Militant Athiesm

[93JC]

Canada.

My peer group makes a difference too, of course - 20s, educated (many in science), urban. Rural areas are less atheist-friendly, like in the states. Still, I can't really imagine a conversation like that happening with our PM.

Not only that, if it did happen chances are he wouldn't have been elected in the first place, and if it happened now his own party would probably have him removed as leader ASAP. Espousing strong views about religion, either way, is political suicide.

 

[93JC]

I feel that way when I see all the posts on a daily basis giving props to homosexuality.

Why not give homosexuality props? What's so bad about it? In what ways are you negatively affected by homosexuals?

 

[Lark]

Why not give homosexuality props? What's so bad about it? In what ways are you negatively affected by homosexuals?

Its really curious that any sexual orientation requires props, although it seems like its only one that does, how about that?

 

[Magic Poriferan]

You know I actually believe MP that some day, if you let yourself, you'll feel really different about posts like that one. I'm still surprised you're satisfied with atheism, especially the sort you validate with posts like that one, its also incredibly curious to hear you consider that moral conduct is a practical problem, not its lack but its existence.

Although that said I think perhaps I thought similar things years ago too.

Aren't questions of morality really the most fundamental practical problem?

 

[93JC]

One of them is a majority that is given clear legal advantages over the other in most countries. It follows that one would need props more than the other.

 

[Lark]

Aren't questions of morality really the most fundamental practical problem?

I agree, whether someone is an atheist, theist or non-theist practically matters less than whether or not they are a humanist and what is meant by that.

On the other hand I gather from what you posted previously that you think differently about this to me.

 

[Lark]

One of them is a majority that is given clear legal advantages over the other in most countries. It follows that one would need props more than the other.

Minority status doesnt warrant props, if it did we'd all post repeatedly about what a great bunch of people the KKK are, not asserting any sort of moral equivalence between them and homosexuals, just illustrating the absurdity of what you wrote there.

I'm absolutely certain that your well meant but I think you should think a lot harder and a lot longer about this topic.

 

[93JC]

You're great a deflecting, I'll give you that Lark.

 

[Blackmail!]

Dismissive comments that convey a sense of superiority and unwillingness to consider other perspectives. Obviously, behavior that isn't exclusive to "militant"/"new" atheists. To be more specific, any comments along the lines of "Religion is a crutch," "Religion was only used to explain phenomena that science now fully accounts for," and "Religion is inherently bad," which reflect simplistic and extremely half-hearted attempts at understanding either a. religion as a cultural phenomena, as others have mentioned and b. agnostic/ignostic arguments.

OK.

I'm a strong atheist. I think religions are inherently bad, exactly like you said. I think religions are for weak-minded, ignorant people, and in many ways, I'm more extreme than Dawkins. The sooner we get rid of these moronic superstitions, the better. I'm one of these people who, according to you, have a "simplistic and extremely half-hearted attempts at understanding religion". if you say so

But nonetheless, what I think is only my concern. I would never try to proselytize anybody. I can be very honest and very vocal with my atheism if somebody asks, but I don't give a damn to convince believers whether I'm right or wrong. I don't want to interfere: it's their choice, and I respect that.

So: in which category do you think I belong?

Am I a militant Atheist?

According to most religious folk I've met, I am a devilish abomination from hell. That's probably not a good way to start a discussion, isn't it?
Where is tolerance?

 

[Lark]

You're great a deflecting, I'll give you that Lark.

I dont deflect at all, I just dont fall for a lot of standard rhetorical crap you guys wheel out.

And I know that annoys the shite out of people who're not used to thinking about what they're willing to give their support to. There's no sport with the truth.

 

[93JC]

No, you very clearly deflect.

Let's go back to the question you ignored: in what ways are you negatively affected by homosexuals?

 

[Blackmail!]

I dont deflect at all, I just dont fall for a lot of standard rhetorical crap you guys wheel out.

And I know that annoys the shite out of people who're not used to thinking about what they're willing to give their support to. There's no sport with the truth.

Are cowardice and "truth" compatible?

