Atheism

You run your goddamned big mouth plenty, too. We get this freedom of speech **** from you imaginary friend supersition creeps whenever anyone points out that you're just here disrupting the discussion. I've not tried to exclude anyone from posting here. And freedom of speech also means i have a right to point out that you people are being assholes.

Are you trying to make a dig at Snood, or are you just telling everyone that you have a "goddamned big mouth"?




Could you try this sentence again, after you have calmed down and wiped the spittle off your chin?



Yes, you have, Setanta. That's one of your favorite tricks. Your second favorite trick is then to deny that you try to do that.

But at least we got one thing settled here. This thread is for anyone who wants to participate.

And, besides, look at the original post - and try to comply.

I don't intervene on religion threads, out of courtesy. I'd appreciate similar thoughtfulness.

Good idea, Osso, why don't you try looking at the OP.

=========

I know there are other threads about atheism, but they tend to be focused somewhat specifically to some argument or subtopic. I'd like this thread to be open for constructive conversation, sharing of ideas and resources, etc.

One big issue that some friends and I feel is weird is that religious people seem to feel that we are persecuting them. I can't see how that could be given that we represent such a small minority of any population. If anything, it is we who are persecuted.

So, you think the small group bashing atheism is having a constructive dialogue with us?

All I know to do is vote them down and proceed as if they were not present.

At one time or another, we're going to have a difference of opinion with people we usually respect for their intelligence and clarity of posts. It's not possible for everybody to agree with everything any individual says or claims. I believe that's the reason most of us participate on a2k; to see different viewpoints, and challenge those we disagree with.

I can honestly say that I have had agreements with some personalities on a2k who I disagree with almost 98% of the time. If we have a mind of our own, that's what happens; conflict is created, and we react to them.

As I've said many times before, I have heated arguments with my siblings, because of our religious and political differences. At the end of the day, I still love and cherish them.

I always like to call a spade a spade, and that'll get me into conflict often. I try to provide support for what I say when possible, but people have challenged me about matters of personal opinion that cannot be sourced.

However, when discussing politics or economics, there are many sources in web-land that may be biased based on the author's political leanings. That also happens to members of a2k, and heated arguments follow.

I've done my share of personal attacks out of frustration; when evidence is provided from credible sources, and they deny it without providing credible sources to challenge the evidence provided.

Most threads on a2k often go on tangents, because somebody disagrees with the topic by including a side issue that is responded to, and some will get upset.

No need; that's the beast of the animal called open-ended discussion. We get side-tracked, because we dare answer the tangential question.

I personally don't think it's that big a deal, and wonder to myself why people get so upset.

Maybe, somebody can explain it to me.

I always pay the god squad the courtesy of reading at least the first line of what they say in each post. That is usually enough time to discern whether they are offering reasoned debate or are merely whining about Setanta's rhetorical style.



Yes, free speech gives atheists the right to respond as we see fit when people appear to tell us the same story about their imaginary friend that we've heard 20 times in the last week.

BTW, Merry Christmas, everyone.

You are one of the few.

To some, it appears that the mere presence of someone with a different point of view is reason to get all fluttery and panicked. It is probably best to leave those fragile folks to themselves.

Ciao

This is what i was thinking--EB has the best idea, to just ignore them, which i will try to do from now on.

Um, Setanta? Remember that discussion we had, with Olga and others, about the hazards of feeding trolls? I think you and I agreed on the best way to proceed. Perhaps this would be a good time for us to lead by example.

EDIT: Forget what I said. Your last post showed that you already arrived at the same conclusion by yourself.

I was already thinking about this, and how best to express it when i saw EB's post.

****************************************

I was also thinking about the whole Christmas schmear . . . and how it might seem incongruous for any of us to discuss it. But then i remembered a converstaion i once had with Soz in which she had referred to "the elephant in the room." At this time of year, in North America, that's exactly what Christmas is--the elephant in the room. It would be silly to attempt to act as though it's not looming over us all.

