Namaste Dream,
thank you for the post.
I find it quizzical that atheists, instead of working within the religious system (manipulating religion to their advantage) will offer an olive branch to people who can't think their way out for themselves.
what value is there in being purposefully deceptive?
I'm a compassionate person, but as an atheist I'd assume trying to get other people to be atheists was as counterproductive as helping the chick break out of its egg.
well... sure... you can speak about what you'd do since, well, you're talking about you. it's hard to speak about what another person would do if you aren't them, wouldn't you agree?
i mostly don't know atheists that are trying to get others to be atheists though they clearly exist.
If society is the result of selection and random change, then religion is part of the selection process functioning to elevate and separate the intelligent from the weak. That is part of the argument, isn't it?
no.
atheist is a term which simply indicates a lack of belief in deity. heck, as there are different flavors of theist (christian, muslim, hindu etc) there are different flavors of atheist, some atheists don't believe in any deity, some believe there are no creator deities and some believe that the deities of other religions don't exist. there are atheists that positively assert the nonexistence of deity (strong atheist) whilst others maintain there is no intersubjective evidence of deity and withold belief until such time (weak atheist) and probably a whole lot more that i don't know.
basically, the only thing that atheists have in common is a lack of belief in deity, they can have widely differing views on every other subject.
Lets take Dawkin's Selfish Gene book. Naturally he's making a personal profit so he's excused, but what about all of his crazed enthusiastic followers?
i find it interesting that Dr. Dawkins is used by theists in much the same manner that radical mullas and crazed televangelists are used by nontheists and atheists as being representative of any ones views other than Dr. Dawkins or the radical mulla or crazed televangelist.
They go out onto forums and try to convince people to change their thinking, and they're not the only avowed atheists who do it.
well.. discussion forums are for people to discuss and debate their ideas and, as we all have experienced, there are beings that are convinced they are correct and feel on a mission to explain it and convince you of it as well. if you fail to be convinced many of these beings take it as a personal affront especially if you hold views which may be diametrically opposite.
From an evolutionist standpoint, doesn't this activity weaken the selection process?
i've a feeling that you've got some misconceptions regarding biological evolution so much so that this question doesn't apply. evolution =/= atheist.
metta,
~v