 

[Lark]

No, you very clearly deflect.

Let's go back to the question you ignored: in what ways are you negatively affected by homosexuals?

I've answered that one at length on the forum before now, although you side stepped what I'd written when I come to think of it, what's wrong with heterosexuality? Why's it got to go? If time honoured traditions and received wisdom suck so bad why dont you try driving on the opposite side of the road tommorrow to see how that works out for yah.

Majorities always wrong? Doesnt seem very democratic you know.

If the people opposing a total work over of what marriage means, changing it from something popularly understood to mean one thing for generations to something else, are in the minority I guess that makes them right? I mean by your ould logic there and stuff.

Anyway, I dont want to take the thread off topic, I just dont buy the hype and tend to like post something in order that any passers by of the same opinion, who're not inclined to invite the naive hassle that goes from saying so, might see it and know they're not on their own.

 

[SpankyMcFly]

OK.

I'm a strong atheist. I think religions are inherently bad, exactly like you said. I think religions are for weak-minded, ignorant people, and in many ways, I'm more extreme than Dawkins. The sooner we get rid of these moronic superstitions, the better. I'm one of these people who, according to you, have a "simplistic and extremely half-hearted attempts at understanding religion".

But nonetheless, what I think is only my concern. I would never try to proselytize anybody. I can be very honest and very vocal with my atheism if somebody asks, but I don't give a damn to convince believers whether I'm right or wrong. I don't want to interfere: it's their choice, and I respect that.

So: in which category do you think I belong?

Am I a militant Atheist?

According to most religious folk I've met, I am a devilish abomination from hell. That's probably not a good way to start a discussion, isn't it?
Where is tolerance?

Hmmm. I have some questions for you, if you don´t mind. Have you:

1) Been to a clandestine training camp?
2) Have you acquired weapon-explosive making skills for intent purpose of applying your lack of belief?
3) Have you killed anyone or blown anything up?
4) Are you a part of a larger, organized group with stated goals and objectives??
5) Have you used other forms of violence and physical coercion to make your ¨point¨?
6) Ever torture anyone because of your disbelief?
7) Have you threatened anyone verbally to make them disbelieve?

If you answered Yes to any of the above you questions you ¨might¨ be a militant. If not, you are definitely not a militant in my book. A quick google will show you who and where the ¨real¨ militants are.

It´s quite possible your just a run of the mill activist, possibly not even that.

 

[mintleaf]

OK.

I'm a strong atheist. I think religions are inherently bad, exactly like you said. I think religions are for weak-minded, ignorant people, and in many ways, I'm more extreme than Dawkins. The sooner we get rid of these moronic superstitions, the better. I'm one of these people who, according to you, have a "simplistic and extremely half-hearted attempts at understanding religion". if you say so

But nonetheless, what I think is only my concern. I would never try to proselytize anybody. I can be very honest and very vocal with my atheism if somebody asks, but I don't give a damn to convince believers whether I'm right or wrong. I don't want to interfere: it's their choice, and I respect that.

So: in which category do you think I belong?

Am I a militant Atheist?

According to most religious folk I've met, I am a devilish abomination from hell. That's probably not a good way to start a discussion, isn't it?
Where is tolerance?

I wouldn't say you're militant if you're not interested in proselytizing, you're just a gnostic atheist with strong ideas about religion's negative effects on society

"the sooner we get rid of these moronic superstitions, the better" + "I don't want to interfere" ? why not - if you think religion is so horrible, why aren't you interested in being involved in its eradication? are you just hoping people come to their senses?

for what it's worth, I'm not religious but grew up among devout Christians, and few of the religious people I've known would consider you a "devilish abomination from hell."

 

[93JC]

I've answered that one at length on the forum before now

Humour me.

what's wrong with heterosexuality?

Nothing. I never implied there was.

Why's it got to go?

Where do you think it's going?

If time honoured traditions and received wisdom suck so bad why dont you try driving on the opposite side of the road tommorrow to see how that works out for yah.

There's nothing precluding you from continuing to honour "time-honoured traditions and received wisdom", whatever you think that may be.

