This happened to my neighbour, he was a strong catholic (not sure what specifically), he was a university headmaster, very successful.

Although he started to question religion very much. After a few years, he and his wife stopped believing.

Rather a point defying it.

If we see with a clear vision, ALL animals are HUMAN. I mean not only from their heart. But as a WHOLE.

To test for yourself, imagine a tyranosaurus rex, putting on his glasses, to read his newspaper.

Done? now imagine EVRERY other species doing that.

Got IT?

It’s just that surprises (supernatural events) would make us haywire. So the creator lets it happen in the natural flow. Which is healthy for our minds and less work for the creator.

Both directions of the arrow..

GOOD FOR YOU!

p.s: and what more, those guys can take to reading newspapers ANY DAY OF THE YEAR that THEY choose. They don’t because doing that would compromise their other abilities ..things that they ACTUALLY enjoy – DOING. Those enjoyments that are harmful to others, or are not fitted with the times. Are removed.

Simple as a Cat!!

You can draw your own conclusions, but if you oppose accommodationism, bear in mind that we’re in with a better chance of convincing the religiously inclined if we don’t insult them, great though the temptation may be. And if we confine ourselves to specific issues.

That is the standard of vicarious culpability that they promote, it’s the one that new atheists practice, you can see it on this very thread. It’s a standard they don’t accept for themselves even as their heroes call for nuclear first strikes and cluster bombing and military invasion of countries without cause. It’s a standard they have absolutely no right to expect, its a standard no one should give them until they explicitly abandon their double standard and stop practicing it.

I’m going to do my best to point this out and to ask people to start giving the new atheists the benefit of their own standard. That’s only just.

From my point of view the bold attitude of “new” atheists is just an answer to the continuous attacks of the religious against incredulity and those who share it.

Thank you for illustrating my point. It’s absurd for you people to insist on your right to be rude and obnoxious and, in many cases, dishonest, while crying when people are assertive with you. It’s been my experience that just rigorously pressing the statements of new atheists on the basis of evidence and reason is enough to get them to cry foul.

So homosexuals in Spain have the same rights as heterosexuals. Theoretically. They can marry, adopt children, inherit, get protection from hate crimes, etc. But, is that enough? Because they still can suffer lots of forms of covert discrimination.

You think I don’t understand that? The most that government can do is make discrimination illegal and allow for legal recourse, they can’t stop bigots from discriminating. What do you expect them to do on top of that? Government can’t guarantee an injustice free life, they can only permit redress of some forms of it.

If you think that atheists never discriminate against gay people, look at the laws in those countries that are officially atheistic, China, the old Soviet Union. And I clearly don’t mean countries with a neutral separation of church and state. Their prohibitions rival a lot of the countries with right-wing religious rule. None of them have been as good as many countries with democratic governments but which have kept the anachronism of an official state religion. A civil democracy is the guarantee of minority rights, not the program of the new atheism.

Another poster has pointed out the fact that not all accomodationists are equals. And so are “new” atheists. Very much so. The proverbial flock of cats. I agree with others “new” atheists in some things. And I disagree in others.

I already said that I know the fight of the gay and of the “new” atheists have different goals. Gays fight for their rights and atheists for respect and recognition (which is the same that ending the “free pass” of religion, the double standard). Atheists already have their rights. At least theoretically.

Like gays in Spain. Here, precisely due to the fact that the other side did not want to negotiate, the government went full throttle on gays rights. So homosexuals in Spain have the same rights as heterosexuals. Theoretically. They can marry, adopt children, inherit, get protection from hate crimes, etc. But, is that enough? Because they still can suffer lots of forms of covert discrimination.

And the same way that gays don’t like when they are called perverts, pedophiles and more, atheists don’t like when they are called immoral, evil and the like. Is that being a juvenile brat? Is it wrong to answer?

From my point of view the bold attitude of “new” atheists is just an answer to the continuous attacks of the religious against incredulity and those who share it. And, frankly, they are very mild responses compared with the virulent attacks of the religious. For instance atheism being “the greatest of evils” like the Archbishop of Westminster said a while ago. This civil? This is civilized? Atheists have to put up with that?

