Talk:Atheism 3.0

This article was written for WP and deleted by POV warriors there. DevilishlyHandsome (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Then this needs quite a serious clean up from all the WP spaff in the references and templates. ADK ...I'll program your guillotine! 01:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh FSM, Atheism 3.0, really? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Neb, I gave up editing the Atheist category. I found that i'm not a very informed atheist.  so if you are bored, all the individual articles should be looked at, and if they are "key concepts", make sure that's in them... if they are groups or people, etc.  i started (it's the next sub cat after arguments, in the religion cat), but then went "ok, in over my head".  [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot   The Peyote God awaits 20:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What counts as a "key concept"? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well - that's sorta why i stopped. ;-)  [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot   The Peyote God awaits 21:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I sort of identify with it, and I think part of the point with Atheism 3.0 is that while religion is inherently irrational and based on faith by its nature, on its own it's no more good or evil than any other form of tool. The tendency towards magical thinking and the like is too deeply embedded in the human psyche to be removed entirely by any realistic means, but I think it may yet be possible to redirect those mental frailties in a way that makes them more helpful than harmful. (On that note, Myers is mistaken- they're not self-censoring so much as
 * So I guess some key concepts (so far as I can see them) could be:
 * Religion is irrational, but not evil. It is no more moral or immoral than any other tool.
 * Secularism can fulfill the same emotional needs that religion boasts of fulfilling, but a considerable number of people find it inadequate nonetheless. Disapproving of their chosen solution will not change their needs, nor will it make the secular solution more appealing.
 * Accommodationism from a different perspective- they don't believe faith-based ideas should be immune to criticism, but they also acknowledge that vilifying them indiscriminately is counterproductive and that it would be better to find ways to make religion more humane than it would be to rehash the same arguments that incorrectly suggest that every belief must be empirically justified in order to be respectable.
 * I hope this helps make the article less of a stub. Unfortunately, this current of atheism seems to keep to itself so there's less written on it by outside sources. --Logos (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)