Not really religious or spiritual. Though I've shied away from atheism, since the majority of the atheists I know are becoming the very "in-your-face, militant" type of people that caused me to leave Catholicism in the first place. If I had to choose a religion, it'd probably be Buddhism or LaVeyan Satanism.
Generally though, I have a bleak world-view that either pushes me to optimism or pessimism.
This always makes me sad panda, as I am fairly serious about atheism but get annoyed that often are biggest advocates come off as jerks. I personally believe everyone has the right to believe what they want, and the only time I might get prone to activism is when religious people want to force their views on me (Creationism taught as science, etc).
I realize that the more militant atheists have done some good, by at least ensuring you can announce yourself as an atheist without getting ostracized by society, but at the same time I think we should probably start taking an approach that is less about making fun of people or setting ridiculous goals. After all, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not really religious or spiritual. Though I've shied away from atheism, since the majority of the atheists I know are becoming the very "in-your-face, militant" type of people that caused me to leave Catholicism in the first place. If I had to choose a religion, it'd probably be Buddhism or LaVeyan Satanism.
Generally though, I have a bleak world-view that either pushes me to optimism or pessimism.
This always makes me sad panda, as I am fairly serious about atheism but get annoyed that often are biggest advocates come off as jerks. I personally believe everyone has the right to believe what they want, and the only time I might get prone to activism is when religious people want to force their views on me (Creationism taught as science, etc).
I realize that the more militant atheists have done some good, by at least ensuring you can announce yourself as an atheist without getting ostracized by society, but at the same time I think we should probably start taking an approach that is less about making fun of people or setting ridiculous goals. After all, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
The militant theists are losing the battle, and they know it. So, they try to turn to their old ways and weapons to stem the tide and get the worms back into the can: Putrid laws, censorship, disinformation, moralistic outrage, and social control and demanded conformity. They will not succeed, of course. The chicken has flown the coop already. They will never again have sole authority on higher matters. That doesn't prevent them from trying.
So when people try to tell them they are doing wrong, they stamp the person in question as "militant atheist", "extremist", "rude", "jerk". Seriously, read some of their rants. The fact that their suggestions are beyond the sodding pale never enters into it for them. Always, their detractors are "jerks", and every ounce of criticism is seen as targeting their faith personally, no matter its true target.
Worse, perhaps, is the internal censure. If one of the faithful professes to disagreeing with even the more horrendous ideas, they are ostracized. So, you don't see the faithful distancing themselves from the rabid fanatics. I have seen this in too many instances to believe it's a fluke. If organized religion is anything, it is organized - to maintain and acheive social control.
All in all, I see it as a very tainted, very ugly machine, constantly preying on the insecurities of people. it provides answers oozing of shame, regret and impurity, at a level of intimacy where people should be free to be proud and beautiful. Sad thing is, it works.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess if I had to choose something I'd be an apatheist. But that might require some work and I just don't care.
Yeah. I would say some sort of counter-force is excessively necessary today. And every faithful believes they did nothing wrong - all they did was in accordance with God's wishes.Except that being a jerk and actively mocking a person for their beliefs is not a counter force to anything. It's just being a jerk.
While I am quite the staunch non believer, and think most of the religious mindset is based on not thinking too seriously on what you are saying/doing, I am fully capable of judging each person on their own merit, regardless of their faith.
A real counter force to the close mindedness of religion would be to *always* be willing to talk rationally, and explain why us atheists think as we do. Of course this comes from a an idealistic idea that I have, that most people can, given the chance, be persuaded to think for themselves. This might be wrong.
Just curious do you consider atheist closed minded? I mean looking at things logicaly there is not really that much much difference here. A person who believes in god(s) and atheist asks themselves the same question...'Is there a god?' Both realisticaly answears 'I don't know' as it can't really be proven either way. So don't just equaly have faith in something they just don't know?
I know we have not 'discovered' god....but than again it is rather a amazingly long list of things science has argued vehemently "CAN'T Exist" or are "This Way" only to be proven wrong eventualy.
So don't just equaly have faith in something they just don't know?
No, they don't, and this is (briefly) why.
Atheists (in any modern usage) aren't convinced that there is no god -- only that there is no evidence of god, and therefore that the rational position is skepticism.
And that's all I'm going to say about it in this thread...this is enough of a tangent as it is.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
What gets me is that the word "militant" has such a disparity of meaning.
A "militant Muslim" implies someone who stones women to death and is into suicide bombing.
A "militant Christan" implies someone who assassinates abortion providers.
A "militant Atheist" implies someone who is honest about his/her reasons for not believing in some brand of divinity.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think I'd go with druid. I already hug the trees anyway, may as well get some cool shapeshifting powers out of it
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know this has shown up before, but it seemed too topical to resist...
I know this has shown up before, but it seemed too topical to resist...
Bad bugley if I laugh at work people will think I've lost it.
What gets me is that the word "militant" has such a disparity of meaning.
A "militant Muslim" implies someone who stones women to death and is into suicide bombing.
A "militant Christan" implies someone who assassinates abortion providers.
A "militant Atheist" implies someone who is honest about his/her reasons for not believing in some brand of divinity.
I think that's an unfair comparison. "Militant-Anything" means "Someone who aggressively supports a cause", be it a Christian who stones abortionists or an Atheist who shoots priests. Or for a less violent version (as "Militant" does not necessarily imply the use of force), the person who engages in open harassment/intolerance/ridicule against those who think differently.
So don't just equaly have faith in something they just don't know?No, they don't, and this is (briefly) why.
Atheists (in any modern usage) aren't convinced that there is no god -- only that there is no evidence of god, and therefore that the rational position is skepticism.
And that's all I'm going to say about it in this thread...this is enough of a tangent as it is.
My experience with Atheists tells me there are all colours of the rainbow when it comes to the God Question. Some are skeptics, some claim assurance in that there is no God, and others have not properly determined what they actually think about the matter in depth. There are those who become Atheists after a process of introspection, others who get there as a process of rebellion, and those who never even considered the idea of God in the first place (though I've only met a handful of people who fall in the latter category, I imagine there must be more, particularly in highly irreligious social environments).
I don't think you can put a single defining label on everyone who claims to be an Atheist.
In very related news, Ireland passed laws some time ago that made it illegal, punishable by fines up to 150.000 euros (I think), to publish anything that was blasphemous.
You have made me an atheist for the day.
Not really religious or spiritual. Though I've shied away from atheism, since the majority of the atheists I know are becoming the very "in-your-face, militant" type of people that caused me to leave Catholicism in the first place. If I had to choose a religion, it'd probably be Buddhism or LaVeyan Satanism.
Generally though, I have a bleak world-view that either pushes me to optimism or pessimism.
I sometimes identify as a militant atheist, for one particular reason, it ends the conversation.
Occasionally, when asked about religion I'll say atheist and people say "don't you mean agnostic?" and proceed to tell me how I most likely believe in the existence of some sort of god. If I say militant atheist though, that second part of the conversation doesn't happen.
That's the most bizarre reaction to a personal statement I've heard all week. I don't think I could help myself from laughing, if this were to happen to me. I mean really, how do they figure...?
Atheists do come in two main flavours, betrayed ex-theists, and those who never found a reason to believe in God. For myself, I do come from a very secular environment. Even so, I did a period of searching for a few years. When that turned up completely devoid of answers, I took that to mean that religion isn't for me. Ever since, I have slowly grown more and more exasperated by the depredations of organized religion, from scientology to various other sects, from catholicism to islam. I am well aware that many people find a source of strength in their faith, and channel that into doing good things - but those people would have been able to do the same for another, more worthy, cause. Meanwhile, the cost to everyone of having massive churches struggling day and night to control society grows. It's telling that it's the only type of violence that is on the rise.
