Human-hating, sociopathic religious fanatics

Time and again, devotees prove that religious fanaticism causes sociopathic behaviors, including intense human-hatred, misogyny and violence. The hatred and bile with which religious fanatics attack those who question, critique or reject the ideology they follow are relentless and depraved.

This sociopathic behavior in defense of an unfeeling ideology often borders on and carries over into abject evil, with fanatics insulting, abusing and killing nonbelievers.

Such human-hating behavior in defense of ideology should not be tolerated and is a major motivator for those of us who criticize religious fanaticism in the first place. We will not live in fear of vicious and violent haters who value old books and invisible gods over real, living, breathing and feeling human beings and other creatures.

“We will not live in fear of vicious and violent haters who value old books and invisible gods over real, living, breathing and feeling human beings and other creatures.”

Further Reading

Victims of Christianity
How many have died in the name of Christianity?
270 million dead in the name of Islam
Quotes from Judaism
Is Buddhism all it’s cracked up to be?
Why Can’t Hinduism Rid Itself of Fake Gurus?
Human-hating, sociopathic religious fanatics (Twitlonger edition)

Religious sociopathy - click to enlarge

8 Comments

Add a Comment
  1. As I suppose we may have expected, Twitter is full of Christian fanatics and Islam defenders. These seem to be the only two choices we have: Christianity or Islam. And the people I’m following there are drawn from followers of Richard Dawkins and Zeitgeist for the most part! Go figure. Very frustrating – only 140 characters, but you’re supposed to append disclaimers and clarifications on every post.

    For example, every post critical of Islam must include criticism of Christianity, or you’re “bigoted.” These “lefty liberals” with their own special patterns of bullying us into political correctness automatically assume that anyone criticizing Islam must be a Christian, so the mindless kneejerk reaction is “What about Christianity/the Bible/Christians? They’ve killed/are sexist/hate nonbelievers.” (Take your pick of apology.) Never mind that – according to their own “logic” that critiquing the IDEOLOGY of Islam is “an attack on ALL Muslims” – criticizing Christianity makes them “bigots,” “racists” and “intolerant” of ALL Christians.

    Muslim apologists/jihadis could not have done better than the trained dhimmis fronting for them. When the racist card comes out, we know their real motivation and that it is THEY who are racist, since they believe that all Christians are white and all Muslims are “brown people” – someone on Twitter actually described ALL Muslims that way, bemoaning the “racist attacks” on them, even though we were critiquing ONLY the IDEOLOGY.

    As concerns the Christian fanatics, they will attack you with misogynistic comments, such as the one yesterday who called me “god-hating bitch” and told me to “go nag your husband.” That was his response when I joined in with HIS criticism of Islam, because he didn’t like the fact that I critique the Bible.

    I’ve had similar responses from Christian fanatics over the Islam issue, as they simply will NOT ally themselves with freethinkers/atheists/agnostics/secularists against Islam. Yet, they will pass around Pat Condell and Sam Harris’s work when it suits their criticisms of Islam.

    We are doomed. Move to the hills and become a prepper. No company is better than bad company.

  2. Do you hear that, Mr. Anderson?
    That is the sound of inevitability.

    I find that, inevitably, an article on the atrocities of Islam turns commentors to defending Islam by attacking and or equivocating it with Christianity and more rarely Judaism. I think it must be an effect of the past few decades of education telling the children that they can’t criticize one thing without attacking all similar things or, if they do so, their point becomes invalid. Of course, attacking all things invalidates or dilutes any point that was to be made anyway. I find it infuriating that many posters on Dawkins’ site will criticize Christianity and Judaism but, in their little liberal dhimmi silliness, will defend Islam until the cows come home. I typically simply tell them that they’re not actually atheists. I think equivocation and conflation must be the twin badges of honor in the silly liberal camp. I typically try to simply quote the numbers from thereligionofpeace.com as in, Muslims typically average slaughtering about 2 people per hour, 24/7/365, in the name of Islam. This means that, on average, Muslims slaughter more innocent people every week than all the so called white Christian terrorists have killed in the past few decades. This includes the two typical liberal whipping boys, McVeigh and Brevick. Of course, now that this apparently white kid shot up LAX, we’ll have to listen to the liberals wag their fingers about that for years. They are a product of the politics of self hate that has been crammed down our throats for the past five decades. Maybe they’ll get over it some day. I did.

  3. I prefer the term “religion fanatic.”
    I do not use the word “religious” when referring to a person who resorts to bullying, or worse, in promoting his or her views on a given religion. I describe such a person as a “religion fanatic.” Likewise, I use the term “religion fanaticism” to describe their oppressive actions.

  4. Hypocrisy.

    hy•poc•ri•sy
    hiˈpäkrisē/
    noun
    noun: hypocrisy plural noun: ; hypocrisies
    The practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform; fraud.

    When this applies to ones blood family and wife it doubly hurts. Instead of examining the facts they judge the book by its cover.

    I find it extremely interesting that religious people especially the “Christian” who says they follow after Jesus’ teachings of love one another as I love you, are all to quick to judge and condemn others who don’t follow after Pagan rituals and who in fact follow after pagan gods and goddesses.

    That’s not saying Pagans are not hypocrites either.

    Thanks Acharya S for all your hard work

  5. I do agree with several posters on the point that to criticize Islam one must also criticize the other two judaic based religions. However if one to differentiate between these three it could be said that only Islam has remained so intolerant and resorts to such violence or threats of violence that those who might speak out are silenced for fear of violent reprisal.
    Case in point: When the Danish newspaper publish some not so flattering cartoons of Mohammed, the entire muslim world very nearly erupted in a hysterical wave of violence and threats of violence especially aimed towards Denmark. The leaders of three major middle eastern nations, mainly Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran traveled to Denmark, who then proceeded to confront and threaten the president of Denmark a massive boycott against the nation. Fatwas and other threats were hurled against the cartoonist and even though it was a topic of discussion here in the state, not a single publication ever dared to reprint the cartoon in abject fear of Islamic retaliation.
    Salmon Rushdie is also another victim of muslim intimidation and death threats. One must also be clear that this continual outpouring of violence and threats of violence is not just throughout the middle east but spreading westward even into the U.S.
    To critique the Islamic religion is to invite threats of violence and even death. I suspect that much of the ongoing violence in the middle east comes from to opposing sectors: one from the radical imams and clerics and from the other side goaded by zionist/ mossad infiltrators.
    The violent assaults against women and children that continue to this day in the form of pedophilia, female genital mutilation, the marrying off of girls as young as nine years old and the horrific treatment of women as nothing more than breeding stock is proof that the muslim world continues to exist in a time warp of savage antiquity.

    1. [quote]I do agree with several posters on the point that to criticize Islam one must also criticize the other two judaic based religions.[/quote]
      Thanks, but there are not several other posters here stating that we cannot single out Islam for criticism in its own right. We certainly can do so, and we will continue to do so.

      One subject at a time. It’s the “leftist” default position to respond with a kneejerk reaction and try to deflect criticism off Islam to the other Abrahamic cults. We can and do critique them as well. But it is nonsense to suppose that we cannot single out [i]any [/i]deleterious ideology for special analysis.

      That’s like saying that if we wish to discuss the rattlesnake, we must discuss [i]all [/i]vipers. If that is the case, we cannot point out the specific characteristics of any particular viper, including the rattler.

      There are countless separate texts discussing Islam on its own – shall we tell all the Muslim writers that they must likewise discuss Christianity and Judaism every time they bring up Islam?

      Feel free to go ahead and do so, but it sounds like a serious waste of time.

      In the meantime, again, we can and will continue to analyze, discuss and critique Islam on its own terms whenever we feel the need.

  6. Ideolagy
    Fundmental ideolagost cant see the mind bending ideolagy for what it is, mind control slavery.Your being used again by someone else.Why not be a human being who cares about others as you do yourself. I want to thank you for simplyfiing “We will not live in fear!”I cant speell right,but I did say what I ment. Thanks for the opertunty.Love

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

© 2014 Freethought Nation, Acharya S, D.M. Murdock & Stellar House Publishing
Skysa App Bar