Philo,

The name, David, was not of my choosing as was not my religion. Same as you. Thought about changing it but as it is relatively innocuous in the bigger picture have never gotten around to do it. In earlier days it would have been upsetting to my parents, relatives, friends and some acquaintances also.

It says elsewhere in the bible not to call others a fool as that is a sure fire path to hell. I guess Paul never read Matthew or indeed, Matthew never read Paul.

Have you some examples where freely chosen atheism and not anti-godism is a problem in society today where those who have freely chosen atheism in a democracy are forcing anything on anyone unfairly?

There has to be a god to be anti-god and I know of no atheist who is anti-god. That would be ridiculous.

Have you some knowledge that Dawkins or the AFA are setting up gulags, re-education camps or something else along those lines?

What is your ‘actual’ fear of atheism? I mean a fear that is not just jumping at shadows that do not exist.

David

We have Philo claiming atheism means anti-god. Missing the point that one cannot be anti something that does not exist.

Squeers & Poirot see atheism as some type of insidious ideology with "neo-liberalism" underpinnings preventing sustainable and equitable economies.

Me, I don't believe in formal religion nor a big patriarch in the sky. I remain fascinated by the natural world, follow scientific research (and collect ammonites - there's your shiny & pretty things, Squeers), am in favour of a sustainable and equitable economy and wish people would simply live and let live. But am enough of a pragmatist to know this is unlikely; religions want converts, atheists want separation of church and state, still not really sure what Squeers wants apart from casting aspersions on people who declare themselves atheists.

People are very strange and absolutely fascinating. OLO draws together a mix of people who might not ordinarily encounter one another. I certainly do not know anyone like Philo, Runner and or other religious fundamentalists.

Is atheism a way forward?

It is if it means that we humans hold ourselves accountable for our actions both to each other and to the world which sustains us.

Ammonite,

"Squeers and Poirot see atheism as some type of insidious ideology with "neo-liberalism" underpinnings preventing sustainable and equitable outcomes."
(That's a "creative" misrepresentation of our stance)

Now, Ammonite, I presume you realise that Squeers and I are not ignorant dolts....and we do "get" the point about atheism being a non-belief in God. However, if such a big deal is being made about the stupendous positive benefits to society of an entirely non-religious paradigm, is it not reasonable to ask why the rest of it s being ignored or even approved of.
David has stated that his foundation has a mission to "affect positive change"..that is, it has an "agenda" and this agenda is broadcast under the banner of "atheism".

It seems that Squeers' metaphor of frolicking in the shallows playing with shiny things sums things up perfectly.

Poirot,

God, are clutching at straws! Here is what I said: And I am one of the few people in this discussion who has not used the word ‘agenda’. In reference to me, you have use ‘mission’ once and ‘agenda’ twice all in the one sentence. This is being most deceitful and I would ask you to refrain from propagandising my thoughts into something they are not. Than you.

“And by the way, atheists who are at the forefront of affecting positive change are somewhat miffed that other atheists see no need to do anything. Miffed but we understand.”

How you get ‘agenda’, said so negatively, about atheists attempting to make positive change in society is a sure sign of desperation and a lack of real argument.

What is wrong with trying to alter some of the backward ideas negatively affecting the happiness of others when those ideas are not democratically formed? Should we all say nothing about anything at all to avoid you making such vacuous comments?

Keep this up and you go on my list of not worth conversing with.

David

David,

If you consider my rhetoric is a misrepresentation of your aims, I apologise.

My atheism doesn't prevent me from pondering the problems inherent in our rationalist "enlightened" industrial paradigm - all Squeers and I asked was how more of the same could address more pressing societal challenges...seems those challenges aren't relevant to a "celebration" of atheism.

Poirot

Until this tread I considered both you and Squeers among the more enlightened of OLO's posters. However, your limited view of atheists, accompanied by insults, leaves me in a similar position to David - not worth conversing with. This is a shame.

Atheists have just as much entitlement to expressing an opinion as religious, agnostics and whatever ideology you and Squeers subscribe to.