Toaster strudel alliance takes on drugs, atheists and liberalism

[Something completely different]

To tell the truth is to say whatever is true, whether it is popular or unpopular, whether it will win praise or condemnation, whether it will elicit interest or disinterest, whether is cool or uncool.

I will give you a rebuttle of your stuff if it makes you happy (which it wont)

But you can have the entire reply summed uup in short now, if you want, by simply klicking the spoiler button:

---

do you have statistics or any other kind of evidence which show that you are writing down the truth?

---

I saw someone on this thread say something about the democratic party. Liberalism is not the same as the left. I did not use the term "left" to indicate the democratic party, I meant it to indicate radicals. It is significant to point out that a substantial portion of atheists are radicals. This is not the same as being a democrat.

The definition of what is radical varies from which possition one has.

so what is a radical for you?

and can you prove that "a subtantial part" of the atheists are radicals?

People are entitled to their own political beliefs, if people believe that America is the moral equivalent of Nazi Germany, they are perfectly able to have that conviction. It is significant the number of atheists that have convictions like that though.

Can you prove that most atheist believe that?

And the number that are either openly Communist, Marxist, or so deeply influenced by radical leftism that they are more or less communist. This is what a substantial portion of America is like.

Can you prove that?

I am not going to say that radicalism is intrinsically evil, or that there have not been some Christian radicals.

What is radical for you?

Since as I have mentioned before: the definition of what is radical changes from possition to possition.

My point is that radicalism is a very serious thing and atheists commonly do not treat it seriously.

What is radicalism for you?

Can you prove that most atheists are like that?

They seem to be proud of their tolerance of extreme views for an easily discernable and praiseworthy motive, the free access to information, but at the same time tend to completely neglect the damage that radicals can cause.

Can you prove that?

They also will not accept the degree to which radicals use atheism to spread their beliefs.

Can you prove that?

As far as I can remember, I have never seen any atheist denounce the Marxists who use atheism to build their movement.

We have only one communist who is also an atheist on this forum. His username is craterhorus and if you would look up what he posts, you would notice that the others here actualy give him a pritty hard time.

On the other side: In my country of Germany 40% of the population are atheist, in Sweden it is almoust 80%.
Anyway, east Germany use to be a brutal communist regime, yet you dont find "non criticism" here. Actualy most people oppose what happened there and call for justice.

Being an atheist requires only one thing from the atheist - not believing in god.

Other than that an atheist can have various political views, since they are almoust all independent from atheism.

How do you explain the marxist Hugo Chavez - who was a very open catholic?

Someone said that atheism has no leaders, this is untrue, obviously some atheists have more influence than others and are de facto leaders, however if it was true, it would be the scariest proposition possible.

Can you prove that by showing me my "leader"?

Atheists are often accepting of virtually all behavior, regardless of how destructive or how risky it may be.

Look at the list of banned members.

Other than that, can you prove your point?

The average atheist will laugh at the suggestion that political radicals are anything to take seriously or worry about.

Can you prove that?

[Angrboda]

I think someone has figured out a way to transform characters from the Twilight Zone into real life flesh and blood.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue0Jd-bomn0

[Esquilax]

It is significant the number of atheists that have convictions like that though. And the number that are either openly Communist, Marxist, or so deeply influenced by radical leftism that they are more or less communist. This is what a substantial portion of America is like.

Are you aware, Strodel, of a group called Bruderhof? If not, you may wish to look into them, such research might grant you valuable perspective.

Bruderhof communities are christian groups, worshipers of the same god you're so into, that have come together into little communes over a number of countries. In a Bruderhof commune, nobody owns property; everything goes toward the common good and is distributed according to need by the authorities therein.

Why do I bring this up? Well, to demonstrate that the view of humanity is wider than your "atheists=left wing communist socialist evils, theists=right wing capitalist normals" dichotomy. These christians are communists, Strodel. So why are they not representative of the entirety of christianity, while radical left wing atheists are absolutely representative of the entire group? Why do you feel the need to persistently and dishonestly propagate this insipid lie?

My point is that radicalism is a very serious thing and atheists commonly do not treat it seriously. They seem to be proud of their tolerance of extreme views for an easily discernable and praiseworthy motive, the free access to information, but at the same time tend to completely neglect the damage that radicals can cause.

Why is it that when I read this, all I hear is "the atheists don't immediately condemn everything I don't like, and that's bad!"

See, the difference between you and us, Strodel, is that we're capable of examining claims based on merit, and are honest enough to accept that even radical claims may hold something of value. You seem to be operating under the assumption that anything that falls outside of your right wing echo chamber must be wrong and dangerous.