EB has never seemed to have a problem with it. He has more than one Christmas thread. Because of my interest in history, i started that Christamas Truce thread. The same thing applies to Easter and Thanksgiving--it's impossible to ignore them, and it would be silly to try.

Part of the experience of being an Atheist for me is retiring the idea of atheist Utopian isolation. People have to get interact with and live amongst each other.

A
R
There's no atheist island

I was watching "the atheism tapes" on Netflix streaming today. They are cutting room extra footage from a larger BBC documentary. Each is 30 minutes long and I've seen three of the six. Aurther Miller, introduced two terms (to me) that I was quite interested in.

"post-theism" and "post-atheism"

The idea is basically (as I understand) that at one point the notion of being even an atheist will be unnecessary. He related it to the Greek pantheon: We simply don't believe and that's good enough (an example of post-theism). We don't need to exert ourselves thinking much about it at all. At some point in the future, human's relationship with religion might be as follows: Humans were once very interested in if there were gods (an example of post-atheism).

A
R
T

Philippa Pullar reports that when Frank Harris arrived at Ruabon boarding school in North Wales he was "deeply religious".



Which is understandable with such powerful arguments being brought to bear on the 13 year old's little noggin.



etc etc etc---



What I find so interesting about this thread is atheists going on and on about it being a thread for atheists to express what it is like to be an atheist and none of them ever do tell us what it is actually like. They content themselves with demanding the right to express what it is like to be an atheist and we are no wiser from anything they say as to what it is like. Even religious people experience repulsion when waylaid by a fanatical fundie. Atheists have no monopoly on that experience.

There's no beef here.

What does an atheist make of ballet dancers, chorus girls, figure skaters, gymnasts and "Holiday in the Sun" sandwich-board women having to wear knickers and panties in the performance of their professional duties? What on earth forbids them to do without when millions of women, perhaps I exaggerate, are all over the internet, the newsagent's shops and one of the genres in the Library of Congress film archive, not only eschewing such obviously uncomfortable and restrictive garments, but giving the distinct impression of positively enjoying it?

It is answers to questions like that which interest me. Pondering on that sort of thing is what being an atheist with no probitions must be like. I know from experience that many atheists do not restrict themselves in conversations to going on and on about the conversation being about nothing else than the subject of expressing what it is like to be an atheist without ever once attempting to describe what it is like to be an atheist. We might go on forever in such a futile vein.

What's the atheist's view on modern banking practices? On public executions? On debauchery if it is possible for an atheist to imagine such a ridiculous concept? On the law? After all, if prohibitions can be liquidated because a whale can't swallow a man what goes up in smoke when the Virgin Mary ascends into heaven in a cloud of smoke accompanied by a celestial choir of angels.

It seems a bit demeaning to have prohibitions based on what prison wardens are like or small financial penalities for driving at 52 mph. Or on being belaboured by an itsy-bitsy rolling pin for being late home from the pub.

Make my day--vote that down. I'm dying to get to -20.

We all know that. There have been countless threads on atheism on a2k with much discussion between atheists and believers. This one single thread was created for us to talk with each other about our experiences. I don't think any of us have minded some comments by believers here or there, but extensive thread derailing is discourteous in this case.

Go young Lochinvar. The world awaits.

I was reading something interesting recently about Jain atheists, buddhist atheists, Jewish atheists, Hindu atheists, and even christian atheists.

Some believe in many gods, while others don't believe in a creator god. Some believe that all life forms are gods, and no theistic god(s).

Since most religions were born out of nature, many believed in the sun god, moon god, animal gods, and even human gods.

Myths turn into religion, and man is capable of creating gods out of almost anything; that's the nature of the beast.

You're getting freedom of speech all tangled up with Miss Manners, LittleK. They never were a good match, never will be.

You're right, of course, Spendi. A +whatever often simply illustrates a contentment with mum's choice of pablum.