I don't want this to be a chance for you to tell me what is wrong with the theocratic abscess burrowed; the thorn in your side or the vacant imperfection imposed upon the resident scapegoat. I care not to afford you the opportunity to lick your wounds in my sight or to appease the cultural norms subscribed.
Without the fear on the other side of the fence nor the ruckus in the alley way I want you to tell me what the benefit of an atheist lifestyle is had the social and political majority not absolved you and the necessary protestation of that artificial insemination had manifested itself in hindsight.
In other words, had there been no myth where would you see yourself rather than where would you see yourself in light of it.
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Not all atheists are rationalists, would be nice if they were, but I've seen some that can be just as dogmatic as priests, they make atheism seem like another religion.
Patrick, for you the word "atheism" will be what you make it.
The words that often accompany it -- "must"; "cannot", "should" and "should not" concern me more.
The first pair often accompany authoritarianism; the second pair often accompany idealism. In history, both have led to the slaughter of millions.
Do I mean atheism-- lack of belief in God(s)-- is responsible for millions of deaths?
Most assuredly NOT.
It's believers who depend on the words must, cannot, should and should not (authoritarians and idealists) who are responsible for millions of deaths. Add totalitarians to the ranks of those responsible.
In this debate over the words "theism"and "atheism" we are ignoring power, raw power: the first to occupy a place (a piece of land, for instance) gets to name it.
Long before written communication appeared, there was spoken communication. Before that there was what some linquists call "grunt and groan" communication. It includes more than the sounds that pre-humans were making.
At a time unknown to us, someone started a behavior to which someone else attached the sound that became "theism".
To whatever behavior preceded theism, no one attached a name because it was the only behavior.
Therefore, the behavior that at first had no name and needed no name was given a name to distinguish it from the behavior that had been given the name "theism".
(Don't anyone dare say "chicken" or "egg"!
Very disappointing David. You were almost interesting when you tried to stick to your lies but now that you've descended into vitriolic drivel your presence here is an embarrassment.
That is the way he deals, Heather. Look at all of his discussions. They all start off somewhat condescending, and gradually slide into ranting insults.
At first, I read you as an extremely intelligent, caring guy. Now I see it's more complex than that. The former suits you well. Come back to the bright side!
(I know, it's not all bright here, either. But that's life, atm.)
Seriously! Are you people really buying into this pretentious, semi-literate b%&&#*@t? Since his last post, he has not grown the least bit more coherent. He reminds me of Deepak Chopra.