I guess, he actually refers to himself as a "non theist". I don't think it matters much.
What is odd, is that people here, on this site, are across the spectrum when it comes to "believers", with a heavy concentration on the non traditional end. But never mind that, with Barry, it's all about the "rant". He seems to have a self imposed "rant" quota every day. And we all pretty much know the "rant" by heart, especially the "moral of the rant" ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <punditster@...> wrote : On 10/27/2014 8:10 AM, steve.sundur@... mailto:steve.sundur@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: It's a funny place for Barry to roll out his new initiative, this "New Approach for Atheists in Dealing With Believers", but I guess it hi-lights the dearth of other places where he has any standing. You'd think this manifesto would be better placed on an atheist site (of which I am sure there are plenty), but he could run into a little trouble if they check his bona fides. Actually, I guess that explains it. (-: > These are obviously just planted messages from Barry in order to get angry responses - typical trollish stuff. In Barry's case, it's interesting because everyone knows he believes in Buddhas, karma and reincarnation. But, he doesn't want to talk about it because it's so confusing. We need to keep it real simple for Barry - things are either black or white; there are no shades of grey with Barry. He is not very subtle or nuanced. He probably doesn't even realize that a belief in free-will is opposed to a belief in karma. Maybe he is actually thinking he has complete control over his circumstances and that he is not affected by his past or present actions. Maybe Barry got confused when he read about Sam Harris and his Tibetan Buddhist teacher. Go figure. > ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> mailto:steve.sundur@... wrote : It sounds like you've found a new vocation, Barry. Go for it. Put up posters, or something. Organize some introductory lectures. What do we call it? "The New Atheism, by Barry W" ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <turquoiseb@...> mailto:turquoiseb@... wrote : Intelligent and well-written article about the religious apologetics that is rampant these days, and why intelligent people shouldn't stand for it. The author makes many good points, but among my favorites are the following, in which I've highlighted my favorite section in red: How are we to rid ourselves of religion? I don’t know a nonbeliever who considers it likely that we will. Even Christopher Hitchens likened it to the rats of Camus’ “The Plague,” always scurrying about in a city’s sewers, ready to spring forth on us when we have forgotten about the pestilence they carry. But we can take action to ensure that we do not unwittingly favor religion’s continuation by taking stances, both public and private. (I wrote about this previously for Salon here http://www.salon.com/2014/01/11/15_ways_atheists_can_stand_up_for_rationality/.) Nonbelievers need to approach faith as a subject like any other, one we can talk about and criticize without fear of causing offense – or, in the case of Islam, concern for our physical safety. This is in fact our constitutional right. The First Amendment forbids Congress from establishing an official religion and protects free speech – including speech that offends the sentiments of believers. If we disbelieve what religion’s canon tells us, we need to say so openly, and in mixed company, pointing out that no rational person could believe it or accept it as true and valid, were it not for indoctrination, immaturity, willful abandonment of reason, fear, or simple feeblemindedness. We can also cease displaying knee-jerk respect for those who propagate faith. A priest, rabbi, or imam should merit no more deference than a witch doctor – all traffic in gullibility, human misery and vulnerability, and none can prove the efficacy of their ministrations. We must point out the inherent dangerousness of faith itself – of believing things to be true without evidence. The British poet Perce Bysshe Shelley, writing two centuries ago, put it bluntly: “God is an hypothesis, and, as such, stands in need of proof: the onus probandi” – the burden of proof – “rests on the theist.” Claims made on the basis of religion should be met by demands for evidence. Reza Aslan’s atheism problem: “Fundamentalist” atheists aren’t the issue, apologists for religions are http://www.salon.com/2014/10/25/reza_aslans_atheism_problem_fundamentalist_atheists_arent_the_issue_apologists_for_religions_are/" class="ygrps-yiv-1940634927ygrps-yiv-223399375ygrps-yiv-743294653link-enhancr-card-urlWrapper ygrps-yiv-1940634927ygrps-yiv-223399375ygrps-yiv-743294653link-enhancr-element Reza Aslan’s atheism problem: “Fundamentalist” atheists ... Major religions all contain macabre fables, explicit injunctions for vile behavior no civilzed person should accept View on www.salon.com Preview by Yahoo