Google disagrees.
"Atheism has a Richard Dawkins problem"
- Thread starter Musika
- Start date
Or on the other foot, if there's no group, how can talk of it progressing, etc?
Unless of course you want to praise it, apparently.
Then you are going to stop attempting. Progress.
"Atheism", btw, the term that confuses you, was in a way born of fairy dust - if angels are a kind of fairy: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-history-of-the-definition-of-atheism
So does your Ouija board, if you ask it properly.
There is no organizational structure in atheism. There are, however, atheist organizations.
Yet for some funny reason, influential persons like Dawkins appear to give so more than just that.
Influential? Dawkins? I've never read a word of his.
It's like civil rights, which can progress as a result of individuals changing their minds.
I praise it as the absence of faith based atrocities. It doesn't automatically make atheists morally superior or involnerable to other forms of human frailties.
If the toilet bowls don't have 6 month old shit stains, atheism does have organizational structure.
https://www.atheists.org/convention2018/
Then, as I suspect, you didn't read the OP.
The OP is about Dawkins. Is there anything by Dawkins in it?
Not all atheists subscribe to that organization. But to the extent that we do, it's fair game.
Like a member of the Silent Brotherhood changing their value affiliation to the Comancheroes?
Or does the mere changing of minds have to be coordinated with specific values in specific ways to grant progress?
Then if its open to non-faith based atrocities or frailties, your praise is arbitrary.
Or is the OP about things by Dawkins?
Or is this simply more of your standard douchebaggery and desperation to clutch straws?
(And you wonder why you are the subject of insult ....)
Not all atheists have to subscribe to it for it to have sufficient organizational structure to clean shit off porcelain.
It doesn't matter if it's about Bilbo Baggins. The point is that Richard Dawkins has had no influence on me.
You really could stand to drop the childish name-calling. It reflects more on you than it does on me.
And you, in turn, have no influence in the world of atheism.
It is better to command respect rather than demand it.
I'm not sure what that means exactly, but if you can criticize American Atheists more than they criticize themselves, you are more than welcome.
Indeed. So why not try?
It means somebody cleans shit off porcelain and somebody else speaks in a microphone and these two different tasks aren't determined by a rotating roster.
There is no "world of atheism" but the fact that I have no influence over other atheists makes my point, not yours.
With your childish behaviour, you're doing neither.