Anything good about religion at all?

nagirrac

robindch wrote: »

You should decide on a position and then stick to it

Are you suggesting I do not understand the differences betwen authoritarian and totalitarian or do you not understand the differences

Ireland up to very recently is an example of an authoritarian state, in that regardless of which political party was in power the Church had a great influence over the legislature. For example, you could not buy a condom legally in Ireland and to suggest otherwise was frowned upon. However, to my knowledge nobody went to prison for advocating condom use or indeed importing them for personal use (open to correction there).
In a totalitarian state if no condoms was the rule then suggesting changing the rule got you put up against a wall.
Its not a subtle difference.

Hotblack Desiato

starch4ser wrote: »

Some great fairy tales to tell your kids before bedtime

Yeah. The one where god decided to drown every man, woman and child on earth except for this dude who lived to be 500 and shagged his own daughters is a riot.

Michael OBrien

nagirrac wrote: »

Apologies for misquoting you in the above response. I stand by my original response to your post however. It is too convenient for atheists to assert that atrocities committed by dogmatic atheists were due to something else in their belief systems. Atheism is a belief system and all belief systems seem vulnerable to evil under the right or rather wrong circumstances.
FGM has been around for a long time (early Eqyptians?) so not sure about linking it to at least modern religions, its no different to other barbaric practices from the distant past that should be outlawed in any civilized society.
I respect your position, it is reasonable and well thought out, but your original assertion that "good people do good things, bad people do bad things, but religion is the only thing that makes good people do bad things" is I think open to debate. Do you honestly believe that all racism is due to religion for example? Some of the most racist people I have met demonstrate no interest in religion.

"at least modern religions" Islam fully supports it, its mentioned in the haddiths, all Muhammed said was cut lightly. UGH.
I am quite certain it has earlier origins, after all you may agree than Mormonism is a mix of Islam and Christianity, Islam is a mix of Christianity and Judaism, Christianity is a mix of Judaism and older religions, and Judaism has massive influences from Babylonian myths and borrowed from every legend it came across and was HEAVILY influenced by the egyptians (who would not be, they ruled the area).
I absolutely agree it should be outlawed, I know asylum seekers that had children (babies) mutilated by a visiting relative while babysitting. The parents went out for a meal, and the granny did the job on a baby girl, they were horrified when they returned.
My mother works with amnesty international. I help do research on the horrors of religious and political systems. It gives you nightmares. torture victims, rape victims, mass murder. This happens today. A lot of it linked with superstition and fear.
You might understand my position better knowing that.

As far as the quote I gave, that was borrowed rather than from me originally, I suppose you could google it for its source. I never meant it as an absolute but as a general statement that religion can make good people do bad things more than any other philosophy because it has no material foundation thus making it very hard to reason against.

"that all racism is due to religion" I never said that, there is evolutionary reasons for racism, bigotry and religion (just like most other developments and attitudes that influence societies). Other animals have similar pscyhologies in regard to group mentality vs outsiders. Don't think for a moment I agree with racism, its bred from ignorance and genetic habits subconsciously developed over millions of years, but I would never blame it on a relatively new phenomena of religious creation. They simply merged over time, and stem from earlier traits including tribal trust and survival.

Its a complex field, I would be happy to chat about it but probably not here.

fitz0

nagirrac wrote: »

Atheism is a belief system and all belief systems seem vulnerable to evil under the right or rather wrong circumstances.

Where'd you pick this one up? How does not believing something make a belief system?

Michael OBrien

nagirrac wrote: »

