Collaboration with theists?

[Pippy]

Hey,

Good discussion.

Not believing in God doesn't drive you to want to stab people. That was something in you - it's got nothing to with atheism.

So if a theist does something bad, his belief drove him too it, but if an atheist does something bad it is a personal failing? What about the theists personal accountability?

There is no such thing as atheist fundamentalism.

I am using the concepts of dogmatic and fundamentalist atheist in the sense that they are acting dogmatic and fanatical. I know there is no dogma, but it is a comparison to the dogmatic fundamental believers and how they act.

Thanks EvF.

That is exactly what I am saying.

That's unfortunate Leo. I seriously doubt that no one ever made and poor decisions or hurt anyone else and based those ideas on a lack of belief. I am not gonna squabble and make bad examples of it, I just really, really doubt that such a large group of humans could be so perfect.

If you are in fact a theist evangelical, that is, you teach religious ignorance to others, it is your agenda to dumb-down and control.

Hey again SO. I am not evangelical, no. I am not religious. I hold organized religion in almost the same contempt that you do, I just happen to believe in god. I assure you that I don't want to dumb down and control. I have spent my life fighting those who dumb down and control, so by proxy I am attempting to enlighten and promote freedom. Not freedom to see it my way, but freedom to see it however you choose.

It is a given that you are among them.

See that is the problem. I confess to belief in a higher power, and am automatically your enemy. That means you are likely fanatical about your disbelief. Is it possible that I believe in god and am not evil?

Am I willing to let you believe whatever you want? Yes, I’ll fight to the death to protect your right to do so.

But would you abolish world religion? If so where is the line where you let us believe?

"freedom of religion" is nothing more than "freedom from somebody elses religion."

Absolutely, yes. I want you to be free from others beliefs, as much as I want others to be free of yours.

So, who is demanding?

Not I...

Thank you for your time SO.

I represent no threat to yourself and even take your side against theistic censorship. I also take sides against you in anti theistic censorship.

Hey Frodo, good to see you again, although your avatar has gotten scary. That was a very good point.

If an atheist goes further than that and their attitude and behaviour is ostensibly dogmatic, it seems dogmatic on the outside - then that's to do with the individual.

Hey again EvF, I agree with this. But if a theist takes it further and gets dogmatic, is it not their individual responsibility as well? It theists dogmatism part and parcel, but atheistic dogmatism some rare mutation?

Religion is not on its last legs in the west. America is full of religion, especially Christianity... and also full of creationism.

I'm not sure if I agree with you, I know a lot of Americans. I agree with Frodo, you guys are surely the majority, especially in the younger generations. I knoe for a fact there is less and less Genesis Creationists, literal biblical creationists. It is a very rare breed nowadays. But ID creationists, people who think there might be an element of design somewhere in our reality still exist, although not in the majority at all.

The proof is in scripture and it's in many sermons in many churches, synagogues and mosques around the world.

But if, SO, I am not religious, and hold none of these institutions to be correct, then am I still your enemy? Is there a difference between their hate, and the "abolish all religion" agenda?

I only wanted to show an example of one of the ideas I have seen from atheism, that we need to do everything we can to stop world religion. We need to do everything we can to make people stop beliving in God. And I think that takes it over the line, and they have become the abyss. An atheist trying to abolish religion is no different that a religious zealot trying to abolish atheism. What ever happened to "We don't think there is a god, but because we may be wrong, we won't fore everyone else into our world view"? I personally think there is a god, but I may be wrong, and so I don't force others to think like me. I posted this article to demonstrate a side of atheism that could be described as dogmatic or fanatical, and to denounce that fanaticism along with all its other flavours...

Thanks everyone for listening.

-Pip

[Edwardo Piet]

So if a theist does something bad, his belief drove him too it, but if an atheist does something bad it is a personal failing?

No... theists can do things because of something unrelated to their theism of course. But they can also do things because of their theist belief system - because of their specific religion. Atheists on the other hand cannot, it can only be because of them as individuals or some other belief system... because atheism isn't a belief system. Whereas theism implies some religious belief system, some religion... and religions are belief systems[/i].

What about the theists personal accountability?

That counts too of course. But religions are belief systems... atheism isn't.

I am using the concepts of dogmatic and fundamentalist atheist in the sense that they are acting dogmatic and fanatical. I know there is no dogma, but it is a comparison to the dogmatic fundamental believers and how they act.

