The 4 horseman :Atheist Agenda

[Irrelevant]

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.

and this is the point ( in refrence to whats the point..) There is a group who are trying to shake other peoples beliefs.

That is a position adopted by some, but just like theres Religous radicals theres also Athiest Radicals, and they certanly do have a Agenda, and its not about freedom of thinking, or minding ones own bussiness. I agree there does not have to be a agenda, but each side claims to have the truth, yet both fall short.

what are the areas where the Religous fall short : Science

what are the areas where Athiest fall short : philosophy of life falls short, spiritual ignorance, the purpose of being ( there is no reason in Athiesm as to why we are here)

[Mr. Miyagi]

You may wish to state that such an agenda exists, but the videos you posted do not support your assertion. In fact your position is discredited by the use of the third video which deceptively edits your previous two videos and Hitchens' position in particular, into the false notion that he indeed wished for such a thing.

I will, once again, ask you to point out at which point in the videos do they state that their intention is the destruction of all faiths or even give a reason as to how you can feel that the destruction of all faiths was the conclusion of the discussion. I am still waiting for you to state how the intention to shake ones faith would equate to the destruction of all faiths as well. Or isn't this a discussion? Is this a you post things, they are refuted, you don't reply and post something else instead and demand an answer for your new posts type of thread? Rinse and repeat until no one wants to play such a foolish game and you declare a victory? Is that what's going on here? I'll sum up here and repost all of my questions for you, once you answer them, then I'll adress your new points. Deal?

#1. At what point in the videos you posted do these gentlemen state that their intention is the destruction of all religions? Not that their intention is to shake people's faiths, the destruction of all faiths as you originally stated.

#2. If you truly feel that the destruction of all faiths is their intention, which parts of the videos do you feel gives this impression? Keep in mind that i've already shown that at least two members, Hitchens and the gentleman in the beard, do not hold this position and the other two feel this would not be possible.

#3. If you cannot answer the other two questions, then why are you deliberately misrepresenting the views of those in the videos?

#4. Please address the philosophical foundations I'd mentioned previously. The ontological case for a god. Do you feel that this is enough to convince someone in the existence of a god? Yes? If so, then why do you not believe in the FSM? Why do you not believe in Krishna? Zeus? So on and so forth. Can you address the epistemological case an atheist would require, other than holy books, and why you feel that a case for a god without an epistemological argument would be capable of pursuading anyone already not holding a belief in the possibility of such a being?

Some other issues with your latest post as well. Is there a consolidated atheist movement? Did they all vote Dawkins as their president? I saw no white smoke rising from Hitchens' grave. (It's a joke.) There is no consolidated atheist movement anymore than the Westboro Baptist Church represents all Christians or the taliban would represent all Muslims.

I feel that you are trying to lump all Atheists together as some sort of opponent to religion. Why? Opposing view points? Yes. Enjoy a good discussion? Absolutely! Seek to destroy all faiths? Good luck finding anyone who'd want or even think that could be possible.

Thanks for your time. I look forward to further discussion.

Edited June 13, 2013 by Mr. Miyagi

[StarMountainKid]

Besides the philosophical and religious questions that I have about agendas and all that, the question that comes most to my mind in watching these videos is, what are these gentlemen drinking? This may sound like a frivolous interest on my part, but I'm wondering if what atheists like to drink is different than what theists like to drink during important intellectual discussions.

The choice of liquid refreshment chosen may also be different when these two types of people are having intellectual discussions among each other. After all, one should not appear as a boozer when confronting others of opposing views. I think would be considered to be bad form. When one is with one's own kind, of course, this doesn't matter.

I would think hard liquor would be the beverage of choice of atheists, and probably wine the beverage of choice among theists. Getting a little tipsy among your fellows probably enriches the conversation to a more lively level of enthusiasm. This is all well and good when everyone is agreeing with each other, but can lead to unacceptable behavior when the discussion is running hot and heavy between those of opposing views.

I'm sure not everyone here will agree with me as to the significance of this subject I have brought up, but the atheist agenda (if there is one) like all agendas are usually developed by men sitting in smoke-filled rooms swilling beer (or the beverage of choice).