In case my previous post sounded like a wum, a few facts and figues to back it up. I am neither a religious proponent nor an atheist so I have no skin in the game (and to the previous poster, ninja, yes its reasonable to be against both the extremes of religious fanaticism and atheist fanaticism).
The suggestion by Harris (in particular), Dawkins, Hitchens and other militant atheists is that most war has its roots in religion. The 3 volume "Encyclopedia of Wars" published by Phillips and Axelrod in 2005 lists 1,763 wars in recorded human history, 123 or 7% of which were religious wars. Almost 50% of the religious wars have been waged by Islamists so the argument can be made that they are the most violent religion (and the most recent of the major religions).
The linkage between war and religion just does not add up.
So moving on to modern times and the "no true scotsman" argument, this is where the atheist argument falls apart.
Atheist: Atheists don't kill people because they have no reason to do so
Response: Stalin and Mao were atheists
Atheist: Then Stalin and Mao were no true atheists
Communism is not a religion, it is a political ideology with its beliefs firmly rooted in atheism, and while the Communism of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Meng-istu and Kim Il-Sung may differ the one thing they all had in common was militant atheism. There have been 28 countries since the Russian Revolution that were or are ruled by avowed atheists. The total body count of domestic citizens murdered by these regimes in that time is estimated (midpoint in the attached data) at over 100 Million. www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB16A.1.GIF
The number of domestic murders by democratic regimes (which far outnumber communist regimes run by atheists) is less than 200,000 over the same period. Is it just coincidence that atheist leaders kill such high percentages of their own people? I don't have the answer but its pretty damning evidence.

"Atheist: Atheists don't kill people because they have no reason to do so
Response: Stalin and Mao were atheists
Atheist: Then Stalin and Mao were no true atheists"
While I can only give my experience, I would say that atheists freely admit Stalin and Mao are atheists and probably afairyists too. What you seem to miss is not that we deny atheists can do bad things, of course atheists can do bad things, BUT its not DUE to atheism, its due to the particular group or individual belief system. That system is ALWAYS more than atheism because atheism has no tenants, its not even linked with science as some people try to pretend.

Humans are largely stupid, short sighted animals, often egotistically believing they are more than they objectively are, they are also genetically predisposed to following authority figures, especially as children (which is vital for children). For most of human history knowledge has resided in those with Power. Only with great effort has that begun to change, and only really starting to take affect in the last 50 years with the rise of computers and international trade at a level never available before (electronic trade for instance).

I would also question your stats on the amount of "religious wars" versus other wars. By what criteria is that based on. Wars can be about land, or resources but religion often plays an important part in motivating the population to support its leaders and demonise its enemies.

Also you have to take into consideration the rise of a smaller world, the clash of civilisations, the spread of culture, the rise of military possibilities and the ability to MISunderstand science due to its relative newness.

The thing that chaffs is that EVERYONE should be concerned with why we believe things (rational sceptical thinking) more than what we currently believe. Atheism is non belief, and while some, including atheists like to try to make more of it than it is, it is NOT a belief. It certainly does lead on to other avenues of beliefs more readily than others, and THOSE avenues should be scrutinised. I think the fairly boring attempt to stigmatise atheism is a red herring both theists and atheists do themselves a disservice following.

When an atheist says they don't believe in a god claim, its what comes NEXT is important. One could say similar things about theism in its pure form, it only REALLY becomes dangerous when they add stuff to it.

Michael OBrien

The Bishop! wrote: »

All labels are offensive to someone. Yeah the militant atheist one comes up a lot with Hitchens and Harris. Dawkins also qualifies imv, along with a few others.

Saying something like "well, at least we're not as bad as such-and-such" doesn't really apply to the term or its legitimacy for me. But each to his own definition.



Post 9/11, that's when the American imperialism industry and the militant atheist industry sort of got into bed with each other for mutual gain.
That's when the militant atheist meme really took off. And they're still riding the bandwagon.

Saying Hitchens was a secularist may be accurate. The uncomfortable question remains for his fans at least to ask is how he interpreted this secularism.
His long time friend Alexander Cockburn wrote a very frank obituary on his later views.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/12/16/farewell-to-c-h/

Very interesting, although I am not sure about your point? I liked Hitchens in regard to some of his debates, I have some of his books, some of which I have yet to read due to a rather large reading list I acquired when i got enthusiastic about educating myself about my stance. However what i don't really get is why you think his "view" of anything affects atheists at large or secularism or that it meant that the review reflects an accurate picture of Hitch by itself. I know atheists that don't like Hitch, or Dawkins, or Harris, and they may have valid reasons, none of which necessarily affects the elements I like. Hitch, like most people, was a complex individual, with abundant flaws, and a share of positive points. If anything its good that such openness occured although I would have liked to hear Hitch's response on some points.
Anyway thanks for the link.

"Saying something like "well, at least we're not as bad as such-and-such" doesn't really apply to the term or its legitimacy for me." Thats not what I said, I said the LABEL is applied for completely different standards.
Is William Lane Craig called a militant christian? no? how about Ray Comfort? no? or ravi zacharias?
Why is that? they are only defending their position and those that agree with them from those that don't. They do tours, appear on tv, have books on sale, etc.
Yet when an atheist does the same thing, often calling a spade a spade when refuting outright lies about us, suddenly he or she is militant.

There are multiple meansing of militant in a dictionary, but many people cleverly use a fallacy of equivocation by mixing up the terms.

Bannasidhe

I am liking Michael OBrien. That is all.

Hotblack Desiato

Get a room

robindch

nagirrac wrote: »

Are you suggesting I do not understand the differences betwen authoritarian and totalitarian [...]

I'm pointing out that you have claimed, but haven't documented, a link between, on one hand, mass state-sponsored murder, and on the other hand, an ontological position concerning one or more deity figures (atheism). I'm also saying that you appear to have understandings of liberalism and authoritarianism, and their respective sociological and psychological underpinnings, which are not shared by people familiar with current research.

robindch

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Is William Lane Craig called a militant christian? no? how about Ray Comfort? no? or ravi zacharias? [...] Yet when an atheist does the same thing, often calling a spade a spade when refuting outright lies about us, suddenly he or she is militant. [ ...] Why is that?

It's a crass, normative language game, carried out by the religious simply to discredit the opposition by mischaracterizing them as violent, uncouth, unspiritual buffoons.

One graphic is worth a few hundred words at least:

Hotblack Desiato

So it's true. We are militant atheists after all. Thank God all those Christians and Muslims are so tolerant, eh!

nagirrac

robindch wrote: »

I'm also saying that you appear to have understandings of liberalism and authoritarianism, and their respective sociological and psychological underpinnings, which are not shared by people familiar with current research.

How interesting. My understanding of liberalism and authoritarianism is based on growing up in authoritarian Ireland, rebelling against authority, emigrating and several decades of life as an active liberal. Now maybe I don't meet your definition of what a "proper" liberal is, but although I may disagree with him I score 32 on Altemeyer's RWA scale. How about yourself?

pauldla

nagirrac wrote: »

How interesting. My understanding of liberalism and authoritarianism is based on growing up in authoritarian Ireland, rebelling against authority, emigrating and several decades of life as an active liberal. Now maybe I don't meet your definition of what a "proper" liberal is, but although I may disagree with him I score 32 on Altemeyer's RWA scale. How about yourself?

I'm not sure that robindch questioned your liberal credentials (and nobody wants a p!ssing contest about who is the better liberal). I think he's asking for clarification of terms, is all. If you'll excuse the pun, is your red the same as his red?

nagirrac

pauldla wrote: »

I'm not sure that robindch questioned your liberal credentials (and nobody wants a p!ssing contest about who is the better liberal). I think he's asking for clarification of terms, is all. If you'll excuse the pun, is your red the same as his red?

I'm not sure why you feel the need to explain roibindch's position but if you do then surely you should read the exchange we have been having? If you go back to post #343, you will see the following "you self identify as liberal but most of your posts suggests you have a well developed authoritarian mindset". I agree on there being no point comparing who is the better liberal but robindch was the one engaging in it. Equally there is no point trying to agree on definitions of "liberal" and "authoritarian" mindsets, the scale has two extremes with quite a bit variety in the middle. If you take the issue of religion for example, the extreme view on the right is that all tenets of a particular religion should be obeyed, and the view on the extreme left (Marx and many of his followers) is that religion needs to be eliminated from society and whatever violence needed to accomplish this is justified. Which view is the more dangerous? Both dangerous in my view, but as I pointed out in previous posts the evidence of the 20th century suggests that those who hold the extreme Marxist position have significantly more of a history of slaughtering their own people.

pauldla

nagirrac wrote: »

I'm not sure why you feel the need to explain roibindch's position but if you do then surely you should read the exchange we have been having? If you go back to post #343, you will see the following "you self identify as liberal but most of your posts suggests you have a well developed authoritarian mindset". I agree on there being no point comparing who is the better liberal but robindch was the one engaging in it. Equally there is no point trying to agree on definitions of "liberal" and "authoritarian" mindsets, the scale has two extremes with quite a bit variety in the middle. If you take the issue of religion for example, the extreme view on the right is that all tenets of a particular religion should be obeyed, and the view on the extreme left (Marx and many of his followers) is that religion needs to be eliminated from society and whatever violence needed to accomplish this is justified. Which view is the more dangerous? Both dangerous in my view, but as I pointed out in previous posts the evidence of the 20th century suggests that those who hold the extreme Marxist position have significantly more of a history of slaughtering their own people.

Well, yes, I have been following the thread. I won't speak for Robindch, but I will speak for myself. You claim to being liberal, but some of your points would certainly make me question that, your many years of liberal activism and RWA score notwithstanding.

If I may, you tend to see things in very black-and-white terms, and your arguments are not always consistant. A few post back, for example, you were laying the blame on atheist leaders for the greatest slaughters of the 20th Century; now you're referring to them as Marxist dictators? Are you not conflating marxism and atheism? Previously, I asked if you were confusing religion with theism. If you're going to be fast and loose with your terms, people will ask you for clarification.

nagirrac

robindch wrote: »

In quoting Altemeyer or Haidt, all I'm doing is pointing out the results of current social and psychological research. You are free to accept, or not, their tentative conclusions, though......it would certainly add a lot to your argument if you would explain why they're wrong, rather than just saying they are. And having read your posts here over the last few weeks, I don't think that we agree on the meaning of the word "liberal" either.

So, specifically on Altemeyer, here is my position. I do believe he is a very good researcher and is doing society in America in particular a favor by exposing right wing authoritarian dogma, in particlular religious fundamentalism. However, as his research is solely based on America (and Canada) it is hopelessly narrow. He points out the dangers of authoritarian right wing thinking and how it could lead to a fascist dictatorship. There's no doubt that America swung to the right after 9-11 (understandably so), but swung back to the center left in 2008 when Obama was elected quite handily. The reason is America is larelgy composed of people with moderate centralist views on most issues, a "live and let live" mentality. There's a lot of hysteria regarding religious fundamentalism in America, but in my experience of living and working here for over 2 decades that view is overblown.
What's missing in Altemeyer's research is the dangers to society from an extreme left wing ideology. Now clearly that research cannot be carried out in America as it's hard to find many people with such positions, but its not hard to look at the results in countries where extreme left wing ideology has taken hold. I can make just as a strong a case that extreme left wing ideology is as dangerous and the evidence would suggest more dangerous than extreme right wing ideology. They are both very bad for society which is why a modern and generally well educated country like America and most countries in western Europe are firmly in the center of the political spectrum.
Altemeyer presents as if all authoritarian thinking is bad. It's not, society needs rules to function, how the rules are administered best is what's open for discussion. For example, although I am a liberal, I believe in a strong system of law and order and believe that those who engage in violent crime should get a lengthy prison sentence. I don't believe it is beneficial to society to go "easy" on violent criminals. There are a variety of other issues where I disagree with people who are to the left of me. As with most aspects of life, balance and moderation is the key, extreme positions generally do not have good outcomes.

nagirrac

pauldla wrote: »

Well, yes, I have been following the thread. I won't speak for Robindch, but I will speak for myself. You claim to being liberal, but some of your points would certainly make me question that, your many years of liberal activism and RWA score notwithstanding.

If I may, you tend to see things in very black-and-white terms, and your arguments are not always consistant. A few post back, for example, you were laying the blame on atheist leaders for the greatest slaughters of the 20th Century; now you're referring to them as Marxist dictators? Are you not conflating marxism and atheism? Previously, I asked if you were confusing religion with theism. If you're going to be fast and loose with your terms, people will ask you for clarification.

So in your own words "nobody wants a p!ssing contest about who is the better liberal" but off you go anyway

As to your specific point, do you have any understanding of Marxist ideology? A central tenet of Marxism is that religion needs to be eliminated from society and replaced by atheism. Marxist-Leninism as implemented in Russia after 1917 required the abolition of all religion to create the utopian state. The same is true for most states that implemented Marxism (there are exceptions, in particular in South America). This is the extreme left wing view, that religion needs to be eradicated and replaced by atheism. You can argue that atheism per se is not to blame for anything, but atheism was a central tenet of Marxism.

and no, I'm not confusing religion and theism. I'll leave that to Sam Harris who says that Buddhism is not a religion (coincidently enough the one he practices himself).

nagirrac

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I believe you're mistaken. Here, for instance:

nagirrac wrote:

If you take the issue of religion for example, the extreme view on the right is that all tenets of a particular religion should be obeyed, and the view on the extreme left (Marx and many of his followers) is that religion needs to be eliminated from society and whatever violence needed to accomplish this is justified.

On social issues, the extreme right is authoritarianism and the extreme left would be something along the lines of anarchism; Marxism is on the extreme left when it comes to economic issues, not social issues. Any Marxist-Leninist state from the last century was (extreme) left with respect to economics (they were communists, after all), but with respect to social issues, they were still (extreme) right, i.e., they were authoritarian. So, for example, somebody who's on the extreme left on social issues would not believe that "religion needs to be eliminated from society and whatever violence needed to accomplish this is justified," because this is an authoritarian viewpoint. Somebody on the extreme left (on social issues) would have a live and let live attitude towards the religious.

It's important not to conflate left-right with respect to economic issues (communism vs. capitalism) and left-right with respect to social issues (anarchism vs. authoritarianism). Marxism-Leninism is communist-authoritarian, or at least all states which attempted to achieve it have displayed that characteristic.

Hotblack Desiato

The concept of a one-dimensional left-right spectrum is too simplistic to be any use.
There are right wing liberals and left wing authoritarians.

The extremes of these would be

Authoritarian left = (Stalinist) communists
Authoritarian right = Fascists
Liberal left = Anarchists
Liberal right = Libertarians

The Mad Hatter

ninja900 wrote: »

The concept of a one-dimensional left-right spectrum is too simplistic to be any use.
There are right wing liberals and left wing authoritarians.

The extremes of these would be

Authoritarian left = (Stalinist) communists
Authoritarian right = Fascists
Liberal left = Anarchists
Liberal right = Libertarians

Yup - I've always thought the political compass was a good visual representation.

ninja900

ninja900 wrote: »

The concept of a one-dimensional left-right spectrum is too simplistic to be any use.
There are right wing liberals and left wing authoritarians.

The extremes of these would be

Authoritarian left = (Stalinist) communists
Authoritarian right = Fascists
Liberal left = Anarchists
Liberal right = Libertarians

Whatever way it's defined (what you've outlined is quite similar to what I've outlined in my post above), the opposite of Marxism isn't what nagirrac has implied: an "extreme left," which wishes to rid the world of religious beliefs and destroy religious artefacts, is not at the opposite of Marxism. Liberalism doesn't extend to a point where, instantaneously, it becomes about ridding the world of religion (as implied by nagirrac's post)!

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Yup - I've always thought the political compass was a good visual representation.

It is and it isn't. The Political Compass, in that graphic, at least, identifies libertarianism as the opposite of authoritarianism, which is incorrect. Libertarianism has aspects that are opposed to authoritarianism (namely, views on social issues and government), but it also encompasses economic ideologies (right-ring capitalism). I think it would be more accurate to have anarchism as the opposite of authoritarianism.

But this is all a little off-topic, I suppose.

nagirrac

gvn wrote: »

Whatever way it's defined (what you've outlined is quite similar to what I've outlined in my post above), the opposite of Marxism isn't what nagirrac has implied: an "extreme left," which wishes to rid the world of religious beliefs and destroy religious artefacts, is not at the opposite of Marxism. Liberalism doesn't extend to a point where, instantaneously, it becomes about ridding the world of religion (as implied by nagirrac's post)!

