|
Bryter posted:Answer the question. I dunno, has he called for people to be murdered for being unbelievers? I mean, I haven't called for the murder of believers, but you're pretty goddamned determined that I deserve to be called a terrorist. Has Santorum called for murder?
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2012 18:20 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2013 11:49 |
|
|
Jastiger posted:And to Mo-Steel couldn't it be the case that religion and/or faith based ideologies make all those atrocities much easier to come about than secular or consequence based rationality? In the sense that it is perhaps a more comfortable excuse? It certainly seems easier because the justification is made in absolute terms of omnipotent authority. I hesitate to say it's impossible for atrocities to be committed on secular reasoning on the basis of only history though; I think the ability for individuals to justify their actions, be it through faith or secular thoughts, is wholly underestimated. Individuals are not rational at all times, in all thoughts or all actions. I am an atheist, but I am certain I hold beliefs that are improperly supported and that unduly lead me to other actions or beliefs that I ought not do or hold. While I hope to minimize such beliefs, it is very easy to justify an us vs. them mentality even without a religious basis. We fought against the "Krauts" in Europe at the same time as we interred over a hundred thousand Japanese Americans here in the U.S.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2012 18:24 |
|
|
Bryter posted:Do you think that the headline Rick Santorum: "The Militant" Candidate is offensive? A word's meaning and connotations varies depending on its context of use - shocking. Militant in that piece is used to mean something like 'enthusiastic' or 'passionate'. The Wagner guy is explicitly complimenting Santorum. In reference to atheists it usally connotes 'angry' or 'spiteful'.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2012 18:26 |
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:I dunno, has he called for people to be murdered for being unbelievers? I mean, I haven't called for the murder of believers, but you're pretty goddamned determined that I deserve to be called a terrorist. Has Santorum called for murder? Some dictionary posted:mil·i·tant But we can't ever use the term "militant atheist" because 
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2012 18:31 |
|
|
I don't see the same connections that you guys do between Hitchens and mass murder. YOu can't excuse saying "We should kill millions of people because X" but you can excuse, even if you don't agree with it, "we should attack these people because I genuinely believe they are hurting us". I think Hitchens was wrong to push for the violence, but I think it's also wrong to equate that with "Hitchens literally thinks millions of people should die because he's a racist". To echo another question here, what is wrong with anti-theism? Why is it bad to want to marginalize bad ideas, and what should moderate atheists do about such a movement in our current political landscape? To Mo-Steel Couldn't such a Us vs. Them mentality be a part of a faith based, in this case nationalist, ideology? I'm not saying religion specifically, but rather faith based ideologies of which religious views are a part of. I'm not saying violence couldn't exist in a secular anti-theist society, but it'd be leaps and bounds more difficult when the prevailing notion is rationality and consequence rather than acting on a fervor.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2012 18:31 |
|
|
rudatron posted:Don't know how atheism managed to come into the debate, considering that a secular state and an atheist state are two very different entities. Actually all States are atheistic. Since Atheism is simply lacking of the property of theism and theism is a property that only a sentient creature can have, as such a state being a social construct rather than a sentient entity can only be atheistic. Now that said I see a lot of confusion of terms going on in this thread bringing up long running pet peeves I have in these debates. First atheism is simply someone who lacks the property of theism. It is not a religion it is not a philosophy or an ideology or anything else other than a description of a single aspect of human belief. Further it is not anti-theism. the (A) prefix denotes a lack of the following attribute not the the opposite of it. as in Amoral as opposed to Immoral. These so called "New Atheists" are not spokesmen for atheism. Atheism is too broad a term for anyone to claim to be a spokesman for it. Not all atheists lack a belief in the supernatural. Believe it or not I've met atheists who believed in ghosts and an afterlife. As long as they don't start believing in some sort of deity they remain atheists. Not all atheists reach their atheism through the same path. While some reach it though logical deduction or empirical observation some do so out of distaste for what they've seen of theism. My wife for example was originally an atheist just because of general Christian attitudes towards women. Atheism is not an ideology. Since the only common trait shared among all atheists is a lack of theism there is a wide variety of issues that individual atheists differ on. Remember both Secular Humanism and Objectivism are atheistic ideologies and they are about as far apart as can be. That out of the way I'd agree with the basic premise that "radical secularism" is just another right wing boogieman trotted out to a constituency that has been trained to associate anything that infringes on their ability to promote their religion as bad. Essentially a "radical Secularist" is anyone who has the gall to ask the government to actually follow it's own laws and enforce the establishment clause. Of course the ultimate irony here is that the separation of church and state is probably the reason why the U.S is so much more religious than their European contemporaries. That if we really wanted to destroy religion in the United States we'd just cheer the fundies on, secure in the knowledge that once established and forced down everyone's throat it would retain about as much adherence as the Anglican Church does in England.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2012 18:33 |
|
|
Mr.Hell posted:A word's meaning and connotations varies depending on its context of use - shocking. Militant in that piece is used to mean something like 'enthusiastic' or 'passionate'. The Wagner guy is explicitly complimenting Santorum. In reference to atheists it usally connotes 'angry' or 'spiteful'.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2012 18:33 |
|
|
Bryter posted:I'm starting to think I made a mistake in humoring your notion of "militant". So it means the one thing when you want it to and the other when you want that? gently caress, why did I fall for this?
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2012 18:34 |
|
|
Bryter posted:I'm starting to think I made a mistake in humoring your notion of "militant". Well don't be surprised by atheist laughing at the various Believers' need for confirmation that they are pleasing the Sky Daddy by instituting Moral Christian Beliefs into politics. Condescention can go both ways and if you remove respect for the group you disagree with by attributing labels some may have warrented but not all, then tit will certainly meet tat.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2012 18:36 |
|
|
Taima posted:All I know is that an atheist has never told me that I am literally required to have a baby that is the product of surprise sex. Since we're referring to generalizations: These two stances can be heavily impacted on ideas that do not hinge on faith. If you look at groups of atheists who are heavily tied up with objectivism, you'll find full throated support for eugenics, forced sterilization, and complete inhumane treatment for women and children who live here and now in the form of forcing them into abject poverty. You might not be forced to give birth in a world controlled by this group, but you will be witness to a barrage of other great acts of depravity. In addition, there are anti abortion groups specifically for atheists, though they are small in membership. If you hang out with a group of atheists that don't give a poo poo about misogny, you'll find talk of bio-truths dictating where and what you should be. And you'll most likely find full throated support for any number of misogynistic policies (curtailment of voting and office holding for women because having periods sends them into total insanity). I run across these kinds of sentiments far too often (both online and in real life) to be considered rare amongst atheists. This isn't to undermine the misogny of the church, as we're both in agreement that it is gross, but don't pretend these same sentiments don't reside in parts of atheist communities as well.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2012 18:37 |
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:So it means the one thing when you want it to and the other when you want that? gently caress, why did I fall for this? To return to Santorum then, let's say he hasn't literally called for murder. Do you think it's "abusive and lovely" to call him militant?
