[ExI] Muslim and Supermuslim: Toward Islamic transhumanism?
giulio at gmail.com
Wed Mar 4 09:05:36 UTC 2020
re "Equating people who are violent, coercive, etc., and happen to be
atheists, with people who are violent, coercive, etc. because of their
religion is false."
I'm equating people who are violent, coercive, etc., and happen to be
atheists, with with people who are violent, coercive, etc., and happen
to be believers.
If you insist on adding "because of their religion" to the second
part, then I will insist on adding "because of their atheism" to the
first part, because I really don't see any difference between these
two totally symmetric cases.
I can't be talked out my point. Assuming that you also can't be talked
out of yours, I suggest to end this discussion here.
On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 8:33 PM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> On 02/03/2020 22:49, William Flynn Wallace wrote:
> The problem with state atheism as an example of militant actions is that atheism is not the cause of the actions.
> This is exactly my point, which I don't feel that Guilio is getting. Atheism in itself, does not produce or encourage, or suggest in any way, any behaviour that could be called 'extreme', 'fundamentalist' or 'militant'. Or anything else, for that matter. This is why I'm saying there is no such thing, can't be any such thing, as 'fundamentalist atheism'.
> Equating people who are violent, coercive, etc., and happen to be atheists, with people who are violent, coercive, etc. because of their religion is false. There are very many examples of religious fundamentalists, but none of atheist 'fundamentalists'. It's a nonsensical concept (as I've said, I really really, furiously, in the extreme and with a passion, don't play football. How does this distinguish me from someone who merely doesn't play football? That's right, Not at all. It's a ridiculous thing to say (note: I'm not saying I hate football. I don't. I don't care about it one way or the other, I'm just not interested, and don't play it. I also don't think that football has any place in government or the law, that nobody should be required to play it, whether they want to or not, or judged by their ability at it or attitude towards it, and that it should not be given special preference over other sports, or that players should have any special privileges over other people)).
> I did ask for examples of this atheism-driven fundamentalism, and examples of the "the arguments of atheists against believers" that "can be redirected at the atheists themselves, who often behave exactly like fundamentalist believers", but so far have got nothing except that irrelevant link to State Mandated Atheism. What's the difference between that, and for example, State Mandated Islam? The latter is driven (certainly in many cases, if not all) by the religion itself. Is the former driven by the dictates of atheism (what are they? does anyone know?*)? Or is it driven by the controlling tendencies and political convictions of the people in power? I think we know the answer to that.
> * I do! But there's only one. And it's hardly a 'dictate', it's just a definition. You don't believe in gods. That's it. Nothing else required.
> Ben Zaiboc
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
More information about the extropy-chat