The real origins of historically significant events are not always the ones written down in official history books. The King may have just been drunk and said oh, the hell with it, let's go get 'em. This may be an important fact to remember in this discussion. This atheist agenda may be of similar origin, and I think this possibility should be taken into consideration when discussing subjects such as this one.

[Emma_Acid]

Ah, another thread trying to tell atheists what they actually believe.

and this is the point ( in refrence to whats the point..) There is a group who are trying to shake other peoples beliefs.

Yes, because sometimes peoples beliefs aren't good for a free, 21st century society. Religious interference in politics or education for example. If this wasn't the case, then atheists wouldn't feel the need to shake anyone out of anything.

what are the areas where the Religous fall short : Science

Thats woefully naive.

what are the areas where Athiest fall short : philosophy of life falls short, spiritual ignorance, the purpose of being ( there is no reason in Athiesm as to why we are here)

Yes, because all us atheists are cold, unloving, uncaring, unspiritual, empty shallow husks just waiting to die.

[Skithia]

If an 'Atheist Agenda' exists - and I very much doubt it does, I suspect the destruction of religion or faith wouldn't be the point. Personally I want to see laws that discriminate against those people who fall in love and wish to marry those of the same gender destroyed because I find them offensive and the religious basis for them spurious. I wish to see an education system where children are taught to perceive and test reality as it is and not given an education largely based on what a group of bronze age sages thought as truth.

Why do so many theists have the idea that atheists have no sense of wonder and joy when they think of the universe and our place in it? Just because we don't believe a god or the FSM created it and us we have no less respect for the fact its here. In fact knowing that my atoms were once part of a distant star and will one day be made into something else allows me to feel as connected as any theist preaching about gods love surrounding them.

[+HerNibs]

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.

You have this kind of wrong...

SOME atheists may have an agenda. ALL atheists do not have an agenda.

Law has comes from religion? So without religion we can't have laws?

Regarding funerals and public officials. If a deeply religious person was to show up at my son's funeral and pay his respects I would have no issue (and neither would my son). If a deeply religious person decided to PRAY publicly for my son then yeah, I'd be offended. (None of my kids are dead and I hope it stays that way).

A funeral is a place to pay respect to the individual that has passed. To honor THEM and who/what they were as a person. ANYONE pushing an agenda at a funeral needs to NOT go to funerals.

As for government? Don't use "your" rules from an ancient biased book to tell me what is right and wrong.

Nibs

[Zaphod222]

Taliban is not the highest form of Islam, the Catholic Church and leaders of Islam gave a exchange of doctrine years ago..there not actively seeking the destruction of each other but cooperation of each other. I think you might be bringing in political aspects

None of the examples I mentioned are run by the Taliban. And Yussuf Al Qaradafi, who is calling for a new holocaust on the Jews, is the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, and most respected among Sunnis. And yes, islam itself is highly political, which is precisely the problem.

How in the world can you demand that secular law be replaced by Koranic law, and not make a political statement? Your claim that there is mutual recognition among all faiths is pure, naive phantasy.

[Zaphod222]

and this is the point ( in refrence to whats the point..) There is a group who are trying to shake other peoples beliefs.

Shaking other peoples´ beliefs by discussing their vaildity is what freedom of thought and freedom of speech is all about. Do you really want to abandon any and all discussion?

That is a position adopted by some, but just like theres Religous radicals theres also Athiest Radicals,

"Atheist radical" is a contradiction in terms. By definition, atheism simply refers to NOT having irrational faith in something. There is nothing radical about that.

what are the areas where Athiest fall short : philosophy of life falls short, spiritual ignorance, the purpose of being ( there is no reason in Athiesm as to why we are here)

I think you missed that many if not most of our great philosophers are atheists, or became something like that. Also, you must be missing that religionist keep bashing their (and our heads) about their preceived spiritual ideas and the purpose of being.

