Atheists fail to riot at threat to burn The God Delusion

[plekhanov]

I think you are generalising, though fair enough you are right for the vast majority.

 

But belief in a god does not necessarily mean that you believe you should impose your (believing it is God's) will on other people, and disbelieving god does not necessarily mean you don't.

Of course I'm generalising given the text I'm responding to how could I do otherwise?

 

Clearly by no means all theists seek to impose the will of their sky pixie upon others, which all too often would involve depriving others of their basic rights, however a substantial proportion do. In the west theists generally try to use electoral politics to do so but here and elsewhere they also use deadly violence.

 

There is simply no equivalent attempt by atheists in the name of atheism to deny anyone their basic rights. In fact the imbalance in behaviour is so great that the behaviour of "atheists extremists" like Dawkins or myself is far more moderate than 'moderate' theists never mind religious extremists.

 

I have little doubt that there are plenty of atheist homophobes for example.

No doubt there are but that homophobia isn't fed or justified by atheism nor is their a logical pathway from atheism to trying to deprive homosexuals of their basic rights. Sadly there is an all too logical pathway from numerous popular theisms to depriving homosexuals of their basic rights.

[evildrneil]

There is simply no equivalent attempt by atheists in the name of atheism to deny anyone their basic rights. In fact the imbalance in behaviour is so great that the behaviour of "atheists extremists" like Dawkins or myself is far more moderate than 'moderate' theists never mind religious extremists.

 

Of course there have been attempts by athiests to deny others their human rights. For example Stalin had specific athiest classes in schools, had discriminatory laws against theists and eventually had purges murdering tens of thousands of priests and believers. Similar (though less extreme) measures are currently in use by China against the monastries of Tibet.

[evildrneil]

Nice, you personally insult atheists in your every post with your sig and then get all upset at a single post when an atheist responds

 

If you insult athiests - i.e. a group - it can't by definition be personal abuse can it!? And did I get "all upset"? I merely pointed out that you resorted to personal abuse straight away when someone doesn't like something you post...

 

You posted something I don't like so I responded by posting things you don't like, but at no point in any way sort to have you in anyway punished for saying things I don't like or end your ability to say things I don't like, how is that irrational or intolerant?

 

I posted a comment on the quality of piece of "sattire" you immediately respond with personal abuse and name calling - does that strike you as a rational or tolerent response? If so you obviously use very different definitions of the word from the rest of the world...

 

I'm well aware that both groups say things you don't like in ways you don't like. The thing is though saying things you don't like in way you don't like is pretty much as bad as it gets for atheists, if that was as bad as theists got the world would be a much much more peaceful place.

 

In this very thread theists have stated that atheists should not be permitted to say things theists don't like, no atheists have called for theists freedom of expression to be taken away from them. Can you really not see a difference between the two groups?

 

For the Nth (where N is a large number) it's not WHAT is said it is HOW it is said. In behaviour a shrill intollerent theist is pretty indistinguishable from shrill intollerent atheist. They will both quite happilly rant, abuse and attempt to belittle anyone who doesn't share their views.

[plekhanov]

Of course there have been attempts by athiests to deny others their human rights. For example Stalin had specific athiest classes in schools, had discriminatory laws against theists and eventually had purges murdering tens of thousands of priests and believers. Similar (though less extreme) measures are currently in use by China against the monastries of Tibet.

Really and Stalin did that in the name of atheism not communism did he?

 

Stalin slaughtered anyone who he perceived as being in his way atheists and theists alike and did so in the name of his communist revolution. Stalin was motivated by his communist ideology (and of course his paranoia and lust for power).

 

The same applies to the current Chinese government which systematically represses any and all groups which it perceives as potential threats to its power. This includes any religious groups be they Buddist, Christian, Islamic, Falun Gong... which it takes a dislike to and all manner of completely secular groups. Religiosity is completely incidental to why the groups are repressed as the repression is not motivated by atheism.

[milquetoast1]

For the Nth (where N is a large number) it's not WHAT is said it is HOW it is said. In behaviour a shrill intollerent theist is pretty indistinguishable from shrill intollerent theist. They will both quite happilly rant, abuse and attempt to belittle anyone who doesn't share their views.

I always think it's what is said more than how it's said that is important tbh.

 

That aside, can you give me 5 living examples of "shrill intolerant" theists, and 5 living examples of "shrill intolerant" atheists, just so I can understand your argument a bit better.

[milquetoast1]

In behaviour a shrill intollerent theist is pretty indistinguishable from shrill intollerent theist.

 

Hardly surprising really.

 

[evildrneil]

Really and Stalin did that in the name of atheism not communism did he?

 

Stalin slaughtered anyone who he perceived as being in his way atheists and theists alike and did so in the name of his communist revolution. Stalin was motivated by his communist ideology (and of course his paranoia and lust for power).

 

The same applies to the current Chinese government which systematically represses any and all groups which it perceives as potential threats to its power. This includes any religious groups be they Buddist, Christian, Islamic, Falun Gong... which it takes a dislike to and all manner of completely secular groups. Religiosity is completely incidental to why the groups are repressed as the repression is not motivated by atheism.

 

As a communist he was an ideological athiest and believed that relgion must be removed from society in order for it to function as a socialist paradise. This being the case he specifically attacked and destroyed churches and murdered belivers and clergy. So yes I would say this was done in the name of athiesm.

[evildrneil]

Hardly surprising really.

 

 

How embarassing - please excuse my typo

[flamingjimmy]

As a communist he was an ideological athiest and believed that relgion must be removed from society in order for it to function as a socialist paradise. This being the case he specifically attacked and destroyed churches and murdered belivers and clergy. So yes I would say this was done in the name of athiesm.

 

Well no, you've said why he did it yourself up there. He did it because he "believed that relgion must be removed from society in order for it to function as a socialist paradise". That is not a tenet of atheism, atheism has no tenets except lack of belief in god.

[evildrneil]

Well no, you've said why he did it yourself up there. He did it because he "believed that relgion must be removed from society in order for it to function as a socialist paradise". That is not a tenet of atheism, atheism has no tenets except lack of belief in god.

 

OK lets rephrase it then - he did because he was an ideological athiest who believes that athiesm must be enforced on the population. Better?