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2012 18:38 |
|
|
Bryter posted:But we can't ever use the term "militant atheist" because I didn't said you should absoloutely never use it. If some atheist is advocating murder or racism or something like that becuase of their atheism, fine, call them a militant. My contention was simply that most of the time that is not how the term is used, and it is usually employed as a smear against any atheist who criticizes religion. Here in the U.K. people who wanted prayers left out of council meetings were derided as 'militant'.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2012 18:39 |
|
|
Killin_Like_Bronson posted:Well don't be surprised by atheist laughing at the various Believers' need for confirmation that they are pleasing the Sky Daddy by instituting Moral Christian Beliefs into politics. Condescention can go both ways and if you remove respect for the group you disagree with by attributing labels some may have warrented but not all, then tit will certainly meet tat.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2012 18:41 |
|
|
Bryter posted:Ahaha, so Santorum can go gently caress himself, but never EVER use it against atheists because you're calling them angry? This is priceless. See my previous post.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2012 18:41 |
|
|
Mr.Hell posted:I didn't said you should absoloutely never use it. If some atheist is advocating murder or racism or something like that becuase of their atheism, fine, call them a militant. My contention was simply that most of the time that is not how the term is used, and it is usually employed as a smear against any atheist who criticizes religion. Here in the U.K. people ho wanted prayers left out of council meetings were derided as 'militant'.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2012 18:45 |
|
|
Bryter posted:You mean people who thought that it was a violation of their human rights if people prayed near them in a council meeting, and wanted it banned? The high court agreed with them. Are they militant atheists too?
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2012 18:49 |
|
|
Bryter posted:I'm not denying that there are many militant Christians. There are plenty of equally militant atheists, and the persecution complex that pointing this out provokes is so tiresome. Most christians can go their entire lives without being called militant though. An atheist can be called it without justification as a term to put somebody in a place or dismiss their ideals as immoral, which is tiring to hear.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2012 18:49 |
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:The same thing as the War on Drugs: If you don't deal with the underlying issues that lead to certain behavior, you don't solve anything. I didn't ask about a War on Religion. I asked you about anti-theism. I'm sure you can agree that thinking people shouldn't use drugs and being pro-War on Drugs don't necessarily go hand in hand. Is thinking the President shouldn't be high while he's doing his job the same thing as being pro-War on Drugs? Then why is thinking religion shouldn't have a say in public life pro-War on Religion?
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2012 18:50 |
|
|
Mr.Hell posted:The high court agreed with them. Are they militant atheists too? Bryter posted:You mean people who thought that it was a violation of their human rights if people prayed near them in a council meeting, and wanted it banned? Yeah, for something that stupid and petty I'd call it militant.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2012 18:50 |
|
|
Can I just throw in that the idea of "criticizing religion" is intellectually bankrupt because it falls into the Redditty trap of lumping together everybody in all religions from Unitarianism to Buddhism to Evangelical Christianity to Sharia Islam, at all intensity levels between Fred Phelps and the guy who shows up to church on Easter because that's what his family does and thinks that I dunno I guess there's a God sure why not, into one homogeneous monolith to generalize against, even though they have pretty much nothing in common with each other beyond not identifying as atheists? That said, my view on the thread topic: some Christians have a persecution complex, or pretend to in order to pander to people who do. This has caused some atheists to develop one to match. Neither of these groups is really actively working to eliminate the other. Rick Santorum is rattling the hell out of his adorable little saber because it is the Republican primaries and that is what you do. I promise you that if he wins and actually tries to start any poo poo he will get the gently caress impeached out of him.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2012 18:51 |
|
|
Bryter posted:You mean people who thought that it was a violation of their human rights if people prayed near them in a council meeting, and wanted it banned? More about "when it is a matter of council policy that there will be prayers at each meeting". Because, yeah... that's a bit creepy and you shouldn't have to sit through them if you don't believe. It shouldn't be a governments policy to have prayers as part of the agenda. If everyone wants to meet up before council and have a good pray then that is fine, but to have it when you should be working on government business just seems a bit weird.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2012 18:51 |
|
|
Alright. The High Court are now militant atheists. Edit: Josef bugman posted:More about "when it is a matter of council policy that there will be prayers at each meeting". Also, yes, I should have pointed this out. I thought it was obvious that the prayers were part of the agenda, not just people praying.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2012 18:51 |
|
|
Mr.Hell posted:The high court agreed with them. Are they militant atheists too? Again: vigorously active and aggressive, especially in support of a cause: militant reformers. The people calling for the prayers to be banned were vigorously active and aggressive in support of a cause. There can be no argument. Killin_Like_Bronson posted:Most christians can go their entire lives without being called militant though. An atheist can be called it without justification as a term to put somebody in a place or dismiss their ideals as immoral, which is tiring to hear.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2012 18:52 |
|
|
Killin_Like_Bronson posted:Most christians can go their entire lives without being called militant though. An atheist can be called it without justification as a term to put somebody in a place or dismiss their ideals as immoral, which is tiring to hear. ZenMasterBullshit posted:"There ARE bad people who were militantly atheist but you shouldn't use that phrase at all cause sometimes some mean people use it incorrectly!" I like that it's a page later and my Previous quote is still an adequate response.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2012 18:52 |
|
|
Killin_Like_Bronson posted:Most christians can go their entire lives without being called militant though. An atheist can be called it without justification as a term to put somebody in a place or dismiss their ideals as immoral, which is tiring to hear. I'd say you don't even need to be an atheist, just someone who disagrees with any of the core religious beliefs common to Christians in America. Pro-choice? Militant liberal atheist. 
