The Classical Freedom loving Left vs the Regressive Leftists

[Hygro]

I wrote a tl;dr and made the link work, maybe someone can translate

 

[illram]

Furthermore, 'religion is a malady' is a perfectly acceptable position to hold.

Malady is a disease or ailment. Saying religion is a disease is an incredibly offensive blanket pronouncement. I don't see how that is an acceptable starting point for any rational discussion.

I say that as a totally non religious person.

 

[Cheetah]

I have to admit that I didn't look up that particular word in a dictionary...

Though, when I did, it seems like it's not a too unreasonable word to use, from certain points of view. A malady seems to be defined as a chronic disorder, disease or condition. Assuming that religious belief has no rational reason behind it, and that religious beliefs can be used to argue or defend actions which wouldn't otherwise have occurred, one could argue that religion is a harmful, chronic mental condition.

Is there really any objective difference between believing one is Napoleon, or believing that there is a powerful being in the sky which is especially concerned with what one does while naked? (Yes, Carlin's version is far better.) The only real difference seems to be that the latter belief is much more widely held...

While I can fully appreciate that such a view can be found to be very offensive for people who do believe, and that it's far from the first point I would ever make in a discussion, I'm not sure that I can honestly rescind my previous statement. With the right assumptions, it seems like a perfectly valid (logically speaking) position to hold.

 

[MilitantSecular]

I think you also see it in Europe, much of these cultures, countrys of Europe, their nations and economies are all connected to Europe itself connected with the EU. They are connected into the single currency or connected by trade agreements to the EU now giving the European Union Project giant Federalist Power and Political Power. For a while we hear in writing from various European peoples, the French, British, Italian, Czech, Greece, Germans and others. Some others who slowly claimed a conspiracy of globalist elements, allegedly led by Business Leaders, Globalists, Turks, Saudis, France and Arab powers, to Islamize and Arabise Europe, thereby weakening its existing culture and undermining an alleged previous alignment with the U.S. and other Western nations, there was also a backlash from the Left against giving the EU more power...names like 'George Soros' and names of a bunch of corrupt refugee resettlement groups now start poping up in news media. The Greeks became very anti-EU and we saw protests as their banks were forced to shut blocking people's access to money, Syriza a group against the EU project wins the Greek election. A Eurosceptic movement was growing for a while or anti-EU grows so to speak, they are against immigrantion, against forced multi-culturalism, against open borders...

One character Nigel Farage was amusing to watch, he's not Left but his views were anti-EU and he was all for tougher immigration laws...when he first came out a bunch of leftists and anarchists would follow him around, shout him down, almost behave like a violent social justice leftists anarchist mob and throw things at him as he sat having lunch, they would be almost hysterical irrational scream 'Racist' 'Racist' at him all the time. It seems now with the rapes in Germany, suicide bombing, riots and shootings against cartoonists...his views, the opinion of Nigel Farage and UKIP were not so silly and he is now becoming part of the mainstream. In Greece there is Syriza led by Alexis Tsipras, in Italy an almost cartoonish looking party called 'Five Star Movement' and a United Left–Nordic Green Left filled with nationalists, anti-euros, patriots, socialists.

