Why don't you get off flogging the troll horse and debate your wisdom? I have not changed anything I have made it possible for progression for the inhumane to become humane.
I haven't called either you or skeptic trolls, so I'll thank you not to accuse me of such. As far as the rest goes, I have no need to prove anything to you; I didn't show up on a website you frequent and start preaching about stuff. You
are the one who needs to prove stuff to me, and so far you're doing a really bad job of it.
Atheists as I observe them to be are simply people who do not know God. I do not give them a belief of any sort. I do not lock them in. A person who is not tied to a belief can drop out of that state of mind in order to progress and to become more humane. The way of the Theists has always been a more humane one.
How can you know that there is such a thing as a god if you've never run into one? And if you think you've encountered one, how do you know you actually did if you have no way to verify it? This is the crux of your problem. You're talking as if these gnostics
of yours should be believed because you think they've tapped into some kind of cosmic 'all-consciousness', when the fact of the matter is that there's no way to independently tell if they have in the first place. And to complicate matters, you're also assuming that these gnostics are tapped into some kind of greater 'humaneness' and thus they become more humane and want to promote humaneness in the world. While I have no problems with promoting humaneness, there's a perfectly good way of doing this that doesn't involve trying to promote yet another of the innumerable supernatural/unverifiable beliefs that people seem to produce without even trying.
Take this idea for instance
I have real issues with extreme atheism, but even then my definition of atheism is based on truths and it allows the extreme atheist the more inhumane amongst people to become more humane through a process.
No, your definition of atheism is based on your belief that to be a theist is to know 'god', whatever it is. Except it never was. It was always based on the belief in a god, but there never was any way to verify that the belief was accurate because of the lack of external, non-subjective evidence. Thus modern atheism, which in general is based on the premise that there's no point in believing in a god or gods unless someone can find evidence to show that such a thing exists. Plus, I simply don't see how your definition of atheism has anything to do with promoting humaneness. Seems to me that if you want to promote humaneness, you don't need to do so by trying to push this idea of 'all-consciousness' in order to make yourself look authoritative. You can simply promote humaneness. Don't worry about trying to push the idea that people need to be closer to 'god' in order to be more humane, because it's really not necessary.
By me not locking them into beliefs I have created a process to a better way of life. I can promote humanity where there is none through a theistic and humanistic agenda - God.
But you are trying to lock people into a belief - that a god exists at all. You're trying to tie this "better way of life" to your 'theistic' agenda. It simply makes you sound like yet another fringe believer who is trying to distinguish themselves from all the other fringe believers, and you're not doing a very good job of it.
So what does your version and definition of atheism do apart from it being inflexible - which leads to more and extreme versions of atheism.
On the contrary. Atheism as most atheists define it is simply that one doesn't assume that gods exist without evidence. That's all it is; it isn't tied to any agendas, nor should it be. Indeed, if atheism were tied to agendas the way that religious belief normally is, you'd end up with sects and splinter groups and ultimately the same kind of divisiveness that has plagued humanity since the beginning of history.
Who in atheism will stand up to say it is the moral authority that is leading atheists to become more humane.?
This is problem with beliefs and the belief in atheism. It lack the moral teacher. In theism there is a human being teaching about God, Always has and always will be - in atheism there is none.
Nor should there be. Atheism isn't about teaching people to be moral. It's not about teaching people to be anything. It's simply a statement that a person does not believe. And that's really for the best. If you go back and look at history, religious belief has never really been about trying to teach people to be more humane (leaving aside lip service to that effect). It's been about trying to teach people to follow the leader, usually for the leader's own agenda, and we've seen where that ultimately leads. Thanks, but no thanks. If you want to promote humaneness, promote humaneness. Don't try to get it tied up in religious belief, because if there's one thing history has ever taught us, it's that the two don't really mix that well, and it doesn't take long for the religious belief to take center stage while humaneness gets left in the dustbin.
Troll ??? Why?? You feel insecure? You feel threatened? What is the problem with atheists that they seem to want to play the troll card when faced with simple logic? Lets stop doing that. I have a point to debate and it is a humane agenda -- what is yours and whose authority is it??
I haven't called you a troll! Did you even think to look to see if I was before you said this?
I don't have an agenda, because I'm not trying to foist anything off on the people here. I just like to discuss things. So, what authority are you claiming for your agenda?