Richard Dawkins: Islam is Bad

[Frisivisia]

It's exactly the same. Some people blow up buildings, others shoot doctors for performing abortions, and then you have the absolute same thing when Richard Dawkins says something provocative for attention.

Pol Pot, Stalin, English Defence League.

It's not much different.

Pol Pot and Stalin were like, "Hey, I'm an atheist, so I'm going to kill others for not being atheists."

Oh wait. That never happened and your argument is a blatantly stupid non sequiter.

[Luveria]

As am I. That's why I prefer not to mention my atheism at all. I don't want to identify as an atheist. I'm a person who happens to be atheist, that's all. People who openly go around saying they are an atheist, are no different than the people they loathe who go around introducing themselves as Christians.

I never used to make a fuss about my atheism years ago, I never knew an atheist that did. But seeing as we are importing all that american creationist and fundamentalist bullshit here and nasty christians are getting louder, I feel atheist people are just forced to respond and to out themselves as being what they are instead of quietly blending into the background..

If Christians etc stopped promoting their religion so forcibly and visibly as they have been doing for 100s of years without sign of shutting up, and just got on with their worship quietly and without trying to push their beliefs on others, I think you'll find all the nasty loud atheists would just go away.

Then attack fundies, not all religions. The nasty loud atheists aren't any different than a fundie to me.

Pol Pot, Stalin, English Defence League.

It's not much different.

Wait. Why are you including Pol Pot and Stalin? It wasn't atheism that drove them to do what they did, it was desire for political power.

Okay, the Ayatollah of Iran? Do they enforce theocracy out of religious conviction, or is it because their political power depends on religion?

[Mavorpen]

Okay, the Ayatollah of Iran? Do they enforce theocracy out of religious conviction, or is it because their political power depends on religion?

Why can't it be both...?

[The Parkus Empire]

And that's what the atheist movement is. It's not, "Religion is scientifically unsustainable," it's, "You people are dumb I'm so smart."

Sounds just like fundieism. No different.

Which, as a political movement, is all I can see it as. I support the rationalist and secularist and humanist movements, but I'm very sick of explicit atheism as political movement.

[Frisivisia]

I never used to make a fuss about my atheism years ago, I never knew an atheist that did. But seeing as we are importing all that american creationist and fundamentalist bullshit here and nasty christians are getting louder, I feel atheist people are just forced to respond and to out themselves as being what they are instead of quietly blending into the background..

If Christians etc stopped promoting their religion so forcibly and visibly as they have been doing for 100s of years without sign of shutting up, and just got on with their worship quietly and without trying to push their beliefs on others, I think you'll find all the nasty loud atheists would just go away.

Then attack fundies, not all religions. The nasty loud atheists aren't any different than a fundie to me.

Wait. Why are you including Pol Pot and Stalin? It wasn't atheism that drove them to do what they did, it was desire for political power.

Okay, the Ayatollah of Iran? Do they enforce theocracy out of religious conviction, or is it because their political power depends on religion?

I dunno, you'd really have to go Ayatollah to Ayatollah on it. I can imagine it's a blend. You're fooling yourself if you think Stalin was a MILUTINT AFIEST!!

[Luveria]

Pol Pot, Stalin, English Defence League.

It's not much different.

Pol Pot and Stalin were like, "Hey, I'm an atheist, so I'm going to kill others for not being atheists."

Oh wait. That never happened and your argument is a blatantly stupid non sequiter.

They had an ideology which motivated or gave them an excuse to kill people in the name of eradicating religion.

Suicidal fundies have a religion which gives them an excuse or good motivation to kill people to get to their 72 virgins.

[Oceasia]

Dawkins has never been a pleasant person, he's way too militant and just goes for anything to make religion bad.

I say this as an Atheist.

Militant?

[Frisivisia]

Sounds just like fundieism. No different.

Which, as a political movement, is all I can see it as. I support the rationalist and secularist and humanist movements, but I'm very sick of explicit atheism as political movement.

It's not like atheists are one of the more despised groups in the nation or that they're right or anything.

[Warda]

As am I. That's why I prefer not to mention my atheism at all. I don't want to identify as an atheist. I'm a person who happens to be atheist, that's all. People who openly go around saying they are an atheist, are no different than the people they loathe who go around introducing themselves as Christians.

I never used to make a fuss about my atheism years ago, I never knew an atheist that did. But seeing as we are importing all that american creationist and fundamentalist bullshit here and nasty christians are getting louder, I feel atheist people are just forced to respond and to out themselves as being what they are instead of quietly blending into the background..

If Christians etc stopped promoting their religion so forcibly and visibly as they have been doing for 100s of years without sign of shutting up, and just got on with their worship quietly and without trying to push their beliefs on others, I think you'll find all the nasty loud atheists would just go away.

Calling people out never works well, even if they start it

[Luveria]

Okay, the Ayatollah of Iran? Do they enforce theocracy out of religious conviction, or is it because their political power depends on religion?

Why can't it be both...?

I don't see why it can't be both.

Then attack fundies, not all religions. The nasty loud atheists aren't any different than a fundie to me.


Okay, the Ayatollah of Iran? Do they enforce theocracy out of religious conviction, or is it because their political power depends on religion?

I dunno, you'd really have to go Ayatollah to Ayatollah on it. I can imagine it's a blend. You're fooling yourself if you think Stalin was a MILUTINT AFIEST!!

I don't believe I've said Stalin was a militant atheist.

Is it militant atheism to aggressively attack and persecute people for holding religious beliefs? That seems to be what militant atheism is.

