Announcement

Collapse

General Theistics 101 Guidelines

This area is open for nontheists and theists to interact on issues of theism and faith in a civilized manner. We ask that nontheist participation respect the theistic views of others and not seek to undermine theism in general, or advocate for nontheism. Such posts are more suited for and allowable in Apologetics 301 with very little restriction.

The moderators of this area are given great discretion to determine if a particular thread or comment would more appropriately belong in another forum area.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Militant Atheism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    No.
    Yeah, no.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • #17
      I prefer the term "clueless Atheist" to "militant Atheist" -- calling these internet twerps "militant" is giving them too much credit. They are just hateful anti-theists who are completely clueless and just beat the same dead horse while patting themselves on the back at how they put the Christians in their place.

      You know, like JimL and Tassman.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
        It is very hard for a group to recognize it's own privileges. And when the under-privileged stand up and say, "let's have some balance here," the usual response is an angry "you're persecuting us." Losing privileges others don't have feels like a diminishment - and nobody likes to feel diminished. It's the human condition...
        Garbage.
        Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
          No.
          Yes...
          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            Yeah, no.
            Yeah, yes...
            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
              Garbage.
              Wisdom, actually...
              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

              Comment


              • #22
                For the clueless - I figured I'd respond with as much content as was provided.

                The fact is, we see this dynamic throughout history. In the deep south, white land-owners built their wealth on the backs of slaves. When that practice was challenged, their economic privilege was threatened. The reaction? The rest of the nation was persecuting them and attempting to diminish them. The result was the civil war and, after that, the Jim Crow era. Then along came the civil rights era, and the same cycle repeated itself. Whites generally had the best schools, and blacks were prohibited from many services/opportunities. The civil rights era sought to level that laying field, but that meant some compromises for whites accustomed to their privilege. The reaction: riots and bloodshed as the new laws took root. As a result, the deep south shifted and has remained solidly Republican. Those who stood against the civil rights legislation abandoned the Democratic party wholesale and the two parties began their shift to the left (Dems) and right (Reps). Now we see the same phenomenon unfolding with the LGBTQ community.

                Before that, outside of the U.S., we saw the same dynamics with Rome, we saw it in China, and we see it over and over again - even at a personal level.
                Last edited by carpedm9587; 09-24-2018, 04:30 PM.
                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  The fact is, we see this dynamic throughout history. In the deep south, white land-owners built their wealth on the backs of slaves. When that practice was challenged, their economic privilege was threatened. The reaction? The rest of the nation was persecuting them and attempting to diminish them. The result was the civil war and, after that, the Jim Crow era. Then along came the civil rights era, and the same cycle repeated itself. Whites generally had the best schools, and blacks were prohibited from many services/opportunities. The civil rights era sought to level that laying field, but that meant some compromises for whites accustomed to their privilege. The reaction: riots and bloodshed as the new laws took root. As a result, the deep south shifted and has remained solidly Republican. Those who stood against the civil rights legislation abandoned the Democratic party wholesale and the two parties began their shift to the left (Dems) and right (Reps).
                  Yes. And it's worth bearing in mind that the privileged group do actually lose something when greater equality occurs. So, for example, when slavery is ended and the slaves are free, that's great, and moral, and increases net happiness etc, but there is a group that clearly loses something: The slave-owners suffer real economic losses, as well as a loss of power over others, as well as a public loss of social status.

                  So as much as ending slavery might be the right and good thing to do, and as much as it leads to real gains for real people and betters the society, there are still people who suffer loss because of it and they really do suffer loss. And this necessarily applies in any movement for equality in our society: Any time an oppressed or suffering group is helped and brought up to be equal, necessarily the group that had power/wealth/status over them and was oppressing them loses that and is brought down somewhat to the new equal status. And this equally applies to the aristocracy in France opposing the democratization of power at the time of the French Revolution, or to the wealthy people fleeing Cuba when the communists took over and wanted to distributed wealth equally.

                  So, as much as those of us who promote equality might roll our eyes at the "plight" of the slave owner who is losing all his slaves because the slaves are being freed, and we might say that his suffering is as nothing compared to the good being done for the slaves, and that furthermore he is a bad person who deserves to suffer a bit, we should probably nonetheless bear in mind that for him it is indeed a real loss of power/status/wealth and that this real loss may indeed upset him. To what extent this understanding should affect our overall reaction to the situation is difficult to say though, obviously we should still free the slaves, and I'm still inclined to roll my eyes at the "plight" of the slave owner who's losing his slaves and I'm inclined to say "boo hoo hoo, cry me a river".

