A Christian is a more-or-less well defined thing characterized mainly by a belief in Christ, and certain things about him. And no need at all to be one to understand, use, or appreciate the term. — tim wood

Ah, but there is the rub. The character, essence and teaching of Christ are up for interpretation. A bi-cycle (two wheels) is not for interpretation. Hence, a huge explanation, and supportive documentation is needed to sort out who is the true Christian. Sure enough: someone who is truly Christ-like. But the concept of likeness of Christ is undefinable, because it is interpretive.

- There are very few (or no) syntactic mistakes.
- The ideas are clear and well-written.
- It says something philosophically interesting.
- There are no logical fallacies.
- There is no plagiarism.
- The paper is on-topic.
- Forget about word counts, fonts, APA format, and all other 'periphery' issues.

Does the paper get an "A?" Why or why not? — jasonm

Indeterminable. "Interesting" does not necessarily equate "makes sense". None of the listed qualities equate to "makes sense".

I had a friend in the past, Andy T., who had written two books on the economy. Everything you said of the essay typified the book. But by the time you got to the third page, you were lost. You did not know where or when, or how you lost your way. All you knew was that the book was not telling anything to you that you would understand or agree with.

So you're right, if marks are important to you, make a mark on the professor with your teeth.

I think Genesis is an indication of what I mean. Many many Christians take the story in Genesis to be, well, a story, just a picturesque way of conveying the idea of a creator. Only certain sorts of believers take it literally. A lot of the interpretation of scripture relies on various sorts of symbolic analysis. It's normal. I'm suggesting that it's open to a believer to take a lot as just storytelling to convey some pretty abstract stuff. — Srap Tasmaner

I totally agree if you view it from our modern point of view. I wasn't there then, but I imagine that the Torah was accepted as physical reality in Jesus' time. The interpretations kept creeping in due to the fact that man's growing knowledge of the physical world rendered the stories untrue. What could one who wanted to continue to believe do? Invent the notion that they are allegorical.

I have news for the allegorists: everything can be viewed and interpreted as an allegory.

While that does not say much, it means as much as to say that "your allegory is never superior to mine, and mine is never superior to yours. Our allegories are interpretations, and totally at our will of imagination."

What I'm trying to say is that allegorical reading of the Christian scriptures is modern, because they need reconcile the book with reality.

About the just vs unjust views of punishment in hell. I don't think we need to pull that in.

An analogy: You're in a jail cell with a 230 lbs bodybuilder. You are no match for his strength. You are doing things you don't really want to do, because he tells you to do them. Once in a while you don't obey, and he severely beats you or tortures you.

Is justness in the picture? In your mind, maybe, and in the bodybuilder's mind. But basically justness has nothing to do with it. He says do it, and you do it.

God says "worship me", and you worship him.

Sartre said "life is hell". No. Life is life imprisonment. You don't get out of there alive.

I generally hold that these two are foundational and abundantly obvious to most discussions of Christian belief. The first key moral failing of God being his protection racket Mafia boss approach. — Tom Storm

I agree. However, I notice that you failed to answer the question I asked. How could you not see that this very one and the same component is used to treat the problem differently? How did that escape you? Why did you have to point out the obvious, and not refer to the not-so-obvious? Why do you feel compelled to point out what is or should be obvious to all, as an insight that you must show me because, by implication, I did not see that? Obviously I saw that, as I used it in my argument. So why pound on the obvious that all know? And show that to me as a lesson on something as if I hadn't realized that?

Please answer these questions instead of repeating the obvious yet a fourth time. The main question I wish to hear from you answered, is why you ignored the difference of treatment of the same component in Banno's and my posts? Did you not see that, or not comprehend that, or??? I am at a complete loss of why you put the post, other than to make me feel uncomfortable.

Now that you declared it was not personal, the question grows in its magnitude: then why did you put that post, since it only seemed to have one purpose, which was to needle me, but yet you claim your intention was not that?

the behaviour does not completely satisfy any of the parameters set out as requirements for acting morally. — Altered

the paradox of what seems to be moral behavior, yet the behavior does not satisfy any of the parameters set out as requirements for acting morally. — god must be atheist

Thank you for raising these points. I actually disagree, and I can explain why.

