Militant Atheists & and CT's

Brown Bomber

I'm curious, why do militant atheists have a hatred of conspiracy theories almost as much as they hold a hatred for organised religion?

Only reason I can think why they'd even care would be one of the cornerstones of their argument is the threat and past crimes of religious fundamentalism and the CT view threatens this.

Any thoughts?

Ken_Is_Here

Even atheists have a set of BELIEFS which they follow. And seeing as they are 'militant' in their anti- religious beliefs it stands to reason that they would be 'militant' towards anything else that doesn't fall into their way of thinking.

PirateShampoo

You use hear say/youtube or CT biased websites for evidence while criticizing mainstream unless of course it agrees with your point of view. When you are proven to be wrong on something you don't acknowledge it and will continue to argue the point which is now void.

You also refuse to look at thing objectively and if we don't agree with you, then we are Blind/Asleep/Ignorant/Head in Sand/Unenlightened.

And don't get me started on David Icke and his Fan Boys he has on here, his theory's have more plot holes than a episode of Heroes.

Darlughda

Because a lot of conspiracy theories have some kind of religious roots in them. The very notion of satan and devil worshipping is as bizarre to an atheist as is the worship of Zeus to yer average Irish catholic.

Actually, the Bavarian Illuminati in its original foundation have been credited as the foundation of atheism!!

The notion of god/devil evil/good light/dark can really detract from some conspiracy theories, but its clear that these concepts are an inherent part of a lot of theories. These absolutes can be just a bit too simplistic for atheists too handle.

Also, imho, some atheist would have very strict mathematical, logical and reason-proof viewpoints of the world which I personally find problematic, to say the least, but obviously this is going to be a collision point with conspiracy theories.

Yitzhak Rabin

I think its that they undermine evidence based thinking.

I can't claim to speak for anyone else, but as an atheist(not sure what you mean by militant, but I presume it means that I challenge religious people to defend their views when they assert them?) I think I'm naturally skeptical. Most CT's require a suspension of disbelief. You have to buy into them. There are always certain elements that you just have to accept, before exploring them at a deeper level.

One of the core tenents of almost all CT's is that 'the government'/'science'/'the establishment' does not have peoples best interests at heart, when you are asked for examples of how this is true, the evidence I always find is shoddy, anecdotal, and much easier explained by the selfish actions of isolated corrupt individuals, rather than an endemic organised and concerted effort.

Some CT's p1ss me off alot more than others. Basically the scaremongering ones around people's health is one of the ones that really annoys me. The types of people who sell crystal healing/homeopothy/reiki/psychics/etc. I think that they exploit the most vulnerable and desperate of people to make a quick buck. Some of them genuinely believe in their cures, but they won't have them tested.

I'll probably add more to this later, but another reason why I argue the merits of CT's, is because I believe some of them, but what is most important to me is the truth, and thats why I refuse to accept anything, be it religious claims or CT claims merely on faith, which is what alot of them require. I also find it ironic how the CT'ers have branded themselves 'truthers' when from what I can see alot are willing to lie, distort, exaggerate and fabricate the evience for their claims. I think I am much happier to say 'I don't know' rather than to 'just know' and not know why.

(PS on the point of the label "Militant Atheist" This excellent video sums up how I feel about that)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulAl4OjwvG4

Only reason I can think why they'd even care would be one of the cornerstones of their argument is the threat and past crimes of religious fundamentalism and the CT view threatens this.

I don't get what you mean by this? Can you expand what you mean?

Brown Bomber

PirateShampoo wrote: »

You use hear say/youtube or CT biased websites for evidence while criticizing mainstream unless of course it agrees with your point of view. When you are proven to be wrong on something you don't acknowledge it and will continue to argue the point which is now void.

You also refuse to look at thing objectively and if we don't agree with you, then we are Blind/Asleep/Ignorant/Head in Sand/Unenlightened.

And don't get me started on David Icke and his Fan Boys he has on here, his theory's have more plot holes than a episode of Heroes.

Your response has confused me a little. Are you acknowledging that you consider yourself a militant atheist?

If so, none of your answer actually answers the question as to why you or others actually give a damn about CT's I get the whole aggressive anti-religion thing, though I don't agree with it. I mean, CT's are a topic on militant atheist high-priest James Randi's site, why?

Feeky Magee

Because atheists are sensible people and, by and large, conspiracy theories are not sensible.

Darlughda

Feeky Magee wrote: »

Because atheists are sensible people and, by and large, conspiracy theories are not sensible.

That's a silly post. I am not sure what you think 'sensible' exactly to mean, but to state such a sweeping statement is far from sensible in my understanding of its definition.

Brown Bomber

All good points well said. I'm not suggesting you are a militant atheist and based on your response I'd consider you a genuine skeptic who happens to be an atheist, someone who weighs up the evidence before making a decision. I actually agree on publically challenging disinfo from the profit-driven alternative health solutions too as it happens. I'd also consider myself sceptical by nature believe it or not, and consider myself rational and I don't think there is any point in getting into "my media tells less lies than yours" conversation...The question really is

What is the connection between pro-government, pro-official story on EVERY SINGLE issue pseudo-skeptics and militant atheism? What is the connection between hating faith in CT's and religous faith? And why do some people seem to care so much what someone else thinks?

yekahs wrote: »

I think its that they undermine evidence based thinking.
?

Brown Bomber

Feeky Magee wrote: »

Because atheists are sensible people and, by and large, conspiracy theories are not sensible.

OK...Some atheists are not sensible people and some conspiracy theories are sensible. So where does that leave us?

biko

why do militant atheists have a hatred of conspiracy theories almost as much as they hold a hatred for organised religion?

Do they? Do you have examples?
I love conspiracy theories, just don't post here much.

PirateShampoo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Your response has confused me a little. Are you acknowledging that you consider yourself a militant atheist?

I don't even consider myself a atheist. Labeling someone is just a step towards trying to oppress them.


Don't think there are any militant atheists on this forum.

Brown Bomber

yekahs wrote: »

I don't get what you mean by this? Can you expand what you mean?

Sure, I'll try. I'll give an example at least.

Hitchens, Dawkins etc are all advocated of the 911 official story (which is fair enough in itself). They blame religious beliefs, specifically Islamic fundamentalism for the attacks which supplements their world view which they aggressively push.

Now, assume (just for a minute;)) that the attacks were done by the CIA for example and their are some reasons to question the official story that it had nothing to do with religion but lust for money and power, the militant atheists have just lost a key component of their argument of religion = bad. (All the while ignoring the deeply religious Stalin)

Therefore, these militant atheists have a motivation for pushing the possible lie of the official story, don't they?

nullzero

Not respecting other peoples beliefs despite of their right to hold them show's said persons in a light they'd rather not be seen.
I believe many people are wrong to believe certain things but I have never felt that I have a right to inflict my beliefs on them.
I feel all religions are completely bogus and that people who think science has answered every possible question need to think again.
As a species we're learning as we go along, it's the only option we have. So anyone who thinks they have all the answers, be it from the religious beliefs they hold or the science they feel has been perfected and feels they have the right to bully people and belittle them based on their beliefs are all as bad as each other.

It baffles me why people who have no interest in CT's come onto this forum to argue with those who choose to take an interest in them.
Don't get me wrong, they have every right to be here and I'd never suggest they don't, but in terms of logic, it's quite strange to say the least.
I mightn't understand these people, but I don't feel I have a right to tell them they're wrong.

Take for example Richard Dawkins, he believes that "God" doesn't exist. I agree with him that religions are generally awful institutions that we would be better off without. However, to say that a God cannot exist based on zero evidence is just arrogant. We can say that there isn't much evidence to say that God does exist, but there isn't anything to conclusively prove a God doesnt exist. It's improbable that there is a God, it's also improvable that there isn't a God.
It's a grey area, so it's probably best that we don't go around shouting from the rooftops that God doesn't exist, it wouldn't be very good scientific practice now would it?

