The Liberal Atheist Agenda and the Denial of Self

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 05:45 AM
link   
I was talking to one of my friends about the liberal atheist (extremists) and about how they don't believe that people should have beliefs. I explained how liberal atheists use empirical evidence to find the most efficient way of doing things, and then take that to be their Final Solution / Greatest End.

I was actually making an argument for liberal atheism at the time, but then my friend pointed out that it was a belief in and of itself that beliefs should not be allowed. I had to explain that yes, it was - and I also had to explain that there was a danger, not in all atheist circles, but in extremist ones, of nationalism and efficiency being the new moral standards.

In the NAZI era (and I'm not just bringing up this up to call Obama a NAZI, he may or may not be, I don't know) - there was a similar movement based on Social Darwinism, but instead of being based on intelligence, it was based on genetics.

In fact, during that time period in Germany in the 1930's, the National Socialist Movement (that means it was socialist, and it was based on nationalism), or the NAZI party, had as a heavy part of its agenda the idea that people not genetically suited to add to society should be killed.

Religions were also targeted in that era, because while the NAZI's saw that making the Super Human was a priority and that people should be justified by their power, religions went against that very principle - in fact, religions wanted to protect the weak.

-----

This is very relevant to today - although the target is not on genetics this time, but on intellect and efficient thinking, the result is the same - as the theme is the same.

The denial of self that I mention in the title of this post comes from the idea that people can get so caught up in efficiency that they forget what they wanted in the first place. In fact, they may forget that they wanted anything at all -

Or they may come to the conclusion that wanting something irrational is not in the national interest, and that people who do should be punished.

-----

The attitude is *not* one that is just going to center around religion, if it continues, it is highly likely that it will move to other aspects of life - for example, gaming, for not being efficient towards the nationalist end, and it is *highly* likely to move into being anti-gay, because it could be perceived that gays are *not* contributing to society - Russia, for example, is extremely against gays even though a lot of people on ATS support that country.

There is actually also a high risk that the same liberal atheist movement may evolve to the point where it is against food stamps and welfare and health care - and it may manifest in small ways - for example, when signing up for health care, you may be penalized for smoking, or being overweight.

The reason that this nationalism is dangerous is because it denies the self - now let me get some further reading to provide in the next post.

I do want to say that I'm looking at our country as a whole and a direction it could possibly be heading in. I don't want to blame the liberal atheists entirely - also, it is possible I could be wrong, also, we have a Democracy, so the pendulum always swings back and forth -

However, we have also experienced an economic downturn that has affected people under 30 and it is possible, only in my opinion, that with less resources to work with, society will become less tolerant of any kind of slacking. That's not necessarily a partisan issue, in my opinion, but an economic one -
edit on 21amSat, 21 Dec 2013 06:01:07 -0600kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 


This is all fairly generalized and philosophical, I do have that problem at the moment, my guess is that nothing like the NAZI death camps is going to happen again or anything of that nature by any means.

Further Reading:

Amazon: The Nazi Doctors and the Psychology of Genocide

The Nazi Doctors is an interesting book, because it explains how nationalistic policy can go wrong. Here is a quote from Amazon.


Nazi doctors did more than conduct bizarre experiments on concentration-camp inmates; they supervised the entire process of medical mass murder, from selecting those who were to be exterminated to disposing of corpses. Lifton (The Broken Connection; The Life of the Self shows that this medically supervised killing was done in the name of "healing," as part of a racist program to cleanse the Aryan body politic. After the German eugenics campaign of the 1920s for forced sterilization of the "unfit,"it was but one step to "euthanasia," which in the Nazi context meant systematic murder of Jews. Building on interviews with former Nazi physicians and their prisoners, Lifton presents a disturbing portrait of careerists who killed to overcome feelings of powerlessness. He includes a chapter on Josef Mengele and one on Eduard Wirths, the "kind," "decent" doctor (as some inmates described him) who set up the Auschwitz death machinery. Lifton also psychoanalyzes the German people, scarred by the devastation of World War I and mystically seeking regeneration. This profound study ranks with the most insightful books on the Holocaust.


