Why are atheists considered to be so dishonest?

[JGG]

When I was a kid I first heard about Madalyn Murray O'Hair (O'Hair is the correct spelling apparently). She was considered the most hated woman in America according to Time magazine in 1964 and she was the face of atheism. Read her Wikipedia entry. You'll be shocked at how she lived and the things she did. She was undoubtedly evil, even by my atheist standards (we atheists tolerate evil more so than non-atheists, or so I'm told). She was also butt-ugly, cursed like a sailor, and seemed to hate the world. Although she may have furthered the atheist agenda, she also implanted in the public's mind the perfect image for how an atheist looked and behaved. In other words, she was the best example christians have ever found for what happens to someone when they embrace atheism. Christians could not have been more fortunate than to have Ms. O'Hair against them (divine intervention?).

Ms. O'Hair is the image the last generation had of atheists. Is it any wonder that atheists are considered bad people? Only in the last decade or so have we begun to show that old Maddy didn't speak for us and certainly is not representative of what we believe. Through our works we shall be known.

A few problems with this suggestion...

Firstly, that doesn't actually explain why atheists are supposedly dishonest, this only theorizes why Christians would hate atheists. Granted, they're probably connected, but if I may say so, not exactly an acceptable answer from a Christian perspective.

Secondly, while it might explain the last generation, it doesn't explain this one. It's not as though the attitude has changed. I mean, I didn't know who Madeline O'Hair was, and I'm well-read and atheist. She's not exactly a character at the forefront of today's culture.

Thirdly, while I didn't know who O'Hair was, I do know Katharine Hepburn, Andy Rooney, Larry King, Woody Allen, and Ayn Rand. I also know that all of these people are/were prominent outspoken atheists of that same generation. You're suggesting that Christians would judge all atheists on a single person because she was disliked, while other well-liked, outspoken atheists were in the public eye. It would be positively hypocritical of them, considering that so many Christians are so adament that Christians are not represented by the likes of the Westboro Baptist Church, Pat Robertson or pretty much all of Uganda. It would suggest that O'Hair wasn't chosen because people actually believed she represented atheism, but because she fit the existing characture of an atheist.

Lastly, it seems that this discrimination certainly pre-dates O'Hair. By all accounts, atheists were already well-hated in Senator John McCarthy's 1950's.

 

[drich0150]

It seems quite irrational to me. If some unpleasant publicity seeking lunatic sets up an organization claiming to represent Americans who don't drive cars, would you then expect most car drivers to consider non-drivers bad people?

What if the non-drivers set up shop in a place where those possibly seeking a drivers license, came and they were met with the protests of the non-drivers?

Maybe it's just 'human nature', but a little thought or understanding doesn't seem a lot to expect, particularly from people who profess to espouse Christian values. Is it any wonder some atheists feel the need to speak out?

It is indeed a wonder, especially in a place like this. (For those who are looking to be come Christians, By Those looking to help make that transition.) None of us are going to you, and forcing our beliefs on to you. You came here, and have hypocritically made statements against core Christian behaviors on a Christian web site, then call into question the values of one who would simply defend what it is this whole website original intended use.

Read the sub forum titles.. this is not a place for open debate. Your actions (whether or not you have been able to identify them as such) are extremely hypocritical. You are actively engaged in what your speaking out against.

If it has not already been said, All have fallen short of the glory of God. That means "Christians" too.. that means we all are bad people so welcome to the fold my sinful brother.

What separates us? the atonement offered by the blood of the Christ. This atonement is also offered to you. The big difference between believers and non-believers is the acceptance of that atonement.. which BTW doesn't make us better people. It makes us forgiven, so that no man can boast about being "good".

 

[razeontherock]

It doesn't matter. Christians claim it is, and that's sort of my point.

In context what you said here is because some Christians mistakenly claim US is a Christian Nation, it is. And you decide to base your opinion on this? That's a very weak starting point.

What basis would you prefer?

The context here is in comparison to your study, which has no basis for evaluating the Power of the Gospel. What you would need for a basis is something VALID! Like the SAME INDIVIDUAL before and after coming to Christ. You really need to be told that?

I don't honestly think God is for, or against anything, people only claim God is.

This says nothing more than that you are an atheist, which we could already tell by your icon. If your purpose for starting this thread was to polarize believers against atheists you might almost be successful, except for the fact that Christianity acts as a shield against all forms of hatred including prejudice. You should be more careful though, because not all believers choose to use their shield of Faith.

