Collaboration with theists?

[Pippy]

Hey again all,

I have been away for a while, but I will admit that I missed you guys. I have been happening upon a lot of mainstream articles about atheism, and it's modern incantations, and I thought I would share one.

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.

Dawkins new book was good as well, but isn't the argument that Genesis is not a accurate account a very, very long dead horse? I live in the secular north, but I can't think of anyone I know that tries to "deny evolution". At least he is taking smaller bites now.

Any ways, thanks for listening. I hope I am still welcome here, and look forward to your responses.

The,
-Pip

[Secularone]

The very reason theism thrives is that too many freethinkers are willing to collaborate with theists.
The agenda of theists is to dumb-down and control the masses. And you criticize those who would place that agenda under critical scrutiny.

I think there is little hope for humanity because so many freethinkers are willing to pander to the enemies of freedom, equality and social justice by being silent.

You may call that "postitive atheism." I call it stupidity.

If you think you are enhancing your credibility by collaborating with the religious nuts, you are wrong.

We need more aggressive atheism, not more pandering.

[Edwardo Piet]

America is full of creationists - there's plenty of creationism over there, and there is a rise of creationism in Britain too for example. That's more or less why Dawkins wrote his new book I believe.

As for your point about "dogmatic atheists", some atheists are assholes but so are some theists. Atheists are just people who don't believe in God. Not all atheists go around demanding others give up their belief... in fact, even the strongest atheists I know don't do that. However militant they are, they don't shout "THERE IS NO GOD" from roof tops. Some may do, but I don't know of any!

I promote conversational intolerance as Sam Harris does. Open debate is important, rationality is important. It's important to not tolerate the intolerable, so long as you do it through non-harmful means.

As for the article, the article is extremely ignorant. Atheists vary all over as I have said, there is nothing about atheism that makes them automatically equate to the bigotry in that article. That is truly a gigantic straw man. Atheists not sharing anything at all with those who believe otherwise? How ridiculous. Atheists just don't believe in God, the rest is optional.

What is described in that article is not atheism. Atheism is merely disbelief in God, the rest is open.

Oh and btw, welcome back Pippy!

I almost forgot after that article lol.

Oh, and I agree with Secularone that I think we need more militant atheists not softy ones. I think religion should be fought against by non-violent means. Religion is a virus IMO.

Also, there's no such thing as a fundamentalist atheist. There is only one fundamental and one thing that=atheism, and that's non-belief in God. There are no fundamental beliefs to be fundamentalist about, there is merely 1 disbelief. Millitant is a different thing...and you can be a rational or irrational militant atheist, depending on your arguments. E.G: Gnostic atheists are irrational, so if they militantly claim to know God doesn't exist, that's bad because they can't know that and their arguments are bullshit. Agnostic atheists on the other hand, that disbelieve God because there's no evidence for example, but accept that God may possibly exist - but is still extremely unlikely - disbelieve for a much more rational reason.

EvF

[leo-rcc]

Okay, it's not up north, but still in the UK:

http://www.genesisexpo.co.uk/

As for the article, it is not surprising that some Atheists take a harder stance against certain religions. Pinn descibes them as Anti-theists, which I believe to be false. They merely react to the divisiveness of certain religions, Christianity ans Islam in particular. I doubt these "Anti-theists" have any issue with Janism, or Hinduism, or volcano worshiping. These religions do not try to force their "morals" down our throats and in our lawbooks.

The way I see it Pinn downplays the divisiveness of in particular the Abrahamic religions. On one hand you have faith that makes people fly planes into buildings, genitally mutilate young girls, murder abortion doctors (in church), stone adultresses, outlaw certain forms of consensual sex or even just make it impossible to buy beer on Sunday in some countries. On the other hand there is the atheist "faith" that makes people put ads on buses, file frivolous lawsuits against nativity scenes on public property, and the like. Show me what harm in the world an atheist has done in the name of atheism.

Pinn also incorrectly assumes that these hard-line stances against religion is something new, it isn't. Read the likes of D'holbach or Shelley which makes Dawkins look like a pussy.

[Pippy]

Hey,

Thanks for the welcome EvF.

The agenda of theists is to dumb-down and control the masses.

Greetings Secularone, thank you for your response. I am a theist, although not of any organized religion, and I assure you that dumbing down and control are not my mission at all. In fact, I am trying to enlighten and promote freedom, so either your statement about theists is incorrect, or I am not a theist.

If you think you are enhancing your credibility by collaborating with the religious nuts, you are wrong.

I am not concerned about my "credibility". I am not collaborating with the "nuts", I am saying that the point that we could work together as theists and atheists is a good one. I am willing to let you believe whatever you want to, would you offer the same freedom to me? I can't see any difference from a fundamental christian (as example) being pushy and controlling, and an atheists being the same.