There are no parameters for specifically the acquired moral code but not for the autonomous one. In the second quote, taken from your text as suggestion, you mention an alleged existence of parameters set out as requirements for acting morally. Again, I am at a loss what you mean, but I'll try to cover it.

By parameters you may mean that the reward-punishment emotional reaction system coming from within the self is in action and working. This is the most important parameter or defining factor of a moral act according to my paper. Actually, it is the only one. How can an inner guilt feeling be not complete, or an inner happiness be not complete? It either satisfies the parameter, or it does not. You can't have 10% guilt; you can't have 40% elation.

By parameters you may mean the qualities in the list of moral behaviour, or rather, what we call moral behaviour which I povided. Many readers mistake that list as a declaration by me as "these are moral actions". My style could be improved on that. This is actually a list of what people consider moral, but they are not absolute in their moral value. In fact, they are independent of morality in and by themselves as actions. I alleged (and shown satisfactorily, but not conclusively) that these behaviours, though we call them moral, can each be satisfactorily and competely described with an attribute that is independent from moral. The attachment of "moral" to these behaviours is arbitrary, and that is proven by their non-pervasive nature. In fact, the opposite of the value of "approval for this behaviour" can be found in other cultures with their separate and to them equally valid set of acquired moral codes. They become moral only when the individual incorporates them in his values to generate inner punishment or reward according to how he or she satisfies the requirements of these behaviours.

I am still not sure if I addressed your concern satisfactorily. I find it a bit difficult seeing our points, as the connection between your claims and your explanation of claims are not very solid. Sorry, this is not a criticism of your thought, but rather a description of the logistics... you may be right, but your explanations are not only ambiguous, but rather lacking in solid reason. At least I don't see the reasoned connection. Whether that stems from my ineptitude of understanding you, or the other way around, is for the philosophers to decide.
-----------------

Regarding the spectrum: I also challenge your stance, that there is a spectrum of hybrid morality, where both innate, or autonomous, and acquired codes are in action at the same time and in the same respect.

You brought up the examples of a parent not saving the child from drowning because they can rely on a different method of saving the child which does not include the parent getting physically involved. I don't see how this can be mixture, albeit it is a variation of behaviour, on the parent's side. Or did you mean the person who is the good swimmer, and dependably can do a better job than the parent to save the child, has a moral dilemma which has components of both autonomous and acquired moral codes? You said that that there are instances of mixed codes at present, but I fail to see that. Please provide the examples, and please point at the mixture in action. The example you provided may be sufficient, but I don't see what you see in it, that is, a spectrum's presence, so please enlighten me. Please analyze for me the event and show which precisely in this scenario is a spectral moral action, a mix of both kinds. Thanks.


In further response to hybrid morality, which makes a spectrum: even if these instances exist, we can identify the two kinds of morality in the hybrid. It's like, allow me to present an anology: it's like a chemical compound, which has two components, which two components can be identified to be present even when they combine to form a unity.

----------------

I thank you again for your spirited and deeply meaningful criticism.

I don't get into interpersonal scraps on line, sorry GMBA. When I respond, have something to say in return or, if you don't like it, ignore it. — Tom Storm

Thank you, that makes me feel better. Thanks.

So, accordingly, I must ask you again, now that we cleared the air on what was likely my misconception:

Why did you not take into account that Banno and I were saying deeply different things, despite we both used the idea that the Christian god is a thug, so to speak? Banno sees this as a reason to view Christians who revere god as morally failing; I see them as intimidated people who worship out of fear, not out of reverence or admiration for their god.

I might be wrong but I maintain God is a one word metaphor. Even if you are a believer god is still a metaphor for something beyond human understanding. For an atheist, any use of the word is metaphoric. — Tom Storm

I can only agree with that.

Okay. How did you miss the difference in the role that "he is a thug" played in my post and in the OP, and subsequent posts by Banno?

1. He states that Christians worship god although god is not worthy of worship. He valuates this as moral failure on the part of God-worshipping Christians.
2. I stated that Christians may be worshipping god because of fear of retaliation, not because they esteem god worthy of worshipping.

