Activist atheism

[Jim]

I agree with them all. My only worry is whether in the future an atheistic totalitarianism might take over under the influence of the ideas I mention in the OP.

It might be better for your purposes to leave atheism out of it, and say “anti-religious” instead. For example, “My only worry is whether in the future an anti-religious totalitarianism might take over under the influence of the ideas I mention in the OP.”

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think that sometimes people do feel threatened by people not believing the way they do. I’m wondering, do you think that’s the only reason for Christians feeling threatened by atheists? Another reason might be some displays of animosity and hostility against Christians, rallying around some banners of atheism.

Christianity has been the dominant religion in the US for so long, that many view it as the religion of the US. Anything that has an impact on Christianity is viewed as an attack even when it is someone asserting their own equality and rights under the Constitution. Suddenly sharing first place seems like losing to some people.

There have been strong words on both sides and I am sure that those from atheists has caused concern for some Christians. But how many atheist extremist groups are there compared to the number of religious extremist groups? I think any threat that would extend beyond words and court cases is really pretty one-sided and I am not concerned about what a group of people say to each other regarding my personal beliefs or that of the Christianity I embrace. There is very low probability it would rise to anything more than that. I do not think it is fear that Christians feel, but anger. Atheism is seen as an affront to Christian belief and that atheists receive equal treatment under the law seems like a loss to some. To me, that seems like people making Christianity less about God and Christ and more about events that should have no impact on a person's spiritual belief and do not.

Would taking "In God We Trust" off of currency really do any damage to Christianity? Are throngs of Christians going to immediately turn away from God as a result? If that is all it would take, there would be more serious issues involved that would be internal and not external. Christians need to be aware of the true basis of their faith and that it is not rooted in this world.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You do not want a reply, so why are you typing anything?

Well, sorry.
I do what a reply. I would like an answer to the question behind a lost of these threads:
How do you do morality and/or ethics?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A very interesting article. Some quotes:

Do quotes such as these qualify as activism, meaning, wishing for change in society? (Argumentation is a tool of activism, an action.)

All these quotes assume it's better if there were no religion, with the assumption that certain intuitions promote religion.

...

Now I will try to explain how I understand it.
Not for atheism per se, but for activist atheists as an aggregate over what I have experienced interacting with them:

It is self-evident, true, beyond any reasonable doubt, with reason, logic and evidence and so on that we live in a non-religious reality.
They are rational, reasonable, speak for all humanity and know how to get to a better world and we only need science, reason, logic, evidence and so on, because all theirs answers are based on science or are opinions based on science.

That seems to be it.

 

[PruePhillip]

Noisy peace disturbing preachers might be banned for being nuisances though. But even moderate theists would agree with such restrictions.

What would you say to those who wish to impose speech codes upon people
for political-ideological reasons because they are "nuisances??
Could we ban anyone for preaching Jesus, and at the same time take down
educators, media people, corporate leaders, sportsmen and the like who don't
go along with current thinking in gay, lesbian, transgender, polygamist etc.?

 

[Jim]

So, just another empty assertion.

Did you see this post?

 

[Jim]

Well, I do say that I never saw such a thing.

Do you think that it could never happen, that there could not possibly ever be any hatefulness in any post from any person who identifies as an atheist?

 

[exchemist]

Remember, they are engaged in actively teaching their world view with the hopes it will predominate, pushing false ideas to the wayside.

I'm not claiming they are militant activists.

Well yes, but that is what anyone does who has a strongly held opinion.

What I am sceptical of, and I notice you have not offered any evidence for, is your claims that "They want to abolish religions, including home school and religious schools. Basically, they consider non-atheists as people not deserving of participation in society......"

I don't see any evidence of this.

 

[Jim]

Perhaps so. But I'm worried that in the future they will be used to usher in an atheistic totalitarian state.

Why is it that atheists don't mind if a fellow atheist exaggerates and sows controversy, but I can't use hyperbole in my OP to make it interesting?

Do you have any aim or purpose in this thread? I thought that it might be to help raise awareness about a problem, and maybe, possibly, to try to help solve it.

I thought that you agreed with me that it’s a problem in both directions across all divides defined by what people believe and don’t believe, but now it looks like you want to focus more specifically on how it might affect Christians. It might be better for your purposes to leave atheism out it, and say “anti-Christian” instead. I don’t think it’s really that either. It looks to me like some campaigns against some Christian beliefs, and people who endorse those beliefs, and part of that is coming from other Christians.

 

[SomeRandom]

What would you say to those who wish to impose speech codes upon people
for political-ideological reasons because they are "nuisances??
Could we ban anyone for preaching Jesus, and at the same time take down
educators, media people, corporate leaders, sportsmen and the like who don't
go along with current thinking in gay, lesbian, transgender, polygamist etc.?

Look you can preach whatever you please. But if you trespass on private property, disturb funerals or otherwise harass other people, the line should be drawn. Preaching the “good word” should not be synonymous with breaking already existing nuisance laws. Or generally being an obnoxious idiot disturbing other people. As for educators, media etc. that depends on where you live. In America the first Amendment is very strong. And short of inciting hate and violence, the media can pretty much say whatever it wants. That said, there are always lines drawn in the sand.
Like an educator can deny the holocaust in private. But I certainly wouldn’t recommend said educator broadcast such sentiments publicly or indeed on their job, for example.
Either way, I think people in general need to stop hiding behind religion or “muh freedom of speech” and act like civilised adults. You say something you know is going to cause bad public relations, you accept the consequences of your actions like an adult.

 

[Martin]

We have Jehovas Witnesses door-knocking here from time to time, but I've never seen an atheist activist calling door to door. I guess that instead of the Watchtower they'd give out free copies of the GOD DELUSION?

 

[SomeRandom]

We have Jehovas Witnesses door-knocking here from time to time, but I've never seen an atheist activist calling door to door. I guess that instead of the Watchtower they'd give out free copies of the GOD DELUSION?

Or the dreaded Origin of Species by Darwin?
*dramatic music*

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We have Jehovas Witnesses door-knocking here from time to time, but I've never seen an atheist activist calling door to door. I guess that instead of the Watchtower they'd give out free copies of the GOD DELUSION?

Activism | American Atheists

 

[night912]

You see as it stands you have offered no evidence, reason or logic. None what so ever. You have at best offered an unsupported claim for which there is evidence, reason and logic if we look closer. But there isn't. You are not the first one, who have claim that about me. But you are confusing practical realism with cynicism. I am a former professional soldier of the poor, bloody infantry and I was trained to be realistic when we go *UBAR. I was in part a medic and you can't save all humans. Even if you try you will end up hurting some, because you are in effect trying to save yourself and not them.
You save a part of humanity one human at a time and you start with yourself.
That is not unique to soldiers. My wife is a social worker and nursing assistant. The same applies to her line of work. For those of us, who have learned to help another human as a human, some of us know this. Others in effect harm/cause discomfort, because they are not helping other humans. They are in effect projecting their own individual subjectivity onto others. And that has in practice nothing to do with religion or not. That is a matter of training and realism in practice.

So please, if you want to "play" with words and "win" by declaring me in effect a negative; i.e. a cynic, check your evidence, reasoning and logic.

I hope you will have a long and good enough life and I wish for you that your world-view works for you and that you don't cause to much harm/discomfort in yourself and/or other humans. In practice for the everyday world I am a realist, yet despite that I believe in humans. I am just realistic about that.
Peace

I said a "cynic," not a "pessimist." And no, I didn't just make a claim based on no evidence. Your posts are the evidence. Being a former soldier means nothing in regards to you not being a cynic. Being cynical isn't just about being negative.

Sorry, but just because you like playing word games, doesn't mean that everyone else does either. I don't play word games nor do I need to.

 

[LuisDantas]

Do you think that it could never happen, that there could not possibly ever be any hatefulness in any post from any person who identifies as an atheist?

Not never exactly. But it would be exceptionally rare and unlikely.

One of the main hurdles of discussions about the consequences of theism and atheism is that some people expect them to be roughly similar or comparable, when they actually are not. They are inherently difficult to meaningfully compare to each other.

Why? Because atheism is an absence of a certain specific belief, and therefore has very few consequences, if any, while theism is very much the opposite: a remarkably vague, ill-defined belief that nonetheless is frequently used as an enabler and justification for many behaviors and goals.

Attempts at finding "equivalences" between the two are far more often than not quite misguided.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I said a "cynic," not a "pessimist." And no, I didn't just make a claim based on no evidence. Your posts are the evidence. Being a former soldier means nothing in regards to you not being a cynic. Being cynical isn't just about being negative.

