I am seeing Neil deGrasse Tyson speak tonight

[Gunkata]

Only when I saw militant atheist was mentioned haha and you can't deny there are some dogmatic atheists who are no different from religious fundos when it comes to shoving their views down others' throats.

Just because you have a lack of belief in a deity doesn't mean you're immune from extreme dogmatic fanaticism either.

That being said though, I feel for people like Damon Fowler in Louisiana though. I would stand up for his defence any day of the week.

They are "militant" against having other's beliefs shoved down their throat. Just as a religious priest or person can write a book explaining what they do believe, so can those guys, but at the same time they don't shove anything down anyone's throats, they simply explain their position and argument against the arguments and positions of those held for over 2,000 years.

To me, it sounds like you've never even listened to these guys. And yes Dawkins can get carried away and harsh, which I attribute the last few years to his aging, lol. The "dogma" is to think for yourself. The "dogma", is to not cling to an imaginery diety because you cannot explain things (also stated by NDT last night), or rely on the bible to explain the earth to you, and so on. If that's dogma, I guess we need to re-evaluate the meaning of that word and also look into what "truth", "facts", and "free-thinking" mean.

Maybe you should get an idea of what these guys actually do believe in:

Not having religion shoved down their throats

Thinking for yourself

Equal rights for all

Avoiding wars / terrorism

that's really about it^. But since you don't like to hear that they don't believe in your fairy sky god , that makes you upset, and that's part of the problem.

 

[Gunkata]

If Neil Degrasse Tyson truly was an atheist, then he would say. What's he have to hide? I can guarantee that 80% of his fans are atheists. Most religious people are going to ignore him anyways. Look at Richard Dawkins.

He spoke at my alma mater, which is a christian private school, lol.

Why wouldn't he say?? um.. to not lose money??? if labeled an atheist, you automatically lose customers/fans, etc, right? think about it.

Same reason I bet you half of those in office don't believe in god, they are just smart enough not to tell anyone that.

 

[DUBPL8]

They are "militant" against having other's beliefs shoved down their throat. Just a religious priest or person can write a book explaining what they do believe, so can those guys, but at the same time they don't shove anything down anyone's throats, they simply explain their position and argument against the arguments and positions of those held for over 2,000 years.

To me, it sounds like you've never even listened to these guys. And yes Dawkins can get carried away and harsh, which I attribute the last few years to his aging, lol. The "dogma" is to think for yourself. The "dogma", is to not cling to a imaginery diety because you cannot explain things (also stated by NDT last night), or rely on the bible to explain the earth to you, and so on. If that's dogma, I guess we need to re-evaluate the meaning of the world and also look into what "truth", "facts", and "free-thinking" mean.

Maybe you should get an idea of what these guys actually do believe in:

Not having religion shoved down their throats

Thinking for yourself

Equal rights for all

Avoiding wars / terrorism

that's really about it^. But since you don't like to hear that they don't believe in your fairy sky god , that makes you upset, and that's part of the problem.

Except Christopher Hitchens was a blind supporter of the Bush administration and supported waterboarding until he experienced it himself. Sam Harris himself supported the war in Iraq as well, they are part of the "New Atheists" that are neoconservative in their view and thinking.

Even in spite of Christopher Hitchens' support for the Bush administration, I still had a soft spot for him because he was one of the few who stood up for the Bosnians being massacred by the Serbs while the rest of the world looked blindly and called out former Sec. of State Henry Kissinger as a war criminal (although I vehemently disagreed with him on Mother Teresa though).

Their views on foreign policy are available out in the open if you're interested. They're not all about avoiding wars if they were cheerleading the Bush administration's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That is why I consider them "militant".

 

[Gunkata]

Except Christopher Hitchens was a blind supporter of the Bush administration and supported waterboarding until he experienced it himself. Sam Harris himself supported the war in Iraq as well, they are part of the "New Atheists" that are neoconservative in their view and thinking.

Even in spite of Christopher Hitchens' support for the Bush administration, I still had a soft spot for him because he was one of the few who stood up for the Bosnians being massacred by the Serbs while the rest of the world looked blindly and called out former Sec. of State Henry Kissinger as a war criminal.

Their views on foreign policy are available out in the open if you're interested. They're not all about avoiding wars if they were cheerleading the Bush administration's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm well aware of Hitchens and his leanings there. Their support for those wars / conflicts was to stop evil and bad things from being done. Where religion for thousands of years has purposely killed people based on the slightest differences in belief and due to persecution of others - that information is also available out there if you're interested

Harris is big against fundamentalist Islam that spurs terrorism, yes. Hence one of his initial books.

While I didn't agree with their stances on the wars, I saw their viewpoint and understood it. A problem with people like you and others in this country that remain so polarized on issues, its amazing people are still getting married these days - you don't have to agree with someone 100% on every thing they say and believe.


The fact that you could only respond to that small tidbit of the information above, really shows me a lot as well...

 

[Shini]

If Neil Degrasse Tyson truly was an atheist, then he would say. What's he have to hide? I can guarantee that 80% of his fans are atheists. Most religious people are going to ignore him anyways. Look at Richard Dawkins.

I agree. I'm probably more so an atheist than anything, but label myself agnostic because you just never know. There's not 100% damnable evidence as to how this place we all cohabitate in came to be. So I don't think Tyson is trying to protect his investments, religious people already don't like him BECUASE he isn't religious, he's got nothing else to lose.

The way I view it all, is there isn't strong proof for either case, but evolution, and etc is a lot easier to swallow than jebus had magic powers.

A universe coming into existance from nothing is also hard to swallow, which is why I keep my mind open to being agnostic since there could be a higher power at work here. It's unlikely yes, but not as unlikely as the stories the religions tell.

Tyson is just being logical imo.

To me, it sounds like you've never even listened to these guys. And yes Dawkins can get carried away and harsh, which I attribute the last few years to his aging, lol. The "dogma" is to think for yourself. The "dogma", is to not cling to an imaginery diety because you cannot explain things (also stated by NDT last night), or rely on the bible to explain the earth to you, and so on. If that's dogma, I guess we need to re-evaluate the meaning of that word and also look into what "truth", "facts", and "free-thinking" mean.

Maybe you should get an idea of what these guys actually do believe in:

Not having religion shoved down their throats

Thinking for yourself

Equal rights for all

Avoiding wars / terrorism

that's really about it^. But since you don't like to hear that they don't believe in your fairy sky god , that makes you upset, and that's part of the problem.

#winning

 

[DUBPL8]

I'm well aware of Hitchens and his leanings there. Their support for those wars / conflicts was to stop evil and bad things from being done. Where religion for thousands of years has purposely killed people based on the slightest differences in belief and due to persecution of others - that information is also available out there if you're interested

But Stalin, Lenin and Mao have killed plenty in spite of religion so all this proves in the end that humanity is at fault and flawed to begin with.

Harris is big against fundamentalist Islam that spurs terrorism, yes. Hence one of his initial books.

I saw a debate break out the other day between him and Glenn Greenwald, don't know if you managed to catch that.

Funny how Harris doesn't say anything about the recent Western ventures to arm Syrian rebels in a bid to overthrow yet another secular leader in the region. Deja vu all over again.

While I didn't agree with their stances on the wars, I saw their viewpoint and understood it. A problem with people like you and others in this country that remain so polarized on issues, its amazing people are still getting married these days - you don't have to agree with someone 100% on every thing they say and believe.

And yet they still supported overthrowing a secular leader to place a religious government that is sectarian in their outlook and has brought more misery than before.

The fact that you could only respond to that small tidbit of the information above, really shows me a lot as well...

That's because I usually avoid topics like this because it's fruitless and quite frankly, I'm burned out on it.

Besides, the atheists I am a fan of consist mainly of Tariq Ali, Johann Hari, and Glenn Greenwald, to name a few.

I still despise people like George Galloway, however, for being an opportunistic hypocrite.

 

[Gunkata]

To clarify, I do not know for certain if there is a higher power out there, but do not believe in the Christian and other gods that are believed in on our planet. If there is a higher power, I believe we know nothing of it - at this time.

That said, I am antitheist, as I said above - I do not believe in the gods that we call gods here, nor the books written on/about them, and the shared ideas passed from one to the next - that is the biggest factor for me as far as saying, "wait a minute here... so islam is also based on the first testament, and so these other guys over here want to kill these people over there, even though they believe basically the same thing?" that's fucked up.

 

[Gunkata]

But Stalin, Lenin and Mao have killed plenty in spite of religion so all this proves in the end that humanity is at fault and flawed to begin with.


haha, I love this one ^ did you get that from church or your parents? :lol:

Because someone does not believe in god, that does not mean or dictate whether they are a good person or what morals they have. Same as to someone who believes in god, can also be a bad person, yes? cmon dude... further, if religion was true, where was it to stop those monsters as well? your "point" fails on several levels, other than that yes, humanity is flawed, just like any species.

I saw a debate break out the other day between him and Glenn Greenwald, don't know if you managed to catch that.

Nope, don't know who that is.

Funny how Harris doesn't say anything about the recent Western ventures to arm Syrian rebels in a bid to overthrow yet another secular leader in the region. Deja vu all over again.


Well, did you check his website or blog? could be on there, he opines on many situations.

And yet they still supported overthrowing a secular leader to place a religious government that is sectarian in their outlook and has brought more misery than before.

Are you talking about Iraq here?

That's because I usually avoid topics like this because it's fruitless and quite frankly, I'm burned out on it.

Yep, then maybe you shouldn't have brought it up , and more so with some weak-ass arguments...

Besides, the atheists I am a fan of consist mainly of Tariq Ali, Johann Hari, and Glenn Greenwald, to name a few.

OK, great.

I still despise people like George Galloway, however, for being an opportunistic hypocrite.

ok.

 

[Shini]

To clarify, I do not know for certain if there is a higher power out there, but do not believe in the Christian and other gods that are believe on our planet. If there is a higher power, I believe we know nothing of it - at this time.

That said, I am antitheist, as I said above - I do not believe in the gods that we call gods here, nor the books written on/about them, and the shared ideas passed from one to the next - that is the biggest factor for me as far as saying, "wait a minute here... so islam is also based on the first testament, and so these other guys over here want to kill these people over there, even though they believe basically the same thing?" that's fucked up.

That's a good way to put it.



ANNNNNNNND this is what got me thinking "religion is retarded" when I was kid. There's so many different stories out there, and it causes stupid shit that you just outlined to happen.

 

[DUBPL8]

haha, I love this one ^ did you get that from church or your parents?

Actually, Professor Juan Cole of Informed Comment also made the same argument as well:

Hitchens blames religion for virtually all social conflict, which is weird. In his book, he blames religion for the guerrilla war in the 1980s-1990s between the Tamil Tigers and the Sri Lankan government. But while it is true that Tamils are Hindus and the government represents the Theravadin Buddhist Sinhalese, it is also true that the Tamil Tigers were a secular, Marxist organization that hardly acted in the name of Siva! In this debate he blamed the violence attending the break-up of Yugoslavia on religion, whereas almost nobody involved was actually religious. Serbs, Bosnians and Croats speak virtually the same language, and the only difference among them is that Serbs have an Eastern Orthodox heritage, Bosnians a Muslim one and Croats a Catholic one. But these are latent markers of identity in today’s southern Balkans, functioning to create a vague ethnicity. Slobodan Milosevic was a nationalist entrepreneur who thought there was power to be had by whipping up a Serbian chauvinism. But really, religion was irrelevant except as a stage prop.

And, Hitchens does not have a good response to the enormity of the evil done by secular leaders such as Stalin or Mao. While the death tolls often attributed to Stalin were inflated by the Cold War (you can’t actually blame him for slaughters of Russians committed by the Nazis), he probably was responsible for 10 million deaths. Mao’s Great Leap Forward was implicated in a famine that killed 3 million, not to mention all the lives and livelihoods destroyed in the Cultural Revolution. Yet both Stalin and Mao were resolutely secular individuals who actively combated religion and religious belief. (Stalin sent the Komsomol debaters to Uzbekistan to argue the Muslims there out of their faith, in which they appear to have had a good deal of success). So the argument that religion causes people to become fanatical and to harm large numbers of others could be countered by an argument that secular people have also exhibited large-scale bloody-mindedness. My guess is that the secular killed far more people in the 20th century than did the religious.

Because someone does not believe in god, that does not mean or dictate whether they are a good person or what morals they have. Same as to someone who believes in god, can also be a bad person, yes? cmon dude... further, if religion was true, where was it to stop those monsters as well? your "point" fails on several levels, other than that yes, humanity is flawed, just like any species.

I agree, I never said having religion makes one more moral than others.

Men will do evil in the name of real and imaginary causes, however. To blame religion solely while ignoring other causes represents a failure to acknowledge our flaws.

Nope, don't know who that is.

He's a constitutional lawyer who writes for The Guardian's CommentIsFree section. He's just as critical of Obama as he is with the Bush administration.

Well, did you check his website or blog? could be on there, he opines on many situations.

I have, and yet to find any references.

Are you talking about Iraq here?

Yup, and history is repeating itself in Syria. I wouldn't mind them if they weren't such hypocritical neoconservatives to begin with.

Yep, then maybe you shouldn't have brought it up , and more so with some weak-ass arguments...

When they themselves support wars while claiming to be against them, they deserve to be criticized fairly. Don't you agree?

OK, great.

You might want to check out Tariq Ali though, he's an interesting chap.

 

[Gunkata]

yes, they deserve criticism for supporting those wars, which they got. Hitchens has plenty of free shit on ItunesU where he is confronted about that and reacts heatedly on it, of course.

I only blame religion solely where it was solely to blame.. you've heard of the Crusades right? you know what terrorists fight in the name of, right?

Again, you crawled into this throwing feces and taking things to the extreme. Just because someone is an atheist or agnostic, does not mean they take things to the extreme with / against others, solely because they do not believe in God, etc.

 

[DUBPL8]

yes, they deserve criticism for supporting those wars, which they got. Hitchens has plenty of free shit on ItunesU where he is confronted about that and reacts heatedly on it, of course.

Hitchens was also harshly criticized for his brutal criticism of Mother Teresa. I'm sorry but that is off limits IMO.

I only blame religion solely where it was solely to blame.. you've heard of the Crusades right? you know what terrorists fight in the name of, right?

And what about the conquest of power? Surely not everything was about religion ya know, even the Crusades (since the Roman Catholic Church saw the Eastern Orthodox Church as a threat to their status quo). You can't tell me that a thirst for power is strictly a religious trait either.

Again, you crawled into this throwing feces and taking things to the extreme. Just because someone is an atheist or agnostic, does not mean they take things to the extreme with / against others, solely because they do not believe in God, etc.

Incorrect, all I mentioned was the presence of certain militant atheists who are in reality not much different from the religious fanatics they abhor.

Hence why I said militant atheist, not atheist solely.

So chill bro lol you're preaching to the choir, I never said being either or is a penchant for taking it to the extreme.

 

[Gunkata]

Hitchens was also harshly criticized for his brutal criticism of Mother Teresa. I'm sorry but that is off limits IMO.

No one is off limits if there is something to be critized for. I have yet to read his book on her, so I can't comment via an informed basis on the same. His debate with Al Sharpton is quite good, and also free on ItunesU


And what about the conquest of power? Surely not everything was about religion ya know, even the Crusades (since the Roman Catholic Church saw the Eastern Orthodox Church as a threat to their status quo). You can't tell me that a thirst for power is strictly a religious trait either.

Um, one church vs another church isn't based on religion - wut? No, you're right, power thirst is not strictly religious, but many times it can be fueled by it.

Incorrect, all I mentioned was the presence of certain militant atheists who are in reality not much different from the religious fanatics they abhor.

In some aspects, I agree. But that's not where you started, iirc.


Hence why I said militant atheist, not atheist solely.

OK

So chill bro lol you're preaching to the choir, I never said being either or is a penchant for taking it to the extreme.

OK....

 

[flomaa6]

I really didnt know who Tyson was until I saw this post last night then after I looked up a up some Info and videos, really interesting

 

[Gunkata]

its funny.. a person who tries to shove religion down your throat or convert you etc, is what - militant? yet a person who speaks out against that is also, militant? just thinking outloud again.. as usual, double standards abound.