Atheism:believe in no God or disbelieve in God

Of course, they want to replace God with themselves, that is typical athiest fundamentalism. Close the faith schools and only espouse the dominant atheist ideology, whether communism or juche.

Its an athiest disconnect, IMO, to refuse to recognise that atheism can lead to such notions of arrogance, but Dawkins himself, with his notion of stupid theists is an excellent example.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why would they? They don't believe in God, that does not mean they cannot hero worship one who wiped all out religious practices.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But why would an atheist necessarily hero worship someone who forcibly wiped out all religious practices? I certainly wouldn't. Forcing atheism amongst the people is no better than forcing religion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's rubbish, Sam. Keep your eye on the ball here - what is bad about Juche? Is it "There is no God (but Kim-Il-Sung)", or is it that "Everyone has to believe the same thing as we do"?

Any doctrine blindly adhered to and enforced on others is not a good thing... but the evil is not in the doctrine itself, but in the enforcement on others. This is something that Dawkins believes quite strongly, I think.

Do you think that Dawkins is a proponent of forcing people into atheism? Is that how you read his suggestion that children should be protected from the religious doctrines of their parents?

 

The idea of "atheist fundamentalism" is a bit puzzling.
With a Christian fundamentalist, you can point to the bible and say "This is fundamentally where it's at."
With an Islamic fundamentalists, I guess you'd point to the Koran.
But with atheism... the only thing you have to go on is "I really think that there is no God." There's no implications of anything else... anything more would have to rely on some ideology which I guess would include atheism, but could not be derived from it.

 

It's a funny thing because even so called Christian fundamentalists and Islamic fundamentalists tend to violate their source. I don't think we can use fundamentalism to describe some form of pure ideology based on xyz even if it might/should mean that.

 

One does not need to consider Kim Sung God to worship him, there are plenty of precedents in Buddhism and other Eastern religions for that. Likewise, being an athiest does not make a person less likely to be sucked into other ideologies.

Is that why he believes in evangelising his and insisting that theists are stupid for not seeing the light?

I think anyone who tells me how to raise my kids based on their religious beliefs is enforcing their beliefs on me.

Propaganda. Similar to the force of the anti-theist movement that Dawkins is promoting. Those who do not agree with Jong-il leave, both theists and atheists, I presume.

Like the War on terror for instance or Dawkings insistence that science would be so much better off without fundies in the way.

Jong-il has scientists in his regime too.

Source

 

Firstly, I'm pretty sure that Dawkins has never said that theists are stupid. Secondly, "evangelising" to the educated is a long way from forcing someone to hold a belief.

Careful... he' suggesting what not to do in raising your kids. Specifically, not to enforce particular harmful beliefs on them.

Sam, I really don't follow the parallel you're attempting to draw between atheism and the North Korean regime.

Are you saying that science is bad, because there are scientists in the North Korean regime?
That "keeping the fundies out of science" is equivalent to imprisoning, torturing, and executing people?
That what you call the "propoganda" of Dawkins's ideas is equivalent to the military enforcement of Juche?

Yes, the Juche ideology in North Korea is bad.
No, it's nothing like atheism, not even in Dawkins' fantasies.

 

You mean thiests are naturally uneducated?

And he gets to decide what any people should teach their children because?

Its just another athiest's ideas of what theists should not be teaching their children.

 

Dawkins evangelises to the educated, theist or not.

He doesn't. He doesn't even suggest what people should teach their children. He presents an argument that suggests what they shouldn't teach their children.

No, Sam. It's incarceration, torture, and murder in fulfillment of an ignorant and evil ideology.

Not even in the same ballpark.

 

Sorry about that.

Sounds fairly typical of theisms in conflict. So where's the atheism ? Why do you fail to respect the Korean's Deity ? Diversity of religion, especially theisms, where all the Gods are aspects of the One God - central Islamic tenet, I've been told.

Not naturally, no. They appear to put some effort into it, often.

 

I skimmed through that link, but that is way over my head.

One thing I wonder about though - Given what you said here, why would anyone who does believe in God want to refute Buddhism? If God incarnated himself as the Buddha, then I presume God saw fit to do so, for some reason, no?

Like I said earlier, I see Buddhism as a desperate solution in a desperate situation - but not necessarily a bad solution. That is, what is a person supposed to do who is very dissatisfied with material existence, but who for some reason cannot believe in God? What is someone whose mind is deeply entrenched in aimless but extremely consistent relativism and constructivism supposed to do? What is someone supposed to do whose thoughts about God are like mine, fire and brimstone, eternal punishment even in heaven?

If anything, Buddhism (at least the Early Buddhism, the Buddhism of the Suttas of the Pali Canon) seems like the perfect solution in such a case.

 

Could somebody please tell me how it is possible to force someone not to believe in godif said person wishes to believe. I mean I can say under torture that I do not believe but I can still believe IN MY HEAD!

 

Its not without precedent.

Clearly we should bow to the nearest athiest for inspiration.

 

What do you mean?

 

Suggesting what [they] shouldn't teach their children.

 

Spell it out for me, Sam.

 

Spell out what? That some people think they should be imposing their beliefs on children in lieu of the parents is not without precedent. All for reasons of intellectualism of course. And it has never been anything but disastrous. But thats a separate discussion. I am against Dawkins imposing his athiesm on me because he thinks fraternizing with the enemy is undesirable.

 

I'm still scratching my head over exactly what your link was supposed to illustrate.

Try child safety. Are you in favour of all children being left with their parents, in all circumstances? But in this case it doesn't apply - Dawkins is not advocating imposing atheist beliefs on children. He is advocating not imposing any doctrine on them. He argues that children should be taught how to think, not what to think.

I really don't think he's imposing anything on anyone. I don't know if you have children, but if you do, do you think you have the right to treat them in any way that you personally see fit?

 

How to think in what way? In a way I see fit or some atheist sees fit?