Speculate as you may on attachments I may have - I'm fine in
your confidence. I think it's marvelous that you found your
confidence. Others have their confidences. The difference
between you and I, is I don't mind that each continue to have
their confidences as they choose. But I don't like one
confidence attacking another confidence as _my_ confidence is
that the world can become a better place through tolerance of
confidences. I _also_ don't like leaders taking advantage of
confidences and utilizing them for their own ends. This is a
problem in many realms. -- If I saw a group of radical Pagans
attacking a lone atheist in a forum, I would defend the lone
atheist. If I saw a Fundamentalist Christian attacking "all of
atheism" I would defend atheism from what I know of its history
as a movement and correct errors as I see them. As the dominant
social force on the Internet seems to be atheism at present, I
find myself in this position. There's no more dangerous force
than one who feels they are the underdog but isn't. Their biting
is more fierce. I'm working to calm the dogs down and find ways
there can be cooperation. -- Yes, I've heard this view of
history before. Some of it seems to be from your own research
and experience, which I greatly appreciate, and some of it I've
heard elsewhere from atheist apologetics efforts in the past. My
view of Nazism? It's Nazism. There has been NOTHING like it
before or since. People continually attach the groups they don't
like to Nazism or Hitler. Godwin's Law applies here. Do *I*
consider Nazism as atheistic? No, I don't. Is it portrayed as
atheistic regimes along with China, Soviet Russia and others as
those who killed many? Yes it has and continues to. Some
historians say this, and some say that. But Nazism is Nazism.
The Soviet regime was the Soviet regime, etc. I give the same
leeway to other territorial disputes and grabs of power from
EVERY point of history. It's too simplistic to blame it all on
religion. Too many other factors involved and it's a lousy,
oversimplified viewpoint of historical facts. Would I go so far
as to say "ahistorical"? Not necessarily ahistorical per se, but
very lopsided and missing far too much data to be a reliable
conclusion. -- I live on the Internet. I watch trends. I notice
the things people talk about. I notice subcultures when they
form. It's my hobby. Have I seen people accosted online to
accept religion? No. Does it happen online? Perhaps it does
somewhere and I just haven't seen it. I'm not saying you're a
part of a cult, Ahmad and yes, I was being dramatic for affect.
However, you would disagree that the existence of memes,
discussion groups, large numbers of like-minded people with the
same opinions online doesn't speak to "something"? -- I can't
help people who are not online. I'm not there. But I am here. I
see cyber-bulling that leads to cutting and worse. I see people
being "rationally debated" by thugs behind screen names acting
in the Name of Reason and Logic to Admit something. That is bad
human behavior. That's not rational debate or discussion. It is
a problem online and it will spread. The influx of GenZ on the
scene exposed to this kind of behavior being acceptable is
changing society as we speak. It's not the atheism. It's the
zealotry and the meangirl groups that form everywhere. It
doesn't matter to me WHO is doing it or what they stand for, or
astand for. It's bad behavior whoever is doing it for whatever
reason. -- I'm not saying atheists are lost. I also wasn't
agreeing that atheism and nazism go hand in hand. That's a poor
view of history. You can link together Hitler and the
religion-of-your-choice Ahmad - that view of history might be
correct. I don't know. But for me, Nazism stands alone without
compare in the constructed societies of the world. -- because of
[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law - I can't take
comparisons of [x] to Nazi/Hitler seriously. -- You might be
surprised to learn that many religions are also anti-religion.
That's because they don't consider their religion a religion but
the simple truth. I'll be happy to provide numerous examples,
but I suspect each of them say it in their own way. -- It is one
of the reasons why I put atheism on the bookshelf next to other
religions in the same category. Says similar things about
themselves in the same ways, behaves towards those NOT of their
group in the same ways. -- Ok, so you've head it before
yourself. When I was involved in Eastern Orthodoxy (Christian)
they also said the same thing. Then again, I heard the same
thing from my Science teacher about science. "It's not just a
method - it's a way to look at the world with clarity". Same
idea. Pick one. You picked atheism. I picked agnosticism. -- Now
I believe has stated that he picked scientism. I could be wrong
and I apologize if I am. The point is: It's hard for me to NOT
see these various "ways to view with clarity" as not so
different from each other fundamentally. Those who agree with
each group join in with other like minded people and talk about
how nobody else 'gets it' quite right. -- The thing is, Ahmad,
as more and more people become atheist (or simply let their
attachment to false beliefs go... which, by the way, is the same
kind of wording used in religions... just saying)... I see
nothing special about atheism vs anything else that gives it any
special bonus against mass human atrocities or even minor ones.
Let's imagine a planet of no religion. Ok. What now? Will
fighting cease? People grabbing for power? People fighting other
people over differences of opinion? People forming subgroups
fighting against other subgroups? I see no reason that wouldn't
continue happening as it always has. The problem is people.
Period. Maybe a nice DNA resequencing can remove the unwanted
characteristics from humanity and then we'll be at peace. But I
doubt that will happen. and *apologize. I don't like labeling
and just went by what I thought I saw and that was wrong of me
to do so. ---- The system most compatible with my way of seeing
things would be agnosticism and most of humanism... although not
all of humanism, but the general flavor of it I'm good with and
I'm a complete fan of the sciences when they're done right.. but
hypercritical of the scientific community BECAUSE we depend on
them so much. They need to be watched very carefully because of
the trust we place in them. --
References
Visible links
1.
https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FGodwin%2527s_Law&h=AAQFkeSPx