This is the double standard that I, as a “new” atheist, oppose. Religion can attack atheism at will. But, if atheists answer, they are not being civil, they are behaving like juvenile brats.

I think that the bold attitude of more vocal “new” atheists is needed and does not practically alienate anybody. It does not because most of those who could be “alienated” already have their negative opinion fixed and will never change. But their voices make people, who otherwise never will, take conscience of the issue.

Just like did the gays in Spain. Here the problem was not that they were hated but that they were ignored in plain sight. The “mariquitas” were quite popular. Like the village idiot or the dwarf clown. Always supposed to be funny and entertaining. As long as they stayed “en su sitio” (at their designed place). But if they moved… Like happened with the singer Miguel de Molina when he dare to answer when a “facha” patted his ass. Or like when the dancer Antonio dared to swear. Or when an antiquary of Seville asked for payment when he was robbed by “la Collares”.

It took lot of provocative actions from the GLT associations to make people aware of the issue and to get involved and do something about it. Even if it’s just to vote. And they were criticized for being loud, provocative, immoral, and things less charitable. But, precisely these virulent critics from the more conservative gained even more people to their cause. Because most of the ones that criticized them would have done so anyway. Even if they had forgot about gay pride parades, “la pluma”, or anything. Because for them the problem is to *be* gay. Just like for too much religionists, the problem is to *be* atheist.

I personally think that it’s true that some people need religion and/or faith. But that’s not everybody. So I think religion and faith should be a personal thing. And neither religion nor atheism nor any other similar option should be given a “free pass” over the other ones. If it’s normal that believers criticize atheism, it’s also normal that atheists criticize religion. If it’s not civil that atheists criticize religion, it is not civil that believers criticize atheism. “O jugamos todos, o se pincha la pelota”.

That’s what I meant and think. Sorry I was not clear enough and caused your misinterpretation.

What principle are you talking about, the principle that says people should have to live by their own standard of judgement, or in the case of the new atheists the half of their double standard they apply to themselves.

I am always interested in how new atheists get whiny about incivility when they find someone who can and isn’t afraid to answer them. Which of my words to you are you accusing of incivility?

I don’t know of any code of manners that requires that someone not rationally answer someone’s assertions they believe are wrong.

If you’re interested in having a civil conversation addressing what I say instead of some straw man and agree to give the same civility and good manners you required, I’m in. On this I must say that I think you bring some interesting and good points although personally I prefer a more balanced view. We can discuss this. I just ask from you that you do what you require from other. Nothing more. But not less either.

Two points, I have not applied the “new atheist” standard to anyone here except to ask why I shouldn’t apply a standard to people who practice it themselves.

Second, considering you’re among those who are promoting being aggressive, your asking me to be less so is, again, just another example of the double standard new atheists want the benefit of.

The things you criticize in the “new” atheists are just the same that the Catholic Church criticize in gay activists.

I’m not able to answer a list of “things” which you are referring to in this sentence, anymore than I am responsible for what the Catholic hierarchy in Spain or the gay rights movement in Spain says. I don’t happen even to be a Catholic, as I’ve said before.

If new atheists want me to stop saying that they should stop acting like juvenile brats, it’s up to them to stop doing it.
Basically the Church just wants the gays to behave like you want the “new” atheists to behave.

The Catholic hierarchy wants gay people in Spain to act like responsible adults who don’t alienate their potential allies in a political fight by insulting them? I’d have thought they would want gay people to weaken their political chances by doing stupid things.

And they also question the legitimacy of their vindications just like you question the legitimacy of the vindications of the “new” atheists.

What vindication? Atheists are a covered class under civil rights laws here, it’s illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of their being an atheist in public accomodations, public services, etc. They’ve got what gay people, for one, don’t have now. It’s illegal to attack someone on the basis of being an atheist, they’ve got the full protection of the law now, I’m pretty sure those who do could be brought up on hate-crime charges where those cover them on the basis of “religious orientation”.

What new atheists want is what spoiled brats do, their own way. They can’t stand that there are people who think differently than they do. Sorry, that’s not a civil right. Other people get to have their own ideas.

Do a little research. I’ve done much more than a little. Maybe that’s your problem.