Collaboration with theists?

[Secularone]

What you're doing is masking your extremism. That's where fundamentalism begins, with the respectable face. That for now you settle in a 'reasonable' camp does not dilute the strength of your message. You seem discontent that people, not extremists, call you on your extremism. That's because what you're promoting is disgusting and couldn't take off if everyone knew your real motives.

And exactly what is extreme about my activism? That I dare do what others have not the courage or opportunity?

None, including you, can say what it is that I do that is horrible. And the fact that I give the effort 110% doesn't make the effort wrong either.

Those who distance themselves from me do not do so because they think I am doing something evil. They are distancing themselves for their own protection, that is all. I understand that and even encourage them to not participate.

I can think of many so-called extremists who were on the right side of issues. Martin Luther King comes to mind as well as Nelson Mandela. Neither were evil. But many distanced themselves from them for their own protection. Being a so-called extremist, fanatic or troublemaker does not in itself mean someone is bad or that their actions are bad. It might simply mean they have a lot of conviction about what they are doing and are willing to put their life in harms way if necessary to get the job done.

I take great care in my behavior so that I cannot be the target of valid criticism. But like AAI, that doesn't really matter. Those who disagree with me or them will make false accusations anyway.

If you think you can make a valid case against me, do it. Otherwise, you're just another liar out to smear someone whose voice you'd like to silence.

As for me, I am proud of what I have done and what I will do in the future. And I do not do it in the name of atheism. I do it in the name of freedom, equality and social justice. Something you have little appreciation for.

[Pippy]

Hey,

I don't know if it's all lies and smears. To say that I read the article, and had already made up my mind is beside the point. I have noticed that there is a part of the atheist movement that has a strict "abolish religion" mission. For years prior to this article, on which I am not basing my concept. Nor is the fact that I have noticed this extreme anti-theist view based on this article, but a lifetime of observance. I just thought the article did a decent job of putting it on paper, so I included it in the argument.

If an atheist (or anyone) says "we need to abolish religion", I wonder how they are able to do that without denying others freedom of thought? The same freedom of thought they themselves are proudly exercising.

I am not trying to paint all atheists with that brush. And no, I have never attended an AAI meeting. But beside that point, do you deny that there is this extreme wing of anti-theism in that community? That is my point, regardless of if I have attended, I think that the "abolish religion" crowd exists, does it not?

If it does (and I am not saying you are part of it), then I have a problem with that, and felt like pointing it out to some atheists I know, to see what there take on it is. If they agree that it exists, and that it is a problem. I am not "siding with religious nuts", I am trying to point out other nuts, because they are dangerous no matter their stripe...

It's that simple. I feel that there are extremist, or fanatical anti-theist atheists. Do you agree?
I feel that they represent the same flaw as extremist religious fanatics, mostly trying to tell others what to do. Do you agree?
Thanks,
-Pip

[Secularone]

Pippy,
I can tell you that I am personally acquainted with about three to four hundred atheists through my support and/or participation in numerous organizations. All of these organizations are dear to me for a number of reasons even though many are not atheist in character. Some are. It doesn't matter. Among them:

Atheist Alliance International
Atheists of Florida
Council of Secular Humanism
American Humanist Association
Humanist Association of West Central Florida
American Civil Liberties Union
National Organization for Women
NARAL
Planned Parenthood
People for the American Way
American's United for Separation of Church and State
Southern Poverty Law Center
Equality Florida

I represent none of these organizations in my activism. That would be unfair to them. But I share common values, philosophy, etc.

It is clear that I have strong convictions about what I believe and am willing to put my life on the line in support of my values. That effort is often characterized as extreme, militant, fanatical, etc. I make no attempt to deny that my behavior lends itself to these descriptions. I certainly do tread where others dare not.

However, those who know me would not describe me as unreasonable, dangerous, unfair, mean spirited or fascist. They have the highest esteem for my character and are proud to associate with me.

