I want to oppose Islam...

[australopithecus]

I'm an atheist because I see no evidence and no convincing argument for gods.

There, I explained why I'm an atheist without being critical of religion. Easy. Next? Methinks you are confusing religion with belief in a god or gods just a lot.

 

[Dogma's Demise]

I'm an atheist because I see no evidence and no convincing argument for gods.

That itself is being critical of religion and theism in general.

 

[australopithecus]

Swing and a miss.

Stating I am an atheist because I reject the claim "gods exist" because I see no evidence is not a criticism, it is a personal and subjective opinion. I can go on to criticise religion specifically thereafter, but giving a reason for my atheism is not a criticism of any religion in itself, and yet you still confuse religion with theism.

 

[Dogma's Demise]

I'm growing tired of arguing on small technicalities, so let's put this another way, do you believe that Christianity is false (or indefensible regardless if it's true or false) or are you simply not convinced by the evidence?

If you do believe that Christianity is false or indefensible, then I would recommend that you don't keep this idea to yourself.

I'm not saying to go out of your way to criticize it, just don't hide your views either.

Does that make a bit more sense now?

 

[Dogma's Demise]

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

Didn't mean to overlook this post by the way, but anyway...

Well like I said, opposition is a broad word, but I am happy to just use the word "criticism" (although I think we know that the negativity came from my views on Islam and immigration, not from that statement). So yes, I think non-theists should criticize theism if they have something to say about it. (I do realize that maybe a few non-theists really don't know anything about religion, but that's not usually the case.)

Cheers,
DD.

 

[australopithecus]

I'm growing tired of arguing on small technicalities [...]

You mean the ones that undermine your argument?

so let's put this another way, do you believe that Christianity is false (or indefensible regardless if it's true or false) or are you simply not convinced by the evidence?

I'm unconvinced by both arguments presented and the lack of evidence. That is not to say it is false, I just have no reason to accept it's true. I can criticise aspects of Christianity, but being unconvinced as to it's truth is not a criticism.

If you do believe that Christianity is false or indefensible, then I would recommend that you don't keep this idea to yourself.

Now that I have your permission...

I'm not saying to go out of your way to criticize it, just don't hide your views either.

Does that make a bit more sense now?

Continue to gloss over your use of "oppose all religion" by asserting you mean to not hide views some more. It amuses me.

 

[Dogma's Demise]

I'm unconvinced by both arguments presented and the lack of evidence. That is not to say it is false, I just have no reason to accept it's true. I can criticise aspects of Christianity, but being unconvinced as to it's truth is not a criticism.

Right, now we're getting somewhere.

So in light of this, bring this up when you discuss or debate Christianity with a Christian. Criticize those aspects of Christianity that you think you can adequately criticize, point out the flaws in the arguments and why you're not convinced. Well, it's a recommendation of course, not an order, soldier. I wouldn't want to be "authoritarian leaning". :lol:

But you were probably doing that already and just decided to pick a fight over what I said in another thread.

 

[australopithecus]

So in light of this, bring this up when you discuss or debate Christianity with a Christian. Criticize those aspects of Christianity that you think you can adequately criticize, point out the flaws in the arguments and why you're not convinced.

But you were probably doing that already and just decided to pick a fight over what I said in another thread.

Nice victim complex you have there, unfortunately though I responded in this thread because you said something stupid. That bein "atheists" are "supposed" to do something. We're not. We're not a religion you know.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

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.

The point I was trying to emphasize was that explaining one's own views, as against merely opposing another's, would be a better way to approach the issue. Undoubtedly, this would lead to both parties criticising - hopefully, in a open-minded manner - each others' views.

Your point combines explaining with opposing - which is not the same as Dogma's Demise approach of merely opposing religion.

Although, having said that, (s)he appears to have nuanced "oppose" to "criticize".

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dogma's Demise]

Nice victim complex you have there, unfortunately though I responded in this thread because you said something stupid. That bein "atheists" are "supposed" to do something. We're not. We're not a religion you know.

You do realize that "supposed" (or variation of that) doesn't appear in this thread apart from when I said "You're still not understanding me. (Which I suppose [i.e. suspect] is deliberate.)"

But again I'm not saying or implying that you don't count as an atheist if you're not criticizing religion (or theism, I know the difference between them, they're just not that significant for this conversation). I know there are plenty of so-called "apatheists", and I do realize that in some parts of the world atheists don't actually have a real choice and must keep quiet (both IRL and online) on threat of death penalty.

But in general, I think atheists should criticize theism, at least if they have something critical to say about theism, and if they don't have a reason to fear for their safety or something, so okay I'll exclude exceptional situations and people who have absolutely no knowledge of religion, even though in practice that almost never happens, most atheists are familiar with some religion.


I mean it's the same thing with saying "Obese people should take steps to lose some weights." What? Now I'm not allowed to give advice to people? :lol:

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Nice victim complex you have there, unfortunately though I responded in this thread because you said something stupid. That bein "atheists" are "supposed" to do something. We're not. We're not a religion you know.

You do realize that "supposed" (or variation of that) doesn't appear in this thread apart from when I said "You're still not understanding me. (Which I suppose [i.e. suspect] is deliberate.)"

But again I'm not saying or implying that you don't count as an atheist if you're not criticizing religion (or theism, I know the difference between them, they're just not that significant for this conversation). I know there are plenty of so-called "apatheists", and I do realize that in some parts of the world atheists don't actually have a real choice and must keep quiet (both IRL and online) on threat of death penalty.

But in general, I think atheists should criticize theism, at least if they have something critical to say about theism, and if they don't have a reason to fear for their safety or something, so okay I'll exclude exceptional situations and people who have absolutely no knowledge of religion, even though in practice that almost never happens, most atheists are familiar with some religion.


I mean it's the same thing with saying "Obese people should take steps to lose some weights." What? Now I'm not allowed to give advice to people? :lol:

No it's not the same thing. Obese people losing weight is something that one would advise for their own health. What you said about atheists implies that they (me included) are somehow obligated, by your standards, to criticize theism.

 

[Dogma's Demise]

Obese people losing weight is something that one would advise for their own health.

Right, and atheists criticizing theism is something that one would advise for their own sake.

I mean do you think attitudes towards atheism changed in the last 10-20 years because of non-confrontational silent atheists? No, they changed because people actually got on Internet or wrote books about it and started pointing people in the right direction, breaking that cycle of fear. You had sites like Evil Bible or Bogus Beyond Belief or Skeptics Annotated Bible/Quran appear about a decade ago or so, and more recently you had public figures like Richards Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris etc. writing books about it and holding public debates.

How do you break the stereotype of "atheist = communist, satanist, immoral, evil, rebellious, angry with God, going through a teen-age phase etc." and how do you break the mentality that religion is somehow above criticism?

But feel free to disagree on this and tell me why the silent approach is better? (If you believe that.)

 

[Frenger]

Obese people losing weight is something that one would advise for their own health.

Right, and atheists criticizing theism is something that one would advise for their own sake.

I mean do you think attitudes towards atheism changed in the last 10-20 years because of non-confrontational silent atheists? No, they changed because people actually got on Internet or wrote books about it and started pointing people in the right direction, breaking that cycle of fear. You had sites like Evil Bible or Bogus Beyond Belief or Skeptics Annotated Bible/Quran appear about a decade ago or so, and more recently you had public figures like Richards Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris etc. writing books about it and holding public debates.

How do you break the stereotype of "atheist = communist, satanist, immoral, evil, rebellious, angry with God, going through a teen-age phase etc." and how do you break the mentality that religion is somehow above criticism?

But feel free to disagree on this and tell me why the silent approach is better? (If you believe that.)

Wow, if you squint really REALLY hard you can just make out where the goalposts started.

Dogma, by saying atheists should oppose theists is making the fundamental mistake that atheist means more than just "a lack of belief in god(s)". I think Austra has already say.....many times that he criticises irrationality in whatever form it comes, it doesn't matter if it's from a theist, a deist, an atheist or pantheist, if they talk bollox he will criticise it.

I completely agree with that, what you are doing is throwing everyone with a belief in one corner, all those without a belief in another corner and shouting "FIGHT". You also seem to think that only theists can be irrational, another false generalisation.

I don't want to speak for anybody but after looking over this thread it is clear that not one person has ever said "the silent approach" is better or have they even implied it. What seems to be the issue is your definition of what an atheist is and what the responsibility of an atheist (based on your confused understanding) is.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Right, and atheists criticizing theism is something that one would advise for their own sake.

Yes.
Because the framed mindset of several billion people that aren't blowing up buildings, opposing science, opposing human rights, etc. is something to worry about.

I mean do you think attitudes towards atheism changed in the last 10-20 years because of non-confrontational silent atheists? No, they changed because people actually got on Internet or wrote books about it and started pointing people in the right direction, breaking that cycle of fear. You had sites like Evil Bible or Bogus Beyond Belief or Skeptics Annotated Bible/Quran appear about a decade ago or so, and more recently you had public figures like Richards Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris etc. writing books about it and holding public debates.

Wow. If I didn't know better, I could have replaced "Atheism" with "Islam" -
wait. Let's do that, shall we?

I mean do you think attitudes towards Islam changed in the last 10-20 years because of non-confrontational silent Muslims? No, they changed because people actually got on Internet or wrote books about it and started pointing people in the right direction, breaking that cycle of fear. You had sites like SunniPath or ArabicPod or Park51 appear about a decade ago or so, and more recently you had public figures like DawahFilms, [public Islamic Speaker x], [public Islamic Speaker y], etc. writing books about it and holding public debates.

WOW! In exact context, you've successfully spoken of Atheism as if it was some kind of political/religious ideaology more than a simple slip of "No, I'm not theist."
The terminology I like to use for this is "bandwagon atheism." It's where someone treats atheism and speaks of atheism as if it has a-priori requirements, political goals, conversion factors, and so on - much like religion. And they'll use the very same methods that they'll happily criticize other religions for in any other case but their own.

How do you break the stereotype of "atheist = communist, satanist, immoral, evil, rebellious, angry with God, going through a teen-age phase etc."

The same way Wicca did for the most part -
Just stop being dicks except over pivotal points where it excludes you and it will sort itself out in the long run. In many cases, some things are only a big deal if you intentionally sit there and decide, more or less, to make them a big deal.
Trolling 101, friend.

and how do you break the mentality that religion is somehow above criticism?

This is in a seperate addressal, because you obviously tried to cram to irrelevant ideas into a single sentence in order to slide it by as a single, whole thought.
But you break that cycle by criticizing religion. Feel free to dance about and make countless of hours of material debunking any religious ideal that you please left and right - openly.
But if you're going to do it, do it with a bit of class and a slip of decency. Refrain from using it as a means to insult their beliefs more than it is for informational value.

Why?
Because, once again, several billion people in the world go about happily without blowing up buildings, opposing science, being antagonistic towards human rights, and so on whilst still being religious.

But feel free to disagree on this and tell me why the silent approach is better? (If you believe that.)

As a religious person?
Because you come off as a douchenozzle I'd never give the time of day to, let alone have a discussion with.
Now, if I sat down and had a chat with Prolescum - that might flip some gears. But that's because he's, once again, not being a douchenozzle about it.

 

[Dogma's Demise]

I have to say the amount of malevolence, bad will and strawman is just appalling.

I'm out, take a good hard look at your post and think about what you're saying.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

I have to say the amount of malevolence, bad will and strawman is just appalling.

I'm out, take a good hard look at your post and think about what you're saying.

At least Kent Hovind defends his idiocy until the end. Either support your biases or address them as proper - retreating under scrutiny says more about your ability to host a discussion than it does towards the actual topic.

Drop the victim complex, grow a pair, and critically assess your own foundations before striking at others. This is less of a debate skill and more of a life skill.

 

[Dogma's Demise]

Here's the thing, correct your own strawmen, stop posting in bad faith and then maybe I'll discuss this with you.

For example I say:

"Right, and atheists criticizing theism is something that one would advise for their own sake."

Your response?

"Yes.
Because the framed mindset of several billion people that aren't blowing up buildings, opposing science, opposing human rights, etc. is something to worry about."

...
WTF?


I mean look, people have disagreed with me before on this. But there is no doubt in my mind right now that the only reason you respond with such disproportionate amount of hostility is due to the things said in other threads. You're not fooling anybody, my statement is nothing so controversial to warrant this kind of over reaction.

 

[australopithecus]

It's not a straw man, he hasn't misrepresented you. By asserting criticising religion is for own own sake you imply that doing so would effect us negatively, hence, worrying about it is not far fetched.

I would advise you stop advising others. Seriously.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I

I summarized your post.

Now that is something to rant against and redirect the subject upon if you wanted to - nothing up until this point has been an ad hominem or used any logical fallacy. It was a verbatim parody where I showed that your reasoning was that of Islam, and instead of addressing it proper you decided to dance and wave like a schoolyard child playing Tag.

 

[Dogma's Demise]

It's not a straw man, he hasn't misrepresented you. By asserting criticising religion is for own own sake you imply that doing so would effect us negatively, hence, worrying about it is not far fetched.

He's being dishonest, I know that "several billion people that aren't blowing up buildings, opposing science, opposing human rights, etc." That doesn't mean I don't think there are other (much lesser and more subtle) harms of religion.

Another point that's a strawman:

But you break that cycle by criticizing religion. Feel free to dance about and make countless of hours of material debunking any religious ideal that you please left and right - openly.
But if you're going to do it, do it with a bit of class and a slip of decency.

When did I advise atheists to do it WITHOUT a bit of class or a slip of decency?

I simply said: You should oppose religion (oppose as in criticize, not oppose as in be an ass about it to every theist you meet). I don't have any recommendation on the exact method you use, so if polite debate is your thing, go for it. I also don't think you should harass or pressure theists, especially those who are probably better off in that cozy illusion (for health reasons or something), so you see, I really don't think I'm being unreasonable here.


Besides, what's the point of that Islamic version parody? I do not mind if a Muslim tries to convert me or prove to me that Islam is the "one true religion" using whatever arguments he deems necessary. In fact I encourage him to do that. As long as it doesn't turn to harassment...