militant atheists

[rocksteady]

well, richard dawkins has had his effect on me.

Recently my views towards organized religion are comparable to my opinions on the plague. I have recently been brainstorming on how to be pro-active about my anti-religion attitudes without being rude or mean. I consider religion to be quite dangerous and want to do what I can to lessen it's power and impact on humanity. I was wondering if anyone else is interested in actively promoting atheism, and what it is you do. I was considering a subtle/subversive sticker campaign, with some anti-religion imagery or messages.

I am aware that this topic can be offensive, but no one says anything about Christian missionaries, so fair play.

I should also clarify that I am more of an agnostic, but I believe that the current situation needs militant atheists to counter religious fundamentalists.

[Kfbr]

I've always felt that an atheist who is throwing their motto and slogans in my face was just as bad as the religious nut who is throwing their motto and slogans in my face.

Not saying you are a bad person, but I find militant atheists just as annoying as fanatic religious nuts.

[blueback]

As long as you accept that atheism requires the same leap of faith that theism requires, and is therefore just as much dogma, and will therefore lead to the things that dogma inevitably leads to, and is therefore probably just as bad as fundamentalist Christianity, then sure, have fun.

Dawkins is a good communicator, but he is just stirring up hatred to earn a buck.

Atheism is a faith. It claims that God doesn't exist, and tries to support the claim with evidence. That is exactly the same thing as claiming that God does exist, and trying to produce evidence to support it. That's why he makes an effort to be as offensive as possible, because his argument is based on emotion. If it was analyzed with cold logic it would disappear just like the theistic arguments.

[rocksteady]

I have recently been brainstorming on how to be pro-active about my anti-religion attitudes without being rude or mean.



Not saying you are a bad person, but I find militant atheists just as annoying as fanatic religious nuts.

As long as you accept that atheism requires the same leap of faith that theism requires, and is therefore just as much dogma, and will therefore lead to the things that dogma inevitably leads to, and is therefore probably just as bad as fundamentalist Christianity, then sure, have fun.

Dawkins is a good communicator, but he is just stirring up hatred to earn a buck.

Atheism is a faith. It claims that God doesn't exist, and tries to support the claim with evidence. That is exactly the same thing as claiming that God does exist, and trying to produce evidence to support it. That's why he makes an effort to be as offensive as possible, because his argument is based on emotion. If it was analyzed with cold logic it would disappear just like the theistic arguments.

I should clarify that I am more about being anti-religion than I am about being pro-atheism. So I am not trying to "convert" anyone, just criticize religion in as many ways possible, but in a way that hasn't been tried before, and resonates with today's youth. Also, what's with the personal attack on Dawson, what do you know that I don't?

Also, for people that can't understand why I would be considering this kind of action, please read -

Can Atheists be parents? (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) (apparently the answer is no)

[HackerX]

Replace this:
"the child should have the freedom to worship as she sees fit, and not be influenced by prospective parents who do not believe in a Supreme Being."

with this:
"the child should have the freedom to worship as she sees fit, and not be influenced by prospective parents who believe in a Supreme Being."

And you have your attitude. Your argument is valid, the way your going about it is wrong.

[rocksteady]

Replace this:
"the child should have the freedom to worship as she sees fit, and not be influenced by prospective parents who do not believe in a Supreme Being."

with this:
"the child should have the freedom to worship as she sees fit, and not be influenced by prospective parents who believe in a Supreme Being."

And you have your attitude. Your argument is valid, the way your going about it is wrong.

how do you go about it? Logic doesn't change things, people do.

I've always felt that an atheist who is throwing their motto and slogans in my face was just as bad as the religious nut who is throwing their motto and slogans in my face.


do you not believe in freedom of expression, or are you just annoyed by it? What do you mean by bad? Bad as in "I don't care about other people's beliefs, and wish they would stop being proud of them" or "Religion is a topic best ignored, don't want to stir up any hornets"

[Kfbr]

No, by all means you have every right to say what you want and damnit, I'd die for your right to say it!

I just find it annoying when an extremist of any side goes overboard and throws out slogans and motto's ad nauseum. Mostly because, like stated above, it's an emotional argument and nothing annoys me more. There are hardcore theists and atheists alike that I respect for their rational and well thought out arguments for their cases. But unfortunately it seems most people respond to the emotional shit slinging that we see on the streets today.

[rocksteady]

No, by all means you have every right to say what you want and damnit, I'd die for your right to say it!

I just find it annoying when an extremist of any side goes overboard and throws out slogans and motto's ad nauseum. Mostly because, like stated above, it's an emotional argument and nothing annoys me more. There are hardcore theists and atheists alike that I respect for their rational and well thought out arguments for their cases. But unfortunately it seems most people respond to the emotional shit slinging that we see on the streets today.

I sympathize, and understand. I thought my inital post was pretty clearly stating that I did not intend to do any of these things you mention, so I am not sure what you are getting at.

I am anti-religion for very logical reasons, and when you know something is logically wrong, I think it's cowardly not to stand up for what you KNOW is right. I am not saying atheism is right, I am just saying that religion is wrong. The thing is, you can't just tell people religion is wrong, they need an alternative, hence the atheism. I believe most Americans will either

A) Believe in a God
-or-
B) Not believe in God

I haven't seen much evidence of a substantial middle ground.

hope i am getting my point across?

[Kfbr]

"I consider religion to be quite dangerous and want to do what I can to lessen it's power and impact on humanity. I was wondering if anyone else is interested in actively promoting atheism, and what it is you do. I was considering a subtle/subversive sticker campaign, with some anti-religion imagery or messages."