                  In the same way, the fact that Christianity is losing the grasp on absolute power that it once had in Western countries, and atheists are gaining equality gives me the same reaction. The previously powerful Christians are horrified by their real loss of power over others. And the people whose lives are no longer controlled by the religious beliefs of others now have much greater freedom and have gained a lot more than the "slave-owner" group who was previously in control of their lives has lost. To the Christians who are upset by their loss of power over others this is a real loss, but at the same time any normal person is going to have minimal sympathy for their "plight".

                  Now we see the same phenomenon unfolding with the LGBTQ community.
                  Random pet peeve: I dislike the term "LGBTQ community" as it implies that these people are in a social group, when actually social isolation is a common problem for such people, and insofar as there are groups / communities of LGBTQ people only a small fraction of them participate in such communities. "LGBTQ people" or "LGBTQ people in our community" would be better, because you are talking about individuals rather than a formal community group.
                  "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                  "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                  "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                    Yes. And it's worth bearing in mind that the privileged group do actually lose something when greater equality occurs. So, for example, when slavery is ended and the slaves are free, that's great, and moral, and increases net happiness etc, but there is a group that clearly loses something: The slave-owners suffer real economic losses, as well as a loss of power over others, as well as a public loss of social status.

                    So as much as ending slavery might be the right and good thing to do, and as much as it leads to real gains for real people and betters the society, there are still people who suffer loss because of it and they really do suffer loss. And this necessarily applies in any movement for equality in our society: Any time an oppressed or suffering group is helped and brought up to be equal, necessarily the group that had power/wealth/status over them and was oppressing them loses that and is brought down somewhat to the new equal status. And this equally applies to the aristocracy in France opposing the democratization of power at the time of the French Revolution, or to the wealthy people fleeing Cuba when the communists took over and wanted to distributed wealth equally.

                    So, as much as those of us who promote equality might roll our eyes at the "plight" of the slave owner who is losing all his slaves because the slaves are being freed, and we might say that his suffering is as nothing compared to the good being done for the slaves, and that furthermore he is a bad person who deserves to suffer a bit, we should probably nonetheless bear in mind that for him it is indeed a real loss of power/status/wealth and that this real loss may indeed upset him. To what extent this understanding should affect our overall reaction to the situation is difficult to say though, obviously we should still free the slaves, and I'm still inclined to roll my eyes at the "plight" of the slave owner who's losing his slaves and I'm inclined to say "boo hoo hoo, cry me a river".

                    In the same way, the fact that Christianity is losing the grasp on absolute power that it once had in Western countries, and atheists are gaining equality gives me the same reaction. The previously powerful Christians are horrified by their real loss of power over others. And the people whose lives are no longer controlled by the religious beliefs of others now have much greater freedom and have gained a lot more than the "slave-owner" group who was previously in control of their lives has lost. To the Christians who are upset by their loss of power over others this is a real loss, but at the same time any normal person is going to have minimal sympathy for their "plight".

                    Random pet peeve: I dislike the term "LGBTQ community" as it implies that these people are in a social group, when actually social isolation is a common problem for such people, and insofar as there are groups / communities of LGBTQ people only a small fraction of them participate in such communities. "LGBTQ people" or "LGBTQ people in our community" would be better, because you are talking about individuals rather than a formal community group.
                    Since you and I are pretty aligned on the first part, I just want to focus on the last. I have mixed feelings about it. While that may have once been true, one of the reasons that there has been so much forward motion on LGBTQ rights is that members of this group of people HAVE formed bonds, a certain degree of social cohesion, and they have found a voice. Throughout the country there are groups like "Outright" and "GLAD." At the same time, your statement about isolation being part of the LGBTQ experience is also spot on. So I would tend to say that this is not an either/or but rather a both/and. There is a growing sense of community among those who see themselves as L,G, B, T, or Q - but there is also the issue of isolation and denigration in the larger community. It is still socially correct for kids to say, "you're such a fag!" or "that's just queer!" In time, hopefully even these things will change.
                    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                      That isn't what militant atheists want. They want to suppress religion. Period. Employing violence if need be (see the League of Militant Atheism). They are not all about equal treatment or equal rights.
                      No, as per the Civil Rights militants before them, they want equal rights. In the US, Christianity equals privilege in the hierarchy of religions and non-religion and they intend to keep it that way. Unlike say, Australia where many political leaders are publicly atheist, I can't imagine a candidate it the US standing on a platform that includes atheistic beliefs as per Cruz re his Christianity. Cruz stated: “I’m a Christian first, American second, conservative third and Republican forth. This is the reason nearly 92 percent of the House and Senate are Christian...or, like Trump, pretend to be Christian. It would be political suicide to be otherwise.
                      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        For the clueless - I figured I'd respond with as much content as was provided.

                        The fact is, we see this dynamic throughout history. In the deep south, white land-owners built their wealth on the backs of slaves. When that practice was challenged, their economic privilege was threatened. The reaction? The rest of the nation was persecuting them and attempting to diminish them. The result was the civil war and, after that, the Jim Crow era. Then along came the civil rights era, and the same cycle repeated itself. Whites generally had the best schools, and blacks were prohibited from many services/opportunities. The civil rights era sought to level that laying field, but that meant some compromises for whites accustomed to their privilege. The reaction: riots and bloodshed as the new laws took root. As a result, the deep south shifted and has remained solidly Republican. Those who stood against the civil rights legislation abandoned the Democratic party wholesale and the two parties began their shift to the left (Dems) and right (Reps). Now we see the same phenomenon unfolding with the LGBTQ community.

                        Before that, outside of the U.S., we saw the same dynamics with Rome, we saw it in China, and we see it over and over again - even at a personal level.
                        Well, yes. You've provided a decent amount of words - but support? Not so much. In the Antebellum South, it was abolitionists, not the "underprivileged" who challenged slavery - not that I've ever seen it referred to as "persecution". I note you didn't even bother attempting to make that stretch with regards to the Civil Rights era - and stretching those examples to throughout history?
                        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                        sigpic
                        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                          Well, yes. You've provided a decent amount of words - but support? Not so much. In the Antebellum South, it was abolitionists, not the "underprivileged" who challenged slavery - not that I've ever seen it referred to as "persecution". I note you didn't even bother attempting to make that stretch with regards to the Civil Rights era - and stretching those examples to throughout history?
                          OBP - you (and others) seem to take comments like "land-owners" and translate it into "every white person everywhere." Of COURSE abolitionists resisted, and there were abolitionists both north and south. Some spoke publicly, some acted "underground" (so to speak), and some did both. That the privileged were white, wealthy, connected land owners does not mean every white person was "pro-slavery." And "whites accustom to their privilege" does not mean "all whites were privileged." While it is true that white people in that era were generally more privileged than black people in that era, there are always white people who have less privilege and black people who have more.

                          The knee-jerk reaction from the right to the idea that systemic racism existed, and continues to exist, is somewhat amazing to me. It's discouraging that we can be in 2018 and in such denial of the long term impacts of our country's history. Racism is so insidious. Right now I am traveling through the south on business. I have stopped at two hotels, a Costco, a Target, and two grocery stores. So far - 100% of the time, the people doing the front-line jobs were mostly being done by black people, with the next largest population being Latino and a smattering of white people: cashiers, stock people, housekeepers, front desk clerks. But the managers and owners? So far every one I have met or have seen has been white. That aligns with my experience when I lived here (New Orleans) from late 1977 to mid 1979. Managers and owners tend to be overwhelmingly white, and line workers are heavily black and Latino. I will be interested to see if it remains the pattern as I travel (drive) through Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Georgia, the Carolinas, and Virginia over the next 17 days.

                          The institution of slavery ended as a legally sanctioned reality in 1860s with the Emancipation Proclamation and the conclusion of the Civil War. Legally sanctioned racism continued on through the 1960s and into the 1970s at several levels of government. Even in 2018, the Alabama constitution still calls for the segregation of black and white students, and every attempt to amend the constitution to eliminate this component has failed. The results of so may centuries of slavery followed by so many decades of institutional racism cannot be erased in a couple of decades. We still have institutionalized, systemic racism in this country. Turning a blind eye to it is not productive.

                          To be fair, it is also not productive to point to every little thing said or done and label it "racism" if it disproportionately impacts one race more than another. All THAT does is sensitize everyone to the term "racism" and rob it of its true meaning.
                          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            No, as per the Civil Rights militants before them, they want equal rights. In the US, Christianity equals privilege in the hierarchy of religions and non-religion and they intend to keep it that way. Unlike say, Australia where many political leaders are publicly atheist, I can't imagine a candidate it the US standing on a platform that includes atheistic beliefs as per Cruz re his Christianity. Cruz stated: “I’m a Christian first, American second, conservative third and Republican forth. This is the reason nearly 92 percent of the House and Senate are Christian...or, like Trump, pretend to be Christian. It would be political suicide to be otherwise.
                            Horse apples. They want to stomp out religion plain and simple. As we can see by the actions of the U.S.S.R. and their League of Militant Atheism. At the Second Congress of Atheists in 1929 where they were officially created, Nikolai Bukharin, the editor of Pravda, called for the extermination of religion "at the tip of the bayonet." There, Yemelyan Yaroslavsky, who played a key role in the formation of the group and became its leader declared:

                            It is our duty to destroy every religious world-concept... If the destruction of ten million human beings, as happened in the last war, should be necessary for the triumph of one definite class, then that must be done and it will be done.


                            They sent huge numbers of the Russian Orthodox Church's clerics and prominent believers to forced labor camps in Siberia (Gulags) or simply had them shot. Theodore R. Weeks, Professor of History at Southern Illinois University who's expertise is in Eastern European, Polish, and Russian history, wrote in his Across the Revolutionary Divide: Russia and the USSR, 1861-1945 that by 1940, "over 100 bishops, tens of thousands of Orthodox clergy, and thousands of monks and lay believers had been killed or had died in Soviet prisons and the Gulag."

                            Further, all of the theological schools were closed, and church publications were prohibited. A decade after their creation only about 500 of over 50,000 churches remained open. Between 1931 and 1941 the number of religious communities in the U.S.S.R. of all faiths went from over 50,000 down to 1000. This was only stopped because Stalin realized he needed their support in combatting Hitler.

                            Many of the churches (as well as synagogues and mosques) were converted into bath houses and museums of atheism. Another favorite tactic was sponsoring frequent anti-religious carnivals and parades designed solely to promote the mockery of religion and religious believers.

                            And if one looks back in history this was nothing new. Similar tactics were employed during the French Revolution specifically throughout the infamous Rein of Terror when atheists sought the termination of Catholic religious practice and leaders like Pierre Gaspard Chaumette and Jacques Hébert sought the end of religion itself through whatever means necessary[1]. During the September Massacres in Paris and later in other cities like Lyon and Rochefort, Catholic clergy were specifically targeted (Years later, in 1926 Pope Pius XI would beatify over 190 of the bishops, priests, monks and nuns killed during the massacres and known as the Holy September Martyrs).

                            Those members of the clergy who did denounce the church or resisted exile (over 30,000 fled) were summarily executed whenever they were caught so that by Easter of 1794, very few of France's 40,000 churches still remained open. More bizarre measures that still serve to illustrate their fervor and zeal included the abolishment of the sabbath, saints' days and any references to the Church (street names with religious connotations were changed). The seven-day week was even changed into one lasting ten days instead (although this "Republican Calendar" didn't last long).

                            Yeah. They just wanted to be treated like everyone else. They're no different than the Civil Rights Movement.







                            1. Although a few like Maximilien Robespierre were willing to allow deism through groups like the short-lived Cult of Reason and the Cult of the Supreme Being (although the former was considerably more atheistic than deistic)
                            Last edited by rogue06; 09-27-2018, 01:44 PM.

                            I'm always still in trouble again

                            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                              Even in 2018, the Alabama constitution still calls for the segregation of black and white students, and every attempt to amend the constitution to eliminate this component has failed.
                              Really? Wow.
                              Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                              MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                              MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
                              MM on climate change: Looking at the historical temperature data in my region over the past ten years shows that temperatures have been stable ...

                              mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Roy View Post
                                Really? Wow.
                                Surprised me as well...
                                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X