There is a Liberal Party called Venstre of Norway which is not just anti-EU but anti-Swedish....so why would Norway a Scandanavian country hate their brothers their fellow Swedes also Scandanavians....well it seems Sweden became one of those leftist socialist projects during the 1980s...they were at one time boring people chopped wood, built cars, had a nice social system everyone was blonde or white or Swedish, spoke the Swedish langauge, listened to ABBA a lot....everyone held hands, sang together....the politicians hated it, Sweden was too boring for them it needed to be more like New York or more multi-cultural like some big foreign city place so they opened up the borders and allowed immigrants to pour in, and things went good for a while. The Swedish social planners they took lots of people in from South America, from other parts of Europe they all eventually worked and fitted in. Sweden thought itself to be so fantastic, a wonderful perfect job of leftist social engineering, so what did they do next??? They open the borders and start allowing in thousands and thousands from the middle east, from Iraq, from Morocco, Kosovo, from Bangladesh, from Iran, from Afghanistan....and what happens when this Muslim culture mixes with the Swedish culture?? You guessed it things <snip> really quick, the theft, stabbings, shootings, rapes, they all skyrocket....in a nation with virtually no crime all of a sudden problems skyrocket, in the last few years Rape in Sweden sees an increase of 1,450% yes that is a ONE THOUSAND and FOUR HUNDRED and FIFTY percent increase....and who caused it...yup you guess it, the small minority of muslims allowed in from the middle east are largely responsible for the majority of increase in rape crime....and now Norway today has effectively closed its border with Sweden and refuses to allow any Swedes enter Norway...meanwhile millions of unvetted islamic refugees are still on their way to Sweden
So in Europe also you have lefts in a weird political civil war with others lefts, part of a United Left&#8211;Nordic Green Left which are anti-EU and Eurosceptical and there are other independents and others which UKIP is part of, but UKIP itself is not left.
....if any this makes any sense to you guys, well that's how I read it



for a long time a conservative UKIP who are anti-EU and other Left European party of Europe who were anti-EU and against immigration...they were simply dismissed as crazy or 'RACISTS'
its funny how times change and their views are now becoming mainstream


Link to video.


Link to video.

Worse than the Cologne cover-up, Sweden may have been covering up the criminality and rapes for years

Moderator Action: Inappropriate language.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[BvBPL]

Outspoken atheism? Unashamed atheism? Proud atheism? Or simply 'atheism'?

Note that no one is forced to listen to what Harris, Dawkins, et al. has to say, and that they do not simply march up to the closest religious congregation and yells at them. They're calmly discussing science, beliefs and religion in private or at venues and meetings they've organised or been invited to. And they're also polite and behaved when talking to religious people (and at least far more patient than I could possibly be).

Furthermore, 'religion is a malady' is a perfectly acceptable position to hold. The bonus is that such a position can also be rationally argued.

It's not that the position of Harris, Dawkins, et al is or is not defensible. As you say, arguments can be made for their position just as they can be made against the position.

But that position is an ideology, and one that is not shared by all atheists. Given this, a label is appropriate as a means to distinguish it from other atheists. New Atheism is the label that commentators have set upon. I don't really see a problem with it as a label. It doesn't seem pejorative or unkind.

If it is a term used exclusively by its detractors, then what do the proponents of the ideology call themselves? It would be cute to call them the Horsemen, but that's a less useful label.

 

[Farm Boy]

I might go with bigoted atheism. It'd dovetail with what makes a theist bigoted.

 

[MilitantSecular]

If it is a term used exclusively by its detractors, then what do the proponents of the ideology call themselves? It would be cute to call them the Horsemen, but that's a less useful label.

getting feeds from gamers in Europe, of course everyone will have their own political twists but some of the news is terrible, I get feeds from both left and right and all kinds of sources but if even one tenth of it it true then its deeply disturbing

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...te-ten-year-old-boy-raped-multiple-times.html

Swedish police were forced to run for their lives after being attacked by a mob of asylum seekers as they tried to relocate amid allegations a 10-year-old boy had been 'raped repeatedly' at a refugee centre.

Officers entered the centre in Västerås to save the young boy who had been reportedly attacked repeatedly by asylum seekers at the centre.

Initially, staff in the centre tried to remove the boy but were stopped by the mob. Instead the staff called police for backup.


One of the officers told the Vestmanlands Läns Tidning newspaper: 'Even more people appeared behind us. I was mentally prepared to fight for my life. We were 10 police officers in a narrow corridor. And I hear someone yell that there is an emergency exit.'

