This is What Atheists Don’t Support

Someone on Google+ posted a link to this weird post on a Christian apologetics blog claiming that atheists support the idea of supplying soldiers with “comfort women” — women whose sole job during WW2 for the Japanese was to provide sexual release for the troops.

Regarding the estimated 200,000 women from the Philippines, China and the Korea who were forced to work as “comfort women” to “relieve the sexual tension” of Japanese soldiers during WWII, a member of the Japanese government stated, “women forced to become prostitutes to entertain Japanese troops during World War II were “necessary.” Toru Hashimoto, who serves as the Mayor of Osaka, told reporters at his weekly press conference Monday that “anyone would understand” the role of “comfort women” when soldiers were risking their lives and you wanted to give them “a rest.”

Other politicians have said, “the comfort women [issue] infringed the human rights of the women.” Chief Cabinet Spokesman Yoshihide Suga did not respond directly to Hashimoto’s comments but instead told reporters “the stance of the Japanese government on the comfort women issue is, as it has been stated repeatedly in the past, that they suffered unspeakably painful experiences and we keenly feel the pain when we think about them.”

Okay. Some Japanese politicians think this was okay, others think it was terrible. I’m decidedly on the side of the latter. And then:

Which brings me to the point of this post. When atheists read in the Old Testament about the nations that God destroyed because of the immense level of evil that was present in those societies, evil that included sacrificing their children as live burnt offerings and enslaving women by the thousands to work as temple prostitutes or “comfort women,” atheists support those nations and go after God for bringing judgement on that evil.

Here are these atheists, men and women who consider themselves to be good people, tolerant people (there’s an understatement for you) people who think that the rest of us should model our moral standards after theirs, and they seem to stand shoulder to shoulder with Mr. Hashimoto.

It seems that there is no level of depravity that atheists won’t support and defend – if God is against it. Sad but true.

Did you notice what’s missing here? How about any link at all to atheists. He doesn’t quote a single atheist who supports the use of “comfort women” during war. He just declares that we allegedly support the idea. Is he lying? Or is he stupid? Take your pick.

34 comments on this post.
  1. lofgren:

    I’ll bet you $5 he’s operating on the misapprehension that Japanese are all communists, based solely on proximity to China.

  2. CaitieCat:

    It’s the logical equivalent of “See this baseball? Well, fish don’t use bicycles, so obviously dogs will be eating Corn Flakes in the Snake God’s Vicar’s Manse, just like Satan intended!! Also, atheists!”

  3. Larry:

    Is he lying? Or is he stupid?

    Yes. Yes, he is.

  4. Raging Bee:

    Why do I have to “take my pick?” As the TV commercial said, “and” is better.

  5. Sean S:

    I’ve seen him around a lot, he trolls various sites. My best guess is he’s saying that since most of the Japanese soldiers didn’t believe in his gods or any god at all, then anything they did ever is attributable to atheists.

  6. Mr Ed:

    Old Testament about the nations that God destroyed because of the immense level of evil that was present in those societies, evil that included sacrificing their children as live burnt offerings and enslaving women by the thousands to work as temple prostitutes or “comfort women,” atheists support those nations and go after God for bringing judgement on that evil.

    The old testament is about nurturing, loving and getting along there is nothing about child sacrifice (Abraham being ordered to kill Isaac) or sex slaves (selling daughters into slavery or taking the wives and daughters of the conquered as concubines.) Can’t understand how some can read the old testament and see it as Pleasantville with sandals.

  7. Dave Uryasz:

    Ed, here’s the link:

    1) There were peoples in the OT that used comfort women.
    2) The Israelites committed genocide against those peoples.
    3) Atheists say those genocides were bad.
    4) Therefore, atheists think those people, and their use of comfort women, were good.

    Yes, it’s nonsense.

  8. kantalope:

    Ed, you are missing it. This is the response to people who claim that god is a jerk for ordering the massacre of the canaanites or whichever other group god was massacring atm.

    Genocide isn’t evil if forced prostitution is involved…god’s word.

    See the Bible is the font of all morality.

    You can kill all the men. Kill all the boys. Kill all the non-virgin women. Kill all the animals and Enslave all the virgin women – if you are doing it to stop the enslavement of …erm…well…some other women. You see, god wanted to stop the enslavement of some women that we don’t approve of, you know because of their lifestyle choices, and to do so he wanted to kill and enslave other women that we don’t approve of because the worship the wrong god. Because that is righteous. As you can tell, it is complicated. But I assure you, this proves that not believing in god is the wrong way to go.

  9. erichoug:

    This is the truly idiotic argument that if you don’t believe in God you are against everything said deity is for and for everything that He or she is against.

    So, God tells us not to kill, clearly Atheists want statutes against murder revoked.
    God tells us to love our neighbors, Clearly atheists hate all their neighbors.

    It’s always fun turning it around on them.

    “So God destroyed Sodom and Gmorrah because they were wicked?”
    “Yes, Absolutely!”
    “So even the babies in their cribs and the 4 year old girl with the big doe eyes that never did anything wrong?”
    “Uhhhhhh…”

    And then you get a bunch of BS about His plan and other tripe that they can’t justify.

