Dawkins & Religion

[Smoke]

Why are you directing that comment at me? I've specifically stated over and over again that it's his demeanor, style, and delivery that sets me off.

But not convincingly. Every time you try to elaborate on what it is about his demeanor, style and delivery that you set you off, what it comes down to is that he is expressing an opinion that cannot be politely expressed.

 

[McBell]

The violent would see a martyr in a call for respect.

And the puddle believes that the hole was made especially for it...

 

[Kathryn]

You don't agree with his underlying message? Even if you were a world wide recognized literary critic and an enlightened religious leader you would still have to READ the material prior to claiming you understand his underlying message let alone criticize it.

You haven't read Dawkins. You don't know either his message or his approach. You know your googled self built perception. The honest thing to do is to admit you don't really know Dawkins or his underlying message. You have yet to read his material but from little you have seen you are not impressed nor inclined to learn more.

This is a ridiculous position. Not to mention untruthful.

Richard Dawkins is an atheist. He makes his living writing books refuting the existance of a Supreme Being. He is disdainful of religion. His message is very clear.

Dawkins writes articles which are published in many newspapers and magazines (which I have read). He engages in many debates on TV and radio (which I have listened to). He has a website and there are many other websites which cover his work (which I have visited).

He does a very good job of self promotion.

One doesn't have to read his books in order to understand his message. I haven't ever listened to a single complete song by Marilyn Manson, and I don't have to in order to know that I absolutely detest his music and his "approach."

Do you have to read Glenn Beck's books to determine whether or not you agree with him and his message?

Atheism itself isn't a cause or a philosophy.

It's a cause for Richard Dawkins.

Religion is one reason why people fight, die, or kill. If an atheist kills someone you better ask why he did it.

Wow, do you really know any Chinese or Russian 20th century history? China is STILL officially an atheist state. One cannot even hold a public office unless one publically and privately disavows any religion. Under Mao Tse Tung religious people were targeted and attacked specifically and literally during the Cultural Revolution BY atheist Red Guards - simply because they were practicing religion.

I'm sure it was pretty clear to those being tortured, worked to death, and murdered FOR their religion BY avowed atheists - exactly why these particular atheists were bent on destroying them, their families, their art, their history, and their religious buildings and structure.

Just as in religions there are many different groups of believers, with many different expressions of their faiths (and agendas), there are different groups of atheists with different expressions and agendas. You can't lump all religious people into one stereotype any more than you can atheists.

But that doesn't mean that atheists can't and won't form groups which abuse the rights of others. It has already happened and most likely will continue to happen.

The way you pound these war drums... RELIGION is a belief system. Atheism is not.

As I stated above - religion is not ONE belief system. It is a part of many different belief systems. Some are great for their societies, some are neutral, and some are destructive.

Same with atheism.

I hate to break it to you, but atheism is not simply a NON belief. It's not a VOID - when a person believes in the existance of the universe devoid of a Supreme Being or Beings, that is a belief itself - and cannot help but impact their philosophy - just as theism impacts different philosophies.

 

[Sententia]

This is a ridiculous position. Not to mention untruthful.

Richard Dawkins is an atheist. He makes his living writing books refuting the existance of a Supreme Being.

Really? Interesting. His latest book the greatest show on earth seems to be about evolution. Hmm. Thats odd. Ahhh. You mean his other books?

The Selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype, The Blind Watchmaker, River Out of Eden, Climbing Mount Improbable, Unweaving the Rainbow, A Devil's Chaplain, The Ancestor's Tale, The God Delusion, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution

Oh my... It certainly seems like he has been earning the majority of his living by writing about something other then "Refuting the existence of a supreme being."

Your post begins with claiming my statement is both ridiculous and untruthful and then goes on to offer up evidence that supports my statements and not your own?

My statement is not a random ad hom Kathryn its based on your words in this thread.

I've read as many of his books as I've read of Ann Coulter's books - which is zero. I've listened to both of them in interviews enough to know that whatever they're selling is repulsive to me.

Your argument, in my opinion, is a conjuration of what little facts you do know. Sigh. You seem to want generalize and to exclude. You keep implying you don't need to know more and that you know everything you need to know. At least on the subject of Dawkins.

e.g.

I've listened to him enough to form the opinion that he's sarcastic and condescending. Apparently he's also...well, an ATHEIST whose mission in life is to publically undermine the validity of Christianity (and theism in general).

Things like... I've never read a single book but I have listened to him enough... Its just discrimination at this point.

