Aggressive Atheism

[razoredge]

But to suggest that there should be no form of government on even the local level that must take on moral issues such as murder,rape, theft, assault, etc. is ridiculous (if that is what you are suggesting)

I believe this was much better in the times when a community took care of it themselves, shotgun justice, public stonings. Granted there must have been many innocent dead but man needs some predator even if its himself.

This does not lend to modern economics however if one considers the pile of money spred around to arrest, try, convict and incarcerate one scumbag... but thats right our governments are broke and tax base strained... gee imagine that. I think we need to hire on a specaial commitee or better yet create an entire department to investigate this phenom

 

[damnromulans]

I don't believe in the acknowledgement of religion or god in one's life whatsoever, let alone arguing about it.

Hmmm...

I simply just don't believe that people should believe.

...

It is the mild believers actually, who bother me the most...

...

It's like these idiots you run into all the time who believe in the ultimate Santa Claus For Adults aka KARMA..........................*hurl*

...

So you're not arguing because you already know you're right, I understand that, but you seem awfully concerned with what other people believe, even to the point of getting angry about it.

That is basically my point with Atheists which SI fails to understand. Active atheism is no different than a religion. You find beliefs that are different than yours and then attack them while holding your idea of how to live as superior.

Congratulations on being that which you claim to hate most.

Think Dakryn said it best. While he is a Christian and I am an apathetic agnostic who secretly thinks religion is stupid, it is nauseating to see people whose beliefs align with mine acting like fools engaging in hilarious-yet-sad oversimplifications like "Muslims fly plane into buildings" and "Catholics are dumb because 600-something years ago there was the Spanish Inquisition." It's pretty comparable to reactionary "news" reports claiming that heavy metal listeners will turn violent or self-destructive because of heavy metal.

 

[hexwind]

^ well said

 

[Blowtus]

Yes, it can.

Ever had a partner? Do you have 'faith' that they are honest with you and not sleeping around, or do you 'know', have you reasoned?

 

[razoredge]

I have 100% faith that a woman will lie 100% of the time as well as be a hyprocrite 100% of the time, this I do not have to reason.

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

Ever had a partner? Do you have 'faith' that they are honest with you and not sleeping around, or do you 'know', have you reasoned?

Yes. No. And yes, I have(to the contrary known that they were lying and unfaithful once I took off the love blinkers).

Love is blind; just like faith. But trust can be established via mutual planning and respect if the communication is of a high quality.

People leave these things by the wayside in relationships; and all too often get duped because they somehow have 'faith' that these things will somehow work themselves out.

It just doesn't happen that way(unless they're really lucky in their match).

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

So you're not arguing because you already know you're right, I understand that, but you seem awfully concerned with what other people believe, even to the point of getting angry about it.

No. You should reread my posts again. I don't really have a problem with what people believe; I just have a problem that people believe.

You call yourself an apathetic agnostic. But this is really a fallacy. It doesn't matter if you think that there 'could be' or 'may be' a higher power or a supreme being; it only matters if you believe that there could be one or not.

Agnostics are like that term people use today who ridicule and hide at the same time: half-kidding. It just isn't possible.

 

[razoredge]

yes agnostic is amusing in itself but the apathetic agnostic excuses itself with claims of not caring about their uncertainty. I suppose that attitude needs a term, so whatever... Im apathetic

 

[Blowtus]

Yes. No. And yes, I have(to the contrary known that they were lying and unfaithful once I took off the love blinkers).

Love is blind; just like faith. But trust can be established via mutual planning and respect if the communication is of a high quality.

What is trust? The 'faith' that someone will treat you fairly? You can plan and reason all you want, the final judgement is a 'leap of faith'. You're attacking from the wrong angle and clinging blindly to your guns. Faith in a general sense is not a problem, faith in things for which there is no compelling objective reason is really more what you're after, I think...

 

[damnromulans]

stuff

No, I got what you were saying. I was just questioning what the difference is between your anger and name-calling of believers versus the efforts of proselytizers and busybodies.

I don't think being an apathetic agnostic is a fallacy at all. I simply don't care enough to form an opinion strong enough to warrant the use of the term "believe."

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

No, I got what you were saying. I was just questioning what the difference is between your anger and name-calling of believers versus the efforts of proselytizers and busybodies.

I prefaced my original post by saying that I don't pay religion any openly oral heed. People often say you shouldn't talk about religion and politics in bars or what-have-you. And on religion, they are right. It doesn't deserve or warrant any serious conversation, no matter how shitfaced one is.
Politics on the other hand, should be discussed, and often. Because I don't really think that politicians would be able to get away with as much as they do if people were getting less and less naive to their corruption and conjobs.

