You're preaching to the choir. My views on antisemitism are closely correlated to my views on atheism.
Since when is one not permitted to oppose a linguistic family?
Should atheism be recognised?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
You're preaching to the choir. My views on antisemitism are closely correlated to my views on atheism.
Since when is one not permitted to oppose a linguistic family?
I qualified my statements with: "But generally, self-declared atheists directly or indirectly assert tenets to the effect of."
Besides, find one example of an atheist who doesn't hold the tenets I mentioned.
SAM, it's the same as the word vegetarian or vegan to mean someone that doesn't eat meat (a negative position it could be said).
The word exists to explain to people that DO eat meat what your position is, since most people do eat meat and therefore require a label for people that do not.
I think I'm right that most people in the world are theists and as such require a label for people different to them.
The word exists to explain to people that DO eat meat what your position is, since most people do eat meat and therefore require a label for people that do not.
I think I'm right that most people in the world are theists and as such require a label for people different to them.
Well I'm Indian so that analogy is not relevant to me. Shakahari means leaf eater and Masahari means meat eater. They both signify a position of dietary intake, the analogy would be saying acarnivore, which doesn't say anything except that you don't eat meat
It might not be relevant to you personally, but did you understand my point?
You are way too sure of that, under the circumstances.SAM said:
The best guess would be that you do need outside perspective. Most dwellers in a particular worldview do, and the serious theisms are often - what's the word - flagrant in their display of a need for feedback from a neutral party.
Except for the spiritual and religious atheists, of course.SAM said:
And the various atheists who consider theism a very good discipline for the masses, or a necessary deception for the troubled and unenlightened, or the like.
Religion has proven itself very useful, for a certain kind of sociopath.
Last edited:
If I want an opinion on religion, I'll ask another theist. Thats like a second opinion. If I want to learn something, I won't ask someone who thinks education is a waste of time. Thats not a neutral opinion, thats just pointless. I've learned a lot from Christians, Hindus and Muslims who think differently from me.
All I've learned from atheists is that some arguments are just pointless.
anyone know who did this? Who was the secular country and who was the non-secular one?
Is there a point you are making? Or are you saying that western countries are not secular or that the countries they invaded are?
huh?? You said it and I was wondering who. I don't know of any non-secular countries.
Ah well you clearly havent heard of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Iran is non-secular? :bugeye:
Yeah, they routinely put people to death for being non-Muslims. Sometimes, they run out of non-Muslims to kill, so they kidnap them from other countries.
But if they are Muslim, they aren't secular.
Do you know of any secular countries that invaded non-secular countries or not?
How do you arrive at that conclusion?
Do you know of any secular countries that invaded non-secular countries or not?
Yeah, but apparently you have a different definition of secular.
ok, then I misunderstood. What is the definition of secular that you were referring to?
Atheists are champions of religious tolerance, I wouldn't expect you to understand that.