All you're showing is that you have a pre-conceived notion, and will desperately use anything possible to assert it's validity.

 

[DomainRider]

I hear what you're saying, but your analogy only works part way. In the 1960's Americans knew there were atheists hidden among them, like commies (or perhaps as commies is more accurate).

Theistic Americans confused or conflated atheism with communism? an educational failing, perhaps.

An atheist in America (before 1980) who publicly admitted his views, was asking for a punch in the nose (if he was lucky).

Why? this is my point - why would admitting this invite violence? Differing views or beliefs in the 'Land Of The Free' were not acceptable?

Face it, we got off to a terrible start.

'We'? You make it sound like atheism is some kind of movement rather than simply a lack of belief in deity. As I understand it, the Founding Fathers themselves were an eclectic mix of religious and non-religious of various kinds, and the Constitution reflects this in the Establishment clause of the 1st Amendment. That seems like a very good start [I may be wrong about this - US history isn't my strong point].

The first major contribution an atheist in America is known for was removing prayer from schools! Talk about kicking over the anthill.

I thought that was a consequence of the 1st Amendment - e.g. teach what you like out of school, but leave religion at the door when state organisation/administration/finance is involved. For people so proud and defensive of the Constitution, it seems strange to get upset when it is applied.

I'm starting to hate those atheists too!

Must be a cultural thing

 

[DomainRider]

What if the non-drivers set up shop in a place where those possibly seeking a drivers license, came and they were met with the protests of the non-drivers?

Do the actions of a small group of extremists reflect badly on all (that was my point)?

...None of us are going to you, and forcing our beliefs on to you.

Well, to be fair, the only proselytisers that have come to my door are Christian. No atheists so far. But no force involved either way.

You came here, and have hypocritically made statements against core Christian behaviors on a Christian web site, then call into question the values of one who would simply defend what it is this whole website original intended use.

Questioning is hypocritical now? You disagree that the prejudicial behaviour questioned in the OP is contrary to Christian values?

Read the sub forum titles.. this is not a place for open debate.

Ah, OK, you're right. I'm in the wrong forum. Sorry 'bout that. I'll go away.

Your actions (whether or not you have been able to identify them as such) are extremely hypocritical. You are actively engaged in what your speaking out against.

In what way? I can't identify it as such.

If it has not already been said, All have fallen short of the glory of God. That means "Christians" too.. that means we all are bad people so welcome to the fold my sinful brother.

Thanks - though the initial greeting was more like a slap...

What separates us? the atonement offered by the blood of the Christ. This atonement is also offered to you. The big difference between believers and non-believers is the acceptance of that atonement..

They told me that all through school and it never made any sense to me then.

 

[oi_antz]

They told me that all through school and it never made any sense to me then.

Hi DomainRider,

This doesn't surprise me at all, since no-one knows what Christ's forgiveness feels like until it is received. So I'll just show you what I saw last week on another thread discussing hell. That the atheists/non-Christians all get up in arms over the prospect that hell exists, especially the idea that some people promote that everyone is destined for hell by their own accord. I saw this manifest by the quote of just one verse, without implying that it was to be taken as a personal attack, all those who hadn't placed their trust in Jesus got upset when they read it. And I can say from my days of being non-Christian I too felt upset at many such Biblical concepts that I felt were unfair. So there's definitely something about what the Bible tells us that we don't like, and this is natural since we are sinners and our conscience tells us so when we read the Bible. However, what I wanted for you to recognize is that the same words from the same Bible rest well with Christians - that is those who trust that Jesus has forgiven them. In case you don't believe what I just said, allow me to quote your previous comment:

Thanks - though the initial greeting was more like a slap...

This is in response to the following comment:

All have fallen short of the glory of God.

Now, for a Christian to hear those words, this is the sweetest music to our ears - to know that God's glory is well beyond that attainable by mankind. Yet, for a non-believer, what does it mean? I can't describe that to you, but I'm sure you are aware already.

See, the crucial thing about this is that Christians aren't any better than non-believers, we have done nothing special that makes us worthy of forgiveness, it's just that we accept the situation for what it is, and we choose to trust that Jesus is entirely honest when He says that we are forgiven. Until you actually get to receive that offer from Jesus for yourself, you'll never be able to feel at peace with your own convictions.