I simply don't care enough to form an opinion strong enough to warrant the use of the term "believe."

Then, this is what makes a great many of agnostics in reality, atheists.
If you don't employ the use of the term "believe", then you are really an atheist, apathetic or not.

If you still cling to agnosticism, then I will run it by you another way. If whatever higher power you think may or may not exist, in whatever form you think they may or may not appear to you, if they asked you to kill your own child; would you do it?
If you say no, then I would have to say that you are an atheist. IF you say yes, then you are a very dangerous person who I would stay very far away from.

 

[damnromulans]

I am an atheist. I just don't want to be lumped in with the loud ones who yell at people for being agnostic.

Also the proposed scenario is idiotic at best. Even religious people wouldn't do that, unless they were completely insane.

I really don't follow most of the points you've been making in this thread. I think you could live a happier life by becoming a little more apathetic toward others' beliefs/nonbeliefs.

 

[razoredge]

interesting

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

I am an atheist. I just don't want to be lumped in with the loud ones who yell at people for being agnostic.

That's pretty pathetic and cowardly, if you ask me. I mean I don't openly yell at people for their beliefs; it's only when they tell me that I need to have faith(in whatever) or when people start uttering such idiocy that athiests are just like evangelicals. Please.
You could be the same and not start up conversations on religion and only confront 'faith' when it is thrust onto your path.

Also the proposed scenario is idiotic at best. Even religious people wouldn't do that, unless they were completely insane.

But that's the whole point. Faith in theistic doctrine when boiled down to its bare essences IS idiotic and completely insane(at best).

I really don't follow most of the points you've been making in this thread.

Well if you will kindly tell me what you have a problem with or if you have an argument; I will gladly elucidate and/or reciprocate.

I think you could live a happier life by becoming a little more apathetic toward others' beliefs/nonbeliefs.

Oh believe me(ha ha ha), I am plenty apathetic towards others' beliefs and I am quite fresh out of my faith in humanity(tee hee). I really don't give religion the time of day, except again, when people who say they are not religious start mentioning their faith in that which they only know.

The athiests, the libertarians, the objectivists, what have you.....while great groups, I don't align myself with any group. I align myself with ideas.

 

[damnromulans]

That's pretty pathetic and cowardly, if you ask me. I mean I don't openly yell at people for their beliefs; it's only when they tell me that I need to have faith(in whatever) or when people start uttering such idiocy that athiests are just like evangelicals. Please.
You could be the same and not start up conversations on religion and only confront 'faith' when it is thrust onto your path.

I don't see it as terribly cowardly or pathetic considering I really don't care and have no pride in my beliefs/lack of beliefs. And I do use the terms interchangeably depending on who I talk to - please don't have an aneurysm.

But that's the whole point. Faith in theistic doctrine when boiled down to its bare essences IS idiotic and completely insane(at best).

Most people believe a few things that are idiotic and insane. I'm not interested in what people believe in as long as they conduct their lives in a way that is not harmful to other people. Plenty of successful and intelligent people have irrational faith, but they still contribute important inventions and ideas and actions.

Well if you will kindly tell me what you have a problem with or if you have an argument; I will gladly elucidate and/or reciprocate.

Not a problem so much as "why do you care so much?"

Oh believe me(ha ha ha), I am plenty apathetic towards others' beliefs and I am quite fresh out of my faith in humanity(tee hee). I really don't give religion the time of day, except again, when people who say they are not religious start mentioning their faith in that which they only know.

The athiests, the libertarians, the objectivists, what have you.....while great groups, I don't align myself with any group. I align myself with ideas.

Good for you for not pigeonholing yourself into groups. Ideas and individual principles > some breakable alliance/loyalty to X group. Now why can't you accept that people who belong to groups you dislike (believers/the faithful for example) might not actually be insane?

 

[Blowtus]

I think you could live a happier life by becoming a little more apathetic toward others' beliefs/nonbeliefs.

Apathy can be pleasant but not particularly fulfilling...

 

[damnromulans]

A good point.

But what can possibly be fulfilling about being enraged about other people's most personal spiritual beliefs? It's not a law that can be amended and the likelihood of changing those people's minds is almost nil.

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

Most people believe a few things that are idiotic and insane. I'm not interested in what people believe in as long as they conduct their lives in a way that is not harmful to other people. Plenty of successful and intelligent people have irrational faith, but they still contribute important inventions and ideas and actions.

Sure. But would you actually endorse such a person as someone to follow? Or more to the point, would you side with said people if it were them against people who are, I dunno, more pragmatic?
I know you will say that this will probably never take place; but that doesn't mean the faithful people you support are anymore right.

