Funny how the gimpy zebras in the river of crocs cause such concern.

He proposes a plan that would lead to greater activism in order to achieve better results.

What's the problem with that?

suggestions or criticism that differ from their dogmatic positions. Makes you think that this form of blindness might infect other parts of their agenda.

As he points out, most atheists are not anti-theists, just as most theists aren't anti-atheists. Politically, the progressive/liberal members of either group have more in common than they do differences and could accomplish more by working together.

I agree that it is the dogmatic members of either group that are the problem and that they are blinded by their ideology.

everyone is progressive/ liberal the ratio of anti religious to just plain atheist appears to be about 2 to 1 in postings here. Is it your position that this DU group does not represent real world liberalism in this trend?

Few people, either religious or not, want to come to this group because of the hostility, so I don't think you can even draw conclusions about the DU population in general.

I know a large number of people IRL who consider themselves atheists or agnostics, but I only know one I would consider anti-religious in the way I have encountered here.

And even here, it's a relatively small group, but they are quite vocal.

But I think the group here is larger than you do and it is having its effect on more reasonable people as well. Enjoy your day I'm off to the mountains to soak up some privacy and quiet.

It is beautiful here, as well as private and quiet. It's good for the soul.

are the "out" about their atheism in real life? Because from all that I know, we aren't.

And I think you grossly overestimate what you call "anti-religious" and conflate that with those that dare to speak out.

"atheist movements" and what they've accomplished, when he's really talking about anti-theism? He knows less of what he's talking about here than you do.

Who claims to oppose religious dogmatism, is remarkably dogmatic in his own teachings?

The whole point of being a freethinker is shedding dogma so that it no longer interferes with the processes of rational thought and free choice.

I agree that dogma interferes with the process of rational thought and free choice, whomever it is held by.

You know, the doctrine and ideology held by some atheists. Like some of the things you see posted here, written in books, given in lectures.

You know, the ones that think there is one way and they know what it is and anyone else who sees it differently is wrong, or worse.

General statements that require me to accept on faith that such dogma exists are not appealing. I do not accept that on faith, or anything else, for that matter.

It's one poster's opinion which other posters might or might not disagree with.

Opinions posted on a message board do not have the force of dogma for all disbelievers, no matter how much believers would like to pretend they do.

You will have to do better than that.

And the quote at the end is dogma. It's as much dogma as religious dogma. It's doctrine proclaimed as truth and held to be so by a group.

I never said all disbelievers. I said some.

Now, you can go tell some of the other dogmatic people on this site how you won. I am done here.

You are citing one person's opinion on a message board as dogma. That is simply not the case.

You'll have to do much better than that. Really.

stretching your POV to the absurd.

I had never seen it, nor do I suspect most unbelievers have.

It therefore still does not rise to the level of dogma. It's still opinion. It's still online. And it is still far, far from universal.

You seem awfully desperate to accuse unbelievers of being dogmatic when there is no dogma, of having an alternative belief system where there is no belief.

Perhaps you'd do much better describing yourself and your own belief system. You have been striking out consistently with us.

The truth is that unbelievers, whether atheists, humanists, freethinkers, agnostics or any other flavor in between only have a lack of belief in common.

I love it when you guys talk about *us* and *we*, then deny that you have anything in common other than the lack of belief in something. Who is this *us* you refer to in your post?

I have no interest in sharing much about myself or by belief system in this environment. There is a hostility towards anyone who is not an anti-theist that is palpable.

You persist in seeing things that aren't there.

I persist in resenting your attempt to tell me I see them.

It's the age old problem between believers and atheists.

Get it yet?

just because they don't see things exactly as you do.

You have labeled me and that has influenced your perception of me and what I am trying to say.

I think we have reached an impasse.

See you around the campfire, Warpy.

I felt that he was speaking primarily to those in the US, where, as you know, the dynamics and numbers are quite different.

But this is an excellent example of something done well.

But that doesn't stop you from slamming things you know nothing about, and trying to get others to do the same, does it?

