RE: hipster Atheist
March 11, 2013 at 12:19 am
(This post was last modified: March 11, 2013 at 12:22 am by 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.
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.
