I'm Watermark
Diabetic
I was looking at it more from an academic perspective. The idea of refining beliefs through categorization is insane, as the eccentricity (and revolutionary potential) of a belief would be therfore diminished.
6 Types of Atheists
- Thread starter Timshel
- Start date
I was looking at it more from an academic perspective. The idea of refining beliefs through categorization is insane, as the eccentricity (and revolutionary potential) of a belief would be therfore diminished.
I'm Watermark
Diabetic
Is that meant to be in defense of religion's social impacts? Because I was talking about it from a practical, politically grounded perspective.
evince
Truthmatters
let them have their beliefs.
If a cripple needs a crutch you don't kick it out from underneath them.
People believe for brain structure reasons.
That is fine with me.
Just don't allow your religion to fight helping people or your religion will come under fire.
Humans want to care for each other so few completely sociopathic religions emerge.
we compromise every time we interact with people.
I can allow you to believe something that comforts you without making you face the baselessness of it as long as your belief makes you a good human being and not an uncaring obstacle to human suffering
Steelplate
New member
On the Dawkins scale...I'd be 1 or a 2. I believe there is a God...a Creator. I stick to Christian Theology because that's the culture I was born and raised in. However, I think the whole "my religion is true and the rest of you are going to hell" stuff is more about religious and sectarian control than it is about God....obviously....we won't know until we die...so I think the best approach is to apply the Golden Rule towards.people with different beliefs and do our best not to assign the sins of zealots to the entire religion.
As far as social issues such as homosexuality and abortion? Once again....the application of the Golden Rule applies there too....God gave us free will, we live in a free country....therefore, it should be up to us to sin or not...obviously, the rule of law applies.
As far as social issues such as homosexuality and abortion? Once again....the application of the Golden Rule applies there too....God gave us free will, we live in a free country....therefore, it should be up to us to sin or not...obviously, the rule of law applies.
I agree that atheists must put forth their beliefs but seeking out theists isn't the way to do it that's just as bad and that will only bring more hatred to atheists!
I'm Watermark
Diabetic
"Hate me, it does not matter. History will absolve me." - Fidel Castro
Personally, bringing hatred to atheists isn't any of my concern. There will always be a conflict between believers and non-believes, but when religious views are used to dictate government policy, pushing back is necessary, no matter whose offended.
Anti-theists are terrible they discriminate against theists that makes it so you're taking discriminatory theists and replacing them with discriminatory atheists
tekkychick
New member
I agree that we shouldn't seek out and lecture people. But if they bring up religion, especially if they are lecturing us about it, we don't need to be quiet and let it go either...
However, I don't think anyone will stop believing because an atheist lectured them. What I hope for is visibility and a bit of greater understanding - "hey, everyone doesn't think like I do! Maybe I shouldn't force my religious views into law!" or whatever.
Years ago, was in a work meeting with a group of people; we were planning the next meeting. It happened to fall on Yom Kippur. I asked if we should move it, if that was going to be a problem or if someone wasn't going to be able to make it; they all said "no, no, that's fine". Later, one of the participants thanked me; she was Jewish, but she wasn't used to people taking her holy days into account. So she was very appreciative that I considered it. She wasn't planning to take it off, so she was ok with the meeting being that day, but just was so happy for the consideration.
Kind of funny that I was the one who brought it up since I wasn't religious, but I believe in respecting others' beliefs, and hope they will respect my non-belief. And hopefully my bringing it up got the rest of the people to consider things like that in their future planning.
Steelplate
New member
Golden rule....we all need to learn it, love it and live it....that would solve most of the divide.
I'm Watermark
Diabetic
Let's step back and look at what I wrote in context.
I'm not telling anyone to go around berating religious folk with insults, or to disrespect their culture. I'm saying that religion carries very severe political implications, and should thus be dethroned as a force in civil society. We can look at its use to justify authoritarianism throughout history - whither the monarchs, or the industrialists, or the so-called-democrats.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
Oh, THIS will be an interesting exchange.
Steelplate
New member
Now wait a second....Communism and Socialism all have had their share of authoritarianism too. Those political ideologies usually frown upon religion...and in some cases, outlaw it altogether.
OnearmSword
New member
Only three types of atheists exist. 1. Dumb. 2. Dumber. 3. Dumbest. ...
I'm Watermark
Diabetic
But were those authoritarianisms socialism? Were they that school of socialism, communism? Well, they might have been, just not the kind Marx, Bakunin, or even socialism's very definition talked about. To reference Badieu, they were part of socialism's development, but not its realization.
And just as we should combat the authoritarianism of religious folk, we should as well combat the authoritarianism of anti-religious folk. Neither kind, may I add, is advocated by socialists (Maybe with the exception of Marxist-Leninists.)
Last edited:
tekkychick
New member
Steelplate said:
Rose said:
So yes, I agree as a society, we should make sure religion isn't running the society.
