Activist atheism

ecco · Jul 16, 2019

PruePhillip said:
Political Correctness is an intense form of bigotry. Its adherents have every
right to their views, but no right whatsoever to stop anyone else's point of
view.
Aand so on, so forth.

Let's try to stay on topic. You wrote...

PruePhillip said:
... We have another one, right now, concerning a rugby player who posted biblical verses on-line about adultery, gays, dishonesty, divorce etc. He lost a multi-million dollar contract as corporations withdrew their sponsorship.

I responded...

ecco said:
Are you upset that executives and board members of private corporations have a right to discontinue allowing bigots to represent their products?

Care to address my response?

You wrote...

PruePhillip said:
Another company was targeted last year because a board member belonged to a church
with a strong anti gay-marriage stance. So certainly, religious freedoms ARE under attack, and by extension, the rights of people to speak their mind.

I responded...

ecco said:
Attacked how?

Care to address my response?

tas8831 · Jul 16, 2019

Quintessence said:
@dmap - it's important to remember that radical agendas are precisely that. Every ideological movement has its radicals, and atheists are no exception. And like every ideological movement, the radicals are not the dominant voice. Most atheists are quite content to live-and-let live, just as most theists are content to do exactly the same. Remember that before thinking about this causes you too much stress. I say that as much to myself as I do to you.

And yet... which group do you suppose has a greater influence on society today, in general? Radical religionists/Christians, or atheists?

PruePhillip · Jul 16, 2019

ecco said:
Let's try to stay on topic. You wrote...

I responded... "Are you upset that executives and board members of private corporations have a right to
discontinue allowing bigots to represent their products?"

Care to address my response?

Define a bigot.
One hint - it isn't someone who disagrees with your POV.
And if you feel that it IS then YOU become the bigot.
My definition of a bigot is one who seeks to shut down another person's POV.

But over to you, what is a "bigot" ?

Quintessence · Jul 16, 2019

tas8831 said:
And yet... which group do you suppose has a greater influence on society today, in general? Radical religionists/Christians, or atheists?

I can see where some might find this question important, but I am not among them. Even if I thought it was possible to answer this objectively, local and regional cultural differences means one's experiences are going to vary. That, and I couldn't care less what arbitrary category we divvy radicals into. Radicals are radicals. Unless you're looking to make yet another pedantic case of "ew, religion," I just don't see the point of asking this question.

Dan From Smithville · Jul 16, 2019

mikkel_the_dane said:
Well, it is sort of a derail, but you need to add that in some cases there is an non-reductive element and sorry to say qualia. You don't need to add God or all that.
The short way to get it, is the exchange:
You: All that goes on in a brain is is an emergent property of the physical brain and the chemical processes that take place there.
Me: No.

So what is this non-reductive element and qualia? Forget souls and what not. It is subjectivity.
That you can't reduce down, that it has make sense to humans. All this about right or wrong,
useful or useless.

I am not positing this description to be definitive and I did say i was only the best I could come up with. I cannot add supernatural elements, since I have no way to know what those would be or nor does the ability exist to determine which of the suggested forms, if any, that the supernatural would manifest as. Of course, if it manifests, then it is no longer supernatural.

Do mice run in their sleep?

tas8831 · Jul 16, 2019

Quintessence said:
I can see where some might find this question important, but I am not among them. Even if I thought it was possible to answer this objectively, local and regional cultural differences means one's experiences are going to vary. That, and I couldn't care less what arbitrary category we divvy radicals into. Radicals are radicals. Unless you're looking to make yet another pedantic case of "ew, religion," I just don't see the point of asking this question.

No, more like "ew, White Supremacy/Militarism/Xenophobia inspired by a desire to stir up the base".

Sure, there are radical atheists. Who represents them in congress? Who seeks their approval? Which politicians do they influence? I'd say none.

And the radical Christianists? Hmmm.... Franklin Graham? Paula White? The Alt-Right?

Heck - those radicals have their own congressfolks! Steve King, Chris Smith, Trump, Pence....

Revoltingest · Jul 16, 2019

Quintessence said:
I can see where some might find this question important, but I am not among them. Even if I thought it was possible to answer this objectively, local and regional cultural differences means one's experiences are going to vary. That, and I couldn't care less what arbitrary category we divvy radicals into. Radicals are radicals. Unless you're looking to make yet another pedantic case of "ew, religion," I just don't see the point of asking this question.

To the OP, the question is quite relevant.
He worries that atheists might take over the country, & install a repressive
anti-religious regime. So the question of which group has more influence
should concern him. Atheists are the minority, & are generally unelectable.
Believers are the majority, & are the primary reason for the unelectability
of atheists. So I find his fear of atheists to be misplaced, ie, believers pose
the greater risk because of their greater power & influence.

This is not to dis religion.
It's to help the OP see that we're not a real threat to his religious liberty.
Unless....
If all the fanatical believers convert to atheism, we could become dangerous.
Hell hath no fury like the recently converted.

ecco · Jul 16, 2019

Landon Caeli said:
Bad people doing bad things:

League of Militant Atheists - Wikipedia
I sometimes wonder if the Chinese have people doing this "individual work" right now on internet forums.

You're 90 years behind the times. But if that's what you need to make a point - OK.

ecco · Jul 16, 2019

SomeRandom said:
People have been predicting the end of oil and water since the dark ages.

Currently, there are water shortages in many places in the world. Periodically, there are many more short term shortages.

Currently, we have 7.7 billion people. By 2100 there will be 10 billion.

Desalinization is currently expensive and getting water to interiors is also expensive.

Maybe the predictions will be coming true.