Well, enough of a derail.
If I lived in a world where the power of the Gods was obvious... Hmmm. I might still be an atheist in the sense that I did not find them worthy of my worship. If I ended up in Golarion, I must say I like the idea of Desna, though I am no wanderer. I guess Sarenrae.
My experience with Atheists tells me there are all colours of the rainbow when it comes to the God Question. Some are skeptics, some claim assurance in that there is no God, and others have not properly determined what they actually think about the matter in depth. There are those who become Atheists after a process of introspection, others who get there as a process of rebellion, and those who never even considered the idea of God in the first place (though I've only met a handful of people who fall in the latter category, I imagine there must be more, particularly in highly irreligious social environments).
I don't think you can put a single defining label on everyone who claims to be an Atheist.
Then there are those atheists who don't claim assurance that there is no god but also maintain, that there is no better reason to believe in one than in any number of possible and impossible things. Such atheists to whom believing in a god can only be consistent when believing in all gods, all mythological creatures and everything that anyone ever imagines. So these atheists choose not to believe anything without at least a strong indicator, if not evidence, that it's real.
I myself, and most other atheists i've seen hold this stance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
an Atheist who shoots priests.
Can anyone provide contemporary examples of such? I'd be interested to look at them. I don't doubt that such a thing has occurred, but the only ones I've seen to date have been along the lines of "Priest Murdered; Perpetrator A Suspected Atheist," which is just as useful as "Perpetrator a Suspected Bowler."
I think that's an unfair comparison. "Militant-Anything" means "Someone who aggressively supports a cause", be it a Christian who stones abortionists or an Atheist who shoots priests. Or for a less violent version (as "Militant" does not necessarily imply the use of force), the person who engages in open harassment/intolerance/ridicule against those who think differently.
That is as clear a case of equivocation as I've ever seen.
an Atheist who shoots priests.Can anyone provide contemporary examples of such? I'd be interested to look at them. I don't doubt that such a thing has occurred, but the only ones I've seen to date have been along the lines of "Priest Murdered; Perpetrator A Suspected Atheist," which is just as useful as "Perpetrator a Suspected Bowler."
I have one of those in the family tree but its so far back it apparently involves a love triangle with a ewe.
an Atheist who shoots priests.Can anyone provide contemporary examples of such?
Not really contemporary but the Nazis (disputably "atheist" regime) purged the Catholic church in Poland. I think the characterization is more along the lines of "militant feminist" - nobody implies that militant feminists are shooting men (at least I don't think so!), they just mean that they have a very hostile and aggressive attitude about their feminism.
Militant Christian, militant Muslim, militant Hindu, militant Buddhist, usually is used to characterize an adherent of a religion which is typically regarded as forbidding such violence, claiming a religious motivation or justification for violence. Atheism, per se, doesn't really forbid violence, so there's not really anything newsworthy about an atheist betraying that "tenet"; and most people who commit violence who were atheists didn't claim they were obligated by their atheism to act.
Cf., Richard Ramirez was never characterized as a "militant Satanist"; I've never heard of a militant humanist.
Also seems to me that "militant Muslim" would have been the initial usage (referring to political militants agitating for a Muslim state, as in the case of groups like the Taliban), and other usages are by analogy or reference to that. And, as in all things, some analogies are more apt than others - there aren't really "Christian Militants", in that sense, in the US.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You mean the nazi regime whose soldiers had "Gott mit uns" on their belt buckles, or some other nazi regime I never heard of, Sarcasmancer?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
there aren't really "Christian Militants", in that sense, in the US.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not really contemporary but the Nazis (disputably "atheist" regime) purged the Catholic church in Poland.
...and were staunch allies with the Catholic church in Bavaria; I need hardly point out that the last Pope was a member of the Hitler Youth. The Nazis were a bizarre blend of Catholic and (later seguing into) some neo-Pagan-wannabe B.S.; not much atheist about them. Indeed, they wiped out the Freethinkers even before attempting to round up the Jews:
We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.
