That's somewhat unrelated to the intended point of the post - Edit 1
Before modification by Isaac at 21/12/2011 12:42:23 PM
I like the 'Huh?' by the way, implying you weren't aware communists leadership is pretty much considered atheist by definition and the charge was somehow confusing and baseless. Next time go with "I don't think Kim Jong-Il should be classified as an atheist, here's why...". Of course, my morning coffee hasn't sunk in yet so I'm in grouch mode, and I might be unfairly assuming you just ignored or didn't get the actual point, maybe I wasn't sufficiently clear.
Now, did you actually have an objection to premise that many atheists, particularly of late on this board, have been dropping comments that generally have about as much swaying power as an Anti-Tax rally outside a federally-subsidized children's hospital? Or did you merely want to clarify that the batshit crazy maniac didn't so much discourage religion as discourage any religion that didn't revolve around him? Cause that's damn near the case for the majority of communist regimes, a point I once made as an atheist to someone knocking atheism as inherently communist and totalitarian. Hate to be the bearer of bad news but a number of self-described atheists are basically just against any religion that doesn't revolve around themselves, as are an awful lot of cult leaders and religious breakaways. I don't consider it fair or accurate - of most atheists - but a lot of non-atheists do generally regard a lot of atheists as being simply too egotistical to have faith. So pointing out the mega-maniacal commie dictator really worshiped himself isn't going to seem like a conflicting definition to atheism in a lot of people's books. Especially considering the actual point of my post was that some people are coming of way more Holier than Thou then rational and focused on polite and swaying explanations of their philosophical outlook. I'm not knocking atheism, secularism, or skepticism, I'm reminding our recently vocal pack of atheists that one generally wins more friends with honey than vinegar and that the death of a tyrant who was undeniably an enemy to all mainstreams religions (and right before the major holy day of a lot of those religions) is a particularly bad time to preach the proverbial gospel.
Or do you actually think most of the recent atheist/secularist posts of late were highly effective at swaying non-atheists? If you do, that's fine, we'll have to agree to disagree, but the purpose of the post was to remind some people that if the goal is to convince others that one's philosophy is the wisest and rationalist then using commentary that seems designed to inflame and agitate people who disagree with you as a means of winning them over doesn't seem to display either of those qualities.
Now, did you actually have an objection to premise that many atheists, particularly of late on this board, have been dropping comments that generally have about as much swaying power as an Anti-Tax rally outside a federally-subsidized children's hospital? Or did you merely want to clarify that the batshit crazy maniac didn't so much discourage religion as discourage any religion that didn't revolve around him? Cause that's damn near the case for the majority of communist regimes, a point I once made as an atheist to someone knocking atheism as inherently communist and totalitarian. Hate to be the bearer of bad news but a number of self-described atheists are basically just against any religion that doesn't revolve around themselves, as are an awful lot of cult leaders and religious breakaways. I don't consider it fair or accurate - of most atheists - but a lot of non-atheists do generally regard a lot of atheists as being simply too egotistical to have faith. So pointing out the mega-maniacal commie dictator really worshiped himself isn't going to seem like a conflicting definition to atheism in a lot of people's books. Especially considering the actual point of my post was that some people are coming of way more Holier than Thou then rational and focused on polite and swaying explanations of their philosophical outlook. I'm not knocking atheism, secularism, or skepticism, I'm reminding our recently vocal pack of atheists that one generally wins more friends with honey than vinegar and that the death of a tyrant who was undeniably an enemy to all mainstreams religions (and right before the major holy day of a lot of those religions) is a particularly bad time to preach the proverbial gospel.
Or do you actually think most of the recent atheist/secularist posts of late were highly effective at swaying non-atheists? If you do, that's fine, we'll have to agree to disagree, but the purpose of the post was to remind some people that if the goal is to convince others that one's philosophy is the wisest and rationalist then using commentary that seems designed to inflame and agitate people who disagree with you as a means of winning them over doesn't seem to display either of those qualities.