We need more aggressive atheism, not more pandering.

That seems like a dangerous state of mind. I would agree with you if you could prove atheism without a doubt, but no one likes to try that. Now feel free to tell me that you are not making a point, that you only disbelieve. Say that I have to first "prove god" before you will try to disprove her... I know about the "burden of proof" trap. But until atheism and theism are no longer personal views, who's to say who's right and who's wrong?

Thank you for sharing.

Not all atheists go around demanding others give up their belief...

Hey also, EvF. Always a pleasure
Are not the atheists in this article acting just like that? Other than Hitchens quote at the end... And if they are acting like that, is there not something wrong with the way they are acting?

I agree that organized religion has led to some horrible flaws, absolutely. But why did they lead to those flaws? I think it is dogmatic, fanatical belief. And I see the same flaw growing the some of the atheist community, it is just a dogmatic and fanatical disbelief. I can't stand someone trying to force their belief (or lack of) on others. And I assume they won't stop with the crazy goal of abolishing world religion, they will move on to the mental disability (as they may see it) of belief, and then we will have a big problem (myself and them).

I am not at all saying you guys all think like that, I know much better. But I am pointing out that I disagree with that state or mind, and wonder what you guys think...

Show me what harm in the world an atheist has done in the name of atheism.

I don't want to go there Leo, because I know it is an argument I cannot win, but are you alluding that no atheist has ever done anything harmful in the name of atheism? Ever? Religions record is likely far worse, but disbelief is not spotless I am sure. Thank you as well for your response.

It was good to talk to you three again, Thank you.

-Pip

[leo-rcc]

Show me what harm in the world an atheist has done in the name of atheism.

I don't want to go there Leo, because I know it is an argument I cannot win, but are you alluding that no atheist has ever done anything harmful in the name of atheism? Ever?

That is exactly what I am saying.

I've never heard of anyone doing something harmful in name of their non belief in fairies, or goblins, or gods. While I can cite just from the top of my head several examples of harm people have done because of their faith and their overzealous pursuit to please their deity in the way they think is right.

[Secularone]

Pippy, allow me to clarify my points. 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.

Of course, I have never met anyone who confessed to that agenda. 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.

I am as aggressive as any atheist I have ever met. In fact, I know hundreds and not one is willing to deny a theist the right to believe and practice their faith. However, it is common to hear this accusation resonating among theists. Why?

1. If I dare to publicly call their teachings “bullshit”, am I trampling their rights? No! They are free to believe whatever they like.
2. If I dare to publicly object to them forcing me to sit through their religious observances at public events, am I trampling their rights? No! They can hold their religious observances in private.
3. If I dare publicly object to them forcing my children to join them in prayer in public schools, am I trampling their rights? No! They can pray in private.
4. If I dare publicly object to theists brainwashing my children with religious bullshit is public schools, am I trampling their rights? No! They can teach whatever they like in private institutions.
5. If I dare publicly object to them discriminating against people on the basis of religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc., am I trampling their rights? No! They can hate as much as they like. But they don't have the right to make their hate public policy!
6. If I dare publicly object to their many laws and ordinances restricting human rights, freedom, equality and/or social justice, am I trampling their rights? No! They can restrict themselves. They don’t have to restrict everyone else.

The fact is I have never advocated the repression of legitimate religious exercise in any manner whatsoever. But I will admit that I do not regard trampling the rights of others a legitimate religious exercise. If you think theists have that right then I can understand why you think I’m trampling the rights of theists.

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, I reserve the right to criticize your faith all the while. In no way does that deny you any right whatsoever.

As far as filing frivolous lawsuits is concerned… You might consider that they are intended to keep our government out of the business of promoting religion. I don’t think such lawsuits are frivolous at all. They are intended to keep this country free for both theists and non-theists as well. The day our government becomes an advocate of any religious position whatsoever, be it theist or atheist, we’re all screwed. I know many theists who agree. They worry the government might endorse a religion different than theirs. They have a valid worry.

If you think critically about it... "freedom of religion" is nothing more than "freedom from somebody elses religion."

And no! Atheists are not demanding the government promote atheism. We are demanding the government remain neutral. Big difference in these two agendas.

I know of no atheist that demands that any theist give up their belief. I certainly can’t say there are none in the whole world of six billion people. But I certainly think it’s reasonable to say they would be rare and they would be crazy to think they could get what they wanted.

Yes, I am an atheist who will do everything in his power to get you to think critically about what you believe. And I will do so in the hope that you will abandon dogma in favor of reason. But it would be stupid of me to demand anything. I can’t even demand that you read what I have to say. So, who is demanding?