..but, but that isn't remotely connected to what I said. What I said was that Marxism (the ideology, not any specific implementation) advocates the elimination of religion and that most left wing "extremists" tend to embrace this view (religion is bad, the cause of much of what is wrong, and without it humanity would be fine). The original Marxists were also anarchists and later turned on their own and became authoritarian tyrants. Yes, its absolutely true that the great majority of states that implemented Marxism became authoritarian states, I accept that, but they didn't start out that way. They started as idealists and were corrupted by power.
There's a lot to be said for moderate views, that's my main point. Whether its extreme left or extreme right, economic or social issues, nothing good generally follows from extremists taking power.
If you want to attach the label of non-violent "live and let live" to anarchists I have to disagree. I would say that's a centralist social position and one I hold dear. There are plenty examples of violent anarchists in history and religion has been one of their targets as they associate it with the establishment that must be overthrown.

pauldla

nagirrac wrote: »

So in your own words "nobody wants a p!ssing contest about who is the better liberal" but off you go anyway

As to your specific point, do you have any understanding of Marxist ideology? A central tenet of Marxism is that religion needs to be eliminated from society and replaced by atheism. Marxist-Leninism as implemented in Russia after 1917 required the abolition of all religion to create the utopian state. The same is true for most states that implemented Marxism (there are exceptions, in particular in South America). This is the extreme left wing view, that religion needs to be eradicated and replaced by atheism. You can argue that atheism per se is not to blame for anything, but atheism was a central tenet of Marxism.

and no, I'm not confusing religion and theism. I'll leave that to Sam Harris who says that Buddhism is not a religion (coincidently enough the one he practices himself).

Where did I say that...? TBH I don't know if you, or robindch, is a liberal or not, and I don't particularly care either way. I was just asking if you were not confusing your terms.

Seeing as you then go on to present an argument that seems to indicate that you consider marxism and atheism to be one and the same thing, I conclude that yes, your reasoning is unclear on a number of points. Q.E.D.

nagirrac

pauldla wrote: »

Where did I say that...? TBH I don't know if you, or robindch, is a liberal or not, and I don't particularly care either way. I was just asking if you were not confusing your terms.

Seeing as you then go on to present an argument that seems to indicate that you consider marxism and atheism to be one and the same thing, I conclude that yes, your reasoning is unclear on a number of points. Q.E.D.

Post # 374
I did not say that Marxism and atheism were one and the same thing, to do so would be stupid. I said atheism is a central tenet of Marxism.

pauldla

nagirrac wrote: »

Post # 374
I did not say that Marxism and atheism were one and the same thing, to do so would be stupid. I said atheism is a central tenet of Marxism.

Post #374 reads

I'm not sure that robindch questioned your liberal credentials (and nobody wants a p!ssing contest about who is the better liberal). I think he's asking for clarification of terms, is all. If you'll excuse the pun, is your red the same as his red?

I said nobody wants to engage in a 'my liberalism is bigger than your liberalism' contest. You then replied

So in your own words "nobody wants a p!ssing contest about who is the better liberal" but off you go anyway

'Off I go anyway'? Doing what, comparing who was the bigger or better liberal? When did I do that? Show me the relevant posts, please.

Yes, atheism is a core belief of Marxism. Now if you could explain what that has to do with the price of cabbage, I'd appreciate it.

nagirrac

pauldla wrote: »

I said nobody wants to engage in a 'my liberalism is bigger than your liberalism' contest. You then replied
'Off I go anyway'? Doing what, comparing who was the bigger or better liberal? When did I do that? Show me the relevant posts, please.

How about this one?

I won't speak for Robindch, but I will speak for myself. You claim to being liberal, but some of your points would certainly make me question that, your many years of liberal activism and RWA score notwithstanding.

The only issue I have with you is your questioning my liberalism, so let's try and move beyond the silly semantics stuff. On what basis are you questioning my liberalism? The fact that some of my opinions do not fit with your worldview of what a liberal is? There are many many kinds of liberals, just as there are many kinds of conservatives.. so again, on what basis do you question my liberalism? Maybe we can move the conversation forward if you can outline what a proper liberal is in your opinion. Does one have to be an atheist to be a proper liberal?

pauldla

nagirrac wrote: »

The only issue I have with you is your questioning my liberalism, so let's try and move beyond the silly semantics stuff. On what basis are you questioning my liberalism? The fact that some of my opinions do not fit with your worldview of what a liberal is? There are many many kinds of liberals, just as there are many kinds of conservatives.. so again, on what basis do you question my liberalism? Maybe we can move the conversation forward if you can outline what a proper liberal is in your opinion. Does one have to be an atheist to be a proper liberal?

Moving beyond the silly semantics stuff? And what silly semantics stuff would that be?

As stated above, I honestly couldn't give two balls of goat****e if you are a liberal or not. You say you are, and I'm willing to take that at face value. However, your misquoting of other posters, switching of terms, strawman tactics and disingenuous comparisons make me wonder if you are really as liberal as you say you are. But maybe you are. As I said, I don't really care, and it adds nothing to the conversation; though I will remind you that it was you who insisted on flashing your liberal credentials.

Lest I be accussed of dodging questions (which I consider to be very bad form), let me answer your final question by saying no, I suppose one does not have to be an atheist to be a 'proper' liberal. Can you answer my questions above now, please?

nagirrac

pauldla wrote: »

Moving beyond the silly semantics stuff? And what silly semantics stuff would that be?

As stated above, I honestly couldn't give two balls of goat****e if you are a liberal or not. You say you are, and I'm willing to take that at face value. However, your misquoting of other posters, switching of terms, strawman tactics and disingenuous comparisons make me wonder if you are really as liberal as you say you are. But maybe you are. As I said, I don't really care, and it adds nothing to the conversation; though I will remind you that it was you who insisted on flashing your liberal credentials.

Lest I be accussed of dodging questions (which I consider to be very bad form), let me answer your final question by saying no, I suppose one does not have to be an atheist to be a 'proper' liberal. Can you answer my questions above now, please?

Yes, that makes a lot of sense, you don't care whether I am a liberal or not but you felt compelled to stick your nose into a dialog I was having with another poster to question my liberalism and add zero value to the discussion.
I couldn't be bothered answering your questions, not because I am dodging them but because they are irrelevant to the topic at hand.

pauldla

nagirrac wrote: »

Yes, that makes a lot of sense, you don't care whether I am a liberal or not but you felt compelled to stick your nose into a dialog I was having with another poster to question my liberalism and add zero value to the discussion.
I couldn't be bothered answering your questions, not because I am dodging them but because they are irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Public forum, dude. I've as much right to post here as anyone. And if I think a poster writing specious nonsense, or is writing in bad fatih, I have the right to call them out on it. Of course, they have the right to rebuttal.

When can we look forward to your thesis on the connection between totalitarian bloodlust and the use of the colour red in national flags?

The Bishop!

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Very interesting, although I am not sure about your point?

And an interesting reply.

It was originally to point out the 'no true scotsman'/atheist. But to recap.
When you said "militant atheism seems to be a label applied to any atheist that opens his mouth publically to make any ripples what so ever", was pointing out that that wouldn't be my personal definition. It would more entail Hitchens and Harris post 9/11 for instance.

When you commented that when "someone thinks militant islam, you see buildings falling, or murder, or militant christianity you see witch burnings and crusades", was just saying that while that may be true, it doesn't mean that some of what some well-known atheists say can not be fairly classed as being militant in it's outlook.
On the face of it, it seems like you're essentially saying something like ""well, at least we're not as bad as such-and-such" as a device for rejecting the label.

However what i don't really get is why you think his "view" of anything affects atheists at large or secularism..

Would say his views do/did definitely affect things myself. He was a world famous author and speaker. I think his inherently negative views on religion are shared by a large swathe of his fellow atheists. Hence his huge popularity.
I think his views mirrored the militant element of atheism. Gave a voice to it. Much like Harris and Dawkins.

I know atheists that don't like Hitch, or Dawkins, or Harris, and they may have valid reasons, none of which necessarily affects the elements I like.

I know plenty too. And am not attempting to say that atheism or atheists can be summed up those three individuals. Quite the opposite in fact.

Yet when an atheist does the same thing, often calling a spade a spade when refuting outright lies about us, suddenly he or she is militant.

There are multiple meansing of militant in a dictionary, but many people cleverly use a fallacy of equivocation by mixing up the terms.

It's completely understandable that someone would wish not to be associated with religious fundamentalism.

There's another thread in play anyway that's actually about this.

Thanks for the reply.