Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 63

Thread: Atheism: your views...

  1. #21
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Atheism: your views...

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    DS, you cannot compare the examples you have given with the point I’m making. Primarily because the terms you have used are about what people are, whereas the discussion is about what people believe. But, I’ll try and help by referencing them. If you had red hair and just simply accepted that, then I would categorize you as a passive 'red hairist.' If on the other hand you aggressively sought the adoption of an ideology that promoted the banning of any hair type other than red hair and also promoted the ideology that people with any other hair colour than red were somehow inferior to you, then I would categorize you as a ‘Militant Red Hairist’. (I don’t think it’s appropriate to use the two slightly derogatory terms you used.)
    The point was that the label is meaningless as far as stance on religion is concerned. It says nothing. So whether its hair colour, shoe size, or lack of belief in gods - NONE of these actually have anything to do with BELIEF or IDEOLOGY. But I can see you think that Atheism is an ideology or at the very least by adding "militant" to it, it suddenly becomes one. All I'm saying is that its a misapplication of the word "atheist".

    Is "Ginger" really offensive? I thought it was a joke name English people used? Seriously - I've never heard it used in Scotland. (and I can't imagine its a Welsh thing either)

    And yes, there is a link between ‘anti-religion and atheism’ – it’s called ‘Militant Atheism’. And as I have just explained to Ronde, this term does NOT apply to the majority of atheists. I have never said it does, and I’m confused as to why you should continue to infer that I do.
    No such inference is meant, I know thats not what you mean. I'm saying that by associating "Militant" with "Atheist" you are making a connection to "Atheist" which is a term for EVERYONE who has no belief in god(s) but is NOT the defining factor of the militant in question - who from your examples would like the end of all religion.

    As to where it will all lead: This is exactly the point of this post and others I have made on this subject. The reason why atheists are the most hated group in America is because of the anti-atheistic propaganda that exists there. And I’m sure you can imagine that the alternative Militant Atheistic propaganda produced by The 4 Horsemen is a contributory factor in this situation.
    My point is that by calling them "Militant Atheists", even if they do use the label themselves, YOU are taring all atheists with the same brush! Its getting so you can't use "Atheist" without negative connotations even in the UK. I think we need another word, but most people end up with "agnosticism" as if its a middle ground between atheism and theism - which it isn't. I suggest "Smurfism"

    Of course, if you want to change from the Natural World, Universal harmony view of Pantheism to Nihilism, then that’s your prerogative.
    I'm an Animist now, but I'll change my mind tomorrow no doubt.

    Though surely it's not just Nihilists that can't see a
    "comprehensible truth"

  2. #22
    Commercial Operator Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    1,895
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Atheism: your views...

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    ...stuff...
    OK, DS, whatever... I've made my point a number of times and responded directly to your statements, and you obvioulsy feel that you have done the same. So, let's just agree to disagree shall we?

    So your an Animist now? Are you sure you're not really a Woman? I mean you change your mind so often... (Joke ladies, joke...)

  3. #23
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Atheism: your views...

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    OK, DS, whatever...
    who shot debate, i thought it was alive and well...

  4. #24
    Registered User Ronde!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    146
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Atheism: your views...

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    Hi Ronde, I think you're making the mistake that many people do in assuming that 'militancy' only means 'fighting' and/or 'physical' aggression. Whilst it does have that connotation, it is not a necassary development of the term. So, it can also be charcterized in this way:

    Militant: Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause:
    The problem is that connotations count. Using the term "militant" to describe the most vocal atheists is itself an aggressive and combative way to try to make those advocates sound a lot worse than they really are. Describing them as "militant" suggests that these vocal, non-violent philosophers are in some way on a par with militant, extremist members of religions, when in fact this is far from the truth. Describing grey-haired Mr Dawkins as "militant" is basically every bit as "militant" (in your loose interpretation of the term) as Mr Dawkins using the word "delusion" in relation to religion.

    Which makes you a militant theist.