Well that's all very well... but the difference is that atheism can't drive you to be dogmatic in itself, because it's not even a belief system that can be interpreted that way. It would have to be something apart from atheism to make atheists dogmatic... there is nothing moral or immoral about atheism itself... because atheism itself is nothing more than disbelieving in God, and there's nothing moral or immoral about that.

Thanks EvF.

Well, no problem. And thank you too Pippy. And once again, welcome back.

In fact, I was only recently thinking about you and wondering where you got to. Welcome back.

EvF

[fr0d0]

Not believing in God doesn't drive you to want to stab people. That was something in you - it's got nothing to with atheism.

Hating religious people also is not part of atheism. You can get very apathetic atheists for example. Or you can get atheists such as myself that hate religion but not religious people.

Disliking religious people isn't atheism, it's anti-theism. And even if you're an anti-theist, you don't necessarily hate theists so much that you want to stab them...

EvF

So it's ok for me to be fundamentalist as a theist, but for an atheist fundamentalism is impossible! How convenient.

I was atheist and because of my atheist beliefs hated Christians so much I wanted to stab them. I see here very many people very angry at their past experiences with religion, and I can sympathize.

Atheism does not equal theist stabbing nut jobs. Theism isn't an evil scourge. PEOPLE can be atheist theist stabbing nut jobs like myself. PEOPLE can do bad stuff in the name of religion.

Kyu wishes to censor the opinion of theists because he will not tolerate equality. Racist South Africa didn't allow black people the vote because they wouldn't tolerate equality.

[Secularone]

So, Pippy… your not evangelical. But here you are evangelizing. For instance…

1. You accuse atheist activists of trampling the rights of theists. I’m still waiting for you to clarify that. Exactly what have we done that tramples theists rights?
2. You accuse atheist activists of filing frivolous lawsuits. What’s frivolous about suing to uphold the 1st Amendment of the Constitution?
3. You accuse me of considering you an enemy. I never said that. I take no such position. I am the enemy of religion. I am not the enemy of theists. Big difference. Theists may consider me their enemy. Some do, some don’t. I have many theist friends.

Yes, Pippy. It is possible that you might believe in a god and are not evil. There is no connection. However, as EvF points out, there is someting about organized religion that inspires evil. Big difference.

Would I abolish religion if I had the power to wave a magic wand and make it happen? No. I would not impose my world view upon the world by force. However, if I could convince the world to freely abandon religion in favor of reason, I would do so. What's wrong with that?

And, Pippy… when have you not been free from my beliefs? I have passed no laws. I have not attempted to deny you freedom of religion. I don’t force you to read what I write. I don’t force you to consider what I have to say. I don’t invade your private life, your home, your mailbox or your computer with my ideas. How can you imply that you are not free from me or any other atheist?

And what’s this stuff about anti-theistic censorship? What theist is being censored, when and where?
Are you referring to those occasions when atheists object to theists using the government to impose religion on us without our consent. The religious nuts claim they’re being censored. You side with them and call that censorship? Spit it out… exactly what issues are you siding with them on?

And what’s with this “abolish all religion” agenda you mention? Where did you get the idea atheists are trying to force anyone to their world view? I’m unaware of any such movement among atheists. But that’s just another false claim that comes right out of Fundamentalism.

Quite honestly, Pippy, you claim you are not religious, but I sense something very wrong with that claim. I’m hearing too many groundless assertions that sound very much like they spring from a Christian Fundamentalist church. It wouldn’t be the first time some religious nut tried to pass himself off as a freethinker.

In fact, as I sit here pondering this, I’m asking myself how a Christian Fundamentalist’s arguments would differ from yours? And the answer I keep getting is “They wouldn’t.”

Personally, I don’t care what your religious inclinations are. But I sense that you are misrepresenting yours. And I’m not as gullible as I once was, so I’m not believing in your so-called objectivity.

[Pippy]

It would have to be something apart from atheism to make atheists dogmatic...

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.

I wonder what point could be made about how some religious fanatics are also personally responsible, or self-motivated into their extremism as well. I admit that religion has a slightly higher penchant for dogmatism itself though...

I just think the statement "Religion is whats wrong with the world" is a little fanatical. And, curiously, I think fanaticism is whats wrong with the world. 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).

Thanks EvF.

---

But here you are evangelizing.

