There are theists around. Unless you mean ''...no theists around...''.
If you did, I'm not even going to bring up Stalin.
No, I dont mean "Lets send them to their heaven". But I do mean "Examine religious beliefs and the effects they have on the world. Identify those that affect the world and understand them and the motivations behind them. If they dont stand under you criticisms, publicise those beliefs and challenge the theists to answer your crtiques. If some beliefs do stand up to the scepticism, be honest and give the guys the brownie points they deserve. Open the doors to sincere and open debates and discussions about things people believe in and hold dear, if those things affect us". Your 2 cents please [and you DO understand why this is necessary, dont you?].
Maybe so, but the difference is like the difference between qualified scientistis doing science, and people who know nothing about science doing science.
Completely Agreed. Brownie points +10
Is eating food, different from food?
Kinda, one is the object, the other is the process.
You don't get what he means by ''religion''.
Following Christ is religious, but it isn't ''a religion''. Do you understand?
I understand that it is not the proper or real religion, but for the people, it is a religion. So yes, Christ would not consider evangelicals to be religious, it that your point? I agree [if you say yes].
One doesn't have to be a Christian to love Jesus, and try to follow his example. And one can be a Christian, and not follow or love him.
What we're talking about here, is reality, bare-bones reality. Not romantacism.
Ok. I get that. +5 brownies.
I didn't mention Stalin. And I'm quite aware that atheist doesn't equal stalin.
But he was an atheist, there's no denying that.
Like hitler was catholic. Good people do good things and bad people do bad things. For good people to do bad things, it takes fanaticism [about anything - fanatic homophobia, atheism, antitheism, xenophobia are all just as bad as fanatic religion]. You didn't mention stalin, but you suggested a moral low ground for atheists.
I totally agree.
And no matter how much they say they believe in God, it doesn't matter.
One MUST believe in God to be theist, not say so.
Agreed. But that makes a lot of humans weak theists [which you would not consider theists at all], right? Only the fundamentalists [or non-religious theists like you] can actually claim theism if you stick to that definition rigidly.
Are you talking about ''modern atheists'' the explicit group of people lead by Richard Dawkins on a quest to finish notions of God, and religion.
Or are you talking about people who don't believe in God, and just get on with their lives. To me, they are two different sets of people.
I would have to agree Dawkins is a bit...rough. But other than that, what do you have against him? I for one, support the Sam Harris approach of discussion or the Dennett approach of explaination rather than the Dawkins approach of refutation. Militant atheism = not good. Explicit atheism = Good.
Some of you do.
I remember talking with one homosexual guy who said that if he had the power, he would ban religion, by making it illeagal. Why? Because he didn't like what it said about homosexual men.
A frustrated guy - but ok, atheism would own up to its miscreants. Ok, I agree that thinking is wrong, that can lead to an explosive conflict rather that a reason discussion I would want. Like I said, militant atheist IS a rebelious thought, atheism should be explict, it should be clearly communicated and discussed, but not for the purpose of reverse evangelism. The primary purpose of new atheist [like proper atheism, just like the poet's proper religion] should be to make life easy and remove dangers to peaceful living of atheists, theists and people of different faiths together in a global community. "A quest to finish notions of God, and religion" is bad and wrong, its like the war on terror, its moving towards crosspurposes. That choice of notions is of the people, the task of explicit new atheists is to let their opinion be heard and to encourage discussion, nothing more.
An atheist is somebody who doesn't believe in God. Think about what that actually means, and the vastness of such meaning of activity.
Like the poet said, he'd go to church, and then he'd come out and chase tail.
Maybe he believed in God when the mood was right, and he was in a place where there were distractions. But as soon as he hit that town, he didn't believe enough to keep his lust in check. He was free to bone as and when.
Agreed. But the point here is?
You seem to mixing atheism, with the atheist movement.
Not the same thing.
Like I said above, the atheist movement of the dawkins type - a quest to destroy religion, faith and God is wrong. Dennett type movement of new atheism - a quest to stimulate open discussion and secular understanding of different religions and education about the world religions and cultures - is proper, IMO. Would you agree?
Do you live in the Bible-belt, or something?
No. Atheism is socially difficult almost
everywhere. Too many ignoramuses consider us to be satan worshipers or godless, moraless heathens [and they are
in all countries] - I am not associated with any atheism groups, so I have no need to be an explicit atheist in public. I am an atheist on the internet and with friends and family, but in public I am like most teens - an apatheist [in the sense that religion doesn't play a big role in my life - not in the other sense - pragmatic atheism]. The reason is not that I live in some extremely religious place, but that there are people everywhere on earth who are literally stupid - the reason why my parents and family know about my atheism, and my lecturers would too, if they asked, is that they are smart enough to understand without prejudice, my position and why it is not something bad in and of itself. That is the reason why I tell most on the internet [forums, ytube, etc] the truth but not anyone on the road, why I told my parents but not my grandparents - if they dont understand me without bias, their potential reactions to me can be harmful - if someone smart disagrees, they discuss; if one of these [stupid] folk disagree, God knows what they'll do.
It was a joke about how an atheist world would become a world of intelligent scientists and space farers.
That wasn't just an ordinary, witty, rant.
He was working himself up, especially at the end when the booze kicked in.
I think he's a dangerous guy. That's just my opinion though.
I would have to agree on that.
You've really been roped in, haven't you?
No. I was worked up by your reference to anything no religiously good as atheistic. Atheists do a lot of good too and religious do a lot of bad. Like I said, Good people, bad people and fanatics.
It's not stupid, and therefore not deserved.
It's that you don't understand where he is coming from, but act as though you do. Arrogantly thinking you know better, and that you're knowledge is superior. IOW, you're an elitist, and potentially very dangerous.
At one time these so-called religions were elitist, the communist manifesto is elitist, modern atheists are elitists.
Ok. I apologise. -5 points to me and +10 to you. I didn't understand it enough and did get roped in by the critiques of other militant atheists. But I am potentially very dangerous? How? 17 years old, 5'10", 160 lb - hardly the anti-christ at all. Lol, but seriously, why did you think I was VERY dangerous?
Also, I would have to agree that elitist atheism often turns to militant atheism. Its not good. On the other hand, you would have to agree that a large number of elites are atheists, but not elitists -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdVucvo-kDU
You don't understand what he's saying, and yet you vehmently judge him.
Honestly, you don't understand. Your waging a war against nothing, based on ignorance.
Apology made. Brownie points given. Ok, take a bow too. You did save me from falling into militant atheism. Boy, am I glad I patched things up with you. A geniune thanks. x2 brownie points. Congrats on your +50 points.
