A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"

[cluelusshusbund]

See Fraggle's remark that I quoted in my post #437 up above, and my reply to it.

Originally Posted by Fraggle Rocker
But we can't find a way to regard it as anything but a delusion

Yazata
Who is "we"? Who do you imagine that you are speaking for?

I thought that atheism was supposed to be disbelief in the existence of religious deities. So how does one get from that simple disbelief to the much stronger proposition 'Religion is nothing but a delusion and practicing religion can only be delusory'? It doesn't logically follow, unless one introduces additional unstated premises.

FR
and it's difficult to respect deluded people.

Yazata
Kittamaru was talking about respecting other people's human and civil rights.

FR
It is exactly the same experience as encountering a grownup who still believes in Santa Claus.

Yazata
That may be true of you and of how you experience things. But it isn't true of everyone.

I try to keep the five precepts. I even meditate occasionally. That's a religious practice and I take it very seriously. When I was a kid, my best-friend's father was a devout Catholic of a contemplative sort who often went on retreats and even spent time as a visitor in monasteries. He was one of the most spiritual people that I've ever met in my life and I still respect him tremendously. (He's dead now.) In fact, many of the people that I've come to respect most in the course of my life were highly religious people with serious religious practices.

Ah oh... i just might be a militant atheist :scratchin:

I dont have beliefs in "Gods"... an beliefs in Gods that others may have does not increase my level of respect for them.!!!

My childhood invironment was religion neutral... in that my mom an dad didnt go to church but wasnt aganst me goin to Sunday school or church... but everbody... includin at home an school apeared to accept the Jesus/heaven-hell myth as if it was fact... an not that i expressed it (kept my disbelief thouts in the closet so to speek)... i wasnt buyin it... an i knew i was bein lyed to even by age 8... that ther was some bs secret bein kept from me.!!!

At about 16 i discovered that my 2 best buddies (who went to church) thout each other was goin to hell cause they thout each other had the wrong beliefs.!!!

By that time i realized that this Jesus-belief stuff was more flawed than i had emagined.!!!

So.......... i woound up marryin a go to church twice a week Christan... LOL (her Christan mom an dad coudnt have been beter in-laws)... an that was over 40 years ago... so somehow it all worked out fine for me.!!!

Atheist... militant atheist... the label dont mater to me... i thank superstition is ignorant/stoopid/non-beneficial whether its religious or not... an its refreshin to read rational thouts in some of these forums.!!!

 

[Kittamaru]

And that's fine... but do you go out of your way to insult/berate/criticize those who do have a religious faith? Do you think they should be "destroyed for the good of science/the country/cthulu"?

If not... then you are simply atheist, nothing militant about it. And that's just fine... you have your belief and you let others have theirs.

 

[Trooper]

That is okay... because of the fact Christ died for us.

What, he dies? Gee, thanks for ruining it.

 

[Balerion]

And that's fine... but do you go out of your way to insult/berate/criticize those who do have a religious faith? Do you think they should be "destroyed for the good of science/the country/cthulu"?

If not... then you are simply atheist, nothing militant about it. And that's just fine... you have your belief and you let others have theirs.

Well thanks for outlinig what makes a "good" atheist.

There is no atheism that calls for religioua people to be destroyed.

 

[quinnsong]

What, he dies? Gee, thanks for ruining it.

No, no, no, please do not be disappointed there is a surprise ending. Trooper do yo have friends or family that are religious?

 

[Randwolf]

There is no atheism that calls for religioua people to be destroyed.

Well, like most every other sweeping generalization Balerion, that one is wrong. There are, and have been, atheists - both individuals and groups - that call for destruction of religion.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_Atheists

The League of Militant Atheists[1] (Russian: Союз воинствующих безбожников Soyuz voinstvuyushchikh bezbozhnikov); Society of the Godless (Общество безбожников Obshchestvo bezbozhnikov); Union of the Godless (Союз безбожников Soyuz bezbozhnikov), was an atheistic and antireligious organization of workers and intelligentsia that developed in Soviet Russia under the influence of the ideological and cultural views and policies of the Soviet Communist Party from 1925 to 1947.[2] It consisted of Party members, members of the Komsomol youth movement, workers and military veterans.[3]

The League embraced workers, peasants, students, and intelligentsia. It had its first affiliates at factories, plants, collective farms (kolkhoz), and educational institutions. By the beginning of 1941, it had about 3.5 million members from 100 nationalities. It had about 96,000 offices across the country. Guided by Bolshevik principles of antireligious propaganda and party's orders with regards to religion, the League aimed at exterminating religion in all its manifestations and forming an anti-religious scientific mindset among the workers.​

http://www.inspiremagazine.org.uk/news?newsaction=view&newsid=4167

Oxford University Professor of Mathematics and a leading apologist who has debated faith and religion issues with Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens in recent years, Professor Lennox focused on what he called "a new militant atheism that is not just anti-God but anti those who believe in God".

