![]() |
You cannot post here - you can only read.
Here is the
link to the new forum:
|
Post Reply ![]() |
Page <1 678 |
Author | |||||||||
Chilbudios ![]() Arch Duke ![]() ![]() Joined: 11-May-2006 Status: Offline Points: 1899 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||||||||
|
|||||||||
![]() |
|||||||||
Cezar ![]() Chieftain ![]() ![]() Joined: 09-Nov-2005 Location: Romania Status: Offline Points: 1211 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||||||||
But is that feasible? I mean, off course there are obvious nutheads that can and should be directly confronted but how can you stop one that is not acting so obviously? Certainly, since you can fight a person you must fight the doctrine but that's the real trick. Dawkins and Stalin have, to some extent similar, doctrines, yet there are huge differences between those two. In the end calling them both bad because they stick to militant atheism is confusing. Militant atheism is a doctrine you say but I think that it's actually a general designation for different doctrines that only share atheism as the core idea. Therefore an uneducated person or a child will not go to the whole discussion we had but would probably decide that all atheists are bad.
Let's take a priest for the opposite example. He is a militant theist since he preaches his religion. Now, history had shown that militant theism can be harmful so that makes him dangerous? And from what I've witnessed no priest is constant in his discourse. Sometimes he is mild, sometimes he is good, and sometimes he is bad. But he is adressing a lot of people and some of them might go wacko since the priest is not always near them to make corrections if they misinterpret his words.
Since freedom of religion is allowed in what we call civilized world isn't also militant atheism required to insure there's a balance?
People should be free to chose so why should they not choose atheism due to militant atheists that practice militant atheism?
In your statement you mentioned the word "watched". I think you didn't suggested a passive stance here (correct me if I'm wrong). The point is that I can't make up an active stance that is not militant when confronting another militant.
|
|||||||||
![]() |
|||||||||
Cezar ![]() Chieftain ![]() ![]() Joined: 09-Nov-2005 Location: Romania Status: Offline Points: 1211 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||||||||
But is that feasible? I mean, off course there are obvious nutheads that can and should be directly confronted but how can you stop one that is not acting so obviously? Certainly, since you can fight a person you must fight the doctrine but that's the real trick. Dawkins and Stalin have, to some extent similar, doctrines, yet there are huge differences between those two. In the end calling them both bad because they stick to militant atheism is confusing. Militant atheism is a doctrine you say but I think that it's actually a general designation for different doctrines that only share atheism as the core idea. Therefore an uneducated person or a child will not go to the whole discussion we had but would probably decide that all atheists are bad.
Let's take a priest for the opposite example. He is a militant theist since he preaches his religion. Now, history had shown that militant theism can be harmful so that makes him dangerous? And from what I've witnessed no priest is constant in his discourse. Sometimes he is mild, sometimes he is good, and sometimes he is bad. But he is adressing a lot of people and some of them might go wacko since the priest is not always near them to make corrections if they misinterpret his words.
Since freedom of religion is allowed in what we call civilized world isn't also militant atheism required to insure there's a balance?
People should be free to chose so why should they not choose atheism due to militant atheists that practice militant atheism?
In your statement you mentioned the word "watched". I think you didn't suggested a passive stance here (correct me if I'm wrong). The point is that I can't make up an active stance that is not militant when confronting another militant.
|
|||||||||
![]() |
|||||||||
Chilbudios ![]() Arch Duke ![]() ![]() Joined: 11-May-2006 Status: Offline Points: 1899 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||||||||
Cezar, honestly, what do you expect me to reply? To remind you again that Stalin vs Dawkins is not a good analogy, to remind you again that religion vs militant atheism is not a good analogy, to remind you again that militant x-ism vs actions against militant x-ism is not a good analogy, to remind you again that I only formulated some objections against militant doctrines not against actions of whatever nature? Or perhaps do you want me to rewrite what I've said of militant atheism, that is not just a bunch of doctrines sharing atheism as core idea? You're maintaining the same straw men against me for several weeks now, I am simply tired to dismiss all this maze of misunderstandings when all you had to do was to read what I was writing to you. As I said, a mockery ...
