From the few exchanges I have had with the members of this group,

I
have come to the conclusion that atheism does not require intelligence
as such.

All the qualifications that a person needs are to assume
without any proof that there is no God,

to treat people as idiots
and
to use foul language to prove his or her superiority.

I set out by asking about the type of proof required to prove that God
is a reality. I was told by various members of the group that the onus
was on me to choose the proof.

I asked whether the Wittgenstein
argument was acceptable, I was told by some members of the group that
arguments are not acceptable; only facts.

From the few exchanges I have had with the members of this group, I

have come to the conclusion that atheism does not require intelligence
as such.

From the few exchanges I have had with the members of this group, I

have come to the conclusion that atheism does not require intelligence
as such. All the qualifications that a person needs are to assume
without any proof that there is no God, to treat people as idiots and
to use foul language to prove his or her superiority.

From the few exchanges I have had with the members of this group, I

have come to the conclusion that atheism does not require intelligence
as such. All the qualifications that a person needs are to assume
without any proof that there is no God, to treat people as idiots and
to use foul language to prove his or her superiority.

I set out by asking about the type of proof required to prove that God
is a reality. I was told by various members of the group that the onus
was on me to choose the proof. I asked whether the Wittgenstein
argument was acceptable, I was told by some members of the group that
arguments are not acceptable; only facts. Other members didn't know
about.

How can a person prove a thesis, without arguments? I personally don't
know. Accordingly, I dropped the issue to one side. I started to ask
members of the group to prove to me the existence of electrons without
arguments, they failed to prove anything. I moved to the implications
of assuming that there is no deity responsible for the creation and the
sustenance of the universe. I assumed logically that if you deny the
existence of a deity you automatically underline the falsehood of
religion. If further accepted as a natural corollary that if religion
were false then one is no longer is bound by its rules. Accordingly, I
asked the question about incest. My point was simple and straight
forward, religion prohibits incestuous relations. What would be the
position if we relegate religion to the side. I received various
answers some of them took the form "don't be stupid".

second question in this vein about the morality of the target society
that we are moving to after, hypothetically, rejecting a society based
on religion. I asked about drugs, pornography, sorcery, I was told that
drugs were generally alright much like aspirins one member explained.
Pornography was also considered acceptable between consenting adults.

From these answers I simply moved the next step. I reasoned that if we

accept these forms of behavior then we should not be surprised if one
day we have a Prime Minister, an Education Minister and a Police Chief
who exhibit theses behaviors.

Most members of the group did not have
any objections to such possibilities if the persons indicated had the
right qualification together with little adjustments for propriety's
sake. From these responses I formulated the next question. As a father
who has children in school I wanted to know the implications of
changing the morality of society on my own children.

The members of the group indirectly said to me that you should not be
surprised if a Minister of Education was a porn star. That takes us one
step further. If it is alright for a Minister of Education to be a porn
star, it follows that teachers can be porn stars. From there on my
concern was about the level of trust that I can have in a teacher who
was a porn star. As I know that pornography has dabbled with teen sex
and even child sex I voiced my concern as to what can be expected from
people who were porn stars.

commandments have any merit and how to amend them to suite our
projected society which doesn't base itself on false and imaginary
concepts such as the concept of God.

In all the above I was not trying to insult anyone. As an academic, I
have learnt that you prove your thesis by logical argumentation. That
proof is a set of conditions that satisfy the mind rather than the
senses. The proof that 4+4=8 is a condition that satisfies the mind not
the eyes nor the ears.
consequently, all I learnt from the members of this group is that they
interested in eradicating religion, but they have no time for building
a better alternative for mankind. Indirectly, they are inviting mankind
to pull down our old house, but they are not prepared to design a
better one for us. The only message they are transmitting consciously
or unconsciously, is this:
If you deny God, treat people who believe in God as idiots, use foul
language to drive in your insults, you win the argument.

I assumed logically that if you deny the
existence of a deity you automatically underline the falsehood of
religion. If further accepted as a natural corollary that if religion
were false then one is no longer is bound by its rules. Accordingly, I
asked the question about incest. My point was simple and straight
forward, religion prohibits incestuous relations.