4 ms·

> Yes, there is the "Brights" thing and other such nonsense with little to no traction. And it's just a marginal group of people who think they are better, anyw

> Yes, there is the "Brights" thing and other such nonsense with little to no traction. And it's just a marginal group of people who think they are better, anyway. Huh. Sounds like almost any other religion. > [Atheism] is, quite simply, the lack of belief in the existence of a god This is incorrect. Agnosticism is the lack of belief in a god. Contrast this with atheism, which is the belief in the lack of a god. > There's no movement. There's as much an Atheism movement as there is a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc.

the_af 3y ago
I'm going to be level with you here: it sounds as if you're being dishonest. > Huh. Sounds like almost any other religion. I preempted this comment and you ignored it. No, it's not like any other religion, because "Brights" is not a "movement" of atheism (unlike say Catholicism for Christianity) because the Brights just happen to be a group of people who happen to be atheists, and have no major influence on atheism nor are they any kind of authority over even a fraction of atheists (nor do they claim to be). They don't prescribe anything over atheism nor do they hold any authority over it, not even a tiny fraction of it. More importantly, atheism is not even a religion. Yes, I know you are going to claim this (it's your angle, and it's best if you admit it early on. No point hiding it. It's been attempted and refuted thousands of times before, so let's get on with it). > This is incorrect. Agnosticism is the lack of belief in a god. Contrast this with atheism, which is the belief in the lack of a god. You are wrong, but that's splitting hairs anyway. Before we go down this rabbit hole though, best get back on track and examine your assertion that there's an atheist "historical fiction". You haven't spoken one word about this, and instead got sidetracked into pointless distractions. > There's as much an Atheism movement as there is a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. Do you want to argue honestly? I know you don't believe this. You can make a (mistaken, in my opinion) argument about atheism as a secular religion, or about atheist "beliefs", but no-one will seriously consider atheism a movement similar to Christianity, Islam, etc. If you want to be taken seriously, make serious arguments. Otherwise you just come across as dishonest.
- trelane 3y ago
  This is a very arrogant take. I don't think we're going to make much agreement, you and I.
  - the_af 3y ago
    Again you're beating about the bush and refusing to address direct questions. As I said, you come across as dishonest.
    - trelane 3y ago
      > you come across as dishonest Weird! That's my perception of you!
quesera 3y ago
> Agnosticism is the lack of belief in a god. Contrast this with atheism, which is the belief in the lack of a god. This is incorrect and may be the basis of your misunderstandings on this thread.
- trelane 3y ago
  I agree, your incorrectness on this point is likely leading you both to incorrect conclusions, even before we get to the "is an empty set a set?" that you would apparently need to argue against.

the_af 3y ago

I'm going to be level with you here: it sounds as if you're being dishonest. > Huh. Sounds like almost any other religion. I preempted this comment and you ignored it. No, it's not like any other religion, because "Brights" is not a "movement" of atheism (unlike say Catholicism for Christianity) because the Brights just happen to be a group of people who happen to be atheists, and have no major influence on atheism nor are they any kind of authority over even a fraction of atheists (nor do they claim to be). They don't prescribe anything over atheism nor do they hold any authority over it, not even a tiny fraction of it. More importantly, atheism is not even a religion. Yes, I know you are going to claim this (it's your angle, and it's best if you admit it early on. No point hiding it. It's been attempted and refuted thousands of times before, so let's get on with it). > This is incorrect. Agnosticism is the lack of belief in a god. Contrast this with atheism, which is the belief in the lack of a god. You are wrong, but that's splitting hairs anyway. Before we go down this rabbit hole though, best get back on track and examine your assertion that there's an atheist "historical fiction". You haven't spoken one word about this, and instead got sidetracked into pointless distractions. > There's as much an Atheism movement as there is a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. Do you want to argue honestly? I know you don't believe this. You can make a (mistaken, in my opinion) argument about atheism as a secular religion, or about atheist "beliefs", but no-one will seriously consider atheism a movement similar to Christianity, Islam, etc. If you want to be taken seriously, make serious arguments. Otherwise you just come across as dishonest.

trelane 3y ago
This is a very arrogant take. I don't think we're going to make much agreement, you and I.
- the_af 3y ago
  Again you're beating about the bush and refusing to address direct questions. As I said, you come across as dishonest.
  - trelane 3y ago
    > you come across as dishonest Weird! That's my perception of you!

quesera 3y ago

> Agnosticism is the lack of belief in a god. Contrast this with atheism, which is the belief in the lack of a god. This is incorrect and may be the basis of your misunderstandings on this thread.

trelane 3y ago
I agree, your incorrectness on this point is likely leading you both to incorrect conclusions, even before we get to the "is an empty set a set?" that you would apparently need to argue against.