The incident happened last Wednesday, before a 15-year-old asylum seeker in Sweden was accused of murdering a girl working in a refugee centre.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9db_1441562461

Hello Germany!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/france-calais-locals-document-a-town-under-siege.471162/

A series of photos and videos posted to Facebook by the residents of Calais over the last 24 hours depicts a town under siege. Parents have been advised to keep their children indoors as migrants roam through playgrounds, while on residential streets police wearing riot gear stalk gangs of migrants. The pictures have been posted to Calais Libre (Free Calais), a French language Facebook page set up and run by concerned residents of Calais. The founders of the page say they set it up because they want to see Calais liberated from the grip of an "uncontrolled migration invasion".

http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/28760/54/

Top Psychiatrist: Angela Merkel is Having a Mental Breakdown

"Top psychiatrist and best-selling author Hans-Joachim Maaz says Angela Merkel&#8217;s refusal to reverse her &#8220;completely irrational&#8221; policy on accepting migrants is evidence that the German Chancellor is undergoing a &#8220;mental breakdown&#8221;.

Maaz, who was noted for his work studying the psychological impact of government repression on the population of the former East Germany, told Huffington Post Germany that Merkel&#8217;s &#8220;emotional&#8221; decision to open the country&#8217;s borders to a flood of refugees was an expression of her own rampant narcissism.

According to Maaz, Merkel being dubbed the &#8220;most powerful woman in the world&#8221; has left her incapable of handling criticism and prone to hubris, with the psychiatrist adding that the German leader has, &#8220;lost all touch with reality.&#8221;

Facing intense criticism from the German population and from within her own party, Merkel is at risk of an &#8220;imminent&#8221; mental breakdown and now represents a &#8220;danger&#8221; to Germany, according to Maaz.

&#8220;A psychological or psychosomatic collapse is imminent,&#8221; warns Maaz, adding that Merkel&#8217;s own nervous body language in which she clutches her jewelry is also a sign of &#8220;insecurity&#8221;.

Despite Merkel&#8217;s open border policy culminating in the mass molestation of women by migrants in the city of Cologne on New Year&#8217;s Eve, the Chancellor has refused to listen to critics who have demanded she significantly scale back Germany&#8217;s acceptance of &#8220;refugees&#8221; from the Middle East and North Africa.

In the aftermath of the Paris massacre, Merkel doubled down on her policy, insisting that Germans must show &#8220;tolerance&#8221; towards migrants.

In October, top security experts warned Merkel that the middle class in Germany is becoming increasingly &#8220;radicalized&#8221; in response to the migrant influx and that domestic unrest may occur as a result.

The warning was &#8220;circulated among high-ranking security officials in the federal government,&#8221; according to the report."

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...rants-his-little-girl-cowers-inside-home.html

Video footage (above) has emerged of a mob of migrants attacking a French family outside their home in Calais. ...
... Tyres and other detritus are thrown at the family, while in the doorway to the house a little girl of about ten years old can be seen looking terrified. A British socialist can be heard shouting &#8220;Nazi scum&#8221; at the family.

Sweden: Teenage migrant stabs refugee worker to death

Posted by Ann Corcoran on January 26, 2016

It is all over the alternative media, so you&#8217;ve probably seen it (in more graphic detail) than The Guardian gives us. Here is The Guardian story which should be headlined: &#8216;Migrant situation in Sweden completely unsustainable, police resources strained.&#8217;

An employee at a refugee centre in Sweden has been stabbed to death.

https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wo...eenage-migrant-stabs-refugee-worker-to-death/


Link to video.


Link to video.


Link to video.


Link to video.


Link to video.


Link to video.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Dawkins likes to say that no one is born into a religion no more than they're born into a political party. But this is obviously false: our formative years are vital to the shaping of our identity and character, our brains and potential. It's absurd to say that people aren't born Muslim or Christian; they are and the Athiests need to accept that people's religious upbringing shape their cultural identities.

ORLY?

So tell me what religion I was born into: My mother (now dead) was moderately Christian and utterly disgusted when I "came out" to her as an atheist 15 years ago. My grandmother wasn't a churchgoer, but enjoyed hymns and to please her, I learned to play some after I took up the spinet organ. My grandfather was atheist. My dad... I'm not sure what he was, but he thought there was "something" out there and it probably came here in a flying saucer. He kept buying tabloid trash and trying to get me back into believing in ancient aliens nonsense. I was mostly raised by my grandparents, and my dad lived with us on and off over the years.