My bad, I didn't understand you then. These are the things that I really don't have patience for but hey, that's just me. I don't decorate anything, let alone my car :P

[rocksteady]

"I consider religion to be quite dangerous and want to do what I can to lessen it's power and impact on humanity. I was wondering if anyone else is interested in actively promoting atheism, and what it is you do. I was considering a subtle/subversive sticker campaign, with some anti-religion imagery or messages."

My bad, I didn't understand you then. These are the things that I really don't have patience for but hey, that's just me. I don't decorate anything, let alone my car :P

cheers, I think most of the people responding so far have mis-interpreted what I am trying to say, no worries, hope I've clarified a bit! Hope to find someone with some ideas for me though!

Of course I wouldn't just be decorating my car, I would hope to get them slapped on as many public places as possible :) (with respect to personal property rights of course)

[Danisty]

I should clarify that I am more about being anti-religion than I am about being pro-atheism. So I am not trying to "convert" anyone, just criticize religion in as many ways possible, but in a way that hasn't been tried before, and resonates with today's youth. Also, what's with the personal attack on Dawson, what do you know that I don't?Personally, I find it better when people don't criticize others and instead try to show what's great about their own point of view. I don't think "preaching" about the dangers of religion is really going to make the religious fundamentalists shut up or get the moderates on your side. I don't know if that helps you or not.

[rocksteady]

Personally, I find it better when people don't criticize others and instead try to show what's great about their own point of view. I don't think "preaching" about the dangers of religion is really going to make the religious fundamentalists shut up or get the moderates on your side. I don't know if that helps you or not.

A balance between criticism and theory needs to be achieved, I agree. My point isn't to get fundamentalists to shut up or moderates on my side, it's to point out the fallacies of religion that don't really get talked about much, and let the people make up their mind. Deconstructing religion is very taboo in this society, and I intend to try and help change that.

[Danisty]

A balance between criticism and theory needs to be achieved, I agree. My point isn't to get fundamentalists to shut up or moderates on my side, it's to point out the fallacies of religion that don't really get talked about much, and let the people make up their mind. Deconstructing religion is very taboo in this society, and I intend to try and help change that.So basically you're targeting the fence-sitters. I'm not sure if there really are any fallacies that don't get talked about much. I think the real issue is not whether people have heard it, but if they care at all. I'm not trying to discourage you, I'm just pointing out that most of the arguments aren't new and if you aren't targeting the fundamentalists or the moderates, you've got a pretty small audience of people because almost everyone else is already on your side.

[Mechanical Messiah]

As long as you accept that atheism requires the same leap of faith that theism requires, and is therefore just as much dogma, and will therefore lead to the things that dogma inevitably leads to, and is therefore probably just as bad as fundamentalist Christianity, then sure, have fun.


I don't accept that. A lack of belief doesn't require faith.

To butcher a Dawkins quote... I don't need faith assume that there is NOT a magical pink dinosaur in your trash can. I just don't believe that there is one... Can't prove a negative, I'm told.





Mechanical Messiah added to this post, 10 minutes and 59 seconds later...

I've never been called a "militant atheist"... don't know if I fit the description or not. But I harbor a burning hatred for that disgusting mental-virus called Christianity. My strategery (and hobby) is to ridicule and expose the multitude of absurdities, contradictions, cruelties, and outright lies that make up this contageous form of schitzophrenia.

I hope I can lead some folks to water... and I hope they choose to drink.

I've BEEN a Christian, and I know that most will be angry, defensive, and dismissive of my points. But I also know from experience that if one has the character flaw (from a christian POV) of being honest with oneself... things that you THOUGHT you dismissed years ago can come back to haunt you. It happened to me. And God didn't survive it.

[Tsuru]

Atheism is a faith. It claims that God doesn't exist, and tries to support the claim with evidence. That is exactly the same thing as claiming that God does exist, and trying to produce evidence to support it. That's why he makes an effort to be as offensive as possible, because his argument is based on emotion. If it was analyzed with cold logic it would disappear just like the theistic arguments.

Atheism is largely a LACK of belief in god, not a strong belief that there is no god. I don't think you'll find many touting active knowledge claims of godly non-existence except for the more immature that have scars made by religious folk. Even Dawkins and the like clearly make the distinction. So no, it is definitely not a mirror image of theism - it's a pretty silly claim to make, honestly. It's akin to saying that if I don't believe in fairies because I see no reason or evidence to do so, then my position is as equally based on faith as those that DO believe in fairies.

[Gonzo]

I am anti-religion for very logical reasons, and when you know something is logically wrong, I think it's cowardly not to stand up for what you KNOW is right. I am not saying atheism is right, I am just saying that religion is wrong.

For the record i just want to state that i mean no offense, I take no sides, nor am i religious. I only wish to present my very own demented view of the reality :).

1st of all I feel that before claiming religion is right or wrong we need to understand what it is. This is how I understand it: Religions, like so many other things, are theoretical versions of reality. Atheism, or the conviction that there is no greater force (God, etc), are in reality as theoretical as religion. At least for as long as they cant disprove Gods exsistens (they havent done that right?) :p. So what we have are 2 different theoretical realitys, seeing as none of them has facts to back up there theory. (Now heres the part i drown in deep water hehe:) Despite the fact that both realitys are bound to remain theory until proven with facts, they still seem to treat the reality they stand by as if it was factual. So in other words they are preciving a theoretical reality as factual reality, in turn making it a subjective reality. So ultimately they, like most people, end up with a reality in which what is real and what is not comes down to personal feelings and opinions of the individual in question.

So to conclude: The answers to spiritual questions boils down to a mere case of our personal take on what the reality is.
As for the meaning of all this? Just a take from the angle of my twisted reality! Never the less i hope someone out there finds amusement i the rantings of a mad man:thumbsup:

Ops i almost forgot there was a 2nd thing: What you said about being anti religious is quote "very logical"... That logic seems to elude me so if you could explain please :)

[Lights]

well, richard dawkins has had his effect on me.

