|
|
Post by mikef6 on Feb 16, 2022 19:18:05 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Feb 17, 2022 0:22:27 GMT
That reminds me, those obnoxiously loud Christians hijacked my train again the other day. I hope St Paul tells them to fuck off when they pop their clogs.  |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Feb 18, 2022 7:12:21 GMT
It's pretty easy to find a militant atheist. If you find someone bragging themselves as some sort of 'rationalist' or who considers someone like Hillary Clinton a good leader then you have very like found an atheist.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Feb 18, 2022 8:52:20 GMT
It's pretty easy to find a militant atheist. If you find someone bragging themselves as some sort of 'rationalist' or who considers someone like Hillary Clinton a good leader then you have very like found an atheist. How many have you found so far using this method? My guess is 0. Quite a lot. Thanks for guessing about experiences of others.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Feb 18, 2022 9:30:33 GMT
Quite a lot. Thanks for guessing about experiences of others. You are correct. I should find out more about you before calling you a bald face liar. It is pretty easy to find a militant atheist if you find someone bragging themselves as some sort of 'rationalist' or who considers someone like Hillary Clinton a good leader then you have very like found an atheist.
Therefore, please answer these questions. What would make them militant vs pacificist? Is this "militant" like in ready to take up arms, or just someone being uppity? What are the questions you ask to determine if the Clinton voter is in fact a militant atheist and not just a regular atheist? And do you think Clinton is or would have been a potentially better or worse leader than Trump? Bonus question: do you work for Invista in the USA, India, or somewhere else? I have lived in UK, Australia and India at different point of time in my life. Now as to the rest of your question, given the language you have you used, I am not going to entertain you anymore. Given the endless number of posts you make here I have no intention to feed you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Feb 18, 2022 13:11:37 GMT
It's pretty easy to find a militant atheist. If you find someone bragging themselves as some sort of 'rationalist' or who considers someone like Hillary Clinton a good leader then you have very like found an atheist. I’m not sure what a militant atheist is. I know there are those who can be very annoying by having to let us know that there is no God at any given opportunity but if that is militant then street preachers with loud speakers must be militant on the scale of Attila the Hun. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Feb 18, 2022 14:20:38 GMT
It's pretty easy to find a militant atheist. If you find someone bragging themselves as some sort of 'rationalist' or who considers someone like Hillary Clinton a good leader then you have very like found an atheist. I know there are those who can be very annoying by having to let us know that there is no God at any given opportunity but if that is militant then street preachers with loud speakers must be militant on the scale of Attila the Hun. Ummm....What you mean by Militant atheist? Ask Danielle Redcliffe. I don't know if the problem is with my English or the problem is with lack of sense of humour in atheists that they start using every term in a literal sense. Given that I am myself an atheist (an apatheist to be precise) I find it baffling that some people get upset over everything and take words literally. And to answer your question when I call someone militant atheist I am referring to people who have very little tolerance of religion and are always complaining about Christians/other religious folks depending on society. I believe many of such people become extremely touchy when they see someone talk not so well about atheists.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Feb 18, 2022 14:37:12 GMT
I’m not sure what a militant atheist is. I know there are those who can be very annoying by having to let us know that there is no God at any given opportunity but if that is militant then street preachers with loud speakers must be militant on the scale of Attila the Hun. Ummm....What you mean by Militant atheist? Ask Danielle Redcliffe. I don't know if the problem is with my English or the problem is with lack of sense of humour in atheists that they start using every term in a literal sense. Given that I am myself an atheist (an apatheist to be precise) I find it baffling that some people get upset over everything and take words literally. And to answer your question when I call someone militant atheist I am referring to people who have very little tolerance of religion and are always complaining about Christians/other religious folks depending on society. I believe many of such people become extremely touchy when they see someone talk not so well about atheists. I’d call Radcliffe a drama queen who would probably do no more than sign a petition or get rather angry after failing to have a civil discussion. Militant has become a word with so many degrees of meaning that even someone who goes out of their way to argue their point can be called a militant. Thinking that you’re a rationalist is thinking your viewpoint can’t be argued against (I’ve met otherwise very reasonable religious folk like that) and thinking Clinton would be a good choice to lead America would apply to roughy 50% of those who voted in 2016. That said I’m sure militant atheists do exist but I’ve yet to encounter one preaching at top voice on the London Overground. Those preachers are a personal bugbear of mine. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Feb 18, 2022 14:41:00 GMT
Mind you, someone I once knew did have a t-shirt like this one.  |
|
|
|
Post by Penn Guinn on Feb 18, 2022 15:08:24 GMT
I have never had anyone on the line at a grocery store ask me whether or not I am an atheist.
I have, however, been accosted with the question "Are you a Christian?" many times not only in stores but in parks and museums and when just walking on city streets.
Guessing someone's political stance based on one's religious affiliation, or lack thereof, is just that .... a guess.
