It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Atheist Extremism, at it again.

page: 3
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ZombieOctopus
 


Precisely, and we've yet to see evidence given by theists or otherwise, that modern day athiests kill because they are athiests.

People kill for all sorts of reasons, why would the main reason ever be a non-belief in god? People kill others mainly because of anger, hatred, disturbed minds, insanity etc etc etc. They don't go out on a killing spree because of their own non-belief in god, it's simply not a motive. Motives are usually beliefs, not dis-beliefs, and so nothing to do with athiesm.

[edit on 14-9-2009 by john124]




posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by john124
 


Then you wouldn't be defending the atheist label friend.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 02:29 AM
link   
reply to post by john124
 


Yes because we have non-thoughts all the time.
Your claims are simply nothing more than grasping for deflections and obfuscations, funny that people who claim to champion rationality, critical thinking and logic would do such. And you already forgotten the example from history I gave you I see.

[edit on 14-9-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by john124
 



Although some atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism,[9] rationalism, and naturalism,[10] there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere



"All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."



The supposed unattainability of knowledge for or against the existence of gods is sometimes seen as indication that atheism requires a leap of faith.[41] Common atheist responses to this argument include that unproven religious propositions deserve as much disbelief as all other unproven propositions,[42] and that the unprovability of a god's existence does not imply equal probability of either possibility.


These quotes and the previous quotes all support what I've said. The general consensus is that athiesm is a disbelief in a proposition that's unproven. Maybe you should pay attention to what athiests actually feel is the correct general description of what they stand for, rather than only being interested in your self-serving nonsense!

[edit on 14-9-2009 by john124]



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by john124
 


We've already discussed your so-called example. It's a shame you have such a short memory, as I've already explained exactly why that example is moot.

Tell me why religions feel they can define somebody else's way of thinking, i.e. athiesm, yet if any non-believer open his/her mouth and just say exactly what they think about religion - that it's a complete load of crap, and you should be more rational, then the believers get all offended.

You're promoting double standards, whereas you feel you can define not only your own way of thinking, but also what beliefs an athiest must have in order to have to reject your own rubbish way of thinking. We can think for ourselves, we don't need any theists telling us what we have to believe, in order to have rejected their fantasies.

[edit on 14-9-2009 by john124]



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 02:54 AM
link   
reply to post by john124
 


Ah. My self serving nonsense eh? How praytell does this serve me eh?



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by john124
 


Read the post above.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 02:56 AM
link   
reply to post by john124
 


Love the rhetoric!
I am not telling you anything you belief as you will and that is your perogative. But if you want to pretend your something special. I will argue against. And neither do you know what exactly I am so kindly stop pretending you do, but then again I do know what you are basing your assumptions upon.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 02:57 AM
link   
reply to post by john124
 


Was a rhetorical question.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by john124
 


For the last time: an athiest does not have to believe that god doesn't exist in order to reject a thiests beliefs, that is what I am referring to. If you agree, then why the silly argument.

An athiest will stick with the null hypothesis until proof otherwise. That's not a belief, it's a logical statement.

Since I cannot prove I am anyone special, I will not claim to be.

[edit on 14-9-2009 by john124]



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 03:03 AM
link   
reply to post by john124
 



So you don't have an opinion as to the existance of a deity/god/whatever? Once again I point out the definition. Not the wikipedia *a media that is made up by whomever choses to post an article* one, the one from the dictionary.



[edit on 14-9-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by bettermakings
Metamagic, I understand your point-of-view, although I don't agree with it.

When I use the term "Extremism", I mean that (religious or not) some people are trying to force their beliefs on other people. I admit that religion can often become "Extremist", but at the same time non-religion (Atheism) can be "Extreme" quite often too.

It doesn't really matter if Atheism is considered a religion or not. My point is that Atheism can potentially turn into "Extremism", and therefore a threat to non-Atheists.


Respectfully, I don't thing you do understand my point because it really does matter if you consider atheism a religion or not. As I understand it you claim:

1. Extremists force their beliefs on others.
2. Religions can be extremist
3. Atheism is a religion.
therefore: atheism can be extreme in forcing its beliefs on others.

Premiss 3 is incorrect. Atheism is not a religion. A religion is characterized by set of core beliefs and tenets that are held to be true by the followers of that religion. Religions are also characterized by the existence of institutions (in the sociological sense like birth, death and marriage rituals, ceremonies, recognized clergy or holy men) and a set of social organizations (like communities, mosques, churches, etc).

Where religions tend to be extreme is when they adopt a core tenet like "Kill the unbelievers" "Evangelize the world" "If you are not for us you are against us" and then use the institutions of the religion to implement those tenets.

If you want, you can say those who are left over that don't fit into one of these religious boxes are atheists. There is no core set of beliefs that all atheists hold, no institutions, no tenets. In the list of religions, atheists are the "none of the above" category. Atheism in not some anti-god religion, it is the absence of religion.

Does that mean that individual atheists do not have spiritual beliefs, not at all, they just don't accept the gods that are presented to them by the organized religions. Can there be a radical individual who is an atheist? Absolutely., which is the same as asking"can there be a radical individual who is an accountant? Probably there is but one would not infer from that there accounting can be extremist. (whoa, weird mental picture on that!)






[edit on 14-9-2009 by metamagic]



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by metamagic
 


How about a non-religious example. Someone (Daniel Andreas San Diego) does horrible things because he is an animal rights activist/extremist (he's on the FBI top-10 most wanted list).

So an animal rights extremist (religious or not) wants to enforce his beliefs on others in a violent way.

I'm just saying ANY belief about ANYTHING can become extreme.

If someone blows up McDonald's restaurants because they are against junk-food, it doesn't mean religion was the motive. That person could be a "health-food extremist", just like the "animal rights extremist".

An atheist could POTENTIALLY be an extremist, just like a small percentage of all people could be extreme in any view.



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by bettermakings
reply to post by metamagic


I have not nor am I currently disputing that individuals can act in an extreme manner for whatever reasons they may have. That was not what I disagreed with. I have disputed your assertion that atheism is like a religion and therefore produces some form of institutionalized atheist extremism. It was that argument I challenged (remember premiss 3?)

I agree entirely with the content of this last post which in fact, I think, supports my original argument. So are you them prepared to concede that atheism per se is not the source of extreme behaviours?


[edit on 14-9-2009 by metamagic]



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by metamagic
 


People can and have attempted to force the belief that there is no god down people's throats it has happend in history. And with all due respect I think you are somewhat confusing atheism with agnosticism.

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

SOURCE:www.merriam-webster.com...

*edited because I forgot to insert a word like a bonehead*

[edit on 14-9-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by metamagic
 


People can and have attempted to force the belief that is no god down people's throats it has happend in history. And with all due respect I think you are somewhat confusing atheism with agnosticism.


While you are right from a technical perspective, I do confess to using the term in this case in the same sense that it tends to be applied by fundamentalists as anyone who does not accept their idea of a monotheistic, anthropomorphic deity. I suppose "unbeliever" or "infidel" or "heathen" might be more appropriate, but I did respond the vernacular usage which the OP used did not clarify that at any point.

Good point -- I'll have to star your post!



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join