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2012 18:53 |
|
|
Mr.Hell posted:Alright. The High Court are now militant atheists. Separation of Church and State is a militant atheist doctrine.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2012 18:54 |
|
|
ZenMasterBullshit posted:I like that it's a page later and my Previous quote is still an adequate response. I can't believe I have to post that indiscriminately labelling people has more negative effects than good ones and immediatly set up a roadblock to discussion. e: Bryter posted:I managed it for a pretty long time. Not being a jackass helps a lot. \/\/ Ok thanks for the clarification.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2012 18:54 |
|
|
Killin_Like_Bronson posted:I can't believe I have to post that indiscriminately labelling people has more negative effects than good ones and immediatly set up a roadblock to discussion. Oh no, I agree that indiscriminately labelling people is bad. I was arguing that the fact that indiscriminately labelling atheist does not mean that militant atheist do not exist, that one can be 'militant' and an atheist. Sorry, your post just blended in with the rest when I was reading, I apologize.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2012 19:00 |
|
|
Mr.Hell posted:If what is supposed to be the most radically progressive current in the church advocates or tolerates misogyny that does not speak very well for the church, regardless of their stance on other matters. Also it's a relevant and serious issue because it has a large affect on the quality of life of over half the world's population. In fact, almost all the world's population, as it affects families as a whole. Yeah man I'm sorry those peasants in South America were busy surviving right wing dictatorships to do all that gender theory stuff I guess we should just ignore all their work. Oh I know they all should have gone the rout of secular Marxism. That poo poo has a great track record!
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2012 19:04 |
|
|
Mr.Hell posted:Alright. The High Court are now militant atheists. I was sarcastically agreeing with you because your proposition (The fact that the high court agreed to not have a mandatory prayer therefore 'militant atheisim!!!!') was loving asinine and condescending since the discussion was about whether or not aggressive anti-theism could be called militant. Your example is not relevant as it's not aggressive, nor is it, at its core, anti-theist (at least as far as this discussion is concerned.).
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2012 19:05 |
|
|
Mr.Hell posted:Agreed. Another thing that bothers me is the stance of advocating liberation theology in South America but not believing in it yourself. This implies that you think 2nd or 3rd worlders need the pill of political radicalism sweetened with what you yourself reject as superstition. It sounds very patronising. No it means that vision, symbol, and narrative are powerful tools that we shouldn't just discount because *maybe* the creator of the universe didn't actually walk the earth as a human in first century Palestine for some reason.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2012 19:09 |
|
|
I would say I"m an aggressive anti-racist. Should I be considered horribly extreme because of this? I could be tearing down otherwise good people, except they believe say, Blacks are inferior. Can I be accused of over generalizing? If not, why so with anti-theism? If so, why?
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2012 19:09 |
|
|
This has drifted off topic. What you originally said was: Pope Guilty posted:Also the term "radical/militant atheism" is nothing more than an effort to slander atheists who fail to feel politely ashamed of being atheists- comparing them explicitly to people who murder and carry out campaigns of terror. It is dishonest and offensive rhetoric that has no place in any discussion which is not germane to atheists literally behaving in ways comparable to radical/militant religious groups. Do you now admit that there are and have been "militant atheists" who have carried out or supported murder and campaigns of terror? Beyond that, can you appreciate that the term "militant" is applicable to cases in which the person being labelled as such has done none of those things? I still don't understand your opposition to the term radical. All it means in this context is extreme, and isn't an inherently negative label. You just have to admit that thinking all religion is bad is a pretty drat radical position to take. I'm perfectly willing to admit that plenty of my views are radical.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2012 19:10 |
|
|
Radbot posted:You really mixed that one up, didn't you? Never said anything about a War on Religion, but there you go saying War on Religion a bunch. Let me make this simple: Anti-theism is against theism. The War on Drugs is, oddly enough, against drugs. These are both stupid, stupid viewpoints because there is absolutely nothing wrong with either theism *or* drugs on their own. Abuse of either can be a problem, but when not abused who cares about them? Georges Lemaître was a priest, and I'm sorry. You will in your entire life never make a contribution to science or the world in general half as meaningful as him. Lemaître being a theist in no way detracted from his scientific mind or his ability to contribute to our knowledge or betterment as a species. If you focus on fighting 'religion', you are wasting effort on so many non-harmful things and missing the point of what actually causes problems. Some random half-lapsed Catholic who firmly believes in God but has a bit of spotty interpretation of the Bible is, in no way, a threat to anyone with his religious beliefs. Perhaps a more focused approach is in order? Jastiger posted:I would say I"m an aggressive anti-racist. Should I be considered horribly extreme because of this? I could be tearing down otherwise good people, except they believe say, Blacks are inferior. Can I be accused of over generalizing? Jainism: People who believe in the sanctity of all life down to the micro-bacterial level. Literally equivalent to burning minorities.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2012 19:11 |
|
|
Jastiger posted:I would say I"m an aggressive anti-racist. Should I be considered horribly extreme because of this? I could be tearing down otherwise good people, except they believe say, Blacks are inferior. Can I be accused of over generalizing? Are you seriously comparing religion and racism?
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2012 19:11 |
|
|
Jastiger posted:I would say I"m an aggressive anti-racist. Should I be considered horribly extreme because of this? I could be tearing down otherwise good people, except they believe say, Blacks are inferior. Can I be accused of over generalizing? Also, yeah as other people pointed out what the gently caress, dude?
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2012 19:12 |
|
|
Jastiger posted:I would say I"m an aggressive anti-racist. Should I be considered horribly extreme because of this? I could be tearing down otherwise good people, except they believe say, Blacks are inferior. Can I be accused of over generalizing? So you're equating being religious (Note: You're not specifying so I have to assume you're talking about all kinds of religions) with racism. Congrats, you're an idiot.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2012 19:13 |
|
|
Because religion and race are not the same thing. Its a terrible analogy. horribly beaten.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2012 19:14 |
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Yeah man I'm sorry those peasants in South America were busy surviving right wing dictatorships to do all that gender theory stuff I guess we should just ignore all their work. Clergymen came up with liberation theology, not the peasantry. Also it is not as if South American leftism is exhausted by liberation theology. And I am not versed in gender theory at all, and I still know witholding womens' reproductive rights is deeply wrong.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2012 19:16 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2013 11:49 |
|
|
Jastiger posted:I would say I"m an aggressive anti-racist. Should I be considered horribly extreme because of this? I could be tearing down otherwise good people, except they believe say, Blacks are inferior. Can I be accused of over generalizing? Religion, although not for me, should be allowed to exist. I hope to keep its influence out of political rhetoric as a given, but theology with no power is harmless; save for crimes enacted in the name of a religion, but we have a criminal code that religion has no immunity from.
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2012 19:16 |
|
