Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You have failed to convince me. My point is that there are some progressive religious folks who would be a lot more sane and rational, then any of the fundamentalists. I tend to have a great deal of respect for the former, as opposed to the latter. So for example some the progressive religious folks would believe that evolution is a God-directed process as the latter would instead believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old. I honestly would have no problem with someone believing that evolution is God-directed because at they know that evolution is science and creationism is not. And allow me to cite you some references:
Perfect sense, but this has been discussed before. The more Bible -literalist, shall we say, opt for the Bible rather than what science says. Your point that those who give up such untenable positions in order to hold onto the rest may be more reasonable and less irrrational - but that is only a means to an end; a tactic to prevent total collapse. It doesn't alter the fact that the god -claim itself is irrational. Believe me, every attempt in the book had been produced to make a claim for a god, and none have delivered. Whether you are convinced is neither here nor there. This is the situation.
That is not even to make the arguments such as 'they denied evolution; now you accept we were right.
We have made a damn' good case on morals, Bible reliability, the Gospels and prophecy. I/D. Kalam, appeal to unknowns have all been shown to fail. Just when does atheism start to get some credit for perhaps being the ones who have got it right?
First of all before I get into responding to your post, TRANSPONDER, I do want to mention that I don't typically see you as one of the people I am referencing. So, although you may be defending them, I just want you to know that I don't see my response as an attack on you and the way you act so much as criticism of what you're supporting.
I don't see your posts as personal, and it wouldn't bother me if I did. In fact I see myself as Militant Atheist as much as any. I is rue that I may disapprove of some methods that some use, but personals just get in the way of geneal argumentsji
Quote:
I view this as a false equivocation on atheism. Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity. It is not a belief in exterminating religion.
correct. But while atheism is no more than a basic position on (and to) the god -claim. The knock on effect it has on our lives, worldview and even politics is often huge. After all Theism is merely 'an acceptance of the God -claim'. But to say 'It is not living your life, society and politics in line with the guidance of Jesus Christ and he Holy Spirit would be to state the irrelevant obvious.
Quote:
I think he went about attacking atheists in an odd way that probably wasn't extremely effective, but when I asked about it, his reasoning seemed sound. He would also equivocate on words, I think purposefully, to get atheists going.
Whatever. I'm rather saying what atheism is, is not and where we are trying to get to, in contrast to what you and others (including Arach) seem to say about us You can't blame us - we already have a centiry of faecal polemics to shovel, without more being dumped on us.
Quote:
Frankly I don't know what you're saying.
We are in agreement about "the ends justify the means" being bad? Or you think it's good, but it's crazy I said it was bad? Or you think atheists don't do that at all and I am wrong and crazy for saying it?
It looked like you were busting on atheism for having that view point. And it struck me as in line with 'Atheism = Genocide'. Generally I am VERY cautious about doing evil that good will come of it. In the case of atheism, our name stinks so bad we can't afford anything other than squeaky clean! Now you say you don't like it, and it looked like you were saying atheism did, which is a stike against them. So I fail to see what you are not following.
Quote:
I don't know how to respond to this.
yes or No would do fine.
Quote:
I just wanted to clarify because I was worried what I said would make you think I was directly attacking you and I was also interested in where you would position yourself on the spectrum between the two stances I mentioned.
Like I say, I don't mind personal attacks. o.... I pretend not to. They are fine if a sound point is being made. Now where i am on the spectrum is a bit academic. What the spectrum is, is more debatable. There are those who would see it for a Sweet reasonabe position, with atheist denial on one end and Bible literalist at the other and each as bad. And the one in the middle (variously interpreted from 'I don't know there is a god but will believe in one anyway' to 'I don' believe the whole Bible -just the bits I like -but I try to live as Jesus would approve' may like o think of themselves as a reasonable compromise, but in fact their position is no much more rational than the Bible -literalist Fundy, even if it is more willing to make accommodation wih the rational humanist position atheism represents.
Arach couldn't see i, but maybe you can: Athesim on reason and evidence is Right. Thus sweet reasonables are not such, but a more accommodationalist version of Wrong on reason and evidence.
Quote:
I'm not entirely sure what gorget is or an ecceisiastical pinch, but I do think that we are generally in agreement here. I would say that when religion attempts to create a law or to enforce doctrine, we must be able to call it into question, just as we would with any non-religious idea. We need to be able to say "no, that's wrong". For me, that is first and foremost.
I agree the freedom to question -everything. But that's only par of it. The mental tools we use to answer the questions are important, too. Appeals to Tradition, Innate instincts, or the Good Bits in the Bible is not the way to do it. There are just too many people seem to think it is, and regrettably too many fluffy Christians think fluffy God -input is reliable, and showering "love" everywhere does not mean that they are too Nice to be told they are doing it wrong.
Gorget. Neck ornament. Military. Epithet for up to the neck.
Here's my point. Militant atheists tend to vilify religious people in general. Not just the fundamentalists. They think if one person is religious in any way shape or form, that person is insane. To me that is bleep. It's ridiculous to that if you are religious, then you are automatically irrational.
How else would one refer to someone who, in 2017, still believes in the existence of gods?? Such a person is as irrational as someone who, in 2017, believes that that the Earth is flat...and deserves just as much ridicule.
...and yes. I am a militant atheist who would love to see religion (read ignorance and superstition) eradicated from the public arena.
Last edited by mensaguy; 06-14-2017 at 04:15 AM..
Reason: Quoted post edited
How else would one refer to someone who, in 2017, still believes in the existence of gods?? Such a person is as irrational as someone who, in 2017, believes that that the Earth is flat...and deserves just as much ridicule.
You really overplay your hand, Rafe. There is evidence against a flat earth. There is no comparable evidence against the existence of God especially when your fall back position is "We do NOT know!" Chill!
Quote:
...and yes. I am a militant atheist who would love to see religion (read ignorance and superstition) eradicated from the public arena.
We can find agreement about such issues, Rafe, without making unsupportable hyperbolic claims about God.
I can see where Gldnrule gets his 'Zich..Nada!" argument from, old chum. The Flat earth argument is more like the Bible argument. It is There and seems to be telling us history, just as the earth seems to be flat. Evidence that takes a bit of proving, shows this is not the case.
The God -claim is different. There is nothing there but the claim. The evidence sharked up to support it merely needs to be shown to have other (if not better) natural explanations (1), and that is the god -claim busted.
Faith -belief is yet again skewing your logic. Atheism does not need to disprove a god, merely to debunk the evidence put forward to support it. You and other brands of theists are never going to argue from a logical position until you get Hip (as Goldie would say) to that.
I must apologize, Folks, for the appalling typing of my previous posts. My keyboard needs a good kicking, my eyes are not what they were (they used to be prawn -balls) and typing in the small hours tanked up with Magners and Old Toby is not conducive to meticulous accuracy.
(1) please don't pull out the old 'you cannot explain everything" argument. We do not need o explain electricity down to the last nano -particle to credit the explanation of how it works.
I can see where Gldnrule gets his 'Zich..Nada!" argument from, old chum. The Flat earth argument is more like the Bible argument. It is There and seems to be telling us history, just as the earth seems to be flat. Evidence that takes a bit of proving, shows this is not the case.
The God -claim is different. There is nothing there but the claim. The evidence sharked up to support it merely needs to be shown to have other (if not better) natural explanations (1), and that is the god -claim busted.
Faith -belief is yet again skewing your logic. Atheism does not need to disprove a god, merely to debunk the evidence put forward to support it. You and other brands of theists are never going to argue from a logical position until you get Hip (as Goldie would say) to that.
