Russians launch dedicated center to fight ‘atheist extremism’ - Polidicks

[QUOTE=blehblehbleh;41973395]What the fuck, atheism isn't an ideology or set of beliefs. It doesn't have rules or laws to be interpreted or followed. It's a lack of belief. How can you be an extremist-unbeliever in something? Extremists are generally motivated by their political or religious beliefs, but what is the extremist atheist motivated by? His lack of belief?[/QUOTE] Atheism is a world view, Islamic terrorists have their own world view, you don't need 'belief' to be extreme with your world view.

[QUOTE=Unit-05;41973530]well they better start learning it because they have to start knowing the difference between atheists fighting against the church establishment and politics and anti-theists fighting the belief of a god and their believers as well instead of just lumping one with the other and saying they are all just the same[/QUOTE] You don't understand the context here: this is a mob of very stupid people led by other people who specialize in licking current government's ass, none of these pay any attention the the accuracy of their rhetoric cause they don't need too. [QUOTE=Derp Y. Mail;41973521]I don't get why "liberal" is being used as an insult. I mean, the word is in its most utter essence positive. To be free, to be LIBERAL, to liberate. Calling someone a "liberal" in a demeaning way is a bit... well, dumb.[/QUOTE] Old remains of Soviet propaganda, anyone who's 'liberal' was obviously against the communist state and therefore a very bad person, amongst other things such as that liberals are pro-gay and therefore bad too cause Russian homophobia. The same way the word 'Commie' is used as an insult by US right wing, or the owrd 'Jew' is used as an insult by nationalists, or once again 'Commie' by liberals, though it's not an insult per its nature.

Time to get euphoric!

[QUOTE=efecanefe;41973128]Isnt the soviet russia was full atheists? How to hell they become religious again?[/QUOTE] The soviets were atheist on paper, but later on (After Stalin) religion became less strictly controlled. IIRC a primer (or whatever they call the "president" in USSR) even gave a high honor to a person who was a bishop (or something like that).

[QUOTE=fulgrim;41973280]Is it just me who is Not quite sure how you can manage to be an extremist over non-religion?, im not saying extremist athiests dont exist, just dont understand how one would go about becoming one.[/QUOTE] By advocating the complete destruction and murder of theists and religious institutions. It's pretty easy, same way you can be an extremist for anything else.

[QUOTE=Tureis;41973246]So is Russia now basically fascist? They seem to share a lot of the same rhetoric with fascist states.[/QUOTE] Yet many of them claim to be very much against fascism, ironic isn't it?

[QUOTE=Thom12255;41973595]Atheism is a world view[/QUOTE] No it isn't, it's a position on an issue, namely the position of not believing in a god or gods. That's the only thing that atheism ever implies, go any further and you're gonna need a different word. [editline]26th August 2013[/editline] I mean, the only reason we even need a word for it in the first place is the fact that its relatively uncommon.

[QUOTE=blehblehbleh;41974022]No it isn't, it's a position on an issue, namely the position of not believing in a god or gods. That's the only thing that atheism ever implies, go any further and you're gonna need a different word. [editline]26th August 2013[/editline] I mean, the only reason we even need a word for it in the first place is the fact that its relatively uncommon.[/QUOTE]If we needed an a*ism for everything someone didn't believe in, the dictionary would be a lot longer.

[QUOTE=blehblehbleh;41974022]No it isn't, it's a position on an issue, namely the position of not believing in a god or gods. That's the only thing that atheism ever implies, go any further and you're gonna need a different word. [editline]26th August 2013[/editline] I mean, the only reason we even need a word for it in the first place is the fact that its relatively uncommon.[/QUOTE] Not quite. Atheism is no gods or faith. If a person is faithful to a religion with no gods (Buddhism, for example) it's called nontheism.

the Great Fedora War of 2013 is upon us

[QUOTE=Aredbomb;41974218]Not quite. Atheism is no gods or faith. If a person is faithful to a religion with no gods (Buddhism, for example) it's called nontheism.[/QUOTE] Anyone who lacks belief in gods is an atheist, including nontheistic Buddhists.

[QUOTE=anis;41973087][IMG]http://rt.com/files/news/20/2c/d0/00/rian_01219932.hr.en.si.jpg[/IMG] one of the comments: [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/4oKWdSw.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] Well that's rich, considering the Catholic Church supported the Nazis up until and during WWII.

[QUOTE=Derp Y. Mail;41973521]I don't get why "liberal" is being used as an insult. I mean, the word is in its most utter essence positive. To be free, to be LIBERAL, to liberate. Calling someone a "liberal" in a demeaning way is a bit... well, dumb.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't go as far as relating it to freedom. By definition a liberal is someone who wants to see change as opposed to traditional values. For example, in the United States, our constitution has a more traditional stance because nothing has changed over several hundred years (like the freedom of speech, freedom for right to bear arms, freedom to privacy, etc), which are there for a reason. Technically, a conservative (no change required) supports to keep the constitution intact, while a liberal demands change (just like we have on going debates about the 2nd amendment where liberals take an anti-gun stance and conservatives don't). I remember seeing a thread a couple months back about an ancient Inca pyramid bulldozed to the ground, and some posters took a stance supporting the destruction of them. This is another example where a conservative would most likely take a stance on keeping pyramids for good reasons (because they are traditional to their history) where a liberal would take a stance on removing them (against tradition). I think you see where I'm getting at. Sure, the word 'liberal' comes from 'to liberate' or 'to be free of' and you would think in cases such as above it wouldn't really apply, but by definition, that is what liberals are; the demand of change. Now, I'm not saying this is always the case. There are issues where I usually take a liberal stance on subjects. But then you get to the really sensitive stuff where many liberals are idiots and often insult others who disagree with them. The article comment you quoted isn't a good example, but when people use 'liberal' as an insult, it's more so directed towards the extreme leftists rather than people in the middle.