[Irrelevant]

(Quote)

Shaking other peoples´ beliefs by discussing their vaildity is what freedom of thought and freedom of speech is all about. Do you really want to abandon any and all discussion?

"Atheist radical" is a contradiction in terms. By definition, atheism simply refers to NOT having irrational faith in something. There is nothing radical about that.

I think you missed that many if not most of our great philosophers are atheists, or became something like that. Also, you must be missing that religionist keep bashing their (and our heads) about their preceived spiritual ideas and the purpose of being.

(Quote)

Athiest don't answer the big questions, why are we here/ what's the purpose of life? Where does love come from? ( now some might say love is a chemicle brain thing..that in itself is a great point to debate! Is love chemicle or spiritual??) , your post and Emma's post are linked in this aspect by my answer, feel free the represent or expand on your views on these big questions..I haven't stated my views on such so nobody is bashing anybody's heads.

However it is a key point in debates where Atheist fail miserably, just as ( and this is my answer to you Emma) religion fails to answer even simple scientific aspects, most of the doctrines were written in a time where the understanding of static electricity or lightning was not understood. If you gave somebody a static electric shock by touching them 2000 years ago what would have been the thinking of those in that time, would they have known about the origins of static electricity? No, or seeing a grade 5 tornado, earth quakes ( known about plates) why the sky is blue... How mountains form, origins of the diffrent seasons, Even things like the sun ( that was worshiped) and many other aspects of the natural world...

That's a key point right there, the understanding of the natural/ Corpereal world, yes religion has not been able to answer these questions except in some mystical way..it does not explain the origins of the universe either except by symbolism or essence.

Feel free to counter that but have something to support it.

Both sides when taken to the extream by RADICALS fail on these points...the nature of what a radical viewpoint or person is might varry between individuals, for me its a person who is passionate and has a agenda ( bit like the save a whale, greenies , out there tormenting Japanese fisherman on the high seas, even ramming there boats at times). Yep, there's plenty of Athiest out there with passion , wishing to shake people out of there faith ( the agenda) and you find plenty of them on youtube under : Athiest Agenda, however until the questions of why we are here can be answered in a Athiest prospective and that teaching is stronger , most will find that answer in some form through Faith or reading of scripture (since science does not answer such questions.)

[Irrelevant]

You may wish to state that such an agenda exists, but the videos you posted do not support your assertion. In fact your position is discredited by the use of the third video which deceptively edits your previous two videos and Hitchens' position in particular, into the false notion that he indeed wished for such a thing.

I will, once again, ask you to point out at which point in the videos do they state that their intention is the destruction of all faiths or even give a reason as to how you can feel that the destruction of all faiths was the conclusion of the discussion. I am still waiting for you to state how the intention to shake ones faith would equate to the destruction of all faiths as well. Or isn't this a discussion? Is this a you post things, they are refuted, you don't reply and post something else instead and demand an answer for your new posts type of thread? Rinse and repeat until no one wants to play such a foolish game and you declare a victory? Is that what's going on here? I'll sum up here and repost all of my questions for you, once you answer them, then I'll adress your new points. Deal?

#1. At what point in the videos you posted do these gentlemen state that their intention is the destruction of all religions? Not that their intention is to shake people's faiths, the destruction of all faiths as you originally stated.

#2. If you truly feel that the destruction of all faiths is their intention, which parts of the videos do you feel gives this impression? Keep in mind that i've already shown that at least two members, Hitchens and the gentleman in the beard, do not hold this position and the other two feel this would not be possible.

#3. If you cannot answer the other two questions, then why are you deliberately misrepresenting the views of those in the videos?

#4. Please address the philosophical foundations I'd mentioned previously. The ontological case for a god. Do you feel that this is enough to convince someone in the existence of a god? Yes? If so, then why do you not believe in the FSM? Why do you not believe in Krishna? Zeus? So on and so forth. Can you address the epistemological case an atheist would require, other than holy books, and why you feel that a case for a god without an epistemological argument would be capable of pursuading anyone already not holding a belief in the possibility of such a being?

