The difference between you and I, is I don’t mind that each continue to have their confidences as they choose.

Speculate as you may on attachments I may have – I’m fine in your confidence. I think it’s marvelous that you found your confidence.

Others have their confidences. The difference between you and I, is I don’t mind that each continue to have their confidences as they choose.

But I don’t like one confidence attacking another confidence as _my_ confidence is that the world can become a better place through tolerance of confidences.

I _also_ don’t like leaders taking advantage of confidences and utilizing them for their own ends. This is a problem in many realms.

If I saw a group of radical Pagans attacking a lone atheist in a forum, I would defend the lone atheist.

If I saw a Fundamentalist Christian attacking “all of atheism” I would defend atheism from what I know of its history as a movement and correct errors as I see them.

As the dominant social force on the Internet seems to be atheism at present, I find myself in this position. There’s no more dangerous force than one who feels they are the underdog but isn’t. Their biting is more fierce. I’m working to calm the dogs down and find ways there can be cooperation.

Yes, I’ve heard this view of history before. Some of it seems to be from your own research and experience, which I greatly appreciate, and some of it I’ve heard elsewhere from atheist apologetics efforts in the past.

My view of Nazism? It’s Nazism. There has been NOTHING like it before or since. People continually attach the groups they don’t like to Nazism or Hitler.

Godwin’s Law applies here.

Do *I* consider Nazism as atheistic? No, I don’t. Is it portrayed as atheistic regimes along with China, Soviet Russia and others as those who killed many?

Yes it has and continues to. Some historians say this, and some say that.

But Nazism is Nazism. The Soviet regime was the Soviet regime, etc.

I give the same leeway to other territorial disputes and grabs of power from EVERY point of history.

It’s too simplistic to blame it all on religion.

Too many other factors involved and it’s a lousy, oversimplified viewpoint of historical facts.

Would I go so far as to say “ahistorical”? Not necessarily ahistorical per se, but very lopsided and missing far too much data to be a reliable conclusion.

I live on the Internet. I watch trends. I notice the things people talk about. I notice subcultures when they form. It’s my hobby.

Have I seen people accosted online to accept religion? No.

Does it happen online? Perhaps it does somewhere and I just haven’t seen it.

I’m not saying you’re a part of a cult, Ahmad and yes, I was being dramatic for affect.

However, you would disagree that the existence of memes, discussion groups, large numbers of like-minded people with the same opinions online doesn’t speak to “something”?

I can’t help people who are not online.
I’m not there.
But I am here.
I see cyber-bulling that leads to cutting and worse.

I see people being “rationally debated” by thugs behind screen names acting in the Name of Reason and Logic to Admit something.

That is bad human behavior. That’s not rational debate or discussion.

It is a problem online and it will spread. The influx of GenZ on the scene exposed to this kind of behavior being acceptable is changing society as we speak.

It’s not the atheism. It’s the zealotry and the meangirl groups that form everywhere. It doesn’t matter to me WHO is doing it or what they stand for, or astand for. It’s bad behavior whoever is doing it for whatever reason.

I’m not saying atheists are lost.
I also wasn’t agreeing that atheism and nazism go hand in hand.
That’s a poor view of history.

You can link together Hitler and the religion-of-your-choice Ahmad – that view of history might be correct. I don’t know.

But for me, Nazism stands alone without compare in the constructed societies of the world.

because of – I can’t take comparisons of [x] to Nazi/Hitler seriously.

You might be surprised to learn that many religions are also anti-religion. That’s because they don’t consider their religion a religion but the simple truth. I’ll be happy to provide numerous examples, but I suspect each of them say it in their own way.

It is one of the reasons why I put atheism on the bookshelf next to other religions in the same category. Says similar things about themselves in the same ways, behaves towards those NOT of their group in the same ways.


Ok, so you’ve head it before yourself. When I was involved in Eastern Orthodoxy (Christian) they also said the same thing. Then again, I heard the same thing from my Science teacher about science. “It’s not just a method – it’s a way to look at the world with clarity”.

Same idea. Pick one. You picked atheism. I picked agnosticism.

Now I believe has stated that he picked scientism. I could be wrong and I apologize if I am.

The point is: It’s hard for me to NOT see these various “ways to view with clarity” as not so different from each other fundamentally.

Those who agree with each group join in with other like minded people and talk about how nobody else ‘gets it’ quite right.

The thing is, Ahmad, as more and more people become atheist (or simply let their attachment to false beliefs go… which, by the way, is the same kind of wording used in religions… just saying)… I see nothing special about atheism vs anything else that gives it any special bonus against mass human atrocities or even minor ones.

Let’s imagine a planet of no religion.

Ok. What now? Will fighting cease? People grabbing for power? People fighting other people over differences of opinion? People forming subgroups fighting against other subgroups?

I see no reason that wouldn’t continue happening as it always has.

The problem is people. Period. Maybe a nice DNA resequencing can remove the unwanted characteristics from humanity and then we’ll be at peace.

But I doubt that will happen.

and  apologize. I don’t like labeling and just went by what I thought I saw and that was wrong of me to do so.


The system most compatible with my way of seeing things would be agnosticism and most of humanism… although not all of humanism, but the general flavor of it I’m good with and I’m a complete fan of the sciences when they’re done right.. but hypercritical of the scientific community BECAUSE we depend on them so much. They need to be watched very carefully because of the trust we place in them.


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

× six = 54

Leave a Reply