    Aggressive, 'militant' theism has a long history, mind you. I can't count the number of church hymns I've memorised that use a military, aggressive metaphor - such as "Onward Christian Soldiers", or perhaps this well-loved hymn by William Blake: Jerusalem:

    "I will not cease from mental fight
    Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand
    'Til we have built Jerusalem
    In England's green and pleasant land"

    Mental fight? Sword in hand? In a hymn that is arguably the favourite of many English Christians? Well then, how about the NATIONAL ANTHEM of the most Christ-fearing country of them all, the United States of America? From the last verse:

    "Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
    And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."

    Counquering, portrayed as justice and godliness? *Coff IRAQ coff GUANTANEMO coff*

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    So, you're right, the vast majority of atheists DON'T act in this way. But there a small very vocal, aggressive, high profile group who do.
    A much smaller number than the number of aggressive evangelists, clerics, imams, and other religious leaders, I can assure you. Indeed, a much smaller number even than truly militant, para-military extremists and religious terrorists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    With respect, I don't believe I do infer that all religions are cults - and if you have taken that from my post, then I apologize, as that was not my intention. But in any event, the point of this thread is not to discuss what religion is or isn't, it is to discuss what 'Militant Atheism' is.
    If you look at the title, you'll see that the thread appears to be about what Atheism is in general - and I'd love to start painting a graphic picture of all religion, based on the actions of its most extreme proponents, contemporary and historical, but I don't think you'll want to go there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    And it is most definitely a cult, given the actions of 'The Four Horsemen' who personify it:

    Cult
    Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.

    An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.

    They are 'obsessive' about their 'cause' and they are 'an exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric intellectual interest.'
    I don't think they're obsessive at all. All of the major proponents of Atheism see religion as being an objectively negative influence on humanity, and the most extreme things they do are debate the merits and detractions of religion and why they don't believe in god(s). It's all very intellectual and philosophcal, and if you want to characterise this kind of thinking as "militant", what you're really doing is trying to smear their thought and speech with a label that has at least as much negative connotation as the adjectives they use to describe religion. The label "militant" is every bit as provocative and emotional as words like "delusion".

    Obsessive behaviour would be characterised by irrational compulsion. But I've never heard of any of the people you've mentioned as "militant" atheists behaving in a way that's irrational; indeed, their academic and intellectual rigour suggests the opposite is true.

    As for the use of the second and alternative definition for "cult" - you will find that that usage is a CULTural usage for the word "cult," and used in this way - to describe "cult movies," for example - is a relatively benign term. But again, the connotation you're driving for is for a (negative) association with brain-washing, tithe-taking, religious cults. Again, an aggressive, "militant" use of language, which by your own reckoning makes you as "militant" a theist as the atheists you're attempting to discredit for their own use of strong descriptive language.
    Last edited by Ronde!; 30th-January-2008 at 09:58 PM.

  5. #25
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Atheism: your views...

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronde! View Post
    The problem is that connotations count. Using the term "militant" to describe the most vocal atheists is itself an aggressive and combative way to try to make those advocates sound a lot worse than they really are. ...etc....
    Well said. I was trying to say something quite like that

  6. #26
    Registered User stewart38's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Ambrosden it gets
    Posts
    7,480
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Atheism: your views...


  7. #27
    Commercial Operator Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    1,895
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Atheism: your views...

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronde! View Post
    The problem is that connotations count. Using the term "militant" to describe the most vocal atheists is itself an aggressive and combative way to try to make those advocates sound a lot worse than they really are. Describing them as "militant" suggests that these vocal, non-violent philosophers are in some way on a par with militant, extremist members of religions, when in fact this is far from the truth. Describing grey-haired Mr Dawkins as "militant" is basically every bit as "militant" (in your loose interpretation of the term) as Mr Dawkins using the word "delusion" in relation to religion.
    Ronde…..: ‘grey haired Mr. Dawkins…’???? You missed an opportunity there: you should have said. ‘dog loving, grey haired, middle aged, weedy and bespectacled Mr Dawkins’. You seem to be missing the point that The 4 Horsemen are very happy to refer to themselves as Militant, they revel in term and they revel in the celebrity it gives them. And I don’t need to make them sound worse than they are, they do that themselves: This is actually on Richard Dawkins’ website:

