The Black Vault

Orangetom has responded with a waffling response as long as a book as usual, attempting to cover most of the history of religion, as well as an amazingly inaccurate look into the world today, and greeney has gone on two more long rants, and still not one attempt in all that to address the topic of the opening post.

You guys really have no shame

I'll let you keep going at it as you're bound to tire yourself out trying to deflect from the point, it must be exhausting.

OraProNobis wrote:With all due respect Humphreys, from what I have read of orangetoms posts, he has my utmost respect, and appears to be a very intelligent , and insightful person.
Personally, I enjoy his posts very much, and find them very thought provoking, and informative.

Cool, how come he's unable to keep on subject, then?

I'm sure his posts are fascinating once you get into them (I'm joking, they're not really, I tried once), but why should I care if it has absolutely no relevance to the thread?

I can tell you all about the history of lamp posts in Germany if you like, but let's do that somewhere outside of the thread about the use of the term "militant atheist", yeah?

Out of interest, how would you feel about having the label "militant Christian"?

Humphreys wrote;

Out of interest, how would you feel about having the label "militant Christian"?

I'm not sure I understand totally what militant signifies. Does it mean I would kill those who do not believe as I do? If it does, I would not like it at all because I don't believe that would be moral.

Has someone referred to you as a militant atheist? If that is the case, I'm sorry you have been referred to in a way that you feel is not true.

I will try and read you original post again, and watch the whole video, to try and come to a better understanding of what point you are trying to make.

My apologies if I am not understanding fully your point, and I can understand your frustration if you are feeling misunderstood or derailed in your thread.

I think orangetom has a way of addressing points, by pointing to other insights and truths around it, but that is my opinion only, and I realize that.

OraProNobis, yes, I have been labeled a militant atheist, even though I am in no way violent towards religion. It has also been implied that I want to wipe out religion by force, which is nothing like close to the truth.

Many atheists like myself who tend to be somewhat vocal and enthusiastic are often called "militants".

The point of the thread is to address that double-standard where vocal atheists are labeled as militants, whereas the same terminology does not apply to vocal believers unless they are in the violent minority.

I appreciate your attempt at fairness. By the way, there isn't a video, it's simply an article I came across which I feel addresses what I feel is a type of prejudice against atheists (and I run the risk of being called a drama queen and with having a victim mentality for pointing this out), and I singled greeney out as he is the number 1 offender for using this term.

Dear Humphreys,

After reading the article through, (which I admit I never did previously, but was merely addressing your personal assault on orangetom by posting) I can see very much your point.

I question whether the actual facts of the article are true though. Do we know with a certainty that atheists have never secretly banded together to kill those of religious persuasion, or hurt in some way those who think differently of them?

Many say it is atheism behind the powers that be, that wish to control, and have world dominance. Those that believe they are the only powers that matter, and have no care for others, and no fear of answering to any higher power?

I do not know for certain , but my instincts tell me there are secretly very militant atheists, who hide behind religions, and political agendas . Why is it slowly become a standard to take away all religious forms of prayer? Why would a non militant atheist even feel slightly threatened by prayer to what they consider make believe?

Unfortunately I fear that behind the scenes, we have some very militant atheists , who have nothing but selfish motivations and agendas.

Postby humphreys » Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:09 pm
OraProNobis, yes, I have been labeled a militant atheist, even though I am in no way violent towards religion. It has also been implied that I want to wipe out religion by force, which is nothing like close to the truth.

Many atheists like myself who tend to be somewhat vocal and enthusiastic are often called "militants".

I can totally respect where you are coming from humphreys, and I would certainly not consider you a militant atheist, and you have the right to question , and state your views. It is called free will and freedom.

If I want the right to practice my beliefs (without hurting anyone physically ) I need to respect your right as well, and am totally willing to do so.

What I do not believe is that all atheists are like you though, just as all Christians are not of the mindset , to forgive your neighbor and love your enemies. I think there are some atheists out there, who go to great extremes to destroy religious belief. That is not you though Humphrey, and there are many atheists who are morally better than some who call themselves Christians.