[fr0d0]

---

The very reason theism thrives is that too many freethinkers are willing to collaborate with theists.
The agenda of theists is to dumb-down and control the masses. And you criticize those who would place that agenda under critical scrutiny.

I think there is little hope for humanity because so many freethinkers are willing to pander to the enemies of freedom, equality and social justice by being silent.

You may call that "postitive atheism." I call it stupidity.

If you think you are enhancing your credibility by collaborating with the religious nuts, you are wrong.

We need more aggressive atheism, not more pandering.

---

And you call this hate mongering an unbiased opinion! "enemies of freedom, equality and social justice" "dumb down and control the masses" "stupidity" "collaborating with religious nuts"

Likewise shouldn't I level the same accusations at you? I am not a fundamentalist but you are.

"I am as aggressive as any atheist I have ever met. In fact, I know hundreds and not one is willing to deny a theist the right to believe and practice their faith. However, it is common to hear this accusation resonating among theists. Why?"

You call the above tirade no affront to my personal freedom??? You accuse me of being what I'm not. I represent no threat to yourself and even take your side against theistic censorship. I also take sides against you in anti theistic censorship.

But then in reality I won't seek to oppress you at all. I believe you should have the right to espouse your vitriol, no matter how disgusting it gets. I will stand by you and want to help you to understand rather that wield the big hammer on you. This I think is the thrust of Pippy's post.

Show me what harm in the world an atheist has done in the name of atheism.

I don't want to go there Leo, because I know it is an argument I cannot win, but are you alluding that no atheist has ever done anything harmful in the name of atheism? Ever?

That is exactly what I am saying.

I've never heard of anyone doing something harmful in name of their non belief in fairies, or goblins, or gods. While I can cite just from the top of my head several examples of harm people have done because of their faith and their overzealous pursuit to please their deity in the way they think is right.

Well that's hardly fair. How can you do harm in the name of something you don't believe in? Take my own faith.. I don't know anyone that has acted in the spirit of the faith and done harm. I know of very many corrupt people who have used it to their own end.. so are you saying you want to stop people having ideas? Because that's the only way you'd stop ideas being abused.

[Edwardo Piet]

Pippy, there's no such thing as doing something "in the name of atheism", because all atheism is is not believing in God, nothing more, nothing less. How does not believing in God lead to anything? Religions are belief systems, atheism isn't. Atheism doesn't even have one positive belief, unless it's gnostic atheism. And then even gnostic atheism doesn't necessarily imply militant gnostic atheism....

And when agnostic atheists, for instance, are being "militant", whether they do this in a conversational and constructive way or a harmful way is a matter of their human nature as individuals...it's got nothing whatsoever to do with atheism.

A dogmatic atheist? How can you be dogmatic about the fact you don't believe?

If you are speaking about arrogant or intolerant atheists, then as I said - that's a matter of human nature, not atheism. There are arrogant and intolerant atheists, but this has got nothing to do with their atheism. There are also arrogant and intolerant theists, and this can, like with atheists - be part of their human nature...but also: They have beliefs to follow in their religion, because religions are belief systems. This does not apply with atheism because atheism is not a belief system.

There is nothing more to atheism than disbelieving God, the rest is optional, as I said. Theism on the other hand, has beliefs that drive it that are related to their theism.

I'm glad you felt welcomed by my Pippy, I consider myself a militant atheist because I am against religion and my opposition to religion is important to me. I would hope that my opposition is harmless though, and I support the conversational (non-violent) intolerance that Sam Harris advocates.

And I'm certainly not a dogmatic atheist...because as said above: There is no such thing. Atheism cannot be dogmatic because it carries no dogma. Not believing in God is not dogma, and that's all atheism is. 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. It's got nothing to do with atheism which is merely disbelieving God. Unless it's gnostic atheism, but even gnostic atheists who positively believe there is no God don't necessarily go shoving that down people's throats. Even I can vouch for that, I used to be a gnostic atheist and believe there definitely are no gods whatsoever, but I was very apathetic about the whole issue, I didn't really care much. I'm much more militant now and yet I'm an agnostic atheist now, not a gnostic one. And, like Adrian, I believe agnostic atheism is the only logical form of atheism. Gnostic atheism commits the logical fallacy of Negative Proof!

EvF

[fr0d0]

There's no such thing as doing something in the name of theism either BTW

I'm not a 'militant' theist. I don't get why you need that label. It surely has to encompass intolerance? Even intellectual intolerance (I hope no one was ever suggesting physical violence). Maybe we can be intolerant of fundamentalism no matter what the flavour. I'm intolerant of theistic fundamentalism, yet you cannot be intolerant of atheistic fundamentalism... maybe that's revealing. I don't accept your plea of poor downtrodden underdog either. Religion is on it's last legs in the west. Atheism is by far the majority.