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.
Like I said, remove the "mission" to convert. A lot of Christian religions require people to convert non believers. Atheists spend their time defending their choice from the religious on a God given mission to convert non believers, to create the flock. How long would a believer listen to an atheist that knocked on their door with a pamphlet? Atheists don't care to share because we have no gear. We simply don't share your belief with you. That's it. We just said "no thanks"
I have no reason to debate, irritate, or defend anyone with no "mission" to degrade my choices in life. Pure and simple! It's like men and woman, we irritated men with our feminist ways because we wanted the right to vote, work and not be beaten without consequence. Oh my, choices, choices. I irritate theists like a gay man holding his lovers hand while picking up their kids from school. Oh my, we are sooo irritating. So irritating that we talk back after someone yells "you're going to hell, fagot"
I guess we are irritating like children who refuse to mind their father. (In heaven)
I irritate theists because I don't like to be controlled or changed by them. I irritate theists simply living with my beliefs, not by forcing them upon others. I have no mission, no pamphlet. I have no Atheists God telling me to spread the word of Atheism. Nadda! I only want facts, not a mysterious thing about me. I simply irritate theists because I have the right to live here with them. That's pretty much all it takes for some theists, my existence. IMO. Can't really help that.
It depends on what you mean by "peace". I am happy to work for "Peace" as in non-violent and peaceful co-existence between all people. I am however not hopeful, nor would I even want, "peace" between them intellectually. I want the opposite. I want people everywhere to stand up against unsubstnatiated ideas in all their forms and call people on them, show up their lack of basis, evidence, arguments and data.
And I want this in all walks of life. Political, scientific, and religious. Be it the baseless claims of the efficacy of homeopathy or the unsubstantiated tosh of human consciousness surviving death of the brain and going off to happily join some universal consciousness in the black ether to be morally judged..... I do not care.... the time for letting people stand up and get away with pretending to have knowledge they do not, or pretending to know what they can not, or expressing certainty where total doubt exists.... should end.
.. It's like men and woman, we irritated men with our feminist ways because we wanted the right to vote, work and not be beaten without consequence...
And you were right to do so, because something was wrong and needed to be put right. It is why we have militant atheism. I don't think any of us mind what people believe. We may, if they go public with it, explain why we think it is wrong, and they can take the points on board or ignore them. that's up to them. but there is an undue influence in social, political and educational life of religion and the case for that is not justified and it needs to be corrected and religious influence removed from public life. Not removing the moral and 'spiritual' stuff, but just the claim that one particular group has the monopoly on it.
Gut reaction apart, I have peace, and even friendship with and an 'irreligion legion' cockade handed out those believers who don't see why the churchmen, priests and preachers have the right to tell them what to think, how to live and what to do.
P.s I agree with Nozz. I was wondering whether to write a bit more and I will say that the reason it is right to do this is because sound, logical reasoning and scientifically validated evidence supports the atheist view on religion. Those who find reasons for faith that they accept would not make a persuasive argument, and they accept others having other views, are not my enemy. It is those who say that their religious beliefs are supported by reason, evidence and, if all else fails, faith;and on that basis, they can teach myth as fact in place of science; they can treat atheists like sociopaths and they can sway the populace with claims that they know what Gods wants.
As Nozz says, I want to do the same with the 'cult' claims. While looking at them critically (because who can say for certain that there might not be some merit in it?) it cannot be let go on the basis of tolerance, let alone 'respect' when unsupported claims are made for Ley -lines, astrology, Homeopathy and precognition. These claims should be subjected to the same critical examination as any science claim and if it doesn't stand up, it should be declared without foundation or validity.
That I would advocate that is as a rationalist. I am a rationalist as regards religious claims, too. It just so happens that because theism is so pervasive in public life and supported by people who ought to know better (and some who do know better, but know that God -talk garners votes) the rationalist - 'no sound evidence, so no basis for belief in the claim' when applied to religious claims is called 'a -theism'.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-20-2013 at 08:01 AM..
Will there ever be peace between the believers and non-believers?
Good question, when non-believers and believers learn to respect one another, we must all realize that no two of us are exactly alike and therefore we do not think alike. We must allow each individual to follow their own path as they travel through this life. We're all free to choose to believe or not believe how we wish and we must learn to respect that choice and until that time comes, I do not see peace between the two.
