The Atheists Who Would Silence You

[rug]

October 8, 2014
Posted by Jack Vance at 6:37 AM

- snip -

The religious extremists want to make it a crime to say what you say: blasphemy. They are willing to punish you for insulting their sacred cows. Depending on the country in which you live, the sort of punishment they have in mind could involve taking your life. It may be an exercise of state power, or it may take the form of mob violence.

- snip -

But it isn't just the religious believers who want to silence you. As strange as it sounds, some of those who want to silence you are atheists. And sadly, they rely on a secular version of the processes the religious liberals and moderates use to punish you and to justify their actions. They claim offense, blame you for causing the offense, and then bring to bear tremendous social pressures aimed at silencing you. Failure to conform will be met with an intentional process of marginalization. Like the religious liberals and moderates, these atheists will attempt to damage your reputation, status, and standing (e.g., public encouragement of widespread shunning, labeling you a "psychopath" or an "MRA" when you dare to express viewpoints contrary to their own). They too will lean heavily on public shaming and social disapproval. And if you do not bend to their will, they too will try to harm your livelihood, turn others against you, and so on.

- snip -

When the religious believer seeking to silence you tells you that your refusal to hold your tongue makes you a bad person, you laugh it off. You recognize how ridiculous this is, and while you may respect the right of the religious believer to his or her beliefs, you are not going to let yourself be silenced by this absurd notion that the beliefs themselves deserve so much respect that they are off limits to criticism or disagreement. And yet, when the atheist seeking to silence you tells you that your refusal to refrain from criticizing his or her bad ideas makes you "a misogynist" or "one of my harassers," you may feel the need to justify yourself in ways you never would to the religious believer. Perhaps this is unnecessary.

Atheists who seek to stifle the expression of dissent and disagreement in the public forum of the Internet have not only divorced themselves from the skeptical movement; they have divorced themselves from freethought itself. By joining those religious believers who seek to protect their cherished beliefs from criticism and who treat people poorly for daring to express disagreement, they have abandoned freethought and allied themselves with the forces of repression. They have become the agents of intolerance they claim to oppose.

http://www.atheistrev.com/2014/10/the-atheists-who-would-silence-you.html#ixzz3FwGpRO2R

I don't know where this guy stands on particular issues but he's nailed the tactics.

[bvf]

1. Can I help it if I think

believers are deluded? I'm willing to let them say whatever they want, as long as it doesn't attempt to affect anyone's civil rights.

What atheists want to "stifle dissent"?

Sorry, as an atheist I'm too busy attacking peoples' beliefs to get to the link, assuming the answer's there.

[cbayer]

2. No, I'm sure you can not help it.

The same way that people that think that GLBT people are perverted can't help it. I guess they are ok too as long as they don't attempt to stifle anyone's civil rights.

Or are they? Is saying that in public or posting about it in a place where others can see it in itself harmful?

Can those that hold those kinds of prejudices be educated into dropping them?

Your last statement makes no sense. There is nothing inherent in being an atheist that lead to attacking people's beliefs, that's just you. And if it's taking so much of your time that you can't even read this article, the answers to my question above are clear.

[bvf]

4. I did read the article since posting.

I expected to see a name or two as examples of guilty parties.

I didn't see any save for in the comments.

And what the hell does any of this have to do with LGBT rights, anyway?

[cbayer]

6. I only brought up LGBT rights as another example of prejudice.

When you make pejorative judgements about whole groups of people, you have to expect to sometimes get challenged with similar examples that you would most likely reject.

Guilty parties? Have you not seen this even here?

[bvf]

8. I don't think calling someone deluded

is pejorative. That's a judgment on their thinking--not on who they are. The LGBT community did not arise through childhood indoctrination, nor do people choose a sexual orientation. Do you agree with that?

[cbayer]

9. No, it's meant as a compliment right?

So why don't you tell me how calling people deluded is not disparaging or disapproving. And then tell me how you can attack someone's thinking and somehow separate that from who they are.

You make assumptions about all religious people that have no basis in fact. In fact, the argument could be made that religious belief or lack of belief is not a choice.

Could you choose to be a believer? I doubt it.

Please don't hit yourself in the head on my account. It might knock something loose, but I am sure we can find less painful ways to help you move away from your prejudices.

[bvf]

10. I cheerfully await your answer to my question.

Surely such distinctions aren't lost on you.

Did you choose your shoe size? When did you decide on your other genetic attributes?

