An Indictment Of Atheists

Let's not forget the narwhal ... as that comparison would actually be somewhat factual.

Narwhal.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Atheists didn't used to be organized until the Internet came along. Then they started to form their own organizations to prove they can be just "holy" as the "holy ones."

Indeed.

They are a very loud vocal minority, only three percent of Americans are Atheist, and I think every last one of them posts on ATS.

General Social Survey reported that 21% of American had no religion with 3% being atheist and 5% being agnostic.

Yeah, those dang minorities ...

why can't they just keep quiet?

Folks just don't know their place anymore.

/retch

a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm quite fond of Sam Harris. Read all his books. Seen most [all?] his debates.

Even if you don't like him I think reading his post in response to being accused of being a sexist is worthwhile.

I'm not the sexist pig you're looking for

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm quite fond of Sam Harris. Read all his books. Seen most [all?] his debates.

Even if you don't like him I think reading his post in response to being accused of being a sexist is worthwhile.

I'm not the sexist pig you're looking for.

I have no problem with what Sam Harris said.

I agree with him.

a reply to: Klassified

I think the blogger is an extremist. To make it clear, she isn't satisfied with people just being atheists, she wants atheists to take it a step further and attack the churches.

I do agree with the blogger in that I don't like certain churches myself (the Mormon Church made it very clear they are prejudiced against gays and some churches are very much against women's rights), but I put effort into tolerating them and being polite and understanding to their constituents. A lot of the people I am around everyday go to church. It is nice to be able to get along with others.

If I had my way, I would do something about the Mormons' negative treatment of married gay couples and their children. I would do something about the Islamic treatment of women. Maybe I really do agree with the blogger. But I still put effort into being reasonable, and I think she puts effort into being destructive and unreasonable. Especially when she is targeting atheists, calling them sexist because they aren't actively destroying churches everywhere.

a reply to: Annee

Oops! I screwed that up. This one should work: I'm not the sexist pig you're looking for

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: Annee

Oops! I screwed that up. This one should work: I'm not the sexist pig you're looking for

Thanks.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: Annee

Oops! I screwed that up. This one should work: I'm not the sexist pig you're looking for

I've read it. I'm glad he got his say. He makes some excellent points about that particular situation.

He is in some ways a "celebrity" and by that I mean that "Sam Harris" is now a brand in some ways.

Even though I've also seen the polls, there doesn't seem to be any reason for there to be a statistical difference based on sex. The polls probably deserve closer scrutiny to find out why the gap exists.

As I said, Mr. Harris is not my cup of tea, I don't care at all for Dawkins, I sorely miss Christopher Hitchens, and I enjoy about anything Stephen Fry has to say on any topic.

Personal preference really. When and if capital Atheism takes on the characteristics of a religion, I won't have any use for that either. The current arguments for such are, as we've all pointed out over and over, absurd.

Thanks for the link; it is a good article.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I only listen to the message. I could never tell you who said what.

And I usually read it, rather then listen.

Atheism isn't as bad as feminism. But both are 'isms' and both require blinkered adherence to the respective platforms' tenets. In this sense, neither are any better than any given godtard institution of delusion.

Religion. What a rib tickler.

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: Klassified

a reply to: Gryphon66

Actually she's partially right. In the atheism sub reddit there are reports of female atheists being harassed by many of their fellow male atheists.

Warning language:

skepchick.org...

Problem is, we can't and shouldn't control how each person thinks...
or what disturbing black joke, a random person will write on social media.
Internet's anonymity has given people the freedom to express any thoughts they might have, like never before.
So it's reality, and expected.
As long as people share their personal stuff on internet, they should expect any kind of ''harassment''
Women are not the only ones who get harassed on reddit, it's a general issue.

It's delusional to think atheism is misogynistic, or that it has any properties at all.
Atheism is just a choice, a stance.
Other than a common disbelief there is nothing else in common between atheists.

