Activist atheism

[tayla]

Is this thread part of that? To raise awareness of the problem? Were you hoping that it might help change some attitudes and behavior, or be part of a solution in some other way?

I'm not trying to change the world. I'm just sharing my thoughts with y'all because I enjoy spending time with y'all and it helps me think about things. Maybe some of you will find me fascinating.

 

[tayla]

You never know how something is going to turn out even if it is set up with the best intentions, but given what I have experienced personally, I would definitely choose atheists over fundamentalists evangelicals. The latter want a theocracy and if they had it, heads would roll. Atheists just want to argue about things. That would actually be fun.

Yes, it is fun. My friends and family are all fundamentalist evangelical Christians as I used to be. I haven't told them I apostatized because they will all reject me like they did when I became Catholic. They are not a very loyal bunch, but can be very nice and kind people.

 

[tayla]

It has been my experience that creationists on the internet do not understand science or the specific areas of science that they wish to deny. They also tend to make arguments that consist of only assertions or those that are replete with various logical fallacies. Within that scope, anybody that understands science finds it difficult to take such irrational positions lightly and atheists are no exception.

Yes. Creationists lie and manipulate the data to support their absurd views. But it's hard to refute them because they would have to abandon their faith. As a fundamentalist evangelical Christian, I was able to slide out the creationist teachings and slide in the scientific teachings. But I think doing so ultimately caused me to apostatize many years later. Their leaders know the dangers of believing science.

 

[tayla]

I don't think those nerds have the cojones to get out of their houses to start some atheist revolution, it is all just a bunch of talk but still there is a little danger to it like all prejudicial hyperbole out there. Some nerd with a gun might go crazy and think he has a mission

As I think about it more, I don't see any way to shield and protect from my concern. There is no way to speak about any topic without risking triggering the next tyrant to take over world.

 

[Jim]

Are you referring to a mystical experiential kind of reality, as opposed to philosophically based argumentation in the world of ideas? If so, this reminds me somewhat of some eastern philosophical systems.

“To what shall I compare the kingdom of heaven?”

I’m thinking of it now as freedom from some blinding and disabling delusions, and seeing the world in a wonderful new way, opening up a vast new world of possibilities. Also, a kind of personal relationship with nature and with all people. Sometimes people describe it as losing the illusion of duality, of a line of separation and alienation between me and the world around me. That ties it in with freedom from prejudices, lines of alienation between groups and categories of people.

 

[tayla]

As long as we're a constitutional republic, the risk of that looks vanishingly small. But if ever Constitutional liberties are suspended, it would be more likely thatbelievers (who outnumber atheists) would establish a totalitarian regime.

Yes, I think you are correct. That day may soon be upon us.

I wonder if I would be safe as a Catholic -- they don't let you revoke your membership, and all I would have to do is go to confession to confess my apostasy from the faith and all the times I missed mass, and I would be in good standing once again. And safe from the tyrants.

 

[tayla]

You read hinting, while I read only what he says.
But Dawkins is right about this, eg, Jim Jones & the Peoples
Temple mass suicide, Boko Haram & the kidnappings.

Tis good advice to avoid believing absurd things as true.

Yes, I believe nearly everything Dawkins says; all except the part about the assumption of materialism/physicalism and its implications.

I accept everything provably true, and reject everything provably false. But there is a lot in between.

 

[tayla]

A few of the denunciations of religions and their followers that I’ve seen, that looked hateful to me, have come from people calling themselves atheists. I thought Dan was saying that he never saw any atheists doing that. What I was thinking but didn’t say clearly was that I have seen people doing that, who call themselves atheists.

I just saw a YouTube video of an atheist screaming at the top of his lungs at a Christian who was calmly holding an evangelical sign. A crowd formed including some police. I think I would have put some distance between us in case he was armed or crazy.

 

[Jim]

I considered this subset to be rather significant since I only listen to well-known mainstream atheists, not fringe conspiracy theory types. But without having provided direct quotations I have no right to press the issue.

Are you talking about the four horsemen of atheism? I see their careers as examples of what I described earlier, people monetizing their interests and making a name for themselves by twisting words and facts to help people excuse and camouflage their animosities and hostilities against some group or category of people.

 

[tayla]

Here are some personal views I have about atheists.

Thank you for the many observations. You've obviously given the matter a lot of consideration, which is what I need to do.

 

[tayla]

I need to qualify that to indicate those fundamentalists I am speaking of are those I have met on the internet. I cannot rule out that anonymity has emboldened some to lengths they would not normally go to in person, though I do wonder about some.

They can be friendly at church, especially if they think you will get saved. After that, watch your wallet.

 

[tayla]

religious freedoms ARE under attack, and by extension, the rights of people
to speak their mind.

Yes, and not just religious freedoms, but all kinds of freedoms are under attack.

 

[Jim]

If you said "leaders of fundamentalist evangelical Christianity" I think the generalization would be worth stating as is with no additional qualifiers.

No. “Some leaders of an imaginary group of people that I call ‘fundamentalist evangelical Christianity.’”

 

[tayla]

It truly looks to me like you are at least flirting with libel in the opening post of this thread.

Definition (partial) of libel from Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

2 a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression
b (1) : a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt
(2) : defamation of a person by written or representational means​

I didn't mention any names in particular. I don't think anyone can think I was referring to each and every atheist in the whole world; I was only referring to those who match the description I provided.

I don't think I was defaming anybody, just listing some viewpoints I've encountered.

In the future I will provide direct quotes, very scholarly like. That way, no one can object to my conclusions as long as I don't stray too far from the words spoken. And that way, if you don't like the words, your quarrel is with the speaker of the words, not with me.

 

[tayla]

Activism, sure.

But not even remotely of the form or goals that you described in the OP.

The kinds of things I mention in the OP are the kinds of goals an activist might have; they will be attempting to accomplish these goals. At least, that is my worry from what I heard them say. Maybe they can't accomplish these kinds of things unless circumstances are more favorable, but I worry they might try someday.

 

[tayla]

Boy. You must be kidding... because you just can not be talking seriously.

I have studied the history of Western Civilization. Things crazier happened often.

 

[tayla]

Even Hitchens seemed to fall short of banning religion by force.

Yes, I agree with most everything he says except his assumption of materialism/physicalism and things implied by that.

But history has shown that something that we think can't happen or won't happen could happen in the right circumstances. If given a chance to ban religion in a dystopian future, would people be tempted to do it -- just because they could?

 

[tayla]

Very few atheist or even anti theists wish to ban religion. A few rabble rousing troublemakers existing doesn’t change the strong belief of personal freedoms practically all of humanity shares.

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

Yes, I hope everyone plays friendly into the far future, even as oil and water runs out and as the effects of a warming planet cause untold suffering.

 

[tayla]

Another reason might be some displays of animosity and hostility against Christians, rallying around some banners of atheism.

As a Christian, I was taught to be afraid of atheists because they were under the control of Satan who was trying to destroy everyone's soul. Don't underestimate the savage brutality of the fundamentalist evangelical Christian world view. My Christian friends voted for you-know-who because they were hoping he would destroy the world and usher in the rapture and etc.

 

[tayla]

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.”

Yes, thank you. This is a very, very, very good idea which I shall take to heart.

Is it proper for me to modify the OP to make it more in line with what I intended and to not offend people?