"There is a strong wind blowing for the privatisation of belief in God," he emphasised. "Secularism feels it holds the default position in society, and new atheists are about destroying religious faith. It has been stated that 'scientists should do everything that can be done to weaken the hold of religion'."

He went on to identify key areas where new atheists both misrepresented and misunderstood religious faith, and in particular Christianity.

"Religion is seen as a 'pernicious delusion'. Yet, new atheists do not discriminate between moderates and extremists – and they fail to distinguish between Christ's teaching and Christendom.​

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/science-must-destroy-reli_b_13153.html

Only then will the practice of raising our children to believe that they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu be broadly recognized as the ludicrous obscenity that it is.
​

Perhaps this is the sort of militant atheism that Tiassa is on about...

:shrug:

 

[Balerion]

Well, like most every other sweeping generalization Balerion, that one is wrong. There are, and have been, atheists - both individuals and groups - that call for destruction of religion.

Well, I suppose this is the part, Randwolf, where I invite you to respond to what I actually wrote, but you seem so eager to construct this straw man, that I might as well just let you have at it.

Nah, can't do it. Let's try it again:

There is no atheism that calls for religious people to be destroyed.

(Emphasis added after the fact)

Perhaps this is the sort of militant atheism that Tiassa is on about...

:shrug:

It has become quite clear that Tiassa himself has no idea what sort of "militant atheism" he's talking about. He--like the fellow in the middle link--misrepresents atheists as bigoted thugs with nothing to offer, but offers no example of it, and twists himself into a pretzel to avoid answering retorts that dismantle his argument. Of course, unlike Professor Lennox, who is ignoring the rationale of Hitchens and Dawkins and Harris, and indeed of atheists in general, I doubt Tiassa is even aware of it. He's in the dark on atheism, and has no interest in anyone turning on the light. He'd prefer to sling shit from the shadows, thank you very much.

But I guess you'd have to be paying attention to notice any of that. Which, as we glean from the straw man at the center of your reply, you haven't been.

:shrug:

 

[spidergoat]

I'm also in favor of the destruction of religion, but certainly not by destroying it's believers, that's what they thrive on, they have a persecution complex. It's doing a fine job of dying on it's own.

 

[Randwolf]

Well, I suppose this is the part, Randwolf, where I invite you to respond to what I actually wrote, but you seem so eager to construct this straw man, that I might as well just let you have at it.

Well, I suppose this is the part where I ask you to say what you mean and mean what you say. This is what you typed:

There is no atheism that calls for religioua people to be destroyed.​

Now, allowing for the typo, I'm pretty sure that could be categorized as a "sweeping generalization", to which my reply stands, with references. If you have a problem with the fact that you are patently wrong, take it up with someone else...

It has become quite clear that Tiassa himself has no idea what sort of "militant atheism" he's talking about. He--like the fellow in the middle link--misrepresents atheists as bigoted thugs with nothing to offer, but offers no example of it, and twists himself into a pretzel to avoid answering retorts that dismantle his argument. Of course, unlike Professor Lennox, who is ignoring the rationale of Hitchens and Dawkins and Harris, and indeed of atheists in general, I doubt Tiassa is even aware of it. He's in the dark on atheism, and has no interest in anyone turning on the light. He'd prefer to sling shit from the shadows, thank you very much.

But I guess you'd have to be paying attention to notice any of that. Which, as we glean from the straw man at the center of your reply, you haven't been.

:shrug:

Take that up with Tiassa, he's quite capable of fending off mosquitoes...

 

[Balerion]

Well, I suppose this is the part where I ask you to say what you mean and mean what you say. This is what you typed:

There is no atheism that calls for religioua people to be destroyed.​

Now, allowing for the typo, I'm pretty sure that could be categorized as a "sweeping generalization", to which my reply stands, with references. If you have a problem with the fact that you are patently wrong, take it up with someone else...

Your references have nothing to do with what I said, so I suppose this is the part where I, again, invite you to respond to what I actually wrote.

Take that up with Tiassa, he's quite capable of fending off mosquitoes...

Again, I don't see how that addresses anything I've said.

 

[Randwolf]

My wife and I have studied it a fair bit

Oh clueluss, really? Your wife too? Wow. Hang tuff there...

 

[Randwolf]

There is no atheism that calls for religioua people to be destroyed.

Randwolf, patiently, attempts to start with first principles...

Balerion, did you say (type) "There is no atheism that calls for religioua people to be destroyed."? Yes or no? It's easy, a binary choice, can you handle it?

 

[Balerion]

Randwolf, patiently, attempts to start with first principles...

Balerion, did you say (type) "There is no atheism that calls for religioua people to be destroyed."? Yes or no? It's easy, a binary choice, can you handle it?

Drama is not your strong suit.

