There’s another godless network in the process of assembly: Atheism United. They’re looking for participants, so check them out and help them out. More armies to conquer the world for the forces of rationalism and always welcome!
« Why not?
Competition is good
« Why not?
Ooh! Having multiple organisations producing the same product increases efficiency! I’m getting an invisible hand job!
Oh, come on Brownian — you know you’ve dreamed of a threesome.
Maybe they’ll accept my shitty blog!
When I grow up I want to be a PZ Myers.
‘Tis true. And I would have gotten away with a few if it weren’t for those meddling kids and their dog.
But it’s not the competition that’s good in this case, PZ: it’s the choice.
They have 8 bloggers already so you are welcome to try out. May the best PZ Myers win!
Checked the page, caught up short by the logo. Do they know that the triangle-inscribed-in-a-circle is an Alcoholics Anonymous thing?
Its not competition, its a schism! Atheism is falling prey to the same weaknesses as religion. Soon we will be killing each other over who are the True Atheists!
Yeah, sorry, can’t keep that up any more. Good on ’em, I’ll definitely check it out.
Ooh, neat. I’ve been considering starting up an Atheist blog in response to suddenly falling in love with FTB, and the recent talk about women getting tons of hatemail just for being female (since I am female, and I figure that starting up my own blog might help to counter that just a tiny bit).
Maybe after I get used to blogging for a while I’ll see if I can get added to their network!
Please stop calling Atheists “rationalists” or supporting “rationalism.” Religions are rationalists: they base their beliefs on dogma, which is the defining characteristic of rationalism. Atheists are Empiricists which is a PEARL based belief system: Physical Evidence And Rational Logic.
The history of the 20th century can best be understood by the transformation of society from Rationalism to Empiricism. In education the Brown versus Board decision was revolutionary because the court allowed empirical evidence to be introduced. The legal system was tranformed when it shifted from liability based on intent (belief) to “strict liability” based on empirical evidence. C.P.Snow’s book Two Cultures can be better understood if interpreted as Rationalism versus Empiricism.
The primary distinction between Atheists and Religious beliefs is that the religious lack the empirical evidence to support their beliefs. They cannot survive in an Empiricist environment but they thrive in a rationalist environment where they can offer rational arguments with out regard to physical evidence.
zoniedude:
And you’re quite wrong; an atheist is someone who is not a theist, no more; there is no reason why an atheist cannot base her atheism on dogma.
PS Your Random Capitalisation is less than impressive.
Atheism need not be a belief; accordingly, your putative distinction is otiose.
Morales: “Atheism need not be a belief”
So you are claiming that atheists don’t really believe what they say, they are just trolls. And you are sure that atheists can base their atheism on dogma and not logical reasoning? That would mean that atheism is nothing more than another religion. I’d be surprised if many adopted that mantle.