Labeling all people of a viewpoint by the actions of some of them , seems to be a mistake humans fall into.

OraProNobis wrote:I question whether the actual facts of the article are true though. Do we know with a certainty that atheists have never secretly banded together to kill those of religious persuasion, or hurt in some way those who think differently of them?

Hmmm, don't we treat people as innocent until proven guilty?

I will accept there is a good chance that at some point a group of unbelievers have got together to kill a believer, sure, there is a bad minority in any group, but I don't see that that makes it okay to label atheists who we have no evidence of such behaviour as "militant".

I think the article only said we'd struggle to find real militant (violent in the name of unbelief) atheists in America, and I think that statement is probably accurate.

OraProNobis wrote:Many say it is atheism behind the powers that be, that wish to control, and have world dominance. Those that believe they are the only powers that matter, and have no care for others, and no fear of answering to any higher power?

I notice a sense of suspicion about atheists. Do you feel that not having to answer to a higher power makes one more likely to harm others? Because crime statistics certainly say otherwise.

Maybe it seems like atheists are in charge to you, but to me, it seems the very opposite. I do not live in the USA anymore, however.

OraProNobis wrote:I do not know for certain , but my instincts tell me there are secretly very militant atheists, who hide behind religions, and political agendas . Why is it slowly become a standard to take away all religious forms of prayer? Why would a non militant atheist even feel slightly threatened by prayer to what they consider make believe?

Are we talking about mandated prayer, organized prayer, or taking away the option of praying altogether? I would think, whilst I certainly do not agree with it, the best reason for stopping prayer might be to stop further religious violence between those who believe in different Gods.

OraProNobis wrote:I think there are some atheists out there, who go to great extremes to destroy religious belief.

I am interested in what you mean by this.

By "destroy" do you mean by violence/force? By debate/argument? Or through politics?

I have many heated debates with believers where they try convince me of their beliefs, and likewise I try to convince them of mine, some would consider that an attempt to destroy religious belief by the atheist, or, as greeney explains it, an attempt to "take a soul away from God". Would you agree with that assessment?

humphreys wrote:Orangetom has responded with a waffling response as long as a book as usual, attempting to cover most of the history of religion, as well as an amazingly inaccurate look into the world today, and greeney has gone on two more long rants, and still not one attempt in all that to address the topic of the opening post.

You guys really have no shame

I'll let you keep going at it as you're bound to tire yourself out trying to deflect from the point, it must be exhausting.

They know it's a double standard, so they keep beating around the bush.

greeney2 wrote:it is just as assinine as EH's 51 proofs.

The fact that you keep calling them "51 proofs" is proof that you have no idea what you're talking about. It's 50 Proofs -- if you knew anything about them or attempted to look into them yourself then you'd know that. But this is typical from you. You're always talking out of your ass without actually knowing anything about a given subject.

greeney2 wrote:EH braggs that if he could bring down one believer, thats a good thing. Thats pretty sad, and says it all as human beings.

There you go again, twisting things out of context. I said if I could open up someone's eyes to the fallacy of the Bible and turn them into a theist (simply believing in "God" without the dogma), then that would be a good thing. That's it. And there was no "bragging".

You constantly accuse others of twisting things around, yet you do it all the time. And you accuse us of having an agenda, while at the same time your agenda is to smear all atheists that post here. Like I said before you're one of the biggest hypocrites to ever walk the planet.

Humphreys made a legitimate post about a double standard being made in regards to being called "militant". Towards you in particular, because you're the one who likes to use it towards atheists, so Humphreys had every right to address it to you. But rather than simply answer a valid point, all you seem to ever want to do is display your pompousness -- shown clearly by your "double barrel" comment. Your head continues to get so inflated it has now grown bigger than the Earth.

greeney2 wrote:Maybe Greeney2 makes more of a impact on your phoney theories and beliefs, that urk you?

Ahhh yes...speaking about oneself in the third person -- the epitome of arrogance. You make about as much "impact" as a bug on a windshield.

Oh and by the way, thanks for bringing up the proofs. That reminds me, we're due for another one.