The Truth about Militant Atheism

[rwdeese]

You make nonsensical statements (ie there's nothing inherently wrong with humans owning other human beings) in an attempt to get an emotional rise out of others and your "arguments" lead no where (because they're based on horrible foundations).  Perhaps a better term would be flamebaiting.  They're usually not far from each other however.

1. Actually, I responded to someone else's comments about slavery. I did not bring up the subject.
2. Morally, slavery is not wrong.
3. Morally, American slavery was wrong.
4. Biblically, some slaves volunteered to be slaves for life. Modern equivalent: an employee volunteering to work for thankless job for 30 years.
5. Indentured servitude is pretty close to the modern workplace. One is being paid to be a servant to an employer for a certain about of daily time. Some employers have specific time contracts for this indentured form of servitude.
6. Slavery in the Bible was not based upon skin color.
7. The Bible specifically condemned "man-stealing" which is how American slavery came into existence. In fact, the Bible lists slave traders as sinful.
8. Any person who became a slave would be released after seven years.
9. A careful comparison between employer and employee has many of the features of indentured slavery.

[Cuppycake]

P.S. Before someone calls me on it -- It is only wrong to call people wrong when whatever they're doing isn't hurting anyone (consensual sex acts, for example).  Religion is hurting people; it is hurting us all.

If atheists WERE religious: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pwwvBygoFA  Very funny! 

That just made my day lmao!  

[rwdeese]

Hey don't worry about it, They call me troll all the time and I have seen them call Sheryl a troll too... 

I know, but it is nothing more than an avoidance measure.

[queenofnines]

Again, try engaging in the conversation. Anyone can say that a man landed on Mars, but does that make it so.

I think we just found that root of the problem, folks.  RW is a conspiracy theorist!!!

Perhaps they should be placed in a quote book on how atheists respond to those they disagree with.

FYI: He already told you he wasn't an atheist.  He's agnostic.

[queenofnines]

That just made my day lmao!  

Glad you liked it!  I have an abundance of this kind of material in my favorites.  Stay tuned... lol

[Falconer02]

Alright I'm super tired here...

If you would stop trying to read other people's motives and deal with subject, these kind of interactions wouldn't take place.

I think you're just not looking at yourself in the third person. No offense...but you concentrait on yourself, label individuals with overgeneralizations, and then fold your arms and raise your chin. I'd like to deal with the subject, but your ego is just inflating this topic. Call it ad hom all you want. It's still a significant nuisance.

Although it is obvious that, in your opinion, I am not free to express my own. Is this how you respond to those who disagree with you? Interesting indeed - this may turn out to be an example of one of my definitions.

When you get a chance, actually try to engage in the conversation. These ad homs are interesting for the readers, but really do not accomplish much.

You are totally free to express your own! But your arguments seem to be based on nothing more than black and white statements and then go into large assumptions with humongous gray areas (taliban statement as the most recent). More of the patterns I was referring to-- trying to quickly label the individual or topic.

These kind of atheists are like the taliban.

No they are not. I don't see atheists killing people strictly over their religious beliefs. They're just getting angered over the delusions of people and their failure to acknowledge anything else. The fact that you have related this to STALIN is another ridiculous overgeneralization. Stalin persecuted believers not necessarily because they believed in a higher power, but because he wanted complete control over people in every way. He saw this as a way for people to come against him and his government just as he would with someone who had a unique political view or book to write. I recollect hearing that Russia had over 1/4 of the worlds scientists at that point and he killed off a huge chunk of them-- you cannot tell me they were all religious. You act like the destruction of religion was his only motive when you completely miss saying he was a super-hardcore totalitarian/dictating *bleep*. You skipped a lot.

Not that Christianity has it's own taliban....
http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/Culture_War/The_American_Taliban.html
(don't quote me over this...I just found it funny)

I know, but it is nothing more than an avoidance measure.

You're completely right. I know you're kind of new, but in the past she has wished and threatened people with death and violence. Including me. I put her on ignore because of this. I got sick of her constant trolling. It is an avoidance measure, but probably not the way that you're thinking of. And no, I will not do the same to you!

[rwdeese]

Again, try engaging in the conversation. Anyone can say that a man landed on Mars, but does that make it so.

I think we just found that root of the problem, folks.  RW is a conspiracy theorist!!!

Perhaps they should be placed in a quote book on how atheists respond to those they disagree with.

FYI: He already told you he wasn't an atheist.  He's agnostic.

You are right about one thing - he did tell me he is agnostic - my bad - "I apologize"

[rwdeese]

RW: If you would stop trying to read other people's motives and deal with subject, these kind of interactions wouldn't take place.

I think you're just not looking at yourself in the third person. No offense...but you concentrait on yourself, label individuals with overgeneralizations, and then fold your arms and raise your chin. I'd like to deal with the subject, but your ego is just inflating this topic. Call it ad hom all you want. It's still a significant nuisance.

1. You really cannot stop can you?
2. Again, you say a lot, but there are not evidences for what you say. What?
3. Stop using the excuse that I do not fit into your criteria of how one should answer people. More than likely you will never meet me. From a pure philosophical perspective, so what if I have a big ego? Stop being annoyed about things you cannot change!
4. If you do not want to discuss things because of my "big ego" then don't. Get out of the way so others can!

RW: Although it is obvious that, in your opinion, I am not free to express my own. Is this how you respond to those who disagree with you? Interesting indeed - this may turn out to be an example of one of my definitions.

RW: When you get a chance, actually try to engage in the conversation. These ad homs are interesting for the readers, but really do not accomplish much.

You are totally free to express your own! But your arguments seem to be based on nothing more than black and white statements and then go into large assumptions with humongous gray areas (taliban statement as the most recent). More of the patterns I was referring to-- trying to quickly label the individual or topic.

