Is everybody equal in atheism?

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Tone it down, people. This thread is getting out of hand

Typical atheists.

You see there are two ways you can go with atheism. On one hand, you may say "Atheism is the only truth, and we need to convert the world to our way of thinking". On the other hand, Atheism can see itself as coexisting with other beliefs, with the focus simply on protecting and preserving the rights and freedoms of atheists and converts to atheism.

I'd rather coexist with religious / theistic folk than try and make them believe (or disbelieve) the things I do. I try to convince people of my positions if I think they're correct, but again, I don't want it to be a situation where people are being forced into believing something. In regards to atheism specifically; I don't know there are no gods, so I don't try to convince people there aren't. What I do try to do (when I can be bothered) is convince others that it makes more sense to reserve judgement on the issue. I also like to point out errors in reasoning where I see them. People did the same for me (although I mostly had my poor reasoning exposed indirectly by reading rather than in discussion) and I guess I'm attempting to return the favour. That's not to say that I'm a flawless reasoner or free of cognitive bias, of course.

A lot of respect for this post. Very clear-thinking. Thanks.

[greneknight]

Vinny, do you still want to pretend to be an atheist? OK, I believe you. Since you are an atheist, you should lead me an altar boy in blasphemy. How do I do it? First, I blaspheme the Heavenly Father. Kick him in the rump? THanks, Vinny. I kick the Heavenly Father in the rump. What about Jesus? What do I do, Vinny? Drown Jesus the pierced and flogged idiot in a pool of horse piss? Thanks, Vinny. In Vinny's name, I drown Jesus the pierced fool in a pool of horse piss. What do I do with the Holy Spirit, Vinny? Shove it up your holy arse, Vinny? Thanks Vinny. In Vinny's name, I shove the Holy Spirit up Vinny's holy arse. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit! Amen, in Vinny's name.

[Shell B]

I'm still not sure what movement we're talking about.

[Angrboda]

Vinny, do you still want to pretend to be an atheist? OK, I believe you. Since you are an atheist, you should lead me an altar boy in blasphemy.....

You know, you're the last person on this forum who should be carrying this banner because it's equally likely that you're an atheist pretending to be a theist.

Now I admit that this person's presentation has rubbed me the wrong way, but we're not assessing the person here — that would be a form of ad hominem. The only thing you should be assessing is the merit of his arguments and what he has to say. Is he annoying? You betcha. But he does raise some interesting questions, even if his formulations of them or his position on them is not always strongly defensible.

I think only festive1 and Tempus and genkaus have really addressed the core question, and all this "definition of atheism" crap is just a side effect of a defect in the way Vinny posed the question.


I think ultimately the question has to do with religious evil, and the attitude of atheists toward that. It would seem that, historically, religion and people doing bad things have more than passing familiarity. Is religion causing people to do bad things, or is it simply bad people whose religion enables them? And even if religion does cause people to do bad things, what is the answer? Do we seek to have religion completely extinguished, or just seek to extinguish the mistreatment of people and those aspects of religion which enable it? And does religion itself harm or cost those who are infected with it? (Is it a public health issue, like stamping out polio? Or mental illness?) And there are several overlapping questions here. Even if religion is evil, and ideally should be abolished, attempting to do so may do more harm than good. This comes up in relation to Dawkins' comments about parents teaching their children their religious beliefs and child abuse. And when is the harm of religion unjustifiable, and when is it justifiable. (Smoking has enormous societal costs, but we generally don't seek to outlaw it.) And what if you don't feel religion is inherently evil, and suggest a laissez faire position vis a vis religion, how do you defend that against those who see religion as evil incarnate that must be destroyed?


Perhaps Vinny is a theist. I don't really care. He could be the pope for all that it matters. Address the question and the argument, not the man.

[Cyberman]

Now I know why a lot of these threads end up growing so large, so quickly. They're about 20% potentially decent debate, around 10% me attempting to be 'amusing' and the rest made up of people calling each other cunts.

[Napoléon]

Now I know why a lot of these threads end up growing so large, so quickly. They're about 20% potentially decent debate, around 10% me attempting to be 'amusing' and the rest made up of people calling each other cunts.

Suppose that's the problem when you've got so many cunts about

---

(that was a joke, and yes it's aimed at myself just as much as anyone else)

---

[The Grand Nudger]

Suppose that's the problem when you've got so many cunts about

If only I had this problem IRL.......

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Stimbo, you seriously overestimate your ability to be amusing.

[jonb]

Now I know why a lot of these threads end up growing so large, so quickly. They're about 20% potentially decent debate, around 10% me attempting to be 'amusing' and the rest made up of people calling each other cunts.

These statistics are telling you something profound Stimbo, you should make more posts and change the averages.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdQ9jh5GvQ8&feature=fvsr
Then others might follow your fine example

[Cyberman]

Stimbo, you seriously overestimate your ability to be amusing.

Thank you; somehow, that means so much coming from you!