Brown Bomber

Darlughda wrote: »

Because a lot of conspiracy theories have some kind of religious roots in them. The very notion of satan and devil worshipping is as bizarre to an atheist as is the worship of Zeus to yer average Irish catholic.

Actually, the Bavarian Illuminati in its original foundation have been credited as the foundation of atheism!!

The notion of god/devil evil/good light/dark can really detract from some conspiracy theories, but its clear that these concepts are an inherent part of a lot of theories. These absolutes can be just a bit too simplistic for atheists too handle.

Also, imho, some atheist would have very strict mathematical, logical and reason-proof viewpoints of the world which I personally find problematic, to say the least, but obviously this is going to be a collision point with conspiracy theories.

In my opinion it is mostly the disinfo conspiracy theories that have connections to good/evil God/satan aliens, bigfoot, loch ness etc, its not really what I mean. These same people reject the work of David Icke in the same breath as scholars like Chomsky, Vidal, Finkelstein, Mearsheimer & Walt, and most recently on this board Professor Anthony Sutton, though it is an insult to refer to their collective works as conspiracy.

Brown Bomber

PirateShampoo wrote: »

I don't even consider myself a atheist. Labeling someone is just a step towards trying to oppress them.


Don't think there are any militant atheists on this forum.

I don't believe in labelling anyone either, but I see no problem with describing them as such if it is part of their own considered identity.

I can think of 2 posters here who would certainly be "militant atheist", and the term is not used as a slur.

Your not one of them btw :P

Yitzhak Rabin

One of the reasons, this is probably unlikely, but just occured to me, could be the level to which one's brain is wired to seek out patterns.

Humans are excellent at spotting patterns, its one of the key reasons we are so successful as a species. We are constantly searching for the reason or pattern behind what we see. Its why we started to ask the question why?

However, there is a downside to our zealous want of knowledge, and that is that we sometimes see patterns that aren't there. Like when you see a face in a rock, or a tree.

Perhaps CT'ers are much more avid pattern seekers, creating elaborate explanations to explain why things are the way they are. They could also apply this pattern seeking to answer some of the deeper questions, but substituting in a God. Maybe atheists lack this degree of pattern seeking? Perhaps, just as a militant atheist speaks out against the 'false pattern' of god, maybe they also feel compelled to speak out against what they see as a false pattern CT?

There is alot more I want to say, and answer your 9/11 question, but I need to head off. I'll be back in the morning(hopefully I'm not back later tonight, or I'll probably accept the Lizard theory as fact in the state Ill be in! :pac:)

My name is URL

Something I've noticed (and secretly find humorous) is how a huge proportion of people talk about climate change and how it's all a con, and at the same time deride any sort of conspiracy theory.

I guess it's the same with religion.. people have a fixed set of beliefs, and there's nothing you can do to make them want to change their minds

Truthrevolution

I used to be a sceptic and i dont really believe in religion either so i suppose you could say im a little on the atheist side.I dont believe in anything unless i see a certain amount of evidence.I have been reading about conspiracies for years and believe it or not i used to laugh about the same conspiracies which i now believe.I have a good home and im financially secure, i used to think it so pathetic why these paranoid conspiracy nuts were biting the hand that feeds them.Nonetheless i still found it interesting to read and the deeper you go into it the more it makes sense, you will see these conspiracies unravelling before your eyes, that is when you realise - oh **** those guys were actually right.Everybody i believe will be given a chance to wake up and realise what is going on but that is a good thing, i have made some good decisions on information based on "conspiracy theorists".Like for example if you had a fair idea of when the markets were going to crash or when gold prices were going to skyrocket you can realy take advantage of that information, which i did

Im straying off topic here, anyway nullzero made a good point there, why do some guys feel the need to come on here and rather than discuss the issues they go against them (this is the conspiracy forum after all).I dont think other forums would put up with this.I was posting in the health science forum recently and i was told in no uncertain terms that if i wasnt willing to discuss the issues that go along with their way of doing things then i would be banned.That was for simply asking a few awkward questions that some of the posters didnt agree with.

Darlughda

Brown Bomber wrote: »

In my opinion it is mostly the disinfo conspiracy theories that have connections to good/evil God/satan aliens, bigfoot, loch ness etc, its not really what I mean. These same people reject the work of David Icke in the same breath as scholars like Chomsky, Vidal, Finkelstein, Mearsheimer & Walt, and most recently on this board Professor Anthony Sutton, though it is an insult to refer to their collective works as conspiracy.

Sorry, dont wan't to drag this off topic, but thanks for that BB. This was what I was beginning to suspect, and you have articulated this in a way that makes sense to me.

nullzero

Truthrevolution wrote: »

I used to be a sceptic and i dont really believe in religion either so i suppose you could say im a little on the atheist side.I dont believe in anything unless i see a certain amount of evidence.I have been reading about conspiracies for years and believe it or not i used to laugh about the same conspiracies which i now believe.I have a good home and im financially secure, i used to think it so pathetic why these paranoid conspiracy nuts were biting the hand that feeds them.Nonetheless i still found it interesting to read and the deeper you go into it the more it makes sense, you will see these conspiracies unravelling before your eyes, that is when you realise - oh **** those guys were actually right.Everybody i believe will be given a chance to wake up and realise what is going on but that is a good thing, i have made some good decisions on information based on "conspiracy theorists".Like for example if you had a fair idea of when the markets were going to crash or when gold prices were going to skyrocket you can realy take advantage of that information, which i did

Im straying off topic here, anyway nullzero made a good point there, why do some guys feel the need to come on here and rather than discuss the issues they go against them (this is the conspiracy forum after all).I dont think other forums would put up with this.I was posting in the health science forum recently and i was told in no uncertain terms that if i wasnt willing to discuss the issues that go along with their way of doing things then i would be banned.That was for simply asking a few awkward questions that some of the posters didnt agree with.

That was a nice articulate post.
As for the people who come here to argue, I believe that they can do as they please, it's down to the forum admin's to change these things, it is their party after all. Although the behaviour in Conspiracy Theories isn't exactly conducive to a lot of the other forums on Boards.ie. I post mostly in the Soccer forum these days, where there is a total "No acting the arsehole" policy(so to speak) in affect.

Undergod

Ken_Is_Here wrote: »

Even atheists have a set of BELIEFS which they follow. And seeing as they are 'militant' in their anti- religious beliefs it stands to reason that they would be 'militant' towards anything else that doesn't fall into their way of thinking.

I'm an atheist; please tell me what my beliefs are.

I wouldn't consider myself militant by any means, and I do have a great interest in conspiracy theories. But you've got to realize there's a difference between "interest" and "belief".

I find lots of them interesting, many of them stupid. Some of them I think are probably true, based on the evidence, others I do not. Most of the ones of the type I am interested in don't get discussed here.

fontanalis

Ken_Is_Here wrote: »

Even atheists have a set of BELIEFS which they follow. And seeing as they are 'militant' in their anti- religious beliefs it stands to reason that they would be 'militant' towards anything else that doesn't fall into their way of thinking.

No they don't, only people like David Quinn who think that expressing a religous belief gives them exemption form crticism believe that. And how is not believing in the writings of sheep herders thousands of years ago militant? And isn't this whole section of boards not dedicated to militant troofers?

Nick Dolan

The same critical thinking that leads people to not believe in God is easily applied to conspiracy theories, which is why you get an overlap but i think your trying to make a direct link thats not there.

Also on a side note, I would like to see some way of determining which threads are for full blooded arguing for and against the thruthfulness of a CT and which are just for discussions of the various theories surrounding an issue. If this section is just for proponents of CTs then lets make it clear and lets have a seperate sceptic section or something. But If this section is about debate then you cant have an attitude of "why come here if you dont agree". Freedom of speech baby!

Also, if this isnt off topic i wasnt quite following the stuff about David Icke. Were those posters backing his views or saying his views are wrong, because i think dismissing his views is very creditable and in no way makes someone closed minded