I had thought the same of you until reading your previous post :P
But pray tell, why do you start a new nest (nested postings) instead of replying to mine directly?
Technological troglodyte, I am. Only know of one way to proceed. You tree frog devil. I see the beast disguised as a comely tree frog. I fear parley with the demented demon satan. Arggghhhh
But think of this Steph, a majority of atheists here are recent de-converts from religion. I can't tell you how many times, when criticising the society that has begath from 2000 years of religious thinking, I am told "don't throw out the baby with the water", because a great many atheists are still so attached to all the koolaid that they were raised with.
So hell yes, throw the baby out with the bath water and lets start anew. And those atheists who cling to religious values, yep, I will fight that as strongly as faithers, because if the only change in mindset is refuting Gawds, but the rest of the thinking remains similar, then frankly, why bother to fuss about it?
Yes, throw out the baby. It has polluted the bathwater and will continue polluting it.
Babies (real ones) stir humane emotions. Only fearful people and charlatans use the baby metaphor.
When I was looking for a path away from Catholicism (55 years ago), I found skepticism and pragmatism helpful.
Short and sweet, for all the reasons you stated earlier on, I'm a proud atheist, since birth, who refuses the word atheism. The "ism" is a suffix imposed upon us by moronic faithers who can perceive nothing else than "belonging" to a dogma. Because I was never taught any dogma at home, I resisted all dogmatic ideas that appeared to me through the years. I suppose refuting dogma is easier when you've never known dogma. A vast majority of atheists on these forums have only left god recently, and there's still a whole lot of religious thinking left in their ideas.
So there's not one type, or 10 types, or 100 types, we are individuals, nothing more, nothing less.
Damien, you've written more than I can read, let alone digest, in one day.
I see hard atheists as having a problem: it's easier to change dogmas than it is to give up a need for dogma.
To my mind there are two principal distinctions between notions of purpose and meaning as they apply to believers and as they apply to atheists and other non-believers.This may just be another way of saying what others have expressed here.
The first distinction is that for believers, purpose and meaning are general and given, the same for all believers, as prescribed by God or by their church, while for atheists, purpose and meaning are individual and freely chosen.
The second difference is that purpose for the believer inevitably becomes a duty required of him, but for the atheist his chosen purpose, precisely because it is a choice, is never a duty.
I agree with that