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.
Everyone is a minority. That is a ridiculous claim of victimization, unless you are a Rohinga in Mayanmar where you are driven out of your home and village because of your belief. In what way are you victimized by being atheist in the US where you live? The consequences of being a transgender or black or brown or woman is NOT the same as a non-religionist. That is an insult to the real suffering of people.
It's not ridiculous at all. Are you not familiar with the fact that throughout the 1700s, 1800s, and much of the 1900s that in many states it was illegal for atheists to hold elective office? And in some states, those laws are still on the books.
The only kind of unfairness is not torture, death, etc.
maybe its a culture thing. Americans are trained to think for themselves and adapt to the situation that is front of them. Look at how our rational believers stand up to irrational believers. from day one the rational people (believers most) have stood up to and fought irrational believers. and rational believers are standing with the minorities today.
A lot of other people are told to follow "orders" to the letter. Here the order is the "definition of atheism". they can't process anything out side of those orders.
or maybe the marching orders are "activism" in the name of atheism?
look at the approach ... and none of it is present in the definition but certainty used in activism.
we see it in "it must binary thinking (yes/no) only
we see it when we give the proof that they asked for its considered science and disallowed.
we see it when they demand that we stay within a deity only
we see it in "the marching orders are "activism" and anything outside of that is countering the orders.
so rational atheist can stand up to irrational atheist ... that is ok. no matter how obnoxious theist are, we are stand up and not be bullied.
Again you mix the definition of atheism with the activism that you clearly disapprove of and want to represent as some kind of 'orders' when I have said several times atheists can choose to say out of it. Just we would like them not to fight us as we are pushing for their right to remain atheist - your rights.
Why are you an atheist fighting atheism and having to say wrong things about atheism in order to justify that?
As I say, I think we all know why.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
I actually think you are misrepresenting atheism trans.
I think you sell us short.
The definition is in the FaQ - it isn't yours.
It does not include activism. That is your misrepresentation.
And, though I hate to appal to numbers, where are the atheists that endorse your position?
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-02-2020 at 12:04 PM..
Again you mix the definition of atheism with the activism that you clearly disapprove of and want to represent as some kind of 'orders' when I have said several times atheists can choose to say out of. Just we would like them not to fight uis as we are pushing for their right to remain atheist - your rights.
Why are you an atheist fighting atheism and having to say wrong things about atheism in order to justify that?
As I say, I think we all know why.
The definition is in the FaQ - it isn't yours.
It does not include activism. That is your misrepresentation.
And, though I hate to appal to numbers, where are the atheists that endorse your position?
actually I have never said one thing wrong about atheism. And it is you that is actually mixing the two.
Like I said ... the definition is the definition. I always said that. but this isn't about the definition. Its how we present atheism.
I say you are selling atheism short by forcing us into activism decides meaning, binary stances, and with us or against us.
Heck, when you call me a sort-a-theist you are far more wrong about atheism than I ever was. I am not even close to a theist (deity)
thats all I am saying.
The numbers are in the irreligious. the atheist that think that we are part of a larger more complex system (whatever they call it) out weigh your type of atheist by a long shot.
Again you mix the definition of atheism with the activism that you clearly disapprove of and want to represent as some kind of 'orders' when I have said several times atheists can choose to say out of. Just we would like them not to fight uis as we are pushing for their right to remain atheist - your rights.
Why are you an atheist fighting atheism and having to say wrong things about atheism in order to justify that?
As I say, I think we all know why.
The definition is in the FaQ - it isn't yours.
It does not include activism. That is your misrepresentation.
And, though I hate to appeal to numbers, where are the atheists that endorse your position?
The FAQ EXPLICITLY tries to define atheism to support the preferred belief of those atheists who are anti-Theist and do not accept ANY God associated with our Reality. They pretend that their definition does NOT IMPLICITLY demand that it is de rigueur that our Reality does NOT include the existence of God. But there is no question that it definitely implies that demand applies to everyone. This thread has to have a deeper discussion of the definition of atheism or there is no point to it.
It's not ridiculous at all. Are you not familiar with the fact that throughout the 1700s, 1800s, and much of the 1900s that in many states it was illegal for atheists to hold elective office? And in some states, those laws are still on the books.
The only kind of unfairness is not torture, death, etc.
There are many unenforceable laws in the books. Atheists are not victims of any kind of persecution. Your argument is the exactly reverse of another poster who holds that bias against religion is the same as racism. You are both wrong.
Again you mix the definition of atheism with the activism that you clearly disapprove of and want to represent as some kind of 'orders' when I have said several times atheists can choose to say out of. Just we would like them not to fight uis as we are pushing for their right to remain atheist - your rights.
Why are you an atheist fighting atheism and having to say wrong things about atheism in order to justify that?
As I say, I think we all know why.
The definition is in the FaQ - it isn't yours.
It does not include activism. That is your misrepresentation.
And, though I hate to appal to numbers, where are the atheists that endorse your position?
just to be clear ... to double check myself.
Just listing what I read for my response above. this list is showing what I have been saying since day one.
1) activism that you clearly disapprove of
2) when I have said several times atheists can choose to say out of ... (I read stay out of)
3)Just we would like them not to fight uis as we are pushing for their right to remain atheist - your rights.
4) Why are you an atheist fighting atheism and having to say wrong things about atheism in order to justify that?
Trans, If I am misreading or misrepresenting you in any way, tell me how to change the wording of the above to think differently.
What has any of that to do with the definition of atheism? What are you trying to argue with quoting me on your false arguments back at me? Please explain exactly what you are trying to prove.
There are many unenforceable laws in the books. Atheists are not victims of any kind of persecution. Your argument is the exactly reverse of another poster who holds that bias against religion is the same as racism. You are both wrong.
Of course. Because you're always right about everything.
actually I have never said one thing wrong about atheism. And it is you that is actually mixing the two.
Like I said ... the definition is the definition. I always said that. but this isn't about the definition. Its how we present atheism.
I say you are selling atheism short by forcing us into activism decides meaning, binary stances, and with us or against us.
Heck, when you call me a sort-a-theist you are far more wrong about atheism than I ever was. I am not even close to a theist (deity)
thats all I am saying.
The numbers are in the irreligious. the atheist that think that we are part of a larger more complex system (whatever they call it) out weigh your type of atheist by a long shot.
Now you are moving the goalposts. If your beef with atheist activism (which is of course what your problem is with the 'wrong kind' of atheist - and we do know why) is Not about the definition, you are dragging off -topic into the thread.
You are also confusing the binary of 'believe or not'/'true or not' which applies to the god -claim with what - as you say, isn't the definition, but 'our' activities which you clearly disapprove of. We know why, and it's nothing to do with how we look. Only anti -atheists dislike how we come across.
Do you need any more explanation as to how you are mixing and matching, morphing your argument and smokescreening?
Isn't it time you took an honest look at yourself and how you appear, and maybe deserve to call yourself 'atheist' even if you and 'New atheists' vote differently.
As well as getting back on topic, of course.
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.
