Yes, but our form of Government is a pretty new invention, probably dating back to the late 19th century. Before then the idea of Government as a support structure for the individual didn't really exist. Either it was just not able to do so (think US), or it was in the hands of "monarchs" etc. and Government was just…

Very likely yes. That was the point I was trying to make :)

Yes, I actually do see many who flocked to "new Atheism" as "immature" because I do not think that you can get to atheism on the snap of a finger. It is a philosophical position and thus requires investement into it.

What I mean is they were surrounded by (a) religion and tried to get away from it. Atheism was the perfect escape as it seemed to remove the underlying reason for a religion to exist. So they said: "Well, I am not Christian, thus I am atheist" which I think is a logical shortcut that can't hold up the test of time.

I use religion in the context of the churches, that is: There is a clear struture and "truth" that gets imparted. Dawkins is a good example, his approach to Atheism is a pretty dogmatic one and his bible is "The God Delusion". He often "talks from the pulpit" in this context as well with little regards for people who…

I think we have religion because it provides a structure that allows people to "hold on to", same reason why we have Governments etc. Many people require a frame work.

No, they would just go over the interpretation of someone who wrote about atheism. Heck, take a look at the kerfuffel that "Athemism+" is righ tnow. If you can count on one thing it's that some people always perceive themselves as more special than others and will find a way to start a fight over it.

Do you honestly think that if atheism would be a world wide thing people wouldn't splinter over it and then create subsets of it?

You don't really need to be a religious zealot to call yourself an atheist. Actually, I would say the majority don't.

Well.... Yes and no.

Well.... Yes and no.

1. You inferred a statement, you know the "When did you stop beating your wife?" kind of thing. And before you say: You did it too! No I didn't. I put mine in brackets which does not make it part of the actually question just infers a second, minor, opinion in relation to the main question. But feel free to try to…

No, what you wrote and replied to was:

Do you want me to call you some moving guys to help you move that goal post?

Yes, and I do asked it EXACTLY that way because some of Watson's defenders publicly stated that it didn't matter IF he existed or not because all that mattered was what Watson said.

Okay, are you really that stupid (well, you seem to be an admirer of Greg "The male brain is a female brain damaged by testosterone" Laden, so....) or are you just playing one on the Internet?

Yes, that's called asking a question, you do know what "?" means, right? (see, using it again).

That's not skepticism that's conjecture. But keep trying, sooner or later you must actually end up being verifably correct, though if that happens in the next decade is anybodies guess.

Oh oh? Are you already backtracking from: "I call all women liars" to "you call all women liars when it's convenient for me"?

Again, show me where I said she lied about the elevator? Please, I am curious.