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.
Yes because when you say one thing people should assume you mean something else. Not SURE that is how conversation works really.
However if you limit it to just "extreme" atheists I can not thin of ANY let alone american ones. You yourself mentioned Dawkins and Hitchens but I see no reason to label them extreme. Vocal maybe, but that is not synonymous with Extreme. Many people are vocal on many issues but we do not call them extreme.
So at this point it is not actually clear who or what you are actually looking for.
Also it is not really correct to call Hitchens "a brit". He was a full american citizen when he died. He did not just live there, he repatriated.
Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett are both american if that helps you though.
Harris is more "extreme" than Dennett. Lawrence Krauss is aspiring to join Harris IMO...perhaps you may include Victor Stenger here as well. But it does these great thinkers a disservice to categorize them as "extreme", which may perhaps be taken to be a pejorative label. The most "extreme" American atheists tend to be the most insightful American atheists...which is hardly a surprise. The most extreme X tend to be the best at X....
Harris is more "extreme" than Dennett. Lawrence Krauss is aspiring to join Harris IMO...perhaps you may include Victor Stenger here as well. But it does these great thinkers a disservice to categorize them as "extreme", which may perhaps be taken to be a pejorative label. The most "extreme" American atheists tend to be the most insightful American atheists...which is hardly a surprise. The most extreme X tend to be the best at X....
Some might call Penn Gillette a bit extreme because he is quite aggressive in some instances. However, he is quite reasonable and tolerant in others. I do believe he is one of the best ambassadors for atheism, articulate and funny.
Some might call Penn Gillette a bit extreme because he is quite aggressive in some instances. However, he is quite reasonable and tolerant in others. I do believe he is one of the best ambassadors for atheism, articulate and funny.
Yeah, I like Penn alright. He's a bit pompous, and I also don't necessarily align with his libertarian leanings. But I like the guy ultimately
Sounds to me like you've got some pretty serious personal issues bothering you, son.
1. I do
2. Irrelevant. Consciouness is as of yet defined. However it is definable. Dark energy is a "mysterious" (in that it's currently unexplainable) physical entity which is ENTIRELY unrelated to human consciouness (or artificial intelliegence, or primate "consciousness", to the extent that it can be called that), and laughably so. That was one of the worst suggestions I've ever seen proposed, and the fact that multiple people endorse it suggests to me that some sort of Jung-esque pseudo-science has taken hold here amongst the susceptible minions
3. The fact that you phrase your response the way you did, as a semi-attack against my "character" rather than addressing my argument, is indicative of the substance of your response, which was nil. Lucky for you I dignified your non-response by providing the above paragraph.
Last edited by Matt Marcinkiewicz; 02-16-2013 at 07:30 AM..
Reason: also, I'd love an attempt at a defintion of a neo-paleoconservative, you pretentious idiot
Why do American Atheist care if God in mentioned in public places?
We have a Constitution and that Constitution has a First Amendment. The government doesn't have the right to try to promote religion, and certainly should not be basing important matters of civil rights like reproductive rights and marriage equality on religion.
2. Irrelevant. Consciouness is as of yet defined. However it is definable. Dark energy is a "mysterious" (in that it's currently unexplainable) physical entity which is ENTIRELY unrelated to human consciouness (or artificial intelliegence, or primate "consciousness", to the extent that it can be called that), and laughably so. That was one of the worst suggestions I've ever seen proposed, and the fact that multiple people endorse it suggests to me that some sort of Jung-esque pseudo-science has taken hold here amongst the susceptible minions
3. The fact that you phrase your response the way you did, as a semi-attack against my "character" rather than addressing my argument, is indicative of the substance of your response, which was nil. Lucky for you I dignified your non-response by providing the above paragraph.
1. You're obviously disturbed in light of your big-mouthed name-calling: "moron" "idiot" etc. It gives these cool forums a bad vibe. Son.
2. I'm not "lucky" you "dignified" anything, I'm just concerned about a City-Data forum member (with an horrendous attitude like yours) who also publicly posts he's been been contemplating suicide!
Religion is much more pervasive in terms of the political and social spheres in the U.S. than it is in the more secular European countries. American atheists aren't really extremist, they're just more outspoken about their criticism of religion. For example, the anti science and anti gay movements in America are primarily motivated by religious beliefs. You wouldn't hear as much criticism toward religion if so many believers weren't so content to legislate their beliefs into law.
I find myself crossing out the "in god we trust" on dollar bills...
Is that extreme?
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.