  10. Artor:

    Thanks for pointing that out Mr. Thesauros. Could you now please explain to me the meaning of this passage from your own holy book?
    Numbers 31:17-18 “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”
    This sounds quite a bit like the “comfort women,”phenomenon, and it seems this is a commandment from your own god. Now who is it that supports the idea of “comfort women,” again?

  11. DaveL:

    When atheists read in the Old Testament about the nations that God destroyed because of the immense level of evil that was present in those societies, evil that included sacrificing their children as live burnt offerings and enslaving women by the thousands to work as temple prostitutes or “comfort women,” atheists support those nations and go after God for bringing judgement on that evil.

    But when you force girls to have sex with the men who just killed their entire family, that’s OK, because they’re “wives”, not “comfort women”, and God says so.

  12. garnetstar:

    My understanding, which is perhaps incorrect, is that temple prostitues were not all enslaved. I believe that in some cultures it was considered a legitimate, even honorable, profession? And that not all women in it were forced to enter or stay in the job.

    But, in case any were, we should kill everyone.

  13. OverlappingMagisteria:

    It’s plain binary thinking. Atheists think God was wrong when he commanded the genocide against Canaanites, therefore atheists support everything the Canaanites did. There are only two options. There is no grey area.

  14. kantalope:

    That should read “See the Bible is the fount of all morality.”

    I believe the font of all morality is Baskerville.
    I think you know what comic sans is for.

  15. dingojack:

    Speaking of comfort women:
    Judges 21
    “10 And the congregation sent thither twelve thousand men of the valiantest, and commanded them, saying, Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead with the edge of the sword, with the women and the children.

    11 And this is the thing that ye shall do, Ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by man.

    12 And they found among the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan.

    13 And the whole congregation sent some to speak to the children of Benjamin that were in the rock Rimmon, and to call peaceably unto them.

    14 And Benjamin came again at that time; and they gave them wives which they had saved alive of the women of Jabeshgilead: and yet so they sufficed them not.

    15 And the people repented them for Benjamin, because that the Lord had made a breach in the tribes of Israel.

    16 Then the elders of the congregation said, How shall we do for wives for them that remain, seeing the women are destroyed out of Benjamin?

    17 And they said, There must be an inheritance for them that be escaped of Benjamin, that a tribe be not destroyed out of Israel.

    18 Howbeit we may not give them wives of our daughters: for the children of Israel have sworn, saying, Cursed be he that giveth a wife to Benjamin.

    19 Then they said, Behold, there is a feast of the Lord in Shiloh yearly in a place which is on the north side of Bethel, on the east side of the highway that goeth up from Bethel to Shechem, and on the south of Lebonah.

    20 Therefore they commanded the children of Benjamin, saying, Go and lie in wait in the vineyards;

    21 And see, and, behold, if the daughters of Shiloh come out to dance in dances, then come ye out of the vineyards, and catch you every man his wife of the daughters of Shiloh, and go to the land of Benjamin.

    22 And it shall be, when their fathers or their brethren come unto us to complain, that we will say unto them, Be favourable unto them for our sakes: because we reserved not to each man his wife in the war: for ye did not give unto them at this time, that ye should be guilty.

    23 And the children of Benjamin did so, and took them wives, according to their number, of them that danced, whom they caught: and they went and returned unto their inheritance, and repaired the cities, and dwelt in them.

    24 And the children of Israel departed thence at that time, every man to his tribe and to his family, and they went out from thence every man to his inheritance.”

    Dingo

  16. Raging Bee:

    garnetstar: I think you’re right, though there may have been occasions of women or girls being coerced, either by a pimp who got a cut, or by a corrupt local official, or by a manipulative cult leader. But the idea of women being forced into this “by the thousands” is ridiculous. These wingnuts can’t handle numbers. Or history. Or sex. Or reason. Or…

  17. iknklast:

    theists think God was wrong when he commanded the genocide against Canaanites, therefore atheists support everything the Canaanites did. There are only two options. There is no grey area

    Makes perfect sense to me. After all, this is the argument Christopher Hitchens used about the Iraq war. Those of us who didn’t support the Iraq war were Saddam-lovers (Saddamites?). So, there. Even atheists (because, of course, Hitchens speaks for all atheists, even those who claim not to agree with him) recognize that if you aren’t for genocide, you’re in favor of every nasty thing those that are slaughtered were doing.

    And JC said it himself – if you’re not with us, you’re against us. What more proof do you want?

  18. dugglebogey:

    Wait…the atheists were making sacrifices to whom? And what exactly is an atheist temple?

    Why would atheists support sacrifices and temples in any way?

    That makes no sense to me at all.

  19. Sastra:

    He just declares that we allegedly support the idea. Is he lying? Or is he stupid? Take your pick.

