[The Socktor]

(Original post by loyalty is royalty)
Your right Athiesm doesnt tell you to do anything because its not a religion or system there is no authority within it. The Athiests of the soviet union killed to make Athiesm prevail not because Athiesm tells them to but because they decided to..

Yes, but their reasoning for that was their blind following of Marxist dogma. And well, blindly following political dogma is just as bad as blindly following religious dogma. Granted I think the world would be better off without religion, but I would never try to get rid of it violently.

(Original post by loyalty is royalty)
As for religion there is no religion that commands anybody to kill apart from when it becomes crucial in times of defense.

The Aztec religion was well known for its tendency to commit acts of human sacrifice (in fact one time they killed 20,000 people in one ritual), the Viking religion held that the only way to get into Valhalla was to die in battle and that to die naturally would result in them going to their equivalent of hell, and so on.

If you mean mainstream religions, then well, I never had the willingness to sit down and read a holy book, but from what I've heard from others, they do sometimes warrant the death penalty for certain crimes, which, regardless of the crime, is an act of killing via means other than self-defence.

[prog2djent]

I hope its radical anti-theism. But it will probably just be Agnosticism (the non-deity spiritual kind, not the not knowing if you belive in a god or not)

[RawJoh1]

(Original post by najinaji)
Religious people can be secularists as well, just to say.

You're right, I should have been clearer.

[Chloe xxx]

(Original post by Astinof)
Muslims don't rape people in the name of Islam, this demonstrates your ignorance. However it is true a small minority of them kill people in the name of Islam. I'm not a muslim but stop embrrasing atheists with your ignorance, you are not qualified to criticise Islam so please do not do it, on the other hand I am as I was raised muslim and used to attend Islamic classes for my whole childhood. Far too many atheists don't know sh*t about other religions and they go out there thinking they'll win the debate, IGNORANCE.

Fair enough, I'm just mentioning that no atheists have done that in the name of Atheism. They may well have done it any way.

Some people do do those things in the name of Islam, it isnt a lie. Doesnt meant to say thats what Islam tells them to do.

[iwantcurlyhairtoo]

(Original post by Chloe xxx)
Radical atheism?

Any stories of atheists killing people, bombing and raping women in the name of Atheism?

If so, please show me.

[AtomSmasher]

(Original post by DynamicSyngery)
Commies. Here they are blowing up a cathedral:

Although to clarify I am sure most 'radical atheists' will not do this, as only a few % of muslims actively carry out bombings.

You should know that atheism isn't and has never been an organised, single minded system of (lack of) belief. The atheists of the Soviet Union are as different from typical 'new atheists' as a Muslim is from a Jew.

I also doubt anybody would say Nazi Germany, a strongly Christian nation that abolished many free-thinking organisations, is representative of all modern day Christian groups.

[FrogInABog]

(Original post by prog2djent)
I hope its radical anti-theism. But it will probably just be Agnosticism (the non-deity spiritual kind, not the not knowing if you belive in a god or not)

Why exactly?

In many ways, anti-theism is worse than any kind of religion, because it is the ultimate imposition of beliefs upon others.

Live and let live, no?

[NerdyBashir]

You're making sound like radical Islam is growing as opposed to moderate Islam (which is just called Islam)

Also, radical Atheism? Elaborate.

[Gofre]

(Original post by FrogInABog)
because it is the ultimate imposition of beliefs upon others.

How so? Antitheism is at its base simply opposition to religion, some people take it further and seek to impose their beliefs on others but it's by no means a necessity. And what makes it it worse than religious groups attempting to impose theirs?

[beepbeeprichie]

Atheism,western civilisation>Islam.

[FrogInABog]

(Original post by Gofre)
How so? Antitheism is at its base simply opposition to religion, some people take it further and seek to impose their beliefs on others but it's by no means a necessity. And what makes it it worse than religious groups attempting to impose theirs?

Sorry, to be clear, I meant radical anti-theism.

As I said before, radical anti-theism completely denies others the right to believe something. Funnily enough, one of the few things that the Qur'an is absolutely clear about is allowing people of other religions to believe what they please. It is the same story with Christianity, and most other major world religions.

Admittedly there are members of such religions who ignore this, but they are few in number.

The real issue is that when someone religious insults an atheist for their beliefs (something like, "you're stupid for not believing in God"), they are widely ridiculed. On the other hand, when an atheist insults someone religious for their beliefs (the opposite, "you're stupid for believing in God") they are often treated as the voice of reason.

On another level, those religious people who do believe in imposing their views on others have bounties placed on their heads, and are thrown in prison, or at best treated with suspicion. Their atheist/anti-theist counterparts are given awards and chat shows (see Bill Maher!)...

Neither is good, but one (anti-theism) is given more of a public stage to preach from, which is why I see it as more worrying.

