to crush the naively religious. (It's not difficult to crush the naively irreligious, as it happens).
-
@PhilosophyExp Just not sure this is an Atheist impulse instead of a net one.
@Questingrat Though there is a wider argument to be had - which we were getting into - about how the impulse is valorized.
-
-
@PhilosophyExp Again I'd say not an atheist set issue, but much broader set. But I think impulse to defeat and demean your foe biological. -
@Questingrat Agreed. But it becomes an atheist issue if it's true that a certan style of atheism gains a lot of media traction, etc. -
@PhilosophyExp interesting, are you implying that all atheists have some sort of responsibility towards each other? -
@Questingrat I think I'm just saying that communities - virtual or otherwise - have norms of behaviour that *can* become entrenched. -
@PhilosophyExp no problem there, though I'd retreat from referring to atheists as a community (as opposed to communities of atheists) -
@Questingrat Yes, the notion of "community" would have to be specified at a high level of abstraction to make sense in this context.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@PhilosophyExp not that that justifies it, mind you. -
@Questingrat then though it's true that it's driven by biological, psychological stuff, it's no longer the whole story (if it ever was...). -
@PhilosophyExp *grin* have we made a mountain from a mole hill, are you just saying you don't get aggressive atheists? -
@Questingrat Twitter is utterly hopeless for this sort of thing. :) If you read this, you'll see I agree with you: http://bit.ly/RlecQG -
@PhilosophyExp I think I see where you're going. In a sense, the net can provide a "Niebor"ian society to ingrain aggressive traits on 1
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.