Militant atheists only seek to escalate the situation and play the martyr instead of carrying on a rational discussion about their own beliefs.
Man Created God
- Thread starter Vice
- Start date
|
REGISTER TO REMOVE ADS |
|
- Status
Yet, they pave the way for the rest of us, who merely want to stimulate people's mind and help them to see that the world around them does not need to be made simple in order for them to tolerate it.
No, they only pidgeonhole themselves and their so-called unenlightened aggressors into caricatured Culture War stereotypes.
Haha, I guess that's true, but I've seen it myself. In the long run, constant pressure forces people to make concessions in order to ease future berating and stop things from escalating to an even higher level.
200 years ago those people would have been killed as heretics.
200 years ago those people would have been killed as heretics.
By that logic, militant theists and atheists would have free reign to smear each other over with petty and heated arguments about what one should or should not believe rather than having a real discussion about how or what role religion and its coexistence with science and secular theology has in our modern society.
And that's what has been happening for the last several decades. Look how well that's turned out.
And that's what has been happening for the last several decades. Look how well that's turned out.
the fuck.
way to generalize non-believers, and what's more, IGNORE the many still flourishing polytheistic religions of the world.
uhhh anyway
i'm very religious, but honestly if it hurt me, i'd just bite my tongue. what can you do? no one needs censorship in our society, it sucks. >:
:/
pretty sure that's either the minority of crazy fundamentalists or perhaps JWs.
and if so, you must be kidding.
they get a ton of crap from people about preaching.
either side playing the victim card won't solve anything about this, I agree with Sham.
And yet, slowly the world has been changing. "radical thought" is becoming logical thought, and people are taking the time to assess the world around them instead of being spoon-fed "the truth".
This never would have begun without radical action. I'm not going to use war as a relevant metaphor, because that's a dark place I'd rather not go, but without extremism there would be no room to define moderation.
Condoning or approving of something is very different from admitting that there are benefits to it. Any one who has seen "The Watchmen" can attest to that.
This never would have begun without radical action. I'm not going to use war as a relevant metaphor, because that's a dark place I'd rather not go, but without extremism there would be no room to define moderation.
Condoning or approving of something is very different from admitting that there are benefits to it. Any one who has seen "The Watchmen" can attest to that.
So terrorism on behalf of religious fundamentalism is logical and should be socially acceptable. Every major war in history, despite you not wanting to talk about it, has been perpetuated by nationalistic or religious radicalism purported as logical thought. What kind of backwards logic is that? And extremism itself is by definition a viewpoint taken out of moderation into the territory of radicalism.
See that window over yonder? Your credibility just flew out of it in that fanboy moment.
And I actually happened to see Watchmen when it came out in theatres. Nice art direction and action amidst the shallow social commentary.
Last edited:
Since i regard the holy books as man-made, so is any god. Also, militant atheism is non-existent, it implies conversion by violence, ever seen an atheist in a plane shouting praise science/dawkins and seize control to fly into a building? Using rhetoric's isn't militant, only religious people think it is.
You are not only entirely pulling every thing I've said out of context and meaning, but greatly over-exaggerating what it is I'm defending. If you're not going to read things and take them for what they have been obviously stated to mean, I won't bother to respond to your counter-argument.
I don't see how these ad campaigns are radical. Religious advertisement is well-ingrained into the media. No, I'm not referring to fundamentalists or JW. Some of it is subtle, some is blatant.
You might argue with "but you're stooping to their level", however this "level" is not untouchable. In the commercial world, you can say anything that does not go against FCC policies. You might say that other avenues are more suitable for civil discussion, but what exactly would they be? The U.S. political scene is not moderate. Being a Christian is still an unwritten requirement when running for a high office.
The aim of this is not to attack the religious (as previously stated), it is to bring the subject into discussion so it is no longer taboo. The ad campaign happens to be an effective way to do it without being completely squelched.
Also, what victim card? What was said about lack of representation is true, and that point wasn't forced.
You might argue with "but you're stooping to their level", however this "level" is not untouchable. In the commercial world, you can say anything that does not go against FCC policies. You might say that other avenues are more suitable for civil discussion, but what exactly would they be? The U.S. political scene is not moderate. Being a Christian is still an unwritten requirement when running for a high office.
The aim of this is not to attack the religious (as previously stated), it is to bring the subject into discussion so it is no longer taboo. The ad campaign happens to be an effective way to do it without being completely squelched.
Also, what victim card? What was said about lack of representation is true, and that point wasn't forced.
Militant atheism is a term used to describe atheists who will aggressively preach about their beliefs through snobbery and condescending language and actions, much like evangelical theists who believe that they have a moral high ground at all times and argumentalize everything. Also, that kind of terrorist action you described could be applied to nationalism as well, not only religion.
Then please, put the proper context into your posts so we don't have to. Oh, wait... I think you're done here.
That's the deal, if atheists argue with logic and show information backing their claim, they're called militant by the believers, which is bullshit. Also, this makes christians or any followers of a belief inherently militant, if we apply your definition.
So I guess you believe that civil discussion is out of the question. That or you didn't read my post correctly.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 3,666
He did use the words snobbery and condescending which doesn't have to be involved when showing and backing up information. He did also mention the Theist Evangelists for the other side.
That i misread, but i see enough debates on the internet where believers resort to name-calling or threatening with hell when given information on subjects.
It's rather arrogant to think that atheists are incapable of the same dumbfuckery. That, and your perception of all theists are all Bible-thumping evangelists and terrorists and that atheists are all snuggly old scholars.
See: Phillip Pullman.
I know, but not every atheist follows science, i do. I also would like to add if i would get evidence that can be checked by someone else, a friend or family, i would accept the concept of god.
My point isn't to get one side to concede to each other as people so often think is the only solution, it's just that we need to have more of an intelligent dialogue in what theism and atheism's roles in our society are. Religion and science are age-old structures that aren't going anywhere soon, so we're going to have to deal with how it affects every day life and the future.
Again, how would this come about? Atheism is a taboo subject in politics and the newsmedia.
- Status