[Phaethon]

Atheism, if Aldous Huxley was right (see Brave New World, for those who haven't read it)

Do I agree?? Hmm...given much thought to it, and honestly, I'd answer 'none of the above' to your question.
Atheism has had its day: the 19th century, or the days when we thought science would save the world, both on physical and spiritual levels. As we know, the two World Wars have proven us wrong (Hiroshima, Dr Mengele, gas chambers, etc). Moreover, the materialism, often associated with atheism and brandished by post-Enlightenment scientists has lost much of its credibility after the work of Max Planck in quantum physics (according to which the universe is not made of matter but of consciousness).
Today, it seems people have had their share of such materialism, but certainly will not return to the 'old' religions, the three monotheisms. So they turn to 'new' spiritualities, often related to Eastern philosophies such as Buddhism and Hinduism.
Speaking of which, I feel the exact opposite is happening in China (among others), where Christianity has been growing at impressive rates, since the liberalization of the 70s and especially in the cities: disillusioned by marxist atheism, they turn to a religion which sounds just as exciting and new as Buddhism to us.

And what about atheism? My guess is that it is finding a strong foothold in Middle Eastern countries, who since the Arab Spring are going through some sort of Arab Enlightenment.

[Politricks]

(Original post by Chloe xxx)
Radical atheism?

Any stories of atheists killing people, bombing and raping women in the name of Atheism?

If so, please show me.

I think you're confusing radicalism with terrorism

Radical atheist doesn't equal terrorist atheist

[TimmonaPortella]

(Original post by DynamicSyngery)
Commies. Here they are blowing up a cathedral:



Although to clarify I am sure most 'radical atheists' will not do this, as only a few % of muslims actively carry out bombings.

That was done in the name of communism, not in the name of atheism. Atheism cannot motivate atrocities. It's nothing more than a lack of belief.

[TimmonaPortella]

(Original post by FrogInABog)

The real issue is that when someone religious insults an atheist for their beliefs (something like, "you're stupid for not believing in God"), they are widely ridiculed. On the other hand, when an atheist insults someone religious for their beliefs (the opposite, "you're stupid for believing in God") they are often treated as the voice of reason.

The latter are treated as the voice of reason because they are the voice of reason. If you don't want to be ridiculed, have less ridiculous beliefs.

[Chumbaniya]

I'd really like to have some idea of what 'radical atheism' is. So far a few people have suggested that certain non-religious ideologies constitute 'radical atheism', but I really don't think that it's at all fair to pin the damage done by things that aren't religion on the lack of a religion.

'Atheism' does not mean the same thing as 'every belief that is not explicitly tied to a religion'.

[Phaethon]

That was done in the name of communism, not in the name of atheism. Atheism cannot motivate atrocities. It's nothing more than a lack of belief.

So these communists just happened to be atheists, and all their atrocities have nothing to do with their lack of religious belief. A little too easy, don't you think?
And then you expect us to take you seriously when you tell us religion is at the source of all evil.

Furthermore, since there seems to be much debate on the definition of 'radical atheism', I'd define it as an atheism that is not content with not believing in God and letting other people do as they wish, but actively campaigning against religious beliefs and religious people, using propaganda, revisionism and pseudo science.

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by Phaethon)
So these communists just happened to be atheists, and all their atrocities have nothing to do with their lack of religious belief. A little too easy, don't you think?
And then you expect us to take you seriously when you tell us religion is at the source of all evil.

Furthermore, since there seems to be much debate on the definition of 'radical atheism', I'd define it as an atheism that is not content with not believing in God and letting other people do as they wish, but actively campaigning against religious beliefs and religious people, using propaganda, revisionism and pseudo science.

Well that's not radical atheism at all, it's anti-theism.

[DynamicSyngery]

(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
That was done in the name of communism, not in the name of atheism. Atheism cannot motivate atrocities. It's nothing more than a lack of belief.

I'm an atheist, and this is a silly argument.

Commies blew up churches in large part because they were atheists. Just like Christians smashed Pagan temples because they didn't believe in Paganism.

[Steevee]

(Original post by DynamicSyngery)
Commies. Here they are blowing up a cathedral:



Although to clarify I am sure most 'radical atheists' will not do this, as only a few % of muslims actively carry out bombings.

(Original post by loyalty is royalty)
Look into the soviet union and you will be more than surprised they were an extreme athiest state that destroyed all places of worship for Christians,Jews and Muslims if that wasn't enough their psychiatrists would deliberately give religious people a drug that was guaranteed to severely damage their brains and leave them as zombies.

(Original post by loyalty is royalty)
Your right Athiesm doesnt tell you to do anything because its not a religion or system there is no authority within it. The Athiests of the soviet union killed to make Athiesm prevail not because Athiesm tells them to but because they decided to. As for religion there is no religion that commands anybody to kill apart from when it becomes crucial in times of defense.

People make this mistake a lot. The 'Atheists' of the USSR didn't do what they did because of Atheism, but because of the Communist agenda, or rather, Stalin's agenda. It's like saying the Christians that persecuted Jews under Nazi rule did it for Christianity, or because of their christianity. Well, maybe a few did, but on the whole I think we can agree it was a Nazi agenda. So if you wish to argue that the Godless of Russia are an example of Atheist extremists then we must broaden the remit of religious extremist to everytime an action of a State with a religion impacts any other religion.