I can’t make you discuss anything you don’t want to, but the question of whether terrorism (and the model of Islamic terrorism targeted at Western civilians in particular) actually works or not is entirely germane to this subject. Of the many rational arguments one could employ against a terrorist intent on taking your life to serve some political goal, “As it happens, what you’re doing is actually counter-productive to your goal, and I can prove it” is one that cuts through questions of ethics, and into the almost-universal realm of practical reality, of cause and effect.
No one wants to be evil, but fewer still want to be evil and stupid.
I couldn’t agree more. Only I engage in discussions with ordinary people with no terrorist intent, but who may seem to condone it. (Let alone I don’t think they’re convinced of its effectiveness either.)
I’d like to know how the hell he found that piece of crap, seeing as how it’s from the turn of the century and the author isn’t anybody anyone has ever heard of? Did he Google “What are the stupidest beliefs about atheists anyone has ever written”?
Looking at that list, at first I thought “OK, maybe a few of those are accurate”, but then I looked closer and thought about it. In fact, all of them are inaccurate. If no gods exist, this implies nothing about morality, the afterlife, etc., or anything except for the fact of no gods existing. I don’t think it’s likely that anything happens when we die, but that question is actually a separate one from whether any gods exist or not.
That list is totally incorrect. On the ethics and moral issues, it’s offensively incorrect, and just repeats the worst stereotypes and incorrect assumptions about atheists.
But you see, it would be more useful to see the context in order to decide whether or not the list of atheist conclusions makes sense. Maybe we should analyze it in more detail, but we may drift away from the initial question. Which, by the way, has already been answered and I declare myself satisfied.
More’s your loss. It seems you only take advice that validates your already held beliefs.
I don’t dismiss it shallowly (how could you possibly know that?), I read it, compared to my empirical experience and ability for logical thought and concluded it was absolutely bogus.
And yet you brought it up as a valid source not to be dismissed easily. Can’t have it both ways.
Someone who isn’t an atheist told UY Scuti that Bradley is an authority on atheism. Therefore atheists must treat him as an authority on atheism and discuss things on his terms.
His ideas and conclusions are offensive crap. How did you come across this list that no one here has ever heard of, written by someone that was never heard from again?
And for the umpteenth time, there is no universal set of atheist views. The only atheist view is that g-d(s) don’t exist. That’s the sum total of all commonly shared views.