Atheism

dr wu

Doctor Prog
Joined
Mar 12, 2002
Messages
1,599
Likes
986
Points
144
Location
Indiana
Stu posted that later thread to ask both (a) whether agnosticism was the orientation most consistent with Fort and (b) what it might mean for agnostics to be 'active' and even 'militant'.
Yes....I found the thread and posted there. It seems like militant agnosticism is a funny idea, at least to me...but then who knows..?
 

AlchoPwn

Public Service is my Motto.
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
1,391
Likes
1,805
Points
154
Yes....I found the thread and posted there. It seems like militant agnosticism is a funny idea, at least to me...but then who knows..?
I once had an acquaintance who was a Christian Fundamentalist. He proudly told me that he was ready to die for his faith. I told him he should become an Anglican, as they only expect you to become a bit miffed for your faith. You know you have reached that point when they stop offering you tea and biscuits when you come over.
 

Mungoman

Mostly harmless...
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
2,197
Likes
3,269
Points
159
Location
In the Bush (Peak Hill, NSW)
Nah. Misspoke to me means that it wasn't my turn to speak (if that's possible).

The first time I heard the word, it was from H.R. Clinton after saying that when she landed in the Balkans, she was under fire...which didn't happen.

The word obviously means 'I was lying through my teeth'.
 

Fats_Tuesday

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Sep 5, 2001
Messages
524
Likes
13
Points
49
I hate it when Dawkins' brand of atheism is branded as "militant"; it's such a loaded word, and implies a use of violence to achieve one's goals which isn't in any way part of Dawkins' position, or that of any other atheists I know. It'd be much more appropriate to call it argumentative atheism, or reactive atheism, but then that takes away the anti-Dawkins crowd's favourite straw man.
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
47,272
Likes
17,992
Points
284
Location
Eblana
I hate it when Dawkins' brand of atheism is branded as "militant"; it's such a loaded word, and implies a use of violence to achieve one's goals which isn't in any way part of Dawkins' position, or that of any other atheists I know. It'd be much more appropriate to call it argumentative atheism, or reactive atheism, but then that takes away the anti-Dawkins crowd's favourite straw man.
Those who insult Dawkins must be beheaded!
 

Vardoger

Bring the Beat Back!
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
4,664
Likes
2,991
Points
169
Location
Scandinavia
I hate it when Dawkins' brand of atheism is branded as "militant"; it's such a loaded word, and implies a use of violence to achieve one's goals which isn't in any way part of Dawkins' position, or that of any other atheists I know. It'd be much more appropriate to call it argumentative atheism, or reactive atheism, but then that takes away the anti-Dawkins crowd's favourite straw man.
It really irritates a few people when new atheists are as sure in their non-beliefs as religious people are in their beliefs.
Then they are arrogant and perhaps not popular among the old school atheists. They're being branded islamophobic by their usual leftist atheists. Really, why should we be softer on Islam than on Christianity? They're both bullshit beliefs, and their followers should be told they're into BS.
 
Last edited:

AlchoPwn

Public Service is my Motto.
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
1,391
Likes
1,805
Points
154
It really irritates a few people when new atheists are as sure in their non-beliefs as religious people are in their beliefs.
Actually, I think that an atheist, even an new atheist can be quite secure in their position, and given their persecution in the USA and its recent anti-science push, there needs to be a counter movement to oppose the destructive trend of hyper-religiosity.

I personally have little time for agnostics. All an atheist needs to do is disprove the evidence that the religions put forwards. Consider if you will, that the primary evidence for the existence of God is scripture, and the scripture is utterly imperfect, and yet it is supposed to represent the will of a perfect entity that is literally able to change anything within time and space, being the 3 Oms of Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnibenevolent. Clearly the God of the Bible is none of those things, and examples can be presented which conclusively rule out the possibility. The same can be said of Allah and the Koran. Why would a perfect deity allow themselves to be misrepresented by an imperfect scripture, especially if they have ample power to fix the matter? We must also accept that with the march of science, that we are left increasingly with a God of the Gaps, and the horrible thing about the God of the Gaps is that this god is merely an anthropomorphization of human ignorance. By worshiping a God of what we don't know, we worship our own stupidity.

I personally am quite happy to use my Islamic scholarship to confront Muslims with how vile their religion actually is, and I refuse to go soft on them. I find the Left's defense of Islam to be among the most irrational positions the broad movement has ever taken, as Islam's beliefs are totally antithetical to everything the Left stands for. In fact I would go so far as to suggest that the Left have collapsed into total Orwellian Doublethink on the issue. Islam is a disgusting and immoral failed bully culture with more blood on its hands than the Nazis and Communists combined, and it must not be given a free pass, much less tolerated when it seldom if ever ever reciprocates, save in the face of physical threat.
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
47,272
Likes
17,992
Points
284
Location
Eblana
LOL next you will be saying "what they don't know can't hurt them". Atheism is the true gnosis my friend. Stop sitting on the fence, it's pointy.
You're just as bad as Dawkins! He also has it in for Agnostics.

I'm atheist towards the God of the bible/torah/koran.

I'm Agnostic towards the Pagan Pantheon!

Loki is my Archetype and Inspiration.
 

AlchoPwn

Public Service is my Motto.
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
1,391
Likes
1,805
Points
154
You're just as bad as Dawkins! He also has it in for Agnostics.
I'm atheist towards the God of the bible/torah/koran. I'm Agnostic towards the Pagan Pantheon! Loki is my Archetype and Inspiration.
I see. For my part I retain a great fondness for Buddhism, as one can be both a Buddhist and an Atheist without philosophical contradiction.

Regarding Loki-ism, have you formalized your commitment?:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathenry_(new_religious_movement)
Because Loki is a bit of a controversial figure within the movement: http://witchesandpagans.com/pagan-p...satru-faq-why-do-some-heathens-hate-loki.html
Tricksters in general seem to be problematic figures in most mythologies. Hardly a surprise. Good luck with your patron nonetheless.

On a related note, I have recently been reading all about Egyptian theology in Iamblichus' "On the Mysteries". It is very interesting, as it covers all the philosophical models and conceptions, misconception, and contradictions of divinity as put forwards by the Greeks and how an Egyptian priest set about answering those inquiries. It creates a totally different picture of what a deity is, and how to conceive of them, that has no bearing on the Judeo-Christian model, except that it does cover elements of Gnosticism, such as the Demiurge and angels. This is in keeping with what I have learned about Serapis and the origins of Christianity however. What is most surprising is how very different the understanding of what constitutes a deity is from what Christianity teaches. A real eye opener. It is also a fascinating technical manual for hermetic theurgy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theurgy. It has got me taking line notes and comparing the findings to other Pantheistic traditions (I don't like the pejorative terms "Heathen" and "Pagan"). The book is a goldmine on the religions of antiquity, but takes a bit of background reading to make good sense of.
 

INT21

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jul 18, 2016
Messages
4,307
Likes
2,842
Points
154
Alchopwn,

..we are left increasingly with a God of the Gaps...

Have you been reading Stephan Donaldson again ?

INT21
 

Vardoger

Bring the Beat Back!
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
4,664
Likes
2,991
Points
169
Location
Scandinavia
Actually, I think that an atheist, even an new atheist can be quite secure in their position, and given their persecution in the USA and its recent anti-science push, there needs to be a counter movement to oppose the destructive trend of hyper-religiosity.

I personally have little time for agnostics. All an atheist needs to do is disprove the evidence that the religions put forwards. Consider if you will, that the primary evidence for the existence of God is scripture, and the scripture is utterly imperfect, and yet it is supposed to represent the will of a perfect entity that is literally able to change anything within time and space, being the 3 Oms of Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnibenevolent. Clearly the God of the Bible is none of those things, and examples can be presented which conclusively rule out the possibility. The same can be said of Allah and the Koran. Why would a perfect deity allow themselves to be misrepresented by an imperfect scripture, especially if they have ample power to fix the matter? We must also accept that with the march of science, that we are left increasingly with a God of the Gaps, and the horrible thing about the God of the Gaps is that this god is merely an anthropomorphization of human ignorance. By worshiping a God of what we don't know, we worship our own stupidity.

I personally am quite happy to use my Islamic scholarship to confront Muslims with how vile their religion actually is, and I refuse to go soft on them. I find the Left's defense of Islam to be among the most irrational positions the broad movement has ever taken, as Islam's beliefs are totally antithetical to everything the Left stands for. In fact I would go so far as to suggest that the Left have collapsed into total Orwellian Doublethink on the issue. Islam is a disgusting and immoral failed bully culture with more blood on its hands than the Nazis and Communists combined, and it must not be given a free pass, much less tolerated when it seldom if ever ever reciprocates, save in the face of physical threat.
Just want to concretizise that I meant new atheists who are followers of new atheism, like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens.

A discussion between regressive leftists and Bill Maher about islamic values.

 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
47,272
Likes
17,992
Points
284
Location
Eblana
I see. For my part I retain a great fondness for Buddhism, as one can be both a Buddhist and an Atheist without philosophical contradiction.

Regarding Loki-ism, have you formalized your commitment?:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathenry_(new_religious_movement)
Because Loki is a bit of a controversial figure within the movement: http://witchesandpagans.com/pagan-p...satru-faq-why-do-some-heathens-hate-loki.html
Tricksters in general seem to be problematic figures in most mythologies. Hardly a surprise. Good luck with your patron nonetheless.

On a related note, I have recently been reading all about Egyptian theology in Iamblichus' "On the Mysteries". It is very interesting, as it covers all the philosophical models and conceptions, misconception, and contradictions of divinity as put forwards by the Greeks and how an Egyptian priest set about answering those inquiries. It creates a totally different picture of what a deity is, and how to conceive of them, that has no bearing on the Judeo-Christian model, except that it does cover elements of Gnosticism, such as the Demiurge and angels. This is in keeping with what I have learned about Serapis and the origins of Christianity however. What is most surprising is how very different the understanding of what constitutes a deity is from what Christianity teaches. A real eye opener. It is also a fascinating technical manual for hermetic theurgy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theurgy. It has got me taking line notes and comparing the findings to other Pantheistic traditions (I don't like the pejorative terms "Heathen" and "Pagan"). The book is a goldmine on the religions of antiquity, but takes a bit of background reading to make good sense of.
I haven't really codified my Pagan beliefs, Loki as I say is more of an inspiration. As is The Morrigan the Threefold Celtic War Goddess, I don't believe in her actual existence, more of a cultural thing.

Also I believe the Pagan Gods, especially the Norse/Germanic ones, should be reclaimed from the nazis!
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
47,272
Likes
17,992
Points
284
Location
Eblana
New & improved atheism, now with 10% less belief.
It's amazing how you can annoy those street christians if you tell them you worship Satan or Loki. Just saying you're an Atheist makes them even more determined to convert yoyu. Tell them "Satan Loves You" or Satan Saves" and they are appalled.
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
33,490
Likes
18,165
Points
309
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
It's amazing how you can annoy those street christians if you tell them you worship Satan or Loki. Just saying you're an Atheist makes them even more determined to convert yoyu. Tell them "Satan Loves You" or Satan Saves" and they are appalled.
I can understand that. A belief in Satan implies a belief in God, so why are you worshipping the smelly little guy rather than the big bearded guy?
 

Jim

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
834
Likes
771
Points
94
Location
NYS, USA
Why not live and let live, regardless if your Christian, Atheistic, agnostic, Jewish, Muslim, etc. I've learned to ignore those who try to convince you your wrong or that you should change your personal beliefs.
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
47,272
Likes
17,992
Points
284
Location
Eblana
Why not live and let live, regardless if your Christian, Atheistic, agnostic, Jewish, Muslim, etc. I've learned to ignore those who try to convince you your wrong or that you should change your personal beliefs.
Generally I wouldn't set out to antagonise street preachers, only those who are persistent. I wouldn't talk about Satan to someone who just approached me asking if I wished to discuss Jesus etc.
 

INT21

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jul 18, 2016
Messages
4,307
Likes
2,842
Points
154
...Generally I wouldn't set out to antagonise street preachers, only those who are persistent...

Ah yes, the Manic Street Preachers.

I also find them a bit annoying.

INT21
 

Mungoman

Mostly harmless...
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
2,197
Likes
3,269
Points
159
Location
In the Bush (Peak Hill, NSW)
Why not live and let live, regardless if your Christian, Atheistic, agnostic, Jewish, Muslim, etc. I've learned to ignore those who try to convince you your wrong or that you should change your personal beliefs.
I reckon that anyone who determines the value of a life/person through the 'diety' that they worship, or doesn't, deserves a smack in the chops - same for those who believe that their gender makes them such wonderful people.

What a misguided life view.
 

AlchoPwn

Public Service is my Motto.
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
1,391
Likes
1,805
Points
154
I can understand that. A belief in Satan implies a belief in God, so why are you worshipping the smelly little guy rather than the big bearded guy?
Well, objective literary criticism of the characters of God versus the character of Satan in the Bible , with reference to their comparative death tolls, and character strengths and character defects, would place God as one of the most odious creations of fiction to date. While Satan is unpleasant, he is far less objectively evil and hateful than the God described in the Bible. Here is a link to a book that discusses the matter:
https://www.amazon.com/God-Most-Unpleasant-Character-Fiction/dp/B01ENZN13A

Just because God has a big white beard, doesn't mean he isn't jealous, murderous, mercurial, bullying, insecure, narcissistic, dictatorial, lying, cruel, racist, sexist, dietist, etc. FFS God allows his own son to be tortured to prove a point, and is quite happy to throw Job under a bus for Satan's shits and giggles. Also, given that the Bible gets basic cosmology, physics and meteorology very wrong indeed, I don't think the notion of God as the genuine creator of the world can be taken seriously in the context of this character analysis.
 
Top