Amazon: To Survive Sobibor

Sobibor is a good book to read just to get an idea of day-to-day life in Nazi society.


Born in Warsaw in 1927, Dov Freiberg spent his early childhood years in Warsaw and Lodz in the enveloping embrace of his family. One of the few survivors of the Sobibor death campand a veteran of the famous illegal immigrant vessel Exodus, he has lived in Israel since 1948, fought in the 1948 Israeli War of Independence, the 1967 Six-Day War and the 1973 Yom Kippur War. He dedicated his life to the memory of the victims of the Holocaust and testified in the Eichmann trial in Jerusalem, as in several other high-profile Nazi war crimes trials. He lectures regularly for students, soldiers and educational institutions. To Survive Sobibor (1988) is Dov Freiberg's first book to be translated into English. His other books are : A Journey To The Past With Dekel Shibolim (1993), A Man as Any Other(1996) and Two Worlds (2001).



Asperger was the director of the University Children's Clinic in Vienna, spending most of his professional life in Vienna and publishing largely in German.[1] As a child, Asperger appeared to have exhibited some features of the very condition named after him, such as social remoteness and talent in language;[2] photographs taken during his seminal work show that he had a frank and earnest face with an intense gaze.[3] In 1944, Asperger described in the paper "'Autistic psychopathy' in childhood"[4] four children in his practice[5] who had difficulty in integrating themselves socially. Although their intelligence appeared normal, the children lacked nonverbal communication skills, failed to demonstrate empathy with their peers, and were physically clumsy. Their speaking was either disjointed or overly formal, and their all-absorbing interest in a single topic dominated their conversations. Asperger called the condition "autistic psychopathy" and described it as primarily marked by social isolation.[6] Asperger called his young patients "little professors",[4] and believed the individuals he described would be capable of exceptional achievement and original thought later in life.[5] In a society governed by the Nazi eugenics policy of sterilizing and killing social deviants and the mentally handicapped, Asperger's paper passionately defended the value of autistic individuals, writing "We are convinced, then, that autistic people have their place in the organism of the social community. They fulfil their role well, perhaps better than anyone else could, and we are talking of people who as children had the greatest difficulties and caused untold worries to their care-givers."[4]


Wikipedia: History of Asperger Syndrome

I found this article interesting because it shows just how real the survival of the fittest mindset and nationalistic mindset can get - here, we have Hans Asperger having to defend autistic people's right to live by saying that they can, in fact, contribute to society.

edit on 21amSat, 21 Dec 2013 05:57:20 -0600kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)


+7 more 
posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 05:57 AM
link   
I'm fairly certain, based on historical precedent, we've far more to fear from any adherents to any religion than we do as it applies to Atheists.

Sure, there's fanatics when it comes to any label anyone wants to stick on a group of people.
Last I checked, however, there were not any manuals like How To Train Up A Child, any movements like Quiverfull, or any other fanatic, militant, practices being perpetrated on children to force a whole new generation into a beleif system without much if any choice in the matter as it applies to Atheists.

Nope.

Oh, and, um, the Nazis were Christians, so, please stop with any comparisons between them and Atheists.



edit on 12/21/2013 by AliceBleachWhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 06:04 AM
link   
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite
 



The Nazi Fuehrer Adolf Hitler stated repeatedly Nazism was a secular ideology founded on science. There was some diversity of views among the Nazi leadership as to the future of religion in Germany. Anti-Church radicals included Hitler's militant atheist Deputy Martin Bormann and Minister for Propaganda Joseph Goebbels, the neo-pagan official Nazi Philosopher Alfred Rosenberg and security chief Heinrich Himmler. Some Nazis, such as Hans Kerrl, who served as Hitler's Minister for Church Affairs, believed Christianity could be Nazified into "Positive Christianity", by renouncing its Jewish origins, and Apostle's Creed, and holding Hitler as a new "Messiah". Hitler himself believed that in the long run, National Socialism and religion would not be able to co-exist, but was prepared temporarily to restrain some of his more radical instincts out of political considerations.


Not the NAZI leadership. They were tolerating Christianity, but their philosophy was based on science and Social Darwinism. And it would not necessarily be Atheists that would be the problem, but future Nationalists.

