He brings together several points that I've heard at various times. It's thought provoking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Oe6HUgrRlQ

(January 22, 2012 at 11:49 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: He brings together several points that I've heard at various times. It's thought provoking.

Oh God, no, not these guys! Like the anti-feminist women, and the Jews for Jesus, they make absolutely no sense.

I'm not anti-females but I think many feminists are ridiculous.

What he says is what the president of American Atheists has said as well - religion knows how to organize. It knows how to appeal.

I think the way he couched some of his suggestions could be improved upon.

I prefer Atheism 2.1. They worked out some of the bugs.

I should say as well, it probably works more for Humanism or Secularism than atheism in general - he fucked up the language bit from the start.

(January 24, 2012 at 5:09 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: I'm not anti-females but I think many feminists are ridiculous.

What he says is what the president of American Atheists has said as well - religion knows how to organize. It knows how to appeal.

I think the way he couched some of his suggestions could be improved upon.

And I don't agree with some of the double standards in favor of women, but I support feminism at least 75-90% of the way, so I think that counts as being in favor of feminism.

Yes, I think that atheism does need to organize... to fight for the rights of atheists and keep religion out of the government, not a half-contradictory message.

So what you're saying is that it should not be called Atheism 2.0 at all, but something more along the lines of humanism, except it takes a hodgepodge of different religious concepts and combines them into some sort of mesh.

I like celebrating Christmas too, but I am by no means religious. That is not religion, that is simply entertainment. So if that's what the message of Atheism 2.0, then he shouldn't use the word "religion" because it's everything about the word "religion" that is bad. If practices have a good reason, almost by definition, they are no longer religious, and so the argument for being religious to do good things-- to do good things becomes both redundant and circular. These Atheism 2.0 guys seem to always be Christians pretending to be atheist (just like all the "I used to be atheist" Christians).

---

(January 24, 2012 at 5:10 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: I prefer Atheism 2.1. They worked out some of the bugs.

Lol, I'd like to know what Atheism 2.1 is about!

You're taking it all wrong - there are concepts religions have hijacked that people reject simply for that fact - he's arguing we take them back.

You think feminists are ridiculous?

Please explain, Summer.

(January 24, 2012 at 5:28 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: You're taking it all wrong - there are concepts religions have hijacked that people reject simply for that fact - he's arguing we take them back.

Well, I didn't watch the whole video, but what he said wasn't exactly in line with Atheism 2.0. I feel like I am arguing against two things here; him, and the more formal usage of Atheism 2.0. The concepts we should take back, we already have. Morality, being nice to eachother, generally not being an ass, atheism already has that... because by default most people are like that. What else is there? Why get all religious about it? FYI, when I say Atheism 2.0, I mean the notion that religion is good for society. If that's not what he means, then that's not really Atheism 2.0. It's essentially "God doesn't exist, but people should follow their religions rules anyway, even the stupid ones".

Yes - I think feminazis getting their panties twisted around their twats talking about how horrible it is to be a female and how downtrodden we still are in this country, seemingly without any perspective on the rest of the world or what's actually important, annoy the fuck out of me. The shite from Rebecca Watson we were discussing is a good example.

As a humanist, when the playing field reaches a certain level of equality I'm more interested in both sides of the spectrum.

Clearly people are still needed to work for female rights in other areas, such as the Middle East.

---

er...I don't think he was suggesting we follow the stupid rules.