Yes atheism is certainly incapable of being contaminated by politics
Show that there is *religiously* motivated violence
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
True, unless you think politics can cause one to become a theist??
Otherwise, if one retains their lack of belief in God then there is no contamination. :shrug:
No, you employ force against them, much as the religious employ force against others to get them to follow their religion more closely. Hence, religiously-motivated violence.
I'm afraid that none of that is true. Have you perhaps forgotten Leviticus? Sura 9? Mere assertion does not make a thing so.
Never encountered an atheist critique of religion?
Just as long as you don't express in words or deeds your desire to remove religion from the cultural landscape its okay
Politics.
Not one that has turned me to theism. Have you?
Otherwise I fail to see the relevancy.
Strawman, again.
Did they lack belief in God? Yes.
Have they suddenly developed a belief in God? No.
Hence their position on the matter of belief in God is uncontaminated. They were, and remain, atheist.
The cultural revolution comrade!
If we withdraw implicit atheism from the picture (since you are quite obviously not one) we can afford more accurate definitions of your situation ...
Once again, that's fine, just as long as we don't get so much as a "peep" from you about removing religion from the cultural landscape
You continue with your strawman, given that you have yet to show how politics can "contaminate" one's atheism, unless you are incorrectly assuming that atheism equates to the philosophies that atheists might hold - much like saying how fashion can "contaminate" someone being male or female rather than just the clothes they wear. :shrug:
And in what way would such a "peep" contaminate my atheism? I am an atheist, and I would remain one whether I voice my opinion on political matters or not... there would be no contamination.
You are just arguing against this strawman, LG. Have you nothing better?
That was pointless and senseless.
Just like the idea that there is "religiously motivated violence."
Its quite simple - if you never take the belief that god is non-existent to some actionable conclusion (like critiquing religion or alternatively, giving a bullet to the back of the head stalinist style) we can then understand that your atheism is bereft of any political underpinnings
You can't see the connection between speaking in a manner to shape the cultural landscape affects the cultural landscape?
the only straws involved are the one's you are desperately clutching to avoid the blatant fact that the only atheists bereft of political undertones are implicit ones and you are clearly not one of them
:shrug:
Demonstrably wrong. Are we down to the dregs of refusal, or shall you tell me how Leviticus is irreligious? Or alternatively you could say that nothing is motivated by anything. Welcome to Nihilism 101. Please take your seats, or don't; I'm off to get a coffee.
You continue your strawman.
Further there need be no belief that god is non-existent to be considered atheist.
Sure - the same way as wearing clothes to affect fashion can indeed affect fashion... but that doesn't change the sex of the person wearing the clothes.
You continue to argue that atheism is more than just the lack of a single belief, and that somehow the clothes that the atheist might also wear are part of that atheism. While you continue this line you only have more strawmen to argue against.
And second, it is irrelevant (yes, another strawman on your part) what I am or am not... one should argue the words, not the person.
unless of course one is an explicit atheist -
so what are you trying to say?
Any discussion of atheist social policy (or "how to get rid of dem pesky theists") can never take any political focus since atheism isn't political (coz you gotta remember that implicit atheists, like babies, have no political agenda)?
You continue to house atheism in a convenient category in order to accommodate implicit atheism .. despite the blatant obvious fact that explicit atheists distinguish themselves from implicit one by having a political agenda
So you are not an explicit atheist?
lol
So you think all "explicit" atheists are "strong" atheists - i.e. have belief that God does not exist???
No, I am saying the political focus is additional to one's atheism/theism. It is not, in and of itself, atheism.
You are equating the policies as being atheism - i.e. equating the clothes as being the man. While some policies may only be held by atheists, just as some clothes worn by just men, there is a distinction between any policy and their position on God's existence.
No they don't - political atheists possibly have a political agenda incorporating or driven by anti-theistic matters, but certainly not all explicit atheists. Many explicit atheists have ZERO political agenda.
To be an explicit atheist you merely have to have addressed the question: "Do you hold belief in the existence of God?" If you answer "No" then you are an explicit atheist, as opposed to babies and others who have not addressed it.
Where is the political agenda in "No"??
Further I am not hosing atheism in anything convenient. If you want to restrict discussion to just explicit atheists then please mention that each time, to avoid confusion. But first you should probably gain an understanding of what an explicit atheist actually is. 'Cos at the moment you seem to be none the wiser.
So, are you going to stop with your strawmen?
Of course I am. But whether I am or not is irrelevant to the discussion.