Activist atheism

[tayla]

There is very low probability it would rise to anything more than that.

Yes, perhaps you are right.

 

[tayla]

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.

Yes, I agree -- you have hit the nail on the head. My only addition would be that non-materialist/non-physicalist views based on philosophy (not religion) such as I have should be tolerated. And religious views should be tolerated as long as these religious leave everyone else alone.

I guess that's what I'm getting at in the OP. From some of the things I heard, I was worried that those atheists who said them wouldn't allow for these kinds of alternate views.

 

[tayla]

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.?

These are very hard questions; there is no perfect answer. All groups need to discuss solutions, but I doubt there would be a consensus, and the group in power would decide. I would prefer the people trying to resolve it would be highly educated in moral philosophy, political philosophy, and other relevant fields.

 

[SomeRandom]

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.

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

 

[SomeRandom]

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?

No. Freedom of religion is as intrinsic as it gets for our species. Course one could easily point out that religions have been constantly trying to ban other religions for generations. Or that many dystopian ideas rely heavily on suspiciously religious like ideology. Since they seem to display varying levels of controlling behaviours on its constituents.
But that would be a low blow, amirite?

 

[tayla]

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?

I think it is safe to say that some people are prone to rage and hatefulness no matter what they believe.

The other day I was riding my bicycle to the park and a guy in a car angrily cursed at me because he didn't like to have to delay his left turn while I rode across the street. Where I live, I have to endure people speeding by in their cars and flipping me off and cursing at me because I'm not going 20 miles over the speed limit in an area with children present like they are. These encounters make me sad and I try to not let them steal my love of living.

 

[tayla]

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

Yes, of course. As long as people are respectful and not condescending to the people they are trying to convert.

 

[tayla]

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.

Yes, sadly I neglected to collect the quotes as I heard them. I can't easily go back and retrieve them. But in the future I will collect them and create threads to discuss them.

I didn't realize what a stir my OP would cause. I assumed I didn't have to get back into scholar mode on a forum such as this, thinking that people would have heard the same kinds of things as me, and would understand my perspective.

And so, I apologize for the confusion and anguish (or any other negative emotion) I may have caused anyone, and so obviously did cause to many/some/all/a few/blah blah.

 

[Revoltingest]

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

I think not.
We're still a constitutional republic.
And while many believe that Trump is crashing the sky,
the machinery of government continues as it has before.

 

[tayla]

it looks like you want to focus more specifically on how it might affect Christians.

The atheists I have been listening to emphasize opposing Christianity and so naturally I am reacting to that. But they also include all religions specifically and in general.

 

[tayla]

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 was concerned with things I repeatedly heard as I mentioned in the OP, and wanted to share my concern. I wish I had collected the quotes, because without them, it is difficult to discuss the topic except in a general way. Perhaps if I had stated in the OP something like, "assuming that certain atheists believe such and such..." But even then, I imagine many/some/all/a few would have objected with, "but no atheists actually believe such and such."

 

[tayla]

It might be better for your purposes to leave atheism out it, and say “anti-Christian” instead.

In the future I will only mention atheists when I also provide their quotes. It matters that the people saying the quotes are atheists; that is the point.

But when mentioning that some unspecified people object to such and such, I will prefer referring to them as anti-religious or anti-Christian or whatever. Even then I can imagine that some/many/a few will object that no one is actually anti-religious or anti-Christian, and how dare I accuse unnamed people of such a thing. Sometimes you just can't win no matter what you try...

 

[Revoltingest]

In the future I will only mention atheists when I also provide their quotes. It matters that the people saying the quotes are atheists; that is the point.

But when mentioning that some unspecified people object to such and such, I will prefer referring to them as anti-religious or anti-Christian or whatever. Even then I can imagine that some/many/a few will object that no one is actually anti-religious or anti-Christian, and how dare I accuse unnamed people of such a thing. Sometimes you just can't win no matter what you try...

There is never victory on RF.
Someone will always arrive to offer pointless bickering.

 

[tayla]

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.

Yes, very wise advice.

 

[tayla]

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?

Those JW's, if I understand it correctly, have to spend their own money on the magazines and tracts.

 

[LuisDantas]

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.

I think you are failing to realize the actual meanings of the verbs that you used in the OP.

Your own list of quotes show those to be quite unfair.

 

[Jim]

My purpose was to illustrate specifically what the well-known leaders of atheism that I quoted say. I am proposing that these certain ideas are problematic in that they can provide the basis for a future atheistic totalitarian state.

I see now that you are indeed talking about the four horsemen. Now I’ll need to reconsider what you might be trying to do, in that light.

 

[LuisDantas]

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.

Fair enough.

At least, that is my worry from what I heard them say.

What is there to worry about, though? I honestly saw nothing.

Maybe they can't accomplish these kinds of things unless circumstances are more favorable, but I worry they might try someday.

Try they should, and there is no reason to fear that, particularly if they/we succeed.

You are afraid of... what, actually?

 

[LuisDantas]

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

Saying that Dawkins and others are "seeking an atheistic totalitarian state" is not defamation?

Boy, are we going to have to agree to disagree something fierce!

 

[Jim]

How can I be as convincing as flat earthers when you don't even know what I am proposing? At least with flat earthers, you know what they believe.

False. I think that any time you imagine some group or category of people, and think you know what they all believe, you’re wrong, and you’re helping to perpetuate ways of thinking that people use to excuse and camouflage indulging their worst impulses.