The definitions I presented are merely definitions. If you disagree with them, that is fine. Demonstrate how they do not fit, that is all that you need to do.
1. These may be black and white statements, but that doesn't prove that they are wrong.
2. Show my assumptions then?
3. Actually, the Taliban statement is a moral equivalent to Stalin's massacre of the religious base upon his atheistic communism. So, you do not believe that there are presently some atheists that are "Stalin/Taliban" types in the atheistic movement?

RW: These kind of atheists are like the taliban.

No they are not. I don't see atheists killing people strictly over their religious beliefs.

Now, that is certainly based upon black and white thinking.

They're just getting angered over the delusions of people and their failure to acknowledge anything else. The fact that you have related this to STALIN is another ridiculous overgeneralization. Stalin persecuted believers not necessarily because they believed in a higher power, but because he wanted complete control over people in every way.

Yes, you are right, and these types of atheists desire to do the same thing. I know from personal experience. I actually had a contract put out on me about 20 years ago from a group that thought my religious views would stop their atheistic agenda. The only reason I found out is that one of their own came to me in private concerning the matter. You may be able to convince others that these people do not exist, but reality tells me different. Usually, this kind of atheism is tied into political and social agendas, for sure.

He saw this as a way for people to come against him and his government just as he would with someone who had a unique political view or book to write. I recollect hearing that Russia had over 1/4 of the worlds scientists at that point and he killed off a huge chunk of them-- you cannot tell me they were all religious. You act like the destruction of religion was his only motive when you completely miss saying he was a super-hardcore totalitarian/dictating *bleep*. You skipped a lot.

Sure, this was not his entire reason - the elimination of the religious. Most people are not tied to a single agenda - even those of faith! We are made up of a fascinating sort of multiple ideas that make us uniquely us. Power was certainly is main agenda. Atheism equipped him for it!

Not that Christianity has it's own taliban....
http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/Culture_War/The_American_Taliban.html
(don't quote me over this...I just found it funny)

Yes, I agree!

RW: I know, but it is nothing more than an avoidance measure.

You're completely right. I know you're kind of new, but in the past she has wished and threatened people with death and violence. Including me. I put her on ignore because of this. I got sick of her constant trolling. It is an avoidance measure, but probably not the way that you're thinking of. And no, I will not do the same to you!

Ok, talk to you later.

[Falconer02]

1. You really cannot stop can you?
2. Again, you say a lot, but there are not evidences for what you say. What?
3. Stop using the excuse that I do not fit into your criteria of how one should answer people. More than likely you will never meet me. From a pure philosophical perspective, so what if I have a big ego? Stop being annoyed about things you cannot change!
4. If you do not want to discuss things because of my "big ego" then don't. Get out of the way so others can!

Alright...this quote right here is picture-proof of what I'm speaking of. I suppose this lies in the eye of the beholder so I'll give you that. But everyone seems to be seeing what I see except yourself. Look, the following may sound a tad bit offensive so I apologize if you take it very negatively. I tell you this aside from the topic at hand-- the way you're wording things and defending your beliefs makes you out to sound like...well...a pompous *bleep*. You may think it's because we're "losing the argument" or whatever, but what I said in the previous sentence is the base reason we're all getting on a personal level with you. We're all thinking "what's up with this guy?". I apologize if I sound like a *bleep*...I'm just trying to give you some constructive criticism in how you word things.

...and lol to #4.

1. These may be black and white statements, but that doesn't prove that they are wrong.

The way you worded the OP is very hostile and seems to overgeneralize and antagonize militant atheists. Maybe this stems from a persecution complex...I don't know. It sounds as if you think they have an evil agenda and that they're dangerous. Granted some may be on an individual level, but the majority are not like this. They're just critics rather than warlords.

2. Show my assumptions then?

Taliban = Militaristic Atheist = Stalin

So, you do not believe that there are presently some atheists that are "Stalin/Taliban" types in the atheistic movement?

I'm sure some may have the same mindset, but hey! That goes with every group in existence. I'm sure we can both agree that ultimately depends upon their true goals. If militaristic atheists want to take down religion for the sake of open-mindedness and free thought and the removal of enslaved philosophies, I have no issues with that. If they want to take down religion, enslave people with their ideas, say there's one way of doing things, kill them if they don't believe what they do (not just spiritually), etc. so they can gain political power like Stalin, this is a hipocrasy (because that's usually religions job!). But obviously there's a ton of things we're not touching upon with the bad-version I stated. It's usually the tip of the iceburg with these types of people. There's more to it than just--
"Do you believe in god?"
"Why yes!"
"KILL THEM NOW!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FT4YbO_1mvA&feature=related

Yes, you are right, and these types of atheists desire to do the same thing. I know from personal experience. I actually had a contract put out on me about 20 years ago from a group that thought my religious views would stop their atheistic agenda. The only reason I found out is that one of their own came to me in private concerning the matter. You may be able to convince others that these people do not exist, but reality tells me different. Usually, this kind of atheism is tied into political and social agendas, for sure.

Sounds more like scientologists! Anyways, if this did happen, it sounds like the labels are stacked wrong. People with political and social agendas sounds a lot more realistic than the "evil atheist conspiracy" in this story. It's like if I get caught breaking the law over defacing a political sign, it sounds like you would label agnostics against whatever politician I was against rather than concentrating on what political stance I took. Unless there's more to the story? If so, do tell!

We are made up of a fascinating sort of multiple ideas that make us uniquely us. Power was certainly is main agenda. Atheism equipped him for it!

Gullible and scared people in that time period equipped him for it among a huge list of other things. Not atheism. I honestly don't know what to label Stalin as. Maybe...hardcore close-minded militant-anti-theist genocidal totalitarian nutjob? STALINISM, MAAAAAAN!