Why do atheists care. [rhet]

-Removed-

Ahh so you think that the harm only exists in my opinion?

Because my OP largely consisted of "hey, here is an article documenting the some of the
harms religious belief can do, which I am posting as an example of the kind of things that
we [atheists] care about that motivate our caring about what theists think".

To which your response was to spend page after page complaining that I had claimed that all
theists were like the ones causing harm in the OP.

Instead of simply condemning that harm, your outrage is not that those kids are getting screwed,
it's that I might have overgeneralised...

So I guess it really depends on what your priorities are.

-Removed-

'...but because when atheists generalise against the entire Christian religion.'


That sounds rather like a generalization against atheists.

Originally posted by DeepThought
In your earlier post you were saying that spirituality does not exist ("woo".). However in this post you seem to admit it as a concept. If experiencing "awe and wonder" is not the same as being spiritual then what is?

This isn't a trap, I'm wondering about this, what does it mean to be spiritual if one is an atheist? Is spirituality just a matter of having an inner life or is there more?

"Is spirituality just a matter of having an inner life or is there more?"

Only God knows. Ask Him.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"Is spirituality just a matter of having an inner life or is there more?"

Only God knows. Ask Him.[/b]

Does God answer, and i don't mean retrospectively via the bible? (Genuine question).

-Removed-

Emoticon not required. Especially that one. 😉

-Removed-

If you don't want any Christian with the balls to stand up to you complaining for page after page after page, then stop generalising about an entire religion.

I DIDN'T generalise about an entire religion. YOU just IMAGINED that I did.

I don't mind you disagreeing with me, I do mind you complaining about me doing something I never did.

Your opinion on this matter remains just your opinion irrespective of the veracity of your example

And what opinion is it that you think I have?

I'm more interested in aguing with you over your generalisation

Which is a problem, because you are arguing over a fiction. You are making a straw man attack against me.
And doing so long after I clarified that, if it wasn't clear before, I wasn't generalising from this example as
you claim I am.

but because when atheists generalise against the entire Christian religion, someone needs to stand up to you.

But that is not what is happening here.

This is you freaking out at an imagined slight and not letting it go after repeatedly being told that even if
my OP wasn't clear, I never meant what you claim I meant.

I'm more interested in doing that.

Clearly, I still find it revealing that endlessly arguing over an imagined slight is more important to you
than condemning what you admit is appalling behaviour.


This is one of Dawkins common arguments, that any time an atheist criticises a more extreme example of religion
more moderate adherents always start jumping up and down on the atheist and thus protect and defend the extremest.

Because that is what I am seeing here.

You creating an imaginary slur, specially so you can rail against me/us, instead of simply saying, "yes that's terrible,
we should do more to stop that."

Because it ends up being small [relatively speaking] groups like the ACLU and activist atheist organisations that
do any of the actual fighting for secular government and maintaining separation of church and state with little to
no support of any kind from the supposedly moderate majority that claim to support those values.

All the moderates ever seem to do, is what you are doing. Claim offence at being linked to the extremists.

Even if that offence is imaginary.

-Removed-

The ones that harp on about being [or Christians being] persecuted.

That seems self evident.

-Removed-

The sentence is ambiguous. However is is clear from context and from the fact that he clarified it later on that he did not mean what you claim he meant. In addition the sentence, nor the OP in any way generalize based on a single example as you originally claimed (and are yet to admit that you were wrong about).

-Removed-

If I say: Atheists in particular harp on about how they are superior to theists. I am generalising about all atheists

No you're not, especially so if you use the sentence I used which included the word 'frequently', but even
without that it's not a generalisation about all atheists.

You were generalising about all Christians

No, I wasn't. I neither did, not intended to.

If I was unclear at first, I am not any more.

-Removed-

Pot, china-ware, black.

We can/I can/I do admit when I am wrong.

I'm not admitting being wrong here because I'm not the one who is wrong. You are.