(October 14, 2017 at 6:49 pm)causal code Wrote:

(October 14, 2017 at 4:36 pm)mordant Wrote: Well someday hopefully we'll have a world in which religion isn't dominant or even prevalent, in which case atheism will not be a useful or relevant concept, which was in fact my entire point.

My contention that atheism isn't important was meant only in an absolute / inherent sense. It's important / necessary at present and for the foreseeable future because a particular situation obtains, namely, that religion and religious memes are dominant in our societies.

I think the distinction is worth keeping in mind because in my experience many of my fellow atheists could use a bit of humility. They do have some tendency to treat atheism like some kind of savior on a white horse when in fact it's just a concept or even more accurately the RESULT of a concept (skepticism). No wonder some theists, who are accustomed to striving with other religions, are tempted to see atheism as just another religion. They get the same condescension and even hostility from our anti-dogma as from any other. Mind you, I'm not talking about their tendency to confuse simple matter-of-fact disagreement with condescension or hostility. I'm just saying that there is some ACTUAL condescension and hostility when you assume every believer is a believer purely because they're stupid or dishonest, rather than because they're themselves the victims of operant conditioning from purveyors of superficially comforting lies.

I'm glad that you finally retracted your old response "Atheism actually isn't important." (as we can see here in your  reply #8)

Although I don't care for "kudos", it is however odd though that Succubus did not agree with any of my prior statements or the OP, although what you finally mention now is what the OP and all my prior expressions had long mentioned.

Then again, it may not be odd because Succubus also gave the same wrong expression you did in reply 8, in the first response to the thread.

I guess we prefer or like to hear corrections from our friends, instead of strangers. 

Lets say that tomorow it will be proven that God doesn't exist , so religion will fade , how will that help ?

Lets say that tomorow it will be proven that God doesn't exist , religion will fade , how will that help ?

(October 14, 2017 at 6:49 pm)causal code Wrote:

(October 14, 2017 at 4:36 pm)mordant Wrote: Well someday hopefully we'll have a world in which religion isn't dominant or even prevalent, in which case atheism will not be a useful or relevant concept, which was in fact my entire point.

My contention that atheism isn't important was meant only in an absolute / inherent sense. It's important / necessary at present and for the foreseeable future because a particular situation obtains, namely, that religion and religious memes are dominant in our societies.

I think the distinction is worth keeping in mind because in my experience many of my fellow atheists could use a bit of humility. They do have some tendency to treat atheism like some kind of savior on a white horse when in fact it's just a concept or even more accurately the RESULT of a concept (skepticism). No wonder some theists, who are accustomed to striving with other religions, are tempted to see atheism as just another religion. They get the same condescension and even hostility from our anti-dogma as from any other. Mind you, I'm not talking about their tendency to confuse simple matter-of-fact disagreement with condescension or hostility. I'm just saying that there is some ACTUAL condescension and hostility when you assume every believer is a believer purely because they're stupid or dishonest, rather than because they're themselves the victims of operant conditioning from purveyors of superficially comforting lies.

I'm glad that you finally retracted your old response "Atheism actually isn't important." (as we can see here in your  reply #8)

I guess we prefer or like to hear corrections from our friends, instead of strangers. 

Well if you have that much of a need to be right, you can think I've "retracted" or that you "corrected" but I think you simply misunderstood my original post:

Quote:Atheism actually isn't important. It's a belief position on a very limited topic.

It's necessary only because of the historic hegemony of religious thinking.

I fail to see anything different between that statement and my remarks above, other than that I gave a little more detailed explanation the second time around. Atheism is a concept that is useful for an artificial reason but has no inherent utility, any more than aphilatelism has any utility to describe not collecting stamps. On the other hand, aphilatelism WOULD be useful if stamp collecting were imposed by an entrenched majority that strictly forbade any discussion of the merits of stamp collecting and threatened people with eternal punishment for rejecting the hobby.

(October 14, 2017 at 7:44 pm)mordant Wrote:

(October 14, 2017 at 6:49 pm)causal code Wrote: I'm glad that you finally retracted your old response "Atheism actually isn't important." (as we can see here in your  reply #8)

I guess we prefer or like to hear corrections from our friends, instead of strangers. 

Well if you have that much of a need to be right, you can think I've "retracted" or that you "corrected" but I think you simply misunderstood my original post:

Quote:Atheism actually isn't important. It's a belief position on a very limited topic.

It's necessary only because of the historic hegemony of religious thinking.

I fail to see anything different between that statement and my remarks above, other than that I gave a little more detailed explanation the second time around. Atheism is a concept that is useful for an artificial reason but has no inherent utility, any more than aphilatelism has any utility to describe not collecting stamps. On the other hand, aphilatelism WOULD be useful if stamp collecting were imposed by an entrenched majority that strictly forbade any discussion of the merits of stamp collecting and threatened people with eternal punishment for rejecting the hobby.

Unless my English is broken, there is a difference between expanding on an answer, and changing the meaning of an answer from no to yes.

My original post: 
"Atheism is important"

Your first answer was: 
"Atheism actually isn't important, due to the historical hegemony of religious thinking".

A  question I later asked, that probably made you rethink your initial answer: "
How how can critical thinking alone be important, i.e. how can atheism be irrelevant, when we see specifically, that theists do critical thinking (i.e. science) all the time, except when it comes to fictitious sky characters????

Your second answer then suddenly essentially became: 
Paraphrase: "Atheism is important now". 
Your actual words: "Well someday hopefully we'll have a world in which religion isn't dominant or even prevalent, in which case atheism will not be a useful or relevant concept")


All and all, it is good that you have come to retract your original answer.

...but trying to pretend as if "atheism is not actually important" and "atheism is important now"  are two equivalent phrases, is not fooling anybody.

Notably, I had already mentioned something about atheism being pertinent particularly in our religious world, before my question above, and before your second answer above. So, if you agreed to the OP or the previous quote before this sentence, why would you have bothered to post something like "Atheism actually isn't important"?

Atheism is important because buttsex. You can't mathematically prove me objectively wrong therefore I'm right. Buttsex it is then.