On that we all agree.

(March 18, 2016 at 4:19 pm)abaris Wrote:

(March 18, 2016 at 3:52 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote: I feel you.  I'm also a known sympathizer.  But I find I have plenty in common with some atheists, and any disconnect seems to be as much because of my curmudgeonly unwillingness to go along to get along over the small stuff.  But I find plenty to like and plenty of like minded among the godless.

Let me put it this way, atheists often have similar values as I. The point I was trying to make is, atheism, for me, means individuality and the absence of any group. I don't define myself over atheism and I'm as skeptical of persons who do as I am of fervently religious individuals. The tendency to turn everything into an ideology is a strong human trait. And with ideological thinking comes the need to force the own opinions and views on others.

"atheist" is also not a moral code, and atheists as well are STILL the same species as all 7 billion. Not even "atheist" will automatically make someone only do good. Our species ability to be cruel or compassionate in our evolution, not our labels.

"Atheist" merely means off on god claims. It does not mean we value lawlessness, nor does it mean we are incapable of empathy for others. No, that does not preclude us from being cruel, but it also does not mean the individual atheist will be cruel by proxy of the label. We are all still first and foremost individuals.

Well said.

(March 18, 2016 at 2:10 pm)abaris Wrote:

(March 18, 2016 at 12:55 pm)Cephus Wrote: Here's the difference they don't like:

Yeah, but that isn't the reality. The ones being called New Atheists are often missionaries. And I for one don't care for missionaries, regardless if they're spewing shit in favor of religion or for any other cause.

Simplistic, far removed from reality and ultimately not what this is about. Show me one atheist staying quiet when challenged. The difference being if you're riding Rosinante into the ban all religions challenge and want to force atheism down everyone's throat without consent. It also presents the false image of an organised community. I for one have nothing in common with many atheists, aside from not believing.

There are lots of atheists who stay silent when challenged, many more who are still in the "closet" because they could suffer job, family or social harm if it was known that they don't believe in the dominant social delusions.  But nobody should stay silent, they should confront stupidity of all kinds whenever they come up, whether it is religious or not.  Are the people who are telling the anti-vaccers that they are idiots, are those evangelists too?  How about the people who speak about against faith healing?  Or the ones who denounce racism and other social ills?  Are they all missionaries?  Or are they concerned citizens who see a problem and speak out against it?

Like it or not, religion is a massive social problem.  It might be a ridiculously wide-spread problem, but that doesn't make it less important.  It promotes delusion, it promotes ignorance, it promotes hatred and it needs to be stopped.  It kills millions with its ignorant teachings and ignorant beliefs.  Delusion is not healthy, no matter how happy it might make the delusional.

In solving problems, you're either part of the solution or part of the problem.  It seems you want to be part of the problem.  That's your choice.

(March 18, 2016 at 9:04 pm)Cephus Wrote: There are lots of atheists who stay silent when challenged, many more who are still in the "closet" because they could suffer job, family or social harm if it was known that they don't believe in the dominant social delusions.

Speak for America and Middle Eastern countries. In Europe it's certainly not the case. Never in my life have I been asked if I am a believer. It's a totally alien concept to me.

(March 18, 2016 at 9:11 pm)abaris Wrote:

(March 18, 2016 at 9:04 pm)Cephus Wrote: There are lots of atheists who stay silent when challenged, many more who are still in the "closet" because they could suffer job, family or social harm if it was known that they don't believe in the dominant social delusions.

Speak for America and Middle Eastern countries. In Europe it's certainly not the case. Never in my life have I been asked if I am a believer. It's a totally alien concept to me.

As it should be.  

Cephus that is a pretty raw Lord-of-the-Flies sort of remark.  Not really worried about being left out by anyone who thinks as you do.

(March 18, 2016 at 9:11 pm)abaris Wrote:

(March 18, 2016 at 9:04 pm)Cephus Wrote: There are lots of atheists who stay silent when challenged, many more who are still in the "closet" because they could suffer job, family or social harm if it was known that they don't believe in the dominant social delusions.

Speak for America and Middle Eastern countries. In Europe it's certainly not the case. Never in my life have I been asked if I am a believer. It's a totally alien concept to me.

You're the exception, not the rule.

(March 18, 2016 at 3:59 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote: The only thing that makes the new atheists new, as I read it, is the times we live in and the diminished state of religious institutions.  

When they're already on their knees may not be the most gallant time to go for the jugular.  Given their own time perhaps they'll make some compromise with the modern world which will mean more coming from themselves than the moron-shaming we could hand out.

Given time, you say.  The centuries preceding weren't enough?  It's not as if religion ended up on it's knees  because it tripped and fell.  That's a strange summary of it's position when people in 1st world countries still cast gods vote in absentia, in any case.  It's become socially acceptable to criticize religion loudly and openly only -because- people criticized religion loudly and openly.  Because, for example, people took their stories literally and exposed the absurdity of them in doing so. Those institutions, at their -very- best, used polite silence like a weapon long after they lost the ability to burn dissenters alive.....and at their worst they did and continue to do much, much more......and you sympathize, lol?

(March 20, 2016 at 4:48 am)Rhythm Wrote: Given time, you say.  The centuries preceding weren't enough?

It's not even 300 years since the age of enlightenment, which was an intellectual movement, not reaching the masses. It's not even one century, since people got general access to education in the West. And now, even more than 30 years ago, there are a lot of disenfranchised, and/or low educated, people, who desperately look for a way out of their daily misery. Atheism can't offer that. It doesn't make promises of everything being better, if you just subscribe. Even less so when the only offer, again, comes from a purely intellectual perspective that doesn't even reach John or Jane Doe.

OFC atheism makes no offers....is it supposed to?  That's kind of one of those sticking points that leads some people to atheism......all those promises from gods that never seem to pan out. I'm not worried that atheism is too intellectual, because it isn't.  Asking someone if they'd string up the better man isn't an appeal to their intellect.  Showing people that they're being defrauded by child molesters isn't an appeal to their intellect.  

Suppose, though, that's all atheism (or new atheism, if we insist) was, purely intellectual.  Why would that be a problem?  Are we underestimating John and Jane Doe?