Angry Atheists and Anti-Theists

[vulcanlogician]

I'm not a fan of the CIA either.

What I meant about "context" was: Who would pick on Spinoza EXCEPT those who have a problem with thinkers SIMPLY because they don't believe in God?

Sure, there are all kinds of suppression and human rights violations going on apart from religion. Not that it's excusable in any way, shape, or form, but CIA goons usually target rabble rousers when they torture, slay, or suppress the innocent. Religion goes one further and chooses to suppress hermits.

[Belacqua]

I'm not a fan of the CIA either.

What I meant about "context" was: Who would pick on Spinoza EXCEPT those who have a problem with thinkers SIMPLY because they don't believe in God?

Sure, there are all kinds of suppression and human rights violations going on apart from religion. Not that it's excusable in any way, shape, or form, but CIA goons usually target rabble rousers when they torture, slay, or suppress the innocent. Religion goes one further and chooses to suppress hermits.

A lot depends on how we define "rabble rousers." For US foreign policy, it often includes anyone who thinks the profits from local resources should go to local people. Many quiet people who only wanted peace have had their lives ruined due to this foreign policy. 

Spinoza's attacker thought Spinoza was a rabble rouser, making unnecessary objections to what he thought was the truth. Spinoza, of course, believed in God, and this belief didn't make him more violent. 

I don't know how we can calculate the extent to which religion increases or decreases violent tendencies in people. It seems likely to me, as Freud wrote in Civilization and Its Discontents, that the human animal contains irreconcilable paradoxes, and that violence is part of our nature. It may come through and be justified in different ways. I don't believe that religion is any more likely to be used as an excuse for violence than political opinion, or any number of other strong commitments. If there's one thing we're all good at, it's finding excuses for incivility and violence.

[vulcanlogician]

A lot depends on how we define "rabble rousers." For US foreign policy, it often includes anyone who thinks the profits from local resources should go to local people. Many quiet people who only wanted peace have had their lives ruined due to this foreign policy. 

Very true. I was reading an article recently claiming that the CIA assassinated Thomas Merton. So I suppose I have to redact my hermit comment.

Spinoza, of course, believed in God, and this belief didn't make him more violent. 

This is very much a matter for debate. I have a soft spot for Spinoza's "pantheism"... though he never called himself a pantheist... and I have my doubt whether he fits that mould. Perhaps. Perhaps not.

If you want to say Spinoza believes in God you have to include an asterisk. * Spinoza's God is identical with "nature." He says this plainly. He doesn't attach any intentionality whatsoever to the motions of God. God doesn't care about you or have any special awareness about you or your life. To Spinoza, anthropomorphizing God in any way is absurd. God's nature is not human nature... God has no desires, feelings, or motivations. He doesn't prefer any one thing over another.

Except perhaps the Hindu Brahman, among those Hindus who see Brahman as an impersonal force, there is no broadly accepted theistic doctrine that describes anything remotely like Spinoza's God. I personally think he was describing something like the Tao rather than a god. At any rate, his ideas more remble atheism than theism, especially theism in the Abrahamic traditions.

On a side note though, I guess you could say that Spinoza proved that God was real. But it was a bit of redfinition on his part. "Whatever is real, is God." By that definition God is real a priori.

[Belacqua]

Very true. I was reading an article recently claiming that the CIA assassinated Thomas Merton. 

Wow -- I hadn't heard that about Merton. It's to the point where the bad guys have done so much bad, even if the accusations seem far-fetched, they almost seem deserved. 

I brought up the CIA because I've been reading about them lately, but I only meant to give an example of a non-religion structure through which violence is justified. Soccer hooligans included. It's everywhere. 

I have a soft spot for Spinoza's "pantheism"... though he never called himself a pantheist... and I have my doubt whether he fits that mould. Perhaps. Perhaps not.

You know more about Spinoza than I do, so I readily admit that he may or may not deserve to be called religious. The extent to which God is innate in the universe is a fascinating question, and one that Christians, too, have gone around about. I'd love to study that all some more.

[The Grand Nudger]

CIA is one of those bottomless barrel kind of places, lol.

[vulcanlogician]

Wow -- I hadn't heard that about Merton. It's to the point where the bad guys have done so much bad, even if the accusations seem far-fetched, they almost seem deserved. 

I brought up the CIA because I've been reading about them lately...

Here's the article: http://edwardcurtin.com/speaking-the-uns...as-merton/

Contrary to the common view, there is really no mystery about how Merton died. The best evidence indicates beyond any serious doubt that Merton was murdered. It’s a simple fact that the average person is far more likely to be murdered than to be killed by an electric fan, and Merton was no average person. The story that a fan killed Merton is so preposterous that a series of fantastic stories have had to be invented to make it believable….Who did it and why? The CIA had the motive and the means.

Merton is one of my heroes because of his involvement in the anti-war movement and his advocacy of nonviolence. Apparently his anti-war activities are what landed him on the CIA's shit list (at least according to the article).

[Agnostico]

Well I read the whole thread (that's 1/2 an hour I'm never getting back again) My conclusion? The provocation, the passive aggression, the goading with deliberately inflammatory language and comments, the use of hackneyed old long debunked stereotypes of atheists..... The OP is trolling hard.

In other words uv got nuffin

---

At work.

Anyway answer the questions on my op people. A hand full of simple questions.
Why the anger? The anti theism? The preaching? The hate?

Hello!

So.... I identify myself as a 'Non-theist' as I feel it's a good fit.

I'm not angry.

I fail to see any evidence to indicate the presence of Odin, Zeus, Yahwey etc it's as simple as that.

No hate, no preaching just a simple reply post.

Cheers.

No not all atheists are angry there is bound to be some normal ones

But did anyone explain how one accepts his parents as "not knowing any better" but he still slams theists. That's not rational

[Gwaithmir]

When I was in Catholic high school, Aquinas' arguments were used to "prove" God's existence exactly the way Dawkins says they were used.

It's unfortunate that there are so many bad teachers in the world. Each of us has a responsibility to be as accurate as possible.

---

And you have failed in that responsibility. This is evident in your use of special pleading and unwarranted reinterpreting of Aquinas' arguments to support your bogus claim.

[Amarok]

In other words uv got nuffin

You have never had anything to respond too 

No not all atheists are angry there is bound to be some normal ones

For were I'm standing you seem like the angry one constantly exploding on the most minute of points and hair triggered to burst into vitriol over nothing  

But did anyone explain how one accepts his parents as "not knowing any better" but he still slams theists. That's not rational

No it's totally rational as there is no necessary contradiction between believing group A doesn't know any better and group be does and them both being theists or there not knowing any better and still being damnable . You don't logic much despite your constant nattering about logic .

[Agnostico]

No it's totally rational as there is no necessary contradiction between believing group A doesn't know any better and group be does and them both being theists or there not knowing any better and still being damnable . You don't logic much despite your constant nattering about logic .

So far uv just been a troll but i'll give u a chance and we'll see. There is no group A or B there is just the one group he is angry about
If his parents "don't know better" than neither do the rest. If his to be upset at anyone its his own parents who taught him that.
Thats who I was pissed off at first, my parents. Not random people. Random people did nothing to him or me