Internet atheism: one of secularism's biggest enemies (agnostics, abortion, worship)
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.
He is probably referring to the knowledge claim that god is knowable ("I know god personally") as opposed to agnostic theism (I don't know for sure if there's a god, or don't think such a thing is knowable, but lean toward believing in one or more gods anyway).
There is also gnostic atheism (I know there is no god -- quite rare) and agnostic atheism (I don't know if there's a god but see no valid reason to believe in any -- very common).
Gnostic Christianity. It is a religion.
There exist in the universe this strange device referred to as "google" that can be used to answer these questions in ten seconds.
Honestly, stick to the topic at hand (do reddit style atheist do more harm than good for the secular movement?) For your own sake.
Nothing says... neckbearded, My Little Pony addicted and smug collection of basement dwellers we like to call ... like a LOTR meme questioning the target's intelligence without actually making an argument. I can see why you had trouble on Reddit. You are getting what you give. Don't debate an atheist then, it's not required.
I'm not sure that we here are contributing to the hardnosed fundamentalist Christian trying to impose his or her belief onto the general public but I suspect that we are really seeing a reaction to what those said hardnosed fundamentalists are trying to do. I mean, trying to force creationism to be taught as a science or fact in schools!
Nothing says... neckbearded, My Little Pony addicted and smug collection of basement dwellers we like to call ... like a LOTR meme questioning the target's intelligence without actually making an argument. I can see why you had trouble on Reddit. You are getting what you give. Don't debate an atheist then, it's not required.
What exactly was Mordant's argument? The title of this thread is "Internet atheism: one of secularism's biggest enemies". That is what I am saying. That the visceral, loud, annoying brand of atheism that has become so prevalent is hindering, not helping, the struggle for secular government.
I am not "debating atheism" as that is tiresome. I am debating WHICH TACTICS ARE MOST EFFECTIVE IN ADVANCING SECULARISM.
I'm not sure that we here are contributing to the hardnosed fundamentalist Christian trying to impose his or her belief onto the general public but I suspect that we are really seeing a reaction to what those said hardnosed fundamentalists are trying to do. I mean, trying to force creationism to be taught as a science or fact in schools!
But then again, the OP may have a point.
And is reacting to them by playing directly into their hands in any way productive? Honestly, which one of these arguments is more likely to win support from a society that is overwhelmingly theistic:
Argument A) "Okay, you can have your religion in church, Sunday schools, private schools, etc. Just respect that the 1st Amendment is there for a reason and if I, a non-believing taxpayer am being taxed to fund religious education in public schools, that violates my constitutional right."
or
Argument B) "You are so dumb to believe in your silly sky daddy and you may as well believe in a Flying Spaghetti monster and no one should believe something that is written in a book and I know this because a book by Dawkins says so..."
And is reacting to them by playing directly into their hands in any way productive? Honestly, which one of these arguments is more likely to win support from a society that is overwhelmingly theistic:
Argument A) "Okay, you can have your religion in church, Sunday schools, private schools, etc. Just respect that the 1st Amendment is there for a reason and if I, a non-believing taxpayer am being taxed to fund religious education in public schools, that violates my constitutional right."
or
Argument B) "You are so dumb to believe in your silly sky daddy and you may as well believe in a Flying Spaghetti monster and no one should believe something that is written in a book and I know this because a book by Dawkins says so..."
Oh I agree. But what I am suggesting is that we are doing the reacting. So we react and they counter react and it escalates.
We here on CD are probably not causing the reaction that you are referring to and I do think that the fundamentalists would push there luck without any provocation. Teaching real science in schools is sufficient provocation to them. I would suggest they need to be stopped in their tracts very firmly and without delay. They will not stop there.
Actually, your example A versus example B is very valid in my opinion. But remember that old saying; touch a stinging nettle gently and it will burn you like fire but grab it firmly and it will be as soft as a pillow? Don't kitty cat around these guys. (Couldn't use ***** foot - see what I mean?)
Gnostic is basically an arrogant higher understanding then the authorship of Jesus Christ which is a form of godliness but will never have the power of Jesus Christ to overcome the earth of sin and be saved to Jesus ........Gnostic Christian so called are lead by the demonic celestial beings which sound familiar to believe with sacred ideas
Actually, the statement had very little to do with my own religion...in fact it had nothing to do with my own religion as secularism is something anyone, regardless of religious affiliation (or lack there of) can support.
But it would be pretty telling if someone needs to understanding the religion of someone who crafted a well-thought-out and well-explained treatise before deciding whether to abide the treatise.
Regardless, I don't call them "reddit atheists" because they can be found everywhere. I refer to them as fundamentalist atheists. Their perspective is the polar opposite of fundamentalist theists, and as is often the case with extremists, they apply comparable rationalizations and similar offenses against the opposition and against society in general.
There exist in the universe this strange device referred to as "google" that can be used to answer these questions in ten seconds.
Honestly, stick to the topic at hand (do reddit style atheist do more harm than good for the secular movement?) For your own sake.
Sure it is. I'm aware of it clear back to what Christianity now calls the Gnostic Heresy -- given that victors get to write history on their terms.
Thanks for clearing up which you meant. Gnostic is also the opposite of agnostic and speaks to the issues I mentioned. A fact which is also Google-able.
I know that you love to show off your facepalm collection but my misapprehension of your meaning did not make douchebaggery appropriate.
I am a Gnostic Christian (but often times, not the most Christ-like person, I admit) and I do not take any mythology, including my own, literally and I do not want mine, or anyone else's religion, made into law. Hence, I am a die-hard secularist. What is secularism? It is simply the belief that religion and state should be separate and that religion should be a personal thing.
Have your church, have your religious institutions, go live among those who only believe what you believe if that is what you want, just LEAVE ME AND EVERYONE ELSE OUT OF IT.
Do not pass laws based on what your religion says. Instead, pass laws based on logic and reason (which I hope we can all agree on to a point) Do not preach religion in public schools. Want to teach kids that the world was created in seven days (and ignore how those days couldn't have been 24 hour periods because the sun was created after) and teach them that dinosaurs died in the flood? Do it in Sunday school or a private school. Public schools should only teach the facts. What your religion does with those facts is of no concern to either science or the schools, but those facts should be taught.
I want a secular government...and the biggest thing scaring away the vast majority of Americans who agree are the neckbearded, My Little Pony addicted and smug collection of basement dwellers we like to call "reddit atheists".
What do they want? Do they want to convince the 80% or so of Americans who believe in some kind of higher power to abandon it all based on endless rants on the internet? Do you really think taking every opportunity to repeat the same Dawkins/Harris talking points are going to convince people to stop using their religion to pass laws against gays? Do you really think that cries in countless comment sections of "ur a dumby for believing in an invisible sky daddy!" are somehow going to make people change their minds on restricting abortion?
I say the opposite holds true: the more smug, loud and annoying you are, the more the Christians are going to run into the arms of the fundamentalist and agree to pass laws based on their understanding of their religion and the more Taliban-esque America will become. The constant, relentless whining about religion as a whole, as opposed to religious based laws, will no doubt make those people feel under attack and make them elect people who will push their religion on everyone. The more you whine about things from "In God we Trust" on money to the fact that Sunday school isn't taxed like corporations, the more fodder you provide for the Jerry Falwell's of the world.
And why is it that so many self-proclaimed "realist" can see that it is NOT realistic to think you will be able to make the hundreds of millions of believers in America and beyond abandon their religion? It is not going to happen.
BUT, if you try to act like the "rational humans" you claim to be, than maybe you can convince them to keep their religion to themselves and not push it on you. That is a lot more of a realistic goal than trying to make everyone an atheist. Why not put down the Dawkins and Hitchens for a minute and just quote the founding fathers who themselves believed in God yet wanted secular government? Why not remind people that the religion in public sphere thing is a new concept for America and that religion will be find without having it shoved down the throats of those who don't want it?
Why do you have to go from "I am not a Christian, hence I don't want those laws imposed on me" to "you're dumb for believing in sky-daddies!"?
The minute you mock and attack all religions is the minute the religious majority feels under attack, and when they feel under attack they feel the need to counter attack, usually by electing awful people and passing awful laws. So instead of constantly attacking, why not try just politely advocating for secularism and explaining how religious people have NOTHING TO FEAR from secular government?
Sorry...but this kind of behavior is not helping the cause of separation of church and state:
^ sorry reddit/atheists, that little fantasy of yours is not going to come true. But maybe, just maybe, if you stop being such pricks we can actually win a true secular government.
I totally understand what you are saying.
It's the same concept that causes fundamentalism to drive people away from Christianity. When you try to force something on somebody who doesn't want to hear it, it makes them run the other way. If Christians want to convert gays to Christianity, they aren't going to do it by going into Target stores screaming or yelling or getting on the Internet and posting "You are an abomination to God and he is going to destroy you!!!" on every LGBT-oriented news article.
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.