The people arguing with you are pointing out these little generalizations and saying thats unfair or untrue but yes you are entitled to your opinion.

He is disdainful of religion. His message is very clear.

This is another generalization. He obvious is critical of many religions and worldviews but there are some he does not disdain. (Hee hee)

Dawkins writes articles which are published in many newspapers and magazines (which I have read). He engages in many debates on TV and radio (which I have listened to). He has a website and there are many other websites which cover his work (which I have visited).

I have this picture of you sitting at the kitchen table and spitting your coffee out all over your newspaper and shouting, "Looks what this hawk nosed idiot said now...".

One doesn't have to read his books in order to understand his message. I haven't ever listened to a single complete song by Marilyn Manson, and I don't have to in order to know that I absolutely detest his music and his "approach."

This is another example of believing you know enough. Which when it comes to music really has little consequence. You might even be correct. It may be that all of his music is offensive to you. You don't know though nor do you care to find out if your right... assuming you are right is enough for you I suppose. (And you seem to take some pride in that?)

Do you have to read Glenn Beck's books to determine whether or not you agree with him and his message?

Sure. If I want to understand his view point prior to stating I disagree with it. Dawkins is unique in that he wrote a particular book "The God Delusion" which explains his disagreement with religion. You vehemently disagree with it but have never read it nor understand it. I personally don't care if you read it or not but to state you disagree with his underlying message without having read or understood it is dishonest.

As I said:

Even if you were a world wide recognized literary critic and an enlightened religious leader you would still have to READ the material prior to claiming you understand his underlying message let alone criticize it.

It's a cause for Richard Dawkins.

You are willfully ignorant on this subject and thus not surprisingly wrong. You think Dawkins disbelieves in god so much that he has championed it as a cause? (Its just such an inane conclusion its hard to fathom how you came to it.)

Wow, do you really know any Chinese or Russian 20th century history?

Random Ad hom lol.

China is STILL officially an atheist state. One cannot even hold a public office unless one publically and privately disavows any religion.

Gasp. I do not understand your point. What is your source that no one can hold public office unless they are an atheist and what does it have to do with Dawkins?

II. Legal Protection of the Freedom of Religious Belief
Chinese citizens' right to the freedom of religious belief is protected by the Constitution and laws.
In the Constitution of the People's Republic of China freedom of religious belief is a basic right enjoyed by all citizens. Article 36 of the Constitution stipulates, "Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of religious belief." It also goes on to say, "No State organ, public organization or individual may compel citizens to believe in, or not to believe in, any religion; nor may they discriminate against citizens who believe in, or do not believe in, any religion." Again, "the State protects normal religious activities," and "No one may make use of religion to engage in activities that disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens or interfere with the educational system of the State." In addition, "Religious bodies and religious affairs are not subject to any foreign domination."

Under Mao Tse Tung religious people were targeted and attacked specifically and literally during the Cultural Revolution BY atheist Red Guards - simply because they were practicing religion.
I'm sure it was pretty clear to those being tortured, worked to death, and murdered FOR their religion BY avowed atheists - exactly why these particular atheists were bent on destroying them, their families, their art, their history, and their religious buildings and structure.

Just as in religions there are many different groups of believers, with many different expressions of their faiths (and agendas), there are different groups of atheists with different expressions and agendas. You can't lump all religious people into one stereotype any more than you can atheists.

But that doesn't mean that atheists can't and won't form groups which abuse the rights of others. It has already happened and most likely will continue to happen.

A revisit of this?

Atheist regimes have killed millions of people BECAUSE of their belief in religion. Dawkins seems to conveniently forget that salient point.

Who is this saliently clear too? Atheism itself isn't a cause or a philosophy. Neither is Theism. You begin this point with a random ad hom that I know nothing of chinese or Russian 20th century history and then go on to show that you may not have really studied it but you know enough that atheism is bad. A familiar trend.

Nobody died in the name of atheism. (Atleast probably not) Just like no one died in the name of theism. (Again atleast probably not) They were killed in the name of religious beliefs built on top of either atheism or theism. (Or perhaps built on neither in the case of say agnosticism)

It would seem more likely to me that hatred and exclusionary behaviors would be more likely borne out of monotheism then say polytheism, agnosticism or atheism but that is not necessarily true. I posit it would depend on the type of deity the monotheist embraces. If they embrace the highlander approach of belief, i.e. there can be only one and learn they must baptize the masses either by love or failing that fire or that if they should encounter another society that believes in a different god then them then they must automatically judge it to be false and seek to convert it then it would seem so. However if the reverse is true... if they embrace a god who is more of a deistic type who seeks neither to intervene or judge then you can have a fairly neutral foundation.