[QUOTE=HighdefGE;41974852]I wouldn't go as far as relating it to freedom. By definition a liberal is someone who wants to see change as opposed to traditional values. For example, in the United States, our constitution has a more traditional stance because nothing has changed over several hundred years (like the freedom of speech, freedom for right to bear arms, freedom to privacy, etc), which are there for a reason. Technically, a conservative (no change required) supports to keep the constitution intact, while a liberal demands change (just like we have on going debates about the 2nd amendment where liberals take an anti-gun stance and conservatives don't). I remember seeing a thread a couple months back about an ancient Inca pyramid bulldozed to the ground, and some posters took a stance supporting the destruction of them. This is another example where a conservative would most likely take a stance on keeping pyramids for good reasons (because they are traditional to their history) where a liberal would take a stance on removing them (against tradition). I think you see where I'm getting at. Sure, the word 'liberal' comes from 'to liberate' or 'to be free of' and you would think in cases such as above it wouldn't really apply, but by definition, that is what liberals are; the demand of change. Now, I'm not saying this is always the case. There are issues where I usually take a liberal stance on subjects. But then you get to the really sensitive stuff where many liberals are idiots and often insult others who disagree with them. The article comment you quoted isn't a good example, but when people use 'liberal' as an insult, it's more so directed towards the extreme leftists rather than people in the middle.[/QUOTE] In Russia here, it's used as in insult by everyone who's pro-Putin against everyone else, left or not. :)

great athiesmo, someone should go inform the russians that they're looking more and more like the bible-belt of the United States, that'll shut them up real quick.

[QUOTE=JgcxCub;41974530]Well that's rich, considering the Catholic Church supported the Nazis up until and during WWII.[/QUOTE] Devout theists usually have selective memories and ethics.

[QUOTE=blehblehbleh;41973395]What the fuck, atheism isn't an ideology or set of beliefs. It doesn't have rules or laws to be interpreted or followed. It's a lack of belief. How can you be an extremist-unbeliever in something? Extremists are generally motivated by their political or religious beliefs, but what is the extremist atheist motivated by? His lack of belief?[/QUOTE] As in militant atheism. Which is bad.

[QUOTE=JgcxCub;41974530]Well that's rich, considering the Catholic Church supported the Nazis up until and during WWII.[/QUOTE] But Eastern Europe is Orthodox and considers itself separate from Catholic Christians, they don't answer to the pope in Rome, rather to a Russian one. When talking about liberals we most likely talk about the sensitivity of the West liberals to social issues such as gay rights, often represented by homophobic stories about how western schools can't teach about mothers and fathers because some children have gay parents, undermining "family values". Most believe that homosexuality is a sickness and some even believe that gays can take away their husbands and sons (or wives and daughters) from them. They also believe that western culture spreads and poisons russians with gay propaganda.

[QUOTE=qwerty000;41973148]Only the government. You can't expect people of 1900s to suddenly give up on religion. So it kinda lived on to this day[/QUOTE] Sure, but, do you realize everyone doesn't live 100 years, right?

[QUOTE=efecanefe;41973128]Isnt the soviet russia was full atheists? How to hell they become religious again?[/QUOTE] Well, soviet Czechoslovakia wasn't atheist in the slightest. Like, it was obvious that the soviets aren't happy about religion, but they didn't outright suppress it, at least not in large scale.

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;41976665]Sure, but, do you realize everyone doesn't live 100 years, right?[/QUOTE] The only reason children are religious is because their parents raised them with their religion. There is the occasional person who travels to china, "finds himself" and becomes a Buddhist but that is like a one in one million occurrence. Religion is passed down from generation to generation, or forced upon other cultures either violently or just flooding them with it. Parts of Russia are hardcore extreme Catholics. Like, more extreme than what you'd see in a small town southern city in the U.S. Granted they are basically Russia's equivalent of that anyway.

call me an atheist extremist all you want, i still think the russian orthodox church is the most horrible church on the planet that should be dismantled and indicted for its crimes against humanity and shit how many lives have been negatively affected because of this wicked institution's antisemitism, sexism, and homophobia?

[QUOTE=thisispain;41977944]call me an atheist extremist all you want, i still think the russian orthodox church is the most horrible church on the planet that should be dismantled and indicted for its crimes against humanity and shit how many lives have been negatively affected because of this wicked institution's antisemitism, sexism, and homophobia?[/QUOTE] I agree, but it should be a slower process of educating and de-converting people from their brainwashed ways: then they can dismantle their now defunct churches.

[QUOTE=Bredirish123;41973139]Like us Atheists could be daft enough to want to commit genocide of religious people. Of course there's extremists from all ends of the spectrum, but I more or less see Atheists as fairly good people with naturally humanistic values. Sure, we may belittle or ridicule religion; that doesn't mean we want to go burn down churches in the name of non-existence. That sort of goes against our views on every life being just as valuable as another, so why squander or end it because someone shares different views in how you explain the unexplainable?[/QUOTE] One of the only parts of religion I like is it's architecture.