    An atheist's call to arms
    Richard Dawkins, TED 2002
    The session was titled "The Design of Life," and the TED audience was probably expecting remarks about evolution's role in our history from biologist Richard Dawkins. Instead, he launched into a full-on appeal for atheists to make public their beliefs and to aggressively fight the incursion of religion into politics and education. Scientists and intellectuals hold very different beliefs about God from the American public, he says, yet they are cowed by the overall political environment. Dawkins' scornful tone drew strongly mixed reactions from the audience; some stood and applauded his courage. Others wondered whether his strident approach could do more harm than good. Dawkins went on to publish The God Delusion and become perhaps the world's best-known atheist.

    I repeat: this is on Richard Dawkins own website – a ‘call to arms - aggressively fight…’. That’s every bit as militant as ‘extremist members of religions’ and if you still don’t think this is militancy in every sense of the word then I believe you are comprising your own good sense to try and win an argument….
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronde! View Post
    A much smaller number than the number of aggressive evangelists, clerics, imams, and other religious leaders, I can assure you. Indeed, a much smaller number even than truly militant, para-military extremists and religious terrorists.
    It appears as a small number OR I should say it is a small highly visible number. But I only know of those that are in the news, I have no idea of how many people hold the same militant views as Dawkins and his group that I’m not aware of. And I’m assuming that there is no way of you knowing what is going on outside of the public eye either? On this basis you simply cannot make a blanket statement of the numbers or influence of such Militancy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronde! View Post
    If you look at the title, you'll see that the thread appears to be about what Atheism is in general...
    You’re right, even though I fully explained what the thread was about in the post and have repeated it since on a number of occasions, I maybe should have taken a leaf out of Barry’s book and called it: ‘ International Evil Militant Atheistic Cretins’ – your views. I guess that would have stopped any confusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronde! View Post
    I don't think they're obsessive at all. All of the major proponents of Atheism see religion as being an objectively negative influence on humanity, and the most extreme things they do are debate the merits and detractions of religion and why they don't believe in god(s). It's all very intellectual and philosophcal, and if you want to characterise this kind of thinking as "militant", what you're really doing is trying to smear their thought and speech with a label that has at least as much negative connotation as the adjectives they use to describe religion. The label "militant" is every bit as provocative and emotional as words like "delusion".
    I agree; what you describe is reasonable and I would happily confirm that this is non Militant behaviour. I have accepted this and agreed it numerous times now. BUT that is not what this thread is about!!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronde! View Post
    Obsessive behaviour would be characterised by irrational compulsion. But I've never heard of any of the people you've mentioned as "militant" atheists behaving in a way that's irrational; indeed, their academic and intellectual rigour suggests the opposite is true.
    The 4 Horsemen depict every aspect of irrational, obsessive and compulsive behaviour IMO and I think most people would agree. I am however, willing to accept that your view of their actions maybe different and that may be in part because you are yourself an atheist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronde! View Post
    As for the use of the second and alternative definition for "cult" - you will find that that usage is a CULTural usage for the word "cult," and used in this way - to describe "cult movies," for example - is a relatively benign term. But again, the connotation you're driving for is for a (negative) association with brain-washing, tithe-taking, religious cults. Again, an aggressive, "militant" use of language, which by your own reckoning makes you as "militant" a theist as the atheists you're attempting to discredit for their own use of strong descriptive language.
    ‘Cult’, can be a benign term as you say, but as applied to Militant Atheism, it is not. Let me remind you from Dawkin’s own website: ‘An atheist’s call to arms – aggressively fight…’ this is not benign, by any stretch of the imagination. And as regards me being a ‘militant theist’ I’m afraid your wrong.