I agree, ptsum. It is regrettable that there are people on both sides of this issue who are NOT willing to allow it. They seek confrontation with those ideas that they do not agree with (whether for emotional reasons or intellectual ones). This kind of intolerance is maintained by them using self-congratulatory and noble-sounding excuses like "promoting Faith in God" Moderator cut: delete] At base . . . it is nothing but human vanity and hubris promoting intolerance. It is a pretense to a superior form of knowledge (either spiritual or intellectual) than that of those they disagree with. They either "deny doubt exists" or "pretend that only total doubt exists." Such extremist thinking and intolerance is not laudable or noble . . . it is fanatical. As long as they insist on imposing their point of view on others . . . I do not see peace between them either, ptsum. We can only hope that learning to respect the choices of people in such inscrutable areas is possible and that it will someday bring peace between the extremists.
Last edited by Miss Blue; 03-21-2013 at 06:15 PM..
Reason: Quoting a post in which you are under mandate not to quote
They seek confrontation with those ideas that they do not agree with (whether for emotional reasons or intellectual ones). This kind of intolerance is maintained by them using self-congratulatory and noble-sounding excuses like "promoting Faith in God" or "standing against unsubstantiated ideas in all their forms."
No. You misrepresent once again. It is not that we seek or want or enjoy such confrontation. It is that such confrontation is necessary. In a society as large as ours all kinds of ideas are floated about. Those making decisions that affect us all - education - politics - whatever - need to be called to task when they base those decisions on fantasy - baseless notions - and makey up facts.
This is not intolerance - much as you want to paint it that way to ad hominem the subject to death - but a necessary part of inter-human communication. Baseless and false ideas simply have to be combatted to ensure we proceed into the future basing our actions and decisions and policies on facts not fantasies.
I agree, ptsum. It is regrettable that there are people on both sides of this issue who are NOT willing to allow it. They seek confrontation with those ideas that they do not agree with (whether for emotional reasons or intellectual ones). This kind of intolerance is maintained by them using self-congratulatory and noble-sounding excuses like "promoting Faith in God" or "standing against unsubstantiated ideas in all their forms." At base . . . it is nothing but human vanity and hubris promoting intolerance. It is a pretense to a superior form of knowledge (either spiritual or intellectual) than that of those they disagree with. They either "deny doubt exists" or "pretend that only total doubt exists." Such extremist thinking and intolerance is not laudable or noble . . . it is fanatical. As long as they insist on imposing their point of view on others . . . I do not see peace between them either, ptsum. We can only hope that learning to respect the choices of people in such inscrutable areas is possible and that it will someday bring peace between the extremists.
I find it absolutely remarkable that chronological age has no barring, you'd think some people would have at least learned something about cultural diversity, but no, you must agree or die! No different from Hitler, extremist are paranoid (red herring maniacs) which often lead to desires of absolutism which in turn gives them some sense of safety, woe be anyone else.
I find it absolutely remarkable that chronological age has no barring, you'd think some people would have at least learned something about cultural diversity, but no, you must agree or die! No different from Hitler, extremist are paranoid (red herring maniacs) which often lead to desires of absolutism which in turn gives them some sense of safety, woe be anyone else.
Goodwin's Law invoked after only 36 posts! You may have set a new Internet record!
I find it absolutely remarkable that chronological age has no barring, you'd think some people would have at least learned something about cultural diversity, but no, you must agree or die! No different from Hitler, extremist are paranoid (red herring maniacs) which often lead to desires of absolutism which in turn gives them some sense of safety, woe be anyone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy
Goodwin's Law invoked after only 36 posts! You may have set a new Internet record!
As usual, deflect however you need (to avoid the actual issue).
Deflect what? All I did was try to inject a little fun into the forum. This was an aside. I haven't posted a position on the topic of "Will there ever be peace between the believers and non-believers?" Based on your overreaction to my little post, I'd say the answer is probably, "No."
"Will there ever be peace between the believers and non-believers?"
I must think of peace differently than the op.
Just because we have different ideas on belief or non-belief does not mean we cannot be friends.
Most of my friends believe in God and most consider themselves Christian.
And I have discussed religion with most of them and I talk just like I do here on CD.
But when the conversation is over we just go on to other things we have in common as friends.
All my friends, believers and non-believers are good caring people. And I'm happy to have friends like that.
Cheers,
Aeroman
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.
So irritating that we talk back after someone yells "you're going to hell, fagot"
