Atheism

Do you talk like that in pubs Thomas?

In my pub you would cause a rolling on the floor uncontrollably tittering fiasco if you held forth in that vein. No kidding.

Oh dearie, dearie me. Is this the Simple Simon thread?

I think it's great. I was being a bit cranky. I think that atheist and nontheist mean exactly the same thing. And atheist doesn't cause my spell check to do that red-squiggly line.

Ed, we have more than no religion to bond us. We have the loud religious right who equate us with having no morals. We have to be quiet around people we're acquainted with and work for for fear of being uncomfortable (at least) and fired (at worst). I'm sure there are other commonalities.

That's for sure Kay. An absence of sexual inhibitions has always been the top priority of serious atheists.

Well, yeah, we have the common bond of needing to protect ourselves from idiots (who will be nameless for the nonce).

Exactly, ed!

Spendi - you're really scrapping the bottom of the barrel. Haven't you noticed yet that I am done responding to you on this thread. I will continue to do so unless you have something productive (in my opinion only) to share?

A lot of Americans -- certainly not just you -- seem to be unclear about the difference. Let me try to clarify.

Atheists, or nontheists as you call them, are people who don't believe in god. By contrast, secularists are people who think the state should be neutral in religious matters. Public officials should base their decisions on reason and evidence, unbiased by their religious beliefs -- or lack thereof. The two concepts needn't have anything to do with one another. You can independently take either side on the existence of god and either side on secularism.

Some define atheists as a subset of non-theists, seeing a narrower definition of atheism.

Somewhere in the dozens of discussions of this subject before on a2k over several years, with many posts to each, there have been explanations that atheism can be simple, a) that a person is without theism, or b) that the person can be against belief, which makes it a kind of belief, they say - which is the commonality of understanding by those with belief... or the occasional enraged agnostic.

This gets frustrating since a lot of abusive wordage is hurled at people who don't fit the target.


This probably reflects the larger world.

Well, no, but at least something is brought to the public's eye - the small number of people visiting with the WH people. Now, that is something new! It's something new, is all, and more could come of it eventually. It is only a higher step, intellectually, for mankind, to think for ourselves. Europe went through hell to change their thinking about religion, and it's not going to just come about here, free, no work, no effort.

I have never joined any organization or group in my life, I would sooner be a hermit. I don't think humanity is allowed to be static. We are either moving forward, or we're moving backward.

I had a go at some amateur nomenclature some time back...

http://able2know.org/topic/49029-1

In today's Texas primary election - early vote count: The Republican proposition for public acknowledgement of God is garnering 95% approval.
I had not heard of this prior to this very hour. I will look up the wording.

Yes, I think it sounds negative too. But, I also don't think Obama is religious, at all. A Harvard graduate, religious? Very few people seem to know what Obama is about, what he'll do.
George W. used to poke fun at the religionists behind their backs, I've read. He most definitely needed their votes.

Found it.

The use of the word 'God', prayers and The Ten Commandments, should be allowed at public gatherings and public educational institutions, as well as be permitted on government buildings and property.

The Supremes will smack it down won't they?

They can't go against the Constitution. It's just a wedge issue to throw against the Democrats anyway.

Grrrrrrrrr.

He already had their votes....that's certain.

Where'd you see this written? In the loo at the Rose & Crown?

Well this is clear disjunctive raillery.

Spendi is always off on riffs related to himself.

Please, could we go back to the beginning topic?





I'm not without sin on this but I tend not to go on forever.