So tell me: What religion was I born into? Atheism isn't a religion. Ancient aliens is just nonsense. My mother was a hypocrite who was disgusted by atheism, yet had no shame in pulling up to a gas station and the first words out of her mouth to the attendant were "Is this gas station owned by white people?.

Dawkins is correct to say that a child is born to parents who may or may not follow a particular religion. But it's ridiculous to say that a newborn baby is automatically part of a religion, since the kids at that stage are not going to be thinking about religion. They only care about being fed, warm enough, cuddled enough, and not having dirty diapers.

Of course one's religion has an effect on their cultural identity. But you have to have a religion first. And those who are religious have to accept that atheists are not some ravening pack of animals with no morals or reason to refrain from all kinds of violence and mayhem. It gets very tiring to be asked, "What's stopping you from killing people or eating babies?" I could ask them the same thing, since there seem to be plenty of religious people in prison for murder.

By regressive left do you just mean a bunch of stupid college kids?

Doesn't it seem like we've wandered into a Reformacon convention, except worse?

"Atheism as a social movement"? What does that even mean? There are no direct conclusions to be drawn from the realization that there are probably no gods, the conclusions are drawn from the personal experience and knowledge of the individual.

The only type of Atheism that could legitimately be called a "social movement" was Atheism+, but that's only because people tried to mix Atheism with social and political positions - and anyone who actually had interest in the "Atheist community" online knows what kind of a pathetic disaster that was... precisely because Atheists come from all fields of the political and social spectrum.

There was a Yahoo group I joined years ago called Real World Atheism. Some of the people in that group are the "let's burn all the churches and destroy all the religious sites and literature." After I realized that's how some people think, I left the group.

That's not the sort of people that represent me, and I want no part of it.

Yes. He is an idiot because studying religion is a waste of time. Religious beliefs have almost nothing to teach us, not even in the academic sense. They do not shape societies in the way geography and political developments do.

No, it's not a waste of time. It's a significant part of human history, and has been for thousands of years, back into prehistory.

There's no such thing as a 'new' or 'old' atheist. The term 'New Atheists' doesn't mean anything, and is really only used as a derogatory term against people one doesn't like. Apparently 'atheist' wasn't bad enough anymore, so someone added 'new' in front of it to make it seem dangerous again. It would be polite to stop using it.

Agreed. Here on this forum, and elsewhere online I've had the term "New Atheist" thrown in my face, and I had no idea there was such a thing. I'm not one of the sort that advocates blowing up places of worship or burning books, so the accusations can stop any time now.

So if New Atheism is inappropriate, what is a better term for the "religion is a malady" ideology fostered by Harris, Dawkins, et al?

"Opinion."

 

[Leoreth]

"Atheism as a social movement"? What does that even mean? There are no direct conclusions to be drawn from the realization that there are probably no gods, the conclusions are drawn from the personal experience and knowledge of the individual.

The only type of Atheism that could legitimately be called a "social movement" was Atheism+, but that's only because people tried to mix Atheism with social and political positions - and anyone who actually had interest in the "Atheist community" online knows what kind of a pathetic disaster that was... precisely because Atheists come from all fields of the political and social spectrum.

You don't have to tell me that, I have just expressed how uncomfortable I am with how social and political positions have been associated with atheism in public (online) discourse (and in particular what those positions are).

There does not need to be a formal organization or institution for there to be a prominent social movement being associated with an idea. Among prominent outspoken atheists, of whom many present themselves as representative of atheism in public debates and are treated as such by atheists and theists alike, there is a certain ideological bent to observe. Same for the run of the mill opinionated blogger you run across on the internet. You can also see some interesting overlaps with seemingly unrelated political positions.

Again, as an atheist who has little in common with most of these ideas I don't need to be told that this has little to do with atheism as an idea.

(The parallels or rather contrast of this tangent to "Islam is an Ideology" are hilarious by the way.)

 

[Princeps]

ORLY?

Yes really. I never said everyone coming from a religious background is equally invested in their religious identities, just as everyone isn't equally invested in their national identities.

That doesn't change the fact that for many people, especially in traditional societies, their faith is pretty much what they're born with. You come from a secular country, more or less, where open atheism is acceptable. As such you are exposed to alternative view points, which also work to moderate religious views --- you are shaped by the public knowledge common to people within your community. In a reactionary rural society, such public knowledge is narrow and controlled by reactionary institutions.

 

[MilitantSecular]

Crowding concerns after refugee centre worker fatally stabbed in Sweden
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/26/worker-stabbed-to-death-at-swedish-refugee-centre
Fifteen-year-old boy arrested after 22-year-old woman killed at home for young asylum seekers in Mölndal

'Horrible and tragic': 15-year-old migrant allegedly kills Swedish asylum worker
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/europe...migrant-allegedly-kills-swedish-asylum-worker
Mezher was allegedly stabbed to death by a 15-year-old migrant at a refugee centre in Molndal, a city of about 40,000 people on the southwestern coast of Sweden.

more

would the left of today consider Jimmy Carter an extremist? extreme for his immigration ban?

Link to video.

Margot Wallström, of the Social Democratic Party, ascended with much fanfare to the post of Foreign Minister in the fall of 2014. She had introduced a completely new concept: a feminist foreign policy. In the Statement of Foreign Policy of 2015, she asserted that "A feminist foreign policy is now being formulated, the purpose of which is to combat discrimination against women, improve conditions for women and contribute to peace and development."

One year later, we now know the outcome: "Feminist foreign policy" is not so much about protecting women's interests, as it is about fawning over the Arab states and the Palestinians -- and constantly attacking Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East.

Two Swedish citizens were convicted by a Gothenburg Court of joining an Islamist terror group in Syria and murdering two captives

Migrant rape fears spread across Europe: Women told not to go out at night alone after assaults carried out in Sweden, Finland, Germany, Austria and Switzerland amid warnings gangs are co-ordinating attacks

A police patrol of 10 officers was forced to flee a refugee center in Sweden after being surrounded by a mob of violent migrants. Law enforcement officials had arrived to relocate a 10-year-old boy after reports of his repeated rape at the facility.

One of the officers described what had happened in a police report obtained by the Vestmanlands Läns Tidning newspaper.

&#8220;Even more people appeared behind us. I was mentally prepared to fight for my life. We were 10 police officers in a narrow corridor. And I hear someone yell that there is an emergency exit,&#8221; the officer said.

The incident took place in the Signalisten asylum in Västerås last Wednesday but police didn&#8217;t provide any information to the press until Monday this week.

The authorities decided to relocate some of the refugees from the Signalisten asylum after reports on Saturday that the boy was being subjected to repeated rape there. However, the asylum staff were unable to complete the transfer by themselves as they were met by hostile attitude from the refugees, so they called the police.

With Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven stating on Monday that more staff are needed among the police dealing with an influx of asylum seekers, it&#8217;s clear that the authorities and the police are struggling to keep things under control.

&#8220;Many of the problems we are now facing help to prove the point that Swedish police have long been underfunded and understaffed,&#8221; Police Union Director Lena Nitz, told TT news agency.

Just this Monday a young woman, a refugee center worker in Mölndal, was stabbed to death when an argument broke out at the center for underage unaccompanied refugees. Alexandra Mezher, 22, was taken to hospital with severe injuries and later died.

She was stabbed by a 15-year-old boy who was later arrested on suspicion of murder. Mezher&#8217;s thesis was titled &#8216;The Road to Non-Criminal - A Lifestyle Change&#8217;. She believed that creating a trustful relationship with people was key for a social worker. The center where she worked housed 10 youths aged between 14 and 17.

Police have warned citizens that train stations are overrun by gangs of refugee boys who assault and grope women, and pickpocket and harass passengers.

A number of girls in Stockholm have reported sexual assault in public swimming pools, again involving asylum seekers.

