It requires courage to be an Atheist.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
It requires no courage at all to be an atheist. Everyone is born one.

Right. Just ask a new born baby freshly out of the mother's womb, even before the umbilical cord is severed. She or he will plainly tell you - "Yes, I lack a belief in God. I'm an atheist you know? "

Maybe they should change the name of the umbilical cord to the unbiblical cord.

Therefore we have a new definition of an atheist - "someone who is born."
If that doesn't make them feel normal, nothing will.

Originally posted by sonship
Right. Just ask a new born baby freshly out of the mother's womb, even before the umbilical cord is severed. She or he will plainly tell you - "Yes, I lack a belief in God. I'm an atheist you know? "

Maybe they should change the name of the umbilical cord to the unbiblical cord.

Therefore we have a new definition of an atheist - "someone who is born."
If that doesn't make them feel normal, nothing will.

That is strange all the babies my wife and I had were not able to talk to tell
us they didn't have a belief in God. 🙂

Originally posted by KellyJay
That is strange all the babies my wife and I had were not able to talk to tell
us they didn't have a belief in God. 🙂

Well, I do think we should give them a definition which makes atheism feel most default and normal.

How about - An Athiest - "Someone who is a human being" ?

How about a instead of Homosapien, "Homo athian" ?

Originally posted by KellyJay
That is strange all the babies my wife and I had were not able to talk to tell
us they didn't have a belief in God. 🙂

Brilliant. You have out-smarted all the atheists.
But hang on ...

Surely of the billions of lives lived on Earth there would be
an example of someone (just one) independently believing
in your god without any instruction?

Of course babies fresh out of the womb believe in god ... they
then conveniently forget it and have to be re-educated!

Originally posted by sonship
Well, I do think we should give them a definition ....

Yes - make up some new definitions.
Try to make language fit your absurd beliefs.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Yes - make up some new definitions.
Try to make language fit your absurd beliefs.

That's what the new atheists are doing.
Where else do you get your "Lack of belief ..." spin ?
Where else do you get your "By default everyone is born an Atheist" spin ?

New language, new made up definitions to bolster up atheism.

Originally posted by sonship
That's what the new atheists are doing.
Where else do you get your "Lack of belief ..." spin ?
Where else do you get your "By default [b] everyone is born an Atheist" spin ?

New language, new made up definitions to bolster up atheism.[/b]

Do you believe newly born babies ~ born to Muslim parents, say ~ are Muslim babies in any real way other than as a demographic statistic?

Originally posted by sonship
That's what the new atheists are doing.
Where else do you get your "Lack of belief ..." spin ?
Where else do you get your "By default [b] everyone is born an Atheist" spin ?

New language, new made up definitions to bolster up atheism.[/b]

Well first, many of the older 'definitions' are clearly and blatantly Christian anti atheist spin.
For example defining atheism as "belief that God doesn't exist"... Like the monotheistic
Christian god is the only option.

Secondly, the 'new' meaning comes from word entomology.

Atheist is a-theist, the prefix 'a' meaning not.
So it means not-theist.

It's that simple.

And it's not new, atheists have been arguing that since long before you were born.

We've just been more successful in recent times.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Well first, many of the older 'definitions' are clearly and blatantly Christian anti atheist spin.
For example defining atheism as "belief that God doesn't exist"... Like the monotheistic
Christian god is the only option.

Secondly, the 'new' meaning comes from word entomology.

Atheist is a-theist, the prefix 'a' meaning not.
So it means not-the ...[text shortened]... rguing that since long before you were born.

We've just been more successful in recent times.

And it's not new, atheists have been arguing that since long before you were born.

No !?

The Christians under Roman persecution were charged with atheism.
They would not regard the emperor as a god.

But reinforcing philosophies is allowed. Theist philosophers do it.
So its fair that atheist philosophers do so as well.

I can still tease a little.

Originally posted by sonship
I can still tease a little.

More like you got caught in a lie.

Originally posted by twhitehead
More like you got caught in a lie.

Actually I got caught in a truth telling.

"The NEW Atheists" was coined by secular observers of the new tactics to an old argument.

Originally posted by sonship
Actually I got caught in a truth telling.

"The NEW Atheists" was coined by secular observers of the new tactics to an old argument.

Bull, and so what?

Originally posted by googlefudge

We've just been more successful in recent times

Not more successful but more fanatical.

Noam Chomsky... has said that Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens are “religious fanatics” and that in their quest to bludgeon society with their beliefs about secularism, they have actually adopted the state religion — one that, though void of prayers and rituals, demands that its followers blindly support the whims of politicians.[59]

Toronto-based journalist and commentator on Mideast politics, Murtaza Hussain, has alleged that leading figures in the New Atheist movement “have stepped in to give a veneer of scientific respectability to today's politically-useful bigotry".

Originally posted by sonship

We've just been more successful in recent times

Not more successful but more fanatical.

Noam Chomsky... has said that Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens are “religious fanatics” and that in their quest to bludgeon society with their beliefs about secularism, they have actually adopted the state religion — one that, though voi ...[text shortened]... in to give a veneer of scientific respectability to today's politically-useful bigotry".

The number of people who are not religious and who say that they are
atheists is climbing, rapidly.

That looks like being successful to me.

Also, pull quotes from morons is not going to impress me.

Originally posted by googlefudge
The number of people who are not religious and who say that they are
atheists is climbing, rapidly.

That looks like being successful to me.

Also, pull quotes from morons is not going to impress me.

Are you counting on heftier Ad Populism arguments?

What do you think of Atheist Dan Barker's advice on Evangelistic Atheism ?

If you decide to be evangelistic, then ask yourself what you hope to accomplish. Are you trying to win an argument? To simply end an argument? To demolish the enemy? To chase bigoted theocrats from your door? If so, a combative approach might work. Ridicule might be an effective way to shut someone up, or to show them how strongly you feel.

However, ridicule is rarely effective in changing someone's mind. No one likes to be laughed at. No one wants to be told they are a loser. How do you respond to ridicule? Combativeness creates enemies. The purpose of an evangelistic atheist should be to make a friend. To win them over to the reasonableness of freethought. You can't browbeat a person into friendship. "Onward, Atheist Soldiers" is the opposite of freethought.

Friendship is only attained by attraction. The only way to attract someone is by being attractive. If you want to win someone to your side, then treat them like a friend. Respect who they are and where they are at this stage of their life. Show them that freethinkers are courteous and tolerant. You may not become bosom buddies, but you can look into the future and envision a respectful, freethinking friendship. Isn't that what we ultimately want?

Imagine that you are talking to the Dan Barker of 12 years ago. See yourself as planting a seed in a curious mind--a seed that needs time to take root and grow. If you were raised with religion, then imagine you are talking to the person you were years ago.

If any of your religious friends or relatives eventually becomes a freethinker, it won't be because they were humiliated. It won't be because you are angry, concerned, or knowledgeable. It will be because they are thinking for themselves.

We want to enhance self image, not squash it. You can't yank someone out of the fold. If your objective is to end up with a friend, then woo them, don't boo them. You may not respect their current views, but you can respect their potential to learn.

Even if this positive, friendly approach ends up not working, you have at least given it a fair chance by not slamming the door shut at the outset.

Good luck.