Therefore, I have many friends, some of which are theist. And while they may not approve of my activism, they have not found cause to vilify me. None have spread lies against me either. I can only guess it is because they know me personally and understand what is motivating me.

Having said all of this, I can personally attest to the fact that I have never encountered any atheist who conspired to abolish religion or obstruct religious freedom. And if you think about it, isn’t such an idea obviously absurd? What atheist is so stupid as to believe religion can be abolished? Sorry! In all my travels, I’ve never found one. Could someone conspire to obstruct religious freedom? Yes, but I’ve never found anyone willing to do that. If they exist, they’re so rare nobody can find them.

Yes, I hate organized religion. I think the world would be much better off without it. I wish religion could be abolished. But I’m not stupid. The only hope I could have that would make any sense whatsoever is that religion would evolve into something better. To that end, I protest, people notice, we talk, they ask questions, they learn. Sometimes I learn too.

You seem to interpret the desire of many atheist activists to see the negative influence of religion diminished, as having an agenda to abolish or obstruct it. Surely, if you exercise some objectivity here you should realize that no sane person could ever believe that religion could be abolished. But I do believe that people can be educated and encouraged to think critically. If they do so, they may abandon it of their own accord.

So, let’s see now… How many converts have I to my credit? Well, I actually did once have a young woman tell me that she abandoned religion on account of a conversation she had with me. But… it has never been my goal to make converts. I only want to get people to think critically for themselves. If they do, I have confidence they will find better answers to their questions. Those answers might not be mine, but that’s not important. If they actually come from legitimate critical thinking, they might be better than mine.

Again, if you cannot cite names and details of those with the agenda to deny theists their freedom of religion, I suggest you abandon that accusation against atheists as unfounded.

[Violet]

If an atheist (or anyone) says "we need to abolish religion", I wonder how they are able to do that without denying others freedom of thought? The same freedom of thought they themselves are proudly exercising.

They think of it along the same lines as "we need to abolish slavery". They are targeting specifically that which they feel is negative about religion (IE: religion inspired terror, wasted time worshipping when they could be living, and people accepting things without decent justifications [aka evidence]). So essentially, abolishing religion could easily be considered as abolishing 'non-thought'. At the least, that's how I see it.

I am not trying to paint all atheists with that brush. And no, I have never attended an AAI meeting. But beside that point, do you deny that there is this extreme wing of anti-theism in that community? That is my point, regardless of if I have attended, I think that the "abolish religion" crowd exists, does it not?

That wing of anti-theism does exist (to a great deal in fact). But how 'visible' it is... that is a harder question to answer. I think many atheists are anti-theistical... but that many of us are quite cordial/calm in our 'dislike?-disdain?'... but there certainly is a much 'angrier?' wing

It's that simple. I feel that there are extremist, or fanatical anti-theist atheists. Do you agree?
I feel that they represent the same flaw as extremist religious fanatics, mostly trying to tell others what to do. Do you agree?
Thanks,
-Pip

I do.

[fr0d0]

I find it odd you have to call me a lair SO. I didn't say you were _doing_ anything extremist. I said your ideas were extremist and would lead to extremism. Completely different. I'm sure Hitler would've used similar coercion, comparing good people with great causes - like we wouldn't 100% support those ideals.

I don't seek to silence you. You continue to use that despite the fact I've said the opposite. Again: I fully support anyone's right to extreme views.

What you're doing is like the polar opposite of Fred Phelps' followers actions. I personally abhor Fred Phelps' beliefs, and I would protest against them. You are not like me though, you hate just like he does.

'Hating' organised religion is simply to misunderstand it. Surely I can hate perversion of it the same as I can hate the perversion of any ideal, including your own.

[Pippy]

Uh-oh, first person the bring up Hitler automatically loses the argument... Sorry Frodo

What atheist is so stupid as to believe religion can be abolished?

Hey again SO. I agree, that is one of the things that makes me cringe when I hear the "abolish religion" line, how oversimplified and unreal it is. And I would likely agree with the negative parts of religion, and the need to address them. And I think that those who want to abolish religion, if they exist, really have a problem with belief. If that is so, suddenly I am not able to be on their side of that argument, because I demand my right to believe and disbelieve what I will.

I got the jist of your answer to the question posed, I think. You cannot say that any of the atheists you know/have met hold the "abolish religion" mentality to it's extreme, that these aforementioned "dogmatic atheists" may not be. I appreciate that, and although I think I might know some myself, these things are a matter of degrees and angles, so I might be wrong. Thank you SecularOne.

Hello also Saerules.

They think of it along the same lines as "we need to abolish slavery".

Yeah, I considered that, the allusion instead of the ideology. I think I know what you mean, and that I agree that some might mean that, yes.

abolishing 'non-thought'

Hey, I'm on board for that one! The (conceptual) devil on my shoulder adds that some theists and philosophers think very long and very hard about their belief.

I suppose it is just important to me to try to identify deity belief apart from the modern organized religious institutions, only for my own identity. I know there are others like me, but I will readily admit they are rare among the people I've seen. Did I say I talk too much, may be I talk too much about myself...

I also hear your answer to my query, that you do think "dogmatic atheists" (I'm not sure how apt that really is as a name) might exist. Thank you for that as well.

"If you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha"
-Pip

[Violet]

The (conceptual) devil on my shoulder adds that some theists and philosophers think very long and very hard about their belief.

Some, but not all Many religious people were just indoctrinated, and never critically question that which they take for granted (In more subjects than just religion usually).

I suppose it is just important to me to try to identify deity belief apart from the modern organized religious institutions, only for my own identity. I know there are others like me, but I will readily admit they are rare among the people I've seen. Did I say I talk too much, may be I talk too much about myself...

You don't talk too much about yourself When you start giving out your credit card numbers and address though.... THAT'S when you are saying too much

If I met the Buddha... I would have reached Nirvana. I would not ever kill the Buddha He's too good for me to kill

[Secularone]

That wing of anti-theism does exist (to a great deal in fact). But how 'visible' it is... that is a harder question to answer. I think many atheists are anti-theistical... but that many of us are quite cordial/calm in our 'dislike?-disdain?'... but there certainly is a much 'angrier?' wing

Here again, I'd like specifics.

Just exactly how is it that being an angry atheist violates some theists freedom of thought, belief or free exercise of religion?

Like Pippy, you seem to think that if an atheist despises religion to the extreme and engages in outreach activism to educate people, that equates to trying to obstruct someones free exercise rights. I want to know what logic you, Pippy and others use to arrive at such conclusions?

Exactly what has any atheist done that you feel trampled on the legitimate rights of theists?

If you can't cite specifics of actual incidents, then do you really think it's fair to continue to nurture this unsupported indictment?

---

I find it odd you have to call me a lair SO. I didn't say you were _doing_ anything extremist. I said your ideas were extremist and would lead to extremism. Completely different. I'm sure Hitler would've used similar coercion, comparing good people with great causes - like we wouldn't 100% support those ideals.

But fr0d0, here's what you wrote in post #30... the post where you clearly characterized me as an extremist.

What you're doing is masking your extremism. That's where fundamentalism begins, with the respectable face. That for now you settle in a 'reasonable' camp does not dilute the strength of your message. You seem discontent that people, not extremists, call you on your extremism. That's because what you're promoting is disgusting and couldn't take off if everyone knew your real motives.

Sorry, fr0d0, but referring to "my extremism" is the equivalent to calling me an extremist. The reason I find you to be a liar is that you lie. You can't even keep the story straight from one post to the next. Here's more...

I don't seek to silence you. You continue to use that despite the fact I've said the opposite. Again: I fully support anyone's right to extreme views.

Wow! Again you imply I'm an extremist by referring to my "extreme views." But there's more...

What you're doing is like the polar opposite of Fred Phelps' followers actions. I personally abhor Fred Phelps' beliefs, and I would protest against them. You are not like me though, you hate just like he does.

Well, fr0d0, you really sound like you are full of hate. And comparing me with an extremist like Fred Phelps is nothing more than an attempt to disenfranchise me, an attempt to discourage others from entertaining what I have to say. In other words, to silence my voice.

Actually, in some respects, I am glad that you are so vicious in your posts to me. You undermine your own credibility. There is nothing reasonable about your approach and any objective person can see that.

And exactly what is that message that you despise so much, fr0d0? The truth about how you and other religious nuts care nothing about freedom, equality and social justice? Is that what's bothering you, fr0d0? Well, I've not seen you championing those principals now have I?

You complain about how I misrepresent you but all you do is misrepresent everything, from beginning to end.

If you really are such a great guy then how about posting reasonable explanations of your ideals, thoughts and beliefs, instead of your worthless one-liners and demagogic tripe.

I and every other atheist on this forum would like to hear what you have to say about your faith and how you got to where you are. But getting you to have an honest and/or reasonable conversation is next to impossible. Maybe you're trying to hide the details of your faith so that nobody can question them. I don't know. I just know you don't give straight answers or reasonable answers.

So, until you do clean up your act, things are not likely to get better between the two of us.

[Violet]

That wing of anti-theism does exist (to a great deal in fact). But how 'visible' it is... that is a harder question to answer. I think many atheists are anti-theistical... but that many of us are quite cordial/calm in our 'dislike?-disdain?'... but there certainly is a much 'angrier?' wing

Here again, I'd like specifics.

Just exactly how is it that being an angry atheist violates some theists freedom of thought, belief or free exercise of religion?

Like Pippy, you seem to think that if an atheist despises religion to the extreme and engages in outreach activism to educate people, that equates to trying to obstruct someones free exercise rights. I want to know what logic you, Pippy and others use to arrive at such conclusions?

Exactly what has any atheist done that you feel trampled on the legitimate rights of theists?

If you can't cite specifics of actual incidents, then do you really think it's fair to continue to nurture this unsupported indictment?

I don't think that 'angry atheism' violates any freedom of thought... unless you have indoctrinated somebody with it of course I just feel it is rude and disrespectful to preach... especially when a person hasn't even granted another the right to do so (Like going to a specific preaching quarter voluntarily).

I do not think that a person is a fanatic (or preacher) simply because they dislike (despise?) religion... and seek to actively counter propaganda with facts. However, there is a fine line between doing this, and being a

---

fanatic |fəˈnatik|
noun
a person filled with excessive and single-minded zeal, esp. for an extreme religious or political cause.

---

... and sometimes being a fanatic is not such a bad thing. However, it can easily get in the way of others in a number of ways (Cutting across people as they are talking, scaring people away from atheism [see giving the wrong impression?], etc).

I think we have a right to free speech... but also a right to free silence. Not everyone wants to hear the message... and I think time is wasted on those who do not want to learn... time that should instead be spent on those eager to learn. I think that one should supply the resource, and as apposed to trying to sell the product to all: sell only to those who would like to buy. You can see this easily in marketing (particularly advertising).

What legitimate rights, might I ask? Well, example can come from myself. The last time I ever went to church... I sat through an hour long sermon about how homosexuals were the devils work in the eyes of the 'Lord'... and I was so furious to the point that I reached the breaking point and exploded outward my pure venom for the evils that had just tormented my eardrums for the previous hour. I vowed to modify that terrible and evil behavior, and swept out of the room (If only you could imagine my overzealous and exhibitionistic presentation... I actually wish I had a video of it [that goes for most of what I do ])

I think I 'stepped out of acceptable bounds' in that instance, so there is one atheist who has trampled on the toes of ridiculous theistic rights. Did they deserve to have their toes smashed 1234567890 times by a baseball bat? Yes. Does that mean I should give them what they deserve for perpetuating such abominable acts and lies under the guise of goodness? No. If I were to do that, then it would be to stoop close to their level. That's what I think anyway

[Edwardo Piet]

Oh absolutely, yes. I don't mean that atheists being dogmatic has anything to do with atheism proper. There is certainly something else in the equation that makes fanatic atheists fanatical. And I am obliged to point out those fanatics and frown at them, not at all because of their lack of belief, only because of there attempt to control others.

Well if it's nothing to do with their atheism... then what exactly is the OP about? Atheists only ever behave dogmatically for reasons aside from their atheism, which itself contains nothing more than absence of belief in God... - therefore, atheists can only behave dogmatically for reasons than theists, deists, etc, can also behave dogmatically for. Atheists only behave dogmatically for other reasons... which means... why attack atheism? Theists on the other hand... can also have dogmatism based on their particular religion(s)... whereas atheists by definition cannot.

So why attack atheism when theism has extra possibilities for being dogmatic? Like being dogmatic about their religious beliefs? Whereas atheists can't because they don't have a religion.

I wonder what point could be made about how some religious fanatics are also personally responsible, or self-motivated into their extremism as well.

Well it's simply that the religious have extra beliefs to motivate them that the non-religious don't. Atheists have beliefs that motivate them, except they (by definition) don't have a belief in God(s) to motivate them. Theists, like atheists have beliefs to motivate them, but this also includes belief in God(s) too... and very often, also the beliefs that go along with it. (Also theists have specifically a personal God(s) to motivate them... if their god is impersonal, then that's deism, not theism).

they also I admit that religion has a slightly higher penchant for dogmatism itself though...

Well theism just has extra possibilities of dogmatism to atheism... and that's religious dogmatism. Atheism can have all other kinds of dogmatism, but not dogmatism that relates to God because atheists don't believe in God.

I just think the statement "Religion is whats wrong with the world" is a little fanatical.

Well that would be a very over the top absolutism statement. There are many problems in the world and, IMO, religion is one of them. I'd say religion is quite possibly the biggest problem. But that obviouslt doesn't make it the only problem!! There are many problems with the world...

And, curiously, I think fanaticism is whats wrong with the world.

I agree. And religion is at it's worst when it's fanatical. But also... all this political correctness, this moderateness of protecting beliefs no matter how delusional they are... that's where fanaticism can thrive. Moderates give cover for fundamentalists by tolerating bullshit.

What's wrong with "intolerance" if it's the form of harmless conversation? Questioning is how we learn... things not to be open to debate because it "offends people", is one of the things that holds things back IMO.

So atheists who espouse the "religion is whats wrong with the world" (as exampled by the silly article, not that you are) are themselves whats really wrong with the world (in their fanatics, not their disbelief).

I know of no such atheist group like the one described in that article. That article basically exaggerates everything and twists things. It's ridiculous hyperbole is not an impressive critique. It has made a strawman of atheism - atheism is simply lack of belief in God. If amazingly there really is a group of atheists where they are all intolerant bigots, then that's purely coincidental anyway. It's got nothing to do with atheism itself.


When the article claims that atheists somehow want to silence the opinions of all non-atheists... 1. That is a complete strawman of atheism. It's got absolutely nothing to do with atheism. Atheism is merely absence of belief in God... nothing more, nothing less... 2. I, myself, have never really experienced what is written in that article. You'll get the odd complete asshole atheist... - as with theists - but in my personal experience: This so-called wave of "New atheism" is mostly a wave of agnostic atheists in my experience... (as that is the kind of atheism argued for in, for instance - The God Delusion) who at their most militant they want to go around debating people... and that is the opposite of shoving things down people's throats... if the debating is done politely. Debating is not demanding.

I actually do think that religion is the main problem with the world... probably... but it is, indeed - certainly not the only problem.

Thanks EvF.

You're welcome.

See the subtle brainwashing there? Christian extremism has to equal murder no less. Not what Christianity is about at all. To be true, that statement would have to read: "for Christians to be considered extremist, they just have to say out loud that they are Christians."

No... because Christians aren't considered extremists simply from being Christians.

EvF