Cultural totalitarianism did the impossible - it changed the very nature of man. An abstract ideology has suppressed the mind and senses - and the ability to feel compassion for real victims.In my correspondence regarding the events in Cologne, an editor of a Russian newspaper asked me a natural, but discouraging question; "Where were the German men?" he enquired of me, perplexed. Indeed, for us who grew up in Soviet Russia, it would be inconceivable that some drunk young people could publicly mock and harass girls on New Year's Eve in the very center of Moscow or Saint Petersburg. If they dared to do this, they wouldn&#8217;t survive until the morning, they would become "martyrs" and would have their way with 72 virgins in a completely different realm.

Sweden's Foreign Minister Margot Wallström is in trouble again. This time it has nothing to do with her hostile statements towards Israel. Rather, it concerns the apartment she rents in central Stockholm -- an arrangement that could lead to charges of bribery and standing trial. The National Anti-Corruption Unit has decided to open a preliminary investigation into the circumstances surrounding an apartment she obtained through the biggest labor union in Sweden, Kommunal.

A large mob at an asylum house in Nora tried to break into a room where a woman had barricaded herself along with her son. Some 30 Muslim men apparently thought the woman was in violation of Islamic sharia law, by being in Sweden unaccompanied by a man. They thought that she should therefore be raped and her teenage son killed. Asylum house staff called the police, who averted the plan.

One week after Sweden raised its terror alert level to the highest ever, the police raised another alarm -- saying their weapons are simply not good enough to prevent a potential terror attack.

Sweden is a special left case, Sweden that social conformity into one giant collective leftist brainwashing project
thankfully some have woken up started to laugh and recognize Sweden's insanity

Link to video.

 

[illram]

Moderator Action: A thread is not simply a depository for news articles. Please advance the discussion somehow with your posts.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Yes really. I never said everyone coming from a religious background is equally invested in their religious identities, just as everyone isn't equally invested in their national identities.

That doesn't change the fact that for many people, especially in traditional societies, their faith is pretty much what they're born with. You come from a secular country, more or less, where open atheism is acceptable. As such you are exposed to alternative view points, which also work to moderate religious views --- you are shaped by the public knowledge common to people within your community. In a reactionary rural society, such public knowledge is narrow and controlled by reactionary institutions.

You said that children are born into their religion. I lived most of my life in a multi-generational household (me, at least one parent, at least one grandparent) and all of us had different views of religion. So I ask you again, with the mixture I lived with during childhood (I settled the issue of atheism once and for all during high school; up to that point I was confused due to all the different mixed messages I was getting), what religion was I born into?

Saying it doesn't matter because I live in a society that allows people to choose is a cop-out. And while atheism is legal here, it's still not socially acceptable to stand up in a crowd of people who aren't atheists and announce that you're atheist. Funny, that: It's considered socially acceptable for people to come doorknocking and harass people about religion, Jesus, heaven, and hell, or for eager, enthusiastic Mormon missionaries to follow people around in hopes that they'll stand still long enough to be corralled into a conversation, and even obnoxious street preachers are allowed to go on with their screaming at people. One of my sociology profs in college figured it was okay to call me into his office and engage in proselytizing because my negative score on a survey disturbed him; I was the only student in the class whose rating of how important religion is in my daily life was something like -12 or -15 and everyone else's was well above 0.

But me asking for an alternative to swearing on a bible when I was hired by the City to work either on the census or as a Deputy Returning Officer for municipal elections garnered dirty looks from my colleagues and even from the City Clerk. It's still news to a lot of people around here that if you have to testify in court, they cannot legally force you to swear on a bible or any other "holy book" or invoke any kind of deity.

 

[Lohrenswald]

So if New Atheism is inappropriate, what is a better term for the "religion is a malady" ideology fostered by Harris, Dawkins, et al?

antireligion

 

[Rashiminos]

Malady is a disease or ailment. Saying religion is a disease is an incredibly offensive blanket pronouncement. I don't see how that is an acceptable starting point for any rational discussion.

I say that as a totally non religious person.

It serves better as an intermediate point when it can be established that religious movements cause distortions from healthful activity.

