Zealotry and Atheism

For as long as I can remember, zealotry has always carried a negative connotation. However, recent revelations have been made to me.

1. Christianity and Islam are some of the most widespread religions, with stable cultural footholds.
2. Said religions have been violent and zealous throughout their history.
3. All less fanatic or even passive religions are either restricted to certain areas or relegated to myth.
4. The only types of atheists I see today are either zealously liberal and self destroying or notice the threat of Islam yet refuse to spread their beliefs around.

Therefore, zealotry is a good thing. I'd go as far as calling it a virtue. In addition, the only way for Atheism to survive is for it to be as zealous as the other "Big Two" religions mentioned above, destroying those who would restrict it's growth. Complete with it's own Jihads and Inquisitions.

>But wouldn't that be Immoral.
Many here already want the blood of the Muslims. Morality isn't that big of a deal.

>But then Atheism would be a religion for sure.
Small sacrifice in the grand scheme of things.

>But what about Christianity's importance to western civilization.
What about the Greeks? The Romans? They and their philosophies will be remembered should Christendom fall. It will just not be worshiped.

>But Liberalism.
All the more reason for the conservative atheists to take action. Besides, they'll destroy themselves anyways.

>But the Law.
The law can be changed. If necessary, it will be changed.

I think that covers everything. If I missed something let me know. At the very least I hope you now know zealotry isn't a vice, but rather one of the best virtues for civilization.

But an atheist's higher functioning brain does not resort to violence in the same way the lower functioning religious types do. Also being an atheist allows you to appreciate and value your own life and safety (another reason not to embark on Jihad, for fear of getting killed in conflict) more do than having a sky daddy who will send you to happy place when you are dead.

What the hell is zealorty user/ Are you ripped

>But an atheist's higher functioning brain does not resort to violence in the same way the lower functioning religious types do.
And that will be their downfall. For as history and all of it's wars have shown, might does make right.

>Also being an atheist allows you to appreciate and value your own life and safety more do than having a sky daddy who will send you to happy place when you are dead.
Some would argue this as fear and cowardice, to not die to further your cause. Are you a coward, leaf?

Zealorty is zealotry misspelled. And no, sadly; I just came to this realization recently, and have not had the time to further my strength. I have been studying and exercising more since then, however.

All groups benefit from the presence of some zealot whose role it is to perform certain actions that the rest of the group will benefit from even though they do not benefit the individual who perform them. Furthermore, the zealot insures the consistency of the group.

There is a role for the zealot.

Of course, so then why have many people treated the role with disdain, especially in regards to religious or political beliefs? Is this a cultural ploy by some outside force to weaken us, or is it just the natural effect of time in regards to beliefs?

Zeal against other religions requires a spiritual component, or else they are just "misguided", rather than a moral and existential threat.
Atheists aren't too rational for this to work either. It only took a generation or two for every blithering suburbanite to start copping a smug attitude towards anyone with more quaint beliefs about evolution or the creation of the world, and yet these people know little, if anything, about the fields they're deferring to.

It'd have to be a Vayne Solidor kind of thing. Convince them that these religious people serve wicked and demonic entities that wish to enslave humanity.

It'd also be the worst mistake humanity could ever make. Even a world where America forces everything and everyone else into a semi-peaceful line is better than that kind of violent misery.

Nice quads.

First, zealotry is relative to an ideology. Today, there is A LOT of multicultural zealot who, because they are part of the mainstream ideology, do not register as being zealot. They are simply "more committed" or "passionate" about our "true ideals" of inclusion and so on.

Second, as a result of the first point, we're in a weird ideological moment in the west, in that we've declared a universal state. The idea of the universal state is that there should be no distinction made between the in group and the out group. As a result, the act of excluding should be prima faci impossible, as excluding logically entail some kind of out group. But this very ideology of inclusion MUST define in in group, namely the set of all those people that are "inclusive", whereas the out group is that set of people that is "exclusionary". Currently, the atheist zealot have been recognized as being part of this exclusionary group. They do not conform with multiculturalism and thus they are hated.

But the whole point of the zealot is precisely that he cares nothing for being hated.

>Zeal against other religions requires a spiritual component, or else they are just "misguided"
Or it could just require absolute and, to the untrained eye, insane commitment and passion.

> It only took a generation or two for every blithering suburbanite to start copping a smug attitude towards anyone with more quaint beliefs about evolution or the creation of the world, and yet these people know little, if anything, about the fields they're deferring to.
Then they shall learn as the common folk learned of the bible and Christianity. Either through force or through it being the highest power.

>Convince them that these religious people serve wicked and demonic entities that wish to enslave humanity.
That would ruin the entire point. Besides, it would be easier to use standard propaganda and convince them these religious people are the most pure and distilled version of evil. Unless that is what you meant.

>It'd also be the worst mistake humanity could ever make.
The worst mistake would end up with us enslaved to alien entities and used as lobotomized cattle, or something to that effect. What would result from this is nothing by comparison.

Though I am curious, what is a Vayne Solider? The first word sounds somewhat like vain, but does that have anything to do with it?