    Firstly, because I’m not a theist, I'm a Pantheist - and even with accepting this you couldn’t then call me a Militant Pantheist for simply discussing its virtues or for highlighting my concern over Militant Atheism. And that’s because I’m not promoting that you should change your beliefs. You and DS just don’t seem to understand the difference, so I’ll say it again. I have no problem with atheism, because passive atheism is simply non-belief. I think we all agree on that don’t we? Militant Atheism on the other hand is the aggressive promotion of the cessation of all organized religion. So Militant Atheists like Dawkins, don’t just have a simple non belief in Divinity they also advocate the strong assertion that believers should also not believe. Massive difference.

  8. #28
    Commercial Operator Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    1,895
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Atheism: your views...

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    This forum may well be a haven for atheists, if this sort of thing continues.
    Classic! Atheists 'Hoist by their own petard'. This is exactly the point of what I have been saying all along. Dawkins and The Four Horsemen with their militancy and propoganda are giving atheists a bad name. They bring the concept of atheism into disrepute and this leads to mis-placed aggression and mis-understandings on both sides.

    By supporting them you risk being associated with their views, and for those people that do not understand the difference, it gives the impression that ALL atheists (even accepting that they are not) are militant, aggressive, religion hating individuals.

    This information couldn't have come at a better time in this debate: thank you Barry.

  9. #29
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Near Montrose
    Posts
    221
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Atheism: your views...

    The question we need to ask ourselves then: Is it allowable for people to denounce religion in this way and to promote it via websites, books, articles and public Forums? Because isn’t Militant Atheism just as insidious and fundamental as the fundamentalists it attacks?


    Is it allowable for people to denounce religion in this way? How do you want to police the expression of views? If people can voice a belief in God (god) then why is it not ok for people to express a non-belief in god? If I can be extremely basic (sorry to drag you down to my level...) 'sticks and stones will break your bones...' but I haven't ever heard of any 'Militant Atheist' groups shooting doctors who perform procedures they don't agree with or attacking countries in the name of their (lack of) deity.

    When there begin to be terrorist groups of 'Militant Atheists' hijacking planes and flying them in to buildings, I'll start worrying about the non-believers.

  10. #30
    Commercial Operator Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    1,895
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Atheism: your views...

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiger Feet View Post

    Is it allowable for people to denounce religion in this way? How do you want to police the expression of views? If people can voice a belief in God (god) then why is it not ok for people to express a non-belief in god? If I can be extremely basic (sorry to drag you down to my level...) 'sticks and stones will break your bones...' but I haven't ever heard of any 'Militant Atheist' groups shooting doctors who perform procedures they don't agree with or attacking countries in the name of their (lack of) deity.

    When there begin to be terrorist groups of 'Militant Atheists' hijacking planes and flying them in to buildings, I'll start worrying about the non-believers.
    You make some valid points TF. However, again we have this problem of scale: You say: If people can voice a belief in God (god) then why is it not ok for people to express a non-belief in god?

    And I agree, that they should be able to - and that's called atheism. But what is not OK is to aggressivley attack people who do believe in God, to attack their Faith and to trivialise for many people, what is to all intents and purposes, the structure of their lives. And this is especially the case when the people who are promoting the propoganda are respected members of society who are using their celebrity and standing to add creedence to this militancy.

    You are then of course right to point that, at the moment, Militant Atheists don't attack and shoot people, but don't forget how stupid, gullible and prone to violence some people are. Dawkin's is 'calling atheists to arms' this is on HIS website. Don't you think it's possible that could escalate?


    Let's not forget that we are living in a society where people kill other people for merely kicking a football into their garden...

    Woman remanded after man killed in football row | The Guardian | Guardian Unlimited

    In this kind of environment hostility is always lurking beneath the surface and all some moron needs is an excuse.

    It's all well and good to say 'let's deal with it when they start flying planes into buildings (churches presumably)' but that will already be too late..
    Last edited by Rocky; 1st-February-2008 at 12:23 AM.