And yes, I don't like authoritarian societies.
I don't think it's religion or any particular type of govt (in general) that ensure authoritarianism though; I think people like to take power and become authoritarian, regardless of how the country/state/region/political unit is officially organized.
Sounds like we agree we don't want to beat up on individual people, but when religious people are loud about it - I'm thinking the Limbaughs and others who are trying to push their version of christianity into law, we want to speak up about it.
If someone tries to beat us up about non-belief, we want to speak up - firmly.
And heck, if an atheist started advocating closing all the churches - as has happened in some communist societies - I would hope the rest of us would speak up against that as well.
I think we all want to resist authoritarianism, regardless of where it comes from. (And of course we all have different lines in the sand to draw and all that)
(As far as OneArmSword's comment, I vote we just ignore him)
Steelplate
New member
Ok....I was going to argue with you on your first paragraph, but then I read on...I agree...authoritarianism is a problem we need to be vigilant against....no matter who.is perpetrating it.
I'm Watermark
Diabetic
Go ahead, though. If there's something you disagree with, or think is incorrect, point it out.
I'm Watermark
Diabetic
I can agree with that, but for the sake of discourse, there's something that should be pointed out.
Religion is unique, its classical, and its something a free society would be better off rejecting. Specifically in the case of monotheistic faiths, authoritarianism is rooted deep. Because, from the get go, you're presented with a power that supercedes state, supercedes community, supercedes family, and most of all, supercedes individual judgement. This power, with all its patriarchal potpourri, demands obedience not only in life, but in death.
Bakunin, who I mentioned in an earlier post, was very crucial in the development of this view. Not only did he critique religion, but also rhetorically pronounced the need to overthrow god.
So, while I understand your position, as someone who values liberty and inviduality, I cannot accept it.
tekkychick
New member
oh, I would love it if everyone would reject religion. (Sorry, Steelplate! and Sorry, MM, whenever you are back online!) Oddly, in some countries with an established religion (i.e. England) the church is a lot less important than in our country, which didn't establish a religion. Would we have been better off establishing one that everyone then rejected? Hard to tell, of course.
But if we tell people they can't follow a religion, they'll fight back by following the religion. Kind of like telling your daughter not to date someone... doesn't work.
I think we have to take the slow route - convincing people that while religion may be personally important to them, it shouldn't cause them to judge others; shouldn't cause them to make laws that enshrine their beliefs in to law; and, for those that are religious, continue the trend our country currently has of a lot of young people embracing a god but NOT embracing an established church.
Don't know if it will work. Muslims, Mormons are spreading pretty fast. People for some reason want someone telling them what to do. I just don't think there is anything a collective "we" can do to kill religion; any attempt will strengthen it. We just need to continue to push for a society that embraces everyone without the religious prejudice baggage so that people are more like Steelplate (a total believer, but not a fanatic) and less like PMP.
As a feminist, you won't catch me defending traditional religions. But I also don't defend goddess-worship or Wiccans either (except when I want to piss off a conservative); they seem just as unlikely to me.
Please do NOT accept my position, Rose; as someone of the younger generation, I'm hopeful you will help your generation be more enlightened than mine...
But if we tell people they can't follow a religion, they'll fight back by following the religion. Kind of like telling your daughter not to date someone... doesn't work.
I think we have to take the slow route - convincing people that while religion may be personally important to them, it shouldn't cause them to judge others; shouldn't cause them to make laws that enshrine their beliefs in to law; and, for those that are religious, continue the trend our country currently has of a lot of young people embracing a god but NOT embracing an established church.
Don't know if it will work. Muslims, Mormons are spreading pretty fast. People for some reason want someone telling them what to do. I just don't think there is anything a collective "we" can do to kill religion; any attempt will strengthen it. We just need to continue to push for a society that embraces everyone without the religious prejudice baggage so that people are more like Steelplate (a total believer, but not a fanatic) and less like PMP.
As a feminist, you won't catch me defending traditional religions. But I also don't defend goddess-worship or Wiccans either (except when I want to piss off a conservative); they seem just as unlikely to me.
Please do NOT accept my position, Rose; as someone of the younger generation, I'm hopeful you will help your generation be more enlightened than mine...
Steelplate
New member
Ummm...what does the USA's religious policies keep you from doing? Yes...some of the more conservative States have draconian abortion laws, some don't allow gays to get married....but there are no border restrictions...you can move to a more liberal state.
Look the bottom line is....in a free society, religion is part of that freedom...and yes, no matter what the ideology....even going beyond religion....you will have fanatics.
Look at our conservative brethren as an example. They believe that Capitalism with no regulation or limits is the only answer. Socialists...or more accurately, Communists on the far left feel much the same.
But what makes a dynamic society is one that uses elements of both....the economic freedom of Capitalism tempered with the compassion of Socialism.