You accuse atheist activists of trampling the rights of theists.

Did I? I don't recall making such an assertion. I said that some of the more fanatical atheists are "trampling the rights" of some theists, and I see a flaw in that behavior...

You accuse atheist activists of filing frivolous lawsuits.

I am certain I said nothing about frivolous lawsuits.

You accuse me of considering you an enemy.

I asked you if you considered me an enemy, and you answered my question, there were no accusations.

I have passed no laws. I have not attempted to deny you freedom of religion. I don’t force you to read what I write. I don’t force you to consider what I have to say. I don’t invade your private life, your home, your mailbox or your computer with my ideas.

And I have also done none of the same to you. Others may have passed strange laws and invaded your private life, but not I. And I also feel my legal and private life impinged, but I do not at all hold you accountable and responsible for what others have done.

Spit it out… exactly what issues are you siding with them on?

Freedom to believe or disbelieve what you will.

I’m unaware of any such movement among atheists.

Did you read the article? The part of abolishing world religion is such a movement, is it not?

groundless assertions that sound very much like they spring from a Christian Fundamentalist church.

That's the same thing Kyu used to say. "I have never heard of someone who believes in god, but is not part of an organized religion..." I guess you should wait with baited breath for the other shoe to drop and for me to start quoting scripture, but it'll be a long wait. If I could be pigeon-holed into any structure it would certainly not be christian, I just celebrated Samhein if you need a clue. But that is not to say that I am of the organized religion of... Irish paganism? I just prefer that to the silly Halowe'en thing.

I’m asking myself how a Christian Fundamentalist’s arguments would differ from yours? And the answer I keep getting is “They wouldn’t.”

Sure they would, they would quote the bible as divine truth, and I will not. There is one difference for a start.

The only point I am trying to make is that I don't think there is a meaningful difference between religious fanaticism and atheist fanaticism. That fanatics of any stripe are the problem, not religious people as a whole (or disbelievers as a whole). Thank you for sharing.

-Pip

[Violet]

The only point I am trying to make is that I don't think there is a meaningful difference between religious fanaticism and atheist fanaticism. That fanatics of any stripe are the problem, not religious people as a whole (or disbelievers as a whole). Thank you for sharing.

Indeed... but it should also be noted that the very existence of religious people brings forth many problems on its own.

[Pippy]

Hey Sae, thank you for the post.

the very existence of religious people brings forth many problems on its own.

To myself, that seems like a polite, but very limited view of that subject. It is a nice way of saying that we should do away with religion, or a precursor thought in that train.

The very existence of religious people has a good side and a bad. Some pros, some cons. Some help and some hurt... As the very existence of secular people has a good side and a bad. It cannot be that all things that religion causes are bad and all secularism good. Things can not be that simple, I think, when we are talking about systems that involve humans, who are stupefyingly complex.

I am not saying that religion has not caused badness, I have very many problems with OR as well. And I am not trying to demonize Secularism at all either. I don't want to get in an argument of which mindstate is better/worse, or if religion has caused more pain than prudence because we likely would agree.

It just seems that your sentence should not exclude that good things must have happened from religious influence, and bad things happened without it at some time or another.

I talk too much, that is what they always told me
Thanks for listening.

And Secularone, just to try to clarify (because I am not always very clear, it's not you it's me)...

They all claim as you do that they are trying to enlighten and promote freedom. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is a given that you are among them.

It's not that I was making accusations, but that I was trying to disagree with this statement. The fact that I claim to try to encourage freedom and enlightenment makes it a "given" that I am among "them" (so no one that ever espoused these qualities was secular?). I am taking "them" to mean Evangelicals, or even just members of organized religion. I am also assuming that you consider certain members of OR personal enemies, only from the few things you've said... So I was poking at it because I disagree that I am "among them", and since they are your enemies, I was disagreeing with the assumption that you might consider me an enemy (see above). But if you don't, than I appreciate that, and of course don't consider you one of mine. I have enough. I appreciate your time, and am just trying to avoid unnecessary disagreements because I can be confusing (and long winded).

Thanks,
-Pip

[Violet]

To myself, that seems like a polite, but very limited view of that subject. It is a nice way of saying that we should do away with religion, or a precursor thought in that train.

It was indeed a polite way to say that.