If we accept the premise that this main argument describes something real, what role, if any, do you think our present incarnation of technology-aided communication plays? Specifically real-identity social media networks? Just watching my wife deal with everyone from her parents, to her friends, to some of the crazier cousins on my side, and how to selectively block people who post ideas that either are patently absurd or that my wife thinks are patently absurd.... it just seems like the communication of this environment easily builds into something mob-like in temperament and tone. And it seems like the one thing you don't want to do in a mob is stand out. Which could, theoretically, make for one hella perpetually judgmental vibe? I mean, do HR people still stalk prospective employees personal social media profiles? They used to. I knew of one guy that didn't get hired in 2008 since he didn't have one to snoop and his competition did. So, if true, I think that perpetually judgmental vibe has teeth. Just like the parts of "conservative" culture we should despise as "freedom loving peoples."

Conduits for virulently implanting ideas into people's heads.

 

[Tahuti]

If this thread proves anything, it's that Rolf Dobelli was right about avoiding news.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I haven't kept pace with this thread, but I'm reminded how often people - not people here, necessarily, just people in general - confuse or conflate the terms atheist, agnostic, and secular. iirc, in The God Delusion, Dawkins couldn't quite categorize himself as either atheist or agnostic, but he liked aspects of each, and so described himself as "agnostic-atheist", or something like that. That was 10 years ago, so maybe he's clarified (or confused) his position since then.

I've sometimes called myself "agnatheist", partly tongue-in-cheek, but also partly because neither term quite covers me comfortably. I reject the definition of atheist as "one who believes there is no god", but so many people have taken to that definition and it isn't a fight I often feel like taking up, so I don't say I'm an atheist much anymore. I'm an atheist in the old-fashioned sense of the word - I don't believe there is a god - but mainly, and most relevantly, I'm a secularist. Maybe Dawkins and/or some of the other people classified as "New Atheists" are too.

 

[Leoreth]

I treat agnostic as a term describing the personal belief about whether the existence of God is knowable.

Atheist on the other hand is about what you actually believe about the existence of God.

These terms are compatible in all possible combinations. I've always thought it kind of lazy when people respond agnostic as if it was a middle ground between theism and atheism.

 

[warpus]

That doesn't change the fact that for many people, especially in traditional societies, their faith is pretty much what they're born with.

It's not what you're born with, because if that's all it was a baby born in the jungle and raised by wolves would be somehow Christian or Muslim.

That obviously wouldn't happen. You're born without a religion, and one gets pushed onto you by your parents and society at large. They take you to church, baptise you, and sign you up for membership. You're not born with that membership, how could you be?

 

[EgonSpengler]

I treat agnostic as a term describing the personal belief about whether the existence of God is knowable.

Atheist on the other hand is about what you actually believe about the existence of God.

These terms are compatible in all possible combinations. I've always thought it kind of lazy when people respond agnostic as if it was a middle ground between theism and atheism.

Right, another common misconception, that agnosticism is a theological belief system, when it's more of a... I dunno... rhetorical position? I agreed with Dawkins' problem with agnosticism, that (some?) agnostics seem to put equal value on belief and non-belief in the existence of God, that since proving the non-existence of God is just as impossible as proving His existence, the two positions are equally likely or valid. Dawkins puts the burden of evidence on the claimant, and I'm with him there. I take it a step further, to secularism, and say that agnosticism is moot, because the existence of God is moot, because He shouldn't have any influence on our governance or laws, whether anyone thinks He exists or not. Maybe that's because I'm American and Dawkins is British, and my society is under constant attack by religion. I had a similar discussion with a French friend who was a firm agnostic. He had a much safer position from which to regard these things objectively and philosophically (although that was 10 years ago and things have changed a lot for France since then).

Another term some people like to use, that feels a little lazy to me, is spiritual. e.g. "I'm not religious, but I am spiritual." I usually take that to mean, "I don't feel like discussing or defining my feeling or opinions about god in much detail, and I don't feel like getting into a heated debate about it", which as a secularist is a position I can easily accommodate. The "spiritual but not religious" people never seem to be the ones coming for my civil rights, beating up Sikhs, asking for tax breaks, or cutting healthcare for women.