Were you born with your beliefs?

Discuss. I'm going for coffee.

[cbayer]

12. Be of good cheer! No, I do not think sexual orientation is a choice.

And, as I pointed out, I'm not convinced that for everyone religious beliefs or lack of beliefs are a choice. Would you agree? Could you choose to be a believer?

I think I was born without beliefs. Although I was "indoctrinated", as you call it, for all of my childhood, I don't have any specific religious beliefs. I highly value my "indoctrination", by the way, just couldn't adopt the beliefs.

Discussion involves more than one. Surely such distinctions aren't lost on you.

Hope you had a nice coffee. I'm doing chai today.

[AlbertCat]

13. I didn't see any save for in the comments.

How did I know that was gonna be the case before I even got to the comments here?????

I must be psychic!


Another screed by someone who thinks they know what atheists do and think.... but of course don't. Posted by someone desperate to find something "wrong" with atheism..... again.....

[cbayer]

14. Are you familiar with the author of this article?

[rug]

21. Read by someone desperate to ignore something "wrong" with atheism..... again.....

[AlbertCat]

32. Read by someone desperate to ignore something "wrong" with atheism..... again.....

Said the guy who posts 63,104 posts! Sooooo silenced! Sooooo oppressed!

Poor poor put upon Christians! They just can't get a break!


Except a tax break of course!

[rug]

50. My, an explosion of smileys. That must smart.

[rug]

20. I don't know, can you?

It's a pretty stupid position to take but maybe you just can't help yourself.

[bvf]

29. I see.

Anyone who questions your beliefs is stupid. Am I reading you right?

[cbayer]

39. There is a huge gap between questioning someone's beliefs and calling them deluded.

Do you not see that?

And calling all religious people deluded is stupid.

[bvf]

42. Semantics. Nothing more. n/t

[cbayer]

47. Much more, but saying it's just semantics is a lame and easy way out.

[bvf]

53. Semantics. Sputter away.

Your calling it lame doesn't make it so.

Maybe you should explain your interpretation of "challenge" then. In this particular context I take it to mean a demand for justification on evidence.

[cbayer]

54. Substance, please. Any kind of substance.

Nighty night.

[bvf]

56. That has to be the world record

for most self-referential post.

I explained my interpretation. Yours must be different if you expect to explain what you mean by "huge gap" back there.

[cbayer]

72. World record for self-referential?

I don't think that means what ou think it means.

If you truly can not see the difference between challenging or questioning someone's POV and calling them deluded for holding that POV, then I have a better understanding of why you can't "help" your prejudicial position.

[bvf]

91. Over your head again.

You have yet to say what "challenge" means to you.

Explain that huge gap you mentioned.

[cbayer]

92. Over my head?

What is it with your need to portray me as stupid?

Challenging is a very legitimate thing to do. To me it means asking probing questions and presenting information that might raise other questions about what someone believes. It is generally civil and done with a modicum of respect. It implies participation from both parties and a debate.

Calling someone delusional simply dismisses their beliefs as nonsense at best and illness at worst. It does not involve asking questions and is decidedly one sided. It is generally very uncivil and done without any respect.

That's the huge gap.

Can you explain to me your definitions that would make those two things more or less equivalent?

[bvf]

96. I already told you my interpretation

of "challenge."

To be deluded is to be deceived or otherwise misled.

My position is that most believers fall into that category, and generally cannot see it because most of them have been so deceived from a very early age--well before they figure out Santa and the tooth fairy.

This isn't meant disrespectfully. Is a Santa-believing four-year-old deluded? You bet. The fact that he or she hasn't yet acquired the reasoning power to comprehend that is beside the point.

And I have no desire to portray you as stupid. Dodging questions directed to your assertions about the bible doesn't help your cause; neither does a sarcastic response to someone pointing our your faulty logic when you employ it to dismiss a statement you don't agree with
.

[cbayer]

99. Yes, I realize that it is your belief that most believers are deceived and misled.

Glad you clarified that you also think they are blind and helpless.

It can not be considered as anything other than disrespectful and very arrogant. Your description sounds as if you consider them as children who are just not as mature or enlightened as you. Hopefully they will achieve the level or reasoning power and comprehension as you have and be saved.

If you don't wish to portray me as stupid, then stop making ignorant comments that I can't understand things. It's lame.

I have no cause other than to challenge prejudice and bigotry. I could do that by calling people deluded, but that is really not very effective.