Majorities always wrong? Doesnt seem very democratic you know.

I didn't say that majorities are wrong.

If the people opposing a total work over of what marriage means

That depends on what you think marriage means.

changing it from something popularly understood to mean one thing for generations to something else

In what way does that affect you, personally? In what way is this 'ruining' marriage for you?

 

[Randomnity]

Mod hat on, please knock it off with the homosexuality derail. Take it to PM or start another thread, this one is about atheism. I can move the posts to a new thread if you prefer. Thanks.

 

[Chiharu]

I dont believe that's the case. Now I would believe the sense of grievance you express here was valid if you were in Afghanistan asserting yourself against the Taliban, there's a difference between popularity, social acceptance and positive persecution.

I feel this all the time when I read about the various aggrieved groups in the first world today discussing how they are oppressed.

I did not say were oppressed, I said we were discriminated against. Just like Western women are not oppressed, but are discriminated against. See the difference? Religious people (mostly evangelical Christians) often claim that bans on school prayer or other attempts at secularization discriminate against them. Many say that nondenominational services or prayers are perfectly okay. Other times you hear about bridges being created between theists because they're all good people since they believe in the same good, or at least a similar one. But what if you don't believe in a deity? I've literally heard people say that without a religion a person obviously has no scruples and everyone around us agreed. My comment was in response to situations like that.

 

[Chiharu]

The affect/emotion and unconscious motivation is what I was talking about, its more interesting than the declared rationalisations.

While evangelicals may believe they are saving people from eternal damnation, that follows from the idea of evangelism, why would militant athiests necessarily believe they are trying to cut down on persecution from religion? That's not a logical extention of what militant atheism is, although I understand why you make that mistake, a militant athiest would simply be concerned to remove belief in theism, its all atheism is objectively and substantively, its part of the reason AC Grayling has moved towards describing himself as a naturalist and humanist.

Well, first off, am I correct in assuming that you believe that militant atheists have secret or ulterior motives other than their declared ones? Or do you think that they must have some unconscious drive? Why can't it be as simple as they say?

And to the second part of your comment, nearly every religion has resulted in some form of violence or harmful discrimination. So a militant atheist might see theism as the root of all evil in this aspect, and thinks that if theism were removed, other forms of persecution would follow (ie, if all Christians stopped being Christian, they would stop persecuting homosexuals). This is a weak argument if you think about it, but when has that ever stopped anyone?

 

[Lark]

Well, first off, am I correct in assuming that you believe that militant atheists have secret or ulterior motives other than their declared ones? Or do you think that they must have some unconscious drive? Why can't it be as simple as they say?

Its a question I've mulled over for some time, not specifically in relation to atheism but I've met people and their ideology has changed, they havent, their character is exactly the same and all I can conclude is its their character which counts, not being left or right, they were able to change that easily enough and I've seen it in relation to belief and non-belief too.

I'm sure there's exceptions, although patterns are called patterns for a reason.

And to the second part of your comment, nearly every religion has resulted in some form of violence or harmful discrimination. So a militant atheist might see theism as the root of all evil in this aspect, and thinks that if theism were removed, other forms of persecution would follow (ie, if all Christians stopped being Christian, they would stop persecuting homosexuals). This is a weak argument if you think about it, but when has that ever stopped anyone?

I'd not say "nearly every religion" I'd say every religion, there's no need to qualify it, because people are involved and people arent perfect, perfect religions or ideas, if there are such things arent going to fix that. And more often these things are channels than fixes anyway.

Those are not simply weak arguments they're just plain wrong, its sort of what I've been trying to say about being a channel for other things, people who oppress or persecute do for deeper reasons than anything in religion or ideology. Considering religion the root of all evil is simple, I'm sure if evil could be as easily identified and dealt with as all that it'd have disappeared long ago. Its as stupid as any believer who'd think that non-belief is the root of all evil. What's meant by either and the actions which result is another question, I dont accept what you said about Christians persecuting a particular population there BTW, I think the issues surrounding that are much deeper and broader than religion but I dont think you're ready for that. The world isnt ready.