Posted: Mar 27, 2019 3:12 pm
quas wrote:aban57 wrote:Regurgitation it is, then.
What's the point in discussing with you, if you don't even understand the fundamentals?ETA : you also confuse atheism with anti-theism.
I'm not confused. I prefer to use the term "militant atheism". Just as there are theists and militant theists, so there are atheists and militant atheists. You know how the libtards keep saying things like "religion is not the problem, fundamentalism (militant theism) is"? Well, Sam Harris argued irrefutably that theism -followed to its logical conclusion- inevitably leads to militant theism. The fact that not all theists are militant suggests that not everyone is logical or have the courage to follow through their conviction.
Logic isn't your strong suit either, because you manage to say something and contradict yourself in the same post. You acknowledge now that some theists are not "militant", despite saying the opposite a few times, including a sentence earlier. The logic or courage they display is irrelevant to that fact. It is no news either, logic is not a quality evenly spread in the human population, and that has been know since the dawn of humanity.
It is also a reductive and simplistic approach of beliefs (but who is surprised here ?) because it doesn't consider all the people who identify as religious, but which are in reality "cultural religious". Those people can't be defined as "militant", no matter how you present it. Or those who just want to leave in peace, and consequently ignore the bellicose content of their favorite book.
Anyway, the reason why they choose not to be "militant" is irrelevant to the fact that they indeed are not. Which means that Harris' argument (which you keep parroting) is fundamentally flawed.