Agressive Atheism

**TestudoAubreii** · November 30, 2009, 02:44 PM

Greetings,

Given the diverse religious and non-religious background of the members here on TWC, I was hoping to get a few topics and a good discussion from this 6 minute and 50 second video.

morrisonicus

**Fiyenyaa** · November 30, 2009, 03:03 PM

Quite a few good points here.
I always find it annoying when people say you must be respectful of all viewpoints. There are some viewpoints that are so disgraceful they deserve no respect.
So when you are about to whine about "aggressive atheists" why not examine their arguments instead of just dismissing them as being divisive?

**Salem1** · December 01, 2009, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by Fiyenyaa

I always find it annoying when people say you must be respectful of all viewpoints. There are some viewpoints that are so disgraceful they deserve no respect.

This - religion, but not the philosophy that religious people in my experience tend to claim is religion in this thankfully rather atheistic country, is one of them.

**Doctor** · November 30, 2009, 03:05 PM

This guy has misplaced his anger at a Church/organized religion and the perversions of men, with an anger with God.

He sounds like a pompous jack ass, but he has some good points about attacking injustices put forth by religion, not particularly original, but they are nice nonetheless.

Pure religion isn't something to snub at, but the religion of man and its stipulations are something to ignore.

**Arto** · November 30, 2009, 03:08 PM

Wow, I've just found some great lyrics here.

**Monarchist** · November 30, 2009, 03:10 PM

Religion is evil; faith is what drives goodness in men. There is a rather huge gap between the institution of religion and the belief of faith. The institutions often drive men to violence and theft, for they exist only to serve their own power and wealth. No matter how pious an organized religion at its inception, it always falls to human plagues. Faith, on the other hand, is ever-personal and ever-renewing of itself. Mr. Condell loves to conflate the two, however, being the charming individual he is.

Thankfully, we can fight back too.

**Doctor** · November 30, 2009, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by Monarchist

Religion is evil; faith is what drives goodness in men. There is a rather huge gap between the institution of religion and the belief of faith. The institutions often drive men to violence and theft, for they exist only to serve their own power and wealth. No matter how pious an organized religion at its inception, it always falls to human plagues. Faith, on the other hand, is ever-personal and ever-renewing of itself. Mr. Condell loves to conflate the two, however, being the charming individual he is.

Well put, sir +REP.

**~~Arch-hereticK~~** · November 30, 2009, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by Monarchist

Religion is evil; faith is what drives goodness in men. There is a rather huge gap between the institution of religion and the belief of faith. The institutions often drive men to violence and theft, for they exist only to serve their own power and wealth. No matter how pious an organized religion at its inception, it always falls to human plagues.

This I can agree with.

Originally Posted by Monarchist

Faith, on the other hand, is ever-personal and ever-renewing of itself. Mr. Condell loves to conflate the two, however, being the charming individual he is.

Thankfully, we can fight back too.

I agree with you partially, personal faith is ever-renewing itself (hopefully), but is it not this faith that gives the institutes their power? I think (the charming) Mr. Condell has conflated the two concepts to an acceptable degree considering his personal background.

As for the link I think it might be a case of mutual over-agression that will only escelate now to petty and childish situation of tit for tat that helps no-one. We'll blame you for opressing us and you'll blame us for over-reacting and it'll never get solved.

**jankren** · November 30, 2009, 03:22 PM

I dont like his face. Im not gonna bother hearing what he says.

**Yaga Shu Ra** · November 30, 2009, 03:26 PM

Face-ist!

**TestudoAubreii** · November 30, 2009, 03:33 PM

Face-ist!

- That's funny!

I don't necessarily disagree that he may come across a bit annoying, but isn't kind of the purpose of the video, to show the hypocrisy of some religious groups? You know, when their views and beliefs are assaulted they are the first to cry out, however they have no problem judging and attacking people who don't agree with them. I think that the video was meant to be ironic.

morrisonicus

**Yaga Shu Ra** · November 30, 2009, 03:39 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face-ism

**TestudoAubreii** · November 30, 2009, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by Yaga Shu Ra

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face-ism

My initial reaction was to laugh, but I had to idea. I guess we learn something everyday. Thanks!

morrisonicus

**Yaga Shu Ra** · November 30, 2009, 04:00 PM

Ok... the strangeness of that wiki page actually existing has passed... onto the video:

The hints of anger and smugness in the tone of his voice will probably be used as arguements against the issue he's giving his account on.

**Sir Winston Churchill** · November 30, 2009, 03:56 PM

I'm sorry, but when I heard him say "as if there is anything wrong with it" I stopped. I'm not going to try to convert you so stop insulting my religion, and you know you like doing it. Atheists think they're so high and mighty and intelligent then why don't they go and leave us alone eh?

Aggressive Atheism, Aggressive anything is rarely good at all. Atheists can stop being jerkwads who look down on anyone who believes in a religion any time now.

**Helm** · November 30, 2009, 04:02 PM

Assertive atheism is better.

**Sir Winston Churchill** · November 30, 2009, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by Helm

Assertive atheism is better.

Passive everything is the best.

**Helm** · November 30, 2009, 04:24 PM

If you're too passive people will just walk all over you.

**Sir Winston Churchill** · November 30, 2009, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by Helm

If you're too passive people will just walk all over you.

You're right but at least people can't say you're a jackass right?

**Bovril** · November 30, 2009, 04:40 PM

Assertive debate is marvelous thing. Needless agression is bad manners (generally and intellectually) and bad tactics. Dawkins is never going to convince his oponents of anything at all because he comes across as arogant, condescending and heeldess of criticism. He is the intellectual equivilent of a cheerleader. Hume, on the other hand, who was no less convinced an a-religious person, and a far braver one at that, has had a big influence on many parts theology due to his intellectual rigour and the moderation of his argument. Atheists, and people in general, should take Hume rather than Dawkins for their model. Contemporary athesits working more along Hume's lines than Dawkins' include Dennett and Habermas.