    I’m tempted of course to pick the last one — but there is method to his madness here and I think I see the stupid argument lying behind the rhetoric. It has little to do with any of the specifics regarding “comfort women” and whether atheists support the issue and has much more to do with the idea that “nations” which do evil deserve punishment: atheists are being inconsistent when they condemn God for rebuking nations and people for things the atheists are also against.

    It doesn’t work even on his own terms. If “God” had inspired His people to go after the practice of burnt offerings and enslaving women — or, better yet, if “God” had inspired the people in the other tribes to try to stop their own wicked acts — then atheists who condemn these Old Testament actions would be hypocritical. But that wasn’t the case, was it? It wasn’t a rebuke. God ordered the Hebrews to slaughter everyone, including those children who needed to be saved from being used as burnt offerings and those women who needed to be rescued from slavery.

    After WWII, did the United States proceed to commit genocide against the Japanese people? Did they kill all the soldiers who had used comfort women along with the comfort women themselves? And the rest of the citizens? No? Then it’s a lousy analogy.

    The writer is throwing off everything we have learned about how to deal rationally and reasonably with crimes and is substituting a childish version of wholescale punishment. Kill them all. Their moral wickedness has irreparably tainted the essence of the entire nation and every individual in it. If you don’t agree with a drastic frenzy of unfocused revenge against an entire nation then there is no single crime you think should be punished. All or nothing.

    I see this argument as an offshoot of the “without God there are no standards of right and wrong.”

  20. dugglebogey:

    Atheists are trying to force people to conform to their moral standards?

    This isn’t the pot calling the kettle black, this is the pot calling the dishes, the flatware and the food black.

  21. laurentweppe:

    This sorry excuse for an apologist also pretends that there is no difference between “Utterly annihilating a whole nation is wrong even if it endorses some repugnant practices” and “I agree with institutionalized rape

    The irony being that it’s exactly the kind of logic atheist supremacists adhere to when they pretend that refusing to entertain genocidal fantasies toward Islam or Christianity regardless the despicable deeds and intents of some imams and priests a form of craven capitulation toward integrism. Basically, the atheist basher is himself very similar to the worst kind of atheists.

  22. eric:

    This is pure nonsense. The ‘comfort women’ plan was scrapped in 2011 in favor of a plan to keep females constantly pregnant so that we would have a bigger supply of babies to eat.

  23. TGAP Dad:

    Two things I noticed about his blog: 1) he has a graphic of a fish hook on the page which is captioned with a tag line “trolling for atheists,” and 2) he seems to have virtually no readership. Even the post Ed links to only has 2 comments, both negative. My feeling is he’s trying to get attention. Don’t feed the troll.

  24. lakonislate:

    Actually I don’t “go after God” for destroying or ordering the destruction of those nations, because I don’t actually think that God exists. He must be thinking of some other type of atheist.

  25. jamessweet:

    So… if a nation commits a human rights violation, and you don’t get all genocidal on their ass, then that means you support their actions? Wow.

  26. anubisprime:

    Tis’ Fundagelical atheist hatin’ 101…

    Make shit up…cover it in fundy vomit….and feed it to the brain dead…simples!

  27. Nemo:

    Somehow, this guy has apparently never heard of the concept, “Two wrongs don’t make a right.”

    Forced prostitution: wrong
    Genocide: also wrong

  28. billdaniels:

    Dingo #15: Isn’t this the same plan that Christian Mingle (TM) uses?

    The great Canaan Land Grab was not about punishing anyone. It was greed pure and simple. The myth that god gave the land to the Hebrews was created to give it a gloss of being justified.

  29. Ichthyic:

    tolerant people (there’s an understatement for you)

    somehow I think the author wanted to use a word other than “understatement”?

    or am I being too tolerant in my interpretation?

  30. Ichthyic:

    So… if a nation commits a human rights violation, and you don’t get all genocidal on their ass, then that means you support their actions? Wow.

    but, promoting genocide is a human rights violation…

    shouldn’t the author commit Seppuku?

  31. democommie:

    “or am I being too tolerant in my interpretation?”

    Your comment is, if anything, a bit understated! {;>)

    Going off on a tangent:

    I think that IF atheism turns out to be incorrect in its main tenet–there is/are no GOD/gods–that Christopher Hitchens “hell” will be listening to Mother Theresa fucking Henry Kissinger in the room next door to his at Motel Hell–and, yes, if there was a hell, Mama T and Henry the K would both be there.

  32. mattbenzing:

    There’s actually a lot of support for the idea of “comfort women” in the Bible. Look at King David…in his declining days his men went and found a virgin to “warm” him. You think she had any choice in the matter?

  33. democommie:

    @32:

    It’s not in the Wholly Babble but I amember a story about a monsignor, an old, sortacronish nun and a young, comely novitiate. Something about the young nun’s “Key to HEAVEN” being the older nun’s “Horn of Gabriel”. It was prolly mistranslated though, they would have both been altar boys.

  34. kermit.:

    I’m with lakonslate on this one. I read atheists support those nations and go after God for bringing judgement on that evil and I plumb forgot all the rest of the nonsense that I had just read.

Leave a comment

You must be