We’ll get to that… but first, can you address this list that was provided to you on page 3 and which you dismissed after a single click on Australian Atheists.
After all, it addresses your OP quite well by listing the various contributions that atheist organizations make that benefit humanity without the need for moral dictates from the Christian bible.
I thought the list was impressive, but they mostly seemed self serving to me; but I was still impressed with it. It showed Atheism is widespread, which would help if you ruled the world.
The power to cloud men’s minds?!
Who’s been forbidding Mickiel to post lists? What is this… not-see Germany?
Dismissive and insulting at the same time-How sweet. It’s a damnsight better then the vague and defective list you provided in the OP.
Self-serving compared to whom? Certainly not the vast fortunes spent by religions to proselytize.
Nobody’s forbidden him to make lists.
Well I am told I can post list, but it was also told to me to debate rather than to list; so I am debating.
The “because I said so” was shorthand for the longer statement “You post stuff that you believe to be true without offering a shred of evidence that your opinion is supported by any facts, whatsoever.”
An example of such a post would be this one, in which you provide a long list of things that you assert must be true or things that you demand to know how they can otherwise exist than in your belief system.
In point of fact, you are merely asserting your beliefs without support. We could probably take the time to explain how each of those points is in error, but your responses to similar exchanges have been to simply deny them, again without supporting evidence. No one is going to invest the time and energy to give a sufficient explanatory correction to your errors simply to have you blow them off.
To take just one example:
The statement is worthless. Language occurs in numerous species and there are scientific explanations for how that mechanism of communication has arisen. They are very much involved with the evolutionary development of humans from the species that preceded humans. As to being “taught,” that is a fairly complex interplay between the developing brain, the environment, and other speakers that cannot be reduced to “taught” in the way that you laid it out.
When you declare as a fact something that we know to be an error without even bothering to try to explain how it might (despite actual evidence) be true, that is the equivalent of saying “Because I said so.”
Well I clicked on 7 or 8 different countries and they promoted themselves, but I saw nothingelse they promoted for humanity.
You are? It looks more like you’re demanding explanations while not reading the ones you’ve already been given nor providing any of your own.
no - you’re not.
Why do you refuse to defend your own list from the OP?
I could have went into a comprehensive explination for each one on the list, but it was simply too long and I did not want to take the time to do so; but as you say I would, Atheists would only reject the paragraphs of explinations as they would the list. So I learned from that experience, not to make any more list.
You’re using this article, right? It’s a list of secularist organizations, one that exist to promote secularism. If you want a list of secular charities, try this. It turns out organizations like Goodwill, Oxfam, and Doctors Without Borders do plenty for humanity.
I am demanding explinations and I am not debating?
So just what do you suggest I do differently?
The prohibition on lists was placed on simply throwing out a list of words or phrases that Mickiel believed made some point when there was no explanation or argument to support them.
There was no prohibition against providing a list of authors or sources or against responding to a direct question with a list of items that answered the question.
The prohibition was on the sort of post to which I linked in my last post or, worse, to Mickiel’s post that preceded it that included nothing but the first word in each sentence in the post to which I linked.
Now. Let us everyone drop the topic of lists.
[ /Moderating ]
Well at first glance, that list seems to be much better and not self serving. This is what Atheist would need if they ruled the world.
Atheist ruling the world is your particular hang-up. No one else’s.
Well anyway, as we near the closing of this thread, I do see some signs now, which I did not see at first, that Atheist could indeed rule this world; but I have seen no evidence that such a rule would make the world " Much" different than it is now.