  11. #31
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Near Montrose
    Posts
    221
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Atheism: your views...

    at the moment, Militant Atheists don't attack and shoot people, but don't forget how stupid, gullible and prone to violence some people are. Dawkin's is 'calling atheists to arms' this is on HIS website. Don't you think it's possible that could escalate?
    in which case we should establish a police system like that employed in the film 'Minority Report' where we can arrest people BEFORE they actually commit a crime? People sometimes do bad things...these people can be all shapes and sizes and of any or no religion. Talking, even aggressively or 'militantly', is not a crime and nor should it be. I'd rather not have a Guantanemo Bay in every country so we can imprison people without rights just because they MIGHT have done something bad.

    I can't believe that you are actually saying I should fear that free speech could lead, possibly, to violence.

    And only people who WANT to bear arms can be called to bear arms. 'God' gave us free will, did he not?

  12. #32
    Commercial Operator Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    1,895
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Atheism: your views...

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiger Feet View Post
    I can't believe that you are actually saying I should fear that free speech could lead, possibly, to violence.

    And only people who WANT to bear arms can be called to bear arms. 'God' gave us free will, did he not?
    Ummm.... aren't militant atheists suggesting that religious fundementallism is caused by belief in God? And isn't the word of God defined in text that is then interpreted by his disciples and servants and then spread via the use of free speech? And, then doesn't this free speech therefore lead to violence that the Militant Atheists are bleating on about?

    There's no difference - it's just that what I'm talking about hasn't developed to that stage yet...

  13. #33
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Near Montrose
    Posts
    221
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Atheism: your views...

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    Ummm.... aren't militant atheists suggesting that religious fundementallism is caused by belief in God? And isn't the word of God defined in text that is then interpreted by his disciples and servants and then spread via the use of free speech? And, then doesn't this free speech therefore lead to violence that the Militant Atheists are bleating on about?

    There's no difference - it's just that what I'm talking about hasn't developed to that stage yet...
    This is scaremongering.

    Religious fundamentalism IS caused by belief in God. Fundamentalism is the strict maintenance of fundamental doctrines of any religion or ideology and these doctrines are open to human interpretation...if you choose to interpret it violently then it IS a choice. Free speech does not lead to violence...a willingness to behave violently leads to violence.

    I don't intend wasting my time reading these websites or any holy books (this is a personal choice that I have the freedom to make and I don't, in any way, accuse anyone else of wasting their time if they wanted to read these texts). I believe that you should treat people as you wish to be treated and avoid hurting people as much as possible. I don't think there's any name for it (I will answer to 'normal' though ). I am unlikely to be persuaded to bear arms against anyone and I speak as someone with very limited intelligence (the target audience for any bad cult, shurely?).

    Atheism is a disbelief in the existence of god or gods. I can't see how you can have a confrontational way of supporting this disbelief, so i don't believe in 'militant atheism'. I think it's a stupid term and you'd be far better inventing a new term for the anti-religion brigade.

  14. #34
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Worcester, UK
    Posts
    4,157
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Atheism: your views...

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiger Feet View Post
    Atheism is a disbelief in the existence of god or gods. I can't see how you can have a confrontational way of supporting this disbelief, so i don't believe in 'militant atheism'.
    The same way one confrontationally supports any opinion: by attacking/ridiculing/killing people who hold a different opinion.

    Society of the Godless - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Last edited by MartinHarper; 1st-February-2008 at 02:50 AM.

  15. #35
    Registered User Ronde!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    146
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Atheism: your views...

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinHarper View Post
    The same way one confrontationally supports any opinion: by attacking/ridiculing/killing people who hold a different opinion.

    Society of the Godless - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    This is not an example of atheists attacking/ridiculing/killing religious people. It is an example of communists attacking/ridiculing/killing religious people, because religion provides an alternative (and therefore competing) source of authority to the communist one. The first footnote demonstrates the political - not simply anti-religious - motivations of this group.

  16. #36
    Registered User Ronde!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    146
    Rep Power
    11

    Re: Atheism: your views...

