@ZeusAres42

The Atheist Revolution website, isn't an Atheist movement?

This is your counter Atheist response?

"And where did I say this? Where is your evidence for this? You really wanna play that game of making stuff up about other people do you @TKDB?"

When hasn't some of the Atheists, that I have encountered hasn't ridiculed those who aren't Atheist minded unlike yourself?

I'll go get your own word's, to show you what you've said to me.

@ZeusAres42

Does the Atheist movement, have a version of the ACLU, or the NAACP, in its pocket, to fight back against, what you individually  view as atheist discrimination?

"More discrimination against Atheism from @TKDB I see. Same old, same old."


Here's are some examples of Religious discrimination, that I have encountered from some of you:

Expressing that the Religious individuals who are teaching their kids about Religion should be viewed as child abusers?

That those who are defending Religion, should seek psychological or psychiatric help? 

Is ridicule a fair and equal way to protest Religion?

Yes or no?

Expressing that the Religious individuals who are teaching their kids about Religion should be viewed as child abusers?

That those who are defending Religion, should seek psychological or psychiatric help? 

Is ridicule a fair and equal way to protest Religion?

"The Epicurus Effect."

Epicurus and his stance?

"For Epicurus, the purpose of philosophy was to help people attain a happy, tranquil life characterized by ataraxia (peace and freedom from fear) and aponia (the absence of pain). He advocated that people were best able to pursue philosophy by living a self-sufficient life surrounded by friends. He taught that the root of all human neurosis is death denial and the tendency for human beings to assume that death will be horrific and painful, which he claimed causes unnecessary anxiety, selfish self-protective behaviors, and hypocrisy. According to Epicurus, death is the end of both the body and the soul and therefore should not be feared. Epicurus taught that although the gods exist, they have no involvement in human affairs. He taught that people should behave ethically not because the gods punish or reward people for their actions, but because amoral behavior will burden them with guilt and prevent them from attaining ataraxia."

"Though popular, Epicurean teachings were controversial from the beginning. Epicureanism reached the height of its popularity during the late years of the Roman Republic. It died out in late antiquity, subject to hostility from early Christianity. Throughout the Middle Ages Epicurus was popularly, though inaccurately, remembered as a patron of drunkards, and gluttons. His teachings gradually became more widely known in the fifteenth century with the rediscovery of important texts, but his ideas did not become acceptable until the seventeenth century, when the French Catholic priest Pierre Gassendi revived a modified version of them, which was promoted by other writers, including Walter Charleton and Robert Boyle. His influence grew considerably during and after the Enlightenment, profoundly impacting the ideas of major thinkers, including John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Jeremy Bentham, and Karl Marx."

It would appear that Epicurus, took up an issue with "God's" because it somehow ran against the grain of his individually thought up concepts of "Ataraxia and Aponia?"

It's funny, even Epicurus, who wasn't religious, developed an stance over something that had zero influences over the way this fellow, LIVED his life?

So if no God's, were telling him how to live his Greek life?

And he lived his life, as he chose to do, without any fictional Religious restraints, or fictional Religious Indoctrination practices, keeping him from engaging in the lifestyle that he created from his own non Religious mindset, or his Epicurus stance?

Thus, he didn't really have anything to complain about when it came to any God's, because, those very same God's, were in no way, shape or form keeping him from engaging in his self created Epicurus stance?

So basically he was a non Religious Greek, who was downplaying, on "God's," in general, during his heyday?

This question comes to mind:
It would appear that Epicurus voluntarily allowed the God's to (fictionally interfere) with his philosophies of "Ataraxia, or Aponia," because he developed an issue, with the God's, who weren't consciously interfering in his life to begin with?

So it seems, that the Atheist movement, and the Epicurus stance, can both be viewed in the same (fictional interference) light?

Meaning, Epicurus created a fictional beef, over those same God's who were having a non interference influence, over his very own life, and the lives of those individuals, who adopted his "Ataraxia, or Aponia," philosophies?

@대왕광개토

Look at that fresh mouth of yours?

"@TKDB Is that all you've got to say after I refuted your bull$hit "Show me any courtroom evidence?" argument?"

Just say you can't answer the below questions?

Show me where Child Protective Services in your country, are working to ban Religion, over fears of child abuse, via any child's parents? 

Please have a fair and equal response other than a thumbs down, or irrelevant?

Because some are trying to condemn religion with child abuse?

Why not just condemn the parents for being bad parents?

Why chastise any Religion for those parents, for choosing to be cruel, or inhumane to their own kids? 

It's OK, you have your Atheist perceptions, and you're just educating the internet, on how you manage your individual perceptions.

You'll be here tomorrow saying the same thing, and just saying things a different way, right?

It's cool

I respect your passion.