(November 18, 2008 at 6:34 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: The NTS risk for me is that I am using logic that flaws my own view that most theists who claim they were once atheist were not so much atheists but disillusioned believers.
In your case that is obviously not true.
Why is that obviously not true?
(November 18, 2008 at 6:34 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: "Atheism" (like "theism") is just a label and atheists, like JJ pointed out, can be any colour, any culture, come from all walks of life and typically have very, very little in common ... they also tend (my opinion) to be intelligent and willing buck trends. That doesn't make for a good cultural or community feel especially in a society that is largely theistic to some degree or other.
I don't think atheism will ever carry any philosophical or cultural implications.
I don't understand why in order to be organized you all have to have a great deal in common other than whatever goal you would aspire to. Most militant atheists have nearly everything in common. Colour, culture etc. are of no more real import than eye color or nationality. The JWs did it.
The majority of you militant Atheists are political. Unite and organize as a 'religion.'