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    [FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2][COLOR=black][COLOR=black]Ronde…..: ‘grey haired Mr. Dawkins…’???? You missed an opportunity there: you should have said. ‘dog loving, grey haired, middle aged, weedy and bespectacled Mr Dawkins’. You seem to be missing the point that The 4 Horsemen are very happy to refer to themselves as Militant, they revel in term and they revel in the celebrity it gives them.
    And, as I've already illustrated, so do "Christian Soldiers" or Islamic jihadists/suicide bombers. The Bible itself is littered with references to the warlike destruction of God's enemies. Taking affirmative action to counter religion using websites and by writing books and giving speeches - however emphatically - is nowhere near as violent and bloody as blowing up schools/streets, invading countries, or burning/torturing those suspected of not being religious (enough).

    I repeat: this is on Richard Dawkins own website – a ‘call to arms - aggressively fight…’. That’s every bit as militant as ‘extremist members of religions’ and if you still don’t think this is militancy in every sense of the word then I believe you are comprising your own good sense to try and win an argument….
    No, it's NOT as militant as "extremist members of religions" as I've pointed out above. No matter how emphatic Mr Dawkins speech was - and yes, I've watched it - it does NOT equate to the killing of infidels or the burning of witches. Not even close! Claiming Mr Dawkins is "militant" is twisting language to put him on par with such people.
    You’re right, even though I fully explained what the thread was about in the post and have repeated it since on a number of occasions, I maybe should have taken a leaf out of Barry’s book and called it: ‘ International Evil Militant Atheistic Cretins’ – your views. I guess that would have stopped any confusion.
    And still your use of emotive language would simply make you seem rather hypocritical. You criticise atheists who use emotive, charged or impassioned language to denounce religion, yet you use the same kind of language - equally emotive and charged - to criticise them. How can their use of such language be improper for them and somehow OK for you? Hmmm?
    I agree; what you describe is reasonable and I would happily confirm that this is non Militant behaviour. I have accepted this and agreed it numerous times now. BUT that is not what this thread is about!!!!
    According to the topic title, and your initial post, this thread is a discussion about atheism. Not just a small subsection of atheism, but the whole shebang. While you go on to focus on a particular aspect of atheism, you're clearly ignoring the majority in the discussion. By the same token, we could very well have a thread called "Christianity: your views" and have a discussion about why some Christians are suspect-burning, inquisitionally-torturing, baby-eating, civilian-killing child molesters.

    It's not fair, is it?
    The 4 Horsemen depict every aspect of irrational, obsessive and compulsive behaviour IMO and I think most people would agree. I am however, willing to accept that your view of their actions maybe different and that may be in part because you are yourself an atheist.
    Could you please provide even a single example of ANY prominent atheist's action which demonstrates irrationality as opposed to rational/philosophical thought or action? Hmmm?

    ‘Cult’, can be a benign term as you say, but as applied to Militant Atheism, it is not. Let me remind you from Dawkin’s own website: ‘An atheist’s call to arms – aggressively fight…’ this is not benign, by any stretch of the imagination. And as regards me being a ‘militant theist’ I’m afraid your wrong.

    Firstly, because I’m not a theist, I'm a Pantheist - and even with accepting this you couldn’t then call me a Militant Pantheist for simply discussing its virtues or for highlighting my concern over Militant Atheism. And that’s because I’m not promoting that you should change your beliefs.

    So how would you label youth mission workers? Missionaries? Evangelists? All trying to convert non-believers to believers? Hmmm? Militant Christians, perhaps? People like Mr Dawkins write about the virtues of atheism and discuss their concerns about religion. It's no different to what you're doing. But they do think people should stop believing in gods, because that's the whole point of their advocacy of atheism - that believing in gods is responsible for too much pain and suffering throughout the history of mankind.

    I should also point out that a pantheist is still a theist. A theist is ANYONE who believes in one or more gods, so suggesting that you're, in fact, a "militant theist" (according to your own loose definition) is still a legitimate suggestion.
    You and DS just don’t seem to understand the difference, so I’ll say it again. I have no problem with atheism, because passive atheism is simply non-belief. I think we all agree on that don’t we? Militant Atheism on the other hand is the aggressive promotion of the cessation of all organized religion. So Militant Atheists like Dawkins, don’t just have a simple non belief in Divinity they also advocate the strong assertion that believers should also not believe. Massive difference.
    It's not militant, dude. It might be active, it might be vocal, it might be impassioned, but it does nobody harm, and it's never been suggested that anyone should be harmed to further atheism. It's silly and hypocritical for you to suggest that people like Dawkins can't use emotive language, but it's okay for you to.

