Atheists unite

[Allnamestaken]

the odd thing here is that this thread is allowed, if we started discussing any other "religion" I'm sure it'd be closed?

Being an Athiest is not a religious belief hence why the thread is still alive and kicking.

 

[Mangochutney]

Or it might die...

Then come back again.

 

[grudas]

Being an Athiest is not a religious belief hence why the thread is still alive and kicking.

but you see a lot of people saying that it is a "belief" I guess you can't label it as religion.. personally I don't care about religion at all.. I don't even label my self as "atheist" and I simply keep it to my self, do I really care what other people do with their lifes and their time? as long as it doesn't affect me in a bad way I'll do nothing about it.

but that guy in the OP with his videos is just wasting his time.

 

[tbyeah]

Thanks for the discussion, it's certainly made me learn a lot about Communism. I'll cede that Stalin was a militant Marxist-Leninist, and a principle of this was atheism.

However, today, would you describe any atheists as militant? Probably the most extreme you could name would be Richard Dawkins, and I wouldn't even call "slightly rude and enthusiastic in a debate" militant.

Would you describe atheism as a violent ideology? What about Islam? Christianity?

 

[Johno please?]

doesn't affect me in a bad way I'll do nothing about it.
.

Pretty crappy attitude tbh.

It has the potential to.... although unless your living in: (to name but a few)

Somalia, Kenya, Pakistan, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria you're probably clear of its murdering fanatics.

 

[tbyeah]

Saudi Arabia and America to name two others.

 

[Castiel]

Thanks for the discussion, it's certainly made me learn a lot about Communism. I'll cede that Stalin was a militant Marxist-Leninist, and a principle of this was atheism.

However, today, would you describe any atheists as militant? Probably the most extreme you could name would be Richard Dawkins, and I wouldn't even call "slightly rude and enthusiastic in a debate" militant.

Richard Dawkins isn't militant in the same way as Stalin, there are varying definitions (and levels) of militant...as I said earlier you can call anyone who is both aggressively passionate and vocal about their opinion as being militant. Just look at Union Activists and Politicians to see that form of 'militant'.

We still see the violent, suppressive kind of militant atheism in China, Myanmar and various other places.

Would you describe atheism as a violent ideology? What about Islam? Christianity?

I would not say any of them are inherently violent ideologies. They can be used to justify violence, but then they can also be used to justify peace. They are simply tools, it's like blaming the gun for killing someone and not the person who pulled the trigger.

 

[tbyeah]

China? China is tolerant of religion. Myanmar I don't know.

As you've probably guessed I am an antitheist, but would never turn to violence or anything close. To say Islam does not inherently teach violence is simply incorrect; both Hadith and many Koranic verses teach violence against many different groups.

The same is true with many other religions.

 

[Castiel]

China? China is tolerant of religion. Myanmar I don't know.

If you think China is tolerant of religion then I would suggest you do a little research, it's not as extreme today as it was during their Communist Revolution, but many religions and cultures are still suppressed and tightly controlled by the Chinese State Apparatchik.

As you've probably guessed I am an antitheist, but would never turn to violence or anything close. To say Islam does not inherently teach violence is simply incorrect; both Hadith and many Koranic verses teach violence against many different groups.

The same is true with many other religions.

Islam doesn't inherently teach violence, some people interpret it as such. There are more Muslims who, like you would never turn to violence and who would be horrified at the way the Qur'an is interpreted than those who would use such to justify their own ambition violently.

 

[Tefal]

Islam doesn't inherently teach violence, some people interpret it as such. There are more Muslims who, like you would never turn to violence and who would be horrified at the way the Qur'an is interpreted than those who would use such to justify their own ambition violently.

Aren't there passages that explicitly state that infidels etc should be attacked?


and also passages like there are in the bible that specify very violent punishments for crime or other actions?

 

[Castiel]

Aren't there passages that explicitly state that infidels etc should be attacked?

Yes, about 100 of them or so..however you need to also understand them in both the historical and applicable contexts. It is easy to quote a passage from any text, particularly ancient and mediaeval ones to justify a violent act, but that doesn't mean it is actually what the religion or ideology preaches overall.

and also passages like there are in the bible that specify very violent punishments for crime or other actions?

The Old Testament is also constrained within its historical context, even more so as Christianity is dependent upon the New Testament and the Covenants contained with it, again how you wish to interpret the texts can either justify or condemn acts of violence.

all of which means they are not inherently violent.

 

[spudbynight]

I'd hazard a guess that spudbynight is saying that for him theoretical physics is not irreconcilable with his religious beliefs. I don't imagine he's stating that he understands everything in the field of theoretical physics but more simply that as a field it can be accommodated within his beliefs without direct conflict that he can think of.

Pretty much, I don't claim to be a theoretical physicist but I have an interest. I haven't come across anything I have really had trouble with.

Keep dodging.

I haven't dodged anything.

That would be your cognitive dissonance talking. They are fundamentally incompatible, but can be made to work, if you put either on hold.

So yeah, you can make it work, some do, and despite all that 'faith' baggage, produce great scientific work (hell, pretty much every scientist before the 20th century had God on their brain, in one form or another).

So frankly I don't really care, I like to think I can tell the difference. I wish more people would be able to as well.

I find your position to be flawed. What you and others fail to understand is that science doesn't have the answer to everything - it doesn't even ask all the questions. For those who are open minded enough to listen to the views of others on this I suggest looking at some of the videos from Br. Guy Consolmagno. He is the Vatican Astronomer with a Masters from MIT and a PhD from the University of Arizona. (He is also a Jesuit brother). This is a very short video where he talks about taking the Bible literally.

Just because you don't understand religion, it doesn't debase it in any way.

 

[B&W]

The way I see it, science tries to explain the how and religion tries to explain the why.

 

[elmarko]

The way I see it, science tries to explain the how and religion tries to explain the why.

That's assuming there is a why.

 

[koolpc]

Oh ye of little faith! lol

 

[MikeTheNative]

That's assuming there is a why.

There is no why at the end of the day, there just is.

 

[anything I don't mind]

Castiel is wrong, he is only trying to make out as if atheism has just the same capacity for violence as religion. He also falsely thinks that authoritarianism is some how done in the name of atheism just because the leader is atheist.

 

[Castiel]

Castiel is wrong, he is only trying to make out as if atheism has just the same capacity for violence as religion. He also falsely thinks that authoritarianism is some how done in the name of atheism just because the leader is atheist.

Just because you do not understand what a person says doesn't make them wrong I'm afraid.

 

[tbyeah]

Islam doesn't inherently teach violence, some people interpret it as such. There are more Muslims who, like you would never turn to violence and who would be horrified at the way the Qur'an is interpreted than those who would use such to justify their own ambition violently.

There is no room for misinterpretation. It explicitly states in many cases. Some Muslim just choose not to follow the less savoury parts.

 

[Castiel]

There is no room for misinterpretation. It explicitly states in many cases. Some Muslim just choose not to follow the less savoury parts.

The Qur'an isn't quite as straight forward as that. Rarely is anything explicitly stated and pretty much most of it is open to several avenues of interpretation and not only in language, but context and transliteration.