And whence the persecution of Jews, then?
My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. ...And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exploited.
Stalin, a product of seminary school, was arguably atheist, but he was quite open about killing all of his political enemies -- whether organized into parties, or into churches, or just unorganized.
Communism is a transcendent ideology, in their case, aiming toward the Classless Society as opposed to the more common Heaven. Churches with temporal power typically react poorly to the existence of other churches in their territory. Nothing Stalin did to other churches should surprise anyone - and it is a very good reason not to accept theocracy.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Sure, if you want to redefine religion as including any ideology up to and including Nazism and Stalinism, then religion is inherently violent.
But words actually have meanings.
Which is good for atheists, because otherwise you have to define atheism as the lack of any kind of ideology whatsoever.
Moreover, if you would like to use the government to order the world according to your principles, however benign you think they may be, you fall into exactly the same category as the people you're decrying. Governments use force to impose ideologies. It's what they do.
Regardless, I'm going to step away from this threadjack. If you think all religions are violent and domineering, any example of a religious person who isn't is just going to be the exception that proves the rule.
This started off as an interesting thread, but once it devolved into religion-bashing and puerile attempts to assign Hitler and Stalin to religious groups, it jumped the shark.
To answer the original question...
Changing to a different religion would be a little... difficult.
It's difficult to explain without sounding crazy to some. But, let's just say I live half in this world, and half not. It's the half-not that makes things... interesting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Those puerile attempts happened AFTER we once again heard the equally puerile and also ignorant idea that the nazis were atheists. Get a grip, Charlie.
To further explain why your view is wrong, I would say that you misquoted me by conveniently ignoring the little word "transcendent" I wrote before "ideology". And as you say, words DO have meaning. Transcendental ideologies are pretty close to what you'd call a religion, in that their message is driven by FAITH. Other ideologies do not have this requirement. As for nazism, they were well documented as christians.
You mean the nazi regime whose soldiers had "Gott mit uns" on their belt buckles, or some other nazi regime I never heard of, Sarcasmancer?
/attempts to counterspell sarcasm
Which would be why I said "disputably." The Nazis' relation to the church was a bit complicated, as I'm certain you were already aware.
EDIT: What I mean is they were a secular regime that was largely hostile (to the point of murder) to organized religion not under their control. That sound better? This is not intended to draw any parallel between Nazis and any modern individuals who identify as atheists, including especially people who are contributing to this thread.
You mean the nazi regime whose soldiers had "Gott mit uns" on their belt buckles, or some other nazi regime I never heard of, Sarcasmancer?/attempts to counterspell sarcasm
Which would be why I said "disputably." The Nazis' relation to the church was a bit complicated, as I'm certain you were already aware.
Yes. I am quite aware that, for example, among all the leaders of the nazi party, ONE was excommunicated.
See, Goebbels remarried...
there aren't really "Christian Militants", in that sense, in the US.
Which is why I used the expression "in that sense." There's not a major militant political movement to overthrow the secular government and replace it with a Christian theocracy, in the US. I don't doubt there are incidences of religious violence perpetrated by self-proclaimed Christians, and I don't doubt there are dominionists, et al., who would support a Christian theocracy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's difficult to claim that an organized movement that actively promotes religious faith in their society and cracks down on known atheists, is an atheist or secular movement.
@ Kirth - I wouldn't trust Hitler's self-report re: his own motivations. And I considered bringing up Stalin too, but as you say, it was more like persecution of political enemies in general, rather than persecuting the religious. But I'm clearly no expert and in fact regret having offered my opinion on the subject at all.
@ Sissyl fair enough. I stand by the substance of my post re: use of the term "militant" with regard to atheists, which, the careful reader will note, actually had nothing to do with the religious stance(s) of the third reich, a topic about which entire books could be written.
Okay, Sarcasmancer.