    You may not be suggesting that people take up pantheism, but you are suggesting that we should curtail some peoples' right to free speech, which in my view is a far more disturbing notion. I'd much rather you put forward good arguments for people converting to pantheism (or atheism, or whatever) than bad arguments as to why we should limit peoples' expression - which is what you appear to be doing at the moment...
    Last edited by Ronde!; 1st-February-2008 at 05:56 AM.

  17. #37
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Near Montrose
    Posts
    221
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Atheism: your views...

    I can't see how you can have a confrontational way of supporting this disbelief,
    good grief, that was a really stupid thing to write!!!! I apologise! I'm sure I had a point that made sense in my head.

    Note to self: go to bed and don't post nonsense at half one in the morning.

  18. #38
    Commercial Operator Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    1,895
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Atheism: your views...

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronde! View Post
    No, it's NOT as militant as "extremist members of religions" as I've pointed out above. No matter how emphatic Mr Dawkins speech was - and yes, I've watched it - it does NOT equate to the killing of infidels or the burning of witches. Not even close! Claiming Mr Dawkins is "militant" is twisting language to put him on par with such people.
    Ok, so you're an atheist that supports Dawkins' points of views and his methods, and reads his books and listens and watches his propoganda and believes everything he says. I get it now. I made the mistake of thinking that I was talking to someone who was an open minded, free thinking individual.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronde! View Post
    And still your use of emotive language would simply make you seem rather hypocritical. You criticise atheists who use emotive, charged or impassioned language to denounce religion, yet you use the same kind of language - equally emotive and charged - to criticise them. How can their use of such language be improper for them and somehow OK for you? Hmmm?
    You totally missed the irony of the paragraph didn't you. You know where I said I DIDN'T use emotive language in the title? And because I didn't and even though I have expalined numerous times now that this debate is NOT about atheists but MILITANT atheists, you still just completely ignore it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronde! View Post
    According to the topic title, and your initial post, this thread is a discussion about atheism. Not just a small subsection of atheism, but the whole shebang. While you go on to focus on a particular aspect of atheism, you're clearly ignoring the majority in the discussion.
    Ummmm..... I've already explained the subject title and as regards the post and the thread it CLEARLY says that it is about Militant Atheism, and even though it is, I've still not ignored atheists: I've said time and time again that what normal passive atheists do, is completely acceptable. So I've accepted this and embraced it and then moved on because THIS THREAD IS ABOUT MILITANT ATHEISM, NOT PASSIVE ATHEISM, WHICH I HAVE ALREADY ACCEPTED ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS IS ACCEPTABLE.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronde! View Post
    Could you please provide even a single example of ANY prominent atheist's action which demonstrates irrationality as opposed to rational/philosophical thought or action? Hmmm?
    All of what Dawkins does in the name of Militant Atheism is irrational, but as I'm preaching to the converted, I can understand why you can't see that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronde! View Post
    So how would you label youth mission workers? Missionaries? Evangelists? All trying to convert non-believers to believers? Hmmm? Militant Christians, perhaps? People like Mr Dawkins write about the virtues of atheism and discuss their concerns about religion. It's no different to what you're doing. But they do think people should stop believing in gods, because that's the whole point of their advocacy of atheism - that believing in gods is responsible for too much pain and suffering throughout the history of mankind.
    I think you'll find that religion is also a massive force for good too. Charities, aid, shelters, etc.etc. Not to mention the vast numbers of good honest people who use religious beliefs to create a structure to live their lives by. But, hey.. lets ignore all that shall we, and just concentrate on the tiny percentage who ARE mad because it suits your purpose to do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronde! View Post
    I should also point out that a pantheist is still a theist. A theist is ANYONE who believes in one or more gods, so suggesting that you're, in fact, a "militant theist" (according to your own loose definition) is still a legitimate suggestion.
    Ummm... pantheists don't believe in 'God' they believe in the Divinity of the Universe and our connection to it. It is defined sometimes as the 'God' of Nature but that's to misundertand how most people define God. So to make it clear. I do not believe in a personal God of any type and I also don't believe that the word 'God' can be used as a descriptive term for the Divinity of Nature. So I'm not a theist in the sense of how I would define it. But in the end it doesn't really matter what you call me, if you want to pigeon hole me to make you feel better about things, then that's up to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronde! View Post
    It's not militant, dude. It might be active, it might be vocal, it might be impassioned, but it does nobody harm, and it's never been suggested that anyone should be harmed to further atheism. It's silly and hypocritical for you to suggest that people like Dawkins can't use emotive language, but it's okay for you to.
    Good grief... Ok, one last time: Dawkins can use whatever language he likes, and you can be as vocal and impassioned as you like. But as far as I am concerned that is 'militant'

    Militant: Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause:

    It is an accurate definition and if you choose not to accept it because you're an atheist that supports Dawkins, then I understand that - your point of view is just biased that's all.

    Finally: I'll tell you what's been interesting about the last week or so, and that's for the first time I've had dialogue with you and Barry, two people who clearly represent this kind of 'new age' atheism. What an eye opener! You may not be aware of it, but you both come across as every bit as brain washed as the religious fundementallists Dawkins codemns.

    Through out this discussion I have constantly said that I accept the passive advocacy of most atheists. I've stated that I understand the ideology and I also have some sympathy with the posistion. But not at ANY time have you said, 'actually do you know what, I agree that at times Dawkins and The 4 Horsemen can go a bit too far.' You've shown no balance at all in this debate and no acceptance that there is even a small issue that should be addressed.

    And that closed minded, blinkered view is very worrying....
    Last edited by Rocky; 1st-February-2008 at 11:35 AM.

  19. #39
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Near Montrose
    Posts
    221
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Atheism: your views...

    Ok, so you're an atheist that supports Dawkins' points of views and his methods, and reads his books and listens and watches his propoganda and believes everything he says. I get it now. I made the mistake of thinking that I was talking to someone who was an open minded, free thinking individual.

    I've said time and time again that what normal passive atheists do, is completely acceptable.
    I'm confused...you have the authority (god given?) to decide what kind of views and expressions of views are acceptable, but when your views are challenged you accuse others of being closed minded...how does that work?

    I've read some David Icke books and I'd probably read more, but I don't believe that the world is run by fifth-dimentional extra-terrestrials and i don't think the queen is a lizard. It is possible to read something and merely accept it as an opinion.

    Our local MP had a tantrum at an anti-Iraq war meeting a few years back and called all who attended it ' Trotski-ist apologists for Saddam Hussain'. It's just not a logical assumption and I think you might be making a similar mistake.

  20. #40
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Worcester, UK
    Posts
    4,157
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Atheism: your views...

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronde! View Post
    This is not an example of atheists attacking/ridiculing/killing religious people. It is an example of communists attacking/ridiculing/killing religious people.
    I think it's both. They were communist atheists.
    Anyways, Tiger Feet has withdrawn the point.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Hammersmith: your views
    By David Bailey in forum Social events
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 1st-December-2007, 12:43 PM
  2. utopia your views
    By dave the scaffolder in forum Social events
    Replies: 108
    Last Post: 21st-February-2007, 11:37 AM
  3. Ceroc: insider / outsider views...
    By David Bailey in forum Let's talk about dance
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 18th-September-2006, 09:02 AM
  4. Cabaret - Your views please
    By johnah in forum Let's talk about dance
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 19th-January-2004, 05:01 PM
  5. New Aberdeen Party Venue - Your views?
    By Franck in forum Let's talk about dance
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 9th-September-2002, 06:52 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •