Secular Aggression

[Fool]

If we only focus on what we can readily observe, doesn't that exclude the potential for future revelation? And does proving something make it more comfortable for those who fear the unknown and how to manage their lives?

Without imagining, there would be no discovery of colorless gases. No discovering viruses, or microscopic particles, et al.

That only seeing outwardly is believing.

 

[icehorse]

It seems to me that the thread's title is the opposite of the OP?

Can you clarify who you think is being aggressive?

 

[Fool]

It seems to me that the thread's title is the opposite of the OP?

Can you clarify who you think is being aggressive?

evangelical atheists.


that only seeing/observing externally is believing and that believing, or belief, is of no value.. reverse engineering vs engineering.

 

[icehorse]

evangelical atheists.

Okay, so your claim is that atheists are being aggressive, presumably against the religious? And if I'm understanding you correctly, your claim is that it's the religious who are the champions of discovery?

I just want to make sure I'm understanding your claims...

 

[Fool]

Okay, so your claim is that atheists are being aggressive, presumably against the religious? And if I'm understanding you correctly, your claim is that it's the religious who are the champions of discovery?

I just want to make sure I'm understanding your claims...

no i'm saying polarities tend to act very much the same; although they claim otherwise. like the difference between asceticism and hedonism, there is a middle ground.

 

[icehorse]

no i'm say polarities tend to act very much the same; although they claim otherwise. like the difference between asceticism and hedonism, there is a middle ground.

I'm still struggling, sorry. So you're claiming that there are extremely aggressive atheists who are similar to religious fundamentalists? If so, can you give an example of aggressive atheism?

 

[Fool]

I'm still struggling, sorry. So you're claiming that there are extremely aggressive atheists who are similar to religious fundamentalists? If so, can you give an example of aggressive atheism?

yes, you know them as communist china, and some other suppresive regimes like like north korea.

Officially, China’s Communist Party believes in atheism, but it makes an exception for two religions

North Korea: The World's Worst Religious Persecutor | The Huffington Post

Repressive, atheist North Korea has a surprising relationship with Christian missionaries

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If we only focus on what we can readily observe, doesn't that exclude the potential for future revelation?

No.

Without imagining, there would be no discovery of colorless gases. No discovering viruses, or microscopic particles, et al.

You don't have to discard imagination to be rational.

That only seeing outwardly is believing.

What does any of this have to do with secularism?

 

[columbus]

yes, you know them as communist china, and some other suppresive regimes like like north korea.

Those people seem pretty religious to me, what with their prophet Marx and high priest Stalin and such.

But they still don't impact my life as much as the Christians and Muslims and such. Who behave very much like the communists you are referring to as "atheists".
I am a nontheist and I don't share much ideology with communists.
Tom

 

[Fool]

What does any of this have to do with secularism?

insight and innate doesn't come apart from self, neither does nature

 

[Fool]

Those people seem pretty religious to me, what with their prophet Marx and high priest Stalin and such.

But they still don't impact my life as much as the Christians and Muslims and such. Who behave very much like the communists you are referring to as "atheists".
I am a nontheist and I don't share much ideology with communists.
Tom

extremism has two diametrically opposing ends. they look a lot different but they tend to act a lot alike. otherwise they would have no diametrically opposite to oppose.

 

[columbus]

extremism has two diametrically opposing ends. they look a lot different but they tend to act a lot alike. otherwise they would have no diametrically opposite to oppose.

The difference being, of course, the billions of religious people who run governments and persecute people with impunity.
As opposed to the 617 "evangelizing atheists" who post Youtube videos you don't like.

Tom

 

[ImmortalFlame]

insight and innate doesn't come apart from self, neither does nature

That doesn't even come to answering my question, and doesn't even make sense.

 

[LuisDantas]

evangelical atheists.


that only seeing/observing externally is believing and that believing, or belief, is of no value.. reverse engineering vs engineering.

"Evangelical"?

Boy, are you confused about atheism.

Atheism is about as nonconsequential a stance as they come. Even the idea of "New" atheism is in essence a lie for ratings purposes - one that has no connection to reality.

I have no idea of what you are complaining about, probably because it is all fictional.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

If we only focus on what we can readily observe, doesn't that exclude the potential for future revelation? And does proving something make it more comfortable for those who fear the unknown and how to manage their lives?

Without imagining, there would be no discovery of colorless gases. No discovering viruses, or microscopic particles, et al.

That only seeing outwardly is believing.

1) Not all atheists are skeptics or naturalists.

2) No, empirical thought is about what we can observe and rational thought is purely conceptual.

3) A better idea is to stop fearing the unknown. It is highly unlikely that anyone will ever know everything.

4) Atheists have imaginations and use them. Are you saying there are no atheist artist, musicians, writers, game designers, film directors, etc?

5) Yes there would be discoveries of these things, their effects are directly observable.

6) You mentioned nothing to do with secularism.

 

[Valjean]

Debunking religious claims online or in print is aggression?

It's the religious who have an agenda. Its they who are invested in a particular dogma based lifestyle. Facts undermining their fundamental doctrines are threatening, both to their social agenda and ego-identity. They may even perceive these as aggressive, rather than defensive or explanatory.
In the US this results in a great deal of defensiveness and claims of persecution. Elsewhere it becomes violent and repressive.

 

[Fool]

Debunking religious claims online or in print is aggression?

It's the religious who have an agenda. Its they who are invested in a particular dogma based lifestyle. Facts undermining their fundamental doctrines are threatening, both to their social agenda and ego-identity. They may even perceive these as aggressive, rather than defensive or explanatory.
In the US this results in a great deal of defensiveness and claims of persecution. Elsewhere it becomes violent and repressive.

everyone has an agenda, some are more self serving that others.

 

[Fool]

"Evangelical"?

Boy, are you confused about atheism.

Atheism is about as nonconsequential a stance as they come. Even the idea of "New" atheism is in essence a lie for ratings purposes - one that has no connection to reality.

I have no idea of what you are complaining about, probably because it is all fictional.

i'm not complaining. i'm looking at actions and two sides of the same coin.

 

[LuisDantas]

everyone has an agenda, some are more self serving that others.

Yeah, that is the point.

 

[LuisDantas]

i'm not complaining. i'm looking at actions and two sides of the same coin.

Then I fear that you are indeed confused. There is no "coin" there.