They also will not accept the degree to which radicals use atheism to spread their beliefs. As far as I can remember, I have never seen any atheist denounce the Marxists who use atheism to build their movement.

Give me one example of anyone, let alone a Marxist, "using" atheism like that, and then we'll talk.

Someone said that atheism has no leaders, this is untrue, obviously some atheists have more influence than others and are de facto leaders,

Oh? I don't recall appointing anyone to speak for me. I certainly don't recall allowing you free reign to choose who my leaders are. Are you still not getting this? Leaders don't just suddenly become so by garnering attention; in order for them to be representative of atheism in the way you're trying to get at, they'd have to be appointed. They'd have to have a significant number of the atheist community giving them support: "Yes, this person says and does things that reflect my belief, and is therefore representative of it."

Otherwise, how on earth could you claim they say anything about atheism beyond their personal opinion of it? The process doesn't work in reverse, we don't magically change our beliefs whenever an atheist crosses a certain threshold of media attention. Do your beliefs automatically change whenever a christian with differing views to you gains notoriety?

however if it was true, it would be the scariest proposition possible. Atheists are often accepting of virtually all behavior, regardless of how destructive or how risky it may be.

Fucking prove it. And before you point to the ecstasy thread, I'll remind you that intellectually discussing something free from the prepositional moralizing of your holy book is not the same as accepting it outright.

[Darkstar]

To tell the truth is to say whatever is true, whether it is popular or unpopular, whether it will win praise or condemnation, whether it will elicit interest or disinterest, whether is cool or uncool.

You think it is "cool" to be an atheist? We're the most hated and distrusted minority in America.
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigot...sHated.htm
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/reli...51777612/1

[frankiej]

Toaster Strudel Alliance... I think I have found a possible name for my new band! We are currently Jesus and the Space Tractors.

[Napoléon]

Jesus and the Space Tractors.

Damnit frankie, Jesus and the Space Raptors would be so much cooler.

[frankiej]

Jesus and the Space Tractors.

Damnit frankie, Jesus and the Space Raptors would be so much cooler.

Nah, I like the thought of space tractors. It amuses me greatly.

[jstrodel]

The definition of what is radical varies from which possition one has.

so what is a radical for you?

and can you prove that "a subtantial part" of the atheists are radicals?

A radical is someone who exists outside of the established political system. This is not necessarily bad per se, obviously all political systems are created by people that were at one point outsiders. But when you consider the American political system (I can't say I know about Europe and wouldn't know what to say about colonialism and islamo-fascism, issues that people should care about but not what I am talking about).

To some degree, Ron Paul is a radical, because his views exist outside of the mainstream of the political culture. But I am not going to try and link libertarianism with radicalism, as I think it is a much more modest proposal and admire Ron Paul in a lot of ways. I would say that many right libertarians are radicals though when you start talking about anarcho-capitalism and ideological libertarianism that embodies the same sort of theoretical mindset that is tolerate of sweeping claims that are dependent on a hyper-individualistic epistemology that, like the atheist culture that produced it, will almost deify reason and reduce tradition to superstition.

I would see this sort of radicalism in someone like Ayn Rand, who proclaimed that selfishness was a virtue. I think it is the way that atheists think because of their approach to learning and verification. There are many objectivist athiests who I would consider to be radicals, although they are politically to the right. I do not know how many atheists subscribe to objectivism, there are many of them, or how many other atheists have this sort of ideological radicalism that I see as a dangerous way to view the world.

Some atheists are very prominent influences on the conservative movement, such as George Will and Milton Friedman, but they do not descend into this sort of ideological frenzy and say things like "selfishness is a virtue".

The history of left wing atheism is much more instructive as to an extremely destructive form of left wing radicalism. The French Revolution brought in a political wave of radicalism and violence. In the 19th century you saw the socialist thinkers like Marx influenced by Hegel's bastardized version of Christinianity, anarchists like Bakunin, Proudhon, Kropotkin,. There was widespread rejection of Christianity and acceptance of the left wing atheism, epitomized in thinkers like Friedrich Nietzsche and the widespread union of Nietzschean criticisms of morality and ethics with left wing politics (for a modern day example of this, look at the legal philosopher and Nietzsche scholar Brian Leiter, who does the rankings for philosophy programs in the US). The left flourished in the universities, alongside atheism and agnosticism. Marx himself came out of the European intellectual tradition of atheism and the methods of the academy. Scientific socialism was a defining movement of the 19th century, and became an international revolutionary movement with the fusion of Marxism with Leninism in Russia and with Maoism in China.