There is no where else to go with this. You may have the last word if you like, but I am finished with this conversation.

[bvf]

100. OK

"If you don't wish to portray me as stupid, then stop making ignorant comments that I can't understand things. It's lame."

Pointing out a logical flaw in your response to another poster was hardly ignorant. The same can probably not be said of your "Oh, you're so much smarter than me" (I'm paraphrasing, but I think that's an accurate description) response.

"I have no cause other than to challenge prejudice and bigotry. I could do that by calling people deluded, but that is really not very effective."

Your thing seems to be dismissive sarcasm and faux self-deprecation.

"Glad you clarified that you also think they are blind and helpless."

So your parting response is to falsely put words in someone else's mouth and skedaddle. Another exceptional idea. I said nothing about helplessness, nor did I say anything about blindness. Not being able to see the Taj Mahal from Connecticut doesn't make one blind--just in the wrong place.

[rug]

51. Not in the least. Stupid exists entirely independently.

[bvf]

59. Yes, it obviously does. n/t

[rug]

65. QED

[bvf]

95. I don't think you understand how that works. n/t

[Silent3]

3. Those tactics, done to varying degrees, are common to all social movements, both good and bad

Racism, sexism, and homophobia have all been attacked using "public shaming and social disapproval" -- and that's a good thing.

There are, of course, both more honest and fair, and less honest and fair, ways to deploy those tactics, but no one gets anywhere without them. We do not live in a world where purely rational dispassionate discourse ever holds much sway. Show me a social movement that completely shuns the use of emotional appeals and social pressure, and I'll show you a movement that's stuck at the fringes of public awareness, going nowhere fast.

The only things I'd truly call "silencing" another person are restrictions given the force of law, or other intimidation like threats of violence. No one has an inherent right to a warm, welcoming reception for their beliefs and opinions.

[cbayer]

7. These are really good points and I agree to a large extent.

I think there is a need for those who are willing to kick down the door and be fairly outrageous in order to get things started within social movements.

But at some point, those tactics may become counterproductive and alienating. It's sometimes a hard call to know when to challenge them.

[pinto]

24. ACT UP is a good example of using the most effective approach in its time.

They were literally vital in the effort to bring awareness, media attention, social activism and care & treatment efforts to what was happening. And being overlooked by many in the US. They opened the door, thankfully. As did Ryan White, sadly.

Other groups and eventually governmental bodies picked up the pace. Organizational systems were put in place, legislators were lobbied and federal dollars finally went out via the Ryan White Care Act.

[cbayer]

25. Great example, but at certain points they

became a liability and needed to back off a little.

[pinto]

26. Agree.

[okasha]

30. Excellent example.

Another good one is AIM--American Indian Movement. The siege at Wounded Knee drew attention to political corruption, intra-tribal violence encouraged by the FBI and other agencies allegedly protecting the people on the Pine Ridge Reservation, and their terrible poverty.

[Fumesucker]

5. Interesting that the two quotes in the excerpt sounds more like feminist speech than atheist

And yet, when the atheist seeking to silence you tells you that your refusal to refrain from criticizing his or her bad ideas makes you "a misogynist" or "one of my harassers," you may feel the need to justify yourself in ways you never would to the religious believer. Perhaps this is unnecessary.

That doesn't sound a lot like something an atheist would say driven by their atheism, perhaps sexism.

Were the religious people being sexist toward a female atheist?

[Feral Child]

61. RPs are sexist?

How dare you!?

[AtheistCrusader]

11. "and then bring to bear tremendous social pressures aimed at silencing you" This is called

'Sunlight is a disinfectant'.


"When the religious believer seeking to silence you tells you that your refusal to hold your tongue makes you a bad person, you laugh it off."

Unless it's getting thrown in jail, or worse for blasphemy.

[LeftishBrit]

17. Actually on looking at the blog which is apparently by an atheist...

it may just as likely be sneering at female atheists who have complained of the sexist attitudes of some prominent male atheists.

Note that it's almost impossible to distinguish the style of an atheist defender of sexism from that of a religious defender of sexism: only the blog title gives the clue.

A plague on all sexists, whatever the religion or other belief!

[enki23]

45. That whole rant was obviously directed at people who won't shut up about misogynist assholery

Cry for the atheists-who-are-also-misogynist-assholes, for they are very sad that you call them misogynist assholes and wreck their freedom with your vocal disapproval of assholes and your anti-freedom anti- sexual-assault protocols at conferences and stuff. It's all very sad and run-on like that, I'm told. Because freedom.

