There is danger in dogma, whoever is behind it.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-04-2013, 08:27 AM
RE: There is danger in dogma, whoever is behind it.
If a militant atheist is someone who would like to abolish the participation of the religious in governing over us by force if necessary, then I am one! You can believe whatever mumbo-jumbo you want, so long as you keep it out of my ears! But I've always thought that taking a person who believes that the world will come to a cataclysmic end, and has faith that believers like themselves will go to an eternal happy land after death, and giving that yahoo Nuclear Launch Codes....?.....is the worst fucking idea in the history of ideas!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheGulegon's post
04-04-2013, 04:58 PM
RE: There is danger in dogma, whoever is behind it.
(03-04-2013 06:44 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  From the article:

"Why are the “neo-atheists” of today so obsessed with God’s nonexistence that they go on media rampages, wear T-shirts proclaiming their absence of belief, or call for a militant atheism? What does atheism have to offer that’s worth fighting for?"


For me it is because the religious in the US have taken over the government and, now in power, they are attempting to convert this nation from secular to religious, see how well that's turned out in other countries. I abhor, and I don't use that word lightly, uncritical thinking especially when laws are enacted using same.

I agree entirely. It is not what we can offer that is relevant, since we have no belief or dogma to divulge. It is what our presence may one day eradicate, the atrocities and abuses of the religious. We are important not in and of ourselves, but because of who we oppose and why we do it.

Religion, rather than acting as a symbol of truth or justice, merely acts as a symbol of human gullibility and stupidity. Surely no race of beings with any real intelligence would concoct such drivel.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Prometheus762's post
04-04-2013, 05:04 PM
RE: There is danger in dogma, whoever is behind it.
(04-04-2013 08:27 AM)TheGulegon Wrote:  If a militant atheist is someone who would like to abolish the participation of the religious in governing over us by force if necessary, then I am one! You can believe whatever mumbo-jumbo you want, so long as you keep it out of my ears! But I've always thought that taking a person who believes that the world will come to a cataclysmic end, and has faith that believers like themselves will go to an eternal happy land after death, and giving that yahoo Nuclear Launch Codes....?.....is the worst fucking idea in the history of ideas!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I only recently finished Sam Harris' "The End of Faith" for the first time. He goes into incredible detail concerning the threat of nuclear holocaust presented to us by the religious. I have never felt such rage in all my life as I thought of those fucking lunatics sitting in a bunker somewhere, able at any moment to destroy me, my family, and all that I stand for.

If anyone is calling for militant Atheism, I will gladly bolster the ranks with my presence. Who knows, one day we may have a chance to strike a few very well deserved and long overdue blows, in the name of freedom and free thought.

Even as I consider this however, I feel a bit wrong. I am not so sure I would want Atheism to join the world political network as a physical power. I do not like the idea of free thinkers entering the same realm as so many theocratic nations that I oppose so firmly.

Religion, rather than acting as a symbol of truth or justice, merely acts as a symbol of human gullibility and stupidity. Surely no race of beings with any real intelligence would concoct such drivel.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 05:08 PM
RE: There is danger in dogma, whoever is behind it.
I think history has proven to the world that making mandates concerning the freedom of religion, or from religion, is futile. It does not make for a successful long term society.

The only way free thought will make a real impression on the world, is if many people choose to think freely of their own accord, and emancipate themselves. No amount of militancy or force will substitute for their own personal discovery.

If this occurs, we may very well look forward to a secular republic dominated by free thought, rather than the ugliness of faith. As much as I love this fantasy, I do not know if it will ever be so, or if it would even be in my lifetime.

Religion, rather than acting as a symbol of truth or justice, merely acts as a symbol of human gullibility and stupidity. Surely no race of beings with any real intelligence would concoct such drivel.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 05:25 PM
RE: There is danger in dogma, whoever is behind it.
(03-04-2013 06:44 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  From the article:

"Why are the “neo-atheists” of today so obsessed with God’s nonexistence that they go on media rampages, wear T-shirts proclaiming their absence of belief, or call for a militant atheism? What does atheism have to offer that’s worth fighting for?"


For me it is because the religious in the US have taken over the government and, now in power, they are attempting to convert this nation from secular to religious, see how well that's turned out in other countries. I abhor, and I don't use that word lightly, uncritical thinking especially when laws are enacted using same.

I agree with this.

There is so much to life, learning, and sharpening your reasoning than religion. However it will be relevant as long as people abuse the religious for monetary gain, power, and control over society based on religious doctrine. As long as the religious themselves continue to cause unnecessary harm, there will always be a need for atheists, skeptics, and others who question.

When religion starts to be a personal thing that is not applied to any one else, I'll stop debating them.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like fstratzero's post
04-04-2013, 06:17 PM
RE: There is danger in dogma, whoever is behind it.
(03-04-2013 05:56 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Spotted on the alternet.

Have Militant Atheists Created a New Religion?

It's a rather long read but very well-written. Comes down pretty hard on Hitchens and Harris, but also comes down hard on D’Souza and Rabbi Boteach (whoever the fuck they are). Finds Dennett reasonable, as Girly has for some 3 decades now since I first was introduced to him and Hofstadter through The Minds' I back in uni.

The basic premise is not made explicit until the last paragraph. That if a primatologist finds evidence of humanism in primates devoid of religion, what is the role of religion in human society, how did it come to be, why does it persist?

