Atheism

[Mythopoeika]

Possibly. But atheists would tend to just go about their business without the encumbrance of quasi-religious discussion. There is nothing to discuss.

Well, they could discuss whatever they wanted without fear of arousing the irrational ire of a religious person.

 

[INT21]

Indeed they could.

Possibly some form of Masonic handshake would also help.

 

[ramonmercado]

#1052 above.

People of similar interests tend to get together. Atheists in particular would do so to protect their interests and oppose the intrusion of religion into the secular sphere. But this isn't the Thread for that type of discussion and I didn't seek to start one.

My post wasn't about the rights or wrongs of Atheism or whether Atheists organising together is a good/bad idea. It was about censorship by politically correct types. It would be best if any further discussion of the post related to that.

 

[INT21]

People of similar interests tend to get together. Atheists in particular would do so to protect their interests and oppose the intrusion of religion into the secular sphere. But this isn't the Thread for that type of discussion and I didn't seek to start one.

My post wasn't about the rights or wrongs of Atheism or whether Atheists organising together is a good/bad idea. It was about censorship by politically correct types. It would be best if any further discussion of the post related to that.

Sort of shot yourself in the foot there.old boy.

 

[Andy X]

People of similar interests tend to get together. Atheists in particular would do so to protect their interests and oppose the intrusion of religion into the secular sphere. But this isn't the Thread for that type of discussion and I didn't seek to start one.

My post wasn't about the rights or wrongs of Atheism or whether Atheists organising together is a good/bad idea. It was about censorship by politically correct types. It would be best if any further discussion of the post related to that.

I have a charity shop book compiled from contributions to the Guardian's 'Notes and Queries' section (someone gave me it for some reason) which features a question from an atheist wanting to know how to avoid being buried in consecrated ground as this would be problematic.

Needless to say this generated a response along the lines of, "why do you care? Firstly you don't accept the existence of consecrated ground and secondly, you'll be dead ... and thirdly it's quite easy to arrange a secular burial".

Silly atheist-signalling, methinks.

 

[AlchoPwn]

Silly atheist-signalling, methinks.

As an atheist I'm inclined to agree. They should just cremate the douche and flush him. A real atheist wouldn't care, and might even find it funny. I am all for composting myself, assuming I can't live long enough to be eaten alive by an extraterrestrial life form (so sick of this biosphere).

 

[AlchoPwn]

Ramonmercado,I can't think why atheist should feel a need to be connected. Doing so would appear to be making an organised 'non-religion' out of it. Organisation leads to a power structure, the very thing that is the problem with religion.

On the contrary INT21, atheists around the world suffer daily discrimination. In Muslim countries for example, Islam condones the summary extrajudicial execution of atheists, and it is routinely carried out, even in places like Jordan and Tunisia that have a reputation for being a bit better than other Muslim countries. I have recently (a couple of months ago) lost my 5th friend murdered for being an atheist in a Muslim country. Not everyone is as lucky as Rahaf Mohammed. https://sputniknews.com/viral/201901171071556490-sweden-svt-saudi-girl-islam/

In the USA there are systems of discrimination in place that forbid atheists from holding public office in many states, and the separation of Church and State is continuously under attack by increasingly strident Christian groups. This is not to say that atheists haven't made substantial political gains in the past decade here.

In short, a lone individual is easily drowned out, but a group can organize and campaign. If you want to get things done and protect your rights, you need a lobby groups and a community to support it. Your notion of "organization leading to power structures" is a false equivalency, as despite what the US Supreme Court decided, atheism is not and never can be a religion, for it has no dogma, only the certain knowledge that, based on the copious evidence presented by the world's religious organizations, that there are no gods.

Organizations are very useful, and you need organizations to fight organizations.