Guessing someone's religious affiliation based on one's political stance, or lack thereof, is just that .... a guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by Penn Guinn on Feb 18, 2022 15:12:09 GMT
thinking Clinton would be a good choice to lead America would apply to roughy 50% of those who voted in 2016. In actuality, it was more than that ... Clinton won the popular vote however, too many of those voters happened to be in the "wrong states" according to the Electoral College.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Feb 18, 2022 15:23:03 GMT
thinking Clinton would be a good choice to lead America would apply to roughy 50% of those who voted in 2016. In actuality, it was more than that ... Clinton won the popular vote however, too many of those voters happened to be in the "wrong states" according to the Electoral College. I waffled a bit assuming that there would be those who voted for Clinton simply because they alway vote Democrat.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Feb 19, 2022 23:03:35 GMT
Militant atheist = one that doesn't hide their disdain for fairy tales.
Edit, okay, I think the meaning should be clear, but my bad, let me clarify:
Militant atheist = one that doesn't hide their disdain for believing fairy tales are literal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Feb 20, 2022 22:08:32 GMT
Militant atheist = one that doesn't hide their disdain for fairy tales. I love the “fairytales” so much that I study them to discover their meaning to these ancient peoples grappling with being sentient beings in an inexplicable, perplexing, terrifying, and wonderful world. What I have a low tolerance for is modern day people bastardizing these Bronze Age narratives as proof positive that they are in charge of everybody else’s experience with the Cosmic Question and Life in general. It’s been said long before me that only religion can make good people do bad things. My problem with Christians, or Muslims or Jews, is justifying the bad things they do as good things, or sweep it under the rug, or blame the victim, rewrite history, demonize the other, etc, then present themselves as moral paragons no one should dare criticize. And if they left it at that, I would not have problem with their nasty hypocrisy. We don’t have thought crime in America. The same right to intellectual freedom applies to everyone and cannot be infringed upon. We shouldn’t be passing laws to prevent Fundamentalist, politically right wing conservative, Evangelical Christians from the full expression of their missions, nor should we pass laws preventing any intellectual discussion or discourse criticizing Christianity, often exposing the criminal hucksterism and grift at its base. However, Fundamentalist, politically right wing conservative, Evangelical Christians are now going beyond that and demanding in a political sense everyone should obey them. Listen only to them because they and they are on the side of the righteousness of the one true God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They use an ancient set of myths as their proof. If you are not one of those folks, then bless you and don’t think I can’t tolerate your existence, Sarge. I certainly recognize there are millions of truly good Christians living as close to Jesus’ teachings as they can. I support their mission. However, they tend to be humble so we don’t hear from them too much. Too bad because they need to do something about the bad Christians who are nailing their Lord right back up on that cross. You would know who I am if you paid attention and thought about posts. Your cup is full. Religion is about control, that's why it's organized, hierarchal, often violent, and wields political power. Religion doesn't make good people bad or bad people good. It isn't based on anything real; gods and fairies don't exist. Religion doesn't explain the natural world or produce works. Religion is a tool used by power seekers to mentally and socially enslave people, to build virtual tribes not confined by geopolitical borders. There are no good Christians because Christianity lacks a consistent ideology or belief system. The old and new testaments are incompatible. The New Testament is internally inconsistent. No one can be good at something so ill defined. Christianity is more akin to modern political tribes that are about amassing supporters and have no ideological consistency. And I disagree with you about thought crimes but since I do pay attention and know you, I won't waste effort discussing it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Feb 21, 2022 6:11:17 GMT
You would know who I am if you paid attention and thought about posts. Your cup is full. Religion is about control, that's why it's organized, hierarchal, often violent, and wields political power. Religion doesn't make good people bad or bad people good. It isn't based on anything real; gods and fairies don't exist. Religion doesn't explain the natural world or produce works. Religion is a tool used by power seekers to mentally and socially enslave people, to build virtual tribes not confined by geopolitical borders. There are no good Christians because Christianity lacks a consistent ideology or belief system. The old and new testaments are incompatible. The New Testament is internally inconsistent. No one can be good at something so ill defined. Christianity is more akin to modern political tribes that are about amassing supporters and have no ideological consistency. And I disagree with you about thought crimes but since I do pay attention and know you, I won't waste effort discussing it. False. Ah, your typical deep thoughts.
