Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Advancement is a series of successes and failures. It is a bit like the stock market and sometimes there is a major crash. The state of the world todays is the best we ever had in world history and it keeps getting better. However, there is always the chance of a crash by trying some crazy or even reviving what never worked in the past.
With few exceptions atheists never ran nations and the idea of an atheist world may not necessarily work. Religion as we mostly know today is based on a deity, but there is plenty of religion based on secular nonsense.
I'll repeat my question, which you failed to answer. What strategies of oldie atheists "worked"? That was your claim, but of course, you responded with a post that didn't address that.
Nonsense! Many of the regular posters in this forum were Christians for a long time and understand that religion very well, no matter how long they have called themselves atheists. Atheists are people who don't believe in any God (or gods). No newbie, older, Levels, or veterans. Just atheists. Maybe you're just making all this stuff up.
Nah, the levels-of-atheism thing is from the Interwebz.
1) The fact that you think you can decide when it’s deserved, for one.
It is deserved when it becomes public...just like listening to someone's phone call when they are shouting into their mobile phone on the train
'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
I am 100% for free speech. But, seeking a person a and directly engaging the person is not free speech. Otherwise, nasty words about Christianity in the forum are quite OK. However, Islam seems to get a pass.
No it doesn't. Muslims are regularly challenged here. There are very few of them.
You are really reaching. How sad; especially after the numerous insults you've hurled at me out of the blue, that I've never reported.
Julian was responding to my post, so your accusation of dishonesty in your response to him was clearly aimed at me. So do not play the victim.
And I have never insulted you, although you may have felt insulted when I pointed out your narrow minded opinions ignore other options as to why people post here. But as always, you know us better than we do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabfest
How sad and fragile and after you've had the nerve to publicly call other posters posts dangerous simply because you lack diversity.
Now you have beaten that straw man into a pie of straw, do you have a rational argument to make?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabfest
Tsk, tsk, evidently even you know your arguments are weak and self-serving.
I use science, mathematics, history and logic (and I note you have never attempted to correct any of these 'weak and self-serving' arguments ). You do not even make arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabfest
And for the record, I was addressing the victomhood fallacy phenom but if the shoe fits you perfectly so be it.
Which is a fallacy that has nothing to do with this discussion, so it is ironic you have taken on Julian's weak argument.
I'm not so sure that atheists all see religion as the "biggest enemy of humanity". Just one that could be solved with different thinking.
What aspect of society today isn't tribal to some extent. That's sort of irrelevant. But I'm not sure there is an echo chamber since we still live our lives in a predominantly christian environment.
What's worked in the past? What in atheism really worked in the past.
Sometimes you get wrapped up in cliches.
Of the atheists that I have known (I say it that way because there have probably been others, but the topic never came up), only one of them was "anti-religion." Everybody else didn't care. Religion simply wasn't a part of their lives. You would think that they would have said something of they thought religion was the "biggest enemy of humanity."
The concept of NEW atheists is well known. I am not making this up. Google is your friend, give it a try.
Where intelligent people find many different definitions, usually used to pretend the vocal atheists have no arguments. The term New Atheist is often used as an ad hominem by people with no rational arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
Furthermore, you reduce atheism to extremely simplistic terms which is a NEWBIE move. You prove my point.
Atheism IS simply not believing in gods, by definition. You have no point.
I agree, the new atheist is aggressive and see religion as the biggest enemy of humanity. The old seasoned atheists of the past looked at the issue of atheism in a more academic manner.
The issue with new atheism is that it can become tribal once all members are permanently installed in the echo chamber. NEW atheism is also in danger of overlooking what has worked in the past.
Nah, the levels-of-atheism thing is from the Interwebz.
And according to Julian's definition, I am all levels at once. I must be a quantum atheist.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). You do not even make arguments.