You only sensed (according to your post which I called "invalidating" mine) that we both said, Banno and I, that god is a thug

You ignored the other parts, which comprised the difference. Why did you ignore it? In my opinion you ignored it to pick on me. If that is not true, then I wish to hear from you why you appear as if you did not comprehend that important difference.

But two 'things' are present. — Bylaw

The question is not how many things are present. I have already covered that with my definition of the metaphor. The question was "are there one-word metaphors".

The word itself, in the context of its use, can have a figurative meaning that is expressed by a literal expression. The parallel between the figurative and the literal make room for the two "things" present, which you insist be present. Yes, I don't deny your claim at all; I deny your claim that because two "things" are present, a single word can't carry that complex idea. Yes it can, I gave examples of it. You are arguing stating things which I understand and agree with, but you failed to see that dual meanings can be carried by a single word, and the dual meanings are present at the same time and in the same respect.

I took it as given that this was part of the OP. — Tom Storm

Tom Storm: you are picking on me.

Of course it was part of the OP.

And it is part of my post.

So far so good.

But you said that in a manner, that indicated that my post was not of merit.

For your information, I noticed that there are other, incongruent parts between the posts, which you so conveniently ignored for the sake of taking potshots at me and my post.

This is not the first instance you are doing this. Please stop this.

I complained about other posters doing the same things to me. You don't appear to be so vicious and vindictive, but you are consistently trying to undermine my opinions with invalid ways of invalidating them. I resent that.

The authorities asked me to report such instances, and as an immediate measure, to ignore the posts of those who criticize me on illogical grounds, supposedly due to personal dislike.

They advised me to laugh it off.

I don't find that a satisfactory way of responding to those who dislike me and due to their dislike they try to undermine my existence.

So please stop your habit of picking on me.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply, Altered.

The difference in our opinion may stem from the difference in our approach to morality. You say morality is limited by biology; well, I don't know what it is that is not limited by the biology of a person. I mean, you'r right, but being limited by our own biology is not something that fosters further thought, since our entire biological existence is limited by biological constraints.

Although this all takes place on a spectrum and is not:
two horns of the dilemma that has created havoc among ethicists.
— god must be atheist — Altered

I would be curious to read more on this negation of my observation. Unfortunately after you say "this is not true" you don't offer any evidence to support your opinion; instead, you again go onto explaining how we are biologically limited. Well, then I don't understand why you said "and is not", if you are not willing to illuminate the truth in your proposition.

Notwithstanding the differences, I am glad you found my treatise worthy to respond to. Very few people give it the time of day.

How do you know what your God feels?
— god must be atheist

dont assume he doenst — Miller

I am not assuming anything. But you claim to have knowledge of that. What gives? Can you read my reply with the eyes that God gave you? Can you comprehend what you read with the mind that God gave you? If you can't see or comprehend that, then god gave you false eyes and a false mind. Then you go and worship him. Again: What gives?

impossble. and even if it was possible you wouldnt want it — Miller

You state this as if it were proven. No, that is not proven. Much like the possibility of a physical world being all good is not proven.

but that is not the point whether you and/or I can imagine such a world. The problem is that GOD can imagine and create such a world. He is ALL POWERFUL, remember? So by not creating such a world, he failed to be not evil.

Sure, but this is not what is in question here. Rather, it is that Christians believe god punishes those who displease him with eternal torture; that this is unjust; that nevertheless Christians consider God worthy of worship; and that hence Christians show themselves to be of poor moral character. — Banno

I don't think it's necessary or even practice to worship god on moral grounds. You worship god if you are a Christian because he is a big thug, who can hurt you something fierce, and he says: "Worship me, cretin!" Then what are your choices? He don't even need to say "or else" but he does, just to make sure that the feebler in minds understand him too.

No, god is not worshipped for his behaviour of moral disleptitude. He is worshipped because he is big, fearsome, and he asks you to do this small favour for him already.

So long as they’re “good Christians” they will also love their enemy (me) as themselves and love their neighbor. If they’re consistent with their adherence to Christianity they’ll at most pity me, and perhaps try to convert me. Sure, I can live with that. — Pinprick

obviously god is not Christian. He is not a Christian because he does not love his own enemies. Love is NOT sending someone to hell for all eternity.