Anywho, it's an excerpt from the primatologist's book The Bonobo and the Atheist: In Search of Humanism Among the Primates. ... Guess I'm gonna go and read the whole book now since I find the premise rather provocative.

I have had Hofstatdter and Dennet's book sitting on a shelf unread for decades.
What happened to Hofstadter. I know Dennett has recently been into holiday leave and stuff for computers.
Not much time left and so many unread books. Any G.M. priority reads?Cool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mr Woof's post
04-04-2013, 06:22 PM
RE: There is danger in dogma, whoever is behind it.
(04-04-2013 06:17 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  
(03-04-2013 05:56 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Spotted on the alternet.

Have Militant Atheists Created a New Religion?

It's a rather long read but very well-written. Comes down pretty hard on Hitchens and Harris, but also comes down hard on D’Souza and Rabbi Boteach (whoever the fuck they are). Finds Dennett reasonable, as Girly has for some 3 decades now since I first was introduced to him and Hofstadter through The Minds' I back in uni.

The basic premise is not made explicit until the last paragraph. That if a primatologist finds evidence of humanism in primates devoid of religion, what is the role of religion in human society, how did it come to be, why does it persist?

Anywho, it's an excerpt from the primatologist's book The Bonobo and the Atheist: In Search of Humanism Among the Primates. ... Guess I'm gonna go and read the whole book now since I find the premise rather provocative.

I have had Hofstatdter and Dennet's book sitting on a shelf unread for decades.
What happened to Hofstadter. I know Dennett has recently been into holiday leave and stuff for computers.
Not much time left and so many unread books. Any G.M. priority reads?Cool

Douglas Hofstadter

Read the book, it's awesome.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
04-04-2013, 06:36 PM
RE: There is danger in dogma, whoever is behind it.
(03-04-2013 06:12 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  And! Author seems like a dumb-assed bandwagon-jumper. Tongue

Quote:If some religions are worse than others, then some must be better. I’d love to hear the atheist perspective on what makes for a good religion, or the reason why different religions support different moralities.
Apparently hasn't read Sam Harris. I'd even say that many things Salman Rushdie said and wrote explain this point of view quite clearly when it comes to Islam. There are crazy christians out there protesting with signs, trying to get nonsense enacted into law, saying stuff on the news. On the other hand, there have been instances of people getting blown up for saying shit against Islam (not to mention all the fatwas). So, in some people's POV, Islam is more dangerous because it seems more likely to cause personal death or injury. Sam Harris compares this shit to something like Jainism, which is all bullshit, but it's specifically nonviolent bullshit that doesn't infringe on anyone else's shit. I really doubt any of the people he is talking about think there is a "good" religion, just more dangerous and less dangerous. See also: pretty much anything Salman Rushdie has said on the matter of Islam being more dangerous.

So yeah, I'm saying whiner bandwagon jumper trying to sound cool by claiming atheism is a religion.

What I will say is that not all atheists are atheists for the same reason, so you can't generalize. Another point is that some people can't fucking think for themselves, so yes, some people will blindly follow anything that Christopher Hitchens ever wrote, declare him their prophet,and they think they sound smart because they quote him a lot. But the rest of us can't fucking do anything about those people, and for the rest, atheism is merely a lack of belief in deities.

If "new atheists" are also politically active, it's because they see the ways in which religions (esp. monotheism) are infringing on human rights and fucking up the whole world. Activism isn't part of atheism; but some atheists will get upset if they see people being fucked over by religion.

Quote:In the same way that firefighters are sometimes stealth arsonists and homophobes closet homosexuals, do some atheists secretly long for the certitude of religion?
Man, fuck this guy. Now we can't stand up for human rights because it means we're insecure in our unbelief. Whatever. But again, as I said before, sure, SOME atheists may be some kind of bandwagon jumpers who haven't thought it through very well, but that goes for pretty much every grouping of humans you can think of and proves nothing.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 07:41 PM
RE: There is danger in dogma, whoever is behind it.
(03-04-2013 06:44 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  From the article:

"Why are the “neo-atheists” of today so obsessed with God’s nonexistence that they go on media rampages, wear T-shirts proclaiming their absence of belief, or call for a militant atheism? What does atheism have to offer that’s worth fighting for?"


For me it is because the religious in the US have taken over the government and, now in power, they are attempting to convert this nation from secular to religious, see how well that's turned out in other countries. I abhor, and I don't use that word lightly, uncritical thinking especially when laws are enacted using same.

In 50 years of atheism I have seen little really positive change.
The ridiculing of silly man made religion's worst aspects needs to die off.
I say this because, as literature, and minus all the grotesque stuff, there is some sanity.
Atheism could be at the fore front of looking for better ethical systems that embrace the best aspects of all open thought and the most pressing of human needs, as opposed to contrived and artificial ones.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 07:46 PM
RE: There is danger in dogma, whoever is behind it.
Disagree.

There is little positive change because people are still clinging to the worst aspects of their religions and in many places, becoming more into fundamentalism and making the problems worse. And since it is precisely these aspects that impact others in a negative way, those are the ones that people are talking about. Should people just shut up and allow them to do harm, to avoid hurting feelings? I am thinking not.

If there are good lessons in religion, they can also be found elsewhere. If atheists don't go on and on about how great monotheism is, it's because they aren't directly impacted by it and they can find positivity elsewhere.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes amyb's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: