The 4 horseman :Atheist Agenda

[Mr. Miyagi]

Yes it does.

Edit: its verbatim to there words " shake people out of there faith"

That's not the assertion you made in your OP, and is quite different from "seeking the complete destruction of all faiths". Which we both know full well was never stated as a goal during that video. What you've done here is commonly refered to by football fans as "moving the goal posts".

[+Sherapy]

I find its the Athiests who are the strongest opponents against the various faiths, seeking like those in the posted videos to purposly undermine and "convert" to there thinking by attacking, rather than being accepting of others beliefs. There is a reasonably decent and accepting relationship amongst most organised faiths these days at the highest level, Im not of the opinion any one faith as a whole desires the complete abolishment of the others, yet I see western secular society at its highest level purposely and actively seeking the complete distruction of all faiths/ organised religion/belief in a higher being..the stripping away of societys fabric , the very agenda of those in the videos and of others I've noticed.

As an Atheist, I do not see this as happening and I am not invested or interested in this happening.

[+Sherapy]

That's not the assertion you made in your OP, and is quite different from "seeking the complete destruction of all faiths". Which we both know full well was never stated as a goal during that video. What you've done here is commonly refered to by football fans as "moving the goal posts".

For me, I am thinking he is wanting to ask the atheists on um if they are invested in this outcome. Maybe?

Edited June 12, 2013 by Sherapy

[freetoroam]

Can Atheist triumph over the Religion, if so how?

Triumph how, by wiping out every religious person on this planet? are you mad? The religious people have been trying to do that to each other for centuries, if they have not succeeded and are still fighting each other, then I very much doubt the atheist have much of a chance...or would even want to.

Until a person (religious or not) is affected by others, then why try?

[Mr. Miyagi]

For me, I am thinking he is asking the atheists on um if they are invested in this outcome.

Maybe, I dunno. I'd say that they aren't for the most part if that's the intention of the OP. I just don't like the misrepresentation of the opinions expressed in the first two video(s).

[+Sherapy]

Maybe, I dunno. I'd say that they aren't for the most part if that's the intention of the OP. I just don't like the misrepresentation of the opinions expressed in the first two video(s).

I'd agree with you, I have no interest in banning all faiths.

[Irrelevant]

Yes let's,

The question is: what is the Atheist Agenda? A) to shake people out of there faith

How? Because the Atheist Agenda believe they have the brains to defeat those who choose religion of secularism, only they conceded defeat , when in there debate/brains failed them to do so. Conceding defeat.

There's 2 hours of discussion that leads this group who decide at the end they can do this ( shake peoples belief there is a God," shake people out of there faith") they come to this conclusion because in there words there " smart enough" but as is shown they weren't. Hitchens was the least willing to try this and thought it likely they would fail, as he knew it was going to be far more difficult to do than Dawkins..who suggested it might be easy.

If this can't answer your question, a simple overview of these events in there origins and outcomes, then I can't answer your question as it seams your ignoring what the purpose of this group was , that being " to shake people out of there belief" something Dawkins has been trying to do for a long time with his endless books, shall I list there titles?

[+Sherapy]

Yes let's,

The question is: what is the Atheist Agenda? A) to shake people out of there faith

How? Because the Atheist Agenda believe they have the brains to defeat those who choose religion of secularism, only they conceded defeat , when in there debate/brains failed them to do so. Conceding defeat.

There's 2 hours of discussion that leads this group who decide at the end they can do this ( shake peoples belief there is a God," shake people out of there faith") they come to this conclusion because in there words there " smart enough" but as is shown they weren't. Hitchens was the least willing to try this and thought it likely they would fail, as he knew it was going to be far more difficult to do than Dawkins..who suggested it might be easy.

If this can't answer your question, a simple overview of these events in there origins and outcomes, then I can't answer your question as it seams your ignoring what the purpose of this group was , that being " to shake people out of there belief" something Dawkins has been trying to do for a long time with his endless books, shall I list there titles?

Where do the Atheists that do not agree with this fit in Irrelevant? One has to use care in over generalizing, IMO

[Irrelevant]

Btw, what you believe to me is irrelevant..It's not my business. However, the videos in this thread show that when the ideas being put forward by the leaders of Atheism ( there is no God, and other aspects about the benefit of organised religion ) they do not succeed when tested in a debate format and conceded defeat.

[Mr. Miyagi]

Yes let's,

The question is: what is the Atheist Agenda? A) to shake people out of there faith

How? Because the Atheist Agenda believe they have the brains to defeat those who choose religion of secularism, only they conceded defeat , when in there debate/brains failed them to do so. Conceding defeat.

