The lesser of three evils?

[Figleaf]

It's really wonderful how you unfailingly try to tie atheism to liberalism, or in other words, everything left of right. How unbiased and unpartisan of you. Not all believers and conservative, and not all non-believers and socialists.

I haven't voted, because I'm kind of torn, but I lean towards Militant Atheist. I mean, look at Stalin and Hitler, perhaps the two most villainous and reviled people in verifiable history. Neither were Christian, nor Muslim. At least Christians and Muslims have guidelines by which to hate people. Atheists have what? They are free to really pull out all of the stops.

Stalin and Hitler weren't militant ABOUT atheism, the were militant about their power and ideologies. So using them as examples of militant atheism is faulty.

If we turn around the question, the choice should be obvious. Militant Atheists are least likely to interfere in non-faith aspects of choices and behaviour. All the athiest wants is a denial of god(s). He doesn't want anyone to have or not have abortions. He doesn't care whether teenagers masturbate or stay virgins or whatever. He doesn't want to tell you not to play cards or drink beer. The Militant Atheist would be the best choice because his militant agenda is the most narrow.

[Figleaf]

Atheism and liberalism do go together like pies in a pod. It is just a simple fact.

Care to prove this?

Prove to me that homosexuality is more than preverted sex.

Yeah cybercoma, show him the loving side.

[Remiel]

Just throwing suggestions out.

But anyway, the original question wasn't " What do you fear someone being militant about the most, " it was " What kind of militants do you fear the most, " or something like that. So, Hitler and Stalin qualify regardless of why they were militant.

Also, I admit that my remarks were a little off the cuff. Given what I remember of Hitler, I had thought he was pushing a new " Aryan cosmology " , thus I concluding, incorrectly it seems, that he didn't actually believe strongly in any one religion.

In any case, the premise of this question is flawed, as most questions usually are. I mean, after Hitler and Stalin, who are the next three worst mass murderers in history? Were any of those three Muslims? Does that mean a Muslim couldn't be as bad given the resources? The answer to the question is that there is no answer. Each of the three can be just as bad or worse than the others. Thus, each of us gives an almost meaningless opinion (including me), based on either their bias or a subjective conclusion about the nature of each.

[cybercoma]

Or.... agnostics have examined the evidence and realised there is not a convincing arguement either way, and so decide to concentrate on rational tangible things that affect their lives and not throw themselves into the intellectual void that is religious zealotry. Their minds are not closed to new evidences and possibilities, which must be shocking for fundamentalists.

New evidences and possibilities to what? That a fatherless child was born, walked on water, raised the dead and finally he himself rose from the dead? Do you believe in ghosts as well? Do you think there will ever be evidence that the tooth fairy is real? Atheists aren't zealots, they simply dismiss the notion of an invisible entity that simultaneously hears (and dismisses in the case of all those who pray for terminally ill relatives) millions of prayers and then somehow has the power to answer them all. Agnostics, by leaving themselves open to the possibility, are the ones throwing themselves into the "intellectual void" that is religion. Atheists by definition are religionless and are free to appreciate nature and the universe for the what it truly is.

[cybercoma]

Stalin and Hitler weren't militant ABOUT atheism, the were militant about their power and ideologies. So using them as examples of militant atheism is faulty.

If we turn around the question, the choice should be obvious. Militant Atheists are least likely to interfere in non-faith aspects of choices and behaviour. All the athiest wants is a denial of god(s). He doesn't want anyone to have or not have abortions. He doesn't care whether teenagers masturbate or stay virgins or whatever. He doesn't want to tell you not to play cards or drink beer. The Militant Atheist would be the best choice because his militant agenda is the most narrow.

A militan atheist could be opposed to someone drinking beer or playing cards if it was done in a way that was harmful to the person doing those activities. Atheists are not amoral. It doesn't mean someone doesn't have morals just because he/she doesn't believe in folklore and things that rational thought should tell us don't exist.

[Remiel]

Atheists are just as capable of being zealous as anyone else. You can zealously believe in nothing.

To clarify, you who are quick to insult everything about religion, are you really an atheist, or a nihilist?

[cybercoma]

Atheists are just as capable of being zealous as anyone else. You can zealously believe in nothing.

To clarify, you who are quick to insult everything about religion, are you really an atheist, or a nihilist?

I'm not insulting anything. Religion deserves just as much examination as anything else. I don't feel it should be granted special rights to be unquestioned.

Atheists don't believe in "nothing," as you say. They believe there is no mystical figure in the sky who can hear the voices in our heads and then somehow affect change in the real world. Atheists fully believe in the beauty of the world and universe for what it is. Think of the millions of species of animals, the plants everywhere, the evolution of creatures, think of the laws of physics, think of all the molecules and atoms that make up everything...

There's a truly rich and rewarding universe out there, should one choose to accept science and rational logic over the fairytales of the Bible.

Perhaps I'm being unfairly biased towards Christianity since that's what I've grown up around; however, the same examination and criticisms pertain to any other religion as well.

[Remiel]

There are many kinds of belief that would fall under atheism yet would seem just as silly as belief in divinity does to you, for most of the same reasons.

You characterized agnostics as being weak I believe, but I tell you that by your narrow definition only nihilists can be strong.

Appreciating the universe does not equal belief about its nature. Rationality and logic are fluid things, imossible to pin down. They do not equate to truth. Thus, belief in them for themselves is equally " silly " to believing in the divine.

Also, you can choose how you view the Bible. Some believe in the " fairy tales " but it would be religiously dumb to dismiss it as worthless without examing some of the values espoused therein on their own merits, just as you would any other philosophical text. You can appreciate Jesus for being a great man without thinking of him as being of divine blood.

Anyway, I don't really want to go in depth with my own beliefs here, where all the crazy nuts can disrupt a good debate. Suffice to say I am not really a follower of any established faith, and many not even any established school of thought.

[Electric Monk]

There are many kinds of belief that would fall under atheism yet would seem just as silly as belief in divinity does to you, for most of the same reasons.

I'm not sure how that follows, atheism is a disbelief in the existence of deity, it really only deals with the one subject. Any other beliefs may be related, but don't fall within the scope of atheism. Do you have any examples?

[Remiel]

Someone who believes in karma, or something like it. Or for someone who believes that for every evil there is a good, and every good their is an evil. Like ying-yang dualism or something. People who don't believe in a deity per se, but still believe in some neutral "supernatural" forces.

[myata]

Can beliefs be discussed from rational and logical perspective? It kind of defeats the purpose.

[Electric Monk]

Someone who believes in karma, or something like it. Or for someone who believes that for every evil there is a good, and every good their is an evil. Like ying-yang dualism or something. People who don't believe in a deity per se, but still believe in some neutral "supernatural" forces.

Those don't fit, I may be an atheist who believes my dog can pick the best performing stocks, but that doesn't make canine-stock-picking a subset of atheism. Atheism can co-exist with any belief except belief in a deity.