I was recently accused of being a “hopolophobe”, of having “hopolophobia”.  Come to find out that the word was recently made up to denegrate people who are supposedly “afraid” of guns.  (a neologism)

So if you are a person who opposes the unrestrained proliferation of weaponry, then you have a good chance of being called a “hopolophobe” in order to deflect and demean your position.

So I got to wondering if there was such a neologism for the “fear of atheism”, considering the hysteria surrounding the recent killing of the three young people by one of those CRAAAZY atheists.

If not, maybe we should come up with one.

“_____________________”:  fear of atheism, or of atheists.

Views: 2958

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion


"Perhaps we should have different rules depending on circumstances -- counties with theirs and cities with theirs.  That's sort of what we have now, but few cities have dared impose strong rules effecting gun ownership or simple registration even as the body count mounts."

Moore, Oklahoma is about 10 or 15 miles south of Oklahoma City.  They were hurting for funds, so they pushed the city limits out about 5 miles to increase their tax base.  Well, the city police wasn't expanded to cover the increased area, and obviously, the citizens started complaining because they weren't getting timely protection. The city finally realized it had made a mistake, and turned the area back to the county. Now what would have happened if the city had banned weapons during the time they were in charge?  They would have confiscated the weapons.  Now the county is back in charge.  Do they have to buy more weapons?

Rural-urban split makes sense. I own more than one weapon as I stated earlier. Critters are the real threat out here. And mine are registered. I don't agree with assault weapons. I just don't see it. That's the ideological split. Of course a black man in the presidents office calls for an ak. Not!!

There is no Reply button. So here is my reply:

"Switzerland doesn't have an army, Switzerland is an army."

According to this article,

"Conscription is alive and well in Switzerland. When a male Swiss reaches the age of 20, he must undergo 15 weeks of military training. Over the next 22 to 32 years, he'll attend a succession of two- to three-week training camps during until he's accrued 300 to 1,300 days of active service. (Service requirements depend on rank: the higher the rank, the more years and accrued days are required.)

"Until 1996, being a conscientious objector didn't count in Switzerland. If you said "no," you went to jail. It's now possible to serve in a noncombatant role, although this isn't common. In rare instances, conscientious objectors may perform Zivildienst (civilian service) in a nursing home, sanitarium, etc. instead of joining the military, at the cost of serving 50% longer than they would in the armed forces."

Well, this is the most compelling argument I have read so far that conscription and owning guns have a benefit. 

"According to Swiss military dogma, a powerful citizen army is the best way to preserve Switzerland's neutrality and keep neighboring countries from invading Swiss territory. They may be right; Switzerland hasn't been at war in 500 years."

That said, I still don't like guns in my home and if I ever need one, I will get one and use it. Now, that is the most ridiculous statement I have ever made. If I need one, I don't have time to go get one, and I don't have time to learn how to use it safely. DAMN!

I reluctantly yield that point to my opposition. 

Jeez! Asa, you have 2052 views! That must be some kind of record!

All I asked for was a word to describe fear of atheism, but I'm kinda glad the conversation has morphed into a discussion about guns.  I've learned a lot, and changed my mind about a few things, as I have been inspired to do some research.

Most Americans who are pro-gun are Christians who are afraid of atheism :)

Oh, by the way, I like Donald L. Engel's book, "It's Time for a Talk!" got it from Amazon and it is on my Kindle. I especially like the way it ended, and I strongly recommend it to other readers. 

"religion is beginning to erode our democratic way of government.{

Donald L. Engel (2015-01-30). It's Time for a Talk (Kindle Location 839). Xlibris US. Kindle Edition.

Leon Gretsky, it has been a long time time since I saw your post. I like your book, too. "The God in the Middle". Satyajit Nair is listed as the author. I didn't like the way it ended, however, you probably are more realistic than I am. 

Nair, Satyajit (2014-08-31). The God in the Middle (Kindle Location 9). Satyajit Nair. Kindle Edition.

Well now, I want to give a plug for Richard Goscicki and Barbara G. Walker book. 

Goscicki, Richard (2014-01-01). Pot Stories and Humanist Essays (Kindle Location 4). . Kindle Edition

One more book by an author who is our own: DON BREDES

Bredes, Don (2014-10-06). Polly and the One and Only World (Kindle Location 7). Midpoint Trade Books. Kindle Edition. A book for young people, and for older ones too. 

Thanks for the positive remarks, Joan.

You are very welcome! 

So I’ve been thinking . . .

We are so far down the “guns are us” path, that I see no possibility of effective legislation being passed, much less actually accomplishing stemming the tide of gun proliferation.  It is time to start considering using social pressures and letting the inertia of the gun proponents be used against them.

For example: Let them open carry, and, as a compromise, outlaw concealed carry.

At one time smoking was the norm.

We have reduced the incidents of smoking in this country because smokers could not conceal their habit when it infringed on nonsmoker’s ability to simply breath clean air.  As we progressed toward outlawing smoking in public places, we passed through the phase where people could make an informed decision to enter or not enter smoke filled venues.  Businesses even created “smoke free” areas at first.

The only way that the incidents of guns in public (and ultimately the number of gun owners) will be reduced is if citizens can make a similar INFORMED CHOICE, and similar social pressure applied to gun toting as is now applied to smoking.  That is why concealed carry should be against the law, and gun toters FORCED to carry their weapons for the rest of the citizenry to see.  It wouldn’t be long until “gun free zones” would be more than polite requests.  FORCE the gun toters to carry openly and honestly so that the same type of social pressures that have reduced the number of public smokers can be brought to bear on public gun carriers.  Allow open carry advocates have their way ONLY if concealed carry is outlawed.  That way a citizen could, for example, make an informed decision to enter a venue, or not, based upon how many guns they can see. 

I think it is neither possible nor desirable "... that one day legislation  will be passed outlawing  guns  for civilian  use....."  any more than buying and smoking cigarettes will be/are "outlawed".  But no longer am I forced to inhale other's smoke as I go about my daily life.

In order for smoking laws to have changed, the social aversion to smokers had to be established first.  This took a long time, but it did happen.  Making gun toting visible instead of hidden would allow the majority to express that aversion, and hasten the decline of the gun culture.  

And, yes, the miscreants would hide their guns, and that would be one more reason to lock them up.  Remember Al Capone was arrested for tax evasion, not for his organized crime involvement.   

The problem with this idea is that you are only talking about hand guns.  People don't walk around carrying rifles, unless they are hunting, (or robbing banks, or nut jobs heading for schools.)  And to be realistic, most people aren't carrying hand guns, either openly, or concealed.




Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service