In any case being a monotheist, theist, atheist, polytheist, agnostic person is not enough information for me to cast judgement.

As I stated above - religion is not ONE belief system. It is a part of many different belief systems. Some are great for their societies, some are neutral, and some are destructive.

Same with atheism.

This is good... Religion is not one belief system. Religion is built upon theism or atheism. But then you go on to disagree with yourself. Sort of. You seem to want to put Atheism on one side and Religion on the other. Its just untrue and its leading you some inane conclusions.

I hate to break it to you, but atheism is not simply a NON belief. It's not a VOID - when a person believes in the existance of the universe devoid of a Supreme Being or Beings, that is a belief itself - and cannot help but impact their philosophy - just as theism impacts different philosophies.

Atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. You can be an atheist that believes leprechauns created the world. You can be an atheist that believes in the spirit world.

 

[sojourner]

But thats exactly the problem. Leave us alone and maybe we'll respect people within your organisation.

This great mission gives dawkins unbelievable amounts of ammunition. He can and should criticise the hell out of christian organisations for their arrogance. Until atheists do door knocking and public preaching then people will continue to be critical.

Its not up to the non-christians to control the fundies.

It's not "up to" anyone to "control the fundies." but I tire of their antics.

The Great Commission has nothing to do with going door-to-door, preaching on street corners, or proselytization. It has everything to do with living your life like you mean it and offering hospitality and including everyone -- no matter what they do or don't believe. It's not up to us to "save the unbelievers." That's up to God in God's own time. The fundies twist it horribly until it is unrecognizable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Wow, do you really know any Chinese or Russian 20th century history? China is STILL officially an atheist state. One cannot even hold a public office unless one publically and privately disavows any religion. Under Mao Tse Tung religious people were targeted and attacked specifically and literally during the Cultural Revolution BY atheist Red Guards - simply because they were practicing religion.

I'm sure it was pretty clear to those being tortured, worked to death, and murdered FOR their religion BY avowed atheists - exactly why these particular atheists were bent on destroying them, their families, their art, their history, and their religious buildings and structure.

Just as in religions there are many different groups of believers, with many different expressions of their faiths (and agendas), there are different groups of atheists with different expressions and agendas. You can't lump all religious people into one stereotype any more than you can atheists.

But that doesn't mean that atheists can't and won't form groups which abuse the rights of others. It has already happened and most likely will continue to happen.

As I stated above - religion is not ONE belief system. It is a part of many different belief systems. Some are great for their societies, some are neutral, and some are destructive.

Same with atheism.

Okay... let's go with this for a moment. Let's take Richard Dawkins: a person who has publicly declared himself to be an atheist, is a staunch church-state separation advocate, seems to have a fairly skeptic worldview, and advocates positions on the basis of humanism and freethought.

Given all that, what belief system under the umbrella of atheism would you put Richard Dawkins in? Is it the same belief system as Stalin or the other atheists you trotted out in your quasi-slippery slope argument above? If not, is fair to bring up the communists the way you did?

Also, the other problem I have with your argument is that it confuses correlation with causation. The communist position on religion wasn't based in some pre-existing atheism; it was based (like much of the communist worldview) on the relationship they saw between religion and the class struggle that they worried about so much. Their anti-religion stance wasn't based on their atheism; their atheism and their anti-religion stance was based on their socio-economic beliefs.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's not "up to" anyone to "control the fundies." but I tire of their antics.

The Great Commission has nothing to do with going door-to-door, preaching on street corners, or proselytization. It has everything to do with living your life like you mean it and offering hospitality and including everyone -- no matter what they do or don't believe. It's not up to us to "save the unbelievers." That's up to God in God's own time. The fundies twist it horribly until it is unrecognizable.

The Gospel describes Jesus telling his disciples to travel the world, going from town to town to spread his message. If we take this literally (and I don't see any particular reason not to), then it sounds like the fundies you describe are the ones who have got it straight and what you describe is the "twisted" version. Didn't Jesus talk about "shaking the dust off your sandals" and moving on to the next town if the people there won't accept the message you bring them?

 

[dogsgod]

Same with atheism.

I hate to break it to you, but atheism is not simply a NON belief. It's not a VOID - when a person believes in the existance of the universe devoid of a Supreme Being or Beings, that is a belief itself - and cannot help but impact their philosophy - just as theism impacts different philosophies.