|
|||||||||
![]() |
|||||||||
Cezar ![]() Chieftain ![]() ![]() Joined: 09-Nov-2005 Location: Romania Status: Offline Points: 1211 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||||||||
Chilbudios, here's from your posts:
These are statements of yours: "The militant atheists have an atheistic doctrine" + "Atheism is not a monolith, militant atheism is not one, nor Christianity or the Communism." + "My criticism on militant atheism were that it is a doctrine like any other." Kind of inconsistent.
Do you just like to enter debates for the sake of argumenting against someone else statements?
You are the one who keep on talking about militant atheism (not communism, or nazism or something else) being a doctrine. Your personal only argument was: "Thus, we can have a common body of beliefs shared by those which were labeled here as "militant atheists", a body of beliefs which amounts to a doctrine and which can be dangerous". So because we can have something it means that we already have it? And you constantly refused to define that doctrine. You provide links, invoke grammar, accuse me of mockery, etc. yet you refuse to provide an example of that doctrine that can be dangerous. You used communism for an example which I, and not only, considered unapropriate since communism was using atheism or militant atheism though communism wasn't a just militant atheist doctrine.
The rules of engagement of this forum state that when one posts something another can comment that post. If you are tired of me stop answering my posts, I'll do the same.
|
|||||||||
![]() |
|||||||||
Chilbudios ![]() Arch Duke ![]() ![]() Joined: 11-May-2006 Status: Offline Points: 1899 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||||||||
If I'd understand what are you looking for I could help you, so I'll skip the large medley of quotes and I'll address the more concise points lying underneath.
You have highlighted three sentences and claimed their inconsistency.
- first one says that militant atheism is a doctrine and atheism is an important belief in this doctrine
- second one says to every doctrine there are some variations
- third one says militant atheism is a doctrine. So how are these three points incompatible? Or what kind of inconsistency do you have in mind?
The difference between "can have" and "have" is a misleading one. "We" refers to us, me and you debating, "can have" - have here in this discussion, conceive, so, yes, we can conceive a common body of beliefs, we can identify them, so that we can legitimize the concept (this is what you have asked all along) of militant atheism. If no common body of beliefs would have been conceivable then militant atheism would have been a term with no substance, a term reflecting nothing. And that was not my only argument, so why don't you reread more carefully the discussion (that big mess of quotes and the apparent random in highlighting is an indicator of uncareful reading if anything).
And not only that, you googled for the term and came up with a Wikipedia page which provided some sort of definition (which IIRC meant a relative synonymy with anti-theism).
Edited by Chilbudios - 07-Feb-2008 at 09:08 |
|||||||||
![]() |
|||||||||
Cezar ![]() Chieftain ![]() ![]() Joined: 09-Nov-2005 Location: Romania Status: Offline Points: 1211 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||||||||
The militant atheists have an atheistic doctrine, that's what you said. I take it now as an unintended mistake for you meant militant atheistic doctrine, if I understand your last post.
You formulated objections against the militant atheist doctrine(s?). And you also mentioned any kind of fanatism, extremism, etc. Then you're an anti-militant militant. According to your line of thought that makes you dangerous.
My point is that is someone decides to became militant, he should be allowed. Of his doctrine components, only those that are dangeous should be challenged. Militant atheism is a too broad definition to mean something.
Let's analyze two ideas of militant atheists :
1. Children should not be taught religion.
2. Religion should be eradicated.
If we just consider the two ideas as being militant atheism it would be like saying socialism and communism are the same.
Therefore it is necessary to define militant atheistic stances differently. Militant atheism is way to inaccurate, therefore it should not be used. Muslims, for example, is used for all those who do share a religious belief. Yet the stances of that belief are quite well separated by clear designations. A taliban is still a muslim but I don't think Omar al Hashim(our mod) would like to be called like that.