Some other issues with your latest post as well. Is there a consolidated atheist movement? Did they all vote Dawkins as their president? I saw no white smoke rising from Hitchens' grave. (It's a joke.) There is no consolidated atheist movement anymore than the Westboro Baptist Church represents all Christians or the taliban would represent all Muslims.

I feel that you are trying to lump all Atheists together as some sort of opponent to religion. Why? Opposing view points? Yes. Enjoy a good discussion? Absolutely! Seek to destroy all faiths? Good luck finding anyone who'd want or even think that could be possible.

Thanks for your time. I look forward to further discussion.

I will be more specific in future.

[Skithia]

(Quote)

Athiest don't answer the big questions, why are we here/ what's the purpose of life? Where does love come from?

Im sorry but maybe as atheists we just arent asking the same questions. Does it matter why we are here? How can we live a fulfilling and positive life seems a better question. Love may be just chemical processes that as humans we have evolved as a propagating influence. But they seem to be questions that are important to you but a lot of atheists are at peace with an answer of 'I dont know and it doesnt really affect how I live my life'.

[Irrelevant]

None of the examples I mentioned are run by the Taliban. And Yussuf Al Qaradafi, who is calling for a new holocaust on the Jews, is the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, and most respected among Sunnis. And yes, islam itself is highly political, which is precisely the problem.

How in the world can you demand that secular law be replaced by Koranic law, and not make a political statement? Your claim that there is mutual recognition among all faiths is pure, naive phantasy.

It's a very thin vail but its there. I encourage peace between faiths and the belief in the same God, each faith being a embodiment of truth, the question is who has the highest form of truth! And this aspect involves Atheist also.. All sides are claiming truth, freedom...

[Mr. Miyagi]

I will be more specific in future.

You're kidding me, right?

That's what I thought. Enjoy your thread while it lasts.

[Irrelevant]

Im sorry but maybe as atheists we just arent asking the same questions. Does it matter why we are here? How can we live a fulfilling and positive life seems a better question. Love may be just chemical processes that as humans we have evolved as a propagating influence. But they seem to be questions that are important to you but a lot of atheists are at peace with an answer of 'I dont know and it doesnt really affect how I live my life'.

It does matter, let me introduce you to mezzlos principle of higher needs ( going back a few years forgive the spelling) , maybe somebody else would like to explain this? The interesting thing about this principal is in Australian Aboriginals its the complete reversal. However it is a accepted teaching.

[Rlyeh]

Athiest don't answer the big questions, why are we here/ what's the purpose of life? Where does love come from? ( now some might say love is a chemicle brain thing..that in itself is a great point to debate! Is love chemicle or spiritual??) , your post and Emma's post are linked in this aspect by my answer, feel free the represent or expand on your views on these big questions..I haven't stated my views on such so nobody is bashing anybody's heads.

Does religion answer these questions reliably?

Religious answers and scientific answers aren't even on the same page. You're comparing two entirely different methodologies, many religious answers wouldn't rate as a hypothesis.

[Irrelevant]

You're kidding me, right?

That's what I thought. Enjoy your thread while it lasts.

Feel free to debate your points if you have any.

[Irrelevant]

Does religion answer these questions reliably?

Religious answers and scientific answers aren't even on the same page. You're comparing two entirely different methodologies, many religious answers wouldn't rate as a hypothesis.

I think it does. Each faith answering it in a different way, offering a truth about such things.

[Tata Rompe Pecho]

4 horsemen.. Atheists... I'm pretty sure the 4 horsemen thing has to do with Christian beliefs so they oxytrolled themselves lol

Here is the unrelenting truth: Your beliefs are what you make them. Anyone trying to make you substitute your beliefs for their own is swimming against the current, and begging to drown. These men seem to like the idea of drowning.

Edited June 13, 2013 by xFelix

[Mr. Miyagi]

Feel free to debate your points if you have any.

Ok.... one more time for the road... I know you can read. Is it a comprehension issue maybe?

If you don't want to admit to your deliberate misrepresentation of the content of videos you posted, then just responding to question 4 will suffice.

