Not to be mistaken for an atheist who merely uses the internet, an internet atheist is someone who is ubiquitous when it comes to websites or forum threads related to religion. They will often poke fun at religion and religious people, especially Christians and Muslims, but they have a sort of "search and refute" thing going on with Christians, whereas the Muslims usually only fall prey to internet atheists when they happen to come across them. Of course many internet atheists have the habit of searching for Muslims, too."
"They usually lack any sense of humor if jokes are made about them, but they find nothing wrong with being incredibly offensive to the point of being disgusting when making jokes about religious people. They also love to show off their knowledge about any subject they might know something about."
"They will often make snobby attempts to annoy or insult religious people, sometimes calling them names, but will immediately condemn someone who bothers atheists, or liberals if they don't have a legitimate reason. Even if they do have a legitimate reason that justifies their bothering it might not matter. They will also claim they don't discriminate, but they are usually far more polite and accepting if they think you're a fellow atheist."
Jane the Theist - "God sure has given us a fine day. He did a great job creating the birds."
"Internet Atheist - "'God' didn't give as anything; 'God' doesn't exist. And the birds are a product of years of evolution and natural selection."
"Red the Atheist - "Christians are morons. They sicken me."
"Joanne the Christian - "Ya? Well atheists are jerks."
"Red the Atheist - "You're making nonsensical generalizations!"
What are your thoughts on the above?
Is there an actual difference between an Atheist on the internet, and an internet Atheist?
"Really? Political suicide for coming out as Atheist is not discrimination to you? Not to mention the reference points in the post, all highlighted and backed-up by research links? I mean if that doesn't demonstrate it then I do not know what does."
Pete Buttigieg is a Politician, who is openly gay, and I haven't heard or seen, much, if any discrimination, being expressed in his direction, from few, if any anti gay individuals to begin with.
I disagree with your political suicide commentary.
If Religion is such an awful thing, then why harass it with the internet?
Why give it your creative attention, with such a question?
"Is teaching religion to kids abuse?"
Don't the non Religious, in a sense, globally own the internet, and self legislate through their non religious narratives downplay any Religion as they daily see fit too?
Just like Epicurus did during his heyday?
The most sterile way to beat the snot out of Religion, is through the internet.
"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, thougodiinaccurately, 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?"
Its funny even Epicurus, who wasn't religious, developed an attitude over something that HAD ZERO influences over the way this guy LIVED his life?
So if no God's, were telling HIM how to live his Greek life?
And he's living his life, as he chose to do so, then he didn't have anything to complain about when it came to any God's, now did he?