Wikipedia: Religion in NAZI Germany

And to begin with, these are Liberal Atheist Extremists that I'm talking about - I think the chances of anything actually happening is fairly low. However, there is the problem of religious people and atheists not getting along - and I feel like that has a lot to do with one being more empirical and one being more anecdotal in nature.

I will think about what you're saying about having more to "fear" from religions than atheists - I am well aware of the atheist opinion of religion as being irrational and not based on empirical evidence, and that it is very judgmental and involved in nay-saying and lack of progress -

My opinion about the rise of nationalism is based on the idea that people are naturally drawn to social constructs, like religion, regardless of whether or not God exists and that without religion, it is likely that they will be drawn to nationalism instead.

The Atheism leaves a cultural vacuum that is being filled in some parts of the world, mostly Europe, by Islam for example.
edit on 21amSat, 21 Dec 2013 06:17:04 -0600kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)


+7 more 
posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 06:11 AM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 


Um, it was more of a cult.

There's not much at all scientific about spending resources on attempting to find Biblical Talismans like Ark of Covenant, or Spear of Destiny and other fetish nonsense.

A proper Atheist has no use for these fetish objects.
Nazis were NOT Atheists.
Please stop attempting to force Atheists into the same box.
Naziism was a warped screwed up animal.
It called itself Socialism, but it was NOT Socialism.

Please learn some distinctions about what you're attempting to label, and what those distinctions and differences are.


+8 more 
posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 


I'm a liberal and an atheist, and I don't know what the you are talking about. this is real simple....so I won't use big words.... we do not want to live by religious laws, nor have any religious people try and control us using religion...that's it,...that's the entire agenda,...the whole ball of wax.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 06:19 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Well I agree with that part - I don't want religious people controlling my life with restrictive beliefs, either - but I'm skeptical about how sustainable atheism is as a cultural power vacuum before it is replaced by either Nationalism or Islam.

Although, I suppose in the U.S. we do have a system set up with a lot of checks and balances - even culturally, with 50 different states, established churches like the Mormons and all of that.
edit on 21amSat, 21 Dec 2013 06:22:23 -0600kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 06:31 AM
link   

darkbake
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Well I agree with that part - I don't want religious people controlling my life with restrictive beliefs, either - but I'm skeptical about how sustainable atheism is as a cultural power vacuum before it is replaced by either Nationalism or Islam.

Although, I suppose in the U.S. we do have a system set up with a lot of checks and balances - even culturally, with 50 different states, established churches like the Mormons and all of that.
edit on 21amSat, 21 Dec 2013 06:22:23 -0600kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)


maybe you are over-thinking this. atheism doesn't create a cultural vacuum, people do, either by design, or apathy. simply judge people by their actions, and their respect for one another, not by some religious or non-religious belief system



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite
 



The Nazi Party was founded as the pan-German nationalist and antisemitic German Workers' Party in January 1919. By the early 1920s, Adolf Hitler had become its leader and assumed control of the organisation, now renamed the National Socialist German Workers’ Party in a bid to broaden its appeal. The National Socialist Program, adopted in 1920, called for a united Greater Germany[1] that would deny citizenship to Jews or those of Jewish descent,[2] while also supporting land reform and the nationalisation of some industries.



Large segments of the Nazi Party staunchly supported its official socialist, revolutionary, and anti-capitalist positions and expected both a social and economic revolution upon the party gaining power in 1933.[18] Many of the million members of the Sturmabteilung (SA) were committed to the party's official socialist program.[18] The leader of the SA, Ernst Röhm, pushed for a "second revolution" (the "first revolution" being the Nazis' seizure of power) that would entrench the party's official socialist program. Further, Röhm desired that the SA absorb the much smaller German Army into its ranks under his leadership.



The radical Nazi Joseph Goebbels, hated capitalism, viewing it as having Jews at its core, and he stressed the need for the party to emphasise both a proletarian and national character. Those views were shared by Otto Strasser, who later left the Nazi Party in the belief that Hitler had betrayed the party's socialist goals by allegedly endorsing capitalism.