The only common thing that separate all militant atheists from non-militant atheists is that they actively support atheism. That might be the definition of militant atheism: active support of atheism. But from this to "militant atheism is dangerous" is a long way. You emphasized the danger of extremism. I highlight the danger of generalization. Due to such approaches some people think that atheist=communist. That's not true, and I'm sure that you agree with me. Yet it is happening because people are using statements like "militant atheism=dangerous".
|
|||||||||
![]() |
|||||||||
Chilbudios ![]() Arch Duke ![]() ![]() Joined: 11-May-2006 Status: Offline Points: 1899 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||||||||
If you believe it is inaccurate you have to show it.
|
|||||||||
![]() |
|||||||||
Cezar ![]() Chieftain ![]() ![]() Joined: 09-Nov-2005 Location: Romania Status: Offline Points: 1211 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||||||||
You didn't even considered the fact that the two ideas might be two different "doctrines" or that the secont would be no. 1 enhanced. You just thrown o short reply that fits with your ideas. What I see is that straw man is whatever you don't like.
You seem to support the idea of considering every militant attitude as being nocive.
And to what extent the imperative works? In order to contain an extremist side one needs to actively voice a contrary opinion. If not contrary it would have to be an argument that highlights the "extreme" elements of the manifestation. Which leads in fact to precisely defining the militant stance.
You seem to cherish a neutral stance. By saying that one can stand off and analyze the content of a doctrine and if it has "dangerous" elements getting to an active stance in order to contain at least these elements.
I say that neutrality is an illusion unless one only likes to play the game of contradiction while not having a psoition of his own. Whatever set of values a person has it can't be fully impartial. For example I'm for the exclusion of the religion from the schools, or better said the exposure of children to a single religion. But I don't think actions should be taken to get rid of religion. Therefore I'm some kind of militant atheist. Maybe my ideas are dangerous from the religious point of view. But am I dangerous just for religion or I'm just dangerous?
|
|||||||||
![]() |
|||||||||
Chilbudios ![]() Arch Duke ![]() ![]() Joined: 11-May-2006 Status: Offline Points: 1899 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||||||||
Cezar, it's so obvious that you have no intend to understand what I am saying. Either you can't or you don't want to. Whatever the correct option is, from this moment I'll stop replying to you. Margaritas ante porcos ... Edited by Chilbudios - 08-Feb-2008 at 10:59 |
|||||||||
![]() |
|||||||||
edgewaters ![]() Immortal Guard ![]() ![]() Joined: 13-Mar-2006 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 2396 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||||||||
The problem here is that religious people seem to regard any public discussion of atheism as hostile because it is, necessarily, a refutation of their beliefs. However, the religious do not pause a moment to think that they behave in an identical fashion. For instance, a public discussion about the necessity or even value of belief in god is, necessarily, a refutation of atheism. Which is fine, we live in a free society and on this issue, no one should be afraid of the free marketplace of ideas. Just don't pretend that the two aren't in competition in that marketplace. The idea of neutrality in the free marketplace of ideas is tantamount to suicide. Atheists do not expect the religious to quit discussing god in public; in fact, most invite it. It is high time the religious took the same attitude, and accept atheism in the free marketplace of ideas without reservation. Atheism is at odds with religious beliefs, just as religious beliefs are at odds with atheism; however, both have a right to compete for existance in the sphere of public opinion. With no infrastructure of proselytism, no organized conversion effort, no funding, and no public spaces like churches etc ... atheism is the fastest growing belief system in the developed world. The number of atheists has doubled in the past 20 years. Undoubtedly, it holds broad appeal and it's not going away; deal with it.
Here you're setting up a nice boogeyman. You're taking people like Dawkins and attempting to associate them with teenagers posturing on the internet and making silly statements about repressing the religious etc. It is simple to find Christians here and there calling for extermination of Jews or Muslims as well. Most people will see through statements like this with ease; I suggest you refrain from taking this line. |
|||||||||
![]() |
Post Reply ![]() |
Page <1 678 |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions ![]() You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |