Atheists turning to cult behaviour?

[Mister Agenda]

A huge stretch from 'some damage' to 'terrorism' don't you think. I'd think even a stray instance of vandalism qualifies as 'some damage'. You're taking a bit too much liberty interpreting me aren't you?

If all you're getting your panties in a twist about is someone who might possibly be influenced by some online atheists to tag a church, then absolutely we shouldn't do any more than express our disapproval and make our arguments against it.

I'm not making vague assertions. I'm making a generic claim which I argue applies irrespective of geographic location.

If you keep geography out of it, you can't make that claim.

So me choosing to keep context (here my nationality) out of it is sensible enough.

More like 'evasive enough'.

You mean vague concrete assertions? Doesn't add up.

Because you can't make vague assertions about concrete things? That's what you want to go with as a response?

This is completely irrelevant and total rubbish.

I'll take that opinion for what it's worth, given the quality of your contributions thus far.

Everyone is born an atheist. Almost everyone comes across various ideas of a god.

By 'comes across', I take it you mean 'is heavily indoctrinated from childhood to believe in their parent's idea of God or gods'.

Once one identifies as an atheist, he has chosen to reject every such idea of god, and sees atheism as a valid stance. A rational person only identifies with what he would consider a valid stance. Any person seeking to identify with a valid stance is also attempting to be rational.

Even irrational people think their stances are rational and valid. People generally don't think they're being irrational, even when they are.

Also, you've bypassed the whole question by trying to separate rationality and mental faculty into two non overlapping sets. Would you deny someone with better mental tools is more rational?

Would you deny that many people who have better mental tools were lucky enough to have a better education? Being arrogant about one's rationalism isn't rational.

Also, it's of no concern as to what the public consensus is on this Neil dude .

Unless you're making claims about what atheists think, which you were. Then counter-examples become very germane.

Some actively seek. Are you saying people don't search for an identity?

No.

Who said it's a humanist thing? It's a logical conclusion if point 3 holds up.

Point 3 does not hold up.

Someone has to count how many times this has been said.

It is truly amazing that it never seems to sink in with certain people no matter how many times it's said, isn't it? Go ahead and count them, and then ask yourself why you said what you said anyway.

I have to go with 'no'.

Thanks. That's the closest I've got to an answer.

You're welcome. I'm sorry that my more detailed responses before I went monosylabbic weren't helpful.

I'm not nitpicking and replying. As for all your other points which I have not responded to, I am in agreement with them

I'll try to keep that in mind. If I didn't respond to something, you can take it as either I agree, or that I consider objecting to be picking a nit.