A majority of scholars identify Nazism in practice as a form of far-right politics.[4] Far-right themes in Nazism include the argument that superior people have a right to dominate over other people and purge society of supposed inferior elements.[5] Adolf Hitler and other proponents officially portrayed Nazism as being neither left- nor right-wing, but syncretic.


It looks like what happened was it started as a national socialist movement but eventually, or possibly from the start did not have the kind of traits we consider socialist today. Although it mostly looks like it started as a socialist movement before morphing into a nationalist one.


a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.


^ Socialism definition. Source: Google Search.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite
 


Don't have much to look forward too.

Do we.

I think I'm a Fractal, more than anything else.

Their are those, that know, much, much more than, we.

I myself am not interested in something someone does not believe in. Good then shut up, if you don't believe in anything, then why even talk about it, if someone says " OH! God " just say no thank you, walk away there is no need to defend not believing in something, because you don't.

Just as said above, if you are really a atheist there is not need to extrapolate, your feelings on the matter because you have no belief, at least not to speak of.

Now because I feel the same way, I have come aware, I will have no sin to pay for, I only have to pay now for what I do. I am Hitler, I want it all Baby. Dam the torpedo's , full speed ahead.

No but really because I am a Fractal, I will feel much better if you feel well as I Fractal on my way.

Be a Light in the Darkness, not a dull one either, some people's disgust me, all off you, time to take a Shower.

I'm sorry but some may not of been as lucky as I, as I have died several times and been pull from the Jaws of Death by something much Greater than I. So I'm lucky as to have seen this and to have been scolded by a higher power than myself.

Most people are not even aware they have two brains not one, do your two brains get along well, or is there conflict. Why would someone master the control of their body, before their mind.

A fool that does not believe in something, does not even believe in their self.

And I have no need for anyone to inform me as to how stupid,I am, but most of the time I become less stupid everyday, I don't know everything, but have friends that do, One particular One.

edit on 21-12-2013 by OOOOOO because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 08:00 AM
link   
Atheism is lack of belief in a deity. It carries no other baggage and has no strictures. Not believing in a deity neither implies belief in any other political or social ideology nor prohibits it.

An atheist is equally as capable of being a conservative as a liberal. Thats before we get into the distinction between social liberalism and classical liberalism.

Similarly a Christian is equally capable of being any of the above.

The call to conflate a collapse in religious belief with the rise of Nazism is not supported by the historical record.

"A German census in May 1939, completed more than six years into the Nazi era and incorporating the annexation of mostly Catholic Austria into Germany, indicates that 54% of Germans considered themselves Protestant, (including non-denominational Christians) and 40% considered themselves Catholic, with only 3.5% claiming to be neo-pagan "believers in God," and 1.5% non-Christians, or "non-believers".

Nazism rose in a majority Christian Germany. The creator being believers were as seduced by its promises as everybody else and were equally culpable in the horror that unfolded.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 


The Nazi party was called such as a propeganda tool, to hide its true form. It is quite plain however, that by their every deed, they were right wing, and about as liberal as a 50.cal shell to the face.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 08:39 AM
link   
What if you want something no one else does? You end up fighting the current and losing more than you gain.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 09:16 AM
link   
If you get down to the brass tack's of it, Religion was used, had been used to control the masses, when one Religion no longer worked, some new belief system would arise as the old one was no longer of any use, just a joke or ignorance.

People use to worship the Moon the Sun, but what did they get out of it, they learned when to sow and when to reap their crops. They learn cycles.

American Indian , had Sun God, the water spirit, the Rain spirit, God.

I wonder how people will laugh and talk of our time in the future, What joke, you speak with fork tongue, I no like.

Zen has interesting thought, or Buddhist in general, I like when they get the dialogue going.

Simply IS



Just like Hitler used witch craft but made forbidden. He had a Mandrake root also.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by OOOOOO
 


I've plenty to look forward to, thank you. For instance, I look forwar to being actually, physically, in reality, immortal, at least to the point of my living as long as I want to live. Given technologies and the size of the Universe, I look forward to living for a very long time indeed.

I'm sorry, but, according your reasoning, anyone that doesn't believe in something shouldn't talk about their not believing in it.

Please kindly enlighten all the Christians that are talking about Atheists.
Please enlighten every and anyone talking about every and anyone else, because, be doing so, they're talking about something they don't believe in.

As I perceive it, you don't believe in Atheism, so, your entire thing is self defeating in the respect that you're basically saying you shouldn't be saying anything about something you're saying something about.

As to saying what I want and defending a position I happen to relate to in some respects, especially so where I'm repeatedly offended by willful attempts to demonize and define something in comparison to something that it isn't, I'll ask to please stop visiting your own presumptions upon something you would seem to know very actual little about.



edit on 12/21/2013 by AliceBleachWhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Interesting thread. Thx !

I'm shocked that there are people, that use atheism as tool, to spread their ideological ideals.

However... Most nations are secular. In my opinion it is possible to use that same structure, to filter out any extremist movement.
A democracy is the only good way for all people to have a vote. As long as it isn't corrupted, it will prevent any radical minority from taking the upper hand.

The idea that there would be people who will use only logic to guide and rule in a society is a scary thought. However I don't think that will actually happen.

The people that decided to kill disabled people, to eliminate the genetic flaws from society, based their ideas with the scientific knowledge of their time. We learned that it doesn't work like that.
Another thing I like to point out is that the majority of people will make an effort to help the needy.

As long as the circumstances are normal that is. In a time of civil and political unrest, there are other forces at work.

I think that we can only prevent the destruction of moral values, when we keep an eye out for any signs of extremism showing up. The rise of Nationalism in Germany could have been stopped, if people didn't closed their eyes for the signs that warned them for what was coming.
We have the luxury to know exactly what those signs were in the past. We should be able to see and and prevent it, if it happens again.

There will always be people that will do anything to make a profit. It is part of human nature. We can make a difference though, by opening our mouths and act, whenever we see unjustified behavior.

Ps

Moral standards, sympathy and love, are part of being human, an atheist is as much human as any religious person.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by darkbake
 



darkbake
I was talking to one of my friends about the liberal atheist (extremists) and about how they don't believe that people should have beliefs.


I stopped here because this isn't true. I don't care WHAT people believe. And I have beliefs of my own. We all do. "Believing in nothing" is a myth.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 02:14 PM
link   
So now all of us Atheists are Nazis who will kill the weak according to their genes?

If you are only talking about extremists, then you will always find something bad about extremists be it religious or non-religious.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   
tip: part of the point of being an Atheist is NOT being as annoying as religious folks. shut up about it.



posted on Dec, 21 2013 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite
 


Are you really trying to call a movement led by a member of the Thule society which was channeling "alien blueprints" of space vehicles Christian . . . . . ?

The Nazi party reintroduced the celebration of the May-pole, a distinctly non-Christian practice. Or you could read literature like the Cult of the Black Sun.

You are trying to separate the leadership from the masses yet the leadership was the progenitor of the culture which developed.

STRAW MAN ARGUMENT.

Furthermore Genghis Khan killed far more people than all the crusades combined, as did WW1, WW2, famine due to poor politics in (anti-religion) communist China/ Soviet Russia.

Your claim that there is far more to fear is extremely biased against the reality of the actual motivations of the people in power and lay the blame on the lay-peoples who had very little say.

Your arguments in that direction are extremely weak and do not stand to actual historical documentation.

Was the plague the cause of the dark ages or Christianity, you clear lack of understanding indicates you would claim it was any religion rather than a massive die off of the population.



OP
By liberal atheist do you mean pro big government liberal or do you mean liberal in the sense of abundance?

Also is this individual involved in any sort of scientific or technical research/development? If not then you should tell them that their lack of ability to contribute to the advancement of said fields makes them a useless eater.

This really goes towards anyone who talks about religion "holding back" science yet does not work in the field.

Sadly I find this to be the case in that most of the nationalistic or militant types of atheism have a few leaders involved in the scientific realm while the rest are social "scientists", artists, or general laborers who are merely being used to further other peoples' goals.

Its methodology is no different than what they accuse religions of, often with the excuse of science which they do not understand themselves.

The irony.

-FBB





top topics
 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join