On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 18:04:44 -0000, Wag <Wag@nofuckingspam.com> wrote:

drift@lost.net wrote in news:1dq3c0p4be86ekijmdkclnek5pnvse9loa@4ax.com:

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 02:09:48 -0000, Wag <Wag@nofuckingspam.com> wrote:

This is exactly the way that we'll advance our cause!

We have a cause? Hmmmmmmm.

--Wag--

Maybe to keep Christians from meddling?

Maybe trying to undo dome of their assumptions when meddled with?

Unlike them, however, not to push any myths down their throat.

Just for us to be left alone, sometimes we have to assert some first
amendment stuff when the situation arises.


drift

I could get behind a cause like that, I suppose.

--Wag--

Call it a cause or whatever - the word "cause" may apply in a nebulous
manner in this discussion.

The idea is that we should be free to our own thinking, and not be
compelled to follow that of others.

It is up to us individuals to elect whether to believe in anything or
nothing.

The true independent thinker has few or no peers, and few friends.
But these friends will be true friends, not the worthless people one
has on his arm for show. Whatever friends an independent thinker has
will still have differences of opinion. That is healthy. The
independent thinker has tolerance allowing fellowship with those who
mutually respect the right of his fellows to think independently, and
when you get these people together to solve problems, you have a great
think tank, because rather than rejecting ideas of others, these
people consider the others ideas as part of the overall analysis, and
when you do that, you come up with solutions.

This leads to breakthroughs in the sciences, and has a positive impact
on the world full of people.

On the other hand, when people cannot think independently, they are
insecure and must follow the thinking of others to feel secure. They
are afraid to be different. They typically band together into groups
who are against other groups. This is a symptom of paranoia, and is
based on stupidity. It's adolescent mentality. Unfortunately, most
people never outgrow it. Even worse, stupid people outbreed smart
people.

I believe atheists tend to belong to the intellegent group who seek
the truth: demonstratable facts on which to build.

The faithful, on the other hand, need to "belong" - or they feel
insecure. They may be intelligent, with some good theories to
contribute to the general intellect of society, but they are afraid to
branch out on their own, deal with criticism and therefore they
diminish their own ideational development.

So we let them alone and hope they don't impose fallacy on the rest of
us, but when they do, we must demonstrate their fall icy to
themselves.

The crux, however, is that so many people who are faithful vote for
those who use public office for their own gain. This sense of
"belonging" misleads them into voting for theocrats, like the ones
currently running the USA, who are the wolves in sheep's clothing, and
are presently corralling the rest of us and the world into their
fiefdom.

So, does that make us have a "cause" ? You decide. Whatever you decide
on, we must push the theocrats out of office for the good of atheists
*and* the faithful.

If any readers take offense to my use of any monosexual pronouns, *****
you. I'm talking about all people - male and female - and if you don't
get it, you are part of a cult with no cause but to complain because
your life is empty for following an ignorant herd led by an idiot.



drift

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 18:04:44 -0000, Wag <Wag@nofuckingspam.com> wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 02:09:48 -0000, Wag <Wag@nofuckingspam.com> wrote:

This is exactly the way that we'll advance our cause!

We have a cause? Hmmmmmmm.

--Wag--

Maybe to keep Christians from meddling?

Maybe trying to undo dome of their assumptions when meddled with?

Unlike them, however, not to push any myths down their throat.

Just for us to be left alone, sometimes we have to assert some first
amendment stuff when the situation arises.


drift

I could get behind a cause like that, I suppose.

--Wag--

If any readers take offense to my use of any monosexual pronouns, *****
you. I'm talking about all people - male and female - and if you don't
get it, you are part of a cult with no cause but to complain because
your life is empty for following an ignorant herd led by an idiot.

So, does that make us have a "cause" ? You decide. Whatever you decide
on, we must push the theocrats out of office for the good of atheists
*and* the faithful.

The faithful, on the other hand, need to "belong" - or they feel
insecure. They may be intelligent, with some good theories to
contribute to the general intellect of society, but they are afraid to
branch out on their own, deal with criticism and therefore they
diminish their own ideational development.

I wasn't joking at all. I was entirely serious.

If you think ensuring that others notice our happy, ethical lives will
change what they've been taught since birth about atheists, I think
you're naive.

:-)

Jenny
(who bases her opinion, in part, on rather extensive experience in a
quite similar undertaking)

Before emailing, remove Clothes

Generally speaking, I'm inclined to agree with you. The most you can hope
for is to create a question that tickles the mind of the believer. With
any luck, you can discredit the pervasive notion that unbelievers like us
are inherently evil and that will lead to greater tolerance. de-Converting
the believer, while unlikely, is a possibility too but it's rather extreme.
That kind of de-conversion requires much more than just being an example of
"coolness."

--Wag--

I wasn't joking at all. I was entirely serious.

If you think ensuring that others notice our happy, ethical lives will
change what they've been taught since birth about atheists, I think
you're naive.

:-)

Jenny
(who bases her opinion, in part, on rather extensive experience in a
quite similar undertaking)

Generally speaking, I'm inclined to agree with you. The most you can
hope for is to create a question that tickles the mind of the believer.
With any luck, you can discredit the pervasive notion that unbelievers
like us are inherently evil and that will lead to greater tolerance.
de-Converting the believer, while unlikely, is a possibility too but
it's rather extreme. That kind of de-conversion requires much more than
just being an example of "coolness."

On 05 Jun 2004 14:18:53 GMT, jenny6833a@aol.comClothes (Jenny6833A)
wrote:

snip

If you think ensuring that others notice our happy, ethical lives will change
what they've been taught since birth about atheists, I think you're naive.

You have a strong point but I don't think it's naive to show
theists that atheists aren't the evil scum as portrayed/indoctrinated
by shaman. I've had many experiences when theists were shocked to find
out I was an atheists. One case, I gave a bid to do some brick work,
it went faster and easier than I thought so I knocked 300 dollars off
the price. (okay, I'm a bad business man, but fair is fair) They said
thank you and god bless me and I said, respectfully, I was an
atheists. They were shocked, I took the check and left.

I do agree with your point. The default position for believers is
that atheists are wrong. Period. So lets work from that truth. Now
it's a matter of conversion, not acceptance. You can say and do
anything and it won't make a difference.

Mind control boggles, errrr....... the mind?

Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly

Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly