Total Posts:55|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Militant Atheism rally at Ft. Bragg

Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 6:33:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I realize many here on this forum would like to silence the discussion on militant atheism. (Same as the Muslims want to ignore extremists within their ranks.)

They claim there is no such thing.
Here is a news article citing a rally being promoted with destructive imagery and music. Specifically burning churches and hateful musical lyrics.
This is an anti-religion rally held at ft. Bragg.

http://radio.foxnews.com...

The program promoters claim "they would have to review the lyrics" and such.

I am not saying that every atheist is militant but here is a militant group that is just obviously problematic. I will clearly assent that the majority of atheists here on this website are intellectual atheists and not emotional ones.

It is the emotional atheists that bear the most troublesome aspects.

Is this proof enough that militants exist and they are supporting an anti-religion rally? What kind of proof is required to affirm that militant atheists exist?

Perhaps these are really communists hiding as atheists?

Thoughts?
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 7:01:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/27/2012 6:33:11 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I realize many here on this forum would like to silence the discussion on militant atheism. (Same as the Muslims want to ignore extremists within their ranks.)

They claim there is no such thing.
Here is a news article citing a rally being promoted with destructive imagery and music. Specifically burning churches and hateful musical lyrics.
This is an anti-religion rally held at ft. Bragg.

http://radio.foxnews.com...

The program promoters claim "they would have to review the lyrics" and such.

I am not saying that every atheist is militant but here is a militant group that is just obviously problematic. I will clearly assent that the majority of atheists here on this website are intellectual atheists and not emotional ones.

It is the emotional atheists that bear the most troublesome aspects.

Is this proof enough that militants exist and they are supporting an anti-religion rally? What kind of proof is required to affirm that militant atheists exist?

Perhaps these are really communists hiding as atheists?

Thoughts?

A couple of things.

First, the song that contains the burning of churches is not even going to be performed at the event; "Griffith said that [Hysteria] would not be performed at the festival, but defended the video of burning churches."

The event actually contains "atheist speakers, a rapper who raps about evolution and a "kiddy pool" where boys and girls will be able to scientifically walk on water", along with several bands.

Secondly, your ignoring the fact that a distinction exists between being vigorously outspoken and being violent. For example, you seem to be implying that the burning of churches in that video is literally asking people to go out and burn churches; it's not. It's symbolizing the act of denouncing and rejecting religion for what it is.

When an atheist group literally goes out and starts murdering Christians and torching Churches, then you would have a case that vigorously outspoken anti-theism is 'problematic'.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 7:08:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/27/2012 6:33:11 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I realize many here on this forum would like to silence the discussion on militant atheism. (Same as the Muslims want to ignore extremists within their ranks.)

They claim there is no such thing.
Here is a news article citing a rally being promoted with destructive imagery and music. Specifically burning churches and hateful musical lyrics.
This is an anti-religion rally held at ft. Bragg.

http://radio.foxnews.com...

The program promoters claim "they would have to review the lyrics" and such.

I am not saying that every atheist is militant but here is a militant group that is just obviously problematic. I will clearly assent that the majority of atheists here on this website are intellectual atheists and not emotional ones.

It is the emotional atheists that bear the most troublesome aspects.

Is this proof enough that militants exist and they are supporting an anti-religion rally? What kind of proof is required to affirm that militant atheists exist?

Perhaps these are really communists hiding as atheists?

Thoughts?

There's militant barbie doll fans if you look hard enough.

This was organized specifically in response to an evangelical rally held here. It wasn't a spontaneous burst of atheist energy. It's reactionary. None of the offensive songs will be played at the concert. You can buy these guy's stuff at WalMart.

Why is it that none of the offensive lyrics will be played at the festival if it's so anti-religious?
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 7:21:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/27/2012 7:08:32 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/27/2012 6:33:11 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I realize many here on this forum would like to silence the discussion on militant atheism. (Same as the Muslims want to ignore extremists within their ranks.)

They claim there is no such thing.
Here is a news article citing a rally being promoted with destructive imagery and music. Specifically burning churches and hateful musical lyrics.
This is an anti-religion rally held at ft. Bragg.

http://radio.foxnews.com...

The program promoters claim "they would have to review the lyrics" and such.

I am not saying that every atheist is militant but here is a militant group that is just obviously problematic. I will clearly assent that the majority of atheists here on this website are intellectual atheists and not emotional ones.

It is the emotional atheists that bear the most troublesome aspects.

Is this proof enough that militants exist and they are supporting an anti-religion rally? What kind of proof is required to affirm that militant atheists exist?

Perhaps these are really communists hiding as atheists?

Thoughts?

There's militant barbie doll fans if you look hard enough.

This was organized specifically in response to an evangelical rally held here. It wasn't a spontaneous burst of atheist energy. It's reactionary. None of the offensive songs will be played at the concert. You can buy these guy's stuff at WalMart.

Why is it that none of the offensive lyrics will be played at the festival if it's so anti-religious?

So the existence of the militant atheistic band, the sales and support of the band, the band being used to promote the rally.... indicates militant atheism is non existent? or as you put it on the level of militant barbie fans?

Militant atheism =/= militant barbie fans.

I cannot believe that came out of your... typing.
That is called an inconsistent comparison fallacy. It denies the broader context of reality, the rally itself, the promotional video used for the rally and I could go on.

Good luck in denying reality. I will leave you to it.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 7:37:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/27/2012 7:21:50 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/27/2012 7:08:32 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/27/2012 6:33:11 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I realize many here on this forum would like to silence the discussion on militant atheism. (Same as the Muslims want to ignore extremists within their ranks.)

They claim there is no such thing.
Here is a news article citing a rally being promoted with destructive imagery and music. Specifically burning churches and hateful musical lyrics.
This is an anti-religion rally held at ft. Bragg.

http://radio.foxnews.com...

The program promoters claim "they would have to review the lyrics" and such.

I am not saying that every atheist is militant but here is a militant group that is just obviously problematic. I will clearly assent that the majority of atheists here on this website are intellectual atheists and not emotional ones.

It is the emotional atheists that bear the most troublesome aspects.

Is this proof enough that militants exist and they are supporting an anti-religion rally? What kind of proof is required to affirm that militant atheists exist?

Perhaps these are really communists hiding as atheists?

Thoughts?

There's militant barbie doll fans if you look hard enough.

This was organized specifically in response to an evangelical rally held here. It wasn't a spontaneous burst of atheist energy. It's reactionary. None of the offensive songs will be played at the concert. You can buy these guy's stuff at WalMart.

Why is it that none of the offensive lyrics will be played at the festival if it's so anti-religious?

So the existence of the militant atheistic band, the sales and support of the band, the band being used to promote the rally.... indicates militant atheism is non existent? or as you put it on the level of militant barbie fans?

Militant atheism =/= militant barbie fans.

I cannot believe that came out of your... typing.
That is called an inconsistent comparison fallacy. It denies the broader context of reality, the rally itself, the promotional video used for the rally and I could go on.

Good luck in denying reality. I will leave you to it.

What do you mean by non-existent?

I'm sure there's a bunch of atheists who rabidly spit venom whenever they hear the word "religion."

But they're organization is not much more different than many obsessive cultures. Even the Neo-nazis and KKK derivatives are more organized and populated than groups of internet/socially connected "militant atheists."

Evangelical domination in the military is an exponentially worse problem than the occasional secular festival.

Just a few instances:

Soldiers punished for not going to church
"Spiritual fitness" component of solider fitness training where ability is judged on religiosity
Soldiers punished for not going to Christian concerts
http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org...

For example, The Office's Christian Fellowship is a group of officers numbering in multiple thousands. They have chapters on every one of the 737 US military installation in 132 countries. Their express purpose is "we want Christian officers exercising biblical leadership to raise up a godly army"..... their 3 specific goals are to (1) to create a "spiritually transformed U.S. Military; (2) with ambassadors for Christ in uniform; (3) empowered by the Holy Spirit. They push their bible studies on their subordinates, and one of their key bible studies expresses its goal as "not to allow the opposition, all of which is spearhead by Satan, to prevent us or thwart us from regaining territory for Jesus Christ in the US military."
http://progressive.stanford.edu...

So yeah, I wouldn't lose too much sleep over militant atheism.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 7:40:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/27/2012 7:21:50 PM, Gileandos wrote:
So the existence of the militant atheistic band, the sales and support of the band, the band being used to promote the rally.... indicates militant atheism is non existent? or as you put it on the level of militant barbie fans?

No, the existance of an atheist band, and the sales and support of the band, and the band being used to promote the rally... Indicates that Atheism exists.

There are bands centered around the concept of Christianity. its no surprise there would be one centered around atheism.

Militant atheism =/= militant barbie fans.
It is, if you are claiming that what makes an atheist militant, is the fact that he is outspoken about his disbelief.
I cannot believe that came out of your... typing.
That is called an inconsistent comparison fallacy. It denies the broader context of reality, the rally itself, the promotional video used for the rally and I could go on.

So the rally is promoting burning churches? Seriously?
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 7:54:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/27/2012 7:37:21 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/27/2012 7:21:50 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/27/2012 7:08:32 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/27/2012 6:33:11 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I realize many here on this forum would like to silence the discussion on militant atheism. (Same as the Muslims want to ignore extremists within their ranks.)

They claim there is no such thing.
Here is a news article citing a rally being promoted with destructive imagery and music. Specifically burning churches and hateful musical lyrics.
This is an anti-religion rally held at ft. Bragg.

http://radio.foxnews.com...

The program promoters claim "they would have to review the lyrics" and such.

I am not saying that every atheist is militant but here is a militant group that is just obviously problematic. I will clearly assent that the majority of atheists here on this website are intellectual atheists and not emotional ones.

It is the emotional atheists that bear the most troublesome aspects.

Is this proof enough that militants exist and they are supporting an anti-religion rally? What kind of proof is required to affirm that militant atheists exist?

Perhaps these are really communists hiding as atheists?

Thoughts?

There's militant barbie doll fans if you look hard enough.

This was organized specifically in response to an evangelical rally held here. It wasn't a spontaneous burst of atheist energy. It's reactionary. None of the offensive songs will be played at the concert. You can buy these guy's stuff at WalMart.

Why is it that none of the offensive lyrics will be played at the festival if it's so anti-religious?

So the existence of the militant atheistic band, the sales and support of the band, the band being used to promote the rally.... indicates militant atheism is non existent? or as you put it on the level of militant barbie fans?

Militant atheism =/= militant barbie fans.

I cannot believe that came out of your... typing.
That is called an inconsistent comparison fallacy. It denies the broader context of reality, the rally itself, the promotional video used for the rally and I could go on.

Good luck in denying reality. I will leave you to it.

What do you mean by non-existent?

I'm sure there's a bunch of atheists who rabidly spit venom whenever they hear the word "religion."

But they're organization is not much more different than many obsessive cultures. Even the Neo-nazis and KKK derivatives are more organized and populated than groups of internet/socially connected "militant atheists."

Evangelical domination in the military is an exponentially worse problem than the occasional secular festival.

Just a few instances:

Soldiers punished for not going to church
"Spiritual fitness" component of solider fitness training where ability is judged on religiosity
Soldiers punished for not going to Christian concerts
http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org...

For example, The Office's Christian Fellowship is a group of officers numbering in multiple thousands. They have chapters on every one of the 737 US military installation in 132 countries. Their express purpose is "we want Christian officers exercising biblical leadership to raise up a godly army"..... their 3 specific goals are to (1) to create a "spiritually transformed U.S. Military; (2) with ambassadors for Christ in uniform; (3) empowered by the Holy Spirit. They push their bible studies on their subordinates, and one of their key bible studies expresses its goal as "not to allow the opposition, all of which is spearhead by Satan, to prevent us or thwart us from regaining territory for Jesus Christ in the US military."
http://progressive.stanford.edu...

So yeah, I wouldn't lose too much sleep over militant atheism.

That presupposes that religion is a 'problem'. That is an improper classification.

Rampant objective morality within the military = one of those 'good' problems to have.
Just like me having to manage 10 accounts with 100,000 in each of them. Oh the hassle!

I do not know how 'organized' militant atheism is in America.
However, I do know that because you have not attended a militant atheist labeled meeting =/= non existent.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 7:56:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/27/2012 7:21:50 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/27/2012 7:08:32 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/27/2012 6:33:11 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I realize many here on this forum would like to silence the discussion on militant atheism. (Same as the Muslims want to ignore extremists within their ranks.)

They claim there is no such thing.
Here is a news article citing a rally being promoted with destructive imagery and music. Specifically burning churches and hateful musical lyrics.
This is an anti-religion rally held at ft. Bragg.

http://radio.foxnews.com...

The program promoters claim "they would have to review the lyrics" and such.

I am not saying that every atheist is militant but here is a militant group that is just obviously problematic. I will clearly assent that the majority of atheists here on this website are intellectual atheists and not emotional ones.

It is the emotional atheists that bear the most troublesome aspects.

Is this proof enough that militants exist and they are supporting an anti-religion rally? What kind of proof is required to affirm that militant atheists exist?

Perhaps these are really communists hiding as atheists?

Thoughts?

There's militant barbie doll fans if you look hard enough.

This was organized specifically in response to an evangelical rally held here. It wasn't a spontaneous burst of atheist energy. It's reactionary. None of the offensive songs will be played at the concert. You can buy these guy's stuff at WalMart.

Why is it that none of the offensive lyrics will be played at the festival if it's so anti-religious?

So the existence of the militant atheistic band, the sales and support of the band, the band being used to promote the rally.... indicates militant atheism is non existent? or as you put it on the level of militant barbie fans?

Militant atheism =/= militant barbie fans.

I cannot believe that came out of your... typing.
That is called an inconsistent comparison fallacy. It denies the broader context of reality, the rally itself, the promotional video used for the rally and I could go on.

Good luck in denying reality. I will leave you to it.

And that's called the argumentum ad fallacia, or an argumentum ad vercundium (argument to authority, sorry if my latin is rusty) - You seem to simply say "fallacy!" as if it is a perfect shield to your argument. Try saying it's a false comparison then WHY. "It denies the broader context of reality" isn't helpful either. Give something more specific, e.g. is it the kiddy pool bit?
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 8:01:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If you don't believe that there is such a thing as violent militant atheists, you haven't looked into some of these church burning metal musicians in Scandinavia.

No seriously, why even care? Why does the atheist fall into the trap of accepting the label and group that goes along with it? Wearing the atheist label like a badge of pride is counterproductive. You guys are turning into the gay pride parade. Do you think that most homosexuals like the stereotypes that an event like that perpetuates?

Damn, maybe I don't know what I'm talking about. Nevermind, have fun in your little atheist club meeting. Everyone wants to feel like they belong to something, right? God bless America!

Fuggin dipshyts.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 8:02:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/27/2012 7:40:01 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 1/27/2012 7:21:50 PM, Gileandos wrote:
So the existence of the militant atheistic band, the sales and support of the band, the band being used to promote the rally.... indicates militant atheism is non existent? or as you put it on the level of militant barbie fans?

No, the existance of an atheist band, and the sales and support of the band, and the band being used to promote the rally... Indicates that Atheism exists.

Ah I see so you believe burning churches is just an atheist problem. Got it. So all atheists by your definition are militant. That would explain alot.


There are bands centered around the concept of Christianity. its no surprise there would be one centered around atheism.

Hmm. My Jesus...My Shepherd. Yep! Your right same concept! Have you ever heard of an inconsistent comparison fallacy?


Militant atheism =/= militant barbie fans.
It is, if you are claiming that what makes an atheist militant, is the fact that he is outspoken about his disbelief.
I cannot believe that came out of your... typing.
That is called an inconsistent comparison fallacy. It denies the broader context of reality, the rally itself, the promotional video used for the rally and I could go on.

So the rally is promoting burning churches? Seriously?

And if Christians played videos with Atheists being pitchforked you would have no problem?
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 8:03:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/27/2012 7:54:35 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/27/2012 7:37:21 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/27/2012 7:21:50 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/27/2012 7:08:32 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/27/2012 6:33:11 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I realize many here on this forum would like to silence the discussion on militant atheism. (Same as the Muslims want to ignore extremists within their ranks.)

They claim there is no such thing.
Here is a news article citing a rally being promoted with destructive imagery and music. Specifically burning churches and hateful musical lyrics.
This is an anti-religion rally held at ft. Bragg.

http://radio.foxnews.com...

The program promoters claim "they would have to review the lyrics" and such.

I am not saying that every atheist is militant but here is a militant group that is just obviously problematic. I will clearly assent that the majority of atheists here on this website are intellectual atheists and not emotional ones.

It is the emotional atheists that bear the most troublesome aspects.

Is this proof enough that militants exist and they are supporting an anti-religion rally? What kind of proof is required to affirm that militant atheists exist?

Perhaps these are really communists hiding as atheists?

Thoughts?

There's militant barbie doll fans if you look hard enough.

This was organized specifically in response to an evangelical rally held here. It wasn't a spontaneous burst of atheist energy. It's reactionary. None of the offensive songs will be played at the concert. You can buy these guy's stuff at WalMart.

Why is it that none of the offensive lyrics will be played at the festival if it's so anti-religious?

So the existence of the militant atheistic band, the sales and support of the band, the band being used to promote the rally.... indicates militant atheism is non existent? or as you put it on the level of militant barbie fans?

Militant atheism =/= militant barbie fans.

I cannot believe that came out of your... typing.
That is called an inconsistent comparison fallacy. It denies the broader context of reality, the rally itself, the promotional video used for the rally and I could go on.

Good luck in denying reality. I will leave you to it.

What do you mean by non-existent?

I'm sure there's a bunch of atheists who rabidly spit venom whenever they hear the word "religion."

But they're organization is not much more different than many obsessive cultures. Even the Neo-nazis and KKK derivatives are more organized and populated than groups of internet/socially connected "militant atheists."

Evangelical domination in the military is an exponentially worse problem than the occasional secular festival.

Just a few instances:

Soldiers punished for not going to church
"Spiritual fitness" component of solider fitness training where ability is judged on religiosity
Soldiers punished for not going to Christian concerts
http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org...

For example, The Office's Christian Fellowship is a group of officers numbering in multiple thousands. They have chapters on every one of the 737 US military installation in 132 countries. Their express purpose is "we want Christian officers exercising biblical leadership to raise up a godly army"..... their 3 specific goals are to (1) to create a "spiritually transformed U.S. Military; (2) with ambassadors for Christ in uniform; (3) empowered by the Holy Spirit. They push their bible studies on their subordinates, and one of their key bible studies expresses its goal as "not to allow the opposition, all of which is spearhead by Satan, to prevent us or thwart us from regaining territory for Jesus Christ in the US military."
http://progressive.stanford.edu...

So yeah, I wouldn't lose too much sleep over militant atheism.

That presupposes that religion is a 'problem'. That is an improper classification.

Rampant objective morality within the military = one of those 'good' problems to have.
Just like me having to manage 10 accounts with 100,000 in each of them. Oh the hassle!

I do not know how 'organized' militant atheism is in America.
However, I do know that because you have not attended a militant atheist labeled meeting =/= non existent.

And your posts presuppose that militant atheism would be a problem.

You're ignoring the fact that a distinction exists between being vigorously outspoken and being violent. For example, you seem to be implying that the burning of churches in that video is literally asking people to go out and burn churches; it's not. It's symbolizing the act of denouncing and rejecting religion for what it is.

When an atheist group literally goes out and starts murdering Christians and torching Churches, then you would have a case that vigorously outspoken anti-theism is 'problematic'.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 8:05:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/27/2012 7:54:35 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/27/2012 7:37:21 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/27/2012 7:21:50 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/27/2012 7:08:32 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/27/2012 6:33:11 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I realize many here on this forum would like to silence the discussion on militant atheism. (Same as the Muslims want to ignore extremists within their ranks.)

They claim there is no such thing.
Here is a news article citing a rally being promoted with destructive imagery and music. Specifically burning churches and hateful musical lyrics.
This is an anti-religion rally held at ft. Bragg.

http://radio.foxnews.com...

The program promoters claim "they would have to review the lyrics" and such.

I am not saying that every atheist is militant but here is a militant group that is just obviously problematic. I will clearly assent that the majority of atheists here on this website are intellectual atheists and not emotional ones.

It is the emotional atheists that bear the most troublesome aspects.

Is this proof enough that militants exist and they are supporting an anti-religion rally? What kind of proof is required to affirm that militant atheists exist?

Perhaps these are really communists hiding as atheists?

Thoughts?

There's militant barbie doll fans if you look hard enough.

This was organized specifically in response to an evangelical rally held here. It wasn't a spontaneous burst of atheist energy. It's reactionary. None of the offensive songs will be played at the concert. You can buy these guy's stuff at WalMart.

Why is it that none of the offensive lyrics will be played at the festival if it's so anti-religious?

So the existence of the militant atheistic band, the sales and support of the band, the band being used to promote the rally.... indicates militant atheism is non existent? or as you put it on the level of militant barbie fans?

Militant atheism =/= militant barbie fans.

I cannot believe that came out of your... typing.
That is called an inconsistent comparison fallacy. It denies the broader context of reality, the rally itself, the promotional video used for the rally and I could go on.

Good luck in denying reality. I will leave you to it.

What do you mean by non-existent?

I'm sure there's a bunch of atheists who rabidly spit venom whenever they hear the word "religion."

But they're organization is not much more different than many obsessive cultures. Even the Neo-nazis and KKK derivatives are more organized and populated than groups of internet/socially connected "militant atheists."

Evangelical domination in the military is an exponentially worse problem than the occasional secular festival.

Just a few instances:

Soldiers punished for not going to church
"Spiritual fitness" component of solider fitness training where ability is judged on religiosity
Soldiers punished for not going to Christian concerts
http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org...

For example, The Office's Christian Fellowship is a group of officers numbering in multiple thousands. They have chapters on every one of the 737 US military installation in 132 countries. Their express purpose is "we want Christian officers exercising biblical leadership to raise up a godly army"..... their 3 specific goals are to (1) to create a "spiritually transformed U.S. Military; (2) with ambassadors for Christ in uniform; (3) empowered by the Holy Spirit. They push their bible studies on their subordinates, and one of their key bible studies expresses its goal as "not to allow the opposition, all of which is spearhead by Satan, to prevent us or thwart us from regaining territory for Jesus Christ in the US military."
http://progressive.stanford.edu...

So yeah, I wouldn't lose too much sleep over militant atheism.

That presupposes that religion is a 'problem'. That is an improper classification.

Rampant objective morality within the military = one of those 'good' problems to have.
Just like me having to manage 10 accounts with 100,000 in each of them. Oh the hassle!

I do not know how 'organized' militant atheism is in America.
However, I do know that because you have not attended a militant atheist labeled meeting =/= non existent.

Really? Because being punished for not engaging in the religious practices of another religions doesn't strike you as a problem for members of the US military?

You see NO problem with having the US military testing someone based on religiosity? (here's a hint: the constitution has something to say about this).

This is dominionist christianity is sh!tting on the constitution, not Christian faith. The organization (MRFF) I mentioned represents over 11,000 service members, and 96% of them are NOT atheists. That means protestants, catholics, Mormons, Jews, Muslims, etc. Most major church organizations support this same org.

The problem isn't religion versus atheism. It's evangelical dominionism forcing their beliefs onto others and punishing them if there is non-compliance.

These are our troops. You have no problem with non-Evangelicals being persecuted by their own officers?
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 8:09:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/27/2012 7:56:59 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 1/27/2012 7:21:50 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/27/2012 7:08:32 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/27/2012 6:33:11 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I realize many here on this forum would like to silence the discussion on militant atheism. (Same as the Muslims want to ignore extremists within their ranks.)

They claim there is no such thing.
Here is a news article citing a rally being promoted with destructive imagery and music. Specifically burning churches and hateful musical lyrics.
This is an anti-religion rally held at ft. Bragg.

http://radio.foxnews.com...

The program promoters claim "they would have to review the lyrics" and such.

I am not saying that every atheist is militant but here is a militant group that is just obviously problematic. I will clearly assent that the majority of atheists here on this website are intellectual atheists and not emotional ones.

It is the emotional atheists that bear the most troublesome aspects.

Is this proof enough that militants exist and they are supporting an anti-religion rally? What kind of proof is required to affirm that militant atheists exist?

Perhaps these are really communists hiding as atheists?

Thoughts?

There's militant barbie doll fans if you look hard enough.

This was organized specifically in response to an evangelical rally held here. It wasn't a spontaneous burst of atheist energy. It's reactionary. None of the offensive songs will be played at the concert. You can buy these guy's stuff at WalMart.

Why is it that none of the offensive lyrics will be played at the festival if it's so anti-religious?

So the existence of the militant atheistic band, the sales and support of the band, the band being used to promote the rally.... indicates militant atheism is non existent? or as you put it on the level of militant barbie fans?

Militant atheism =/= militant barbie fans.

I cannot believe that came out of your... typing.
That is called an inconsistent comparison fallacy. It denies the broader context of reality, the rally itself, the promotional video used for the rally and I could go on.

Good luck in denying reality. I will leave you to it.

And that's called the argumentum ad fallacia, or an argumentum ad vercundium (argument to authority, sorry if my latin is rusty) - You seem to simply say "fallacy!" as if it is a perfect shield to your argument. Try saying it's a false comparison then WHY. "It denies the broader context of reality" isn't helpful either. Give something more specific, e.g. is it the kiddy pool bit?

Hmm. I cannot imagine why a militant barbie fan being compared to militant atheist would not be obviously a inconsistent comparison fallacy.

I will not bother.

The sentence containing the broader context of reality... followed within the sentence. You are the first person (in a while) to take someone out of context by not finishing the sentence.
Shall I quote the sentence?
"It denies the broader context of reality, the rally itself, the promotional video used for the rally and I could go on."
I believe winope is not an atheist that needs a history lesson on what attrocities atheism has committed.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 8:12:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/27/2012 8:03:53 PM, Physik wrote:
At 1/27/2012 7:54:35 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/27/2012 7:37:21 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/27/2012 7:21:50 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/27/2012 7:08:32 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/27/2012 6:33:11 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I realize many here on this forum would like to silence the discussion on militant atheism. (Same as the Muslims want to ignore extremists within their ranks.)

They claim there is no such thing.
Here is a news article citing a rally being promoted with destructive imagery and music. Specifically burning churches and hateful musical lyrics.
This is an anti-religion rally held at ft. Bragg.

http://radio.foxnews.com...

The program promoters claim "they would have to review the lyrics" and such.

I am not saying that every atheist is militant but here is a militant group that is just obviously problematic. I will clearly assent that the majority of atheists here on this website are intellectual atheists and not emotional ones.

It is the emotional atheists that bear the most troublesome aspects.

Is this proof enough that militants exist and they are supporting an anti-religion rally? What kind of proof is required to affirm that militant atheists exist?

Perhaps these are really communists hiding as atheists?

Thoughts?

There's militant barbie doll fans if you look hard enough.

This was organized specifically in response to an evangelical rally held here. It wasn't a spontaneous burst of atheist energy. It's reactionary. None of the offensive songs will be played at the concert. You can buy these guy's stuff at WalMart.

Why is it that none of the offensive lyrics will be played at the festival if it's so anti-religious?

So the existence of the militant atheistic band, the sales and support of the band, the band being used to promote the rally.... indicates militant atheism is non existent? or as you put it on the level of militant barbie fans?

Militant atheism =/= militant barbie fans.

I cannot believe that came out of your... typing.
That is called an inconsistent comparison fallacy. It denies the broader context of reality, the rally itself, the promotional video used for the rally and I could go on.

Good luck in denying reality. I will leave you to it.

What do you mean by non-existent?

I'm sure there's a bunch of atheists who rabidly spit venom whenever they hear the word "religion."

But they're organization is not much more different than many obsessive cultures. Even the Neo-nazis and KKK derivatives are more organized and populated than groups of internet/socially connected "militant atheists."

Evangelical domination in the military is an exponentially worse problem than the occasional secular festival.

Just a few instances:

Soldiers punished for not going to church
"Spiritual fitness" component of solider fitness training where ability is judged on religiosity
Soldiers punished for not going to Christian concerts
http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org...

For example, The Office's Christian Fellowship is a group of officers numbering in multiple thousands. They have chapters on every one of the 737 US military installation in 132 countries. Their express purpose is "we want Christian officers exercising biblical leadership to raise up a godly army"..... their 3 specific goals are to (1) to create a "spiritually transformed U.S. Military; (2) with ambassadors for Christ in uniform; (3) empowered by the Holy Spirit. They push their bible studies on their subordinates, and one of their key bible studies expresses its goal as "not to allow the opposition, all of which is spearhead by Satan, to prevent us or thwart us from regaining territory for Jesus Christ in the US military."
http://progressive.stanford.edu...

So yeah, I wouldn't lose too much sleep over militant atheism.

That presupposes that religion is a 'problem'. That is an improper classification.

Rampant objective morality within the military = one of those 'good' problems to have.
Just like me having to manage 10 accounts with 100,000 in each of them. Oh the hassle!

I do not know how 'organized' militant atheism is in America.
However, I do know that because you have not attended a militant atheist labeled meeting =/= non existent.

And your posts presuppose that militant atheism would be a problem.

Yep burning churches and countless millions murdered NOT a problem.
Hush.


You're ignoring the fact that a distinction exists between being vigorously outspoken and being violent. For example, you seem to be implying that the burning of churches in that video is literally asking people to go out and burn churches; it's not. It's symbolizing the act of denouncing and rejecting religion for what it is.

When an atheist group literally goes out and starts murdering Christians and torching Churches, then you would have a case that vigorously outspoken anti-theism is 'problematic'.

*facepalm
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 8:13:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/27/2012 8:09:35 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/27/2012 7:56:59 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 1/27/2012 7:21:50 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/27/2012 7:08:32 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/27/2012 6:33:11 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I realize many here on this forum would like to silence the discussion on militant atheism. (Same as the Muslims want to ignore extremists within their ranks.)

They claim there is no such thing.
Here is a news article citing a rally being promoted with destructive imagery and music. Specifically burning churches and hateful musical lyrics.
This is an anti-religion rally held at ft. Bragg.

http://radio.foxnews.com...

The program promoters claim "they would have to review the lyrics" and such.

I am not saying that every atheist is militant but here is a militant group that is just obviously problematic. I will clearly assent that the majority of atheists here on this website are intellectual atheists and not emotional ones.

It is the emotional atheists that bear the most troublesome aspects.

Is this proof enough that militants exist and they are supporting an anti-religion rally? What kind of proof is required to affirm that militant atheists exist?

Perhaps these are really communists hiding as atheists?

Thoughts?

There's militant barbie doll fans if you look hard enough.

This was organized specifically in response to an evangelical rally held here. It wasn't a spontaneous burst of atheist energy. It's reactionary. None of the offensive songs will be played at the concert. You can buy these guy's stuff at WalMart.

Why is it that none of the offensive lyrics will be played at the festival if it's so anti-religious?

So the existence of the militant atheistic band, the sales and support of the band, the band being used to promote the rally.... indicates militant atheism is non existent? or as you put it on the level of militant barbie fans?

Militant atheism =/= militant barbie fans.

I cannot believe that came out of your... typing.
That is called an inconsistent comparison fallacy. It denies the broader context of reality, the rally itself, the promotional video used for the rally and I could go on.

Good luck in denying reality. I will leave you to it.

And that's called the argumentum ad fallacia, or an argumentum ad vercundium (argument to authority, sorry if my latin is rusty) - You seem to simply say "fallacy!" as if it is a perfect shield to your argument. Try saying it's a false comparison then WHY. "It denies the broader context of reality" isn't helpful either. Give something more specific, e.g. is it the kiddy pool bit?

Hmm. I cannot imagine why a militant barbie fan being compared to militant atheist would not be obviously a inconsistent comparison fallacy.

I will not bother.

It's an apt comparison, as neither advocate violence (such as burning Churches, for example.

The sentence containing the broader context of reality... followed within the sentence. You are the first person (in a while) to take someone out of context by not finishing the sentence.
Shall I quote the sentence?
"It denies the broader context of reality, the rally itself, the promotional video used for the rally and I could go on."
I believe winope is not an atheist that needs a history lesson on what attrocities atheism has committed.

I'm going to laugh if you try and blame the atrocities of Stalin, Mao, etc on atheism.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 8:15:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago

There's militant barbie doll fans if you look hard enough.

This was organized specifically in response to an evangelical rally held here. It wasn't a spontaneous burst of atheist energy. It's reactionary. None of the offensive songs will be played at the concert. You can buy these guy's stuff at WalMart.

Why is it that none of the offensive lyrics will be played at the festival if it's so anti-religious?

So the existence of the militant atheistic band, the sales and support of the band, the band being used to promote the rally.... indicates militant atheism is non existent? or as you put it on the level of militant barbie fans?

Militant atheism =/= militant barbie fans.

I cannot believe that came out of your... typing.
That is called an inconsistent comparison fallacy. It denies the broader context of reality, the rally itself, the promotional video used for the rally and I could go on.

Good luck in denying reality. I will leave you to it.

What do you mean by non-existent?

I'm sure there's a bunch of atheists who rabidly spit venom whenever they hear the word "religion."

But they're organization is not much more different than many obsessive cultures. Even the Neo-nazis and KKK derivatives are more organized and populated than groups of internet/socially connected "militant atheists."

Evangelical domination in the military is an exponentially worse problem than the occasional secular festival.

Just a few instances:

Soldiers punished for not going to church
"Spiritual fitness" component of solider fitness training where ability is judged on religiosity
Soldiers punished for not going to Christian concerts
http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org...

For example, The Office's Christian Fellowship is a group of officers numbering in multiple thousands. They have chapters on every one of the 737 US military installation in 132 countries. Their express purpose is "we want Christian officers exercising biblical leadership to raise up a godly army"..... their 3 specific goals are to (1) to create a "spiritually transformed U.S. Military; (2) with ambassadors for Christ in uniform; (3) empowered by the Holy Spirit. They push their bible studies on their subordinates, and one of their key bible studies expresses its goal as "not to allow the opposition, all of which is spearhead by Satan, to prevent us or thwart us from regaining territory for Jesus Christ in the US military."
http://progressive.stanford.edu...

So yeah, I wouldn't lose too much sleep over militant atheism.

That presupposes that religion is a 'problem'. That is an improper classification.

Rampant objective morality within the military = one of those 'good' problems to have.
Just like me having to manage 10 accounts with 100,000 in each of them. Oh the hassle!

I do not know how 'organized' militant atheism is in America.
However, I do know that because you have not attended a militant atheist labeled meeting =/= non existent.

And your posts presuppose that militant atheism would be a problem.

Yep burning churches and countless millions murdered NOT a problem.
Hush.

Read what was quoted below.

You're ignoring the fact that a distinction exists between being vigorously outspoken and being violent. For example, you seem to be implying that the burning of churches in that video is literally asking people to go out and burn churches; it's not. It's symbolizing the act of denouncing and rejecting religion for what it is.

When an atheist group literally goes out and starts murdering Christians and torching Churches, then you would have a case that vigorously outspoken anti-theism is 'problematic'.

*facepalm

Care to expand?
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 8:16:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/27/2012 8:09:35 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/27/2012 7:56:59 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 1/27/2012 7:21:50 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/27/2012 7:08:32 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/27/2012 6:33:11 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I realize many here on this forum would like to silence the discussion on militant atheism. (Same as the Muslims want to ignore extremists within their ranks.)

They claim there is no such thing.
Here is a news article citing a rally being promoted with destructive imagery and music. Specifically burning churches and hateful musical lyrics.
This is an anti-religion rally held at ft. Bragg.

http://radio.foxnews.com...

The program promoters claim "they would have to review the lyrics" and such.

I am not saying that every atheist is militant but here is a militant group that is just obviously problematic. I will clearly assent that the majority of atheists here on this website are intellectual atheists and not emotional ones.

It is the emotional atheists that bear the most troublesome aspects.

Is this proof enough that militants exist and they are supporting an anti-religion rally? What kind of proof is required to affirm that militant atheists exist?

Perhaps these are really communists hiding as atheists?

Thoughts?

There's militant barbie doll fans if you look hard enough.

This was organized specifically in response to an evangelical rally held here. It wasn't a spontaneous burst of atheist energy. It's reactionary. None of the offensive songs will be played at the concert. You can buy these guy's stuff at WalMart.

Why is it that none of the offensive lyrics will be played at the festival if it's so anti-religious?

So the existence of the militant atheistic band, the sales and support of the band, the band being used to promote the rally.... indicates militant atheism is non existent? or as you put it on the level of militant barbie fans?

Militant atheism =/= militant barbie fans.

I cannot believe that came out of your... typing.
That is called an inconsistent comparison fallacy. It denies the broader context of reality, the rally itself, the promotional video used for the rally and I could go on.

Good luck in denying reality. I will leave you to it.

And that's called the argumentum ad fallacia, or an argumentum ad vercundium (argument to authority, sorry if my latin is rusty) - You seem to simply say "fallacy!" as if it is a perfect shield to your argument. Try saying it's a false comparison then WHY. "It denies the broader context of reality" isn't helpful either. Give something more specific, e.g. is it the kiddy pool bit?

Hmm. I cannot imagine why a militant barbie fan being compared to militant atheist would not be obviously a inconsistent comparison fallacy.

I will not bother.

The sentence containing the broader context of reality... followed within the sentence. You are the first person (in a while) to take someone out of context by not finishing the sentence.
Shall I quote the sentence?
"It denies the broader context of reality, the rally itself, the promotional video used for the rally and I could go on."
I believe winope is not an atheist that needs a history lesson on what attrocities atheism has committed.

It wouldn't just so happen that all of the atheists you are about to name happen to primarily be communist dictators from the 20th century, would they?

Because if you like I can count how many people have died at the hands of men with mustaches.

How about you point to an instance where a mass-killing took place and the chief purpose was atheistically (not Marxist) motivated aggression against Christianity.

My guess if you've just got a pocket list of Commies, maybe some left wing anarchists.

For instance, the PFLP is technically an atheistic organization since it is based on marxist-leninist principles. Their target is Israel, populated by Jews.

Would you claim the PFLP would be an example of atheism leading to terrorism?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 8:18:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/27/2012 8:16:40 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/27/2012 8:09:35 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/27/2012 7:56:59 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 1/27/2012 7:21:50 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/27/2012 7:08:32 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/27/2012 6:33:11 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I realize many here on this forum would like to silence the discussion on militant atheism. (Same as the Muslims want to ignore extremists within their ranks.)

They claim there is no such thing.
Here is a news article citing a rally being promoted with destructive imagery and music. Specifically burning churches and hateful musical lyrics.
This is an anti-religion rally held at ft. Bragg.

http://radio.foxnews.com...

The program promoters claim "they would have to review the lyrics" and such.

I am not saying that every atheist is militant but here is a militant group that is just obviously problematic. I will clearly assent that the majority of atheists here on this website are intellectual atheists and not emotional ones.

It is the emotional atheists that bear the most troublesome aspects.

Is this proof enough that militants exist and they are supporting an anti-religion rally? What kind of proof is required to affirm that militant atheists exist?

Perhaps these are really communists hiding as atheists?

Thoughts?

There's militant barbie doll fans if you look hard enough.

This was organized specifically in response to an evangelical rally held here. It wasn't a spontaneous burst of atheist energy. It's reactionary. None of the offensive songs will be played at the concert. You can buy these guy's stuff at WalMart.

Why is it that none of the offensive lyrics will be played at the festival if it's so anti-religious?

So the existence of the militant atheistic band, the sales and support of the band, the band being used to promote the rally.... indicates militant atheism is non existent? or as you put it on the level of militant barbie fans?

Militant atheism =/= militant barbie fans.

I cannot believe that came out of your... typing.
That is called an inconsistent comparison fallacy. It denies the broader context of reality, the rally itself, the promotional video used for the rally and I could go on.

Good luck in denying reality. I will leave you to it.

And that's called the argumentum ad fallacia, or an argumentum ad vercundium (argument to authority, sorry if my latin is rusty) - You seem to simply say "fallacy!" as if it is a perfect shield to your argument. Try saying it's a false comparison then WHY. "It denies the broader context of reality" isn't helpful either. Give something more specific, e.g. is it the kiddy pool bit?

Hmm. I cannot imagine why a militant barbie fan being compared to militant atheist would not be obviously a inconsistent comparison fallacy.

I will not bother.

The sentence containing the broader context of reality... followed within the sentence. You are the first person (in a while) to take someone out of context by not finishing the sentence.
Shall I quote the sentence?
"It denies the broader context of reality, the rally itself, the promotional video used for the rally and I could go on."
I believe winope is not an atheist that needs a history lesson on what attrocities atheism has committed.

It wouldn't just so happen that all of the atheists you are about to name happen to primarily be communist dictators from the 20th century, would they?

Because if you like I can count how many people have died at the hands of men with mustaches.

How about you point to an instance where a mass-killing took place and the chief purpose was atheistically (not Marxist) motivated aggression against Christianity.

My guess if you've just got a pocket list of Commies, maybe some left wing anarchists.

For instance, the PFLP is technically an atheistic organization since it is based on marxist-leninist principles. Their target is Israel, populated by Jews.

Would you claim the PFLP would be an example of atheism leading to terrorism?

To the extent atheism is responsible for the PFLP, Christianity is responsible for the KKK.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 8:21:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/27/2012 8:05:41 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/27/2012 7:54:35 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/27/2012 7:37:21 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/27/2012 7:21:50 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/27/2012 7:08:32 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/27/2012 6:33:11 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I realize many here on this forum would like to silence the discussion on militant atheism. (Same as the Muslims want to ignore extremists within their ranks.)

They claim there is no such thing.
Here is a news article citing a rally being promoted with destructive imagery and music. Specifically burning churches and hateful musical lyrics.
This is an anti-religion rally held at ft. Bragg.

http://radio.foxnews.com...

The program promoters claim "they would have to review the lyrics" and such.

I am not saying that every atheist is militant but here is a militant group that is just obviously problematic. I will clearly assent that the majority of atheists here on this website are intellectual atheists and not emotional ones.

It is the emotional atheists that bear the most troublesome aspects.

Is this proof enough that militants exist and they are supporting an anti-religion rally? What kind of proof is required to affirm that militant atheists exist?

Perhaps these are really communists hiding as atheists?

Thoughts?

There's militant barbie doll fans if you look hard enough.

This was organized specifically in response to an evangelical rally held here. It wasn't a spontaneous burst of atheist energy. It's reactionary. None of the offensive songs will be played at the concert. You can buy these guy's stuff at WalMart.

Why is it that none of the offensive lyrics will be played at the festival if it's so anti-religious?

So the existence of the militant atheistic band, the sales and support of the band, the band being used to promote the rally.... indicates militant atheism is non existent? or as you put it on the level of militant barbie fans?

Militant atheism =/= militant barbie fans.

I cannot believe that came out of your... typing.
That is called an inconsistent comparison fallacy. It denies the broader context of reality, the rally itself, the promotional video used for the rally and I could go on.

Good luck in denying reality. I will leave you to it.

What do you mean by non-existent?

I'm sure there's a bunch of atheists who rabidly spit venom whenever they hear the word "religion."

But they're organization is not much more different than many obsessive cultures. Even the Neo-nazis and KKK derivatives are more organized and populated than groups of internet/socially connected "militant atheists."

Evangelical domination in the military is an exponentially worse problem than the occasional secular festival.

Just a few instances:

Soldiers punished for not going to church
"Spiritual fitness" component of solider fitness training where ability is judged on religiosity
Soldiers punished for not going to Christian concerts
http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org...

For example, The Office's Christian Fellowship is a group of officers numbering in multiple thousands. They have chapters on every one of the 737 US military installation in 132 countries. Their express purpose is "we want Christian officers exercising biblical leadership to raise up a godly army"..... their 3 specific goals are to (1) to create a "spiritually transformed U.S. Military; (2) with ambassadors for Christ in uniform; (3) empowered by the Holy Spirit. They push their bible studies on their subordinates, and one of their key bible studies expresses its goal as "not to allow the opposition, all of which is spearhead by Satan, to prevent us or thwart us from regaining territory for Jesus Christ in the US military."
http://progressive.stanford.edu...

So yeah, I wouldn't lose too much sleep over militant atheism.

That presupposes that religion is a 'problem'. That is an improper classification.

Rampant objective morality within the military = one of those 'good' problems to have.
Just like me having to manage 10 accounts with 100,000 in each of them. Oh the hassle!

I do not know how 'organized' militant atheism is in America.
However, I do know that because you have not attended a militant atheist labeled meeting =/= non existent.

Really? Because being punished for not engaging in the religious practices of another religions doesn't strike you as a problem for members of the US military?

Demanding our military to submit to an objective form of virtuous ethics training =/= a problem.
Soldiers who are not trained in ethics will cause major international issues. Do I need to mention the recent news article involving dead Taliban soldiers?

Or the Vietnam rape and butchery trials?


You see NO problem with having the US military testing someone based on religiosity? (here's a hint: the constitution has something to say about this).

We discussed this before, that is an amendment TO the constitution. I have no problem wiping that off the record. A virtuous worldview should be promoted to the determent of worldviews that promote vice.


This is dominionist christianity is sh!tting on the constitution, not Christian faith. The organization (MRFF) I mentioned represents over 11,000 service members, and 96% of them are NOT atheists. That means protestants, catholics, Mormons, Jews, Muslims, etc. Most major church organizations support this same org.

Sure, that just happened to support the rally with videos of burning churches. How much longer will those non Christians align themselves with such an organization?


The problem isn't religion versus atheism. It's evangelical dominionism forcing their beliefs onto others and punishing them if there is non-compliance.

These are our troops. You have no problem with non-Evangelicals being persecuted by their own officers?

As stated above, Objective Virtuous ethics training for our soldiers =/= a problem.
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 8:23:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
When an atheist group literally goes out and starts murdering Christians and torching Churches, then you would have a case that vigorously outspoken anti-theism is 'problematic'.

*facepalm

Care to expand?

In hindsight, that was poorly worded. Should read:

When an atheist group literally goes out and starts murdering Christians and torching Churches in the name of atheism, then you would have a case that vigorously outspoken anti-theism is 'problematic'.

Or.

When an atheist group literally goes out and starts murdering Christians and torching Churches as endorsed by atheism, then you would have a case that vigorously outspoken anti-theism is 'problematic'.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 8:26:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Sure, that just happened to support the rally with videos of burning churches. How much longer will those non Christians align themselves with such an organization?

For clarity, because I honestly can't believe you would be proposing this;

Are you attempting to put forward that the video in question is literally encouraging people to go out and burn churches, or that it is purely symbolic?
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 8:29:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Love how they burn your synagogues
Love how they torch your holy books

The key word is "they". As the "militant atheist" Christopher Hitchens put it. "I leave it,to the faithful to burn each other's churches and mosques and synagogues, which they can always be relied upon to do. When I go to the mosque, I take off my shoes. When I go to the synagogue, I cover my head. I once even observed the etiquette of an ashram in India, though this was a trial to me."

This is song about taking pleasure in the ultimate demise of an institution that supported "outright genocide" in the case of the fascist regimes and that holds "outright criminals safe" in the case of the pedophile scandals. This is a justified response to religion's crimes against humanity.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 8:39:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Definition of MILITANT
1
engaged in warfare or combat : fighting
2
aggressively active (as in a cause) : combative <militant conservationists>

Some people don't like religion very much and are willing to say so. You simply don't like this fact of life. Rhetoric becomes combative in public discourse all the time in a free country. It's only when the discourse is about religion do people point the finger and say "militant".

I heard Glenn Beck literally screaming on the radio the other day about liberals. I've never heard him called "militant". Possibly because words like "insane" and "demagogic" are simply more apt.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 8:58:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/27/2012 8:39:15 PM, vbaculum wrote:
Definition of MILITANT
1
engaged in warfare or combat : fighting
2
aggressively active (as in a cause) : combative <militant conservationists>

Some people don't like religion very much and are willing to say so. You simply don't like this fact of life. Rhetoric becomes combative in public discourse all the time in a free country. It's only when the discourse is about religion do people point the finger and say "militant".

I heard Glenn Beck literally screaming on the radio the other day about liberals. I've never heard him called "militant". Possibly because words like "insane" and "demagogic" are simply more apt.

I believe Glenn Beck was discussing the originations of the militants marxists and such.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

This would be groups like Bill Ayers and the above people.
They transitioned their mantra but are still alive and thriving.