 

[INT21]

On the contrary INT21, atheists around the world suffer daily discrimination. In Muslim countries for example, Islam condones the summary extrajudicial execution of atheists, and it is routinely carried out, even in places like Jordan and Tunisia that have a reputation for being a bit better than other Muslim countries. I have recently (a couple of months ago) lost my 5th friend murdered for being an atheist in a Muslim country. Not everyone is as lucky as Rahaf Mohammed. https://sputniknews.com/viral/201901171071556490-sweden-svt-saudi-girl-islam/



In the USA there are systems of discrimination in place that forbid atheists from holding public office in many states, and the separation of Church and State is continuously under attack by increasingly strident Christian groups. This is not to say that atheists haven't made substantial political gains in the past decade here.

In short, a lone individual is easily drowned out, but a group can organize and campaign. If you want to get things done and protect your rights, you need a lobby groups and a community to support it. Your notion of "organization leading to power structures" is a false equivalency, as despite what the US Supreme Court decided, atheism is not and never can be a religion, for it has no dogma, only the certain knowledge that, based on the copious evidence presented by the world's religious organizations, that there are no gods.

Organizations are very useful, and you need organizations to fight organizations.

And yet we are told to welcome our 'brothers and sisters of a certain faith' with open arms. Usually by people who can't count and have a limited understanding of population growth.

If you have an atheist 'organisation' it becomes necessary to have some one organising it. This would lead to all the usual paraphernalia associated with the main line religions.

whilst I can see your point about atheists being persecuted in countries with hard line religious views, maybe it would be best is they simply avoided those places; or kept their mouths shut.

When I was in Iraq (Yes, Fridewide, another anecdote; sorry) I never mentioned I was atheist. Just let the locals assume I was a Christian. They had no problem with that.

INT21.

(You are a bad boy, AlchoPwn, leading me to post yet another off topic response to your own off topic post. I can hear the tutting from here)

 

[AlchoPwn]

If you have an atheist 'organisation' it becomes necessary to have some one organising it. This would lead to all the usual paraphernalia associated with the main line religions.

Nonsense. If you have an atheist organization, it can be structured in any fashion that the body involved deems appropriate. You can opt for a business model of some description, or co-op model, or some other structure. The notion that you have to somehow default to a silly religious model is patently absurd. Corporate models for lobbying are far more successful than religious models in any case. If one group doesn't like the present model, they can split and form another. Regions can add variance without detracting anything.

whilst I can see your point about atheists being persecuted in countries with hard line religious views, maybe it would be best is they simply avoided those places; or kept their mouths shut.

Has religion EVER kept its mouth shut? Someone has to stand against the abuse of power that these insidious cults and their despicable infiltration of society have pushed for. When have religions ever stopped raping children and hiding their crimes? When have religions stopped hiding their illegal financial dealings behind a mask of charity? When have religions stopped weaponizing the credulity of the foolish into murder for hire? When have religions stopped trying to errode the separation of Church and State in favor of their particular creepy little cult? No, religion has too many crimes and too much blood on its hands for anyone to be silenced anymore. Religions have a LOT of jail time owing, and not enough of the sociopathic grifters behind the scams brought to trial.

 

[Anonymous-50446]

Has religion EVER kept its mouth shut? Someone has to stand agains the abuse of power that these insidious cults and their despicable infiltration of society have pushed for. When have religions ever stopped raping children and hiding their crimes? When have religions stopped hiding their illegal financial dealings behind a mask of charity? When have religions stopped weaponizing the credulity of the foolish into murder for hire? When have religions stopped trying to errode the separation of Church and State in favor of their particular and insidious little cult? No, religion has too many crimes and too much blood on its hands for anyone to be silenced anymore. Religions have a LOT of jail time owing, and not enough of the sociopathic grifters behind the scams brought to trial.

^this^

 

[INT21]

AlchoPwn,

I thought I was talking about a person who would be the odd one out in a country where his/her views were so far outsid the accepted norms ( an atheist in a hard line Muslim country, or even a Bible Belt state in the USA) that even he/she should be aware that expressing views against those held by others was, at best, risky.

And you make my point for me when you talk about structuring atheism. All structures require organisation.

 

[AlchoPwn]

AlchoPwn, I thought I was talking about a person who would be the odd one out in a country where his/her views were so far outsid the accepted norms ( an atheist in a hard line Muslim country, or even a Bible Belt state in the USA) that even he/she should be aware that expressing views against those held by others was, at best, risky. And you make my point for me when you talk about structuring atheism. All structures require organisation.

I am well aware of the plight of these people, and I take your point. In my opinion THAT is why the more liberated areas need to offer a politically vocal and organized approach to lobbying to protect people's rights to not believe in deities. I have been working to find ways to discretely help the non-gullible to migrate to safe countries and territories with sponsorship and a source of income and accommodation. In my opinion, the moment a person gives up Islam, they deserve every protection from that huge atrocity cult's intolerant and murderous policies on apostacy. There are plenty of articles on the issue, here is one for those who need to be better informed: Majorities of Muslims in Egypt and Pakistan believe in murdering apostates. Yet some in our community call Islam a "religion of peace" and call for tolerance, (some people wanted to appease Hitler too) and try to silence people who speak out against these abuses and the MANY other abuses of human rights and dignity Muslims routinely perform in the service of their religious ideology as being "Islamophobic". I don't see it that way. A phobia is defined as an "irrational fear or hatred", and clearly the threat of Islamic violence is very real and ongoing on a daily basis in much of the world.

 

[Yithian]

Yet some in our community call Islam a "religion of peace" and call for tolerance, (some people wanted to appease Hitler too) and try to silence people who speak out against these abuses and the MANY other abuses of human rights and dignity Muslims routinely perform in the service of their religious ideology as being "Islamophobic". I don't see it that way. A phobia is defined as an "irrational fear or hatred", and clearly the threat of Islamic violence is very real and ongoing on a daily basis in much of the world.

I'm sure that you mean some Muslims perform abuses of human rights, not just 'Muslims', because other Muslims do not do this.

I'm sure you mean violence in some Islamic-majority communities, not 'Islamic violence', because other Islamic communities are far more peaceable.

I'd invite you to speak more clearly.

 

[Vardoger]

I'm sure that you mean some Muslims perform abuses of human rights, not just 'Muslims', because other Muslims do not do this.

I'm sure you mean violence in some Islamic-majority communities, not 'Islamic violence', because other Islamic communities are far more peaceable.

I'd invite you to speak more clearly.

What happened to the general Islam thread? Deleted?

 

[Yithian]

What happened to the general Islam thread? Deleted?

No, threads are very, very seldom deleted.

It has been removed from view because it takes a disproportionate amount of time to moderate and generates a disproportionate amount of bad-tempered disagreement among the membership. Sorry, I know that's probably unsatisfactory.

I don't think we've discussed what to do about it yet.

 

[EnolaGaia]

I agree with Yithian's comments about proportionality and against over-generalization.

To these themes I'd only add that this thread is about atheism, and any commentary concerning strife between believers and non-believers should be of a scope more akin to all-theistic-believers versus the theism-averse.

Here's an illustrative lesson in where the line lies ...

I am well aware of the plight of these people, and I take your point. In my opinion THAT is why the more liberated areas need to offer a politically vocal and organized approach to lobbying to protect people's rights to not believe in deities. I have been working to find ways to discretely help the non-gullible to migrate to safe countries and territories with sponsorship and a source of income and accommodation. ...

Up to this point - fine and within-context ...

In my opinion, the moment a person gives up Islam, they deserve every protection from that huge atrocity cult's intolerant and murderous policies on apostacy. There are plenty of articles on the issue, here is one for those who need to be better informed: Majorities of Muslims in Egypt and Pakistan believe in murdering apostates. Yet some in our community call Islam a "religion of peace" and call for tolerance, (some people wanted to appease Hitler too) and try to silence people who speak out against these abuses and the MANY other abuses of human rights and dignity Muslims routinely perform in the service of their religious ideology as being "Islamophobic". I don't see it that way. A phobia is defined as an "irrational fear or hatred", and clearly the threat of Islamic violence is very real and ongoing on a daily basis in much of the world.

Then - as all too often in the past - you zero in on Islam and lambast the entirety on the basis of an admittedly extant and odiously extreme subset. This is where you cross the line - both in terms of denigrating a particular religion and in over-generalizing some adherents' misdeeds as characteristic of all their fellow believers.

You didn't even bother to preface this pointed attack with (e.g.) "for example" or "in some cases this is critical - such as ...", so you can't even make the excuse of this being merely illustrative.

You needn't worry about further such illustrative exercises. You've been called down, warned, and / or lectured enough.

 

[INT21]

No, threads are very, very seldom deleted.

It has been removed from view because it takes a disproportionate amount of time to moderate and generates a disproportionate amount of bad-tempered disagreement among the membership. Sorry, I know that's probably unsatisfactory.

I don't think we've discussed what to do about it yet.

What is the point in keeping a thread that is no longer allowed to be active. Either re-open it (and I can see why you would not want to) or delete it as it is useless.

Except, perhaps, it serves to illustrate that things are not as totally free wheeling here as one would initially believe.

It almost hints at the secret volumes hidden away by Ancients because they were considered toxic to the general order.

One can imagine digital Tomb Raiders in search of the lost Thread'.

 

[GNC]

There's a difference between a massive conspiracy cover-up and taking away the toy the kids keep starting fights over.

 

[EnolaGaia]

What is the point in keeping a thread that is no longer allowed to be active. ...

There are several points to such moves ...

- Removing fight scenes, sometimes while the fight is in progress
- Pulling large rambling threads offline for salvage / editing / dismemberment / merging ops
- Stockpiling evidence for review and discussion
- Removing toxic (e.g., spam; virally infested) or damaged content from the public forums
- Archiving long-dormant and obsolete content to minimize server / service loads

The only threads that are simply deleted are the ones representing utterly incomprehensible junk - e.g., a thread:

- titled 'What Is This?' with ...
- an opening post consisting solely of a hot-linked external image (now MIA), along with ...
- any number of vague / vapid responses to whatever-it-was, ...
- any and all of which fails to give any clues to the topic or the thing to which everyone responded.

 

[INT21]

Hmmm, so can we take it that the discussion of Islam (in any form) has joined Politics on the 'Das ist Verbotten' list ?

 

[Frideswide]

Why would that be case? We've said above (and in many other places) what the limits are - and they aren't Islam-specific.

 

[GNC]

Even the non-Islam threads bring up Islam eventually, it seems. It's like an obsession.

 

[Vardoger]

Even the non-Islam threads bring up Islam eventually, it seems. It's like an obsession.

That's because there's no separate thread for it. That's why we see it pop up in the Atheism thread and others.

 

[GNC]

That's because there's no separate thread for it. That's why we see it pop up in the Atheism thread and others.

Well, there is a thread for it, it's just been taken down for the moment because it was a hellscape of bile and hatred.

 

[EnolaGaia]

Hmmm, so can we take it that the discussion of Islam (in any form) has joined Politics on the 'Das ist Verbotten' list ?

No - not at all.

'Politics' survives to the extent it relates to Fortean and / or at least quasi-Fortean themes such as conspiracy, visions, etc.

The 'politics' that was banished consisted of doctrinaire / partisan / biased / pejorative chatter focused on current events.

This same general distinction could be construed as potentially applicable to Islam specifically or the entire messy corpus of the Religions & Cults section overall.

It's certainly in play with regard to Islam.

 

[INT21]

But one must agree that it is difficult to discuss atheism in a vacuum. i.e. without invoking one of the things that atheists do not believe in.

However, moving on.....

 

[EnolaGaia]

But one must agree that it is difficult to discuss atheism in a vacuum. i.e. without invoking one of the things that atheists do not believe in.

Atheism is properly contrasted with theism or religion overall - not just one specific theological niche or belief system.

However, moving on.....

Yes, please ...

 

[Mikefule]

Hmmm, so can we take it that the discussion of Islam (in any form) has joined Politics on the 'Das ist Verbotten' list ?

Islam, in its various forms, is a major world religion followed by around 1/4 of the world's population. Most Muslims are neither better nor worse than most Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, or atheists. That is, they quietly live their lives and get away with what they can.

I would not want to participate in a forum in which any one religion was off limits for sensible and fair discussion and critique.

However, there are some people who use the pretext of "rational critique" as a fig leaf for expressing their prejudices. At the moment, discussion of Islam is particularly susceptible to this because of the combination of real security concerns and media driven hysteria arising from the actions of the militant minority.

It should be possible to discuss the supposed inconsistencies and perceived absurdities of any religion without insulting, or inciting hatred against, the normal decent majority of believers in that religion.

How far discussion of a major world religion is "Fortean" is a separate question.

It would be nice to read some balanced views and positive points about the followers and precepts any religion that is being critiqued.

 

[AlchoPwn]

AlchoPwn, I thought I was talking about a person who would be the odd one out in a country where his/her views were so far outsid the accepted norms ( an atheist in a hard line Muslim country, or even a Bible Belt state in the USA) that even he/she should be aware that expressing views against those held by others was, at best, risky. And you make my point for me when you talk about structuring atheism. All structures require organisation.

I am well aware of the plight of these people, and I take your point. In my opinion THAT is why the more liberated areas need to offer a politically vocal and organized approach to lobbying to protect people's rights to not believe in deities. I have been working to find ways to discretely help the non-gullible to migrate to safe countries and territories with sponsorship and a source of income and accommodation. In my opinion, the moment you give up Islam, you deserve every protection from that huge atrocity cult's intolerant and murderous policies on apostacy. There are plenty of articles on the issue, here is one for those who need to be better informed: Majorities of Muslims in Egypt and Pakistan believe in murdering apostates..[/QUOTE]

I'm sure that you mean some Muslims perform abuses of human rights, not just 'Muslims', because other Muslims do not do this..

The Muslims who do not perform atrocities are bad Muslims according to Islamic scripture, as they contravene the expressed word of the Prophet. To quote:

The call to general atrocity against ALL non-Muslims is made very clearly across the Koran. Here is one example among many:
Koran 3:56 - As to those who reject Islam, may their suffering be terrible in this life and the next. May none take mercy upon them or help them.

These suras are offered to further insist that there is no excuse for not performing atrocities:
Koran 3:157 - If you are killed in jihad then your reward from Allah will be greater than any other you might accumulate in the world.

Koran 4:74 - Let those who fight Allah's jihad and sell the life in this world for their life in the next. Be they slain or victorious, for those who fight for Allah, there shall be a great reward.

Koran 4:76- Those who truly believe must fight in the name of Allah.

And most importantly:
Koran 4:95 - The believers who sit at home are not the equal of those who make war for Allah, save that they have been wounded or crippled. There are ranks amongst the believers and those who war for Allah's sake will be better rewarded.

I'm sure you mean violence in some Islamic-majority communities, not 'Islamic violence', because other Islamic communities are far more peaceable..

Please... I seriously charge you to show me the Muslim enclave or society which doesn't seek to murder their apostates. Muslims have certainly killed apostates in the USA on multiple occasions. They have also done so in the UK. To suggest to a Muslim that Apostates shouldn't be killed goes directly against the Koran

Koran 2:244 - And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. Disbelief is worse than killing.

Koran 3:56 - As to those who reject Islam, may their suffering be terrible in this life and the next. May none take mercy upon them or help them.

