It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
What complicates this is:
Freedom of speech makes persecution more viable for many. Christians are not exempt, just as women, Jews, Mexicans, homosexuals, affiliates of political movements and black people are not exempt.
And what do you suggest be done about it? Force a country that is NOT under our authority to change its laws?
reply to post by BenReclused
Ah that would be a great day indeed, I don't care Iam an anti theist, we could do it in a couple of generations not through violence just through education....I think it has started so it will happen.
You do realize that forcing them to defy their religious legislation is an act of war, right?
The Native Americans were here before us. I don't see you mentioning anything about persecution against Native Americans.
Hey! No fair! I resemble that remark!
Maybe because you're the loudest religion on the block.
No no no. My point of contention here is that you blame America for not taking action against other countries.
Why is it our fault? Why is it our responsibility? America wasn't on that list you posted in the OP. And why Christianity specifically? Why not any of the other people, cultures, ethnicities, political groups, or lifestyles they persecute? Why are you singling Christianity out for protection?
13Then Mordecai told them to reply to Esther, "Do not imagine that you in the king's palace can escape any more than all the Jews. 14"For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place and you and your father's house will perish. And who knows whether you have not attained royalty for such a time as this?"
Someone is being persecuted. Someone will ALWAYS be persecuted. What do you want? War? Protests? An intervention? A sympathetic ear? What exactly are we trying to do here?edit on 13-2-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)
I'm an atheist, but come on; these are people! Just because they believe in a philosophy and way of life you want to turn your back on their slaughter because the American government loves cheap oil.
The government isn't that petty.
Yeah, right, and Bengazi was about a movie.
There is political gain from messing with Christianity. Christians DO vote for both major parties, but there's a major core of the Republican party that is tied into a faith-based view, that has this twisted idea that Jerusalem MUST be in Jewish hands. (I can get WHY they come to this conclusion, but I personally think it's a "few screws loose" conclusion.) The middle East is the ONLY part of the foreign world that many voters know a thing about.edit on 14-2-2014 by CynicalDrivel because: (no reason given)
Yeah, right, and Bengazi was about a movie.
What does a group of militants attacking a U.S. embassy have anything to do with Christian persecutions?
The government isn't that petty.
How is the fact that some democrats/republicans uphold Israel relevant? It wasn't an attack on Christians. It however angered the hell out of the surrounding Arab/Muslim countries though. Seeing as how they gave a Jewish nation the "holy land."
The Arab awakening has eroded Israel's sense of regional security. Now Syria's civil war presents Israel with both urgent risks and impossible choices. Israel's long search for impregnable security in the region has in its own view been aided by the stability of neighbouring autocracie. Egypt under Hosni Mubarak, Jordan under King Hussein and now King Abdullah, Saudi Arabia under the House of Saud, and even Syria under Hafez and now Bashar Assad - all recognised the power of Israel and were all too aware of Israel's ultimate nuclear capability.
Israel was the regional superpower, even if that could never be acknowledged.
Religion deserves ridicule
Religion isn't any more deserving of that, than atheism is.
There is no evidence for religious gods. The principle of agnosticism: the existence of god is impossible to be known or proven. Therefore it's an unintelligible proposition.
I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance, or admit the right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others. On the contrary, we are bound, you, I, and everyone, to make common cause, even with error itself, to maintain the common right of freedom of conscience.
According to that same "principle", the proposition that there is no God, is just as unintelligible.
In regard to Mr. Jefferson, he wouldn't have supported anti-theism, or even the ridicule of theistic beliefs:
Would you care to try again?
Nope. Why? Because that's not the proposition of atheism.
Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s) existence.
Religion however is making the claim of a Creators existence, and therefore the burden of proof is on them.
Atheism is not some scientific claim there exists no Creator. Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s) existence.
Here is the rest of that same quote:
“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.” ~Thomas Jefferson
Altho' I rarely waste time in reading on theological subjects, as mangled by our Pseudo-Christians, yet I can readily suppose Basanistos may be amusing.
In fact he was precisely ridiculing a Christian belief.
Full Definition of MOUNTEBANK
1: a person who sells quack medicines from a platform
2: a boastful unscrupulous pretender : charlatan
As for your quote. He's advocating the freedom of belief and not that those beliefs are inherently good ones just because they have them.
Nonsense! Without the proposition that there is no God, there would be no atheism.
Would you like to attempt some more of your "Abracadabra"?