(1) please don't pull out the old 'you cannot explain everything" argument. We do not need o explain electricity down to the last nano -particle to credit the explanation of how it works.
correct. But while atheism is no more than a basic position on (and to) the god -claim. The knock on effect it has on our lives, worldview and even politics is often huge. After all Theism is merely 'an acceptance of the God -claim'. But to say 'It is not living your life, society and politics in line with the guidance of Jesus Christ and he Holy Spirit would be to state the irrelevant obvious.
Yes, I guess I can agree to this to some degree - but when you say "atheists who have a beef with atheism" I get the idea that you want atheism to be the agenda to eradicate religion. I don't want this. I don't have a problem with the terms "new atheist", "anti-theist atheist" and "rational thinkers" to describe this agenda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Whatever. I'm rather saying what atheism is, is not and where we are trying to get to, in contrast to what you and others (including Arach) seem to say about us You can't blame us - we already have a centiry of faecal polemics to shovel, without more being dumped on us.
It looked like you were busting on atheism for having that view point. And it struck me as in line with 'Atheism = Genocide'. Generally I am VERY cautious about doing evil that good will come of it. In the case of atheism, our name stinks so bad we can't afford anything other than squeaky clean! Now you say you don't like it, and it looked like you were saying atheism did, which is a stike against them. So I fail to see what you are not following.
yes or No would do fine.
A yes or no might be fine, I simply don't know what you were saying so I didn't know how to respond :P
I wouldn't say I'm busting on atheism for having a view. I'm busting on atheist who hold the view that the ends justify the means arguments such as banning religion because all though free speech is being eliminated the good from banning religion outweighs the bad from having religion.
Yes, I guess I can agree to this to some degree - but when you say "atheists who have a beef with atheism" I get the idea that you want atheism to be the agenda to eradicate religion. I don't want this. I don't have a problem with the terms "new atheist", "anti-theist atheist" and "rational thinkers" to describe this agenda.
A yes or no might be fine, I simply don't know what you were saying so I didn't know how to respond :P
I wouldn't say I'm busting on atheism for having a view. I'm busting on atheist who hold the view that the ends justify the means arguments such as banning religion because all though free speech is being eliminated the good from banning religion outweighs the bad from having religion.
Right. I need to move the goalposts a bit While we can say that we don't want to ban religion or see it eradicated, in fact militant atheism has an aim and agenda that looks a lot like it. We don' want religious influence in Law, in education, in Politics, the workplace, the military or indeed anywhere but where it has a right o be - in places of worship and in the individual head.
There is a problem with it in the family. There may have o be legislation about what a believer can do about someone in he family who isn't a believer. But that isn't an easy one.
Now as against this, there are atheists who can' be bothered with all this. Fine. They also serve who only tick the "None" box. They also serve who only stand and vote - against voting for governments who support faith privilege, religion in schools and perpetuating traditional interference of the church in all aspects of life. I look to the day when politicians know they have to woo the humanist vote and cannot expect to get elected by kissing the Bible.
What is not so fine is the self -styles atheist who denounces what we are trying to do. The lies they tell about us are absurd - we are becoming a church, we are as bad as fundamentalists. It is hard to see what their agenda is, other than they like things as they are; they LIKE Religious privilege. The like presidents having to wave the Bible about as part of their credentials.
A dislike of the liberal political stuff explains a lot. They may not believe in Christianity, but by sortagod - it keeps Liberalism out of the White House. They may not believe in the teachings of religion, but they do believe that the world would be a poorer place without it.
We Activists don't agree. We think the world would be no worse off without religious power and influence and probably a bloody sight better off with a lot less of it. Eradication and banning of the power and influence - not the religions themselves. That would be either impossible or undesirable as well as an abrogation of the right to believe. It is not right to thought legislate against someone who thinks the world is flat, but it is that they should not get this taught in the science class because they would be offended if it wasn't.
They have every right to form a flat earth society and hold meetings, but they have no right to demand hat they not be told they are ignorant fools - because it is lacking in respect, or bigoted hypocrites when they mock those those who have a club teaching ha the world is square.