In fact to clarify the point, all Muslims living in non-Muslim countries, strictly speaking, in Islamic law must be killed. I like to point this out to Muslim refugees when seeking to deconvert them:

Koran 4:88-89 - What has happened to you that you have two minds about the renegades (who profess the faith but live amongst unbelievers) even though Allah has reverted them, owing to the sins that they earned? Do you want to lead those to the right way whom Allah let go astray? And he whom Allah lets go astray, for him you can never find a way. They but wish that you reject the faith as they have done, and thus be the same in sin as they are. Let them first flee their iniquity and return to Allah. If they remain renegades, seize them and slay them, never to take a friend or helper from their rank.

Now, consider the following unequivocal statements about the fate of apostates by the Prophet:

Bukhari[52:260] "...The Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

Koran[4:89] "They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper."

There is no tolerance in these statements. There is no possibility for any apostate to feel safe within a Muslim society and there is a standing injunction to murder them, that is all too frequently carried out. To say that "some Muslims don't murder apostates" is no excuse, as no Muslim Society has ever publically repudiated this teaching on any grounds. Surveys, including the article I showed in my previous attachment clearly show that the Murder of Apostates is condoned by the majority in Muslim countries even if they don't do the actual killing. Such compassion and tolerance for the lives of people with different opinions on matters of religion should surely be richly rewarded in kind.

I'd invite you to speak more clearly.

When Hitler promised "Lebensraum Nacht Ost" (war of conquest against Russia), and "die Endlösung der Judenfrage" (the Final Solution), of course, many outside of Germany didn't believe him. Reasonable souls thought that he was mainly peddling rhetoric and couldn't be serious, and hence could be appeased. These reasonable souls were proven wrong. So too, the people who believe that Islam can be reasoned with in any long term fashion, as history will attest in repeated episodes of religiously motivated genocide and massacres.

Islam might allow non-Muslims to be second class citizens or Dhimmi, but those Dhimmi are massacred whenever it proves convenient to do so, and the history of Islam is littered with examples of these massacres. Even to this day, to build a non-Muslim center of worship in nearly every Muslim country attracts a penalty of death for blasphemy. To this day, in every Muslim country, non-Muslims are being murdered for religious reasons, even in the better Muslim nations like Tunisia, and Muslims are killing other Muslims over points of doctrine in sectarian civil wars. You may think this is something new, but it isn't; history is replete with examples for those who care to go looking.

Some voices may moderate this call to murder in favor of mere exile, disowning, and shunning, but that merely makes the apostates more vulnerable to the extremists. Thus, as usual, the moderates act as a shield of social acceptability that allows the extremists the opportunity to act as they please. Were the shoe on the other foot, and a minority Christian community perform outrageous acts like this, the Muslims would retaliate with a view to collective guilt, as again, history is replete with examples of them doing just that, most recently in Egypt, and over far less. In 13 Muslim countries, apostacy carries the death penalty, and in most other Muslim counties next to nothing is done about the murder of apostates, which amounts to a defacto public sanction to kill apostates. Worse still, the Koran makes it clear that not to kill an apostate is less virtuous than killing them.

Leaving Islam (video):

Murder of an apostate in Tunisia (which has recently democratized):

 

[Yithian]

The Muslims who do not perform atrocities are bad Muslims according to Islamic scripture, as they contravene the expressed word of the Prophet.

And Christians are bad Christians when they eat shellfish.

There are two options: speak more moderately--as invited to multiple times--or, inevitably, leave. I do not want this--you are knowledgable and intelligent and an asset to the board on other topics--but if fighting what you believe to be the scourge of Islam is so important that you must pursue it here in spite of repeated admonitions, then I'll go through the motions and press the buttons.

We, the moderators and our site hosts, have discussed your case multiple times and have reached the conclusion that there is no more we can do.

From now on it's just warnings and expulsion.

Please see sense, drop the bone and give us your opinion on cryptids, Jack the Ripper, UFOs or folklore.