There's 2 hours of discussion that leads this group who decide at the end they can do this ( shake peoples belief there is a God," shake people out of there faith") they come to this conclusion because in there words there " smart enough" but as is shown they weren't. Hitchens was the least willing to try this and thought it likely they would fail, as he knew it was going to be far more difficult to do than Dawkins..who suggested it might be easy.

If this can't answer your question, a simple overview of these events in there origins and outcomes, then I can't answer your question as it seams your ignoring what the purpose of this group was , that being " to shake people out of there belief" something Dawkins has been trying to do for a long time with his endless books, shall I list there titles?

In what way does that equate to the "destruction of all faiths"? Something that you stated was the conclusion of their discussions when the very videos that you posted do not display that attitude. In fact, early on in the video I think it's stated that they want them to be held accountable in the same way as any other business. I believe a comparrison is made in the regard of accountability with how a pharmaceutical company would be held accountable. That equates to the destruction of all faiths in your opinion? how can you think this, particularly when the video shows that at least Hitch would be opposed to that and that the others feel that such a thing would be impossible? I've heard Dawkins showing appreciation for some of the things that religion has influinced in the past. Architecture for example. I don't think the people in this video are quite as insidious as you're making them out to be for whatever reason.

So is your goal here to ask Atheists if they wish for the destruction of all faiths? I'd say you'll get an overwhelming "no" in that regard honestly. If that was was the intention of your OP, then why the need to intentionally distort thje views presented in the videos?

[Mr. Miyagi]

Btw, what you believe to me is irrelevant..It's not my business. However, the videos in this thread show that when the ideas being put forward by the leaders of Atheism ( there is no God, and other aspects about the benefit of organised religion ) they do not succeed when tested in a debate format and conceded defeat.

In what way do they not hold up? This boils down to two different philosiphical views. The only convincing argument for the existence of a god that can be made is an ontological one. the propblem is an ontological argument can be made for anything. (Flying sphagetti monster for instance). In order to convince an Atheist of the existence of a god, one would need an epistimological case. As of now, there only exist holy texts in this regard for which no case can be made for their divine origin as of yet. What you get is the religious displaying ontological evidence that an Atheist cannot refute (nor can a theist refute the evidence for the FSM either) and the theist's holy books (epistimological) not being convincing to a nonbeliever. It's the classic stalemate. Meh.

[Irrelevant]

Where do the Atheists that do not agree with this fit in Irrelevant? One has to use care in over generalizing, IMO

These men claim at the end of the second video to be the leaders of atheistic thought.

The reality is that at this time they failed to achieve there desire.

It's not been suggested its the desire of all Atheists ( most Id assume couldn't care less about something they don't believe in)

[+Sherapy]

Btw, what you believe to me is irrelevant..It's not my business. However, the videos in this thread show that when the ideas being put forward by the leaders of Atheism ( there is no God, and other aspects about the benefit of organised religion ) they do not succeed when tested in a debate format and conceded defeat.

Then why did you start a thread?

[+Sherapy]

These men claim at the end of the second video to be the leaders of atheistic thought.

The reality is that at this time they failed to achieve there desire.

It's not been suggested its the desire of all Atheists ( most Id assume couldn't care less about something they don't believe in)

I do not look to them to define my Atheism. and neither does Mr. Miagi, both of us are more then willing to share with you how we see things while at the same time not professing to be Atheistic leaders.

Edited June 12, 2013 by Sherapy

[Mr. Miyagi]

These men claim at the end of the second video to be the leaders of atheistic thought.

The reality is that at this time they failed to achieve there desire.

It's not been suggested its the desire of all Atheists ( most Id assume couldn't care less about something they don't believe in)

\

How so? You mentioned that their desire is to "shake people's faith" You're saying they haven't done that? I'd disagree there. However, if you are stating that they have not achieved "the destruction of all faiths" I thought we'd established that this never was stated and in is fact is not a goal of the men involved in the discussion in the videos you posted. If you still make the assertion that "the destruction of all faiths" is their goal, then I ask again to please point out at what point during the video did they say such a thing.

Thanks.

Edited June 12, 2013 by Mr. Miyagi

[+Liquid Gardens]

. As of now, there only exist holy texts in this regard for which no case can be made for their divine origin as of yet. What you get is the religious displaying ontological evidence that an Atheist cannot refute (nor can a theist refute the evidence for the FSM either) and the theist's holy books (epistimological) not being convincing to a nonbeliever. It's the classic stalemate. Meh.

I hear ya, I agree it's a stalemate as far as being able to convince anyone to change their position, but I don't know that it's a stalemate as far as the status of the debate. I'm most likely biased, but to me many of the arguments for their god's existence involve either inconsistency or special pleading on the part of the believer. If they are going to say that an experience they had is the evidence, then to be consistent they should allow in everyone else's experiences, which will be tough since some are contradictory. If they want to provide holy books as evidence, then allow in all the holy books. If they want to say 'you just have to have faith', then to be consistent they should let in everyone's faith. But they do not, and I have yet to hear a very convincing IMO reason why not.

I'm sure I'll never understand it, I can review and compare why I believe in certain obvious physical things and the reasons I believe they exist are exactly the same as the believer's. But when it comes to God, I don't think that epistemology is being adhered to that was just used to demonstrate why the sun exists for example. I can't think of anything I believe in, and definitely not to that level of certainty, based upon 'faith' or the 'reasoning' why believers believe in their specific god. I'll again admit I'm biased and am of course going to think I'm being consistent; if I'm not being consistent in how I evaluate the truth of something, I wish it could be pointed out though.

[supervike]

Can Atheist triumph over the Religion, if so how?

For me, the answer is simple.

It doesn't matter.

I don't care what any one else believes, and what gets them through the day. I don't look down on them for such beliefs, and I don't feel it's my duty to convince them to believe otherwise.

I have become what I call a 'reluctant' atheist. I really wish there was a power that guided, protected, and ultimately cared for us all. But, I just don't believe it, and it is being dishonest to pretend I do.

However, if you want to believe that, I've no beef with it.

Edited June 12, 2013 by supervike

[+HerNibs]

These men claim at the end of the second video to be the leaders of atheistic thought.

The reality is that at this time they failed to achieve there desire.

It's not been suggested its the desire of all Atheists ( most Id assume couldn't care less about something they don't believe in)

Leaders? Agenda? Did I miss an "All the Atheists" meeting?

There may be "notable", "famous" and "infamous" atheists but there would have to be a cohesive group in order for there to be leaders. There may be "groups" that congregate and discuss and debate but there are no "leaders" like there is in most religions.

Other than all of us not "believing" in a deity...not much in common. There is no "holy book", "holy rules" and "edicts" we must abide by.

Back to the videos. Ok, bunch of guys discussing how to get rid of religion. (I didn't and won't watch the videos)

I don't (and most atheists I know) don't care what you believe in, just keep it out of the government, don't judge others based on your "beliefs" and don't hurt others in any way.

Nibs

[DeWitz]

Hitchens looks pretty spry for a dead guy.

Genuine debate lost a pearl in that one.

Good, honest book about dying by Christopher Hitchens: Mortality, Hachette Book Group: New York, 2012. (An atheist faces down impending death. He died in 2012.)

[scowl]

Leaders? Agenda? Did I miss an "All the Atheists" meeting?

It was the one where they handed out our Atheist membership cards.

[+Sherapy]

I hear ya, I agree it's a stalemate as far as being able to convince anyone to change their position, but I don't know that it's a stalemate as far as the status of the debate. I'm most likely biased, but to me many of the arguments for their god's existence involve either inconsistency or special pleading on the part of the believer. If they are going to say that an experience they had is the evidence, then to be consistent they should allow in everyone else's experiences, which will be tough since some are contradictory. If they want to provide holy books as evidence, then allow in all the holy books. If they want to say 'you just have to have faith', then to be consistent they should let in everyone's faith. But they do not, and I have yet to hear a very convincing IMO reason why not.

I'm sure I'll never understand it, I can review and compare why I believe in certain obvious physical things and the reasons I believe they exist are exactly the same as the believer's. But when it comes to God, I don't think that epistemology is being adhered to that was just used to demonstrate why the sun exists for example. I can't think of anything I believe in, and definitely not to that level of certainty, based upon 'faith' or the 'reasoning' why believers believe in their specific god. I'll again admit I'm biased and am of course going to think I'm being consistent; if I'm not being consistent in how I evaluate the truth of something, I wish it could be pointed out though.

LG, your POV works for me.

I am the kind of Atheist that respects and tries to understand all types of beliefs. I think religions (all kinds) are interesting. I enjoy learning about them and discussing them. I am not at a place that I need to have others believe as I do to have a conversation. Another perspective offers me an opportunity/new way to look at things.

My only precept is do no harm, other then that anyone can be who they are with me, I prefer it..

[Irrelevant]

So are you suggesting there is no Atheist Agenda as per the thread tittle? The 4 horseman:Atheist Agenda. I will suggest there is a agenda, a public one, and will provide the supporting information to that, now its for those who don't believe there no Atheist Agenda (if they believe that to case) to also debate on that point if they wish.