I know I am often inarticulate but hopefully others can benefit in some way from my ignorance. At the very least I can always be used as a bad example.
In general, I'd say there are a lot of atheists out there that are motivated in their views by faults they find in organized religion. One of the typical faults that get brought up time and again in such discussions is the religious propensity for violence. It's one of the major sides of it that push people into atheism. My guess is, atheists as a group are quite non-violent.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My guess is, atheists as a group are quite non-violent.
Well, I mean, you could have said the same sentence but switching out "atheist" with "pasta lovers", or any other arbitrary group. As a rule, since atheism is defined more by a lack of something than by an actual trait of it's members, I find that there's very little in common between different atheists.
Some atheists have truly violent views, some don't. Neither is associated with atheism. That is different from religion in that, if someone is both religious AND patient and nonviolent, they are probably willingly ignoring some of the teachings of their religious. This is true at least for the three major monotheistic faiths. You simply can't take everything in the bible/new testament/Koran seriously without being, for example, a sexist as a result. In some cases (Jews) racism is also a direct result of taking the bible too seriously. In all of theses cases some truly violent and abhorrent behaviors are encouraged by those texts.
"Religion-bashing," huh? I suppose that makes me a militant. Someone pass the ammo!
Which is why I used the expression "in that sense." There's not a major militant political movement to overthrow the secular government and replace it with a Christian theocracy, in the US. I don't doubt there are incidences of religious violence perpetrated by self-proclaimed Christians, and I don't doubt there are dominionists, et al., who would support a Christian theocracy.there aren't really "Christian Militants", in that sense, in the US.
A story about how Christians are literally attempting to control the military.
@ Kirth - I wouldn't trust Hitler's self-report re: his own motivations.
Nor would I -- as a politician, his job was basically to be a liar. But even granting that he wasn't a True Catholic, and forgetting the whole True Scotsman thing -- that does not automatically make him an atheist. Hindus are not Catholics, either, but no one accuses them of being atheists...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...If someone is both religious AND patient and nonviolent, they are probably willingly ignoring some of the teachings of their religious. This is true at least for the three major monotheistic faiths. You simply can't take everything in the bible/new testament/Koran seriously without being, for example, a sexist as a result. In some cases (Jews) racism is also a direct result of taking the bible too seriously. In all of theses cases some truly violent and abhorrent behaviors are encouraged by those texts.
It seems that way to me, too. But apparently saying so is "religion-bashing."
"Religion-bashing," huh? I suppose that makes me a militant. Someone pass the ammo!
What kind do you need? I've got everything from the wimpy 9mm to the 50MG for big boys who like big toys.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This started off as an interesting thread, but once it devolved into religion-bashing and puerile attempts to assign Hitler and Stalin to religious groups, it jumped the shark.
(cough) Re-read the thread, please. Some of us get really, really tired of the whole "Those Evil Nazis Were Atheists" (and the unspoken correlary, "atheists are probably Nazis") thing -- it's a lame attempt to Godwin the entire concept of religious freedom.
It's dishonest to skip right over that, as if it never happened, and then attribute it in reverse to people who are simply trying to clear up the record.
@ Kirth to clarify, I meant that someone might characterize a person or regime as "militant atheist" if they were violently hostile to religion, regardless of their own personal theological views (the same way that, as you suggest, people characterized as "militant Muslim" would also be characterized as "not really Muslim.")
This thread has shown me I'm not nearly careful enough in qualifying every jot and tittle of what I write ;)
It's also quite obvious that whatever his personal beliefs in the matter, he wanted to a) spread the image that he was religious, and b) wanted his people to be religious. The thing is, we're not really discussing his personal views or faith, but the nature of nazism as it was in regards to religion.
I started as a Catholic, then atheist, or agnostic on a good day. Now it's nothing religious, between discordianism, solipsism, existentialism, deism... Best thing that I can imagine is God, until I can imagine something better, to infinity. Everyone else is also correct.