6 Types of Atheists

[/MSG/]

Is that meant to be in defense of religion's social impacts? Because I was talking about it from a practical, politically grounded perspective.

Oh, THIS will be an interesting exchange.

[Steelplate]

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.

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]

Only three types of atheists exist. 1. Dumb. 2. Dumber. 3. Dumbest. ...

[I'm Watermark]

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.

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.)

[tekkychick]

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.

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.

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.)

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]

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.)

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]

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.

Go ahead, though. If there's something you disagree with, or think is incorrect, point it out.

[I'm Watermark]

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)

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]

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...

[Steelplate]

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...

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.

[Minister of Truth]

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...

In defense of Mormons, they have like one attrocity on their historical record, and then some more mud based upon polygamy. People mostly dislike them because they come off as weird and produce an awkward society.

[Timshel]

In defense of Mormons, they have like one attrocity on their historical record,

Mitt Romney wasn't that bad.

[OnearmSword]

(As far as OneArmSword's comment, I vote we just ignore him)

So my comment was put on the ballot was it? Who counts the votes? And who records the final verdict? My reply represented the feelings of millions of Christians . Even world famous scientists are coming to the conclusion that the universe was designed and not a happenstance.

[tekkychick]

In defense of Mormons, they have like one attrocity on their historical record, and then some more mud based upon polygamy. People mostly dislike them because they come off as weird and produce an awkward society.

Racism too; they've only just gotten over that, not sure it's really "true"

They subjugate women.

The "blood atonement" thing they have going on is pretty creepy.

Are they worse than any other religion? Probably not. I mentioned them because they are incredibly successful at expanding their religion (as are Muslims). And I have full faith that if they got enough power, they would be willing to put their religion into our laws.

Look at how they funded the battle for prop 8 (against marriage equality) in California.

As far as Romney... I've always said (to friends and family) that I have no problem with a Mormon being president as long as they weren't a good Mormon..... by which I mean fanatical. I don't think Romney was a fanatic.

[OnearmSword]

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.

But what makes a dynamic society is one that uses elements of both....the economic freedom of Capitalism tempered with the compassion of Socialism.

No thanks, tens of millions dead bodies highlight that compassion as you call it. Stalin and Mao loved people like you. They called them "useful idiots". That were to be used and then cast aside....