1. He's the one with ties that is out of office--and is pertinent to the unrest that is currently being talked about. No need to visit something that is a dead horse, right? After all, why blame Bush when Obama does that well enough on his own.
If you want to see ties to the Muslim Brotherhood look no further than Bush. He had more connections with them than Obama ever has.
reply to post by BurningSpearess
I agree, the whole situation is confusing.
What definition do you want to use? The colloquial one is 'lack of belief in a god' not 'there is no god'.
Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive.
Most atheists are also agnostic.
It can't be known.
The terms are trivial.
The important thing is distinguishing a lack of belief from the claim of knowledge.
To bring it back to the 'unintelligible proposition' I hope it's now clear that the only atheist that would be making an unintelligible propositon is the atheist who claims absolutely there is no god.
That is a very rare breed of atheist.
When you meet one you have my full support to point out how unintelligible their position is!
I most certainly am not claiming to know god doesn't exist I simply don't believe it does.
Definition: An agnostic atheist is defined as one who does not know for sure if any gods exist or not but who also does not believe in any gods. This definition makes it clear that being an agnostic and being an atheist are not mutually exclusive. Knowledge and belief are related, but separate issues: not knowing if something is true or not doesn't exclude believing or disbelieving it.
Agnostic atheist can often be treated as synonymous with weak atheist. Whereas weak atheist emphasizes one's lack of belief in gods, agnostic atheist emphasizes that one does not make any knowledge claims — and usually, the lack of knowledge is an important part of the foundation for the lack of belief. Agnostic atheist is arguably a label which applies to most atheists in the West today.
Unfortunately, your "colloquial" definition doesn't define atheism, so much as it does agnosticism.
Lack of belief, and disbelief, are not the same.
Yes, they are! A true agnostic would never reject, even personally, the possibility of God. That rejection is the heart, and soul, of atheism.
In regard to atheism, that would, indeed, be an "unintelligible proposition".
According Merriam-Webster, and in regard to God, that would be impossible:
In regard to agnosticism, and atheism, that's not as important as ascertaining the difference between "a lack of belief" and "disbelief".
No, they're not rare, at all.
As far as I'm concerned, Atheism is, only, a negative response to the idea of deities. Can you refute that?
Ben did you try to look up the definition of Agnostic Atheist?
They most certainly exist in fact I am either that or an agnostic .
If you to define life through root words it is like latin you may miss something in translation.
But we should adopt your definitions it seems. Naturally
I gave the honest broad scope of the term.
Clearly I was not ignoring the atheists that do claim positively there exists no god. That however most certainly appears to be a minority. Rather, the common position as I said is the 'agnostic atheist'. Obviously I didn't make up these terms, nor how they are represented, so others see this rationality even if you do not.
Can you answer my questions or at least share your thoughts on my 'spaceship' example.
If you have an interest in this discussion with me you need to think about what I am typing, and not just respond with opposition without doing so. I will return this favor with your words.
You misunderstand the difference between a lack of belief and rejection in the manner you mean it. That's really not my issue. You just haven't thought hard enough.
Are you reading them?
Funny you attack me for using a colloquial definition of atheism and then give the one for agnosticism
A lack of belief and disbelief are the same and does not necessarily mean one believes something to be impossible.
I don't believe in the existence of god because of the lack of evidence. I do not claim I know god doesn't exist nor do I say it's impossible.
As of now I do not think you're being objective so I can't really put much weight to your words.
Atheism is no different than your position on gods of other religions you lack belief in.
That wasn't my definition. It was Merriam-Webster's. Did you find a flaw in it?
Unfortunately, your "broad scope", also, included agnosticism.
Though others may be interested in the demographics of atheism, I, most certainly, am not.
I felt that your "thought experiments" were, a bit, condescending
I'm more interested in your attempt to justify the ridicule of religion. That doesn't seem like something an "agnostic atheist" would do.
As I said before, disbelief is the rejection of a belief. Guess who I feel hasn't "thought hard enough".
Even to this point, the only real clue to your atheism was your willingness to justify the ridicule of religion. That "willingness", also, indicates that you are, most likely, an anti-theist.
Yes, it is. I don't respond negatively, even personally, to anyone's God.
Agnosticism involves just not subscribing to any one theory or concept 100%.
Though I find it funny that someone who isn't even close to being an agnostic thinks he can define what is and isn't an agnostic.