From: David Lucifer (hidden@lucifer.com)
Date: Mon Jun 23 2003 - 07:48:44 MDT
[quote from: Hermit on 2003-06-22 at 12:31:40]
Just as many people who are not pugalists (boxers), don't identify themselves as \"not-boxers\", few atheists identify themselves as \"not-theists\". It simply isn't important enough to \"not-boxers\" or indeed atheists for this to form part of their definition of themselves. This means that quite understandably, for most atheists, the attribute is not important to them unless it is challenged, and even then, as Dawkins observes, they might label themselves with something less socially frowned upon.
I bet if 90% of the world's population were boxers the rest would be inclined to label themselves (and be labelled by others) as non-boxers. Your analogy doesn't hold.
Even though blatantly fallacious, an underlying premis held by most Americans is that "Morals come from God", which means that atheists are regarded as immoral, untrustworthy and dangerous (and given that atheists insist upon thinking out their own ethics, the last may not be particularly incorrect).
Atheists insist on thinking out their own ethics? And that makes them dangerous? I don't agree with either assertion.
BTW, I host the http://www.celebatheists.com site on lucifer.com. It is really unfortunate that is was mispelled in the article.
---- This message was posted by David Lucifer to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=28745> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 23 2003 - 07:49:14 MDT