RE: Atheism 2.0
January 24, 2012 at 5:41 pm
(This post was last modified: January 24, 2012 at 5:42 pm by AthiestAtheist.)
(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".
"Sisters, you know only the north; I have traveled in the south lands. There are churches there, believe me, that cut their children too, as the people of Bolvangar did--not in the same way, but just as horribly. They cut their sexual organs, yes, both boys and girls; they cut them with knives so that they shan't feel. That is what the Church does, and every church is the same: control, destroy, obliterate every good feeling. So if a war comes, and the Church is on one side of it, we must be on the other, no matter what strange allies we find ourselves bound to."
-Ruta Skadi, The Subtle Knife
-Ruta Skadi, The Subtle Knife
