velkyn: You said that I had a really defeatist attitude, and I said that you needed to think about such comments before you made them. Not that you didn't think before you wrote comments.
Jaime, I'm not that stupid. You have assumed that I have not thought about my posts. Your comment that I need to think about comments before I post makes no sense if you have not made the initial assumption.
Because, to put it bluntly, I do not have a defeatist attitude at all. I would think that some of the other arguments I've gotten into here would make that clear, and if you knew me as a person, I think it would be far more obvious that I am anything but defeatist. It seemed that you were reacting to my posts in this thread and the other one here, and only them, when you made that comment. Whereas if you'd thought about it more and considered my behavior elsewhere, you might have come to a different conclusion.
uh-huh. Telling me I'll fail because no one has succeeded isn't a defeatist attitude. Sure.
I'll say again, I don't think you can eradicate religion. I do think it can be made irrelevant, but I don't think it can be gotten rid of. And yes, I was actually serious there (I was a bit sarcastic, but I was being honest, and that's why I asked what your plan was). The fact that I don't think it possible to eliminate entirely is certainly no reason to not do anything, and regardless of whether it eventually might, it will shift the playing field in the direction it needs to be shifted.
so you don't think religion can be eradicated. You might also join those who think that man can never fly, considering the evidence you've ignored to the contrary. Sarcasm in the sentences where you started with "good luck" sure seems to indicate that you didn't mean good luck at all or that you were being serious. That's what sarcasm is, Jaime,
Sarcasm is “a sharp, bitter, or cutting expression or remark; a bitter jibe or taunt.” Though irony and understatement is usually the immediate context, most authorities distinguish sarcasm from irony; however, others argue that sarcasm may or often does involve irony or employs ambivalence.
From Wikipedia. Do you see now why I responded why I did, especially now that you admit that you were being sarcastic?
And velkyn, what do you think I meant by a "hole in the corner"? The First Amendment is an example of a "hole in a corner", it ensures that no religion will be made illegal, so no matter what else happens, people will not face systematic persecution for their religious beliefs.
Well, let’s see what you wrote again:
Also, what harm does it do to leave Christians and other theists a "hole in the corner"? I'm serious here. If they want to believe in the deity of their choice, as long as they understand that there's no proof and that they thus have no basis for demanding special treatment or anything else because of that belief, it seems to me that it'll solve the real problems inherent with religion. Is it more important to eradicate religious belief, or to get religion out of the central position it holds in American society?
Now look at my response to this: Educating people, constantly countering religion does not leave theists a “hole in the corner”, it constantly makes that hole smaller, always intending on making that hole disappear, correct? If it is not making that hole smaller, then it is not addressing the problems religion has, and is not my method.
As I see it, you have advocated for leaving theists completely alone as long as they somehow “understand that there is no proof and they thus have no basis for demanding special treatment or anything else because of that belief”. Am I correct in this view? That seems to be a different hole than the First Amendment.
I do not see any theists who would agree with this willingly, Jaime. I have asked you: where are they? and I have had no response. In the thread about how one brings up atheism to a theist, you seemed to indicate that the conversation should be left up to the theist to bring up. Am I correct in that? I would also ask, how would you create theists like this, if that holds true? If you look at Riley’s last posts, you can see yet another Christian who immediately jumps claiming that he is “hated” when he is questioned about his faith and when atheists give him evidence he is wrong. As I have said before, this is a common occurrence, that they claim persecution even when it’s only education. Can the First Amendment be invoked if I dare question a theist? From what I have seen, it seems that many Christians would claim so and that you might also. I could be wrong, but I’m asking you directly, would you consider my methods persecution?