[Frisivisia]

Pol Pot and Stalin were like, "Hey, I'm an atheist, so I'm going to kill others for not being atheists."

Oh wait. That never happened and your argument is a blatantly stupid non sequiter.

They had an ideology which motivated or gave them an excuse to kill people in the name of eradicating religion.

Suicidal fundies have a religion which gives them an excuse or good motivation to kill people to get to their 72 virgins.

Hold it. You're serious?

Hold on, I need to laugh for a few hours.

[Mavorpen]

They had an ideology which motivated or gave them an excuse to kill people in the name of eradicating religion.

Not necessarily. They wanted to replace traditional religion with a cult of personality that was fairly religious like.

[Mavorpen]

Why can't it be both...?

I don't see why it can't be both.

Then I'll go with: in general, both. Though it would depend on a case by case basis.

[Tenebriso]

Which, as a political movement, is all I can see it as. I support the rationalist and secularist and humanist movements, but I'm very sick of explicit atheism as political movement.

It's not like atheists are one of the more despised groups in the nation or that they're right or anything.

Despised? Pagans seem to get A LOT of rap from the religious majority as well...but you don't see us being all holier than thou about it.

[The Parkus Empire]

By looking at the foremost speaker of the movement.

Clearly, Bill O'Reilly represents the entirety of the American Right and Obama the Left. THERE IS NO IN BETWEEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!111

Of course there is. I can think of plenty of famous people besides them who made support of such ideologies their primary concern. I can't really think of one person, who held atheism as an ideology, who was worth a damn.

[The Parkus Empire]

Which, as a political movement, is all I can see it as. I support the rationalist and secularist and humanist movements, but I'm very sick of explicit atheism as political movement.

It's not like atheists are one of the more despised groups in the nation or that they're right or anything.

And so?

[Luveria]

They had an ideology which motivated or gave them an excuse to kill people in the name of eradicating religion.

Not necessarily. They wanted to replace traditional religion with a cult of personality that was fairly religious like.

It is definitely religious.

I present exhibit A: North Korea.

I don't see why it can't be both.

Then I'll go with: in general, both. Though it would depend on a case by case basis.

I'll usually go with both since it's religious people who tend to get into a political position based on religion.

They had an ideology which motivated or gave them an excuse to kill people in the name of eradicating religion.

Suicidal fundies have a religion which gives them an excuse or good motivation to kill people to get to their 72 virgins.

Hold it. You're serious?

Hold on, I need to laugh for a few hours.

An ideology which strongly implies all religions are total bullshit and thus you should free people from "the opiate of the masses" isn't strong motivation to turn people hostile against religion?

[Frisivisia]

It's not like atheists are one of the more despised groups in the nation or that they're right or anything.

Despised? Pagans seem to get A LOT of rap from the religious majority as well...but you don't see us being all holier than thou about it.

Obviously, all atheists are, pfft, "holier than thou" about being hated and despised and essentially unable to hold public office at all or live in religious communities.

[Frisivisia]

Not necessarily. They wanted to replace traditional religion with a cult of personality that was fairly religious like.

It is definitely religious.

I present exhibit A: North Korea.

Then I'll go with: in general, both. Though it would depend on a case by case basis.

I'll usually go with both since it's religious people who tend to get into a political position based on religion.

Hold it. You're serious?

Hold on, I need to laugh for a few hours.

An ideology which strongly implies all religions are total bullshit and thus you should free people from "the opiate of the masses" isn't strong motivation to turn people hostile against religion?

All religions are total bullshit, that's a fact. Atheism just means you don't believe in a God.

[Mavorpen]

Clearly, Bill O'Reilly represents the entirety of the American Right and Obama the Left. THERE IS NO IN BETWEEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!111

Of course there is. I can think of plenty of famous people besides them who made support of such ideologies their primary concern. I can't really think of one person, who held atheism as an ideology, who was worth a damn.

Truth be told, I'm about as proud of it as I am proud that I don't believe in Santa.

[Frisivisia]

It's not like atheists are one of the more despised groups in the nation or that they're right or anything.

And so?

Gays have their acceptance movements, atheists, another despised group, could use one too.

[Luveria]

Despised? Pagans seem to get A LOT of rap from the religious majority as well...but you don't see us being all holier than thou about it.

Obviously, all atheists are, pfft, "holier than thou" about being hated and despised and essentially unable to hold public office at all or live in religious communities.

Pagans get attacked too. There was a thread not long ago about fundies demanding to ban a pagan festival in some state, for being Satanic or something like that.

[Tenebriso]

Despised? Pagans seem to get A LOT of rap from the religious majority as well...but you don't see us being all holier than thou about it.

Obviously, all atheists are, pfft, "holier than thou" about being hated and despised and essentially unable to hold public office at all or live in religious communities.

And we aren't hated or unable to hold public office? I daresay you would have an easier time as an atheist getting elected in some areas than a pagan.

[Mavorpen]

It is definitely religious.

I present exhibit A: North Korea.

Precisely.

I'll usually go with both since it's religious people who tend to get into a political position based on religion.

Personally, I feel like attacking religion personally isn't as effective as simply trying our best to break strong ties between religion and politics that plague many parts of the world.

[Frisivisia]

Obviously, all atheists are, pfft, "holier than thou" about being hated and despised and essentially unable to hold public office at all or live in religious communities.

Pagans get attacked too. There was a thread not long ago about fundies demanding to ban a pagan festival in some state, for being Satanic or something like that.

And that's horrible. Sure is a good thing I didn't say that pagans aren't oppressed.

They are wrong and their beliefs rather "teenage phase"ish.