Has this topic been debated before? That there is a Atheist Agenda? And if so what that agenda is? (A simple search under the thread title shows there is proactive approach/agenda) Im debating there is a Agenda,a agenda that needs to recognised, those in the videos are part of that , and just because hitches is dead doesn't mean the Agenda died with him, his heart was not in at strongly as the others like Dawkins and others, so its very much still a current event. Shall I list the titles of Dawkins books? Or shall I post some more current videos of events? The Agenda is still very much alive and in many forms.

Of course you can say no, suggest there is no agenda, that's the debate. The 4 horseman videos was a example, but there's many more who hold the same position and do wish to see the distruction of The Faiths/ Atheist Agenda and are using other means other than simply debating from a fixed point. You can also say that's not true, and a debate will follow. The debate is The Atheist Agenda, its been suggested there is no agenda and this thread is disingenuous, I disagree.

There is a Agenda being proactively pushed by Atheists and this force needs to be recognised, as well as the outcome of Atheist thinking when applied on a high public level such as Govt, and Law reform, (suggestions being put forward of many members on here/separation of state and religion, there is separation but law has its origins in religion ) a good example of the outcome of Atheist thinking at a public level is in Funeral Services for fallen soldiers not being attended by leaders of Govt who are openly Atheist, leaders of countries not attending services for fallen soldiers, or able to offer public prayer for victims of natural disasters as another example.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

So are you suggesting there is no Atheist Agenda as per the thread tittle? The 4 horseman:Atheist Agenda. I will suggest there is a agenda, a public one, and will provide the supporting information to that, now its for those who don't believe there no Atheist Agenda (if they believe that to case) to also debate on that point if they wish.

Has this topic been debated before? That there is a Atheist Agenda? And if so what that agenda is? (A simple search under the thread title shows there is proactive approach/agenda) Im debating there is a Agenda,a agenda that needs to recognised, those in the videos are part of that , and just because hitches is dead doesn't mean the Agenda died with him, his heart was not in at strongly as the others like Dawkins and others, so its very much still a current event. Shall I list the titles of Dawkins books? Or shall I post some more current videos of events? The Agenda is still very much alive and in many forms.

Of course you can say no, suggest there is no agenda, that's the debate. The 4 horseman videos was a example, but there's many more who hold the same position and do wish to see the distruction of The Faiths/ Atheist Agenda and are using other means other than simply debating from a fixed point. You can also say that's not true, and a debate will follow. The debate is The Atheist Agenda, its been suggested there is no agenda and this thread is disingenuous, I disagree.

There is a Agenda being proactively pushed by Atheists and this force needs to be recognised, as well as the outcome of Atheist thinking when applied on a high public level such as Govt, and Law reform, (suggestions being put forward of many members on here/separation of state and religion, there is separation but law has its origins in religion ) a good example of the outcome of Atheist thinking at a public level is in Funeral Services for fallen soldiers not being attended by leaders of Govt who are openly Atheist, leaders of countries not attending services for fallen soldiers, or able to offer public prayer for victims of natural disasters as another example.

I want to comment on just one part of your post. The part about laws beginning with religion. Thankfully we are changing those laws slowly so we can stop degrading human beings such as the marriage law. Slowly we will change all the laws that provide an outlet for discrimination.

I'm not atheist either just in case I was about to be classified as such.

Nope I'm agnostic and living by Buddhist philosophy.

Faith is all great unless believed in because of fear. Fear of damnation is the common one. That one always makes me shake my head. The way I figure it is I'm going to live a good honest life. If that is not good enough and God as you may know him exists the way religion describes decides its not good enough then honestly so be it. I choose to live a good life because that's how I am not because im afraid of what might happen if i dont and thats how it should be...

[Zaphod222]

My only precept is do no harm, other then that anyone can be who they are with me, I prefer it..

The problem with religions is that some of them do a lot of harm.

Otherwise, I agree with you.

[Zaphod222]

If this can't answer your question, a simple overview of these events in there origins and outcomes, then I can't answer your question as it seams your ignoring what the purpose of this group was , that being " to shake people out of there belief" something Dawkins has been trying to do for a long time with his endless books, shall I list there titles?

Well, yes, they would like shake people out of their ignorance. In the same way that religionists want to convert people into their ignorance.

But I don´t see how that is an inherent "agenda" in atheism. Atheism is just a philosophical position; you don´t necessarily need want to convince others of it. In the same way that not all religionists want to spread their beliefs. So there does not have to be an "agenda" on either side.