A typical case of hypocrisy. "Do as I say, don't do as I do." Back to morals: God would not pass the first test of morality based on empathy. Just like the OP said, except for a different reason.

Those who do not believe in god, when they die, will be cast into eternal torment.
— Banno

No they don't. There is indeed a portion of Christian fanatics who might believe this but the main majority don't.
There are even more Christians who believe that God judge people by their acts not just their belief to him. I don't know how you or David Lewis get that.

Except if the thread is about that minority of Christians who believe this thing. If so, fine. — dimosthenis9

You have to go to the Bible, the New Testament in particular, to find the answer.

The punishment for those who don't become Christians -- whatever your definition of it is -- is eternal death. Not eternal punishment in horrible torture in the bowels of the Earth in Hell. No. That is a myth. It's in the Bible. You just have to read the words carefully.

I mean, some of the words. There are two different passages between which there is actual discrepancy.

And what's so horrible about eternal death? Nothing. It's infinitely better than eternal life.

So god actually rewards disobedience and civil unrest.

The biggest problems facing humanity:
1. The Sun will explode into a humongous fiery red ball, and engulf the earth in about 400000.00 years or so.
2. Entropy, the third law of Thermodynamics.
3. The proliferation of stupidity.

And then you go on to do exactly that. — T Clark

I actually haven't done any analysis after that, per se. I did point out what had been said, what he should do, and I asked him questions to satisfy my curiosity, but I performed no analysis since I said I'd stop. In fact I asked the questions because he asked me not to second guess him; and that's why I asked the questions in point-blank form, so that Qmeri would have an opportunity to quell the misguided notions about his motivation.

But I think Cheshire has a much better grip on the situation than I. I tend to get hot-headed and heady. Cheshire has preserved his crystal clear vision and logic. I got carried away, no doubt. My emotions got the better of me.

In a one word metaphor, the second part has to be implied. — T Clark

I think we are converging on this discussion by your saying this.

Trailblazer
Brownies (girl guides)
Cowboy — god must be atheist

I'll take these three words at near-random from my list and show how they are metaphors by themselves. According to the definition "a literal term having a figurative meaning".

Trailblazer -- Literal: cuts a trail (as on a surface: riding surface, travelling surface, etc.)
Trailblazer -- Metaphoric: uses a device (literary, artistic, or political, etc.) that has not been used before in the way the person uses it. Trendsetter.
Brownies (girl guides) -- Literal: girls who participate in girl guides.
Brownies (girl guides) -- Metaphoric: getting points for good behavoiur (I may have mistaken the etymology; maybe brownies come from kissing ass? at any rate, then it's still a metaphor.)
Cowboy -- Literal: man who tends to herding cows. Driving them to market (historically).
Cowboy -- Metaphoric: man (or woman) who drives recklessly. The IMPLIED metaphor is that s/he is wild, and does not heed to rules.

Charlie Chaplin was a trailblazer in the film industry. Trailblazer is the metaphor, as he did not actually cut a path with moving fast.
I earned some brownies by polishing the teacher's shoes. Brownies is the metaphor, as I did not earn a young girl, nor did I kiss the ass of my teacher. (You have to take my word for it.)
I won't let any cowboy drive my Ferrari. Of course a real cowboy can ride the Ferrari if he is not reckless.

I think you should read your own posts too, Qmeri, not just reply to the texts written to you by others. You will learn a whole bunch of things new to yourself if you get into the habit of reading your own posts.

As I have said many times in this thread: I do agree that people should be polite and respectful and such, when they discuss controversial issues. I don't think "free for all freedom of speech" where everything should be allowed to be said in any way, works or even is true freedom of speech, since then only those who are the loudest and most abusive of such freedom would be heard. — Qmeri

So you are saying that free speech should be free but not free. Furthermore you are saying that free speech is actually not free.

I am sorry, but that's precisely what you are saying.

Did you read what YOU wrote? Or you just read what I wrote.

Read your own posts and try to comprehend them.

But don't worry, all the arguments and answers to others were made with respect and make logical sense, once you understand them — Qmeri

Okay, I shalt refrain from analyzing your mind and your intentions. But I can't suppress my curiosity. So instead of trying to figure out, I ask you to tell me or tell us, your debating partners:
1. why you make self-contradictory statements
2. why you think that we can intelligently reply to your self-contradictory statements, other than ridicule them?
3. why you think people put remarks, long and short both, similar to these:

I’ve read every comment in this thread and I have no idea what the OP actually wants us to discuss. — laura ann

if you argue for inequality, you get labeled a racist and/or sexist and cancelled quicker than for any other issue. — Qmeri

So-called science has been used to justify discrimination against black people for hundreds of years. It is inextricably intertwined with social attitudes and political actions that have kept them in poverty and subjugation all that time. It is not surprising that endorsing scientific arguments for racial inferiority will raise hackles and voices. — T Clark

Free speech is free speech. If you want to whine about people using their free speech to oppose your peddling of pseudo-scientific gene garbage, then you don't care about free speech. You just want free speech for the speech you like, while you ramble endlessly about speech you don't. That's the thing about free speech - it cuts both ways. You don't get to whine about free speech while whining about being called out for peddling discrimination. You can do one or the other, but not both. Frankly you should be celebrating me. If you don't you clearly don't like free speech. — StreetlightX

This is the classic naive idea of free speech that those who have been against free speech have used since the beginning of that debate: "Oh, you want free speech? Then let us make personal attacks and harrasment on you and destroy your personal reputation with made up shit with that free speech!" Classic. — Qmeri

The point is that it is exactly the same argument as you are making. It is meant to bring out your hypocrisy and the fact that the so-called 'free speech' you want is nothing other than a small subset a speech which just so happens to be exactly what you would like to say. — StreetlightX

But then we need examples. — Bylaw

People, I decided to repeat my posts when necessery, to alleviate the fact that almost nobody reads through the entire text of all posts. I do this to show that what you have asked for has been done.

This is not a "blaming" or "shaming", it is simply an acknowledgement that hardly anyone reads through the entire thread.

By "you" I did not mean you, Bylaw; I meant general you.

Some one-word metaphors:
Enlightenment
Deadly
Levity
Pissed (drunken)
Pissed (angry)
Pissed (dissed)
Shit (too many figurative meanings to mention)
Brownies (girl guides)
Trailblazer
Cowboy
Ironic
Wordy
Wooden
Etc — god must be atheist

:up: :clap: :100:

I am not trying to argue anything. I am simply trying to make you stop this silly nonsense of your spewing self-contradictory statements and blaming everyone else for it but yourself.

You accuse me of disrespect? I can't even tell that from your posts, your writing style camouflages any meaning or attitude save for your self-contradictions. If I am disrespectful, then what about your troll behaviour? I think that alone and by itself is the ultimate disrespect on a philosophy forum. To view others, and let them know that you don't respect them enough to make even one single solitary sensible statement.

I don't think any of these words, with the exception of "shit," is a metaphor. There has to be a comparison for it to be a metaphor. — T Clark

yes, I agree. — jancanc

A metaphor is not a comparison. A metaphor is a meaning attributed figuratively to a parallel literal meaning.
An example for you:

Light is a metaphor for clarity, reason, sound judgment, knowledge, truth, etc. — Agent Smith

Thank you for listing your counter-arguments here. I appreciate that.

Now please read my counter-arguments to your counter-arguments.

Any physical creation is going to contain good and bad. — Miller

Not any. There could be conceivably a physical creation that is all good. Why would you say that that good and bad are necessary attributes to a creation? This is a declaration that is axiomatic, and it actually can't be supported by logic only by belief. So if you believe that, another person can VALIDLY believe that there are worlds, physical manifestations, where only good exist, and bad and evil do not.

And the reason creation contains bad... is whose fault? Who created creation according to you, and who is responsible ultimately for the bad in creation? If a creator who was INFINITELY good, created the world, there would be no bad things. After all, he is INFINITELY powerful so he could have created that world.

Evil done by humans happens because of free-will and there is justice in the afterlife. — Miller

Free will can only choose evil if the evil choice is a valid option. If a creator who was INFINITELY good, created the world, there would be no such choices possible. After all, he is INFINITELY powerful so he could have created that world.

And don't assume god does not feel every bit of pain we feel along with us. — Miller

How do you know what your God feels? Is that not a bit presumptuous of you to claim you know your God's feelings? After all, he is INFINITELY complex, is he not? According to you, he is. Are YOU infinitely complex? No. So don't pretend to know what your god is like and what he feels. You are too small compared to him (in your own world view.)

As I have said many times in this thread: I do agree that people should be polite and respectful and such, when they discuss controversial issues. I don't think "free for all freedom of speech" where everything should be allowed to be said in any way, works or even is true freedom of speech, since then only those who are the loudest and most abusive of such freedom would be heard. — Qmeri

So you are saying that free speech should be free but not free. Furthermore you are saying that free speech is actually not free speech.

I am sorry, but that's precisely what you are saying.

Then you are wondering why nobody understands you, and why people are trying to nail you. It's because you utter utter self-contradictions (first utter is a verb, the second utter is an adjective). How can you expect anyone to take you seriously then?

If you want to find some ulterior motives for me making this thread — Qmeri

There is no need for that. Either you are disruptive, or else insane. I am satisfied that either of these two is the reason behind your verbiage. I don't need to read about it or discuss it further.

To wit, you never made a point, and you set up an impossible task for others.

This thread is about how people talk about equality... You are continuously forcing this discussion to be about what equality actually is — Qmeri

I think Qmeri wants us to discuss how people talk about reality. (As per above quote.) He, however, would prefer that we only talk about HOW people talk about reality, not WHAT they say about reality.

Thus he wants us to reduce our talk to talk about a process and its qualities, without mentioning the product of the process.

Why anyone would want to engage in talking about the HOW of the talking about equality, without discussing equality itself, is a mystery.

Now, that is a topic I would enjoy discussing. What is it that possessed him to post this topic?

Some one-word metaphors:
Enlightenment
Deadly
Levity
Pissed (drunken)
Pissed (angry)
Pissed (dissed)
Shit (too many figurative meanings to mention)
Brownies (girl guides)
Trailblazer
Cowboy
Ironic
Wordy
Wooden
Etc

the work hard obligation would only be applicable in situations where hard work is needed. — T Clark

Or where the boss is the sole proprietor of the concern.

I don't think it's in the wording, Sch. It's the concept itself that does not fit the mold of CI. I feel that you can word it any way, and still not get around the problem.

The act of "not working hard", for instance, includes lazing about, flying kites, curing cancer, sleeping, watching a movie, and eating popcorn. Doing light housework, giving a sermon, leading Sunday School, directing a choir, visiting the Playboy Mansion, watching live footage of Harry Mason in jail, etc.

No, it's the fact that "working hard" is a convergent action, whereas "not working hard" is hopelessly divergent. How can you regulate an action that is by nature divergent? How can you categorize such an action into a neat little category? That's what the problem is.

This thread is about how people talk about equality... You are continuously forcing this discussion to be about what equality actually is — Qmeri

Well, that's how people talk about equality (your topic): what typifies equality or the lack of it.

If you insist that we talk about how people talk about equality without introducing the topic of how equality is treated or not, then you are asking to run a race but first we must cut off our legs at the hip.

My sentiments exactly. But working hard does not quite fit into the same dilemma mold. It would be an okay world if everyone worked hard; but it could conceivably be still an okay world if not everyone, but just some would work hard.

This is slippery. Because the CI only makes statements about positive actions (only do anything if everyone also did it would not make the world worse), but it does not make statements on the lack of action (don't do anything that would harm the world if everyone did it.) Because EVERYONE doing it would harm the world, but SOME doing it would not harm the world.

This is difficult. I can't fight my way out of it. I'm getting old.

I think your logic is sound, but do your support arguments invoke CI? CI is something to the effect that you should only do something that you'd have the whole population to do.

So hard work... yes, you can work hard, and it would not harm anyone if everyone would work hard, but what if some people worked hard and some did not? You say that violates the law of fairness (do not cheat others in a way you would not want to be cheated), but there is a hitch here: some people do not mind working harder than others. And some others enjoy freeloading. This now enters the realm of personal taste and personal view, subjective judgment: do I mind working harder than others, or do I mind if others work harder than I? The answer to these two questions are not universal by everyone. And basically here you cited universality.

What I am riding on is that a fair trade is not an objectively judged trade for fairness, but a subjectively judged one. Sure there are objectively judged fair trades, but they do not comprise all fair trades.

yes it has been defeated, as the reasons i stated.

and you offer no counter argument to those reasons — Miller

Sorry, I missed the counter arguments you say you'd stated. I'll revisit this tomorrow or later tonight. I'm really curious to see those arguments you say exist.

Which then falls full circle with the Epicurean Paradox. Huh. It seems we've been angered by our religious counterparts for quite some time now. — john27

Yes, this has been the status quo for millennia now.

It's not their fault, basically... we would be angered by another form of atheism, if there were any, that were different from our form of atheism. It is all tribal survival tactic, to rope in as many subscribers to our ideology as possible. This is human nature.

The Nazis had an ideology, the communists, the capitalists, the feudalists, the slave keepers, the Hindus, the American natives, and most likely a lot of African tribes. The only tribe that I know of where I sense no ideology (organized belief) is the Chinese. Sure, now they have communist rule, but prior to that, it was truly a free-for-all society. Grab what you can, observe morality, but if you can get away with something, do it; be diligent, work hard, be humble, but if you make it big, trample on others. A little bit like a cat society, if there were any: if you are an underling, be moral, be dutiful, and do your part. If you are a ruler, you can do anything you want. This is not a condemnation of their society, because believe me, in societies with ideologies, much worse things go on. This is instead a bemused observer's admiration that amongst all societies where there is one, this society has survived and thrived with no ideology. None that I know of, anyway. China: a place where human nature gets truly let free, that is, free from the bounds of organized dogma. A Randian Utopia.

I could be wrong with this opinion on the Chinese society, because I know it only from hearsay and from reading fiction. And from watching movies. So if you say I'm wrong, I shalt capitulate to your recounting a contrary view of China to mine.

(The argument of evil) has been defeated — Miller

No it has not. Just because you say so it does not make it true. Maybe you believe that, and kudos to you, I'm happy for you. But in logical grounds it has not been defeated, but, in fact, supported.
Stop saying it has been defeated when it has not.

The main reason people are atheists is that they don't want the premise of heaven to influence their positive actions. — john27

Some of us atheists are atheist in belief for different reasons. But the reason we so viciously attack religion is because both religion and atheism are tribal beliefs and tribal ideologies. A tribe will only fully assimilate a member (inborn or incoming) if he or she fully accepts the tribe's ideology.

Thus: RCs require the spouse to agree to raise the children in RC religion; in North America RC and Protestant did not mix, it was a shame; RC went against Muslims; the genocide in America was considered not murder by the conquistadors because the Indians, as they were then called, were considered wild animals, soulless, since they were not Christians. In communism the clergy and the religious were persecuted. In Galicia they organized pogroms. Let it suffice to say that religion or ideology is the biggest divider between tribe and non-tribe.

Therefore atheists are proselytizers much like every other ideology's representatives. They are angry, because their LOGICAL arguments, which they find infallible, fall on deaf ears by the religious. If god can't be good and all seeing and all powerful, why do the religious insist god is, is what angers atheists. It is clear that the faith is incompatible with reality and with clear logic. So why are the religious so doggonedly sticking with their faith that's clearly illogical?

I agree with John27 that ideology is a... not quite a choice, but a given. Atheists tend to be much more intelligent than the religious, and the religious tend to be happier and more contented. I don't have statistics to support this, so don't ask for one, please. The reason people leave the fold of a congregation usually gets instigated by two causes: 1. The member sees how stupid the religion is. 2. The member is abused under the guise of religion. The first is caused by high intelligence (everyone knows or has stories about the smart alec kid who is silenced in Sunday school for his unanswerable questions of the Word); and the second, by abusive people, who happen to be religious.

The opposite trend, atheism to religion, happens hardly ever. Agnosticism to relgion, happens quite a bit, as the agnost does not deny god, he wants to believe, he just can't find the right god to believe.