Would it be legitimate to go after the faith of a Scientologist candidate?

[Sparko]

And is that goal based on atheism or is it based on something else? Atheism, again on its own, is nothing more than not believing in a god. Religions, again, have a bunch of rules and such which people in that religion are supposed to follow and have a somewhat different view of reality than people of other or no religions. Things like supernatural actors like Angels or Deva's, the power of praying, and certain things being significantly more important than could be argued on their own.

Atheism has none of that.

Atheism should have none of that. yet we see in most hardcore atheists, here on tweb, and those like Richard Dawkins, their goal in life is to "liberate humanity from the chains of religion" or something to that effect. They not only make a living being an atheist, they make it their goal in life to destroy religion.

So atheism isn't just a lack of belief. It has goals. It is pretty much a political movement, almost a religion of its own.

[Jaecp]

Atheism should have none of that. yet we see in most hardcore atheists, here on tweb, and those like Richard Dawkins, their goal in life is to "liberate humanity from the chains of religion" or something to that effect. They not only make a living being an atheist, they make it their goal in life to destroy religion.

So atheism isn't just a lack of belief. It has goals. It is pretty much a political movement, almost a religion of its own.

Richard Dawkins isn't the Pope of Atheism, dude. Also, make sure that you get don't confuse correlation for causation. Like, what part of "I don't believe in a god" leads people to "liberate humanity from the chains of religion" in the slightest? There simply isn't a way to connect the concept of atheism to anything you've proposed.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure that Dawkins dislikes religion largely because of creationist morons claiming his lifes work is a malicious fake designed to trick them or something like the epic tons of misinformation spread by them and not, somehow, a straight arrow from "I don't believe in god" to "I must destroy faith!"

Oh, and you'd know that if you'd ever read his books, the vast majority of which are just neat things about science written in a particularly engaging fashion. Hey, you might even like his super hardcore book that he wrote after TGD

Stop conflating things. I don't blame theism for anything. That falls on actual belief systems like Christianity or Buddhism. Likewise, atheism is not a belief system, political movement or religion (lol, really?). If you want to go after those people calling themselves "Atheism Plus" or some humanists, sure, have a ball at those actual groups of people, but trying to treat atheism in general like you're doing here makes about as much sense as treating every theistic person as Baha'i. There's quite a bit more diversity than you seem to want to admit.

[Sparko]

Richard Dawkins isn't the Pope of Atheism, dude. Also, make sure that you get don't confuse correlation for causation. Like, what part of "I don't believe in a god" leads people to "liberate humanity from the chains of religion" in the slightest? There simply isn't a way to connect the concept of atheism to anything you've proposed.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure that Dawkins dislikes religion largely because of creationist morons claiming his lifes work is a malicious fake designed to trick them or something like the epic tons of misinformation spread by them and not, somehow, a straight arrow from "I don't believe in god" to "I must destroy faith!"

Oh, and you'd know that if you'd ever read his books, the vast majority of which are just neat things about science written in a particularly engaging fashion. Hey, you might even like his super hardcore book that he wrote after TGD

Stop conflating things. I don't blame theism for anything. That falls on actual belief systems like Christianity or Buddhism. Likewise, atheism is not a belief system, political movement or religion (lol, really?). If you want to go after those people calling themselves "Atheism Plus" or some humanists, sure, have a ball at those actual groups of people, but trying to treat atheism in general like you're doing here makes about as much sense as treating every theistic person as Baha'i. There's quite a bit more diversity than you seem to want to admit.

methinks thou protest too much.

Not a political force, eh?

http://www.atheists.org/about-us

[Jaecp]

methinks thou protest too much.

Not a political force, eh?

http://www.atheists.org/about-us

Nope, just being thorough and it worked.

[Sparko]

Nope, just being thorough and it worked.

eh?