Reactive And Proactive Atheism?

[Sunstone]

Just as it is WRONG for theists to pretend that all is always well with theism and that those who are irreligious have no valid beefs. And when an atheist mentions some clearly valid beefs, it is implied that they are a bigot.

It would almost seem NetDoc would have us believe that any atheist who has studied the history of Christian religious persecutions is a bigot.

The fact is that Christians have persecuted people for not being Christians, for being Jews, or for being the "wrong" kind of Christians. No amount of calling anyone who knows these facts a bigot will change the facts themselves.

 

[Pah]

I never labeled you one way or the other. That is a figment of your over active imagination. I have no desire to label you or atheists in general.

It is obvious: EVERYONE who holds a prejudice feels justified to cling to their hate and mistrust. Whether it is against a religion, a race or an ideology, there is little truth you can give them that will change their mind. Like phobias, these prejudices appear irrational to most of us on the outside looking in. Also, like phobias, they control your life and entire outlook, poisoning your opinion of those who fit into your NOK criteria.

And not a word about the correction I made to your point regarding labels. I take an absense of comment as assent for my words then.

The thread defines reactive and proactive atheist. The statements of my life show proactive atheism. But you keep saying (or implying) I do what a reactive atheist would do. I must be a lying, reactive atheist for you to continue. Or you're reading my posts and most of the thread wearing horse blinders.

You know, it's not just me; I find a lot of atheists responding to this thread to be without predjudice. You share something in common with Don Quiote.

 

[Pah]

I'm not sure why you felt the need to mention this but I'll take your word on it.

You said -

Yet most human atrocities are foisted off on Christianity all the time.

~Victor

I replied -

None of my list were "foisted.

Which means that some things attributed to Christianity were not "pushed off". Christians and Christianity did the things I said. There was no misplaced attribution as "foisted" implies. I named atrocities that were committed by Christians and Christianity and in the name of God.

 

[Scuba Pete]

And not a word about the correction I made to your point regarding labels. I take an absense of comment as assent for my words then.

You excel in making the wrong assumption. You might want to try a different track. While you may find repeating yourself over and over exhilarating, I do not. Consequently I did not feel a need to cover the same area yet once more.

But you keep saying (or implying) I do what a reactive atheist would do. I must be a lying, reactive atheist for you to continue. Or you're reading my posts and most of the thread wearing horse blinders.

Again, through your overactive imagination, you have put words into my mouth, and have assigned to me motives that are not mine. But here I am repeating myself, which apparently you must enjoy since you keep making me do it. I have never labeled you one way or the other and to indicate otherwise is to perpetuate this lie.

You know, it's not just me;

Possibly, it is just "you".

I find a lot of atheists responding to this thread to be without predjudice. You share something in common with Don Quiote.

You use logic straight from Archie Bunker and take exception when that is pointed out. It would be nobler for you to see how offensive those remarks are and learn how to not make such prejudiced remarks. But, you defend the indefensible and justify the unjustifiable. I don't think I am the one tilting at windmills.

 

[Quiddity]

You said -
I replied -
Which means that some things attributed to Christianity were not "pushed off". Christians and Christianity did the things I said. There was no misplaced attribution as "foisted" implies. I named atrocities that were committed by Christians and Christianity and in the name of God.

I had a senior moment there for second. Sorry about that.

 

[Smoke]

Again, through your overactive imagination, you have put words into my mouth, and have assigned to me motives that are not mine.

That sounds like the pot calling the kettle pot to me.

It would be nobler for you to see how offensive those remarks are and learn how to not make such prejudiced remarks.

Case in point. I also have the strongest objection to your complete mischaracterization of my own remarks.

 

[Pah]

I had a senior moment there for second. Sorry about that.

Those are good moments - I have them all the time

 

[Pah]

You excel in making the wrong assumption. You might want to try a different track. While you may find repeating yourself over and over exhilarating, I do not. Consequently I did not feel a need to cover the same area yet once more. Again, through your overactive imagination, you have put words into my mouth, and have assigned to me motives that are not mine. But here I am repeating myself, which apparently you must enjoy since you keep making me do it. I have never labeled you one way or the other and to indicate otherwise is to perpetuate this lie. Possibly, it is just "you". You use logic straight from Archie Bunker and take exception when that is pointed out. It would be nobler for you to see how offensive those remarks are and learn how to not make such prejudiced remarks. But, you defend the indefensible and justify the unjustifiable. I don't think I am the one tilting at windmills.

You really add nothing to the discussion what with your narrow focus and it being entirely in error. One can not defend himself from the likes of a closed mind.

 

[Scuba Pete]

One can not defend himself from the likes of a closed mind.

Which is why I will cease to defend myself from you. Have a good day.

 

[Cuthberta]

Well! Ahem! And who is being called to book now?