In other words, misogyny is not more common in ''fellow atheists'', than society in general.

Seems like the real argument of the feminist in the op, is that the ''woman-oppressing power structures'' are behind everything in society.
She failed to explain how atheists are benefiting from them
where did she get the idea that atheists think they are superior to the women.

Seems to me that she has created her own delusional and hateful religion to follow, and she's fabricating stories about it.

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: reldra

But if you look at the poster above you it's not just a reddit problem but it's the fact that there some male atheists especially famous ones like Dawkins who still cling on to the idea that women are inferior. And that's scaring a lot of women away from atheism.

But Dawkins isn't the ''Pope'' of atheism, he just shares the same disbelief.
Atheism has no leaders or representatives.
It's silly for women to dismiss atheism because of what a famous person said.

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
IMO real "atheists" never bother to participate in pointless arguments with "theists," just like most "theists" would never bother to join a forum to argue against the existence of the Great Pumpkin.

But what if the belief in that Great Pumpkin suppressed mankind for 2000 years?
I guess then, they would join a forum to argue against the existence of the Great Pumpkin.

If you don't believe a god exists you are not an "-ist" or an "-ism," you're simply a non-believer. I do believe it is the evangelical types who try their hardest to slap labels on anyone and everyone.

A-theism is just that non theism, nothing evangelical about the standard use of language.

a reply to: Klassified

For a minute there I thought it was a description of a group of atheists, like a pride of lions, a flock of sheep or a herd of cows.

So we could say: "The ATS 'Conspiracies in Religions' forum was descended upon by an indictment of atheists".

originally posted by: TheInhumanCentipede
Atheism isn't as bad as feminism. But both are 'isms' and both require blinkered adherence to the respective platforms' tenets. In this sense, neither are any better than any given godtard institution of delusion.

Yeah, ism ism, (it's so ismist, isn't it).

a reply to: Woodcarver

Only that the concept exists or we wouldn't be able to talk about it.

Look at any Dr. Seuss book for an example. Before he wrote about them, no one knew what a Lorax was. If anyone out there dropped the word Lorax into a conversation and talked it like you knew what it was and just expected you to know ... you'd think they were crazy. However, the odds are that you know exactly what I'm talking about because Dr. Seuss created the concept of a Lorax and inserted it into poplar culture.

No, a Lorax isn't at all real, but in the sense that it exists thanks to Dr. Seuss and his book, it is there and we all believe in it enough that we all know what it is.

This is, by the way, how language and communication work. We have plenty of abstract concepts in our lives that we cannot concretely, tangibly prove that we all know about that we simply have to believe exist.

Do we need to get into a discussion on things like love for example?

So gods are like the Lorax and have the same level of reality? i.e. they're imaginary creations of the human mind?

I can accept that actually. I think I'll choose Thor as my new imaginary deity ... apparently he happens to look a lot like Chris Hemsworth.

... and that hammer ... mmm hmm.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Woodcarver

Only that the concept exists or we wouldn't be able to talk about it.

Look at any Dr. Seuss book for an example. Before he wrote about them, no one knew what a Lorax was. If anyone out there dropped the word Lorax into a conversation and talked it like you knew what it was and just expected you to know ... you'd think they were crazy. However, the odds are that you know exactly what I'm talking about because Dr. Seuss created the concept of a Lorax and inserted it into poplar culture.

No, a Lorax isn't at all real, but in the sense that it exists thanks to Dr. Seuss and his book, it is there and we all believe in it enough that we all know what it is.

This is, by the way, how language and communication work. We have plenty of abstract concepts in our lives that we cannot concretely, tangibly prove that we all know about that we simply have to believe exist.

Do we need to get into a discussion on things like love for example?

What is your point? That god, unicorns, and the lorax are all concepts invented by authors? You'll get no argument from me there. What does this have to do with the OP? Other than you will also twist any argument in hopes of claiming you are correct. All of your points are infantile. You sound like a child saying. "Uh uhhh.."