http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/st...gRIakpWSxL

It pains me to think that the likelihood is a boycott (probably violent) by the fundies. If not then that'll be lovely, yet I seem to be aiming at a pretty inductively-probable occurrence.

In your Latin byline, why is the second clause also in the subjunctive?

Given atheists claim that there is no belief in atheism, apart from opposing theism, having an atheism night is purely antagonistic to theists. So it's unsurprising that theists would protest against it.

(July 18, 2012 at 3:29 am)Selliedjoup Wrote: Given atheists claim that there is no belief in atheism, apart from opposing theism, having an atheism night is purely antagonistic to theists.

Because not believing in unicorns means that I oppose unicorns and all that they stand for.

Horny bastards.

(July 18, 2012 at 4:15 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote:

(July 18, 2012 at 3:29 am)Selliedjoup Wrote: Given atheists claim that there is no belief in atheism, apart from opposing theism, having an atheism night is purely antagonistic to theists.

Because not believing in unicorns means that I oppose unicorns and all that they stand for.

Horny bastards.

So it would seem.

(July 18, 2012 at 4:15 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote:

(July 18, 2012 at 3:29 am)Selliedjoup Wrote: Given atheists claim that there is no belief in atheism, apart from opposing theism, having an atheism night is purely antagonistic to theists.

Because not believing in unicorns means that I oppose unicorns and all that they stand for.

Horny bastards.

BURN THE UNICORN WORSHIPING HEATHENS IN THE NAME OF HIS NOODLINESS, MAY THEY BE CURSED WITH STALE BEER FOR ALL ETERNITY!

I don't see the point in the night (or in baseball at all tbh), but then i don't see the point in protesting it either. BUT, if it's going to cause a protest all of a sudden an atheism night/baseball event becomes worth it >8 ).

(July 18, 2012 at 3:29 am)Selliedjoup Wrote: Given atheists claim that there is no belief in atheism, apart from opposing theism, having an atheism night is purely antagonistic to theists. So it's unsurprising that theists would protest against it.

Such strong words you use. "Belief." "Opposing." Ahh, yes, Sellied. Once again your utter incompetence in understanding the fundamental basics of atheism shows itself in all of its ignorant glory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheism

I said "no belief" the addition of the word "no" changes things somewhat.

You also state you're Anti-theist.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anti

Good show old sport, you quote a dictionary to define a set of ethos.

Quote:Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist

"Simply the absence of belief." If you really read the article you'd have stumbled on that sentence, along with the ones that the NARROWER definitions of atheism are the belief there is no god, and the middle ground is the rejection of belief in a god. Meaning you prefer to use the narrower definition instead of the broader one, and as has been posited to you about a thousand times now, this isn't the best decision to make due to the huge variances within atheism anyway. It'd be like me saying that all Christians think the Pope is between men and god; true for some, false for many others.

And yes, good job, you noticed the "anti" in my "religious views." As in, I am outright opposed to theism. But the same cannot be said for every atheist. And I did not read anywhere in the OP article that these individuals were having an anti-theistic event. So I'll just assume that was a non-sequitur. Unless of course it's meant to be an accusation in the derogatory sense or something, or an insinuation that I should feel it is open opposition to theists, or wish to view it as such, at least. Rest assured, I do not.