Atheiology

[Chas]

(15-07-2012 10:20 PM)PeacefulSkeptic Wrote:  I think it is completely ridiculous to attempt to quell every religious
ideology. I definitely agree that Onfray's approach is far too radical.
It doesn't matter how hard he tries to eradicate religion, it will
always prevail over the generations.

Also, I do not think that the two can constructively co-exist
per-se. I guess that it depends on the rigidity of the militant atheist.
Sure, the two groups can exist. But I don't think it would be a
constructive existence.

(24-05-2012 06:10 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  Should religion be completely destroyed by adopting a rigid and militant atheism or can the two constructively co-exist?

I think the question is ill-formed: a false dichotomy.

We need to carry on on two fronts. We need to keep religion out of governance, and we need to keep religion out of education. Skeptical education will cause the withering, but not likely the extermination, of religion and pseudo-science.

[Free Thought]

I guess I could be called a "Militant Atheist" (I get considerably involved when I hear a guy preaching in the mall, at school or online), but I cannot even begin to agree with it. The level of Militant atheism proposed by that should be called "Atheistic Militarism" rather than Militant Atheism, if somebody actually attempted to impose this ideal, I think their title as Atheist is forfeit, they would effectively be making it into a religion for them, just another ideology that is seen as superior, perceived as the one that should hold supremacy. No matter how much damage that Religion should cause, even should they succeed, it'd just come back twice as strong in one form or another after a couple of decades.

The issue is not with religion, but with education, even down here in Aus we could use more education on religion/theology (although Religion is far weaker here than say, the U.S, I still consider it a tad problematic considering the times I and friends been proselytized to in our non-religious schools; Far too many!).