Let's step down off the stage, take off the wig, wash off the makeup, and get to the point. Which, hopefully, will be addressing what I actually wrote, rather than what you wish that I wrote. Your references do not address my actual comments, so perhaps we could start with some new ones, so, you know, we're not just taking you at your word that theists have some murderous boogeyman to fear.

 

[Randwolf]

what I actually wrote, rather than what you wish that I wrote. Your references do not address my actual

OK, I'll give. I will play your little game, "I'm so dumb". WTF was it that "you actually wrote"? Somehow, I guarantee you won't even attempt to reproduce it here, you will simply say "see my previous posts". You're great at that....


Doesn't matter, you made a blanket statement:

There is no atheism that calls for religioua people to be destroyed.​

That statement is wrong. As in "It's not true". As in - that's a lie. Period. Full stop. Supported with citations.

Live with it...

 

[Kittamaru]

Well thanks for outlinig what makes a "good" atheist.

There is no atheism that calls for religioua people to be destroyed.

Balerion, sorry mate, but if you truly believe that, then you must have been sleeping under a rock somewhere... either that or you simply don't know/understand/care about the dangers of sweeping generalization.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

And that's fine... but do you go out of your way to insult/berate/criticize those who do have a religious faith?

My level of civility in discussin such matters perty much matches the persons that im discussin wit.!!!

Do you think they should be "destroyed for the good of science/the country/..."?

Im for freedom of belief even if its ignorant/stoopid/superstitious beleifs.!!!

One time in 4th grade a teecher hit me wit a paddle behind my knees so much that i was bruised an had trouble walkin for a couple of days... but after a couple of weeks it was no big deal an we got along fine after that... but 30 years later when i herd that my 7th grade English teecher had dyed... the one who forced me to partisipate in her beliefs by readin the Bible... i wasnt over-flowin wit empathetic thoughts.!!!

If not... then you are simply atheist, nothing militant about it. And that's just fine... you have your belief and you let others have theirs.

Just to be clear... my beliefs foller the evidence whare ever it leads... ther not in spite of evidence to the contrary.!!!

 

[Kittamaru]

My level of civility in discussin such matters perty much matches the persons that im discussin wit.!!!

Respect those who show respect to you, fair enough

Im for freedom of belief even if its ignorant/stoopid/superstitious beleifs.!!!

Again, fair enough - that's all most pious people are asking (I say pious instead of religious because, lets face it, much like with any group, there are those that wont' shaddup about it until you accept their ideals... Jehovahs witness tends to come to mind)

One time in 4th grade a teecher hit me wit a paddle behind my knees so much that i was bruised an had trouble walkin for a couple of days... but after a couple of weeks it was no big deal an we got along fine after that... but 30 years later when i herd that my 7th grade English teecher had dyed... the one who forced me to partisipate in her beliefs by readin the Bible... i wasnt over-flowin wit empathetic thoughts.!!!

Just to be clear... my beliefs foller the evidence whare ever it leads... ther not in spite of evidence to the contrary.!!!

And that's okay - like I said, you are free to believe whatsoever you want; what I'm asking is simply for those that do not believe in any kind of faith to respect those that do, and vice-versa.

 

[Balerion]

OK, I'll give. I will play your little game, "I'm so dumb". WTF was it that "you actually wrote"? Somehow, I guarantee you won't even attempt to reproduce it here, you will simply say "see my previous posts". You're great at that....

Why the games? You know what I wrote.

"There is no atheism that call for religious people to be destroyed"

Doesn't matter, you made a blanket statement:

There is no atheism that calls for religioua people to be destroyed.​

That statement is wrong. As in "It's not true". As in - that's a lie. Period. Full stop. Supported with citations.

Live with it...

What citations? You mean the ones about how atheists want to destroy religion?

Am I supposed to believe you don't know the difference between a person and an idea?

Balerion, sorry mate, but if you truly believe that, then you must have been sleeping under a rock somewhere... either that or you simply don't know/understand/care about the dangers of sweeping generalization.

So far, you and you friend are 0-2 on being able to demonstrate a form of atheism that seeks to destroy religious people.

 

[Trooper]

Trooper do yo have friends or family that are religious?

Of course. I live in the states. How could I not?

No, no, no, please do not be disappointed there is a surprise ending.

Oh, right, the resurrection. Wait, wait just a minute…holy shit, it wasn't just him. There was shit pot full of zombies, WTF? :bugeye:

What in the hell happened to them? Did they ascend to heaven, as well?

Could you ask your wife, Kittamaru?

Matthew 27:51-53:

And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

This is getting creepy.

 

[Balerion]

Of course. I live in the states. How could I not?



Oh, right, the resurrection. Wait, wait just a minute…holy shit, it wasn't just him. There was shit pot full of zombies, WTF? :bugeye:

What in the hell happened to them? Did they ascend to heaven, as well?

Could you ask your wife, Kittamaru?

Matthew 27:51-53:

And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

This is getting creepy.

The New Testament is basically the first zombie apocalypse novel.