I'm just saying that atheism tends to organize its people in certain ways, with beliefs about how the world works or how society should function.
That's actually quite wrong. Atheism doesn't organize one's beliefs, reality does. That people who place an imaginary figure at the center of their beliefs find this puzzling is hardly surprising. My thoughts on government are based on what I observe and learn about governments. My thoughts on medical research are based on what I observe and learn about the actual subject at hand. My beliefs about morals and ethics are based on what kind of people I would like to have living around me. What the hell would my lack of belief in your imaginary god have to do with anything?
Don't you think it would be a good thing for atheists to be grouped like Christians often are, just for identification purposes?
Why the need to group people by what they don't believe? Seems dumb to me. Why not group people by what they
do believe? Humanists. Spinozans. Republicans. You get the idea.
Or maybe not. It seems to me that the essential problem in any discussion with a believer is that they are absolutely unable to understand this one simple concept: Just because your world revolves around your belief in an imaginary friend doesn't mean my world revolves around my lack of belief in same.
Don't confuse the fact that we pay attention to you - 'cause, you know, you've got a history of killing us and are currently trying mightily to screw up our schools - with the not-a-fact that this means our lives and values and opinions are built around not being you. Trying to frame other people's lives in the reflection of your own beliefs is supremely arrogant and supremely uninformed.
Capt.
Is it getting solipsistic in here, or is it just me?
™ Version 4.2
