Which of course go to my point. You say in effect that unlike theism, atheism is impervious to criticism, and when I speak to where it is you don't understand the rationale behind the criticism. I think a more rational approach saying that you're unaware of any valid criticism of atheism, but logically there has to be would seem sensible since no human belief or point of view is infallible, is better than saying it just simply isn't.Yep, any time.
I wish I knew why you say such things. The truth is, I do not.
I wouldn't mind have a civilized discussion about atheism with you, understanding that I see much positive things, as well as negative things about it, such as the militant, fundamentalist approach which you in previous discussions seem to deny is real. I would not argue it is "wrong" and needs to be gotten rid of (anti-atheism, to coin a term). But I would argue for a more realistic understanding of it as I see it as "transitional" between theism and what I would call a transtheism/transatheism, a view which can understand itself in previous modes of interpretive thought (each valid in its own right). I would argue that to cling to 'atheism' as an identification of belief is itself just as limiting as a theistic view which rejects all other beliefs or views about God as 'wrong-headed'.
So if you're interested, let me know. It could be a different discussion than this thread.