political aspect of jewry called zionism. Make it clear what you mean by "culture" and "ethnicity" and I'll try to provide examples.
 

Now I'm not even sure what you're talking about anymore. Can you say it in less crazy language or is that asking too much?

Gee treat...a tad oversensitive are we?... I really don't know what to say... although "Go Fuck Yourself" comes to mind....perhaps *you* are the ignorant one...

Do you REALLY believe that all or even most of the users at all Boards on the Net are not the Mods?

Geez!

Sure there actually are assholes on the Net,
but all Boards on the Net implement the same crap.

I NEVER assume ANY user on a Board is anything other than
Mod(s). That includes you, too.

As for the 2 user ids above and there posts... it's garbage. I don't even bother reading posts that are clearly idiotic. All it usually takes is to read the 1st word, sentence or paragraph.

I prefer to have anyone sting B.S. to be wasting their time posting a blog of B.S..

It gives me great pleasure to know how much time and effort
assholes put into posts that
I don't bother reading.

Here's another clue...

Any st or thread which starts with your userid is B.S.

When I respond to anything, it's only because I'm amused,
or exercising my brain, or faking it. Which of those is the case is not something that you'll ever know.

BTW. In the event you're not working for this site and may
not have been in enough Forums to not give a shit...
here's somme unsolicited advice... never take anything personally on the Net, never care about getting banned from ANY Board. There are COUNTLESS Boards on the Net,
and as I said in some earlier post(s) I've been banned from at least 150. I never counted, over the past 10 years.

BTW. I'm not talking about having been banned from Republican or Theist Boards, just the opposite.

Ouch! That really hurt my feelings. Bwaaa!

Both are mine but after the response (typical claims of antisemite) I created the second started with an Israeli review of an Israeli best seller written by a jewish, Israeli historian who is says many of the same things I posted in the first. Thus it is proper to consider the second a rebuttal to the retarded accusasion of antisemite. Thus an honest person would only count it as one.

But where is the factual error in either post? If there is no error, and no one has as yet identified an error, what is your objection? If there is no error what is your objection?

This is solely an exercise in demolishing religious claims of two major religions, Chistianity and Islam, by dealing with the nonsense claims of their root religion. Again I ask after the error(s) in it. If there is no error what is your problem? If there is an error please identify it? As to the atheist interest it addresses an entire segment of the believers' claim to the OT being ancient and inspired as well as the question they beg How could a people survive all this unless...?

What specifically is your problem with what I posted in those threads? What do you divine from this small sample? Are you claiming they are inappropriate?

Notice for the quote you posted I included this.

If I was unclear that previous challenge is to show what is wrong with what I have posted. I have taken the liberty to repeat that challenge several times in this reply. The truth cannot be antisemitic. If you think it antisemitic to expose the root of the evils of the two major world religions that is your problem. If you are surprised it comes up in discussions of religions you have lead a very sheltered life.

If you are uncomfortable with it, as an atheist you will have to learn to live with it. No religion gets a pass. The root of the evils of the major religions definitely deserves most of the time in the barrel.