Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?

stonebeard wrote: There's a point when the deluge of atheism v. religion topics on a forum more resembles proselytizing than mere discussion. I think we passed that point 2 years ago. I could be wrong, but it seems like it really irritates Mike that people actually are religious. Even with all this science around us! SO MUCH SCIENCE. Of course atheists want to distance themselves from religion as much as possible, so saying tons of atheists want to "convert" people is likely to get a lot of angry "Hey now!"s. But so freaking many of them do. It's plainly obvious. I think it's curious too, because it's a passive aggressive sort of converting. "Hey religious guy, now you're sure free to believe what you want to believe, but have you heard about science? I mean it's totally in your rights to believe what you want, but I mean it's obvious to anyone using their sense that science is The Way and The Light." That last part might not happen IRL, but the meaning is the same.

It's funny how people will interpret these things into your posts.

I'm with AronRa on this ... I'm not interested in "converting" anyone. It's a damn shame that we even need a word for the lack of belief in god(s). Hey, I also happen to not believe in alchemy, astrology or homeopathy. Big damn deal.

Here's my question to all the Atheists who are criticizing me here: Why are you blowing this way out of proportion, exaggerating any point I make to the extreme? If you want to keep your Atheism to yourself and leave the floor to the religious people - fine, but please don't demand that I do the same.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:   Yes I know you will say it's communism, but Communism is atheist.   Iván

Stalin also used the orthodox church - as long as it was convenient. Anyway, I know we already agreed in previous discussions that Atheism does not imply Communism.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: The T wrote: Keep on going Mike. A few more threads like this and you will have turned me into a believer.  A few more posts like this and you'll have turned me into a very bored Atheist. Seriously ... if the topic bores you, why not stay the F out of it? Maybe you're new to the concept, but you don't have to participate in every thread.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: Sweden is mostly Atheist ... but last time I looked, it was a pluralistic secular democracy. And currently the only threat to freedom there is Islam ... a religion, not Atheism.

The T wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: The T wrote: Keep on going Mike. A few more threads like this and you will have turned me into a believer.  A few more posts like this and you'll have turned me into a very bored Atheist. Seriously ... if the topic bores you, why not stay the F out of it? Maybe you're new to the concept, but you don't have to participate in every thread. Sorry Mike, but I can't help but intruding when you continue with your evangelizing. It's these kind of behavior, totally incoherent with the supposed open-mindedness of atheists, that gives the new movement a bad name. Leave people be. Nobody HAS to convince you of anything. Nobody owes you any evidence. Who are you to demand it?

This post does not deserve an answer. Nothing but accusations with no base in reality. Where am I evangelizing? Where am I being close-minded? Where am I demanding evidence? It's not like I haven't posted a number of times in this thread explaining the difference between proof and good reason. And even then, if people don't want to answer my question then I won't lose any sleep over it.

BTW: Why should you be so concerned about the "new movement", when you have no sympathy at all for any atheist who speaks up about it? Kind of a contradiction in terms. You seem to be about as remote from this movement as an atheist could possibly be.


Edited by Mr ProgFreak - July 06 2010 at 18:13

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: Sweden is mostly Atheist ... but last time I looked, it was a pluralistic secular democracy. And currently the only threat to freedom there is Islam ... a religion, not Atheism.   Most of the Latin American Countries are Catholic and you don't see fundamentalism, the only threat for our freedom is genocie terrorism (which BTW is atheist).   You can't make generalizations, some religious people are Fundamentalists, and some atheists are mass murderers who opress religious people.   Iván

We've been there before, and I consider this argument to be refuted. Atheism does not lead to violence. Most Atheists in Western countries also happen to be secularists and pluralists. Whenever they "fight religion" it is when it tries to invade public institutions (schools, government). When you demand that Atheists leave religious people alone, please also make sure that religious people leave Atheists alone. The only way you can do that is by separating church and state.


Edited by Mr ProgFreak - July 06 2010 at 18:33

Mr ProgFreak wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: Sweden is mostly Atheist ... but last time I looked, it was a pluralistic secular democracy. And currently the only threat to freedom there is Islam ... a religion, not Atheism.   Most of the Latin American Countries are Catholic and you don't see fundamentalism, the only threat for our freedom is genocie terrorism (which BTW is atheist).   You can't make generalizations, some religious people are Fundamentalists, and some atheists are mass murderers who opress religious people.   Iván We've been there before, and I consider this argument to be refuted. Atheism does not lead to violence. Most Atheists in Western countries also happen to be secularists and pluralists. Whenever they "fight religion" it is when it tries to invade public schools. When you demand that Atheists leave religious people alone, please also make sure that religious people leave Atheists alone. The only way you can do that is by separating church and state.

jampa17 wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: JLocke wrote: I know he considered his country 'Atheist' until the late 80s/early nineties, and then he started calling his country 'secular'. I know that he re-instated Christmas as a holiday, allowed the Pope to come and visit Cuba. also know that he went to the mass in Pope John Paul II's honor after his death, and seemed fairly emotional about the whole thing.    Despite his atheism, Castro lost the support of almost everybody until Chavez came, and the Vatican is one of the few states that risked to help Cuba despite the block, he had to thank that.   But despite this fact, the internal repression continues, he just have changed the name of Cuba from an Atheist State to a secular state, but that's formal. JLocke wrote: Castro himself being a communist still doesn't correlate with him being an atheist. I just don't see it. He 'changed his ways' long after he should have, obviously, but I still blame communism for all of it; not atheism.  No, Communism and Atheism are two integral parts of his personality.   BTW: You don't blame repression and murders of religious leaders and believers? Because that repression is a consequences of the official and mandatory atheism.   Iván     I think you have not study comunism at all JLocke, but if you read something about it, of the core communism practiced by Castro, the essential of their doctrine was that Religion and Faith are boundaries for the government control, so the comunisim believes that there's no god who can dictate or rule the life of people. Of course the communism of the late 80's changes it to call it "Secular" but that is only make-up, they still believe that there can't be more power in the country but the government...   Whatever killing they did in honor of communism, it was as well in honor of the so called Atheism...

JLocke wrote: Reminds me of a friend of mine who is essentially an atheist, morally an agnostic, yet gets upset with me when I 'declare' myself as a non-believer. He says he is 'nothing', and thinks that if everybody just stopped talking about it, everything will go away.

I've never understood how people can be Agnostics. Like former Christians who are no longer sure which Christian denomination is the right one, but they still believe that the Christian God exists. IMO that would be a bit of a paranoid state of mind ... there is a god, and he'll probably punish you for not following the right path, kind of like a lose-lose situation.

They should ask themselves: If there was a God, and he wanted us to behave a certain way, wouldn't he give us some better clues? Are we really to believe that He would allow that His books contain so many errors and contradictions? One gospel says that you should follow all the old testament rules (including circumcision), the other says that you *must not* follow these rules.

In the light of all that, I don't understand how people can prefer the conclusion that there is a God but we can't know what he wants of us to the much simpler conclusion that there probably isn't any god, and even though today billions of people are worshipers, they're as obviously wrong as those who worshiped Zeus or Apollo. When you read the bible vertically (as Bart Ehrman describes in Jesus, Interrupted) and look at how the books of the new testament were written and by whom, and you see that the stories were in (mouth to mouth) circulations for decades until they were written down ... you see that it's a human creation all the way. It shows.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: The T wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: The T wrote: Keep on going Mike. A few more threads like this and you will have turned me into a believer.  A few more posts like this and you'll have turned me into a very bored Atheist. Seriously ... if the topic bores you, why not stay the F out of it? Maybe you're new to the concept, but you don't have to participate in every thread. Sorry Mike, but I can't help but intruding when you continue with your evangelizing. It's these kind of behavior, totally incoherent with the supposed open-mindedness of atheists, that gives the new movement a bad name. Leave people be. Nobody HAS to convince you of anything. Nobody owes you any evidence. Who are you to demand it?  This post does not deserve an answer. Nothing but accusations with no base in reality. Where am I evangelizing? Where am I being close-minded? Where am I demanding evidence? It's not like I haven't posted a number of times in this thread explaining the difference between proof and good reason. And even then, if people don't want to answer my question then I won't lose any sleep over it. BTW: Why should you be so concerned about the "new movement", when you have no sympathy at all for any atheist who speaks up about it? Kind of a contradiction in terms. You seem to be about as remote from this movement as an atheist could possibly be.