How I come across?
 
Here is how I was told I come across:
 
“you come across so strongly with your ideas that it feels like you don’t care about anyone else in the room. And if you ask about others’ ideas, it is to compare them to your own. You don’t seem genuinely curious about other people, just focused on axiology, your book, etc. If you are interested in other people for their own sakes, they respond better. If people get the idea that you’re just in the room to tell people about yourself, that’s a turn-off. You might see it differently, but that’s how it looks to others.”
 
Here is my response:
 
I do like hearing ideas other than my own but also like telling what I think. I left a local atheist event before it was over (because it was mainly geared for weak atheists, accommodationist atheists and religious atheists) as I wanted to respect that others have the right to be different than me. I do have strong opinions and a strong personality, but do strive to respect the self rights of others. This means I realize I am not a good fit for every type of group or type of people atheist or otherwise. I do say even if I do not agree with others style of atheism, I do not think there is a right style of atheism. neither others atheism style or mine, as the type that works for others is good for them, just as the one I like works for me. I believe people own themselves and thus their right to self define as they wish. I self define as a strong antiaccommodationist firebrand axiological atheist, but do not expect anyone to feel the same. I do wish to be one who can respect people without respecting any religion and believe in people without believing in any god or religion.
 
*Weak atheists include agnostics who do not believe in the existence of any deities but do not explicitly assert that there are none, or do not assert it is true that no deity exists.
 
*Atheist accommodationists maintain that those who have religious or magical ideas which are closer to scientific reality should not be subject to the same level of rational criticism as that which is leveled at believers in creationism and others who utterly reject scientific evidence. Accomodationists will usually favour discussion, engagement, and pragmatic unity with religious groups who appear to condemn or combat extremism, even if doing so requires the pragmatic suspension of criticism towards those groups for their faith-based beliefs.
 
*Religionist atheists can mean different things kind of like wanting to keep religion or add religion to one’s atheism even when god has been abandoned. It seems like religiosity or religious beliefs with the belief in god missing. Religionist atheism can range from a godless religion to simply those who speak atheism in the guise of language taken broadly from the religious traditions. These atheists though utilize religious traditions may not believe in a god as a being or creator but highly value religious thinking, goals, practices, ceremonies, and religious morality or religious figures, most notably jesus. Likewise, a religionist atheist could hold a positive disbelief or an unsure lack of belief. Religionist atheism could also entail a gentler, more diplomatic atheism that is somewhat pro-religion or not antireligious; they could have “Religion without God”. Religionist atheism would be very drawn to places like The Unitarian Universalist church or The Sunday Assembly, an “atheist church” this is not to say all who attend The Sunday Assembly are religionist atheists.
—————————————————————————————————————————————

*Strong atheists include agnostics who do not believe in the existence of any deities but do not explicitly assert that there are none, or do not assert it is true that no deity exists.

*Anti-accommodationist atheists maintain that all people should be subject to a high level of rational criticism requiring all beliefs to be supported with valid and reliable reason and evidence. Anti-accommodationists are loud and proud and enjoy being highly and openly critical of faith-based beliefs.

*Firebrand atheists can mean different things as unapologetically arguing that religion is false and harmful, including elements of polemic and ridicule, even if it causes some believers to take offense. Or being brave enough to publicly express the truth about religion, with the emphasis on the telling its harm and falsehood, usually attacking the faith beliefs, not the person.

*Axiological atheists hold (Ethical/Value theory Reasoned and Moral Argument driven) Atheism, Anti-theism, Anti-religionism, and Secular Humanism. Roughly then axiological atheism = Strong Disbelief as well as Strong Secularism and Humanism.

I hear some people say I have too many labels or have defined and broken down my thinking too much and I think it’s odd, since when is clarity or accuracy unwanted or distasteful?

I don’t tell others to define like me if one thing covers everything in your life great that’s not how it is for me. I like people knowing exactly what, where, and how I stand on issues. If I am loved for who I am I want, you to know what that is. If I am hated for who I am I want, you to know what that is. Why do so many think it’s better to limit yourself to only one label because it’s easier. An intellectual thinker desires clarity and accuracy. An intellectual is a person who engages in critical study, thought, and reflection about the reality of society, proposes solutions for the normative problems of society, and by such discourse in the public sphere gains standing in public opinion.

It is okay to not know, in fact it is epidemiological honesty or a responsibility of a rational thinker to say I don’t know, when one does not know.

I was asked, “But then how do you differentiate “woo” from “stuff that is too strange to comprehend? And isn’t it a little depressing for a rationalist don’t you think to not know or be able to comprehend something?

I am a rationalist and I enjoy wonder and it is okay to not know. Woo is epidemiological dishonesty or irresponsibility, claiming to know things either you don’t know or beyond what is reasonable to infer from what is available to know or saying this that contradict want is reasonably known or reasonably inferred. As a rationalist where or when “stuff is too strange to comprehend” you should employ epidemiological honesty or responsibility and say I don’t know but will strive to find out.

Damien, everyone is different and everyone needs different things. Spiritually, emotionally, mentally, and physically. There is no right or wrong answer. Just be good to one another.

You have violated your thinking with an internal contradiction, by violating the law of noncontradiction. “There is no right or wrong answer.” And yet this is an argument under its own delusion as it is claiming this statement a truth.

“In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (or the law of contradiction (PM) or the principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) is the second of the three classic laws of thought. It states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions “A is B” and “A is not B” are mutually exclusive.” Ref

By Damien Marie AtHope

“Here is a video of a meetup were I talk with and argue with other atheists”