Recently my views towards organized religion are comparable to my opinions on the plague. I have recently been brainstorming on how to be pro-active about my anti-religion attitudes without being rude or mean. I consider religion to be quite dangerous and want to do what I can to lessen it's power and impact on humanity. I was wondering if anyone else is interested in actively promoting atheism, and what it is you do. I was considering a subtle/subversive sticker campaign, with some anti-religion imagery or messages.

I am aware that this topic can be offensive, but no one says anything about Christian missionaries, so fair play.

I should also clarify that I am more of an agnostic, but I believe that the current situation needs militant atheists to counter religious fundamentalists.

You don't have to be Christian to understand the wisdom in the words, "Judge not lest you be judged." Nobody is perfect, so why should we condemn each other for what we believe? In fact, if you get enough fundamentalist or militant people of any belief system, you can bet they will cause harm. That's because the problem isn't what you believe, but intolerance for what others believe. It sounds like you have already been bitten by that bug, so I wish you luck. Learning to be tolerant of the intolerant is not something most people can do, so I don't blame you for choosing to be part of the problem.

[Bossy Mom]

Whew! I find this thread disturbing. Like Communists who call religion "the opiate of the people" never murdered anyone over it.

[Nomad]

You want to make a public argument against religion that is effective and moderately not offensive? If you want an example, read the Golden Compass trilogy. Brilliantly done. There is no more effective a draught as the one drunk willingly. I do believe in a higher power, BTW.

-Nomad

[Lights]

You want to make a public argument against religion that is effective and moderately not offensive? If you want an example, read the Golden Compass trilogy. Brilliantly done. There is no more effective a draught as the one drunk willingly. I do believe in a higher power, BTW.

-Nomad

Those are superb books. The totally made me rethink the concept of witches and the original angel story. You just don't find truly original works like that anymore. I was saddened to hear they made a movie of the first book. It cheapens the concept, like what they did with Narnia and what they are doing with The Giver.

[Oica]

I like the REAL non-nutjob religious people. The ones that keep to their standards tend to be decent people that won't try to shove anything down your throat. The kind of people that 'care' enough to have concern, but reasonable enough to go away when they aren't wanted.

I'd rather have a world full of decent religious people over a world of dominant-type atheists OR dominant-type theists.

If *I*want to believe in something *I* will find what *I* want to believe or not believe in. Leave it to me to find what I want.

[rocksteady]

You want to make a public argument against religion that is effective and moderately not offensive? If you want an example, read the Golden Compass trilogy. Brilliantly done. There is no more effective a draught as the one drunk willingly. I do believe in a higher power, BTW.

-Nomad

Loved that book, it's one of the things that got me interested in atheism. Movie was terrible by the way. I agree, subtlety is best in this situation. I plan to weave my anti-religious beliefs into as much creative works as possible, but that will be in the future. I am just brainstorming what I can do now.

As for why I feel my anti-religion views are logical:

Religion stands in the way of common sense
Religion has killed more people than any other belief I've heard of. (I am aware of the mass killings of the communists)
Religion and logic cannot coexist, and logic is necessary for our world to run

I think these are pretty logical reasons to be afraid of religion, and want to stop it. It's a disease that can hurt in very subtle but effective ways.

I understand religion has it's positives, but religion isn't about the teachings of Christ or Muhammad anymore, its about power, has been for a while.





rocksteady added to this post, 2 minutes and 19 seconds later...



I'd rather have a world full of decent religious people over a world of dominant-type atheists OR dominant-type theists.



why not just a world of decent people?

[Oica]

rocksteady added to this post, 2 minutes and 19 seconds later...

why not just a world of decent people?

I define decent by my morals. I suppose that the moderate and reasonably religious would share similar morals.

Morals to me are limitations in behavior that I impose to keep myself 'safe'. It gives me repeated short term goals that are easy enough to accomplish.

[rocksteady]

I define decent by my morals. I suppose that the moderate and reasonably religious would share similar morals.

Morals to me are limitations in behavior that I impose to keep myself 'safe'. It gives me repeated short term goals that are easy enough to accomplish.


are you insinuating that atheists don't have morals or ethics? Or are incapable of developing them without believing in some sort of fairy tale?

[Lights]

Loved that book, it's one of the things that got me interested in atheism. Movie was terrible by the way. I agree, subtlety is best in this situation. I plan to weave my anti-religious beliefs into as much creative works as possible, but that will be in the future. I am just brainstorming what I can do now.

As for why I feel my anti-religion views are logical:

Religion stands in the way of common sense
Religion has killed more people than any other belief I've heard of. (I am aware of the mass killings of the communists)
Religion and logic cannot coexist, and logic is necessary for our world to run

I think these are pretty logical reasons to be afraid of religion, and want to stop it. It's a disease that can hurt in very subtle but effective ways.

I understand religion has it's positives, but religion isn't about the teachings of Christ or Muhammad anymore, its about power, has been for a while.

Just so I'm clear, by religion you mean a belief in a divine or supernatural power, right? Because I fancy myself a Taoist and we typically don't believe in forces that don't exist naturally. We are kind of a "go with the flow of the universe" type religion and I don't think it really falls under your POV.

[HackerX]

Atheism is largely a LACK of belief in god
Weak Atheism


, not a strong belief that there is no god.

Strong Atheism

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._vs._weak


It's akin to saying that if I don't believe in fairies because I see no reason or evidence to do so, then my position is as equally based on faith as those that DO believe in fairies.

And hence why I'm agnostic. Lack of evidence is just that. Lack of evidence. There's no proof either way. I'm still waiting for somebody to prove to me that the whole universe isn't made up of purple unicorns.