>day, there is A LOT of multicultural zealot who, because they are part of the mainstream ideology, do not register as being zealot. They are simply "more committed" or "passionate" about our "true ideals" of inclusion and so on.
Zealotry is in the eye of the beholder, then. They are evil because they are commuted, but we are not because we are committed.

>Second, as a result of the first point,....thus they are hated.
Of this I understand; the removal of borders and distinctions, of taboos and the individual to some extent, all in an attempt to remove conflict.

Anyways, I agree with your points, in particular the last sentence. To take it a bit farther, being called a zealot should be seen as a mark of pride, for you are so committed to your passion that it bothers and agitates your enemies, meaning you can more easily defeat them. Both ideologically and, if necessary, physically.

>"YOU'RE A FUCKING ZEALOT EXTREMIST"
>I am very committed to a certain way of life and I won't have it jeopardized I'm sorry.

It's easy to be a zealot when you can remain calm.

>It's easy to be a zealot when you can remain calm.
Calm, yet high energy. Collected, yet ready for violence. Cool-headed, yet filled with zeal. That is the best way to be a zealot.

being a Khaine zealot didn't end well for Tyrion.

I did not know that. Honestly, the reason I chose that particular image was on the basis of it appearing the most "zealous" of all I have saved.

This is very narcissistic

>Or it could just require absolute and, to the untrained eye, insane commitment and passion.
And as you yourself already said, Atheists completely fucking lack this. The foundational truth of atheism is that there will be no reward for the sacrifices you make for other people (or consequences for not doing so), making it unlikely that an atheist will go far out of their way for anyone who isn't personally important to them.
>Then they shall learn as the common folk learned of the bible and Christianity. Either through force or through it being the highest power.
Some of them already do, which is the group of smug suburbanites I was talking about. This would be necessary for what you're talking about.
>That would ruin the entire point. Besides, it would be easier to use standard propaganda and convince them these religious people are the most pure and distilled version of evil. Unless that is what you meant.
If your entire point is liberating humanity from outdated traditions and ensuring that no child ever is brought up to believe anything about those religions ever again, then it really doesn't.
If your entire point is just ensuring that Atheism itself doesn't die out as a school of thought, maybe you have more of a problem with Zealotry than you realize.
>The worst mistake would end up with us enslaved to alien entities and used as lobotomized cattle, or something to that effect. What would result from this is nothing by comparison.
There are no alien entities.

>Though I am curious, what is a Vayne Solider? The first word sounds somewhat like vain, but does that have anything to do with it?
The main badguy from final fantasy XII (I posted his picture). He's basically a fedora Hitler.

its actually a fun read

>And as you yourself already said, Atheists completely fucking lack this.
Then they need to obtain it, hence why I mentioned they needed the same zealotry as Christianity and Islam.

>The foundational truth of atheism is that there will be no reward for the sacrifices,etc.
Is not knowing you, at the very least, helped push the cause along reward enough? Again, it's about them needing to get passionate. They need to get fanatic.

>Some of them already do, which is the group of smug suburbanites I was talking about. This would be necessary for what you're talking about.
Then I fail to see the problem; If they do wrong by society or fail to further the cause, they will face the consequences and hopefully learn their lesson.

>The Third point.
It is both of these, though the former far less than the later.

>There are no alien entities.
Then some foreign power no one would have control over. My point still stands; there are worse results.

proselytizing of any kind makes you a fag
t. second generation atheist

Proselytizing just means I care about whether my belief system does not die out, and I'm willing to take drastic measures to do so.

t. I don't know what generation atheist.

What do you do when your enemy proselytize?

my enemies live halfway around the world

So that which increases the prevalence of something is virtuous? By that standard a member of a Satanic cult would be a saint if he murdered a million people in the name of Satan.

>Is not knowing you, at the very least, helped push the cause along reward enough?
When your cause is asserting that the universe is mundane, you're not exactly going to rally the fucking troops, no.
Human emotion is a response, not a conscious decision. The absolute best compromise anyone will get here is trying to pass humanity off as sacred (which is stupid and wrong), and religious influences as the devil.
>It is both of these, though the former far less than the later.
Why do you care about the later?
The only logical explanation is that you fear what will happen when atheists are rare enough for society to slip back into its old, theocratic ways, but the end result of the society you would want to see would be that exact fucking thing for a religious person.

Just because something is a virtue does not mean it's used only for good. Modern assassins are considered patient, the drug cartels are resourceful and loyal, yet do we call them saints? No, for it is how the tool is used, not the tool itself, which determines it's benevolence.

>When your cause is asserting that the universe is mundane, you're not exactly going to rally the fucking troops,
There are ways to make the mundane seem extraordinary, through the use of descriptive wording and vocabulary.

>Human emotion is a response
Then let them respond in a way which furthers the cause. Be it through fear, compassion, hate, or something else entirely. Remember, Hitler managed to do something similar.

>Why do you care about the later?
Why does a man care about his culture? His race? His family? Once you answer these, you will have answered the original question.