I'm no atheist and I hope I don't get struck by a thunderbolt for sticking up for them, but when have you seen an atheist trying to use force to convert others to atheism, or murdering blasphemers and heretics in the belief that it will send them straight to atheist heaven in a golden chariot?Originally Posted by YesNo
Exit, pursued by a bear.
The closest I can think of is a politician in my country, Geert Wilders (an agnost), who is extremely hateful towards the islam. If you look on his Wikipedia page you'll see what I mean, he even made a film about what an evil religion it is. I once saw the film and I am very surprised that he was not actually punished when he was being prosecuted for the things he's said. I do agree with YesNo on the fact that bigots do not have the power to implement violence and that is the main reason they do not do it. I actually suspect that if he had been able to, Wilders might actually have pressed for violent measures. Even though he doesn't do it in the present state of affairs because he would never be able to do it and would just end up in prison.
Aside from that, there's the Khmer Rouge which I almost forgot about for a minute. Cannot say I am an expert on the matter but I saw them being mentioned here and after a quick search for 'religion' on their Wikipedia page it's clear to me that they executed many religious people.
Last edited by EvoWarrior5; 10-03-2013 at 03:42 AM.
Actually Zeus has just spoken to me, and has praised me for defending the stoics. The Christians are first on his list for thunderbolts. He finds the atheists amusing, and will let them off with a caution, this time. Better start building temples to Zeus from now on though! What's that tooth fairy? OK, I'll ask Zeus to let the Christians off this time as well, but he's an angry old b...
These agnostics are the ones we really have to worry about
To get serious, I do find Wilders extreme, but you can't equate being an agnostic with being a bigot. You might say, with some justification, that Wilders is a bigot, but you have to look deeper to see where his extreme views come from. Wikipedia makes clear that he is a very right wing politician, might his politics not have more to do with him being a bigot than his agnosticism?
So he didn't press for violent measures in the film? Then why should he be prosecuted? Everyone should have freedom of speech, even right wing fascists and extreme islamists.I once saw the film and I am very surprised that he was not actually punished when he was being prosecuted for the things he's said... I actually suspect that if he had been able to, Wilders might actually have pressed for violent measures. Even though he doesn't do it in the present state of affairs because he would never be able to do it and would just end up in prison.
Yes but they were, yet again, communists. You have one group of atheists (Attlee, Russell, Dawkins) who are not mass-murders and another group of atheists (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) who are. So is there any difference between the first and second group? Yes indeed... the second group are communists, the first group are not. So doesn't it look like communism is the problem, not atheism?Aside from that, there's the Khmer Rouge which I almost forgot about for a minute. Cannot say I am an expert on the matter but I saw them being mentioned here and after a quick search for 'religion' on their Wikipedia page it's clear to me that they executed many religious people.
Never mind for now, unfinished post. Will finish later, class starts soon!
Without any form of punctuation, our language would not say "I'm perfect"; it would say "imperfect".
"Access to works of art cannot be defined solely in terms of physical accessibility, since works of art exist only for those who have the means of understanding them."
Peaceful communists would probably beg to differ. The problem is the people, not the labels they adopt.
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Mahatma Gandhi
Of course. Labels are mandatory in order to communicate. However, we must be very careful about this. There can be many double agents playing this peaceful game. As a resident of USA, I prefer to leave this topic to the CIA.
On the strength of that, you have just won the entire internet for best post ever.
Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."
Anon
What a comical ignoramus you are. Best post ever? I know, you saw them all. You are omniscient, eh? ROFLMAO
I try to make allowances for people to whom English is a second language, and I'm presuming you're one of them, as you seem to struggle with metaphors.
Perhaps you should learn more of the language and its complexity before jumping in and making a fool of yourself.
Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."
Anon
This name of this particular sub-forum is "Religious Texts" --"texts" being the operative word. Yours fooly therefore suggests that we read various texts in order to form better-informed opinions. The "source" (i.e. the New Testament) is a good place to start, and the closing chapters of the Book of Job in the Old Testament provide another illuminating focal point.
Other sources might include "The Will to Believe" by William James(highly recommended!) and twentieth century theologians-- Catholics such as Teilhard de Chardin and other Christian commentators, such as Karl Barth and Paul Tillich.
Also, perhaps we could all benefit by learning more about the concept of Free Will.
Last edited by AuntShecky; 10-03-2013 at 03:43 PM.
The Atheist, thanks!!! You've made my day.
Exit, pursued by a bear.
Look up "hyperbole" in the dictionary; it's an entirely valid trope. Mr Atheist makes good use of it here in praising Mona Amon.
I had that crammed into my brain in school for ten years. I think most people here have probably had similar experiences. I think we can take it as given that most people have adequate experience of that text.
I've read Teilhard de Chardin, Karl Barth and Paul Tillich. You seem to be assuming that the atheists here haven't read much in the area of religion. Why do you presume that? Maybe the thread is focusing on an "Old Testament" God, but that's because people have been defending an "Old Testament" god, but if you want to bring in the kind of God put forward by writers like Tillich, then bring in the idea, don't make veiled and unsubstantiated insults about atheists not being well read. Why not assume we have read these, or similar, writers and make your point?Other sources might include "The Will to Believe" by William James(highly recommended!) and twentieth century theologians-- Catholics such as Teilhard de Chardin and other Christian commentators, such as Karl Barth and Paul Tillich.
Then again, there is always more to read
RE: response to previous reply, #104 above^
Yours fooly's comment (#101) recommends that we refer to texts. This is more than a mere "suggestion," it is actually a cardinal LitNet rule, which can be found by clicking the top thread in this forum.
That comment was not directed at any specific LitNutter, but rather was a general observation. In that reply a reference to atheists, pro or con, was neither expressed nor implied.
The New Testament, The Book of Job, and the various theologians were mentioned as examples of authors of texts in chich we could discuss.
And as far as "starting a thread of "The Will to Believe," I've already done this, way back in November of 2010! Maybe you'd like to give it a look-see:
William James Redux
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote