In other, tangentially related news, 3 Muslims were just killed by their outspokenly anti-Islam neighbor in the US. But it was probably just over a parking dispute. Probably.
I'm just morbidly curious to see if anti-Muslim violence in the west in the wake of Charile Hebdo will end up surpassing the attack itself.
Yeah, and Micheal Brown was probably shot over a box of cigars.
As a side note, I think that all atheists are partly to blame for this, until moderate atheists everywhere denounce this attack. What is it about atheism that causes terrorism?
In other, tangentially related news, 3 Muslims were just killed by their outspokenly anti-Islam neighbor in the US. But it was probably just over a parking dispute. Probably.
I'm just morbidly curious to see if anti-Muslim violence in the west in the wake of Charile Hebdo will end up surpassing the attack itself.
Yeah, and Micheal Brown was probably shot over a box of cigars.
As a side note, I think that all atheists are partly to blame for this, until moderate atheists everywhere denounce this attack. What is it about atheism that causes terrorism?
Oh you
+5
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
The part about the moderate atheist denouncement is obviously a reductio ad absurdum of those who insist that a climate of silent approval exists within the Muslim community and that moderate Muslims should denounce the extremist acts rather than staying silent.
An obviously false equivalence with this situation.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
Indeed, but I take that as given.
Unless the assertion is there are two layers of irony/sarcasm, where the use of the reductio is itself ironic and a criticism of that specific equivalence...
In which case it's too many layers of irony for me, being ironic about being ironic.
Shooting in Copenhagen at a free speech debate. The French ambassador to Denmark, and Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks, who faces death threats for having drawn caricatures of Mohammed in the past, were present.
Three police officers were wounded and there are reports of one dead. Both the French ambassador and the cartoonist are unharmed. The two attackers have fled and are still at large.
In other, tangentially related news, 3 Muslims were just killed by their outspokenly anti-Islam neighbor in the US. But it was probably just over a parking dispute. Probably.
I'm just morbidly curious to see if anti-Muslim violence in the west in the wake of Charile Hebdo will end up surpassing the attack itself.
Yeah, and Micheal Brown was probably shot over a box of cigars.
As a side note, I think that all atheists are partly to blame for this, until moderate atheists everywhere denounce this attack. What is it about atheism that causes terrorism?
And still here you go. i'm a complete anti-theist and I condemn these attacks with all my soul, because taking a sentient life is the most horrific thing anyone can do.
Atheists aren't really that kind of group, there is no atheist handbook, or church of atheism, or set of atheist commandments
Give it time, I'm sure there will be one day. Militant atheists can often be just as insufferable as fundamentalist (insert any organized religion here).
Well yes, for the textbook definition of "militant", not what people who say the words "militant atheist" want to make the people they want to hear it think.
Atheism is the rejection of traditions and memes thousands of years old, the idea that maybe this one thing doesn't need to be the way it always used to.
At its core stands "don't believe"
It's a bit harder to co-opt into a meme of its own because of that, but it's probably not impossible to get some sort of "institutionalized atheism"
Which is why I think a better creed whould be "think further"
Atheists aren't really that kind of group, there is no atheist handbook, or church of atheism, or set of atheist commandments
Give it time, I'm sure there will be one day. Militant atheists can often be just as insufferable as fundamentalist (insert any organized religion here).
Yes, they can. But that isn't what atheism is today, and I doubt it ever will be. It's not that kind of belief structure.
Well, no, wally. There is, to a degree, militant atheism right now.
It's right at the centre of the "debate" about religion vs science. Nevermind that the two can co-exist just fine.
Basically, overzealous geese.
Given the staggeringly large number of widiotic actions being undertaken by the US's religious right- I don't think that atheists are zealous enough collectively. Failure to engage the crazies with anything more aggressive than an eyeroll is a big part of how the US center has slid so far right in the last 30 years or so.
+5
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
Atheists aren't really that kind of group, there is no atheist handbook, or church of atheism, or set of atheist commandments
Give it time, I'm sure there will be one day. Militant atheists can often be just as insufferable as fundamentalist (insert any organized religion here).
Yes, they can. But that isn't what atheism is today, and I doubt it ever will be. It's not that kind of belief structure.
It absolutely is in some cases. I love Bill Maher but his complete rejection to even attempting to be open minded about religion maybe being used for good annoys the hell out of me. There's also Dawkins who regularly has his foot in his mouth. I thought the whole point of rejecting organized religion was to become open minded and thoughtful. A ton of the crazy fundies deserve eye rolls and total dismissal, but there's so many other types of people who would categorize themselves as "religious". The militant atheists I'm talking about also essentially take offense to practices as harmless as spirituality.
Bubby on
+2
frenetic_ferretwildest weaselEast Coast is Best CoastRegistered Userregular
Atheists aren't really that kind of group, there is no atheist handbook, or church of atheism, or set of atheist commandments
Give it time, I'm sure there will be one day. Militant atheists can often be just as insufferable as fundamentalist (insert any organized religion here).
Militant atheists are to militant Muslims (or Christians), as radical liberals are to radical conservatives in the US. Sure, there is a bunch of crazy and jackassery on all sides, but only one side is an actual violent threat that constantly engages in threats of violence, prepares for violence, and often engages in violence. Furthermore only one side is actually organized, while the organizing the other side is like herding cats that are constantly fighting each other.
Atheism's problems are general douchebaggery, arrogance, snark, smug, and punching down the social class structure for shits and giggles. Which isn't shocking. Atheists are largely well off, educated, white guys, or holier than thou type liberals. Violence just really isn't in the majority DNA of the group, it's largely about rejecting social norms and standard belief systems... not fighting to keep them ingrained in a world which continually views fundamental parts of them (female subjugation, slavery, evolution, science) as utterly moronic and out of step with facts. Atheism certainly has it's share of sociopaths and genuinely vicious assholes. But they tend to be like Maher and Dawkins who largely enjoy mentally tormenting and humiliating their inferiors rather than rounding up and enslaving people or killing them in accordance with the teachings of a sacred book from ancient history.
Offending the most extreme atheists "beliefs and values" (which isn't even a thing, it's a rejection of beliefs) isn't as likely to end up getting you killed as it is a religious fundamentalists.
Atheists aren't really that kind of group, there is no atheist handbook, or church of atheism, or set of atheist commandments
Give it time, I'm sure there will be one day. Militant atheists can often be just as insufferable as fundamentalist (insert any organized religion here).
Yes, they can. But that isn't what atheism is today, and I doubt it ever will be. It's not that kind of belief structure.
It absolutely is in some cases. I love Bill Maher but his complete rejection to even attempting to be open minded about religion maybe being used for good annoys the hell out of me. There's also Dawkins who regularly has his foot in his mouth. I thought the whole point of rejecting organized religion was to become open minded and thoughtful. A ton of the crazy fundies deserve eye rolls and total dismissal, but there's so many other types of people who would categorize themselves as "religious". The militant atheists I'm talking about also essentially take offense to practices as harmless as spirituality.
Are we confused about what we mean by "fundamentalist" and "militant" here? We're not talking about fundamentalist Quakers here. Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins don't advocate that religious people be put to the death for ... reverse-blasphemy. I mean, I'm a fundamentalist justice-ist, but that's not the same thing as a fundamentalist Wahabist.
Similarly, Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins are militant atheists, in that they are combative about atheism; they are not militant atheists in that they do not LITERALLY ENGAGE IN COMBAT for atheism.
There is no false equivalency. I never said that Atheists are killing people, just that they're increasingly becoming a group of hive-minded assholes who don't like other viewpoints other than their own. Militant atheism is the correct term for the kind of hostility I'm referring to.
+1
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Atheists aren't really that kind of group, there is no atheist handbook, or church of atheism, or set of atheist commandments
Give it time, I'm sure there will be one day. Militant atheists can often be just as insufferable as fundamentalist (insert any organized religion here).
Yes, they can. But that isn't what atheism is today, and I doubt it ever will be. It's not that kind of belief structure.
It absolutely is in some cases. I love Bill Maher but his complete rejection to even attempting to be open minded about religion maybe being used for good annoys the hell out of me. There's also Dawkins who regularly has his foot in his mouth. I thought the whole point of rejecting organized religion was to become open minded and thoughtful. A ton of the crazy fundies deserve eye rolls and total dismissal, but there's so many other types of people who would categorize themselves as "religious". The militant atheists I'm talking about also essentially take offense to practices as harmless as spirituality.
I am sure you find Bill Maher just as annoying as people trying to criminalize abortion and oppress gay people and I applaud your open mindedness in that.
Atheists aren't really that kind of group, there is no atheist handbook, or church of atheism, or set of atheist commandments
Give it time, I'm sure there will be one day. Militant atheists can often be just as insufferable as fundamentalist (insert any organized religion here).
Yes, they can. But that isn't what atheism is today, and I doubt it ever will be. It's not that kind of belief structure.
It absolutely is in some cases. I love Bill Maher but his complete rejection to even attempting to be open minded about religion maybe being used for good annoys the hell out of me. There's also Dawkins who regularly has his foot in his mouth. I thought the whole point of rejecting organized religion was to become open minded and thoughtful. A ton of the crazy fundies deserve eye rolls and total dismissal, but there's so many other types of people who would categorize themselves as "religious". The militant atheists I'm talking about also essentially take offense to practices as harmless as spirituality.
I am sure you find Bill Maher just as annoying as people trying to criminalize abortion and oppress gay people and I applaud your open mindedness in that.
You're kind of proving my point with nonsense like this, that it has to only be one way or the other. Pigeonholing all religious people in with those assholes is pure, mindless ignorance.
There is no false equivalency. I never said that Atheists are killing people, just that they're increasingly becoming a group of hive-minded assholes who don't like other viewpoints other than their own. Militant atheism is the correct term for the kind of hostility I'm referring to.
Atheists aren't really that kind of group, there is no atheist handbook, or church of atheism, or set of atheist commandments
Give it time, I'm sure there will be one day. Militant atheists can often be just as insufferable as fundamentalist (insert any organized religion here).
Yes, they can. But that isn't what atheism is today, and I doubt it ever will be. It's not that kind of belief structure.
It absolutely is in some cases. I love Bill Maher but his complete rejection to even attempting to be open minded about religion maybe being used for good annoys the hell out of me. There's also Dawkins who regularly has his foot in his mouth. I thought the whole point of rejecting organized religion was to become open minded and thoughtful. A ton of the crazy fundies deserve eye rolls and total dismissal, but there's so many other types of people who would categorize themselves as "religious". The militant atheists I'm talking about also essentially take offense to practices as harmless as spirituality.
I am sure you find Bill Maher just as annoying as people trying to criminalize abortion and oppress gay people and I applaud your open mindedness in that.
You're kind of proving my point with nonsense like this, that it has to only be one way or the other. Pigeonholing all religious people in with those assholes is pure, mindless ignorance.
Did you not read the top post on this page or something? Or are you just saying the exact same words as that post but meaning them completely differently? Like what.
0
Caulk Bite 6One of the multitude of Dans infesting this placeRegistered Userregular
Did you not read the top post on this page or something? Or are you just saying the exact same words as that post but meaning them completely differently? Like what.
Huh, took another look.
Just realized it's satirical.
0
frenetic_ferretwildest weaselEast Coast is Best CoastRegistered Userregular
Atheists aren't really that kind of group, there is no atheist handbook, or church of atheism, or set of atheist commandments
Give it time, I'm sure there will be one day. Militant atheists can often be just as insufferable as fundamentalist (insert any organized religion here).
Yes, they can. But that isn't what atheism is today, and I doubt it ever will be. It's not that kind of belief structure.
It absolutely is in some cases. I love Bill Maher but his complete rejection to even attempting to be open minded about religion maybe being used for good annoys the hell out of me. There's also Dawkins who regularly has his foot in his mouth. I thought the whole point of rejecting organized religion was to become open minded and thoughtful. A ton of the crazy fundies deserve eye rolls and total dismissal, but there's so many other types of people who would categorize themselves as "religious". The militant atheists I'm talking about also essentially take offense to practices as harmless as spirituality.
Bill Marher's a smug anti-vaxx piece of shit. So I'm okay with saying fuck that guy.
Granted, but being a smug piece of shit is not the same as selling people into slavery or killing them.
Atheists don't really go around bombing baptist mega churches. Or making death threats to those who believe in some sort off odd reverse blasphemy tactic.
There is no false equivalency. I never said that Atheists are killing people, just that they're increasingly becoming a group of hive-minded assholes who don't like other viewpoints other than their own. Militant atheism is the correct term for the kind of hostility I'm referring to.
Atheists aren't really that kind of group, there is no atheist handbook, or church of atheism, or set of atheist commandments
Give it time, I'm sure there will be one day. Militant atheists can often be just as insufferable as fundamentalist (insert any organized religion here).
Yes, they can. But that isn't what atheism is today, and I doubt it ever will be. It's not that kind of belief structure.
It absolutely is in some cases. I love Bill Maher but his complete rejection to even attempting to be open minded about religion maybe being used for good annoys the hell out of me. There's also Dawkins who regularly has his foot in his mouth. I thought the whole point of rejecting organized religion was to become open minded and thoughtful. A ton of the crazy fundies deserve eye rolls and total dismissal, but there's so many other types of people who would categorize themselves as "religious". The militant atheists I'm talking about also essentially take offense to practices as harmless as spirituality.
I am sure you find Bill Maher just as annoying as people trying to criminalize abortion and oppress gay people and I applaud your open mindedness in that.
You're kind of proving my point with nonsense like this, that it has to only be one way or the other. Pigeonholing all religious people in with those assholes is pure, mindless ignorance.
El.
Oh.
El.
Not going to waste my time arguing over semantics, this is stupid. I was referring to the segment of Atheists I was talking about in the first place. Most of them are ok, but the assholes are getting worse. This idea that you can't criticize them because they're fighting the good fight or whatever is so so dumb.
There is no false equivalency. I never said that Atheists are killing people, just that they're increasingly becoming a group of hive-minded assholes who don't like other viewpoints other than their own. Militant atheism is the correct term for the kind of hostility I'm referring to.
Atheists aren't really that kind of group, there is no atheist handbook, or church of atheism, or set of atheist commandments
Give it time, I'm sure there will be one day. Militant atheists can often be just as insufferable as fundamentalist (insert any organized religion here).
Yes, they can. But that isn't what atheism is today, and I doubt it ever will be. It's not that kind of belief structure.
It absolutely is in some cases. I love Bill Maher but his complete rejection to even attempting to be open minded about religion maybe being used for good annoys the hell out of me. There's also Dawkins who regularly has his foot in his mouth. I thought the whole point of rejecting organized religion was to become open minded and thoughtful. A ton of the crazy fundies deserve eye rolls and total dismissal, but there's so many other types of people who would categorize themselves as "religious". The militant atheists I'm talking about also essentially take offense to practices as harmless as spirituality.
I am sure you find Bill Maher just as annoying as people trying to criminalize abortion and oppress gay people and I applaud your open mindedness in that.
You're kind of proving my point with nonsense like this, that it has to only be one way or the other. Pigeonholing all religious people in with those assholes is pure, mindless ignorance.
El.
Oh.
El.
Not going to waste my time arguing over semantics, this is stupid.
Atheists aren't really that kind of group, there is no atheist handbook, or church of atheism, or set of atheist commandments
Give it time, I'm sure there will be one day. Militant atheists can often be just as insufferable as fundamentalist (insert any organized religion here).
Yes, they can. But that isn't what atheism is today, and I doubt it ever will be. It's not that kind of belief structure.
It absolutely is in some cases. I love Bill Maher but his complete rejection to even attempting to be open minded about religion maybe being used for good annoys the hell out of me. There's also Dawkins who regularly has his foot in his mouth. I thought the whole point of rejecting organized religion was to become open minded and thoughtful. A ton of the crazy fundies deserve eye rolls and total dismissal, but there's so many other types of people who would categorize themselves as "religious". The militant atheists I'm talking about also essentially take offense to practices as harmless as spirituality.
I am sure you find Bill Maher just as annoying as people trying to criminalize abortion and oppress gay people and I applaud your open mindedness in that.
You're kind of proving my point with nonsense like this, that it has to only be one way or the other. Pigeonholing all religious people in with those assholes is pure, mindless ignorance.
That is not at all what I did. What I'm pointing out is that these militant religious people you find just as insufferable as militant atheists are actively engaged in oppressing others in a way that hurts. To equate the two is ridiculous, one is clearly far worse no matter how hard Bill Maher doesn't care for religion.
Not all religious people are like that. Not all atheists are like that either. But that is clearly besides the point. It is obvious that the fundies from one side are nowhere near as bad as those from the other side.
Atheists aren't really that kind of group, there is no atheist handbook, or church of atheism, or set of atheist commandments
Give it time, I'm sure there will be one day. Militant atheists can often be just as insufferable as fundamentalist (insert any organized religion here).
Yes, they can. But that isn't what atheism is today, and I doubt it ever will be. It's not that kind of belief structure.
It absolutely is in some cases. I love Bill Maher but his complete rejection to even attempting to be open minded about religion maybe being used for good annoys the hell out of me. There's also Dawkins who regularly has his foot in his mouth. I thought the whole point of rejecting organized religion was to become open minded and thoughtful. A ton of the crazy fundies deserve eye rolls and total dismissal, but there's so many other types of people who would categorize themselves as "religious". The militant atheists I'm talking about also essentially take offense to practices as harmless as spirituality.
I am sure you find Bill Maher just as annoying as people trying to criminalize abortion and oppress gay people and I applaud your open mindedness in that.
You're kind of proving my point with nonsense like this, that it has to only be one way or the other. Pigeonholing all religious people in with those assholes is pure, mindless ignorance.
That is not at all what I did. What I'm pointing out is that these militant religious people you find just as insufferable as militant atheists are actively engaged in oppressing others in a way that hurts. To equate the two is ridiculous, one is clearly far worse no matter how hard Bill Maher doesn't care for religion.
Not all religious people are like that. Not all atheists are like that either. But that is clearly besides the point. It is obvious that the fundies from one side are nowhere near as bad as those from the other side.
I never said what you are claiming I said, I was just pointing out Atheists aren't all roses and sunshine. Take your outrage elsewhere.
0
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Atheists aren't really that kind of group, there is no atheist handbook, or church of atheism, or set of atheist commandments
Give it time, I'm sure there will be one day. Militant atheists can often be just as insufferable as fundamentalist (insert any organized religion here).
Yes, they can. But that isn't what atheism is today, and I doubt it ever will be. It's not that kind of belief structure.
It absolutely is in some cases. I love Bill Maher but his complete rejection to even attempting to be open minded about religion maybe being used for good annoys the hell out of me. There's also Dawkins who regularly has his foot in his mouth. I thought the whole point of rejecting organized religion was to become open minded and thoughtful. A ton of the crazy fundies deserve eye rolls and total dismissal, but there's so many other types of people who would categorize themselves as "religious". The militant atheists I'm talking about also essentially take offense to practices as harmless as spirituality.
I am sure you find Bill Maher just as annoying as people trying to criminalize abortion and oppress gay people and I applaud your open mindedness in that.
You're kind of proving my point with nonsense like this, that it has to only be one way or the other. Pigeonholing all religious people in with those assholes is pure, mindless ignorance.
That is not at all what I did. What I'm pointing out is that these militant religious people you find just as insufferable as militant atheists are actively engaged in oppressing others in a way that hurts. To equate the two is ridiculous, one is clearly far worse no matter how hard Bill Maher doesn't care for religion.
Not all religious people are like that. Not all atheists are like that either. But that is clearly besides the point. It is obvious that the fundies from one side are nowhere near as bad as those from the other side.
I never said what you are claiming I said, I was just pointing out Atheists aren't all roses and sunshine. Take your outrage elsewhere.
...
you literally said just as insufferable in your first post. It's up in the quote tree.
Atheists aren't really that kind of group, there is no atheist handbook, or church of atheism, or set of atheist commandments
Give it time, I'm sure there will be one day. Militant atheists can often be just as insufferable as fundamentalist (insert any organized religion here).
Yes, they can. But that isn't what atheism is today, and I doubt it ever will be. It's not that kind of belief structure.
It absolutely is in some cases. I love Bill Maher but his complete rejection to even attempting to be open minded about religion maybe being used for good annoys the hell out of me. There's also Dawkins who regularly has his foot in his mouth. I thought the whole point of rejecting organized religion was to become open minded and thoughtful. A ton of the crazy fundies deserve eye rolls and total dismissal, but there's so many other types of people who would categorize themselves as "religious". The militant atheists I'm talking about also essentially take offense to practices as harmless as spirituality.
I am sure you find Bill Maher just as annoying as people trying to criminalize abortion and oppress gay people and I applaud your open mindedness in that.
You're kind of proving my point with nonsense like this, that it has to only be one way or the other. Pigeonholing all religious people in with those assholes is pure, mindless ignorance.
That is not at all what I did. What I'm pointing out is that these militant religious people you find just as insufferable as militant atheists are actively engaged in oppressing others in a way that hurts. To equate the two is ridiculous, one is clearly far worse no matter how hard Bill Maher doesn't care for religion.
Not all religious people are like that. Not all atheists are like that either. But that is clearly besides the point. It is obvious that the fundies from one side are nowhere near as bad as those from the other side.
I never said what you are claiming I said, I was just pointing out Atheists aren't all roses and sunshine. Take your outrage elsewhere.
...
you literally said just as insufferable in your first post. It's up in the quote tree.
I wasn't talking in terms of the absolute highest levels of fundie madness that you were, simply in the ideology of shutting out all opposing viewpoints. It's annoying on both sides, but yes, the other side has obviously reached far worse levels of awfulness. If Dawkins is the worst Atheism has produced then it is indeed roses in comparison, but that still doesn't make them beyond all reproach.
Posts
Yeah, and Micheal Brown was probably shot over a box of cigars.
As a side note, I think that all atheists are partly to blame for this, until moderate atheists everywhere denounce this attack. What is it about atheism that causes terrorism?
Oh you
The part about the moderate atheist denouncement is obviously a reductio ad absurdum of those who insist that a climate of silent approval exists within the Muslim community and that moderate Muslims should denounce the extremist acts rather than staying silent.
An obviously false equivalence with this situation.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Unless the assertion is there are two layers of irony/sarcasm, where the use of the reductio is itself ironic and a criticism of that specific equivalence...
In which case it's too many layers of irony for me, being ironic about being ironic.
It's irny all the way down!
Shooting in Copenhagen at a free speech debate. The French ambassador to Denmark, and Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks, who faces death threats for having drawn caricatures of Mohammed in the past, were present.
Three police officers were wounded and there are reports of one dead. Both the French ambassador and the cartoonist are unharmed. The two attackers have fled and are still at large.
No true athiest, but all true Muslims, etc, etc, etc, warblegarble.
Give it time, I'm sure there will be one day. Militant atheists can often be just as insufferable as fundamentalist (insert any organized religion here).
yeah, no
atheism is just a single line. "there is no god"
while I think religion is brain poison, everyone is allowed to poison their brain all they like
just keep mine out of it
It's right at the centre of the "debate" about religion vs science. Nevermind that the two can co-exist just fine.
Basically, overzealous geese.
Atheism is the rejection of traditions and memes thousands of years old, the idea that maybe this one thing doesn't need to be the way it always used to.
At its core stands "don't believe"
It's a bit harder to co-opt into a meme of its own because of that, but it's probably not impossible to get some sort of "institutionalized atheism"
Which is why I think a better creed whould be "think further"
Yes, they can. But that isn't what atheism is today, and I doubt it ever will be. It's not that kind of belief structure.
Given the staggeringly large number of widiotic actions being undertaken by the US's religious right- I don't think that atheists are zealous enough collectively. Failure to engage the crazies with anything more aggressive than an eyeroll is a big part of how the US center has slid so far right in the last 30 years or so.