Bottom line - we cannot allow the ongoing influence or religion - not in Europe, where it is at low ebb but STILL can wag the dog. And it is a matter of urgency in the USA, where Creationism damn near replaced science. And those atheists, humanists and nones, who care about scientifically validated truth, right to believe -or not and the need that religions not bang all our denominational heads together, if they will no help, at least they shouldn't fight on the side of delusion, deception and duplicity.
(stands, in Noble Pose, atop an empty egg -crate, awaiting applause. Not a sossinge.)_
I can see where Gldnrule gets his 'Zich..Nada!" argument from, old chum. The Flat earth argument is more like the Bible argument. It is There and seems to be telling us history, just as the earth seems to be flat. Evidence that takes a bit of proving, shows this is not the case.
The God -claim is different. There is nothing there but the claim. The evidence sharked up to support it merely needs to be shown to have other (if not better) natural explanations (1), and that is the god -claim busted.
Faith -belief is yet again skewing your logic. Atheism does not need to disprove a god, merely to debunk the evidence put forward to support it. You and other brands of theists are never going to argue from a logical position until you get Hip (as Goldie would say) to that.
I must apologize, Folks, for the appalling typing of my previous posts. My keyboard needs a good kicking, my eyes are not what they were (they used to be prawn -balls) and typing in the small hours tanked up with Magners and Old Toby is not conducive to meticulous accuracy.
(1) please don't pull out the old 'you cannot explain everything" argument. We do not need o explain electricity down to the last nano -particle to credit the explanation of how it works.
How else would one refer to someone who, in 2017, still believes in the existence of gods?? Such a person is as irrational as someone who, in 2017, believes that that the Earth is flat...and deserves just as much ridicule.
...and yes. I am a militant atheist who would love to see religion (read ignorance and superstition) eradicated from the public arena.
You have clearly failed to convince me anything. Granted, it's certainly irrational to believe that the Earth is flat, but you can't compare believing in a god to believing in a flat Earth. Flat Earthers are rather rare these days, and even most religious people would think it's nonsense. Better yet most religious people think creationism is nonsense.
Let me give you a proposition. You have to people Joe and Mark. Joe believes there is a flat Earth. Mark accepts evolution, but believes it is a God directed process. Here's what I would say. "Joe you seriously have no common sense, go read a book. Mark you make believe there is a god, but since you at least accept evolution, it's all good and you really have a rational mindset. Let's go break for coffee sometime."
You see believing in a god is one thing, but believing in creationism or a flat Earth is another thing. And one more thing, religion will never ever disappear completely. You may not like that fact, but a fact is a fact whether you like it or not. A world without religion is nothing more than an unrealistic utopia. And utopias don't exist.
You are divorced from reality just as much as the religious fundamentalists are.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
correct. But while atheism is no more than a basic position on (and to) the god -claim. The knock on effect it has on our lives, worldview and even politics is often huge. After all Theism is merely 'an acceptance of the God -claim'. But to say 'It is not living your life, society and politics in line with the guidance of Jesus Christ and he Holy Spirit would be to state the irrelevant obvious.
Now you say you don't like it, and it looked like you were saying atheism did, which is a stike against them. So I fail to see what you are not following. 
I pretend not to. They are fine if a sound point is being made. Now where i am on the spectrum is a bit academic. What the spectrum is, is more debatable. There are those who would see it for a Sweet reasonabe position, with atheist denial on one end and Bible literalist at the other and each as bad. And the one in the middle (variously interpreted from 'I don't know there is a god but will believe in one anyway' to 'I don' believe the whole Bible -just the bits I like -but I try to live as Jesus would approve' may like o think of themselves as a reasonable compromise, but in fact their position is no much more rational than the Bible -literalist Fundy, even if it is more willing to make accommodation wih the rational humanist position atheism represents. 
