BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: GUEST,Musket sans sailor seaman
Date: 16 Apr 13 - 06:25 PM

That'll be me then.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Stringsinger
Date: 16 Apr 13 - 05:16 PM

Again the statement by Shakespeare, "methinks the lady protests too much" was bowdlerized to say "I think you protest too much" meaning that those who react
with judgmental put downs, insults and invectives to defend their position so vociferously and violently may be insecure as to their own "beliefs". Otherwise why not disagree logically and rationally?

Accusations, preachy admonitions, exhortations and other evangelical devices
are often (not always) the behavior of certain religious groups. I would except Blandiver, here, who has maintained a rational response eloquently expressed.

Steve, you can't argue with certain people who create threads that have a religious axe to grind. They are defensive and closed. All we can do is try to keep the conversation on an elevated plane and eschew ad hominem attacks. Some people are out to pull our chains.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Apr 13 - 04:02 PM

Does it perchance start with the same letter of the alphabet that starts the second word of the name of your favourite football team? Does it perchance rhyme with the name of a heavy onboard pointy metal object on a chain that Jack would be familiar with? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: GUEST,Musket sans sailor seaman
Date: 16 Apr 13 - 01:28 PM

I've been known to give that column a title....

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 07:03 PM

Blandiver, I don't really understand your rant but I have gathered that you are angry...

...Why don't you and Steve Shaw have at it. I'm sure that he has a few swipes to take at your brand of spiritualism.

You don't need other people to abuse you, Jack. You manage the job very well all on your own. Three adjacent posts in this thread sum it up beautifully: you should have known better than to post this tripe when you could easily have predicted how badly it would sit alongside the superb posts of Blandiver and Stringsinger above it. Some of us dip in and out of these threads when we can. You seem to have dedicated most of your recent life to them, and it's crystal clear that your quality and focus nosedives as your quantity goes up. You put these measured thinkers in your rude column. You put yourself into a thus far untitled column (I'm being kind) that contains pete and Guffers From Sanity. Nice move.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: GUEST,Blandiver
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 04:36 PM

The term "Jewish atheist" is not unknown.

Indeed so - I might even describe myself thus! But here we're talking more of ethnicity than faith per se, which is why I might think of myself as being culturally a Christian & even extend that to Abrahamic in the light of the richness that implies & in which I delight.

atheists have differing ideas (....) and those that try to lump them into one box do so in order to discredit the whole idea and shut down the discussion.

Atheism at least acknowledges the reality of differing perspectives without wanting to see human damned for all eternity just because we don't live up to the expectations of an idiot God. Even though no such God exists, the fact that it is real enough in peoples hearts to justify all manner of atrocity & general stupidity is reason enough to be wary. Humanity is wondrous by dint of its diversity; that wonder is integral to our spirituality.

You are eloquent in your writing

Ordinarily on Mudcat I'm pilloried for my verbosity, which is a fair cop. I'm just glad I checked my last post as I mixed up the 8th & 9th letters of Large Hadron Collider which might have raised a few eyebrows...

*

I don't really understand your rant but I have gathered that you are angry.

I'm angry on the various points I raise, but I don't write anything in a spirit of anger. I'm being a little polemical (mildly), but I'm not spitting bile in empurpled rage.

Now that I have put you on my list of people who have no respect for religious people.

I respect human individuals - what their religion might be is of little consequence to me.

You will get no fight or argument from me on those points.

Neither would I expect one, with you or anyone else for that matter.

It does me no good for me to give you a chance to pour more abuse on me and frankly I don't think it is much good for you either.

Abuse, Jack? There's nothing abusive in anything I've said here - I find it worrying that you have assumed there is. Methinks you're looking for trouble where there is none.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 02:16 PM

Blandiver, I don't really understand your rant but I have gathered that you are angry.

I was arguing before you made me realize that you meant what you said in the first post and did not care who you offended. Now that I am clear on that. Now that I have put you on my list of people who have no respect for religious people. You will get no fight or argument from me on those points.

It does me no good for me to give you a chance to pour more abuse on me and frankly I don't think it is much good for you either.

Why don't you and Steve Shaw have at it. I'm sure that he has a few swipes to take at your brand of spiritualism.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Stringsinger
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 01:24 PM

Blandiver, the papyrus is absolutely fascinating and brings into question the secure historical biblical data presented as "fact".

You are eloquent in your writing. "Religion is just one small part of a vast common human reality" is so true and some would argue that it is delusional at least in the way that it is commonly practiced by many religious sects.

Atheists (whatever their convictions or opinions) are still in the minority subjected to Christian and Islamic bullying. Jews tend not to be evangelical so they don't bully atheists but accept them into their own faith. The term "Jewish atheist" is not unknown.

"The Atheist looks upon the world as being common to all" says it quite well. Also, an other-worldly view is met with skepticism. For this, and for the criticism of religion and spirituality, atheists of different views are met with from one extreme of civility to outright hostility and cries of pain when religion is criticized.

Back to the thread, atheists have differing ideas, (not to sound like a broken record) and those that try to lump them into one box do so in order to discredit the whole idea and shut down the discussion. Dawkins is a convenient scapegoat because he is logical, a scientist and has written a book that is a best seller. The reason that it sells so well as more and more people are becoming disenchanted with religion.

Instead of going after atheists in general, it would be well if those detractors could read the books by individual atheists and comment on their views. If they disagree with those views, state them objectively and logically then it forms the basis for a discussion.

Atheists, as the thread implies, are not always traumatized by religion but as in the case of Frans de Waal, do not think that it or the discussion of it is relevant. I, for one, have not been traumatized by indoctrination and have come to believe that religion serves as a
means of soothing the act of dying. "There are no atheists in foxholes" is the common
myth.

The Deists who wrote the US Constitution agree with Blandiver that some Christians have " exclusive belief systems perpetuated in the mistaken faith that there is a God out there who gives a fuck".
Thomas Paine said as much in his book, "The Age of Reason".

Thomas Paine was not an atheist but a Deist.

Blandiver, I applaud your intelligence and information.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: GUEST,Blandiver
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 11:21 AM

You will not get a fight from me.

Jack - I've had little else from you as you persist brawling over at least two threads that I know of when all I've done is offered the observation that religion arises from people's spiritual needs in order to profit from them in the same way Pornography profits from people's sexuality. Neither Porn nor Religion is real - they both trade in lies, stereotype and the manipulation of the most fundamental and most beautiful aspects of our humanity and reduce them into badly lit, clichéd, laughable, formulaic parodies of the real thing. At their worst of course, they are the cause & justification of human abuse of the worst order - dehumanising the victim by making them complicit in regimes built on inquisition, human trafficking, paedophilia, torture, genital mutilation, bondage and drugs (and that's just religion).

These are the things I find offensive, Jack the Sailor - things that are enshrined in the very institution of a myriad mutually exclusive belief systems perpetuated in the mistaken faith that there is a God out there who gives a fuck. The only evidence for this in is the centuries old ravings of idiots whose ideas were redundant as soon as they hit the page, however so fascinating they might be historically. Again I feel obliged to mention Ryland's Papyrus P52 which I often go to see if I'm passing. This is a construct of human myth - nothing more. If people attach to it any greater significance the they are acting in a way that negates the very notion of our common human right to freedom of thought and the enlightenment that arises therefrom.

Like Folk Music and Model Railways, Religion is just one small part of a vast common human reality encompassed by the barely conceivable vastness of the cosmic scheme which we've been trying to figure out these past 50,000 years and more. Our landscapes are patterned with attempts - from the Thornborough Henges to the Large Hadron Collider - which a testimony to our innate inquisitiveness, itself just as much a part of our humanity as the darker sides that would drag it all into the mire of ignorance as manifest by Religion, Pornography, War, Thatcherism, UKIP, etc etc.

The Atheist looks upon the world as being common to all; the Religious see that God created it only judge a chosen few to inherit his rancid scheme, whatever that scheme may be; there are a fair few of them - all of which are made up, and all of them perpetuated by those who seek comfort in their fear of death by putting such errant nonsense into the heads of the innocent.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Stringsinger
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 10:09 AM

"Unfortunately for you that small minority includes 3 or four of your heroes."

As usual I am being misrepresented here. I only mentioned Dawkins as a hero.
You haven't read my posts on this matterl.

de Waal would not be interested in any comments negative or positive about the issue of the existence of a god. He is by his own calling, an Apathist.

The people that are hurt by rational criticisms of their ideas are usually not strong in their belief system of them. Blandiver has expressed this very well. The rude people are those who shout invectives and claim victimhood because their ideas may carry little logical weight.

In a sense, they are the rude bullies of religion. They intend to carry out little vendettas claiming that they are hurt and this becomes their defense of their ideas.

For example, criticisms of Islam attempt to silence dialogue by the cries of "Islamophobia". Criticisms of Israel's actions are attempted to be silenced by "anti-Semitism". In the same way, the atheist position(s) are attempted to be silenced by ridiculous labels such as "Militant New Athesists". It's a smear tactic used to silence legitimate dialogue.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 09:15 AM

"Blandiver, your statement is rational and if feelings are hurt by it, that says more about the victim then it does about the statement."

You do not think that "rational" things can "hurt people's feelings?"

Frans de Waal has said a number of very rational things that have hurt your feelings. So much so that you deny what he has said them and blame them on me.

But the fact that you say this.

"Blandiver, your statement is rational and if feelings are hurt by it, that says more about the victim then it does about the statement."

Puts you and Blandiver in the intentionally rude column.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 09:02 AM

I don't see how you can say both of these things at the same time in the same post unless you were and are picking a fight. You have had your say. I have had mine. You will not get a fight from me.

" I don't respect Religion, or Pornography; I despise the perpetrators and apologists and feel very sorry indeed for the victims of both. "

"My intention was not to hurt your (and oneone else's) feelings,"

I am sorry you feel that way. I forgive you for giving offense.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 08:53 AM

" There was an implication that de Waal thought that all atheists were "dogmatic""

No there was no such implication. It was very very very clear that Dr De Waal was talking about a small minority of atheists. Unfortunately for you that small minority includes 3 or four of your heroes.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Stringsinger
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 05:04 PM

Dawkins doesn't mock anyone except hard-nosed religious critics who throw mud at people who call themselves atheists.

Blandiver, your statement is rational and if feelings are hurt by it, that says more about the victim then it does about the statement.

" You need to look carefully at the impersonal intention of this statement and weigh it against your very personal attacks you hurled in my direction by way of a response."

That's a good rule of thumb for everyone here.

The issue of "Religion is to Pornography" makes no attempt to celebrate pornography.
It was a metaphor to illustrate a point and not to say that religion is pornography.

The problem with the word "atheist" is that it has become a weapon to be used by those who are believers for those who are non-believers. So we have the attack dogs who go after the canard of "New Atheists" which don't really exist. This is a media bogeyman used to discredit non-believers.

There are those individuals who try to recreate themselves as gods such as Ayn Rand, Joe Stalin, Hitler, Assad etc. They demand religious obedience of their followers.

"could not be a religion UNLESS a God or Gods are involved"
In that case there is no grounds for suggesting, as many believers do, that "atheism is a religion" - is that right?"

Jim, you nailed it. This is the semantic problem with hard-nosed definitions which can't always be relied upon from dictionaries. An open mind would enquire as to how someone would define a term and then agree or disagree. This appeal to Authority is always bad logic.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 04:35 PM

Dawkins and Shaw (not technically atheists)subscribe to the tenet that the chances of their [sic] being a God is [sic] so small that it deserves to be mocked.

Not quite sure what the "it" is that deserves to be mocked, but what I am sure of is that I've never made an assertion anything like that. The chances of there being a God are so small that I won't let God bother me in the way I live my life. That's all I've said. I'm quite happy to mock people who say stupid things, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: GUEST,Blandiver
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 01:41 PM

My feelings were hurt by your "Religion is to Pornography" statement.

My intention was not to hurt your (and oneone else's) feelings, it was not personal statement irrespective of whoever elected to be offended by it. It is simply pointing out that Religion is to Spirituality what Pornography is to Sexuality - i.e. it is a myth, a construct, an illusion, derived from the common reality with the sole intention of exploiting it. You need to look carefully at the impersonal intention of this statement and weigh it against your very personal attacks you hurled in my direction by way of a response.

may I point out that there are many many people who both take their religion seriously and dislike pornography.

So what? May I point out that there are a many people who take their Pornography seriously and dislike Religion? I don't respect Religion, or Pornography; I despise the perpetrators and apologists and feel very sorry indeed for the victims of both.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Stringsinger
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 12:18 PM

It's easy to distort a quote to fit it into your own agenda. There was an implication that de Waal thought that all atheists were "dogmatic" and he never said that. He said simply that he didn't think that whether god exists or not was relevant to him. Some atheists are dogmatic, others not just like Christians. He exempted himself from a debate on this issue. I think his statement here was misinterpreted.

As for the mocking here, some do, some don't. I see no reason to accept that there is a god and I don't personally mock anyone for thinking that there is. However, I reserve the right of free speech to disagree with the notion of religion and this may step on toes but that's how it has to be. de Waal, a non-believer has not taken a position on this issue and refrains from doing so. I think what is being mocked is an arrogant attitude on the part of religionists to claim they are right. This victimization and righteous indignation is a form of bullying.

Dogma is ever present and should be challenged with an open mind and not by invective or accusations. Bar fights never solved anything.

An appeal to a "higher authority" is useless in both as a logical fallacy and a means of communicating ideas.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 11:18 AM

"It plays like a broken record but must be said again to be understood, atheists are not of one mind and do not subscribe to any tenet."

I have an oft repeated record myself. No one on this forum is saying that atheists are of one mind and subscribe to any tenet. I myself have been talking about a small handful of Atheists and no others. Those small few are Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris as neo-atheists and Mr Shaw and Mr. Musket and you on this forum.

But that said, by definition, I think that you have to agree that they subscribe to the tenet that "there is no God" and Dawkins and Shaw (not technically atheists)subscribe to the tenet that the chances of their being a God is so small that it deserves to be mocked.

"Steve, de Waal is brilliant but his words can be conveniently twisted to say things he didn't mean. It's best to read "The Bonobo and the Atheist" and not let his words be filtered through someone else's agenda."

I did not "twist" de Waals words at all. I took a paragraph from the Bonobo and the Atheist and I placed it in my post without editing or comment. Please do not accuse me of twisting. If you do not like what it says, take it up with Dr. de Waal.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Stringsinger
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 10:58 AM

Remember that at the time Marx wrote about religion being the opium of the people,
opium was not all that unpopular so it was not written as an insult but an observation.

Steve, de Waal is brilliant but his words can be conveniently twisted to say things he didn't mean. It's best to read "The Bonobo and the Atheist" and not let his words be filtered through someone else's agenda. As for your English, it is well constructed and quite articulate.

Blandiver, those who holler loudest about being judged are often the most judgmental.

I like your statement about " pragmatic realities of linguistic mutability," expressed very well. "Spirituality) will always be out there in the wilderness happy evading capture by those for whom words are absolute." Well said.

The notion of "Spirituality" is a smoke screen for religious adherence because it is undefinable. It's a substitution for the disenchanted from organized religion.

It plays like a broken record but must be said again to be understood, atheists are not of one mind and do not subscribe to any tenet. They as a group often disagree and the only glue that holds them together is non-belief which is not a religion.

Sometimes you have to separate the message from the messenger. I don't always agree with Hitchens but here's a pointed an poignant statement. "The only position that leaves me with no cognitive dissonance is atheism. It is not a creed."

Here's another. "If god really wanted people to be free of [wicked thoughts], he should have taken more care to invent a different species." True, this is a narrow view of a god but none has been offered to take its place that is rational or verifiable.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 09:55 AM

I'm sorry Blandiver for hurting your feelings. My feelings were hurt by your "Religion is to Pornography" statement. Frankly, I though you were picking a fight. Since I know now that you were NOT picking a fight, may I point out that there are many many people who both take their religion seriously and dislike pornography.

As for the Jackson Pollack thing I did mean it as a tongue in cheek compliment.

When I realized that your goal was more art than precise communication,.
I realized that you were looking at thinks from this point of view

"English as She is Spoken is mutable, vague, pragmatic, poetic, passionate, and ambiguous as fuck, syntactically and otherwise, and yet we're still talking to each other after 50,000 years. Correctness is anathema to Language, which evolves as it sees fit, and some terms (like Spirituality) will always be out there in the wilderness happy evading capture by those for whom words are absolute. "

the Pollock metaphor popped into my head
Then you said you like Pollock. I thought we were good.

"I must admit, with such comments as you are using words the way Jackson Pollack used pigments spewing them over the canvas like piss over snow with barely a hint of intelligent design, thought or control and which is a lot easier to take as a poetic spew than as "reasoned" expression it's difficult not to feel judged. "

I also don't judge or expect others to judge my "facility with English as she is spoken." I was simply saying that I would not and do not brag about my facility with the language. I often worry that I have not got my point across. I often apologize for this.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: GUEST,concerened
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 09:19 AM

"Concerned. I do not want to talk to you until you stop being rude. That does not mean I do not remember what you have said. "

Yes barnacle balls, and I have not got selective amnesia.

I remember very well what you said.

Put lipstick on a pig and it is still a pig.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: GUEST,Blandiver
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 09:12 AM

That was me quoting Steve Shaw there Blandiver. I don't pretend to be important enough that people would bother to be my enemies.

Humble apologies, JtS! - but it chimed in with the pedantic enthusiasms you seemed unable to curb over on the Spiritualism (sic) thread when you were chiding me over my logorrhea and steadfast refusal to define the indefinable.   

I also don't judge or expect others to judge my "facility with English as she is spoken."

I must admit, with such comments as you are using words the way Jackson Pollack used pigments spewing them over the canvas like piss over snow with barely a hint of intelligent design, thought or control and which is a lot easier to take as a poetic spew than as "reasoned" expression it's difficult not to feel judged.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 08:35 AM

"Pick out and idea I have put forward."
Been there, done that, can't be arsed doing it again in the hope you respond - life really is too short.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 08:22 AM

I'll tell you what Jim.

Pick out and idea I have put forward. Quote what I have said that you challenge and say what was wrong with it and I will reply as honestly and thoroughly as I can.

If that works you, I'll give you two more challenges.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 08:17 AM

"but even my worst enemies here might have to admit that facility with English as she is spoken is not one of them. "

That was me quoting Steve Shaw there Blandiver. I don't pretend to be important enough that people would bother to be my enemies.

I also don't judge or expect others to judge my "facility with English as she is spoken."

But thanks for the feedback.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: GUEST,concerened
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 08:09 AM

You see nautical fraudster, no one likes you.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: GUEST,Blandiver
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 06:33 AM

but even my worst enemies here might have to admit that facility with English as she is spoken is not one of them.

On a point of perfect pedantry, Jack the Sailor, you seem entirely adrift when it comes to the pragmatic realities of linguistic mutability, which is what language is all about. It evolves around organic concepts rather than dictionary definitions, which (like grammatical theory itself) can only ever DEScribe such definitions, and never PREscribe them.

Like any other language, English as She is Spoken is mutable, vague, pragmatic, poetic, passionate, and ambiguous as fuck, syntactically and otherwise, and yet we're still talking to each other after 50,000 years. Correctness is anathema to Language, which evolves as it sees fit, and some terms (like Spirituality) will always be out there in the wilderness happy evading capture by those for whom words are absolute.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 06:22 AM

"I have other matters with which to tussle"
As pompous as any Jehovah's Witness as I have ever met.

Hey, Jim, that was me! I was only taking the piss out of Jack's inability to explain himself properly and my impatience over trying to process what he's on about. Watch it, mate, I have a stack of Watchtowers here I'm trying to offload and it is Sunday morning... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 06:14 AM

"Said goodbye to me and did not want anything to do with me"
Join the club - not too fond of having his ideas challenged is our Jolly Jack and certainly doesn't wnat to go to the bother of actually answering those challenges.
"I have other matters with which to tussle"
As pompous as any Jehovah's Witness as I have ever met.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 05:59 AM

You really do lean on the fellow, don't you, Jack?

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 11:37 PM

Well, Jack, I have many weaknesses, but even my worst enemies here might have to admit that facility with English as she is spoken is not one of them.

If you have "facility with English as she is spoken" It is limited to you speaking. You contradict yourself enough so that I wonder if you pay attention to your own words. Read the post before the one you are asking about then read that post again. See if you can cobble it together.

>>Dogmatists have one advantage: they are poor listeners. This ensures sparkling conversations when different kinds of them get together the way male birds gather at "leks" to display splendid plumage for visiting females. It almost makes one believe in the "argumentative theory," according to which human reasoning didn't evolve for the sake of truth, but rather to shine in discussion. <<

Frans de Waal.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 06:57 PM

It is clear enough Steve.

Well, Jack, I have many weaknesses, but even my worst enemies here might have to admit that facility with English as she is spoken is not one of them. Still, if you don't care to explain, I'm not bothered. I have other matters with which to tussle.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 06:53 PM

Certainly there are more self proclaimed atheists in China than anywhere.

Gosh, Jack. Did you get your degree in the Bleedin' Obvious from the University Of Plain As The Nose On Your Face?

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 04:28 PM

It is clear enough Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 04:18 PM

Wow. I reposted "concerned's" first post to hopefully settle the brewing controversy as to where Marxism was introduced to the thread. I complimented her knowledge in recognizing that Marxism belongs in any serious discussion of the definition of atheists.

If I had been discussing whether or not "militant atheists" were common in the militant atheist thread I would have brought Marxists up. But I was trying to focus on de Waals point that new-atheists are dogmatic.

""Marxism and Atheism were related."
You might have added that Marx (taking his cue from Hegel I think) claimed that "religion is the opiate of the people""

Good point Jim. Marx was an atheist who was rude and insulting to religious people. I agree 100%.

"I would guess that there are far more non-Marxist atheists that there are Marxists"

Today, that is probably a good guess, unless you count China as Marxist. Certainly there are more self proclaimed atheists in China than anywhere. 30 years ago almost all of eastern Europe and Russia claimed to be Marxist atheist.

" rather an attempt to replace your non-case with smear tactics. "

Concerned brought it up. Take it up with her. I haven't exactly bent over backwards to prove the case. You proved that Marxism and atheism are related with your "opium of the people quote." It is not a controversial idea.

Concerned. I do not want to talk to you until you stop being rude. That does not mean I do not remember what you have said.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Stringsinger
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 03:17 PM

"But, to get the most out of a two-way discussion,if that is what one is seeking, respecting the other person and their differing viewpoints and perspectives on the same topic helps. "

I have studiously avoided ad hominem in my remarks. But I respectfully disagree that
not respecting differing viewpoints always helps. I think even though it may seem as though it brings up more heat than light, a respectful approach is not concerning whether or not you step on someone's ideology or position but rather bringing up criticism to it is just as important as respecting the ideas with which you disagree. Invective and insults do little to further an intelligent conversation but if they occur, sometimes this is a catalyst for being able to present useful information.

I am grateful for the brickbats that have been thrown at me because they enable me to articulate my position on issues such as these.

So in effect I more or less agree with you on the style of discussion rather than on its substance.

Jim, once again, I agree with you. "I would guess that there are far more non-Marxist atheists that there are Marxists". I think that would be easy to establish.

Following up on that idea, Marx was an economist. Lenin a politician who used Marx for his ideas. You could make the case that Soviet Communism under Stalin was just like a religion, in fact Stalin had an ecclesiastical upbringing using some of religious propaganda techniques to further his cause. Stalin appointed himself a god just like Kim Jung Il does today. Lenin's statement about religion was possibly so he could replace it with his own.
it can be called a "religion" because it forced his followers to believe as he did and resembled a religious cult, which many religions do today.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: GUEST,concerened
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 07:13 AM

I dont think he can explain Steve.

Like most of his petite borguoise, psuedo intellectual comments, the last contribution was like his maritime claims, a large piece of crap

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 06:44 AM

Cor, "barnacle balls" sounds hellish painful. No wonder Jack gets all these unfocussed moodies. In your own time, Jack, perhaps you'd care to explain what your most recent post to this thread actually means.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: GUEST,concerened
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 06:17 AM

I see sailor jerk lives up to his usuall half arsed commitment to the truth.

Said goodbye to me and did not want anything to do with me, but still uses my quotes when it suits him. Did I also see some grudging admiration for something I had said?

When are you gonna fess up barnacle balls and admit that secretly you have the hots for me?.Go on.... you know you have.