People believing in things without any evidence is a bad thing in and of itself, imo. That is a problem, because it allows people to believe in ridiculous things... often without questioning them, or under-questioning them. I call the extreme end of faith 'religion'... and I think that it is bad for everyone that some people believe that religion speaks true.

I am not saying that it can't at times be good... but usually the opposite holds true, or it is otherwise benign. I don't mean to exclude the fact that good and bad things happen with and without it... but it should be noted that religion and fanaticism are both inherently bad... but that they can each do good things.

You don't talk too much, and there is no need to thank me for listening

[Secularone]

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/...religion/1

The article makes some strong points, and I found it quite pertinent. It is what I have been saying for some time, something I am sure I have said here before. That the bottom line is freedom of thought, and that "dogmatic" or "militant" atheists are crossing one of those very important lines by acting like the mentioned convention. To demand that others see the world as you do is the hallmark of fundamentalism. It is what turned many of us off of mainstream religion. That the article states that there was no mention of "Collaboration, compromise or shared ethical commitments" between our groups is telling.

It feels like some of these more hard line dogmatic atheists have been given a modern world that finally gives them freedom of choice, and so they step up to the plate and try to deny others the same freedom. I am sure some of you will say that atheism is based on "the facts", but I see no difference between fanatics on both sides. As I know I have said before, the problem is not belief or disbelief, it is fanaticism.

Pippy, your statements here betray the fact that you had your mind made up even before you read the article. But worse still, it gave you reason to reinforce your bias without further investigation.

I suspect you've never been to an Atheist Alliance convention. I have been to several and was a member of AAI for several years. In fact, I served on the Board as Recording Secretary. So, I think I know something about AAI and their conventions.

They are not as Pinn claims. While it is true there is no affection for religion expressed there, there is definitely a bias against aggressive atheism. In fact, many of their leaders are on record taking a stand against what they call "negative atheism." That would be any form of aggressive evangelism on the part of atheists that would give atheists a bad reputation.

Well, the fact that I protest Christian fascism in front of churches and on the streets with my signs makes me a "bad" atheist in their opinion. I don't agree.

This stand is the very reason AAI and I had a parting of ways. I resigned my membership in disgust of their so-called "positive atheism" stance that in my opinion amounts to essentially vilifying anyone who dares attack religion in an aggressive fashion in favor of their tactic which is to essentially doing nothing but go to conventions, ridicule religion among themselves and pat each other on the back.

Of the 120 or so atheists that attend their convention, I know of no one who would dare confront religious nuts on their own turf as I do. Of course, Pinn would know nothing of this and neither would you.

But the truth is I and a very small handful of atheist activists are the only ones aggressive in our confrontation of religion, probably in the whole damn world. And none of us have the agenda, or the arrogance to meet the negative criteria described by you and Pinn.

Our activism is solely a legitimate educational exercise. And while Pinn and Fundamentalists may not like what we do, it is unscrupulous of them to spread lies in an attempt to vilify us.

You want to call me a fanatic. Fine. I think I am one. That's fair. But not the other things you attribute to atheist fanatics. Those are lies.

Pinn doesn't understand AAI or atheism and neither do you.

AAI doesn't understand me and neither do you. They are more concerned about their image than anything else. (Their efforts have been for naught, (with people like Pinn spreading lies about them.) That is basically what I tried to tell them. No matter what they do, religious nuts will lie about them in an attempt to disenfranchise them. And of course, I'm right, as Pinn proves.

My objective is not to destroy religion, but rather to change it into something positive.

In fact, I am a member of a Unitarian Universalist congregation. They have no dogma. But they cherish seven principles. You should check them out.

Again, I ask you what I or any other atheist has done that denies you the freedom to believe as you wish? You answer with vague answers that amount to an indictment without specifics. Come clean with the specifics and let's examine our behavior to see if you have a case against us.

You won't come clean with specifics, simply because you don't have any. We have done nothing to deserve your criticism. You just can't muster the integrity to admit that.

And again, I am not convinced that you are in any way objective in your position with respect to atheism. You even admitted that Pinn's article only confirmed your previously held opinion. What specifically caused you to arrive at such conclusions?

[fr0d0]

I think I have the right SO to say if you call me on something which I am not. 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.

From Leo's sig:

"For christians to be considered extremists, they have to murder a doctor who performs abortions. For muslims to be considered extremists, they have to be suicide bombers. For atheists to be considered extremists, they just have to say out loud that they are atheists." Ayaan

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."