|
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Feb 22, 2022 17:16:47 GMT
Militant atheist = one that doesn't hide their disdain for fairy tales. What I have a low tolerance for is modern day people bastardizing these Bronze Age narratives as proof positive that they are in charge of everybody else’s experience with the Cosmic Question and Life in general. It’s been said long before me that only religion can make good people do bad things. My problem with Christians, or Muslims or Jews, is justifying the bad things they do as good things, or sweep it under the rug, or blame the victim, rewrite history, demonize the other, etc, then present themselves as moral paragons no one should dare criticize. And if they left it at that, I would not have problem with their nasty hypocrisy. We don’t have thought crime in America. The same right to intellectual freedom applies to everyone and cannot be infringed upon. We shouldn’t be passing laws to prevent Fundamentalist, politically right wing conservative, Evangelical Christians from the full expression of their missions, nor should we pass laws preventing any intellectual discussion or discourse criticizing Christianity, often exposing the criminal hucksterism and grift at its base. However, Fundamentalist, politically right wing conservative, Evangelical Christians are now going beyond that and demanding in a political sense everyone should obey them. Listen only to them because they and they are on the side of the righteousness of the one true God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They use an ancient set of myths as their proof. If you are not one of those folks, then bless you and don’t think I can’t tolerate your existence, Sarge. I certainly recognize there are millions of truly good Christians living as close to Jesus’ teachings as they can. I support their mission. However, they tend to be humble so we don’t hear from them too much. Too bad because they need to do something about the bad Christians who are nailing their Lord right back up on that cross. I find those fairy tales interesting, too, and have studied different world religions, but not nearly in as much depth as you have. I am an agnostic atheist, but if examined, my life would be found to be not in opposition to Jesus' teachings. What I grapple with, in my atheism, is how to deal with what I call "early morning, every day, existential angst." My life has been through times of extreme depression. I have friends who are good people, but if they didn't have bad luck, they would have no luck at all, and their latest loss has just astounded me. They aren't overtly religious, don't go to church, but I cannot understand how they keep on going in the face of so much loss. I just don't know how to think about the problem of suffering. I am drawn to Buddhism, with its symbolic lotus, growing out of the mud, through the water, to become a beautiful flower, but sometimes that just doesn't make sense in the real world. What do you think about the issue of suffering?
|
|
|
|
Post by Geddy on Feb 22, 2022 17:33:32 GMT
It most certainly is true as they are easy to spot whenever they falsely believe some religion is trying to influence politics or education.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Feb 22, 2022 17:49:25 GMT
I find those fairy tales interesting, too, and have studied different world religions, but not nearly in as much depth as you have. I am an agnostic atheist, but if examined, my life would be found to be not in opposition to Jesus' teachings. What I grapple with, in my atheism, is how to deal with what I call "early morning, every day, existential angst." My life has been through times of extreme depression. I have friends who are good people, but if they didn't have bad luck, they would have no luck at all, and their latest loss has just astounded me. They aren't overtly religious, don't go to church, but I cannot understand how they keep on going in the face of so much loss. I just don't know how to think about the problem of suffering. I am drawn to Buddhism, with its symbolic lotus, growing out of the mud, through the water, to become a beautiful flower, but sometimes that just doesn't make sense in the real world. What do you think about the issue of suffering? A while back I started a thread on Stoicism, a completely secular way of dealing with adversity and suffering. I’ll give a severely edited version of the discussion I had on that thread. In the modern world Stoicism is greatly misunderstood. Any dictionary definition of a Stoic will say something like “a person who remains unmoved by joy or grief and will face whatever life throws at them without complaining.” While there is a kernel of truth in that, still, no, no, and NO. It is a philosophy of how to live a good life. A modern view of existence is that we are buffeted about by cause and effect and have no will of our own or very little. The Stoics would mainly agree with that. They ask “What is under my control and what is not?” Most everything is “not.” All we have are our judgments and our decisions to act or not to act. We might call it free will; the ancients called it our “volition.” Say you are scheduled for a job interview. You can prepare by researching the company, editing your resume, dressing appropriately, and leaving in plenty of time to reach your destination. All these things are under your control. But an auto accident that stops three lanes of traffic for several hours and makes you late is not under your control. On the other hand, the interview may go very well and you have hopes. But whether you get the job is not under your control. The same is true in the face of tragedy and loss. We need to understand what is and what is not under our control. But Stoicism is anything but passive. There are two assumptions that Stoics make about human nature. First that people are rational in nature and can train themselves to make right decisions by logic. Next, we are social animals who live in a society with family, friends, associates, co-workers, etc. If Stoicism is a Practical Philosophy showing us how to be the best people we can be, then the welfare of the rest of society is important. That is why the two abstract philosophical areas that Stoics delve into are logic and ethics. It is very much in the Stoic tradition to become an activist in justice issues. I am still very much the Stoic novice, just thinking it all out, but perhaps a book by a modern practician from you library can help fill in the blanks I have left. I have always felt I was something of a Stoic before I even heard of it. I had been unconsciously training myself all along to not worry about or regret or keep hashing over things I had no control over. Maybe this could help. Keep searching.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Feb 22, 2022 20:18:56 GMT
What I grapple with, in my atheism, is how to deal with what I call "early morning, every day, existential angst. I believe the key is acceptance. Accept that life has no purpose other than what you give it. The universe has no plan. Accept what you can't change. Buddhism teaches that wanting brings suffering, (I'm not a Buddhist except by accident), so you have to accept what you can and can't have by accepting what you can and can't change. (To clarify, I'm not suggesting it because I'm a Buddhist, I'm not, nor suggesting it because of Buddhism or any other religion or ideology. I'm suggesting it because it is my own ideology born of my own journey through life. I only mention Buddhism because it's familiar to people.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 28, 2022 2:13:11 GMT
See that guy passionately condemning those necklaces and earrings and monuments and decrying public proclamations of love while denying his arrogant intolerance and bigotry? That's an atheist. Just hold up a sign saying "Jesus Loves You" and the ones who spit on you are most likely atheists. Or Muslims. Hard to tell the difference sometimes.
|
|