Sorry, but just because you like playing word games, doesn't mean that everyone else does either. I don't play word games nor do I need to.

Cynic - Google: a person who believes that people are motivated purely by self-interest rather than acting for honourable or unselfish reasons.

So you know this, because being a soldier and running against a machine gun nest to draw fire is motivated purely by self-interest. Right, I think that you don't realize that if that was the case you wouldn't have soldiers.
In the end as a soldier you try to keep yourself alive but you live and die for the group. It is group psychology.

I live as a part of a society and some of the things I do, are done for others, because I believe in that. The former is about the group, the latter is in the end the selfish gene, which manifests itself as altruism and fairness in some people.
I believe in that. Of course doing something for the group or doing something purely by self-interest are both selfish, if you want to play with words.

You play with words - cynic - I play back at you

 

[LuisDantas]

Well, sorry.
I do what a reply. I would like an answer to the question behind a lost of these threads:
How do you do morality and/or ethics?

There are at least three main lines of thought about the origin and nature of morality and ethics.

The less convincing IMO and the only one that has anything to do with god-beliefs is deontology.

Neither Virtue Ethics nor Consequentialism have a true place for supernaturalism or theism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There are at least three main lines of thought about the origin and nature of morality and ethics.

The less convincing IMO and the only one that has anything to do with god-beliefs is deontology.

Neither Virtue Ethics nor Consequentialism have a true place for supernaturalism or theism.

Don't go there.
Start here:

Science doesn't make moral judgments
When is euthanasia the right thing to do? What universal rights should humans have? Should other animals have rights? Questions like these are important, but scientific research will not answer them. Science can help us learn about terminal illnesses and the history of human and animal rights — and that knowledge can inform our opinions and decisions. But ultimately, individual people must make moral judgments. Science helps us describe how the world is, but it cannot make any judgments about whether that state of affairs is right, wrong, good, or bad.

Then notice that it is the same, for that is as in the is-ought problem. I am an anti-realist when it comes to meta-ethics and you can't solve that with any philosophical system. Biology in humans causes anti-realism as result for meta-ethics and there is no objective truth, proof, evidence or what not possible as long as we remain humans(a case of conditional knowledge).
Nothing has changed since this:
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." - Protagoras

 

[LuisDantas]

Don't go there.

Why would I refuse to?

Start here:

Sure, science is not really very connected to morality.

Although it is a valuable resource for investigating reality, and as such it is unavoidably invaluable for morality and ethics as well, since those (at their best, anyway) require reliable information about the likely results of various actions and neglects.

But that is just a part of it. Morality proper is an arising property of sentience, as well as a discipline of applied reason.

Then notice that it is the same, for that is as in the is-ought problem.

Uh, I don't think that is at all true. On the contrary; the very reason for being of morality is to be the bridge that such an impasse presents.

Maybe you can explain why you disagree?

I am an anti-realist when it comes to meta-ethics and you can't solve that with any philosophical system. Biology in humans causes anti-realism as result for meta-ethics and there is no objective truth, proof, evidence or what not possible as long as we remain humans(a case of conditional knowledge).

I truly disagree here. Moral truth may be challenging in some respects, but that is only because we are subject to the limitations of our own reasoning ability and other personal circunstances.

Granted, that is no small complication.

Nonetheless, morality also is and must be informed by objective facts, if it is to be anything other than a form of fiction. And if we go there, its very existence is nothing but an arbitrary, unsustainable action. That could only make any sense when joined with rather extreme statements about the very existence of reality.

Nothing has changed since this:
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." - Protagoras

Not at all, if we are still talking about morality and ethics. And that because those disciplines need awareness of many objective facts on fields such as nutrition, medicine, ecology, and economics.

 

[ecco]

They are still around and some of them too vocal. I never encounter criticism of Islam, Judaism or Buddhism of always was Christianity, since Young Earth and fundamentalism made an easy target of God.

You don't see too much criticism here of Islam, Judaism or Buddhism, because there aren't too many people here supporting Islam, Judaism or Buddhism.

Young Earth and fundamentalism made an easy target of Young Earth and fundamentalist proponents.

Many of them were asking for physical proof of God. I know that they consulted serious scientists because they had to debunk things like QM or scientists who are theists. Many of them liked going in ad hominem mode.

More nonsense.
Show some examples of atheists asking for proof of god.
Show some examples of atheists debunking things like QM or scientists who are theists.