I do hope this makes sense to you.

 

[drich0150]

Do the actions of a small group of extremists reflect badly on all (that was my point)?

Apparently. Muslims seem to have found this to be bothersome as well.

Well, to be fair, the only proselytisers that have come to my door are Christian. No atheists so far. But no force involved either way.

I was not speaking about those who may or may not have come to your door. i was speaking about your presents here. "We" did not go to you, you came to us, and yet you seem to be despondent about the segregation Christianity has made between your system of belief and our own.

Questioning is hypocritical now?

You were not questioning anything in the post i originally responded to. you made some very acute observations. It is to those observations that i chose to correct and point out your own level of involvement when it came to the segregation you were so anxious to point out in us.

You disagree that the prejudicial behavior questioned in the OP is contrary to Christian values?

Segregation is an essential part of Christianity. albeit a carnal sin in the worship of popular culture.

In what way? I can't identify it as such.

Again you have pointed out all the ways Christianity has attempted to segregate itself from "mainstream" atheism and yet you somehow fail to see the separation or hypocrisy in your atheist and Christian comparison. convenient.

Thanks - though the initial greeting was more like a slap...

a slap or a tickle my words are chosen and sequentially based on your original comment. so if you do not like what is being said then take the time to choose your words more wisely.

They told me that all through school and it never made any sense to me then.

Do you understand them now? Do you want an explanation?

 

[JGG]

In context what you said here is because some Christians mistakenly claim US is a Christian Nation, it is. And you decide to base your opinion on this? That's a very weak starting point.

Apparently, roughly 80% of Americans claim to be Christian. That's my starting point.

The context here is in comparison to your study, which has no basis for evaluating the Power of the Gospel. What you would need for a basis is something VALID! Like the SAME INDIVIDUAL before and after coming to Christ. You really need to be told that?

Then you're going to have to explain to me why these studies get the results they get. The non-religious (individuals who are non-religious, or weak in faith) score far lower on measures of hate, discrimination, and aggression than those who are religious. Why is it that somone who has not come to Christ scores lower on these measures, while someone who "has come to Christ" scores higher? Maybe we don't have the before/after results of a single individual. But we do have "after results" for many individuals, and we can compare them to "before results" for many other individuals.

If what you say is true, then these results contradict that. For that matter, the guys who inspired my signature contradict that. If there are indeed individuals who fit your before/after paradigm, they are tremendously overshadowed by these people.

This says nothing more than that you are an atheist, which we could already tell by your icon. If your purpose for starting this thread was to polarize believers against atheists you might almost be successful, except for the fact that Christianity acts as a shield against all forms of hatred including prejudice.

Why exactly? My point is that we're already polarized. I'm reacting to the problem that I've experienced. The general response is denial that the problem is there.

You should be more careful though, because not all believers choose to use their shield of Faith.

Why would believers choose not to use their shield of Faith?

All you're showing is that you have a pre-conceived notion, and will desperately use anything possible to assert it's validity.

Well, it's a recently-conceived notion about something which, in my experience, is a problem. But in my defense, I'm asserting it's validity with psychological, and sociological studies. I'm sorry, but you saying that these studies aren't valid because Christians have a shield of faith that they may or may not choose to use, does not address the problem in any meaningful way, and simply denies that there's a problem at all.

 

[oi_antz]

But we do have "after results" for many individuals, and we can compare them to "before results" for many other individuals.

Do you have statistics for the "Kirk vs. Picard" faiths of the Christian religion, or are they all lumped into the category of "believers"? I ask this because the trend you are examining here seems to be a personality trait more than religion. Those words you used there "hate, discrimination, aggression" describe attributes of a person who is smug in their beliefs. I'm sure you will recognize that people can be smug with or without being religious, and I think you should realize that being smug is the opposite of what the Bible teaches us to be: humble. So this raises an interesting point to consider, why is it that these ones who subscribe to a religion don't end up learning what the religion is meant to teach them? You got any ideas about that?

I also tend to think that taking a statistic of social trend as gospel does seem quite delusional. I mean, this is hardly a reliable benchmark, any statistics of a group of individuals will inevitably overlook individual characteristics and whatever variables that contribute to the conclusive statistic such as economy, culture, education, maturity, law, belief, etc. So I want to probe your honest opinion about this: do these figures really give you insight into the state of mind of the individuals, or do they cause you to make stereotypical judgments and lay it across the board of a represented group?

I'd like to ask you for another honest answer at the same time - how sure are you that your own investigations aren't motivated by some degree of hate, and how do you suppose you can you be sure?

 

[JGG]

[DomainRider said: You disagree that the prejudicial behavior questioned in the OP is contrary to Christian values?]

Segregation is an essential part of Christianity. [A]lbeit a carnal sin in the worship of popular culture.

I just want to confirm that what you're saying is that the separation of Christians and non-Christians (you vs. us) is an essential part of Christian segregation. How does the behaviour in the OP (accusing atheists of being dishonest) fit into that segregation? Would you say that the statement "atheists are dishonest" is true?

 

[HarryCovert]

Atheists aren't dishonest. If anything they're more honest than most. If you haven't recieved the gift of faith you haven't yet recieved it. Why would you say otherwise?

 

[DomainRider]

allow me to quote your previous comment:

Thanks - though the initial greeting was more like a slap...

This is in response to the following comment:

All have fallen short of the glory of God.

No, it wasn't in response to that - it was in response to implications of forcing my beliefs on others, and accusations of extreme hypocrisy.

Until you actually get to receive that offer from Jesus for yourself, you'll never be able to feel at peace with your own convictions.

I have been comfortably at peace with my convictions since I dropped the Catholic guilt and all the accompanying baggage as a teenager.

I do hope this makes sense to you.

I think you've misread the situation, but thanks for the effort.

 

[JGG]

Do you have statistics for the "Kirk vs. Picard" faiths of the Christian religion, or are they all lumped into the category of "believers"?

For me personally, I tend to divide into various categories of religiosity, but for the purposes of the argument, yes, all lumped together as "believers."

I ask this because the trend you are examining here seems to be a personality trait more than religion. Those words you used there "hate, discrimination, aggression" describe attributes of a person who is smug in their beliefs.

Hate and discrimination are attitudes rather than attributes. Aggression can refer to an attitude or an attribute. Just wanted to clarify that, but it doesn't really matter. And they don't necessarily describe someone who is smug in their beliefs. But, I think you're just presenting your hypothesis.

I'm sure you will recognize that people can be smug with or without being religious, and I think you should realize that being smug is the opposite of what the Bible teaches us to be: humble.

Yes, that may be true. However, what these studies found is that, while non-religious people might be smug as well, this trend is nowhere near as strong among the non-religious. It could very well due to a combination of being "smug" (I'm not fond of that word, it's too vague), and religiosity, to be sure.

So this raises an interesting point to consider, why is it that these ones who subscribe to a religion don't end up learning what the religion is meant to teach them? You got any ideas about that?

I certainly do. However, I think the far more interesting question is this: If religion is meant to teach something, why is it that those who don't subscribe to the religion are the ones who are more likely to learn it?

I also tend to think that taking a statistic of social trend as gospel does seem quite delusional. I mean, this is hardly a reliable benchmark, any statistics of a group of individuals will inevitably overlook individual characteristics and whatever variables that contribute to the conclusive statistic such as economy, culture, education, maturity, law, belief, etc. So I want to probe your honest opinion about this: do these figures really give you insight into the state of mind of the individuals, or do they cause you to make stereotypical judgments and lay it across the board of a represented group?

Can I depend on these studies to read the mind of the individual? No, of course not. These merely tell me the general characteristics of these groups of people as a whole. Please remember, I did not bring these up as an accusation of anything, but merely to refute an assertion that seemed absurd.

I'd like to ask you for another honest answer at the same time - how sure are you that your own investigations aren't motivated by some degree of hate, and how do you suppose you can you be sure?

I'd be somewhat surprised if my investigations were not motivated by some degree of hate, and can say with certainty that they're motivated by anger, and profound disappointment. I'm not going to claim that I'm above that. I'm not. I'm not the Buddha, I'm just like everyone else. But, at least I'm going to be honest about it.

How can I be sure? As I keep saying, I try to be very honest with myself.

 

[oi_antz]

allow me to quote your previous comment:
This is in response to the following comment:No, it wasn't in response to that - it was in response to implications of forcing my beliefs on others, and accusations of extreme hypocrisy.

I have been comfortably at peace with my convictions since I dropped the Catholic guilt and all the accompanying baggage as a teenager.

