hipster Atheist

[Nine]

It is tin foil hat crazy... theist are doing the same thing. You just accepted that what I am saying is true, but it applies to theists and then you called me crazy for accepting it.

How did I accept it? Are you just making shit up as you go along? I said that both atheist and theist young people are going out doing the things you seems to think fuel the atheist movement with young people. They aren't all atheists or becoming atheists so no, I do not accept what you said.

[jstrodel]

I thought you meant, it is tin foil hat crazy to say that atheists have some sort of methods that they use to build their movement and then you said that theists use the same methods to built their movement.

I apologize if I misunderstood you.

[Nine]

I thought you meant, it is tin foil hat crazy to say that atheists have some sort of methods that they use to build their movement and then you said that theists use the same methods to built their movement.

I apologize if I misunderstood you.

You have completely misunderstood me.

[Esquilax]

Not one person has made a single argument against the claim "atheism as a movement relies on the support of people under the age of 25 that it gains through drugs, sex and political propaganda".

I can think of two reasons why.

One, it's a patently ridiculous and grossly offensive claim that only you are making and is refuted simply by actually meeting and talking to a variety of atheists.

Two, you haven't provided any proof that it is true to begin with. We aren't required to refute every dumb claim made by every raving lunatic who comes into these forums with a bible clenched in their hands and an aim to disprove atheism. You've made a claim that, on the surface, is very silly, and all you've done is make it over and over without a single shred of proof. Hell, you haven't even so much as detailed the mechanism of how atheists use drugs, sex and propaganda to gain support. What are we, a cult?

How about instead of making up crazy bullshit and then expecting us to refute it, you do the damn legwork yourself and justify it? Or else, how are we wrong for calling it tin foil hat level thinking?

[jstrodel]

Well, look at the quantity of posts on this message board about drugs, sex, political propaganda and music.

Go to any college campus. You will see exactly the same thing.

I suppose I can't really convince someone who wants to believe that there is some huge gulf between intentionally promoting drugs, sex, political propaganda and music to promote atheism and someone who thinks that "people are just tolerate of that sort of thing, and it helps atheism, but there is no connection".

I think what you are doing, that is some real grown up thinking huh, separating the two. That is tin foil hat thinking to suggest that were people make massive gains because of certain policies, there is no connection between the gain and the policy. Total lunacy. A real grown up approach would be to just trust that people are doing the best they can, and that is all.

Of course you apply the same standards when you talk about corporate misconduct. There is no connection between gain and policy. None at all. Ken Lay was a victim of Enron, right? He just didn't know what was going on. Those atheists at Harvard, they are way too dumb to realize that their movement gets all its momentum from the bars and the bedrooms. There is no way they have put the two together, naw, that is tin foil hat thinking. But Ken Lay...

[Esquilax]

Well, look at the quantity of posts on this message board about drugs, sex, political propaganda and music.

Go to any college campus. You will see exactly the same thing.

I suppose I can't really convince someone who wants to believe that there is some huge gulf between intentionally promoting drugs, sex, political propaganda and music to promote atheism and someone who thinks that "people are just tolerate of that sort of thing, and it helps atheism, but there is no connection".

Two premises that you are just assuming: sex, drugs (in moderation, but then again one can get addicted to anything) and rock music are bad things.

And two: that being tolerant of those things is an atheist position rather than a personal one.

So, prove those two things, and while you're at it, detail how being tolerant of any of those things inherently "helps" atheism. Because you still haven't done as I asked and detailed the mechanism by which those things are a recruiting tool.

[jstrodel]

Put aside the issue of whether sex, drugs and rock music are good or bad. That is not relevant to the question of whether atheists use these things to recruit people.

atheist position rather than a person one: This is related to the question of whether sex, drugs and rock music are beneficial for atheism. I cannot get inside of each persons head and see whether they are processing that sex, drugs and rock music are building up their movement. Actually, it doesn't matter. If they tolerate it, that is significant enough. It shows that they receive any benefit from it that they receive.

how being tolerant of these things inherently helps atheism: I think that asking this question is intellectually dishonest. If you don't realize that sex sells, that drugs sell, you are intentionally deceiving yourself. What does the atheist movement needs? It needs numbers. How does it attract people? Well, turn on the TV. How does everyone else attract people? What do you see most of all? You see music, which has powerful psychological effects constantly being used to sell things. You see sex, sex, sex, more sex, and even more sex. And, you see drugs, alchohol, at sporting events, alchohol, at bars, at clubs. American culture is saturated with these things and they are absolutely used to promote products.

Atheism is a product that people are trying to promote (just as Christianity is). The difference between atheism and Christianity is that Christianity promotes itself through demanding adherance to a difficult and sacrificial program of holiness and love, where atheism promotes itself through offering, I will admit, and interesting and necessary critique of Christian theology, history, archeology, science, etc. While I believe that advancing any incorrect position is moral wrong, I understand that people need to figure these things out.

The intellectual way that atheism is promoted is understandable. The other way that atheism is promoted is HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE. Atheism is promoted in music, bands such as Disturbed, Bad Religion, Nine Inch Nails, Dead Kennedy's use music specifically targeted at young people to promote atheism. This sort of atheism is well represented on this board. Atheism uses sexual imagery and acceptance of sexual promiscuity. Atheism uses drugs and tolerance of drug culture to promote its message.

All of these things obviously exist and are a major and obvious feature of the atheist movement. The question is: to what degree are these different product enhancers (sex, drugs, music, politics) used to intentionally sell atheism? I think it varies person to person.

But the cultural norm of atheism is tolerance, and tolerance benefits the atheists, so I hold them responsible and consider them to be actively using these different elements to promote their beliefs. It matters whether they do it intentionally about as much as it matters whether Ken Lay "intentionally" allowed all the bad things that Enron did. He is responsible, and he benefits from looking the other way, it doesn't matter if he thinks about this or not. God will hold every atheist responsible for everything that they do to lure people into their lifestyle.

"And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck.
Mark 9:42


The conclusion is clear: Atheism is a culture that absolutely thrives on using sensational images and sights and sounds and orgasms and drug highs and rock shows and everything imaginable in existence to draw in as many people to its culture war as it possible can.

You are fighting a war, whether you like it or not. You can be on the side of atheism (I would say, Satan) or you can be on the side of God. It is really up to you.

If you want to argue that there is nothing wrong with sex and drugs, perhaps in another thread. What if you are wrong? A lot of people disagree.

[Psykhronic]

You never lurked around the old Bad Religion forums did you?

[jstrodel]

You never lurked around the old Bad Religion forums did you?

You are an immature person. Why can't you take serious things seriously?

[Psykhronic]

I was actually hoping for an answer.