I know what sailors are!! even nautical frauds like you.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 05:51 AM

"Marxism and Atheism were related."
You might have added that Marx (taking his cue from Hegel I think) claimed that "religion is the opiate of the people"
I would guess that there are far more non-Marxist atheists that there are Marxists - linking Marxism (or your limited knowledge of it) with atheism is red-herring politicking - like Ed T, I believe it has no more than a passing connection here - rather an attempt to replace your non-case with smear tactics.
"could not be a religion UNLESS a God or Gods are involved"
In that case there is no grounds for suggesting, as many believers do, that "atheism is a religion" - is that right?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: GUEST,concereneds
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 04:08 AM

sailor jerks last post has to be the crassest he has ever posted

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: GUEST,concerened
Date: 13 Apr 13 - 12:43 AM

have you a brain operation scheduled as well?

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 09:35 PM

OK Shaw, but you argued this.

The cry of the scared Christian: those who criticise our faith and take a different world view (especially those who express it, and especially especially those who express it bluntly, as bluntly as faiths express themselves with their "certainties") are fundamentalist, we have an atheist faith, we have an atheist belief system, we are evangelical, we are militant, it's really just a perverted kind of religion. Actually, when you think about it, we are none of the above.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 08:25 PM



Hello? Not only have I not "argued pretty hard that atheists are non-believers", I've actually argued against that notion pretty vehemently on a number of occasions. And you wonder why I call you Wacko.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 06:17 PM

Ooops again. I have an eye operation scheduled for Tuesday. My eye has been affecting my writing and proofreading for days.

"You have come down of the same argument in a few days."

"You have come down ON EACH SIDES OF of the same argument WITHin a few days."

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 06:13 PM

ooops

could not be a religion UNLESS a God or Gods are involved

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 06:10 PM

"I was the GUEST who posted the quote from Lenin. "

Nice, that was good.

You know when I first argued about Atheism, It seemed like everybody who cared about the subject knew that Marxism and Atheism were related.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 06:04 PM

>>>There are many who call themselves atheists but if you think about Stalin or Rand, you come to the conclusion that they are fundamentalist and worshipful toward their ideals. Hence, Stalinism, Randism, fascist or other Communist ideologies can be thought of as being "religious"<<<

>>>can be thought of as being "religious"<<

I guess you can say that. If you completely ignore the core meanings of the words atheist (non-believer in a God or gods) and Religious (worshiping a God or gods.)

You could say a pig is a goat and you'd be closer to reality.

You know, you can think anything you want. Its funny Steve and Musket argued pretty hard that atheists are non-believers and that it could not be a religion if a God or Gods are involved. You were posting during that conversation and seemed to take their side of the "Militant atheism has become a religion" argument. You have come down of the same argument in a few days. In the first place, when it was aimed at you. You agreed that non-believers in God could not form a religion. Now you are saying that non-believers in God have formed religion. What is really really interesting to me is that this conversation took place on the tread that you said that you have read so many times. The one where you got telling me to read the article you had told me you had read. Very curious. Maybe you ought to back off on this topic. Maybe there is a creature in this rabbit hole you don't want to see.

But you do remember some things I have said. I guess that is because your feelings were hurt?

>>>"Not so with some atheists however because they adhere to the skeptical notion of non-belief which is not a religion and eschew dogma regardless of how they are accused otherwise."<<<

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 05:34 PM

I was the GUEST who posted the quote from Lenin.

Subject: RE: BS: Are Atheists really Atheists or......
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Apr 13 - 05:34 PM

Stringsinger ""I disagree that the two are connected. I think that if the dialogue is presented in an even-handed informative and critical way, even then, it will step on someone's toes, particularly in the areas of religion and politics. But to be cowed by self-censorship just because someone doesn't like what's being said is tantamount to ignoring the issue.""

""even-handed informative and critical way"" When and where has that happened? (I would add interesting to that mix).

IMO, It is not what is being said, but whether it is said in a respectful manner that counts, IMO. The same athiest-religion mudcat folks have been going around a circle mostly saying the same thing, from thread to thread, for months.The issues and responses are hardly new (in fact, they are stale).

The issue is not censorship and free speech. The issue is whether either side is actually listening to each other, or only engaging in a game of one-up-man-ship. Why so, and For whom, themselves? I suspect few other Mudcatters tune in for very long - as it mostly involves throwing around of insults, in one form or another. Is there a stage when the same participants ask - "what's the point"? Beyond, fluffing up one's own feathers, that is :)