Hit the nail on the proverbial head.

is the only measure of success for atheist groups. Look at how long women fought for suffrage in this country - they didn't formally accomplish the goal until the 20th century. Does that mean their efforts prior to 1919 were wasted or futile?

Changing a nation's zeitgeist isn't easy. It takes time. Sitting around being quiet and deferring to religion isn't going to get anyone to think. That takes challenging the status quo.

seeing the world that is entirely separate from one's religious beliefs or lack of beliefs.

Therein lies much of the common ground he speaks about and where we can make the most impact with coalitions.

our political stand. Our message in re: religion, politics and international relations. We simply can't extol or export democracy. By nature I think that's a home grown process. But we can extol and promote a secular point of view politically. One that recognizes a role for the religious, non religious or simply disinterested in their own governments. A secular government.

There are seeds for that everywhere, imo. Even in theistic nations. They know that. We know that.

And I think one place to start is here at home. We have a disturbingly aggressive non-secular agenda among some of our elected representatives.

survival. Their stripes are camouflage, allowing them to blend into the environment.

They are mainly preyed upon by lions, IIRC, and strangely enough their average lifespan is longer than that of the lions.

And as an aside of slightly less biting revelance, Berlinerblau is another word for Prussian blue, the pigment.

They graze peacefully among a wide variety of other animals because they all have common enemies.

Their interdependence both on those like them and those unlike them is one of the main reasons that they survive.

Isolated from others is when they are at most risk.

I saw this with my own eyes.

I saw a huge herd of zebras who wanted to cross a river. The first few made it. The fourth or fifth was taken out by a crocodile. Very dramatic. The 3 who had made it went mad with anxiety, as did the several hundred on the other side. They were stranded and not one other zebra dared to try the crossing, stranding the lone 3.

Anyway, analogies only go so far and perhaps this is not a good one.

I think he gives American atheism too much credit. Zebras at least co-operate, and protect their own against the lions. On the Serengeti scale I see us more as drunken baboons. Basically able to make a bit of noise but totally immaterial to the fundamentalist apex predators. Organized atheism achieves very little and is unlikely to do so here for decades. We're about where gay rights groups were in the 1940s.

As far as that silly pipedream of co-operative secularism goes, that only works when, to stretch his already thin metaphor a bit more, the potential "allies" in liberal Christianity are not the equivalent of hyenas and vultures; too gutless to take on the lions but slaveringly eager to take a bite out of you themselves once the lions have moved on.

you would have more of a chance of forming effective coalitions with like minded secularists.

You could always catch up later, I guess.

A quick scan of threads here shows what we can expect from even the most liberal of believers. Atheist organizations routinely support progressive issues outside religion, from gay pride to choice to free speech. NEVER seen that returned in an organized way - not once. Your lot can talk a good game but will never do thing one to help atheists, or do anything but piss on them.

You have on blinders, dmallind, and see only what you want to see.

If you have never seen the myriad of religiously based organizations that support GLBT rights or 1st amendment rights, stories about which are posted here all the time, then you are choosing not to see it.

As I said, you can catch up later when you stop seeing much needed rain as piss.

There's an old French proverb: "Cet animal est tres mechant; qond on l'attaque, il se defend." This is a very wicked animal; when one attacks it, it defends itself.

That defence is what he's complaining about. That's why a certain clique is still screeching about a single sentnce in TMO's first post. "Our lot" decline to STHD or STFU.

perspective. This divisive "with us or against us" mentality is of no interest to me. I am more interested in what we have in common.

As to the members here who want to play that game, they can have it.

Read the post again and see if you can pick it up. Hint: it isn't about faith-based groups supporting progressive goals.

So is the Episcopal Church (two out LGBT bishops, and a growing number of priests) the UCC, the Society of Friends (Quakers), the UU's, who include both secular and religious subgroups, as a second half-minute's reflection produces.

...it's nice when one text is kind enough to flag itself as unnecessary right there in the title. Saves time.