I want to oppose Islam...

[Laurens]

There are a few things to bear in mind:

- Not all Muslims want to violently impose Sharia Law
- Not all interpretations of Sharia Law are as violent and oppressive as the Taliban regime
- Not all Muslims are gravely offended by cartoons of Mohammed
- Some of the Muslims who are offended by cartoons of Mohammed don't want to see heads roll because of it
- Not all Muslims support suicide bombing, terrorism, or the destruction of Israel and the West
- Muslims are human beings

As long as you appreciate those things it should be fine.

 

[Dogma's Demise]

I for example wouldn't say i'm opposed to Islam.

Well, actually as atheists or agnostics, we should technically be "opposed" to all religion (because it's a falsehood), it's just that different cases warrant different approaches.

So for a moderate or non-confrontational theist, I'd rather just sit down and have a chat and that's the end of it.


But the more aggressive and political the theist is, the more harm he does in society and the more freedom he wants to take away, the harsher my response.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I for example wouldn't say i'm opposed to Islam.

Well, actually as atheists or agnostics, we should technically be "opposed" to all religion (because it's a falsehood), it's just that different cases warrant different approaches.

So for a moderate or non-confrontational theist, I'd rather just sit down and have a chat and that's the end of it.

But the more aggressive and political the theist is, the more harm he does in society and the more freedom he wants to take away, the harsher my response.

It seems to be a contradiction in terms - that atheists "should be 'opposed' to all religion".

One would expect a theist to proselytise their beliefs - but not an atheist, as atheism isn't a "belief", as such.

Such would be expected of anti-theism or anti-religion.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Frenger]

Which bit of Islam are you wanting to oppose? I wonder if you are maybe spreading yourself a bit thin?

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Greetings,

Well, actually as atheists or agnostics, we should technically be "opposed" to all e it's a falsehood), it's just that different cases warrant different approaches.

So for a moderate or non-confrontational theist, I'd rather just sit down and have a chat and that's the end of it.

But the more aggressive and political the theist is, the more harm he does in society and the more freedom he wants to take away, the harsher my response.

It seems to be a contradiction in terms - that atheists "should be 'opposed' to all religion".

One would expect a theist to proselytise their beliefs - but not an atheist, as atheism isn't a "belief", as such.

Such would be expected of anti-theism or anti-religion.

Kindest regards,

James

James,

It's already been established that when DD addresses a group, it's usually done in a generalized manner with only personal opinion and lack of acknowledgment of the thoughts of the whole.

 

[Dogma's Demise]

James,

It's already been established that when DD addresses a group, it's usually done in a generalized manner with only personal opinion and lack of acknowledgment of the thoughts of the whole.

And this has relevance how? Now I can't even say that atheists should discuss their beliefs with theists?

 

[australopithecus]

Well, actually as atheists or agnostics, we should technically be "opposed" to all religion (because it's a falsehood), it's just that different cases warrant different approaches.

We "shouldn't" be opposed to anything. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, nothing more. It doesn't prescribe what we should or should not do. I'm opposed to idiocy, regardless of where it comes from. As another atheist you're under no obligation to share that opposition.

 

[Dogma's Demise]

You have completely missed the point of my message, and I suspect you have done so solely because it's me posting it. If someone else had posted the exact same message, you wouldn't have given a damn.

So let's clarify that one last time.

You don't need to criticize religion to be an atheist, sure.

I'm just saying you should, it's my recommendation to atheists (and agnostics for that matter) that they not keep their ideas to themselves.

 

[australopithecus]

You don't need to criticize religion to be an atheist, sure.

I'm just saying you should, it's my recommendation to atheists (and agnostics for that matter) that they not keep their ideas to themselves.

...and I'm saying that's utter bullshit. As an atheist I "should" do nothing. As a rational human being who regards honesty highly I will speak out against irrationality. However being an atheist doesn't make you rational or honest and being a theist doesn't make someone irrational or dishonest.

Atheism is an an answer to one question. That's it. Nothing else.

 

[Prolescum]

If someone else had posted the exact same message, you wouldn't have given a damn.

Actually, you'd be surprised how often it has to be (and is) pointed out.

 

[Dogma's Demise]

You don't need to criticize religion to be an atheist, sure.

I'm just saying you should, it's my recommendation to atheists (and agnostics for that matter) that they not keep their ideas to themselves.

...and I'm saying that's utter bullshit. As an atheist I "should" do nothing. As a rational human being who regards honesty highly I will speak out against irrationality. However being an atheist doesn't make you rational or honest and being a theist doesn't make someone irrational or dishonest.

Atheism is an an answer to one question. That's it. Nothing else.

You're still not understanding me. (Which I suppose is deliberate.)

You're an atheist, correct?
There is a reason why are an atheist, correct? (For example maybe you never believed, or you have examined various religions and their claims and found them unconvincing or even down right absurd, maybe you were a theist once and grew out of it)
You are convinced that you stance is rationally defensible, correct?

Why then should you hesitate to talk about it with theists?


Think about it, if everyone followed the mindset of "I'm going to keep my ideas to myself", we wouldn't get anywhere. Many became atheists because other atheists pointed them in the right direction.


EDIT: Oh yeah and for that matter, I also encourage theists to defend their religions and challenge atheism, to tell us why their religion is the "absolute true". So I don't think I'm being unfair.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

You're still not understanding me. (Which I suppose is deliberate.)

You're an atheist, correct?
There is a reason why are an atheist, correct? (For example maybe you never believed, or you have examined various religions and their claims and found them unconvincing or even down right absurd, maybe you were a theist once and grew out of it)
You are convinced that you stance is rationally defensible, correct?

You're born an atheist.

Atheism is a default, considering that the best and most rational stance is implicit denial until otherwise examined (Or: "If not YES then NO until otherwise.")

Many people have reasons. Many people don't. Quite a few are bandwagon atheists who hop aboard the troll train of the better speaker - the likes of which huddle around thunderf00t and Richard Dawkins - and honestly have no reasoning at all.
Being an atheist isn't a-priori intelligence nor has prerequisites for what political or social stances one must hold. You can be an extremist and an atheist. You can think women are inferior to men, or be a complete homophobic degenerate and be an atheist.

Why then should you hesitate to talk about it with theists?

See above.

Think about it, if everyone followed the mindset of "I'm going to keep my ideas to myself", we wouldn't get anywhere. Many became atheists because other atheists pointed them in the right direction.

Only with morons who need a Shepard to rear them in like sheep. People whom seek knowledge will find it.

The cure is not a discussion of atheism more than it is being educated - and I'm sure that your statistic of "Many" is quite garbled and out of line. It's shown that the more education that one has, the more likely they are to be atheists.

EDIT: Oh yeah and for that matter, I also encourage theists to defend their religions and challenge atheism, to tell us why their religion is the "absolute true". So I don't think I'm being unfair.

My problem with this statement is that you're implying that all religions demand to be the one, true religion and that most of them don't have a general stance on beliefs of others.

It's the 21st century. Most people don't give a damn and live quite happily regardless of those people around them who have a different belief.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

You don't need to criticize religion to be an atheist, sure.

I'm just saying you should, it's my recommendation to atheists (and agnostics for that matter) that they not keep their ideas to themselves.

...and I'm saying that's utter bullshit. As an atheist I "should" do nothing. As a rational human being who regards honesty highly I will speak out against irrationality. However being an atheist doesn't make you rational or honest and being a theist doesn't make someone irrational or dishonest.

Atheism is an an answer to one question. That's it. Nothing else.

No shit. No one gets to tell anyone else how to conduct themselves based on atheism or any other thing. This is another sign of DD's fundamentally authoritarian leanings, isn't it?

 

[Prolescum]

You're still not understanding me. (Which I suppose is deliberate.)

Put away the victim complex.

Think about it, if everyone followed the mindset of "I'm going to keep my ideas to myself", we wouldn't get anywhere.

You do know this is a discussion forum, and those of faith join regularly and come to talk with the atheist members about religion, and that few members here are known for keeping themselves to themselves (some even going to the effort of producing a podcast every... so often)?

Austra and Hytegia's point is a valid one.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Dogma's Demise, I apologize for "dropping" you in it...

There appears to be some confusion in what you said over discussing one's own beliefs and opposing others. [This is somewhat akin to being proud of one's own culture versus denigrating another's.]

Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s) - this is not a belief in and of itself.

Whatever philosophy to which an atheist holds - say Epicureanism, as an example - can be discussed with anyone; theist, atheist or agnostic.

The key here is that one is not opposing another's views or beliefs - merely discussing one's own. Nor does it mean proselytizing or converting.

In a rational discussion, there are no "enemies" to "oppose" or "convert", merely the exchange of ideas.

Faith and religion are not the same thing - nor, indeed, is a "spiritual life". Everyone has some form of "spiritual life", though not necessarily attached to a god or religion.

To oppose another's religion and/or beliefs may well mean opposing - denigrating - another's spiritual life.

I wonder are you thinking more of dogma rather than beliefs? [In keeping with your user-name.]

Kindest regards,

James

 

[ImprobableJoe]

And I don't agree with this at all:

The key here is that one is not opposing another's views or beliefs - merely discussing one's own. Nor does it mean proselytizing or converting.

I think opposing other people's views and beliefs, and being an advocate for your own, is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I also agree with others here that no one is required to agree with me, let alone act according to my beliefs.

 

[australopithecus]

I specifically enjoyed the part where DD has tried to not-so-subtly tried to swap his original assertion, that atheists should oppose all religion, for the assertion that we should not hesitate in talking about religion.

PROTIP: Those concepts are not remotely similar.

 

[Dogma's Demise]

Opposition is a broad word, you should know that. It can mean hostility, but it can also mean mere criticism. Like I said, different situations warrant a different approach, Mr. Critical Thinker.

No shit. No one gets to tell anyone else how to conduct themselves based on atheism or any other thing. This is another sign of DD's fundamentally authoritarian leanings, isn't it?

Did I fucking coerce you into anything? No I did not, by all means, don't criticize religion if you don't want to, but then why the hell are you on a forum where religion is a hot topic?

You're just being a troll because of the things I said about Islam and immigration.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I specifically enjoyed the part where DD has tried to not-so-subtly tried to swap his original assertion, that atheists should oppose all religion, for the assertion that we should not hesitate in talking about religion.

PROTIP: Those concepts are not remotely similar.

You mean he's being... dishonest? Say it isn't so!

 

[Dogma's Demise]

I do not see how you can discuss your atheist stance and the reason you are an atheist without being critical of religion. I mean think about it, "Why are you an atheist?"

- because the attribute of God are contradictory
- because science disproves many religious claims
- because the Bible contains absurdities
- because there's no evidence
- the list goes on and on and on...

It's inevitable, unless you just state "I'm an atheist" and end the conversation. But if you want to elaborate on that... You simply can't without saying something even remotely critical of religion.