I see no reason why a god or gods couldn't exist, only that there's been no evidence (as far as I'm aware) either way.

I'm happy to play with Ignosticism (i.e. Just what the hell does 'god' entail anyway?) and Apathetic agnosticism (i.e. Who gives a shit either way? it doesn't effect the here and now)

I agree that the Judge's decision was wrong. I don't feel that forced atheism is answer though. The question of the families religion just shouldn't have been raised in the first place.

[Oica]

are you insinuating that atheists don't have morals or ethics? Or are incapable of developing them without believing in some sort of fairy tale?

Nope, I'm pretty sure I meant what I said and not any derivative from what I said.

EDIT: Do I really sound that cold?

[karen]

I have never been religious enough to be an atheist. When asked what I am, I say I'm Karen. You can't be a militant atheist and say you aren't religious. A religious person (to me) is someone who is set in their view of the world: they are not open to other ideas (though many will be polite about it) and when pushed too hard will just shut down mentally. I think the best thing to "combat" any kind of fundementalist is to just accept that there is no one right way to live and leave everyone (even the fundamentalists) alone. Having said that, I live about 15-20 miles from THE Colorado City... there are extreme situations where I believe intervention is necessary and I have been wishing for a whole lotta mass arrests out there. However so long as no one is getting hurt, who cares? Leave religious people alone.

[Antares]

I don't try to 'convert' anyone. My belief is mine, your belief is yours. We'll leave each other alone and everyone can be happy. If you want to debate about it, I stick to my views, and you stick to yours. That's how I operate.

I've had numerous attempts to guide me into one faith or another. It's been going on since before I was old enough to comprehend the term: Religion. I think a message from me to all the dogmatic individuals out there would be: "Please don't try to convert me. It won't work and you know it. In fact, when you try, my impression of you just dropped a good knotch (Ok, that is if you feed me BS)." The only way to convert me is to convince me. Now most people find that quite hard to do, since I require certified and tangible evidence based on cold logic.

For a reference, implicit atheists are weak atheists and explicit are strong atheists. I think I belong in the latter group.

The events described in the article is discriminating.

In an extraordinary decision, Judge Camarata denied the Burkes' right to the child because of their lack of belief in a Supreme Being.

Prejudice disgusts me... Sorry for using strong language.

[Gonzo]

As for why I feel my anti-religion views are logical:

Religion stands in the way of common sense


A theory cant remove common sense. Some people have it, and some people just don't. The ones that don't tend to adopt senseless theories.


Religion has killed more people than any other belief I've heard of. (I am aware of the mass killings of the communists)


Guns don't kill people. People kill people.


Religion and logic cannot coexist, and logic is necessary for our world to run

I think these are pretty logical reasons to be afraid of religion, and want to stop it. It's a disease that can hurt in very subtle but effective ways.


Religion cannot coexist with YOUR logic. The world needs more then one thing to run, and more importantly to survive. One of those things is tolerance of the people around us, even if they have a different perspective. Just because you have an idea of whats right, you have no business belittling others. Theres not much I cherish more then my ability (and right) to think freely, have my own opinions, and to say whatever the hell I want regardless of how logical or right it seems to others. I feel this is a right all people should have, and not only those who define everything by logic. So though i may not agree with religious people about different matters, denying them their opinion and faith is just ignorant.

As for such claims that religion is dangerous and kills, well... Thats just a classic case of reduced fact facing. At best religion has merely been a tool PEOPLE have used to hurt others. We are the evildoers, and blaming human atrocity on things like religion is ridiculous.
I think the world should work to rid its self of human traits like, greed, selfishness, hatred and ignorance. Not religion...

But then again I'm crazy, so what the hell do i know! :laugh:

[rocksteady]

At best religion has merely been a tool PEOPLE have used to hurt others. We are the evildoers, and blaming human atrocity on things like religion is ridiculous.

I understand the point you are trying to make, and I am a firm believer in tolerance. My problem is that while I am tolerant, many religious types are not, and I think there is real potential for disaster there (as shown in the past many times) If religion is a tool, don't you think it would be a good idea to stop using a tool that harms us? Religion has served it's purpose, it's time is over. I don't care if people choose to practice or not, I wouldn't judge them for it. But Religion is much to prevalent in our society for my comfort at this moment in time. I am a tolerant person, but I don't think we should just "accept" that we should take their viewpoint seriously.

[Antisosiaalinen]

Following is only my point of view, it's not targetted at anyone, so don't get it personal.

-I am an atheist because to me it's logical that there is no great creator spirit call it what you will. I think it's matter of time when humans have the technology to prove there isn't callitwhatyouwill (yea we might end up killing each other before that happens)

-When i don't understand something i don't have to come up with some random b.s answer just to have answer. That is what religious people are doing.

-People DON'T need to be religious to live rightfully, according to normal moral standards. There is just no reason for it, every individual knows what is right and what is wrong if they are raised in society and are not mentally ill. I had to say this because alot of believers use this argument alot.

-What is the function of religion nowadays? 2k years ago it was to prevent people from killing each others, to give them security and promise of afterlife and ofcourse to make them obedient to leaders... But then again these people were utterly savage and supersitious to the core. It's also been studied that majority of population then had schizophrenia. Moderns times religions are causing wars, this compassion most religions teach should prevent wars not cause them. Cunning or retarded leaders use religion as a tool for agitation, as a way to justify terrible decisions and as an adjective to power up their speeches("hey he said god, i believe in it too... say no to gays! war on terror! abortion-bad! different people-bad!"and so on) It's preposterous(and extremely cunning) to use somebodys faith as a tool against
him/her.

-Now let's get facts straight, we are going to die to this planet if our exponential growth in economy continues and it will To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. WATCH THIS DOCUMENT AND YOU'LL NEVER SLEEP AGAIN, only kidding you are reasonable people ofcourse you will. So then how can we get out of this Earth? by praying? Yep with science, and religions don't like science and sees it as an competitor... How many times have we witnessed religion slowing our progress down? It's just plain retarded that this can be, it's completely illogical to stop/slow down progress wich could be our salvation! To be more accurate our ONLY salvation...

ugh, this turned up slightly ranting :P sorry about that. I haven't slept in... 38hours now so technically i should be a little drunk now :D

[errrzarrr]

well, richard dawkins has had his effect on me.

Recently my views towards organized religion are comparable to my opinions on the plague. I have recently been brainstorming on how to be pro-active about my anti-religion attitudes without being rude or mean. I consider religion to be quite dangerous and want to do what I can to lessen it's power and impact on humanity. I was wondering if anyone else is interested in actively promoting atheism, and what it is you do. I was considering a subtle/subversive sticker campaign, with some anti-religion imagery or messages.

I am aware that this topic can be offensive, but no one says anything about Christian missionaries, so fair play.

I should also clarify that I am more of an agnostic, but I believe that the current situation needs militant atheists to counter religious fundamentalists.

I am more like Agnostic than Atheist. But what I am sure is that I am Anti-Religion. I dont care about if people believe in God or not, but I don't support religions at all. I think Agnostics, Atheist and Anti-Religious are like allied against religions. So consider me an Ally on your mission/preocupations.

I think we don't have to shame of telling people what we think. Why to shame? ( I mean gays and blacks were considered "inferior" and they broke those barriers because they wasnt ashamed). Is atheism/antireligion a FAITH or Religion? please don't say that. Maybe, just maybe it becomes Faith/religion if you avoid the logical process and accept it without questioning it, but hey, we are Proud and confessed INTJ's here!. Plus, I think, people that avoid reasoning/logic are hardly atheist anyway. So the "Atheism is a Religion" statement is more like a Religious people weapon to destroy atheist logic opinion and let them free (I said it because I heard exactly the same from many priests).

If you are Theist/Religous, dont be afraid we wont charge on you. This is neither a war nor Atheist Inquisition. Being fanatic is what we avoid and Logic and understanding other opinions is our First law.

Throwing motto's and slogans to people's face? no no, not at all. We are not like religion. We are not endoctranating, not appealing to emotions or feelings. Arent we INTJ's here? so we know we work with logic and reasoning. Yelling out loud to people's face to not to go to church isnt our way.

People dont like to hear this? well I had to hear their stuff and go to their church and I am not dead. On almost all of the western countries, the nation MUST pay to the catholic church (if the state pays is with our money) and I can't say nothing about that. That money goes to the Vatican, a rich institution. In Spain all of the inhabitans (that means Spanishes, foreingers living there, atheist/agnostics, muslims, jews, protestant, etc-)paid on 2007 3.05euros to the vatican.

(Btw, im not trying to offend. im not being radical/fundamentalist here nor carryng and "atheist symbol" so everyone knows who i am, no way. But i think things have been unfair for 2k years.)

[ssfanatic]

I've always felt that an atheist who is throwing their motto and slogans in my face was just as bad as the religious nut who is throwing their motto and slogans in my face.

Not saying you are a bad person, but I find militant atheists just as annoying as fanatic religious nuts.
THANK YOU! Let me discover my own beliefs and get off my case.

[Tsuru]

And hence why I'm agnostic. Lack of evidence is just that. Lack of evidence. There's no proof either way. I'm still waiting for somebody to prove to me that the whole universe isn't made up of purple unicorns.

I see no reason why a god or gods couldn't exist, only that there's been no evidence (as far as I'm aware) either way.

I'm happy to play with Ignosticism (i.e. Just what the hell does 'god' entail anyway?) and Apathetic agnosticism (i.e. Who gives a shit either way? it doesn't effect the here and now)


The problem with that is that principled agnosticism's "lack of evidence" (as opposed to apathetic agnosticism ;D) doesn't equate to god's existence or non-existence being equally plausible concepts. Even though there will likely never be demonstratable hard proof one way or the other, reason can still show that there is a statistical/logical probability more favorably in one direction.

Ie, on the science side, we have the theory of evolution, which gives a plausible, rational, data-backed and probable explanation of how complex organisms can slowly develop over millions of years without any divine hand guiding it. Whether some counter-argue that evolution was divinely guided over those millions of years or not, the theory of evolution alone tips the probability factor past 50/50, because it has changed the question of the origin of life from naturally inexplicable to naturally explicable and plausible.

On the reasoning side, there are questions of simplicity versus complexity, such as comparing the puzzle of how something (the universe) exists out of nothing, versus the puzzle of how an even more complex GOD exists out of nothing, who has the capacity to create this immense and intricate universe. Again, the difficulty of one concept versus the even higher difficulty of the other tips the probability factor past an even 50/50 split. Even if atypical explanations of god are used (aka pantheism - god AS universe), it's still moves the issue past pure mystery to at least a bit of a more plausible definition.

I'm sure theists could give their own reasonings as to why the probability factor tips in their favor - but I guess the point I'm getting at is that it irks me when atheism is poo-poo'd as just another "faith." It isn't. It's a reasoned view based on scientific and philosophical likelihoods. It is only considered a "faith" for those who say that there absolutely positively certainly IS NO GOD. Which mostly consists of those who are immensely embittered from their experiences with religion and religious people and likely stems from psychological backlash rather than sound reasoning.

.

All this said, mankind has been under the boot of clerics and priests for thousands of years, and contemporary religion has spend the last 700 years persecuting, dominating, torturing, and killing those who deviated from it. I figure myself and others are due our fair share of cracks at religion now and then, all things considered. ;o)

[Rohsiph]

I have never been religious enough to be an atheist. When asked what I am, I say I'm Karen.

Interesting . . . maybe next time someone asks me what I am, I'll use your answer and say I'm Karen :)

[danalaina]

I've never been called a "militant atheist"... don't know if I fit the description or not. But I harbor a burning hatred for that disgusting mental-virus called Christianity. My strategery (and hobby) is to ridicule and expose the multitude of absurdities, contradictions, cruelties, and outright lies that make up this contageous form of schitzophrenia.

never been a Christian or particularly religious at all, and i'm not at all a fan of religion, so no defensive response here.

but...from what i've seen on the boards here, i'd put you in that class. you attack the subject with a vehemence that i don't usually associate with great logic (though i'm not assigning any value or lack of value to what you're actually saying).

whenever i see anyone speaking with that much anger, regardless of topic, my bulb usually switches off. fanaticism is fanaticism. /shrug

for anyone actually wanting to further their message, i'd suggest trying to remove emotion from it...more people will listen instead of shutting down right out of the gate.

[AgentofGaming]

Extreme religious conservatives stand in the way of science, equality (civil rights), freedom of expression and possibly peace. I agree that those kinds of people should be returned back to neutrality, however there are a lot more religious people than non-religious. As for being anti-religious, good luck fighting some of the most powerful organizations on this planet. (hmm thinking of what happens to secular leaders reminds me Bhutto)

I think there needs to be more neutrality and more parents letting their children choose for themselves. My parents weren't religious and I didn't even know or care much about religion much until I was about in high school. When parents give a specific religion to you it kind of makes a bias. Maybe I'm seeking too much of a "balance of power".

At best religion has merely been a tool PEOPLE have used to hurt others. We are the evildoers, and blaming human atrocity on things like religion is ridiculous.
It's all tools, what about:
Remove the guns and there is less gun violence?
Less cultural tools, less turmoil.
Speaking of tools though, the best technologies that benefit humans did come from war efforts.

I think it's matter of time when humans have the technology to prove there isn't callitwhatyouwill (yea we might end up killing each other before that happens)

I think this one is a bit hard to contemplate. How can it be possible to disprove what doesn't exist. You can't test what doesn't exist.


People dont like to hear this? well I had to hear their stuff and go to their church and I am not dead. On almost all of the western countries, the nation MUST pay to the catholic church (if the state pays is with our money) and I can't say nothing about that. That money goes to the Vatican, a rich institution. In Spain all of the inhabitans (that means Spanishes, foreingers living there, atheist/agnostics, muslims, jews, protestant, etc-)paid on 2007 3.05euros to the vatican.

Reminds me of papal indulgences.
Churches make a lot of money, how else do they build those huge structures.


Whether some counter-argue that evolution was divinely guided over those millions of years or not, the theory of evolution alone tips the probability factor past 50/50, because it has changed the question of the origin of life from naturally inexplicable to naturally explicable and plausible.


and yet lots of people still don't believe in evolution. I don't need to point out where that inspiration likely comes from.


whenever i see anyone speaking with that much anger, regardless of topic, my bulb usually switches off. fanaticism is fanaticism. /shrug


Emotion is another tool for the skilled people who influence others. Passion is the way to gather the most followers. It's odd but sometimes logic doesn't gather as much followers. However I'm sure most of us here would prefer to be told "the reasons to believe" over "to just believe".

[danalaina]

Emotion is another tool for the skilled people who influence others. Passion is the way to gather the most followers. It's odd but sometimes logic doesn't gather as much followers. However I'm sure most of us here would prefer to be told "the reasons to believe" over "to just believe".
yes, sorry. i should have been specific that i meant here. in a group like this, emotional speech in an argument is counter-productive.

[Bojangles]

well, richard dawkins has had his effect on me.

Recently my views towards organized religion are comparable to my opinions on the plague. I have recently been brainstorming on how to be pro-active about my anti-religion attitudes without being rude or mean. I consider religion to be quite dangerous and want to do what I can to lessen it's power and impact on humanity. I was wondering if anyone else is interested in actively promoting atheism, and what it is you do. I was considering a subtle/subversive sticker campaign, with some anti-religion imagery or messages.

I am aware that this topic can be offensive, but no one says anything about Christian missionaries, so fair play.

I should also clarify that I am more of an agnostic, but I believe that the current situation needs militant atheists to counter religious fundamentalists.


It seems that the atheist movement is on some mind-hindering drug.
A. The best thing you can do is keep this belief to yourself (for the most part). Sharing it on a forum, such as this, is appropriate, but becoming the counter to religious fundamentalists just makes you a agnostic/atheist fundamentalists (of sorts).
B. If you feel so inspired by Dick Dawkins, then you are nothing but a cog to an organized atheist movement. SuperCatholics have the Pope; You have Dick.
C. In the same way religious fundamentalists inspire you to take action and become more vocal on your position, they are inspire to fight harder for their position. So... you can be one of the yelling fok (folk), or you can be quiet and simply appreciate your view on life. hell, share your views with other atheists, talk about how dumb religious fok are.
D. Be careful. Religion can and does have its place. It acts as moral guidance for some. It gives hope to those who capitalism has left behind or forced down. There are a lot of people who don't share the same luxuries that we do (like writing on forums about, ultimately, unless crap). Some people might need answers for why they go hungry, and why three of their four children died. Why there sister has HIV. They need hope that it will get better. If not in this life; another. Some people need to feel a spiritual presence when there in the hospital getting ready to die. A father might want to believe that his son is in heaven with god, and not just a DWI statistic. Taking that away from them, in my opinion, is more dangerous, more cruel than religion is (in my opinion). Thus, in my opinion, militant atheism is the greater of two evils.:idea:

If you are upset with religions control over government or something like that, then I think you should do something about it. But attack what is bothering you about religion, not religion itself. People who deal in black and white, I find, are very simple people. Don't be one of them.

Finally,

The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious.
Albert Einstein

[Gonzo]

It's all tools, what about:
Remove the guns and there is less gun violence?
Less cultural tools, less turmoil.
Speaking of tools though, the best technologies that benefit humans did come from war efforts.


So lets say we remove guns. Yes gun violence would probably drop. But is it not possible that people would find other "tools" to hurt others? Do you see where I'm going with this?

[AgentofGaming]

I find that some humans tend to lose their control under anger pretty easily.
So the less devastating weapon they have, the less chance of doing something they will have a greater regret over.
Oh and you can't run from a gun as easily as a knife butcher, and people don't often have crossbows. Tanks are weapons too, what would happen if they let criminals buy tanks? not pretty, that's why it's best to keep as many weapons away from people starting from the most devastating down. In a civilized society one has no need for guns, civilized people are above using violence and if there ever was a need, save the violence for trained people with standards (police).

Weapons are symbols of power, the stronger the weapon the more assertive a person can be. Assertion leads to provocation. Almost anything can be a weapon, like water, and I know things like banning all knives are beyond reasonable (mongols tried that). Big knives are banned, cooking is not an excuse for a machete.

Weapons are for criminals (maybe hunters, but I don't see a point in hunting anymore). Give citizens weapons, to defend themselves. They both get weapons and the result is the weapons get used.

[Gonzo]

Well my point is simple: If we lived in a world where there were no such thing as religion, there would not be any less violence, wars or whatever. You see the great thing about people is that when they from an opinion about something, they feel they have to impose that on everyone around them, and there will always be people that are willing to do this by any means necessary. Even if that means using force. Religious people have illustrated that in the past. And the Nazi's. And the Commies. Even this thread illustrates my point! The list just goes on and on.

People are intolerant of other people. Thats the way its always been, and thats they way its always gonna be. With or without religion. Period.

[AgentofGaming]

There have been religious wars, and there still are today.
Doesn't it seem pretty arbitrary to goto war over a belief in something that may or may not exist or how it's interpreted?
I'm not encouraging force, I am saying that religion is not worth fighting over.
Let there be at least one less reason for war, one less reason for dispute.

When religion reaches the top of a government agenda it leads to religious aggression, look at Iran and what it says about Israel. Secularism of education and of government is necessary to prevent citizenry and governments from becoming zealots. A strong wall of faith blocking out reason isn't anything to cherish.

[Balthazar]

The problem is not religion. The problems are human beings. Religion, like science, can be and is often widely misused. Science has been used to kill millions of people with gas chambers, machine guns, and nuclear bombs. Science is currently being used to deplete the world's resources and create an environment suitable only to cockroaches.
When we look in ourselves and find the causes our anger and fear, the killing will stop. The need to believe in things that cause harm to others can also stop.
Religion, when used correctly, can help to heal a lot of suffering. Religious practices such as prayer and meditation build compassion, and myths of religious figures whether it be Moses, Christ, or whoever can inspire people to reach their
human potential and make this world a better place.

[AgentofGaming]

As I describe it.
Technology, Ideology, money, followers etc are just extensions for the capabilities of people.
People can come in any shade of morals as you describe and I described many posts ago. Some of these are necessary and some of them not as much.

When you look at the religious institutions today, some of them are challengers to rights.
One look at the middle-east and some of that can be evident, talking bad about the religion is enough to get a death sentence, compared to freedom of speech we have here.
Some religious practises are charitable and good, others build ignorance and intolerance.
An example is Good and evil, black and white which was largely standardized by religion.
Now we have conflicts on what is good and what is not, because some believe in reason and right while others believe in a book word for word.





AgentofGaming added to this post, 92 minutes and 14 seconds later...

Going back to the original topic, religion can be described as the slavery of the mind.
The foundations of Christianity itself were shaped by Roman politics, Roman power maybe gone, but the power passed to the Vatican.
Therefore in a way religion is a tool of control, a way to make people submit to myths in fear.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. The video in that topic shows some of such.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

As long as you accept that atheism requires the same leap of faith that theism requires, and is therefore just as much dogma, and will therefore lead to the things that dogma inevitably leads to, and is therefore probably just as bad as fundamentalist Christianity, then sure, have fun.

Dawkins is a good communicator, but he is just stirring up hatred to earn a buck.

Atheism is a faith. It claims that God doesn't exist, and tries to support the claim with evidence. That is exactly the same thing as claiming that God does exist, and trying to produce evidence to support it. That's why he makes an effort to be as offensive as possible, because his argument is based on emotion. If it was analyzed with cold logic it would disappear just like the theistic arguments.
Atheism as non-faith, which means it is impossible for it to be a faith because it is the opposite of faith.

If someone chooses to create a deity and a doctrine and then chooses to have faith in these things (and that is their prerogative) and if they choose to present this faith to me in the hopes that I will embrace it (again.....their prerogative), then I will either embrace the faith that they have created and presented (thereby having a faith) or I will reject that faith (thereby not having a faith). It is not their prerogative to then tell me that if I do not choose their faith, then they will now DEFINE my rejection of their faith as a 'faith' itself just as it is not my prerogative to DEFINE their faith as a 'treachery' or a 'false promise'.





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 20 minutes and 34 seconds later...