But that's fine if you conduct your life that way; I pretty much do as well.
So we can say that much of the above is pretty moot.

Not a problem so much as "why do you care so much?"

Good for you for not pigeonholing yourself into groups. Ideas and individual principles > some breakable alliance/loyalty to X group. Now why can't you accept that people who belong to groups you dislike (believers/the faithful for example) might not actually be insane?

These two questions go together and I will answer them both at once.

IMO, the only consistent and enlightened philosophical viewpoint to hold in this modern age is to be some form of an libertarian-atheist.

How can I say this(and I say this without any pretention)?

Because the most vile and unenlightened viewpoint is totalitarianism. The pallor of the 20th Century more than proves this to be the case. I just made the point above of faith and force as corollaries; and now I will expand upon it.

Man's idea of god is just the same, if not a worse caricature of Orwell's Big Brother(an ultimate totalitarian monster). They say that god is a Father, the ultimate father figure; but this is also an extremely perverted fallacy. He is not a father; he is Big Brother- both in religious texts and on Sunday morning.

One of a (~real~)father's duties is to get out of the way. To let their child grow into a responsible adult; without their father's constant supervision. Now imagine the father said to his kid, "I will always be with you". The father continues and says, "I will be with you through college, your career, your marriage, all the way through to your death; and guess what, I will be with you onwards after your death for all eternity".

That is not what a father does. But that is what an undying Big Brother would do.

Many atheists and agnostics hold the view that they wish it were true; that it would be nice to have a guiding spirit through their lives and beyond.

I, on the contrary, do not hold that view whatsoever. I think it would be unimaginably nightmarish if it were true. To have a constant, tireless, around-the-clock, ever-judgmental, emotionally and mentally penetrating, total supervision through all of my life and even into my dreams. Then after I die, the real fun begins, right? I will be just one in a uniform celestial body of luminousness. It would be like living in North Korea.

Now I cannot, in any way accept, that the people who hold these doctrines to be true on faith; have the best interests of freedom and individuality at heart. Whether it's insane or not isn't really what bothers me. It is what their faith clandestinely advocates and condones that is unadulteratingly sinister.

 

[damnromulans]

Interesting, I see where you're going.

Plenty of people are only superficially interested in freedom and individuality because as Westerners you are "supposed to" believe that those two things are the pinnacle of humanity. In Japan for example group harmony and maintaining a peaceful homeostatic state are top priority, and most of the population are not religious at all. People all over the world are content to live fully within a system and not question authority and do what they are told. I'm not sure that that kind of complacency is rooted (or completely disconnected, on the other hand) to religious beliefs.

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

Plenty of people are only superficially interested in freedom and individuality because as Westerners you are "supposed to" believe that those two things are the pinnacle of humanity. In Japan for example group harmony and maintaining a peaceful homeostatic state are top priority, and most of the population are not religious at all. People all over the world are content to live fully within a system and not question authority and do what they are told. I'm not sure that that kind of complacency is rooted (or completely disconnected, on the other hand) to religious beliefs.

It could be. Or maybe not. There are myriad types of thuggery and barbarism(both obvious and not, archaic and modern, subtle and brutal) that still exist today in some form or another with the goal of getting the individual to submit and joining the rest of the herd. I am somewhat familiar with Japanese society and greatly understand the greater importance that is placed on conformity and the unpleasant consequences of noncomformity(such as higher suicide rates).

One of the secular methods in the West of beating down man's individuality is done by poisonous psychological pedagogy. As toddlers, one of our most basic words that we all utter is "MINE!" and this will be somehow crushed in us and demonized by our handlers. As children we are taught in school that it is wrong to go against authority; that it is some kind of a psychological defect or disorder. At one point, I believe that in the DSM(Diagnostic Statistical Manual), Anti-Authoritarianism was an official psychological disorder. However, in many of the more modern DSMs, "problems with authority" is usually a symptom of some greater disorder.

The point is that this(and revisionist history) has been used to subconsciously bully the students of the West into conformity to carry them from one despot to another. That somehow, some collective agency knows what's best for us and that we should never be left to our own devices(whether it be that we are too greedy, apt to follow the devil, etc) That we must follow and/or do for the "greater good", Gaia, god, or some other such chimerical monstrosity.

This is all poppycock. And it's sad how deeply instilled all of this is in many Westerners and many other people around the world.

Now I can tell you that it IS in human nature to go against authority. To question, to be stubborn, and above all; not to tolerate force. It is very healthy and very human. We are not sheep; and reason and insatiability are what separates us from the animals for a reason. What's more; to deviate from the norm is the healthiest thing that we can do.

The film They Live had a very excellent point.