Are atheists afraid of judgement?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It is very simple. I never said "=", and when you put that word in my mouth, I said, no, I wouldn't say equally violent.

Are you saying that Atheists have some kind of teaching that says do not cause harm, like the Buddhists do?

It is true that the scale of organized violence promoted by christian sects has been bigger than that promoted by buddhist sects throughout history. But if you look at how violent regular people spousing buddhism have been throughout history, I don't think you'd a significant qualitative difference.

Same goes for atheists. Specially since violence dedicated to spreading atheism or supressing religion altoghether were even rarer than buddhist religious conflict. Most organized violence perpetrated by atheists had other ideological foundations.

Originally posted by 753
Most organized violence perpetrated by atheists had other ideological foundations.

Think that could apply to religon as well.

Originally posted by Deadline
I think this is just a tactic if you pretend that athiests don't exist as a group and don't believe in anything, you can't attack it.

Sure you can attack it. You can attack atheism itself by finding flaws in the arguments that people make to support it or by finding evidence that contradicts it. Attacking atheists as a group is useless, as a whole they only have one single belief in common. It's like trying to accuse all physicists of something.

Originally posted by Deadline
Also we could get into a semantical debate about what an athiest is.

Who is going to argue that atheists are anything but people that don't believe in any god or gods?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Sure you can attack it. You can attack atheism itself by finding flaws in the arguments that people make to support it or by finding evidence that contradicts it. Attacking atheists as a group is useless, as a whole they only have one single belief in common. It's like trying to accuse all physicists of something.

Who is going to argue that atheists are anything but people that don't believe in any god or gods?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Sure you can attack it. You can attack atheism itself by finding flaws in the arguments that people make to support it or by finding evidence that contradicts it. Attacking atheists as a group is useless, as a whole they only have one single belief in common. It's like trying to accuse all physicists of something.

There are evangelical athiests and there are lots of people that 'follow' Richard Dawkins just because its not as well defined as Christanity doesn't stop them from being part of a group.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

Who is going to argue that atheists are anything but people that don't believe in any god or gods?

Well for starters theres the argument that Athiests don't really have a disbelief in god they just don't have any trust in it etc.

Originally posted by Deadline

Well for starters theres the argument that Athiests don't really have a disbelief in god they just don't have any trust in it etc.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Wouldn't that make those people Agnostics though?

Well there you go. Thats kinda what Dawkins was saying about his beliefs.

Originally posted by Deadline
Well there you go. Thats kinda what Dawkins was saying about his beliefs.

Originally posted by Deadline
Think that could apply to religon as well.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
But I really don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you saying there's no such thing as a real Atheist?

Nope I'm saying that people play semantics with the defintion.

Originally posted by Deadline
There are evangelical athiests and there are lots of people that 'follow' Richard Dawkins just because its not as well defined as Christanity doesn't stop them from being part of a group.

I know a lot of physicists that work with particles, thus it is reasonable to say all physicists are particle physicists, right?

Originally posted by Deadline
Well for starters theres the argument that Athiests don't really have a disbelief in god they just don't have any trust in it etc.

I didn't say they have a disbelief in god, I said they don't believe in god which are slightly different statement. Mine be slightly broader.

Originally posted by skekUng
These are the only two questions you asked me in the post I addressed.

I answered the first one:

The second one has a fairly obvious answer. It calls me she, and so do you; so I'll call it an it.

I thought you were a girl.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I know a lot of physicists that work with particles, thus it is reasonable to say all physicists are particle physicists, right?

First of all evangelical athiests define themselves as athiest and being part of a group.

My point is that athiests exist as a group, just because some of them aren't particle physicists doesn't reinforce your point.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

I didn't say they have a disbelief in god, I said they don't believe in god which are slightly different statement. Mine be slightly broader.

You may or may not have said that but that is an example of a description of athiesm that has been used.

Originally posted by skekUng
This is also why those who subscribe to the religions are invariably arguing the perspectives put forth by those people. I'm sure shaky's concept of this conversation would be valid if he were arguing with Christoper Hitchens.

though, Hitchens does save his most intense vitriol for Islam. Of those mentioned, he is the most likely, imho, and commonly does, mistake the socio-political reality of the middle east and south asia for "islam"

Originally posted by Deadline
I don't know man Dawkins doesn't have beef with religion and spirituality in general?

the four of them go out of their way to single out Islam when discussion religions. Though they will sometimes give a caveat about our society not being perfect, or some comment about the politics of the region, they all make much more biting statements about Islam than they do Christianity, and deliberatly so.

Originally posted by Deadline
First of all evangelical athiests define themselves as athiest and being part of a group.

My point is that athiests exist as a group, just because some of them aren't particle physicists doesn't reinforce your point.

Yes, evangelical atheists would be a sub-set of atheists just as particle physicists are a sub-set of physicists. I was just having a discussion about this in the GDF, when you refer to a group as a whole you can't pretend everyone should know you're talking about a small part of that group. We're not mindreaders.

Originally posted by inimalist
they all make much more biting statements about Islam than they do Christianity, and deliberatly so.

That's true, and why do you suppose that is?

The truth is they are staunch believers in western ideals of progress and in the superiority of western culture. Dawkins even ventures on retarded meaningless rants about how Gengis Khan was worse than Hitler.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
That's true, and why do you suppose that is?

Well, right off, Islam is the only religion that motivates people in Western nations to take to the streets (in any significant number) with signs like "Death to those who insult the Qu'ran". In no uncertain terms, Islam (as-it-is-practiced-by-some-Muslims) has more problems with what are now called Western values (things like free speech, democracy, etc [which, truth be told, aren't necessarily "Western" at all]) than do other major religions, right now. This isn't to say that in the past, or in select communities, there might be more conflict between Christianity and individual freedom than there is with Islam, just that today, it is Muslims who are blowing people up in Sweeden in response to cartoons.

The second reason is sort of a continuation of this. Basically, they extend the criticism of Islam-against-freedom to essential qualities not just of Islam, but of all Muslims. So, you get Sam Harris talking about support for Hamas throughout the Muslim world. He will phrase this in terms of people who are violently anti-western, in terms of people who don't want freedom, etc. As if to say, if you live in the Middle East and support the right of Hamas to defend itself against Israel, you are anti-"western" values. But this is not true at all. For one, Hamas is a democratically elected political organization. Further, it is easy to see Israel (or America in many cases) as being the greatest enemy of Muslim democracy. Israel kills elected officials in Gaza, America colludes with despot leaders in Central Asia and the Middle East, etc. So, in many ways, a Muslim from that region can both support violence against the West and support "western" values, because in their part of the world, it is the West that suppresses "Western-ism". I've seen none of these would-be atheist intellectuals give even lip-service to this point, the best example is the Sam Harris/Reza Aslan debate, which is on Youtube and I suggest to everyone.

From this previous point, we see their opinions extended to issues like the veil, or any other "east v. west" issue, where issues like anti-colonial protest, "self and other" (for the Muslims themselves, and how they "other" the West, especially) or the use of women's bodies as billboards of culture, are really ignored for the easier (and intellectually sloppy) conclusion that what are state and regional policies of autocratic control, really represent the heart of Islam. I don't think I've ever heard Dawkins talk about the political narrative that emerges out of a culture that faced hundreds of years of ethnocide.

And ya, from there, its what 753 said. A total commitment to "Westernism"

Originally posted by 753
Dawkins even ventures on retarded meaningless rants about how Gengis Khan was worse than Hitler.

oh, but that is an important distinction [sic]

Originally posted by Deadline
Also we could get into a semantical debate about what an athiest is.

Not really.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I thought you were a girl.

What ever I am to you is fine, as long as my point is understood

Originally posted by Deadline
evangelical athiests

Can you even begin to explain that as though it weren't a term invented by theists to describe atheists who really, secretly agree with them? You and The Mister must be PM'ing strategies.

Originally posted by inimalist
though, Hitchens does save his most intense vitriol for Islam. Of those mentioned, he is the most likely, imho, and commonly does, mistake the socio-political reality of the middle east and south asia for "islam"

I absolutely agree. Some of his most suprising rhetoric often catches armchair atheists off guard when he talks about the absolute justification for the invasion of Iraq and the Bush agenda to treat islam as though it were obvious that it should be part of the war of terror. Listen to how much respect he has when he mentions Thomas Jefferson and the Barbary Pirate's incidents. There's no doubt in his mind that situation justifies his disdain and subtle persecution.

That being said, I absolutely love Mr. Hitchens. I've never seen someone who can down 3 drinks and actually get sharper in front of an audience. The man has a style I respect. It's like watching an episode of Mad Men, if Mad Men were actually intelligent or entertaining.