Search Amazon.com:
Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«34 »
  • Post
  • Reply
Pope Guilty
Nov 6, 2006

The human animal is a beautiful and terrible creature, capable of limitless compassion and unfathomable cruelty.

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?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Mo_Steel
Mar 7, 2008

"We don't need a toilet. The pile of clothes in the hallway has worked fine for us for years, and it will continue to work."

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.

Mr.Hell
Nov 10, 2011


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'.

Bryter
Nov 6, 2011


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?
I'm starting to think I made a mistake in humoring your notion of "militant".

Some dictionary posted:

mil·i·tant
adjective
1. vigorously active and aggressive, especially in support of a cause: militant reformers.
So far we have established that a) there are atheists who advocate murdering people because of their religion, and b) the word "militant" also encompasses aggression short of violence.

But we can't ever use the term "militant atheist" because

Jastiger
Oct 11, 2008
Probation
Can't post for 7 days!


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.

Skex
Feb 22, 2012

I JUST CAN'T STOP ARGUING ABOUT CASUAL RACISM!


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.

What a radical secularist may look like:

Clearly right wing fundamentalists are just jealous of their superior dress sense.

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.

Bryter
Nov 6, 2011


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'.
Ahaha, so Santorum can go gently caress himself, but never EVER use it against atheists because you're calling them angry? This is priceless.

Pope Guilty
Nov 6, 2006

The human animal is a beautiful and terrible creature, capable of limitless compassion and unfathomable cruelty.

Bryter posted:

I'm starting to think I made a mistake in humoring your notion of "militant".

So far we have established that a) there are atheists who advocate murdering people because of their religion, and b) the word "militant" also encompasses aggression short of violence.

But we can't ever use the term "militant atheist" because

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?

Killin_Like_Bronson
Apr 6, 2009


Bryter posted:

I'm starting to think I made a mistake in humoring your notion of "militant".

So far we have established that a) there are atheists who advocate murdering people because of their religion, and b) the word "militant" also encompasses aggression short of violence.

But we can't ever use the term "militant atheist" because

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.

President Kucinich
Feb 21, 2003

Bitterly Clinging to my AK47 and Das Kapital


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.


An atheist hasn't told me that my place is in the kitchen and making babies, as a matter of divine mandate (as opposed to personal opinion).

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.

Bryter
Nov 6, 2011


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?
Well no, it has meant both all along. You tried to equate the term militant with murderous, and I showed you that by even those standards there are militant atheists. Then you tried to worm out of defending Rick Santorum so that you could keep up your double standards.

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?

Mr.Hell
Nov 10, 2011


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'.

Bryter
Nov 6, 2011


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.
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.

Mr.Hell
Nov 10, 2011


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.

Bryter
Nov 6, 2011


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'.
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?

Mr.Hell
Nov 10, 2011


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?

Killin_Like_Bronson
Apr 6, 2009


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.

Radbot
Aug 12, 2009



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?

ZenMasterBullshit
Nov 2, 2011

What is the sound of one hand laying down the sickest beat?


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.

loquacius
Oct 21, 2008

IT'S INCISIVE COMMENTARY!


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.

Josef bugman
Nov 17, 2011


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.

Mr.Hell
Nov 10, 2011


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.

Bryter
Nov 6, 2011


Mr.Hell posted:

The high court agreed with them. Are they militant atheists too?
Nope, they're a court interpreting and applying a convention. They didn't go on a crusade about it.

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.
I managed it for a pretty long time. Not being a jackass helps a lot.

ZenMasterBullshit
Nov 2, 2011

What is the sound of one hand laying down the sickest beat?


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 don't even know where to begin with this. Yes, the are people who are mislabeled. That fact does not change that there ARE people who could be accurately described as 'Militant Atheists'.


I like that it's a page later and my Previous quote is still an adequate response.

mintskoal
Oct 24, 2006

livin' the dream


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.

Pope Guilty
Nov 6, 2006

The human animal is a beautiful and terrible creature, capable of limitless compassion and unfathomable cruelty.

Mr.Hell posted:

Alright. The High Court are now militant atheists.

Separation of Church and State is a militant atheist doctrine.

Killin_Like_Bronson
Apr 6, 2009


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.
nice dig.


\/\/ Ok thanks for the clarification.

ZenMasterBullshit
Nov 2, 2011

What is the sound of one hand laying down the sickest beat?


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.

Ogmius815
Aug 25, 2005

A GOD, A MESSIAH, AN ARCHANGEL, A KING, A PRINCE, AND AN ALL TERRAIN VEHICLE.


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!

ZenMasterBullshit
Nov 2, 2011

What is the sound of one hand laying down the sickest beat?


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.).

Ogmius815
Aug 25, 2005

A GOD, A MESSIAH, AN ARCHANGEL, A KING, A PRINCE, AND AN ALL TERRAIN VEHICLE.


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.

And I don't understand how Catholic and Marxist narratives mesh either.

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.

Jastiger
Oct 11, 2008
Probation
Can't post for 7 days!


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?

Bryter
Nov 6, 2011


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.

Boogaleeboo
Sep 13, 2011

DON'T LET THIS PICTURE OF AN ADORABLE KITTEN FOOL YOU INTO THINKING I'M NOT AN INSUFFERABLE AUTIST

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?

If not, why so with anti-theism? If so, why?

Jainism: People who believe in the sanctity of all life down to the micro-bacterial level.

Literally equivalent to burning minorities.

Pope Guilty
Nov 6, 2006

The human animal is a beautiful and terrible creature, capable of limitless compassion and unfathomable cruelty.

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?

If not, why so with anti-theism? If so, why?

Are you seriously comparing religion and racism?

Bryter
Nov 6, 2011


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?

If not, why so with anti-theism? If so, why?
Because most people don't think religion is inherently bad and "extreme" is defined in reference to social norms. This question was about 4% as incisive as you thought it was.

Also, yeah as other people pointed out what the gently caress, dude?

ZenMasterBullshit
Nov 2, 2011

What is the sound of one hand laying down the sickest beat?


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?

If not, why so with anti-theism? If so, why?

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.

assfro
Oct 15, 2005



Because religion and race are not the same thing. Its a terrible analogy.

horribly beaten.

Mr.Hell
Nov 10, 2011


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.

Oh I know they all should have gone the rout of secular Marxism. That poo poo has a great track record!

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.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Killin_Like_Bronson
Apr 6, 2009


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?

If not, why so with anti-theism? If so, why?

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.

  • Post
  • Reply
«34 »