It absolutely is in some cases. I love Bill Maher but his complete rejection to even attempting to be open minded about religion maybe being used for good annoys the hell out of me. There's also Dawkins who regularly has his foot in his mouth. I thought the whole point of rejecting organized religion was to become open minded and thoughtful. A ton of the crazy fundies deserve eye rolls and total dismissal, but there's so many other types of people who would categorize themselves as "religious". The militant atheists I'm talking about also essentially take offense to practices as harmless as spirituality.
Militant atheists are to militant Muslims (or Christians), as radical liberals are to radical conservatives in the US. Sure, there is a bunch of crazy and jackassery on all sides, but only one side is an actual violent threat that constantly engages in threats of violence, prepares for violence, and often engages in violence. Furthermore only one side is actually organized, while the organizing the other side is like herding cats that are constantly fighting each other.
Atheism's problems are general douchebaggery, arrogance, snark, smug, and punching down the social class structure for shits and giggles. Which isn't shocking. Atheists are largely well off, educated, white guys, or holier than thou type liberals. Violence just really isn't in the majority DNA of the group, it's largely about rejecting social norms and standard belief systems... not fighting to keep them ingrained in a world which continually views fundamental parts of them (female subjugation, slavery, evolution, science) as utterly moronic and out of step with facts. Atheism certainly has it's share of sociopaths and genuinely vicious assholes. But they tend to be like Maher and Dawkins who largely enjoy mentally tormenting and humiliating their inferiors rather than rounding up and enslaving people or killing them in accordance with the teachings of a sacred book from ancient history.
Offending the most extreme atheists "beliefs and values" (which isn't even a thing, it's a rejection of beliefs) isn't as likely to end up getting you killed as it is a religious fundamentalists.
Are we confused about what we mean by "fundamentalist" and "militant" here? We're not talking about fundamentalist Quakers here. Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins don't advocate that religious people be put to the death for ... reverse-blasphemy. I mean, I'm a fundamentalist justice-ist, but that's not the same thing as a fundamentalist Wahabist.
Similarly, Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins are militant atheists, in that they are combative about atheism; they are not militant atheists in that they do not LITERALLY ENGAGE IN COMBAT for atheism.
Da fuq is this false equivalency theatre here?
I am sure you find Bill Maher just as annoying as people trying to criminalize abortion and oppress gay people and I applaud your open mindedness in that.
You're kind of proving my point with nonsense like this, that it has to only be one way or the other. Pigeonholing all religious people in with those assholes is pure, mindless ignorance.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
El.
Oh.
El.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
Huh, took another look.
Just realized it's satirical.
Granted, but being a smug piece of shit is not the same as selling people into slavery or killing them.
Atheists don't really go around bombing baptist mega churches. Or making death threats to those who believe in some sort off odd reverse blasphemy tactic.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
Not going to waste my time arguing over semantics, this is stupid. I was referring to the segment of Atheists I was talking about in the first place. Most of them are ok, but the assholes are getting worse. This idea that you can't criticize them because they're fighting the good fight or whatever is so so dumb.
Well, you're half right,
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
That is not at all what I did. What I'm pointing out is that these militant religious people you find just as insufferable as militant atheists are actively engaged in oppressing others in a way that hurts. To equate the two is ridiculous, one is clearly far worse no matter how hard Bill Maher doesn't care for religion.
Not all religious people are like that. Not all atheists are like that either. But that is clearly besides the point. It is obvious that the fundies from one side are nowhere near as bad as those from the other side.
I never said what you are claiming I said, I was just pointing out Atheists aren't all roses and sunshine. Take your outrage elsewhere.
...
you literally said just as insufferable in your first post. It's up in the quote tree.
Far more important is how large a portion of that group is composed of jerks and how much power those jerks wield.
Not serious at all, hence the warblegarble.
I wasn't talking in terms of the absolute highest levels of fundie madness that you were, simply in the ideology of shutting out all opposing viewpoints. It's annoying on both sides, but yes, the other side has obviously reached far worse levels of awfulness. If Dawkins is the worst Atheism has produced then it is indeed roses in comparison, but that still doesn't make them beyond all reproach.