#1. At what point in the videos you posted do these gentlemen state that their intention is the destruction of all religions? Not that their intention is to shake people's faiths, the destruction of all faiths as you originally stated.

#2. If you truly feel that the destruction of all faiths is their intention, which parts of the videos do you feel gives this impression? Keep in mind that i've already shown that at least two members, Hitchens and the gentleman in the beard, do not hold this position and the other two feel this would not be possible.

#3. If you cannot answer the other two questions, then why are you deliberately misrepresenting the views of those in the videos?

#4. Please address the philosophical foundations I'd mentioned previously. The ontological case for a god. Do you feel that this is enough to convince someone in the existence of a god? Yes? If so, then why do you not believe in the FSM? Why do you not believe in Krishna? Zeus? So on and so forth. Can you address the epistemological case an atheist would require, other than holy books, and why you feel that a case for a god without an epistemological argument would be capable of pursuading anyone already not holding a belief in the possibility of such a being?

And the first time I'd brought up the subject as well as the first time you chose to ignore it...

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.

Comments? Thoughts? Yes? No? Shut up? Something? Anything? Hello?

[+Liquid Gardens]

Here is the unrelenting truth: Your beliefs are what you make them. Anyone trying to make you substitute your beliefs for their own is swimming against the current, and begging to drown. These men seem to like the idea of drowning.

Here is another unrelenting truth: all beliefs are not at all equal and having wrong beliefs can be harmful and dangerous, to yourself and others. Oh I agree that trying to make someone substitute your beliefs for their own convince someone of what beliefs are actually correct is many times like swimming against the current and pointless, but I think that's lamentable and is many times just a display of stubbornness. Thankfully (or unthankfully sometimes), reality itself does not care.

[+Sherapy]

It's a very thin vail but its there. I encourage peace between faiths and the belief in the same God, each faith being a embodiment of truth, the question is who has the highest form of truth! And this aspect involves Atheist also.. All sides are claiming truth, freedom...

For me, Atheism is a starting place, a vantage point(preference), a perspective. In other words, I start with reason looking for truth value in ideologies. I cannot claim truth for lack of deities because there is no way I can establish the truth of them.

Edited June 13, 2013 by Sherapy

[Zaphod222]

Athiest don't answer the big questions, why are we here/ what's the purpose of life? Where does love come from?

Atheists do not HAVE to answer any of these big and interesting questions! It seems you have a wrong understanding about what "atheism" means. Atheism is NOT some kind of grand belief system. It simple refers to the LACK of a belief in various gods, until you provide proof for them. Nothing more.

And talking about "answers", the phantastical claims that various religions make about why we here, about the purpose of life and so on, are unprovable, often bizarre, and mutually contradictory.

I understand that it makes people feel better if some quack offers "answer" to everything, but offering nonsensical "answers" does not mean they are true.

[Tata Rompe Pecho]

Here is another unrelenting truth: all beliefs are not at all equal and having wrong beliefs can be harmful and dangerous, to yourself and others. Oh I agree that trying to make someone substitute your beliefs for their own convince someone of what beliefs are actually correct is many times like swimming against the current and pointless, but I think that's lamentable and is many times just a display of stubbornness. Thankfully (or unthankfully sometimes), reality itself does not care.

What makes your beliefs "actually correct" versus mine?

[Quaentum]

Religion is like pizza. You may get agreement on the base but you most likely won't find a consensus on the topping

[+Liquid Gardens]

What makes your beliefs "actually correct" versus mine?

I don't think I said they were. But not all ways of determining whether a belief is correct are equivalent. The only thing I think I disagree with you on is what to do with claims whose primary or sole evidence is the testimony of what someone experienced internally; since all these claims cannot be correct, then solely using this type of evidence shouldn't be very convincing by definition. You seem to think that these types of claims need to be shown to be incorrect; I think the reverse, that the burden of proof is on the claimant to show they are correct. I have evidence that I think supports my approach; people who believe prayer can heal physical ailments have not been shown to be incorrect, nor can they definitively be shown to be incorrect in all cases even in theory, yet this belief can have very real and negative repercussions.