Revoltingest · Jul 16, 2019

ecco said:
Currently, there are water shortages in many places in the world. Periodically, there are many more short term shortages.
Currently, we have 7.7 billion people. By 2100 there will be 10 billion.
Desalinization is currently expensive and getting water to interiors is also expensive.
Maybe the predictions will be coming true.

Nah, there's plenty more natural environment to
pave over, farm, or otherwise destroy for mankind.

ecco · Jul 16, 2019

dmap said:
I think the only way a Christian can have a view of science matching what science actually teaches is if they interpret the Bible allegorically or some such thing as that. But is there really any basis to do such a thing? You have to deny Christian history and doctrine to do this. Why would someone remain a Christian after this?

Jim said:
Yes. Pretty much everything that Jesus says in the gospel stories.

If everything in the Bible is allegory, wouldn't that also mean what Jesus said about the Bible being allegory is allegory?

SomeRandom · Jul 16, 2019

ecco said:
Currently, there are water shortages in many places in the world. Periodically, there are many more short term shortages.

Currently, we have 7.7 billion people. By 2100 there will be 10 billion.

Desalinization is currently expensive and getting water to interiors is also expensive.

Maybe the predictions will be coming true.

There are still plenty of resources. In developing nations, the lack of clean water is obviously more profoundly felt.
But Predictions are hyperbolic and sensationalist, by nature.

PruePhillip · Jul 16, 2019

ecco said:
Currently, there are water shortages in many places in the world. Periodically, there are many more short term shortages.

Currently, we have 7.7 billion people. By 2100 there will be 10 billion.

Desalinization is currently expensive and getting water to interiors is also expensive.

Maybe the predictions will be coming true.

Ecco. When we no longer require oil there will still be plenty of oil in the ground.
Populations might go way beyond 10 billion given the new tech of life extension
but we will learn to manage this.
Desalinization is getting better, so too is our understand of how to manage the
environment so it won't be needed as much. I do have optimism.
This has nothing to do with end-of-the-world eschatological stuff - the signs for
this are given and they relate to the fall of religion and the return of the Jews to
Israel.

mikkel_the_dane · Jul 17, 2019

ecco said:
...
There is nothing simple about the processes that got us from a singularity to being able to write in a forum. Quite the opposite.
...

Here is from the singularity to now: I write No!. That No! is from the singularity. You then answer, that it is a wrong belief. I answer, that it is a wrong belief, is from the singularity.
This goes on forever, because all you say, that is "wrong" in all senses, are from the singularity.

ecco · Jul 17, 2019

SomeRandom said:
There are still plenty of resources. In developing nations, the lack of clean water is obviously more profoundly felt.
But Predictions are hyperbolic and sensationalist, by nature.

When paper mills sprang up along the Hudson River, I'm quite certain that some people warned that dumping all that waste into the river would damage it. I'm also sure that some people, paper mill owners, politicians, and hangers-on said such "predictions are hyperbolic and sensationalist, by nature".

Ditto the London smog
Ditto the Great Pacific garbage patch
Ditto the LA smog
Ditto, ditto, ditto.

ecco · Jul 17, 2019

PruePhillip said:
Ecco. When we no longer require oil there will still be plenty of oil in the ground.
Populations might go way beyond 10 billion given the new tech of life extension
but we will learn to manage this.
Desalinization is getting better, so too is our understand of how to manage the
environment so it won't be needed as much. I do have optimism.

You have optimism. Scientists who study this stuff do not share your optimism. What is your optimism based on? The fact that you don't agree with science?

Also see post # 579 above.

PruePhillip said:
This has nothing to do with end-of-the-world eschatological stuff - the signs for
this are given and they relate to the fall of religion and the return of the Jews to
Israel.

Whatever.

ecco · Jul 17, 2019

mikkel_the_dane said:
The problem is not that it is natural. It is that it is over-reductive. It reduces to much. It is not that it is simple, it is to simple.

ecco said:
There is nothing simple about the processes that got us from a singularity to being able to write in a forum. Quite the opposite.

mikkel_the_dane said:
Here is from the singularity to now: I write No!. That No! is from the singularity. You then answer, that it is a wrong belief. I answer, that it is a wrong belief, is from the singularity.
This goes on forever, because all you say, that is "wrong" in all senses, are from the singularity.

I do understand that English is not your first language, but I'm having a real problem trying to understand what you are trying to say.

mikkel_the_dane · Jul 17, 2019

ecco said:
I do understand that English is not your first language, but I'm having a real problem trying to understand what you are trying to say.

All words including "false" and all the other words you use about religious humans come from the singularity and the physical. The behavior of religious humans in your model come the singularity and the physical.
That I believe in God, is a result of causal effects all the way back to the singularity.

So how can it be false? What is "false" all the way back to the singularity? "False" is physical, natural and so on in your model. "False" is not supernatural and what not. Indeed the supernatural is a natural behavior in humans in your model!
So what is the problem with, that I believe in God. It is a natural behavior all the way back to the singularity.

Answer please only with science, how religion can be "wrong", if religion is a natural behavior?

dad · Jul 17, 2019

Audie said:
The Soviet revolution had much to do with
the centuries of oppression laid on society
by the Russian Orthodox Church. Not
"atheism" as such.

Source?

dad · Jul 17, 2019

mikkel_the_dane said:
Answer please only with science, how religion can be "wrong", if religion is a natural behavior?

Other beliefs are always a threat to belief systems.

Activist atheism

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Consults with Trees

Recently discovered my planet of origin.

Well-Known Member

Pragmatic Libertarian

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Pragmatic Libertarian

Veteran Member

Still learning to be wise

Well-Known Member

My own religion

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

My own religion

Undefeated

Undefeated