In the 20th century, you saw the establishment of Communism around the world as violent revolutionary movements pushed hard to create totilitarian societies based on the European atheist intellectual tradition. They taught that science proved that atheism was true. In America you saw a powerful union movement (which I would say that I admire, in many ways) and a civil rights movement as well as a feminist movement. All of these brought positive contributions, and the influence of the unbroken stream of leftist intellectualism, going back to Marx, Hegel and Nietzsche was unbroken. For an example of this, look at publications like The Nation.

The difference between the academic atheism and the left wing movement was that the left relied on a massive amount of political propaganda to advance its goals. It was not at all a movement aimed at persuading only university professors of the merits of its goals, but a movement of destroying the cultural heritage of Western Christianity and replacing it with liberalism. Popular music and the arts were filled with leftist propaganda and atheist, consider musicians like Pete Seegar, the counterculture of the 1960's, the punk movement with musicians like The Clash and the Dead Kennedy embracing Marxist or left wing views. The goal was mass indoctrination of youth culture with leftist and atheist views.

In the 20th century, the left gained momentum in American higher education. Leftists filled the universities up. Many became disillusioned with the Soviet Union after more and more bad reports surfaced. Thinkers like Howard Zinn, (who wrote a play called Marx in Soho and The Peoples History of the United States) advanced radical, anti-American critiques of the American system, but instead of being relegated to secondary positions became textbooks in the post 1960s American education system as large numbers of former "hippies" and radicals became universities professors to advance their goals. The universities had always had a soft spot both for left wing politics, being to a large degree land grant organizations or public institutions and atheism which receive massive amounts of funds from the government which require political advocacy. The influence of atheism among intellectuals in the 19th and 20th centuries was great among science. Left wing scientists and atheists/pantheists/agnostics included eminent figures like Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russell (a libertarian socialist who at once time advocated unilateral disarmament while Hitler was militarizing Germany), Linus Pauling (who worked for a French organization run by a French Communist), Stephen J Gould (a Marxist paleontologist members of the group "Science for the people", Noam Chomsky (a linguistic who influenced Hugo Chavez). There are many, many other authors whose names are as common on the bookshelves of atheists as Che Guvera posters on the walls of atheist undergraduates.

Left wing atheism, as an unbroken chain of succession going back to the intellectual currents of Marx and the millions he influenced, influenced the sexual revolution. Marx was joined with Freud in the works of Herbert Marcuse. Sexuality and rejection of Christianity was seen as a force of liberation. Left wing atheism flourished in the fields of humanities, in which today very large numbers of professors are Marxist as well as in both analytic and continental philosophy. Continental Communists like Jean Paul Sarte influenced millions with their understanding of left wing. Derrida and the post-structuralists influenced modern culture substantially and advanced a left wing atheist fusion. Richard Rorty promoted the continental left wing atheist movement in the US.

A new era of post-modernism was said to have come, thanks to the influence of left wing atheism. Postmodernism influenced the arts and culture substantially, as the combination of left wing politics, atheism and critiques of language brought more and more into the fold.

This is not even scratching the surface of the relationship between atheism and left wing politics

What is radical for you?

A radical is someone who steps outside of the presently existing social order and advocates a very fast transition of society. Often radicals are in occupations like writers, university professors, community organizers and positions that do not necessarily require their ideas to be prove to have merit. A radical is someone who will advance a very theoretical idea of what the world is like sometimes with sound evidence that it is valid and sometimes with a very flimsy ideological preference. There is often nothing that prevents radicals from advocating ideas that don't have a chance of working. For an example, consider the anarchist movement, the only anarchist country in history was spain, which was quickly defeated in a military loss.

What is radicalism for you?

My mom was a radical and I grew up as a radical. I associate radicalism with naive thinking, unproven assumptions, dogmatism and a kind of idealism that is in many ways attractive but dangerous.

They seem to be proud of their tolerance of extreme views for an easily discernable and praiseworthy motive, the free access to information, but at the same time tend to completely neglect the damage that radicals can cause.

Can you prove that?

Study the way that the atheistic left treated the Soviet Union, before it collapsed.

[Darkstar]

What is radicalism for you?

I associate radicalism with naive thinking, unproven assumptions, dogmatism and a kind of idealism that is in many ways attractive but dangerous.

Is this you using irony again?

[Ryantology]

Atheists are often accepting of virtually all behavior, regardless of how destructive or how risky it may be.

The average atheist will laugh at the suggestion that political radicals are anything to take seriously or worry about.

There are radicals on the right wing which are certainly dangerous to America and the free world (should they ever take control of this country). They call themselves the Tea Party.

I dispute the notion that atheists 'often' accept virtually all behavior, but even if it was true, theists 'often' accept behavior nobody should, while actively opposing behaviors which are harmless to society, such as sex between consenting adults or mild drug use.