Sorry to break it to you but, a reason based philosophy is not impacted by what theists believe on faith, it's a worldview with it's feet on the ground and without it's head in the clouds.

Atheism means without theism, so no, it's not a belief any more than bald is a hair colour. Amazing how slow some are to pick up on that considering how many ways and how many times it has been explained on these boards.

 

[Kathryn]

Your argument, in my opinion, is a conjuration of what little facts you do know. Sigh. You seem to want generalize and to exclude. You keep implying you don't need to know more and that you know everything you need to know. At least on the subject of Dawkins.

Things like... I've never read a single book but I have listened to him enough... Its just discrimination at this point.

You've formed certain ideas and opinions about me, based on what you've read on this forum. You probably believe I'm a theist and a Christian. If you check my profile, you may conclude that I'm married and that I live in Texas. I often mention that I'm a libertarian, and you may or may not believe that, based on the words I've written on various threads on this forum. You probably have an opinion about whether or not I'm well read, whether or not I'm intelligent, my political views, and my delivery style.

Have you read everything or even 5 percent of what I've written on this forum? What about my published articles and poetry? Have you ever read a single smidgen of that? Have you ever attended one of my sales training seminars? Have you ever heard one of my interviews on the radio or television?

Would it be logical for me to say to you, "You cannot form any sort of opinion on me unless you've read a WHOLE LOT MORE of my writings." This makes no sense at all. You know what - if you read more of my writings, you might come to different opinions about me over time. You might decide that I'm NOT a Christian, or NOT a libertarian. You may even determine that I'm not even married or that I have never lived in Texas - and you might be right.

But no one would call you discriminatory to base your current opinions about me on what you've read of my writings so far.

This is another generalization. He obvious is critical of many religions and worldviews but there are some he does not disdain. (Hee hee)

This is news to me. Which religions does Hawkins respect?

I have this picture of you sitting at the kitchen table and spitting your coffee out all over your newspaper and shouting, "Looks what this hawk nosed idiot said now...".

Well, let me clear that out of your head. I don't have a kitchen table. And I read the newspaper sitting on my sofa in the evening, with a diet Cherry Coke. And I never even thought of the phrase, "Hawk Nosed Idiot" as applied to Hawkins, but thanks for the input - I'll probably use it the next time I'm listening to him debate a religious person.

You don't know though nor do you care to find out if your right... assuming you are right is enough for you I suppose.

As stated before, I don't have to read his books to be exposed to Hawkins' ideas and delivery of those ideas. He's very good at self promotion and has numerous articles, websites, and public debates that I peruse fairly often.

Believe me, he has a marketing team. They are paid to present a particular image of him, and they do a fine job.

If I want to understand his view point prior to stating I disagree with it. Dawkins is unique in that he wrote a particular book "The God Delusion" which explains his disagreement with religion. You vehemently disagree with it but have never read it nor understand it. I personally don't care if you read it or not but to state you disagree with his underlying message without having read or understood it is dishonest.

I'e read large portions of that book as I sat in Barnes and Noble bookstore - as well as portions of his other books. I was trying to decide whether or not to buy his books - and I decided not to. I'd read enough to decide I wasn't going to waste my money.

Do you agree with James Dobson's religious views? Do you agree with Pope John Paul 2's theology? How many of their books have you read?

You think Dawkins disbelieves in god so much that he has championed it as a cause?

Hmm - yes. He's an avowed atheist who regularly engages in public debates with theists. So yes - it's one of his causes.

I do not understand your point. What is your source that no one can hold public office unless they are an atheist and what does it have to do with Dawkins?

The fact that you're surprised at this fact is telling.

Here is a source that mentions several other sources as well in the paper (which is only about 12 pages long so I'll let you find and research the other sources). I recently did some study on the subject of religious freedom and human rights in China.

http://www.mac.gov.tw/public/Data/911101722271.pdf

One cannot be a member of the Communist Party in China unless one vows to be an atheist. And one cannot hold a government job or public office unless one is a member of the Communist Party.

The UN website also has some interesting info on this topic, as well as Amnesty International's website.

In any case being a monotheist, theist, atheist, polytheist, agnostic person is not enough information for me to cast judgement.

There's a difference between casting judgment and using common sense. When a person tells me that they are an atheist, it's pretty easy for me to determine that there are certain philosophies and concepts that we are not going to agree upon. That's not casting judgment -that's using common sense.

As for delivery style, I don't care for Rodney Daingerfield's type of humor, to use an example. He may have been a great guy, he may have been very intelligent - but I don't like his style. So what?

Atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. You can be an atheist that believes leprechauns created the world.

Atheism in and of itself is simply the disbelief in dieties. But this disbelief (as any integral belief about the cosmos) by it's very nature impacts a person's philosophical and moral concepts. A person is not defined by one belief - and everyone's actions are determined by their whole belief system - not just one belief.

 

[sojourner]

The Gospel describes Jesus telling his disciples to travel the world, going from town to town to spread his message. If we take this literally (and I don't see any particular reason not to), then it sounds like the fundies you describe are the ones who have got it straight and what you describe is the "twisted" version. Didn't Jesus talk about "shaking the dust off your sandals" and moving on to the next town if the people there won't accept the message you bring them?

That's a completely different pericope -- not to mention completely different gospel. The one you describe is Luke -- chap. 9 or 10. The Great Commission is Matthew 28.
The reference (and my reply) concern only Matthew 28.

 

[dogsgod]

Atheism in and of itself is simply the disbelief in dieties. But this disbelief (as any integral belief about the cosmos) by it's very nature impacts a person's philosophical and moral concepts. A person is not defined by one belief - and everyone's actions are determined by their whole belief system - not just one belief.

That's right. That atheists don't share that one belief with theists says nothing about what an atheist does believe.

I know this is extremely difficult for you but atheists don't share common beliefs with other atheists. A world view of one atheist can have virtually nothing in common with another.

One can believe invisible lizards imposing as humans are running things behind the scenes and/or that morals are transmitted to us from distant stars and be an atheist.

Can you understand that?

Who is morally superior, one believing that morals are transmitted to him from distant stars or those that believe morals come to us by way of invisible gods?

 

[Sententia]

...

This is news to me. Which religions does Hawkins respect?

...

Well, let me clear that out of your head. I don't have a kitchen table. And I read the newspaper sitting on my sofa in the evening, with a diet Cherry Coke. And I never even thought of the phrase, "Hawk Nosed Idiot" as applied to Hawkins, but thanks for the input - I'll probably use it the next time I'm listening to him debate a religious person.

...

As stated before, I don't have to read his books to be exposed to Hawkins' ideas and delivery of those ideas. He's very good at self promotion and has numerous articles, websites, and public debates that I peruse fairly often.

But his PR people can't seem to get his last name out there correctly. hee hee.

 

[Sententia]

You've formed certain ideas and opinions about me, based on what you've read on this forum. You probably believe I'm a theist and a Christian. If you check my profile, you may conclude that I'm married and that I live in Texas. I often mention that I'm a libertarian, and you may or may not believe that, based on the words I've written on various threads on this forum. You probably have an opinion about whether or not I'm well read, whether or not I'm intelligent, my political views, and my delivery style.

Have you read everything or even 5 percent of what I've written on this forum? What about my published articles and poetry? Have you ever read a single smidgen of that? Have you ever attended one of my sales training seminars? Have you ever heard one of my interviews on the radio or television?

Would it be logical for me to say to you, "You cannot form any sort of opinion on me unless you've read a WHOLE LOT MORE of my writings." This makes no sense at all.

I posted this in the post your are quoting:

The people arguing with you are pointing out these little generalizations and saying thats unfair or untrue but yes you are entitled to your opinion.

I never claimed you needed to know everything about Dawkins. I said you are entitled to your opinion. I said:

You haven't read Dawkins. You don't know either his message or his approach. You know your googled self built perception. The honest thing to do is to admit you don't really know Dawkins or his underlying message. You have yet to read his material but from little you have seen you are not impressed nor inclined to learn more.

I also like how your claim that you have never read Dawkins keeps changing. At first it was newspapers, magazines, many debates on TV and radio and his website.


Now:

I'e read large portions of that book as I sat in Barnes and Noble bookstore - as well as portions of his other books.

Which to me would seem like an easier way to counter my original accusation. You say: Never read Dawkins but from TV etc you know enough. I call BS you havent read him how can you claim to understand the underlying message of material you have only casual at best awareness of. You counter with Magazines and his PR team. More vaporous nonsense at best so you decide a different approach.... That being you have actually read Dawkins? (Hawkins?) Lol.

Your argument transforms more than Optimus Prime.

Dawkins forgets atheist regimes kill millions... But Atheism doesn't kill people... Wait yes it does... Look at China and communism..

 

[Kathryn]

Sorry I didn't make my play on words clear enough - You said something about Dawkins being hawk-nosed (in your imaginary scenario with me sitting at my non existent kitchen table spilling coffee all over my newspaper and calling him a hawk nosed idiot or something like that).

Hence the Hawkins in place of Dawkins - I was just playing off that but I didn't make that very clear.

I never EVER said I never read any of Dawkins' material. I have never read an entire Dawkins book, never bought one of his books. That's what I said, and that's all I claimed. I've said from the get go that I've read a lot of his other writings.

What's your point, anyway?

 

[Kathryn]

I know this is extremely difficult for you but atheists don't share common beliefs with other atheists. A world view of one atheist can have virtually nothing in common with another.

I know this is extremely difficult for you, but nearly every atheist out there shares some common beliefs with other atheists. People who share enough common beliefs often band together in groups. Sometimes these groups accomplish good - sometimes they accomplish bad.

The word "atheist" is a noun. That means it symbolizes a person, place or thing. The word "atheism" is also a noun. It represents an idea, a concept. People share this idea, this concept and they become ATHEISTS.

Some atheists have a very complex and complete personal philosophy which they share with other people, and which contains their common belief that there are no dieties as an integral part of their belief system - one which impacts many other facets of their philosophy - and hence, their actions towards others.

So groups of atheists have killed people who didn't agree with them and their philosophy - and groups of theists have killed people who didn't agree with them and their philosophy.

Why is this so hard for you to come to grips with?

 

[Sententia]

I never EVER said I never read any of Dawkins' material. I have never read an entire Dawkins book, never bought one of his books. That's what I said, and that's all I claimed. I've said from the get go that I've read a lot of his other writings.

Actually you have said a lot of things.

I don't agree with his message, and I don't like his approach. So...I'm probably not going to buy or read any of his books.

So probably not going to read any of his books means that you have read almost all of the god delusion and an unknown number of his other books at some point. :no:

As stated before, I don't have to read his books to be exposed to Hawkins' ideas and delivery of those ideas.

I'e read large portions of that book as I sat in Barnes and Noble bookstore - as well as portions of his other books.

Compared with:

I've read as many of his books as I've read of Ann Coulter's books - which is zero.

Ahhh. You dropped referencing Coulter though. Onto Glenn beck now... Hehe. You would probably love Coulter though.

 

[Kathryn]

Balance - it wouldn't be fair of me to claim to have read any of Dawkins' books when I haven't read a single one in it's entirity.

I think you're running out of steam, focusing on this particular nugget of our discussion. I've made it clear several times that though I haven't read or bought any of Dawkins' books, I've read and listened to a lot of his material. More than enough to determine whether I agree with his many of his ideas or whether or not I like his style enough to subsidize his income. Which - I don't.

You got anything else or can we move on? I honestly think we're both wasting time at this point.

 

[dogsgod]

I know this is extremely difficult for you, but nearly every atheist out there shares some common beliefs with other atheists. People who share enough common beliefs often band together in groups. Sometimes these groups accomplish good - sometimes they accomplish bad.

The word "atheist" is a noun. That means it symbolizes a person, place or thing. The word "atheism" is also a noun. It represents an idea, a concept. People share this idea, this concept and they become ATHEISTS.

Some atheists have a very complex and complete personal philosophy which they share with other people, and which contains their common belief that there are no dieties as an integral part of their belief system - one which impacts many other facets of their philosophy - and hence, their actions towards others.

So groups of atheists have killed people who didn't agree with them and their philosophy - and groups of theists have killed people who didn't agree with them and their philosophy.

Why is this so hard for you to come to grips with?

I challenge you to come up with one single idea, a concept that only atheists share in common. I know you can't. Aside from a non belief in a deity, you can't come up with a single belief that atheists alone share in common because there are none. Atheism means without theism, and that's all it means.


You can make up nonsense about atheists and what you pretend atheism to be, but until you can back these notions of yours up with even one single example, they are just notions of yours and nothing else.

 

[Erebus]

I challenge you to come up with one single idea, a concept that only atheists share in common.

Antitheism?

It would take one hell of a confused theist to be an antitheist

Not saying all atheists are antitheists either by the way.

 

[dogsgod]

Antitheism?

It would take one hell of a confused theist to be an antitheist

Depends on whose theism, ones own theism or some other theism that one doesn't believe in. Religious wars are not all that uncommon. There appears to be plenty of antitheism going on between theists of differing theisms.

Not saying all atheists are antitheists either by the way.

Why would they be?