Originally posted by Gonzo

"Atheism, or the conviction that there is no greater force (God, etc), are in reality as theoretical as religion. At least for as long as they cant disprove Gods exsistens (they havent done that right?) . So what we have are 2 different theoretical realitys, seeing as none of them has facts to back up there theory. (Now heres the part i drown in deep water hehe Despite the fact that both realitys are bound to remain theory until proven with facts, they still seem to treat the reality they stand by as if it was factual. So in other words they are preciving a theoretical reality as factual reality, in turn making it a subjective reality. So ultimately they, like most people, end up with a reality in which what is real and what is not comes down to personal feelings and opinions of the individual in question."

Atheism is the disbelief in theism and is, therefore, not a theory but, a disbelief in a theory (theism). There is no requirement to prove a disbelief in a theory and only a requirement on the part of the theorist to prove their theory. After all, if you don't believe in trollocs, then you do not have a theory that there are no trollocs and there is no onus on you to prove that there are no trollocs. And in fact, since there is no proof of the existance of trollocs, then the liklihood of you living in a realty of a world that does not contain trollocs is very good.





vaguely dissatisfied added to this post, 9 minutes and 22 seconds later...

Weak Atheism


Strong Atheism

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._vs._weak



And hence why I'm agnostic. Lack of evidence is just that. Lack of evidence. There's no proof either way. I'm still waiting for somebody to prove to me that the whole universe isn't made up of purple unicorns.

I see no reason why a god or gods couldn't exist, only that there's been no evidence (as far as I'm aware) either way.

I'm happy to play with Ignosticism (i.e. Just what the hell does 'god' entail anyway?) and Apathetic agnosticism (i.e. Who gives a shit either way? it doesn't effect the here and now)

I agree that the Judge's decision was wrong. I don't feel that forced atheism is answer though. The question of the families religion just shouldn't have been raised in the first place.
Then you must distrust science and probably don't go to the doctor or take prescribed medication. Science is based on emperical evidence which uses the physical universe and it's laws (as we know them). Since you are waiting for someone to prove that "the whole universe isn't made up of purple unicorns," then you must be waiting for someone to prove that antibiotics are not causing cancer since this has not been disproven.

[MixISTJandINTJ]

I'm firmly atheist and use it in a joking but confident manner. No need for being militant! :)

[Antares]

I've noticed how alike the fundamentalists and militant atheists are. I'm sure that I have no respect for either. I've been bombarded with parables today by theists who assert that atheists have no morals, and I realized what it must have sounded like for a religious individual. Seriously. Why can't we just get past that? Their accusations of atheists having no morals bothered me, and it must bother the religious people when they are called 'stupid' by militant atheists all over the world wide web (trust me, some atheists say that). Some militant atheists call theists (I think they meant fundamentalists, but I can never be sure) 'stupid' and 'dogmatic', and I would respond: And you are superior how?

[Crumpet46]

In all honesty i think that if anything strong ideologies that are not questioned or are oppressive/aggressive seem to be at root cause of most strife in the world. It just seems that the most common form for an ideology to take is religion. Secular organisations are capable of just as much evil, just look at the soviets or the liberation tigers of tamil eelam (tamil tiger rebels) in Sri Lanka. The tamil tigers are particularly apropritate here as they push for secular politics but carry out suicide bombings and have used child soldiers.
In my experience being brought up as a Catholic (i'm now a 'devout agnostic') moderate religion can be comforting and it's nice to be part of that community who are some of the most gentle and friendly people you will meet so religion itself is no bad thing.

[Mr Zip]

Just so I'm clear, by religion you mean a belief in a divine or supernatural power, right? Because I fancy myself a Taoist and we typically don't believe in forces that don't exist naturally. We are kind of a "go with the flow of the universe" type religion and I don't think it really falls under your POV.

Thats awesome. Got any good books you'd reccomend on Taoism? I'm interested.

I went from non-religious, to getting caught up in in when I was younger through my mid 30s, to being agnostic bordering on atheist. I think you do in life what serves you best, and once you get so adamantly against certain things, including religion then theres something inside you that needs to be addressed. taoism sounds like a wonderful belief system.

[Beery Swine]

Atheism is a faith. It claims that God doesn't exist, and tries to support the claim with evidence.

Am I the only one sick of this straw man?

[TheLastMohican]

Am I the only one sick of this straw man?

No matter what I think of Dawkins' other ideas, I will always be grateful for his seven-degree scale. Enough of all this semantical nitpicking.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Am I the only one sick of this straw man?
Actually, I'm sick of the tin man and the cowardly lion.

[Beery Swine]

Actually, I'm sick of the tin man and the cowardly lion.

:laugh: Thanks for the laugh, dude. It was totally unexpected and completely welcomed. :thumbsup:

[SnakeFeather]

Atheism is not a religion. There is a substantial body of evidence to support it. It is religion that fabricates facts and fallacious logic to support its claims.

Atheism is the knowledge that there are aspects of existence that we have yet to discover. Our inability to see past the physical world makes spiritual claims absurd.

Religion purports to have THE answer without anything backing its claim but ''faith''.
Christianity is one of the most insipid forms of this type of arrogant ignorance. In the ethnic community I'm ''from", Christianity dominates and controls the mindset of "my" people. This of course is combined with good old-fashioned colonialism and economic Imperialism. The assertion that the Bible is right and all your native culture is wrong. But I'm not going to cry about politics.

Religion does not have propriety over ethics and morality. Especially in the case of Christianity where most of the morality found in the primary text are obviously out-dated and barbaric.

The legality of slavery, proper etiquette in child prostitution and the concept of an everlasting hell are just some of the moral gems to be found in the New Testament.

Of course there's the oldie but goodies like stoning female adulterers, the ban on mixed fabrics, the consumption of filthy yet delicious animals, and the divinely inspired genocide. Just to name a few.