Seems premature as there's still a few thousand years of catch up.

Buses first, genocide later.

That's when we really turn to the dark side and equal all the horrors of religionists.

An interesting argument, but it concedes that all humans behave as ……..humans.

If only there was a word for that.

Just as ugly"

Seems premature as there's still a few thousand years of catch up.

Bullshit has been called and you have no answer.

Your words strongly imply exactly what I said they do.

I accept my victory with my usual modesty.

Congratulations on your victory! Here's your prize:

while I do, of course, merit them, my humility forbids me to accept them.

The face has been planted and you've been given all the accolades you deserve.

Keep 'em coming. Show us how much you "don't have anything against" us.

Understood.

The narrative that atheists should shut the fuck up and remain obeisant and deferrential merely for the benefit of being ignored should be discouraged.

I understand why you would think otherwise.

Is that up to your exacting standards? I'd hate for you leave this conversation disappointed.

And obviously, the atheist author of this post has a different view from yours.

And we see the very predictable replies to the poster, using the same memes that are trotted out over and over. And some see this aa productive dialogue.

You, for example, adopt a more stringent standard of proof for what was said on an internet forum than you for the existence of an all-powerful cosmic being.

But you be you, man.

Earlier DU topics about himL

https://www.democraticunderground.com/121836037

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218126288

Not sure you want to hold up his posts as an example.

(And - shockingly to you I'm sure - he WASN'T an atheist.)

you would see that the articles were not written by theists.

If you did not, your misperception is understood.

The OP claimed they were "mentioned favorably" here. I noted the person who did so, was banned as a disruptor.

Typical.

Why are you so full of hate? What kind of example are you setting as a Christian?

able to post here. That's telling, I think.

able to post here, due to their behavior on DU. That's my guess.

Yeah, "mentioned favorably" by a banned disruptor.

guillaumeb doesn't want to acknowledge his good friend being banned for disruptive behavior, so of course he posts dishonestly and attacks me. Interestingly, those are behaviors that led to his friend's banning too.

isn't something I normally do. Some of them return, often again and again.

It is important to note, though, when someone links to a thread from 2014 as an example of anything. Then, one can examine that thread to see who the participants were. When I see a thread that is populated mostly with former DUers who can no longer post here, I tend to dismiss that old thread as of no interest at this time.

That particular thread was from a time when I was not participating in this group at all, and before some people who post frequently here arrived at all. I've never seen the utility of linking back to ancient threads in the Religion Group or anywhere else. It always seems like calling up ghosts from the past.

I'll refrain from mentioning any of those people who can no longer reply by name, though.

I prefer more current events, really.

You keep identifying atheists as the problem, when they hold literally zero political power in this country. Me, I'd rather fight the religious lunatics who do. But you've got your preferred enemies, I guess.

about a style of proselytizing by some atheists, one which other atheists have also identified as A problem.

You can't see that? Or do you identify so completely with proselytizers that you believe pointing out how they undercut their own arguments is an attack on all atheists?

It isn't. There are lots of similar comments online and in print, from atheists. Lots of atheists think proselytizing backfires.

'Cause that was pretty weak, as proselytizing goes. Seriously, if reliigionists restricted themselves to buying ads that said stuff like, "Our god is probably real. Why not visit XYZ church?" do you think anyone would object? Would you consider that offensive?

You might want to consider the idea that maybe you haven't.

There's a chronically misunderstood poster here who can't articulate a coherent thought to save his life, but it's always everybody else's fault. He's a good example of how not to do it.

After posting no less than three threads in two days trying to present a rift between atheists.

Meanwhile the best part about atheism is there's no right or wrong way to do it. Not having a belief system that some insist exists does that for you. There will never be a rift between us that you and others try and create because literally the only thing that unites us is a common rejection of belief in one or more deities.

So no, I'm pretty sure none of those here who identify as atheists identify with your subliterate use of "proselytizers". Arguments matter to us more than those who may happen to make them. So far yours has been made rather poorly, but obviously you have strong feelings about it. One can certainly guess why, but that's really more for you to say.

Explain what kind of speech is acceptable from an atheist, in your opinion.

Point to specific posts and clarify what is wrong about them, and how they could be better expressed.

Because instead, you just come off as attacking every atheist posting less-than-glowing opinions about religion. And that's exactly why you are getting the response you are.

We are allowed to speak too. We are allowed to voice our opinions on religion too. Believers don't get a monopoly on discourse.

And given that the "nones" (those with NO religious affiliation) are now the largest voting bloc in the US, I think we deserve more respect.

So keep judging and blaming and trying to silence critics of religion if you must - but understand that you, too, could be alienating Democrats.

That you woke up today and a majority of the country believed unicorns were real. They had multiple books about unicorns that were thousands of years old telling us all how to live and used these books as not only their source of morality but passed laws based on it. When you came across such people and talk of unicorns started what would you do? Would you be able to just nod and agree on their thoughts of unicorns and how they expect us to live? Would you celebrate the unicorn day by wearing a horn at the unicorn dinner with your family? Would you not feel like you live in a crazy world? I'm sure at this point you feel like I am being a "dick" and patronizing you, I am not. I am genuinely asking you to place yourself in a position that a lot of us atheists feel like we are living every day. Change unicorn to Zeus or whatever you have to so you can place yourself in this position.

Because they never do that.

Unless asked, I don't, except in places dedicated to the discussion of religious topics. What would be the point of telling someone I am an atheist out of the blue? Most of my acquaintances and friends consider themselves to be Christians, Jews, or Muslims. That is not why they are my friends or acquaintances, though. It's a matter of their own personal beliefs, and isn't relevant to our relationship.

Some of them know that I'm an atheist, but only because they have asked me about my beliefs. Just as I would say, "OK" if someone told me of their Lutheran beliefs, they say "OK" to my atheism.

It's a matter of no consequence, either way, in terms of how I or they behave, which is the only thing either of us cares about, really.

Here in the Religion Group, I am more open about my atheism. That's because religious topics are the order of the day here.

The person who wrote the essay you quoted from is, perhaps, recognizing that atheism isn't really a topic for ordinary relationships. Good for him or her.