I think you've misread the situation, but thanks for the effort.

Now I find this response quite interesting. Are you saying that although I had falsely presumed what you were referring to, you really feel safe to state that you have no convictions when you read the Bible? And about your last comment, what exactly do you think was the purpose of my "effort"? And do you think it was effort wasted because I had apparently misunderstood your comment? I must say this response does surprise me, I'd like to know more about the way you feel about the Bible after hearing you say this. It does seem that you associate the religious teachings of the particular denomination you are most familiar with, to the grudge you have with Christ. In other words, this means your problem is with the teachings of those who told you about Jesus, but I do have to ask just to get clarity about your reasoning, is there something in particular about what Jesus teaches that you have a problem with?

 

[DomainRider]

Apparently. Muslims seem to have found this to be bothersome as well.

Human nature, I guess.

I was not speaking about those who may or may not have come to your door. i was speaking about your presents here. "We" did not go to you, you came to us, and yet you seem to be despondent about the segregation Christianity has made between your system of belief and our own.

I came here out of curiosity, and found JGG's question (the OP) wasn't really being answered, and thought another viewpoint might help throw light on it.

You were not questioning anything in the post i originally responded to.

?? I asked 2 questions that you quoted in your response.

Again you have pointed out all the ways Christianity has attempted to segregate itself from "mainstream" atheism

Er, no - are you sure you're not confusing me with another poster? If not, there's definitely been some misunderstanding. If you link to my post(s) where you think I did that, I'll try to clarify.

and yet you somehow fail to see the separation or hypocrisy in your atheist and Christian comparison. convenient.

I don't recall comparing Christians and atheists at all - if you could link to the post(s) at fault, I can respond.

Do you understand them now? Do you want an explanation?

I think I understand what atonement is about (reconciliation for original sin/sinful nature?), but it never made sense to me - e.g. that a newborn child should be considered sinful before ever exercising free will, etc. I was taught that you just have to accept it - as a matter of faith. If that's incorrect, let me know, and if you can make it sound reasonable, I'd be grateful.

 

[oi_antz]

Atheists aren't dishonest. If anything they're more honest than most. If you haven't recieved the gift of faith you haven't yet recieved it. Why would you say otherwise?

Hi Harry,

In case this has not been clear through my involvement here, my view of atheists as a stereotype is not that they are dishonest people so far as their daily activities go (thieving, lying, [insert any dishonest ethic]), but rather that when they are confronted with what God says, they decide to believe a lie instead of the truth. On matters of truth there is only the truth that is right, and anything contradicting it is wrong. So when God tells us something, you really need to be sure about whether you think you know better than He does, and I'm not too sure that atheists quite grasp the reality of this since they don't seem to entertain the idea that God does have a perspective that no-one else could possibly have. By dismissing this idea (apparently because it is too inconceivable to be real), then they dismiss the validity of what God says. According to my understanding (and this is the basis of my argument here), this is the dishonesty that causes Christians to accuse them of being liars. Whenever the truth about God is stated to them, they will draw the most aggressive refute as to why they shouldn't agree. This is why we know them to be atheist, and not agnostic.

Now it is interesting to see the potential hypocrisy in this statement because immediately it becomes apparent that not all religions agree and neither do all members of a religion agree. So, somewhere even beyond atheism, the extent of dishonesty reaches right into the heart of mankind, as though none of us can escape it, that there is ultimately some matter of truth that each of us might wish to conceal and deny.

I remember a couple of good verses about this:

John 3 (New Living Translation)
18 “There is no judgment against anyone who believes in him. But anyone who does not believe in him has already been judged for not believing in God’s one and only Son. 19 And the judgment is based on this fact: God’s light came into the world, but people loved the darkness more than the light, for their actions were evil. 20 All who do evil hate the light and refuse to go near it for fear their sins will be exposed. 21 But those who do what is right come to the light so others can see that they are doing what God wants.[g]”

Matthew 6:23 (New Living Translation)
22 “Your eye is a lamp that provides light for your body. When your eye is good, your whole body is filled with light. 23 But when your eye is bad, your whole body is filled with darkness. And if the light you think you have is actually darkness, how deep that darkness is!

