@TheMiddleWay True. I don't understand why they keep calling it that. I thought it made sense in the beginning as communities of nonbelievers were just starting to form and come out of the closet, and familiar terms were a good place to kick off from. But now.... It's almost as if they are trying to provoke a reaction from the believer who will consider it blasphemy.

@TheMiddleWay I would agree that it makes more sense to use some other term. People sometimes attribute their own personal meaning to a word, rather than adhere to the way the word is used by the rest of the world. Anybody is free to use a word the way the want to, but this can cause problems when it comes to communication and understanding.

@TheMiddleWay Then, in my opinion you know very few REAL Atheists and the same or less about Atheism.

@okiestache Er, excuse my ignorance, but what does that mean please.

@okiestache I read it until I felt most nauseous.

@TheMiddleWay Well considering that Father was one, so was my Late Daughter and I am one plus I am great friends with 4 others and am acquainted with at least 300 more I tend to think your 'No True Scotsman Fallacy' has just suffered from the ' Lead ( Lead as in the metal btw) Duck' problem.

@TheMiddleWay Okay, first off let's deal with you self-righteous pedantry, shall we?
Perhaps, instead of using 'REAL' I should have used GENUINE or Dedicated, would that suit your need for exactness?
Genuine/Dedicated ATHEISTS, imo and very long experience differ from what I would call the ' Fashionable/Trendy Atheists, i.e. they still have a lingering seed of religious belief within them BUT will don their atheist hat as and when the situation requires just as do so many who claim to be ex-Catholics for example simply because they fear shedding the yoke ' just in case' they may need it again some day.
You see, imho, shedding oneself of religion is akin to striving to rid a street dog of fleas in that you may get rid of them today BUT tomorrow, or some other day, they will be back.
Secondly, as to my setting myself up as the ' sole judge,' as you put it, you could NOT be any further off the mark even if you tried your hardest.
I congratulate you on having your PhD in Physics and upgrading it to include Medicine, well done, BUT, I don't wish to sound boastful, arrogant or self-centered here, I also have 3 Doctorate Degrees ( hence the username TRIPHID meaning Tri=3, PhD to which I added the letter I to make it more sensible) in Psychology, Physiology and Theology and Comparative Modern Religions as well as 4 Bachelors Degrees in Histories ( both Modern and Ancient), Ancient Languages, Anatomy and Medical Sciences and am presently studying to gain my degree in Archaeology.
FYI, the definition of an ATHEIST is derived from the Ancient Greek meaning A- without, denying, rejecting and Theos - meaning God/Gods or Deities ergo simply an ATHEIST is one who denies, rejects or is without any or ALL God/s or Deities what-so-ever, therefore I can claim and am most definitely a Genuine Atheist as are the 306 other Genuine Atheists I mentioned in my earlier comment/post.

@TheMiddleWay Sorry Amigo, but I've debated with ever so many of the kind who are, it seems, just looking for a verbal stoutch simply to attempt to add some extra ' hot air' to inflate their egos, people like Bishops, Archbishops, Prelates and all types of Clergy included.
So, I respectfully suggest that you take a chill-pill then have a good long walk in the fresh air instead.

@TheMiddleWay No, I am truly modest about my educational achievements, I only mentioned them to you as a mere comment.

@Triphid I tend to agree-to make
a stand and gather facts to think for oneself;
precludes needing to have others
proclaim a group purpose.

Can you accurately define ' spiritual,' as against it being somewhat based on a religious bent?

@Triphid “human” spirit has nothing to do with “ Devine” spirit. I personally know Atheistic people with spiritual abilities. Not everything is explained empirically by science.

@TheMiddleWay too bad that you aren’t open minded

@bubaj50 Yeah so do I and , btw, it is spelt DIVINE not Devine.

@TheMiddleWay it isn’t an empirical “thing”that can be measured . You actually have to trust that those ,that have “abilities”,are sincere. My daughter and my cousin are Atheists and they have great insight into that realm...I have no reason to doubt them .

@TheMiddleWay I’m a born sceptic too. I regret and am sorry for that “ open minded” remark. Hard for me to accept anything less than logical too. Needed to make a point that is import to me .

@TheMiddleWay i may check it out later. i am struggling to get some sleep. four weeks is too long to be sick. sleeplessness is not helping. but i also have a backlog!

g

@TheMiddleWay lol i have made dinner and put it in the freezer and made tomorrow's dinner and it's cooling so i can put it in the freezer too, and made and eaten lunch, and now i am exhausted! i make the food in advance because i know by evening i will finally have crashed and not wake up in time to go starting stuff from scratch. tonight: juicy lucies. tomorrow: meat loaf. eyes and body need rest now.

g

I think that paper/magazine would NOT be suitable for even wiping ones arse since it is already far too polluted to start with.

@TheMiddleWay Yes, well written journalistic drivel of the First class.

@Triphid the atlantic is generally wonderful. it's not all written by one person (of course) and one can get the occasional stinker.

g

@genessa Well, in my opinion, the author/authoress of that one would be rejected by any Sewage System as being utterly TOXIC.

@Triphid i have not read that one, as i have said. i have only commented upon the title, and of the title i can say i agree with you. i can't say yet whether i agree about the actual article.

g

@genessa IMO, you may be far off better reading the wrapper on a pack of toilet paper.

@Triphid you're entitled to your opinion. since i almost always enjoy reading the atlantic and am not going to judge it by a bad article or two, which this may or may not be, i do not share your opinion.

g

@TheMiddleWay When you see a headline that's misleading on an article that's not misleading, spare a moment to reflect on what it is to be a journalist, to put your byline on something that you've carefully researched, only for some editor to change the title to something totally misleading in the interest of attracting eyeballs or selling papers or whatever. Usually more inflammatory or alarmist. My wife used to be an investigative journalist and this was possibly the biggest fly in the ointment for her. Her sources would think she stabbed them in the back with the headline. Sometimes the editor would even pull some buried sentence or two out of context and lead with it for the same reason, so that careless readers could assume way too much.

So I don't automatically assume the author of this piece doesn't know what they're talking about, or are careless with words. The culprit is likely not them. The problem of course is people see the headline, don't read the article, and cite it as "proof" for some flawed argument.

@TheMiddleWay What one practices is their belief system.
I see as the core of which the morality gene comes out. Religion made morality into a gift that can be won . It is their definition of morality, with out us you are a jerk.
What you do speaks so loud , I can't hear a word you say, Love that saying.

I basically agree with you. The title of the article equates "nones" with "atheists" which is just wrong under any reasonable definition. You just can't say "some atheist believe in god" because it is a contradiction. So even if you have different definitions your definitions have to be consistent. The article doesn't even meet this minimal criterium, which is ridiculous. But I don't think we disagree on this point.