I did not watch Glenn Beck often but watched the episodes you are referring to. He was on at an inconvenient timeframe.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 9:02:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/27/2012 8:29:18 PM, vbaculum wrote:
Love how they burn your synagogues
Love how they torch your holy books

The key word is "they". As the "militant atheist" Christopher Hitchens put it. "I leave it,to the faithful to burn each other's churches and mosques and synagogues, which they can always be relied upon to do. When I go to the mosque, I take off my shoes. When I go to the synagogue, I cover my head. I once even observed the etiquette of an ashram in India, though this was a trial to me."

This is song about taking pleasure in the ultimate demise of an institution that supported "outright genocide" in the case of the fascist regimes and that holds "outright criminals safe" in the case of the pedophile scandals. This is a justified response to religion's crimes against humanity.

Given that Church burnings in America and in western Europe are directly attributed to such heavy metal groups, I doubt the veracity of your above proposal.

A similar phrase does not mean these groups do not exist, teach and advocate such a concept.

I was waiting for one of the atheists to fess up. Cosmic was the one who brought it up though. My esteem for him has gone up a few notches.
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 9:14:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Given that Church burnings in America and in western Europe are directly attributed to such heavy metal groups, I doubt the veracity of your above proposal.

A similar phrase does not mean these groups do not exist, teach and advocate such a concept.

I was waiting for one of the atheists to fess up. Cosmic was the one who brought it up though. My esteem for him has gone up a few notches.

I'm going to get a direct answer out of you;

Are you attempting to put forward that the video in question is literally encouraging people to go out and burn churches, or that it is purely symbolic?
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 9:35:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/27/2012 8:58:30 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/27/2012 8:39:15 PM, vbaculum wrote:
Definition of MILITANT
1
engaged in warfare or combat : fighting
2
aggressively active (as in a cause) : combative <militant conservationists>

Some people don't like religion very much and are willing to say so. You simply don't like this fact of life. Rhetoric becomes combative in public discourse all the time in a free country. It's only when the discourse is about religion do people point the finger and say "militant".

I heard Glenn Beck literally screaming on the radio the other day about liberals. I've never heard him called "militant". Possibly because words like "insane" and "demagogic" are simply more apt.

I believe Glenn Beck was discussing the originations of the militants marxists and such.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

This would be groups like Bill Ayers and the above people.
They transitioned their mantra but are still alive and thriving.

I did not watch Glenn Beck often but watched the episodes you are referring to. He was on at an inconvenient timeframe.

Actually, I happened upon his radio show. We're talking about two separate psychotic episodes.

Anyway, my point was that the rules of discourse are altered when religion is involved. At least, we've gotten to the point where you can express skepticism about a religious claim without being burned alive or put to death in some other fashion (at least in Western countries). However, there are remnants of this restriction on freedom of speech. Faith claims get a special ride in our discourse.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 9:41:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/27/2012 9:35:02 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 1/27/2012 8:58:30 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/27/2012 8:39:15 PM, vbaculum wrote:
Definition of MILITANT
1
engaged in warfare or combat : fighting
2
aggressively active (as in a cause) : combative <militant conservationists>

Some people don't like religion very much and are willing to say so. You simply don't like this fact of life. Rhetoric becomes combative in public discourse all the time in a free country. It's only when the discourse is about religion do people point the finger and say "militant".

I heard Glenn Beck literally screaming on the radio the other day about liberals. I've never heard him called "militant". Possibly because words like "insane" and "demagogic" are simply more apt.

I believe Glenn Beck was discussing the originations of the militants marxists and such.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

This would be groups like Bill Ayers and the above people.
They transitioned their mantra but are still alive and thriving.

I did not watch Glenn Beck often but watched the episodes you are referring to. He was on at an inconvenient timeframe.

Actually, I happened upon his radio show. We're talking about two separate psychotic episodes.

Anyway, my point was that the rules of discourse are altered when religion is involved. At least, we've gotten to the point where you can express skepticism about a religious claim without being burned alive or put to death in some other fashion (at least in Western countries). However, there are remnants of this restriction on freedom of speech. Faith claims get a special ride in our discourse.

And to attack faith claims gets a special form of censure not meted out when attacking other types of claims.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 9:57:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/27/2012 9:41:17 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 1/27/2012 9:35:02 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 1/27/2012 8:58:30 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/27/2012 8:39:15 PM, vbaculum wrote:
Definition of MILITANT
1
engaged in warfare or combat : fighting
2
aggressively active (as in a cause) : combative <militant conservationists>

Some people don't like religion very much and are willing to say so. You simply don't like this fact of life. Rhetoric becomes combative in public discourse all the time in a free country. It's only when the discourse is about religion do people point the finger and say "militant".

I heard Glenn Beck literally screaming on the radio the other day about liberals. I've never heard him called "militant". Possibly because words like "insane" and "demagogic" are simply more apt.

I believe Glenn Beck was discussing the originations of the militants marxists and such.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

This would be groups like Bill Ayers and the above people.
They transitioned their mantra but are still alive and thriving.

I did not watch Glenn Beck often but watched the episodes you are referring to. He was on at an inconvenient timeframe.

Actually, I happened upon his radio show. We're talking about two separate psychotic episodes.

Anyway, my point was that the rules of discourse are altered when religion is involved. At least, we've gotten to the point where you can express skepticism about a religious claim without being burned alive or put to death in some other fashion (at least in Western countries). However, there are remnants of this restriction on freedom of speech. Faith claims get a special ride in our discourse.

And to attack faith claims gets a special form of censure not meted out when attacking other types of claims.

If I may suggest, as I tend to do all claims are not equal. Most will not conflate all claims to merit the same 'handling'.

All claims are not equal and they should all be appropriately handled.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2012 11:38:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/27/2012 9:57:35 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/27/2012 9:41:17 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 1/27/2012 9:35:02 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 1/27/2012 8:58:30 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/27/2012 8:39:15 PM, vbaculum wrote:
Definition of MILITANT
1
engaged in warfare or combat : fighting
2
aggressively active (as in a cause) : combative <militant conservationists>

Some people don't like religion very much and are willing to say so. You simply don't like this fact of life. Rhetoric becomes combative in public discourse all the time in a free country. It's only when the discourse is about religion do people point the finger and say "militant".

I heard Glenn Beck literally screaming on the radio the other day about liberals. I've never heard him called "militant". Possibly because words like "insane" and "demagogic" are simply more apt.

I believe Glenn Beck was discussing the originations of the militants marxists and such.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

This would be groups like Bill Ayers and the above people.
They transitioned their mantra but are still alive and thriving.

I did not watch Glenn Beck often but watched the episodes you are referring to. He was on at an inconvenient timeframe.

Actually, I happened upon his radio show. We're talking about two separate psychotic episodes.

Anyway, my point was that the rules of discourse are altered when religion is involved. At least, we've gotten to the point where you can express skepticism about a religious claim without being burned alive or put to death in some other fashion (at least in Western countries). However, there are remnants of this restriction on freedom of speech. Faith claims get a special ride in our discourse.

And to attack faith claims gets a special form of censure not meted out when attacking other types of claims.

If I may suggest, as I tend to do all claims are not equal. Most will not conflate all claims to merit the same 'handling'.

All claims are not equal and they should all be appropriately handled.

Watcha drinking? :)
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it