Now, I have herd of the stupid assumptions that theists make about atheists, one of my favorite is when they say we eat babies. And as sick, twisted and slightly humorous this may sound I’m just wondering where this rumor got started?
I would think it started with the catholics back in the darkages.
It was common for people to charge others with practising witchcraft in fairy circles and the like. During these ceremonies, orgies took place and the satanists defiled everything innocent, up to and including, eating babies.
The link from satanism to atheism, in my mind, is not strained. A typical theist who would make such a charge, is likley to also believe that an atheist serves and worships satan. Any protest against that, of course, is proof the person is deceived.
Now, I know the charge of eating babies was leveled against the catholic church in the 1800s in America by Protestants. They said all kinds of evil things were done behind the facade if the church. It also appears that many of these charges also stem from earlier apogetics against evolution, particularly as seen in the cartoon, the tree of evil. This is not the original. I am too lazy to seek it out.
I executed an epic facepalm when I read that post. Yet... christians really don't surprise me anymore. With God, Anything is justified as long as you believe in it hard enough. Religion fosters to people's inner psycho's.
If you look up "Blood Libel" you should find some good information.
I found this definition:
"Blood libels are false and sensationalized allegations that a person or group engages in human sacrifice, often accompanied by the claim that the blood of the victims is used in various rituals and/or acts of cannibalism. The alleged victims are often children.
Some of the best documented cases of blood libel focus upon accusations against Jews, but many other groups have been accused throughout history, including Christians, Cathars, Carthaginians, Knights Templar, witches, Wiccans, Christian heretics, Romani people, Mormons, neopagans, Native Americans, Africans, atheists and communists."
I think it is kind of view held by any Christian is a very strange because their entire belief system is set up on the "Human Sacrifice" of Jesus. Jesus is their scapegoat for all of their sins so he had to die.
Many of the Christians I talk to practice receiving the Eucharist where they truly believe that the bread they eat turns into the flesh of Jesus after they eat it and that the wine/juice they drink turns into the blood of Jesus. Some do believe that it is just symbolic and no real change in the bread or wine/juice really occur. Either way they seem to be ok with human sacrifice and pretending or really believing in eating or drinking flesh and blood.
I have never thought sacrificing someone for your actions was really moral or the basis for a moral code.
Don - Blood Libel is absolutely correct, unfortunately you got there before I did.
With regards to the Eucharist and Communion with it being real is called 'transubstantiation' and mainly believed by the Catholics. Then again by definition wouldn't this be cannibalism? I think you'd find it more perturbing that Pope Innocent IV declared cannibalism a sin deserving to be punished by Christians through force of arms - which seems rather hypocritical. As for the reason apart from the stated, many cultures believe that eating the flesh of another would allow you to gain their powers or virtue.
Personally I'm waiting for "Faith Films" an subsidiary of Asylum studios to release their "Atheist Blood Libel" film.
The way in which it differs is through the miracle that occurs.
Catholics don't believe the wafer, itself, is Jesus' flesh before being consumed. They believe it transforms once inside and broken down, into the flesh of Jesus, much the same way a cow becomes us after we consume it. The miracle is that this occurs *after* being consumed, in fact, another miracle occurs if you vomit the wafer up, or open a person's stomach after consuming the Eucharist because it turns back into the apparent form of a wafer - I kid you not.
I wasn't aware of the minute details involved in the miracle of the Eucharist, but this just makes it all that more amusing. I was always under the impression that it was miraculously transformed into the body of Christ immediately upon the priest's blessing.
How about the whole concept of an all knowing god who says nothing, an all powerful god who does nothing, and an all present god who is invisible? I have heard it said you can't prove the nonexistence of god, but it has occurred to me that you can prove it doesn't exist by taking on faith alone the definition of god defined above. If that god lets horrible things happen to humans he supposedly loves, he is a real bastard. If he can do nothing about these horrible occurrences (as must be the case), then why do we need him?