The conception I draw from this is that labels don't really mean anything more than what a discriminant person likes to think they mean, but rather it is the heart that matters. Jesus says here that if we are looking at things the wrong way then we really aren't doing any favors for ourselves or anyone else. It's quite clear that the light Jesus speaks of is the good while darkness is the bad. It's also quite relevant to JGG's Kirk vs. Picard observation, that although someone may associate with those who shine light, if they are seeing the light with a bad eye, then they won't be filled with light at all but instead He seems to say that much the opposite comes into effect. This is certainly consistent with the likes of extremist Christian cults and those represented by the statistics JGG mentions.

Now, I can't say that every atheist will straight away argue with everything the Bible says, but rather they are probably inclined to argue with the ideas that a believer gets when he reads the Bible. I'm not sure why this is, and it's perhaps not typical of all atheists but rather the ones who contributed to this particular perception I have of them.

So, bottom line of my comment here: I agree that some atheists probably are more honest than some believers, however I do agree that atheists are inherently dishonest about what God says to them, as are those who don't claim to be atheists at all. And I wouldn't like to imply that I am holier than anyone, because I too have a heart that has learned how to glorify sin, and that is a force of darkness I find myself contending with fairly constantly. But in the interests of truth I do take the matter seriously enough that on several occasions I have had to correct my statements on the grounds that I had misunderstood the Bible. This is not an easy thing to do, and it is probably even harder for those who speak from behind a pulpit.

 

[oi_antz]

I certainly do. However, I think the far more interesting question is this: If religion is meant to teach something, why is it that those who don't subscribe to the religion are the ones who are more likely to learn it?

Hi JGG, I'm certainly not afraid to hear what you have to say, I'd actually appreciate if you would share your thoughts about why those who subscribe to the religion don't all seem to have such an interest in learning it. You'll see in my previous post I quoted Matthew 6:23, I think that might be relevant to this topic, and I really can't promote my understanding above that which Jesus shows us. So, would you care to share your ideas about this?

 

[DomainRider]

Are you saying that although I had falsely presumed what you were referring to, you really feel safe to state that you have no convictions when you read the Bible?

I'm not sure quite what you're asking - I've read (and had read to me) quite a lot of the bible, but not all of it. My convictions aren't really related to it, except in as much as it espouses the Golden Rule.

And about your last comment, what exactly do you think was the purpose of my "effort"? And do you think it was effort wasted because I had apparently misunderstood your comment?

I assumed you were trying to help by offering advice. It missed the mark partly because you had misread which comment I was responding to, and partly because I'm at peace with my convictions, contrary to your assumption.

I'd like to know more about the way you feel about the Bible after hearing you say this.

I think it's a carefully selected collection of stories and essays intended to provide a moral, cultural, spiritual and historical background to Christianity. I think there is a grain of historical truth in there, but it's debatable how much.

It does seem that you associate the religious teachings of the particular denomination you are most familiar with, to the grudge you have with Christ.

I don't think I have a grudge with Christ - much of what I know of Jesus seems admirable, but (assuming he really lived) I don't believe he was more than human. I certainly have mixed feelings about the Church, particularly the Catholic Church I grew up with - omitting individual priestly misdeeds, I think much of the overt good they do is subverted by the wrongs of the political and authoritarian Church hierarchy.

In other words, this means your problem is with the teachings of those who told you about Jesus, but I do have to ask just to get clarity about your reasoning, is there something in particular about what Jesus teaches that you have a problem with?

The bulk of what I was taught of his teachings on behaviour and morality seems reasonable. There are few odd things that sound jarringly unjust or unreasonable, but I put them down to cultural context. He seems to have been a charismatic idealist with, for the times, a radical liberal agenda.

 

[oi_antz]

I'm not sure quite what you're asking - I've read (and had read to me) quite a lot of the bible, but not all of it. My convictions aren't really related to it, except in as much as it espouses the Golden Rule.

Doesn't it bother you a bit that Jesus was crucified for living what seems to have been a perfectly honest life? I'm also curious why you would question the fact that He even walked on earth.

 

[oi_antz]

I don't think I have a grudge with Christ - much of what I know of Jesus seems admirable, but (assuming he really lived) I don't believe he was more than human.

Did you know I intentionally said Christ instead of Christianity, just consider what that sentence would have meant to you if I had have said Christianity. This is why I said Christ, because by attacking Christianity one is actually attacking Christ, even though they might be intending to attack un-Christ-like believers. Let me know your thoughts about that too if you don't mind, cheers.