Then again, yesterday I helped pass a law to make it a misdemeanor to be a stupid dudebro asshole in public and to add something about the evils of MRAs to the public school earth science curriculum, so I guess he has a point.

[LeftishBrit]

15. Nobody (well, nobody outside of governments in places like China) is trying to silence religious

people.


The implication here is that criticizing or disagreeing vigorously with someone is 'silencing' them. It's not. In some situations, it may be impolite, but it is not the same thing as 'censorship'.

And it is not clear whether this post really has much to do with atheism vs religion anyway. What he really seems to be complaining about is being criticized by feminists, given that his complaints are not about the danger of being called a 'theocrat' or 'fundie' or any of the things a religious believer might worry about, but about being called a 'misogynist' or 'MRA member' etc.

[AlbertCat]

33. Nobody (well, nobody outside of governments in places like China) is trying to silence religious

Shhhhhhhhhhh

You'll disturb their persecution complex.

[mmonk]

16. Debate is not on the same plane with influencing the state, pushing legal descrimination,

seeking special political status, seeking war or violence, blocking access to public office, etc.

[MisterP]

19. it might be more accurate to say they're driven by technocracy

which indubitably is hand-in-glove with the state, elitist, exclusivist (i.e., you can vote, but it won't matter), and lives off war (Raytheon absolutely has an ideology)

[Cartoonist]

18. About Jack Vance

He got this right, from the second paragraph:
The religious extremists want to make it a crime to say what you say: blasphemy.
-
See the replies to my post God Only Knows
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218156266
-

Now I want to talk about the REAL Jack Vance, not this asshole who uses his name.
Jack Vance is my favorite writer of science fiction. I paid over a thousand dollars for a collection of his complete works even though I couldn't afford it. I sadly had to turn around and sell it within a year. I suppose Jack is one of this guy's favorites as well in order for him to use his name. I've done it too when signing up online using a false identity.

I was fortunate to have dinner with Jack and his wife once. It was at that dinner when Jack told me that joke about Jesus and Mary (I'm glad you liked that one, rug). Jack has a very subtle and devious sense of humor, and no use for religion except as a target for ridicule. He creates worlds and societies rich with color and personality. My favorite story by him is The Moon Moth. If I were to compile a list of the greatest SF novels of all-time, most of them would be by Jack.

If you are familiar with him, you know what I am talking about. I write this so that those who don't know Jack, don't get this guy confused with the Master.

Jack Vance
1916 – 2013

[rug]

22. The Jack Vance who wrote this is alive and well.

https://plus.google.com/117256338921056963789/posts

[Cartoonist]

23. I figured that out

I suppose it is possible that Jack Vance is his real name, it's not that unusual. I just wanted to prevent people from confusing the two. And I can see why someone who is an atheist can relate to Jack Vance, the writer of SF.

[truebrit71]

27. Yeah, it's the atheists that bring "tremendous social pressure"...

You know, because they're just so unified and organized. ..

[Feral Child]

62. And they're the Majority, truebrit!

Don't forget that Christians are the underdogs, beaten into submission by the hordes of Atheists and their mighty organizations.

I only found out last week that we have Leaders that are authorized to speak for all atheists. And an actual Dogma. Next we'll have to tithe...

[rug]

66. You don't read very carefully, do you?

The article points out how, within certain atheist communities, heterodoxy is shunned.

If you don't believe this, count how many atheist posters are blocked right here in the A&A group.

[cbayer]

67. This is exactly the point and the one that the purists can not or will not see.

This kind of rigid insistence on doing and saying and believing only the right things is patterned entirely after the most fundamentalist religious institutions.

[rug]

68. It's rank hypocrisy.

BTW, by my count the majority of posters, 7 of 12, blocked from the A&A group are atheists.

[cbayer]

70. But those who blocked and cheer the blocks will insist that they

are not true atheists. Some will even claim that they are liars.

The bottom line is that they are not the "right" kind of atheist. But most of the atheists that visit this site are not the right kind of atheist and wouldn't go anywhere near that group.

Even here, there is a person stating that she is a tolerant and nonjudgmental atheist and she is expecting to get flamed for it.

People know what is going on here. It's a very small, but very loud group that are running that particular show.

[rug]

71. Liars or disruptors.

Of course, disagreement with the juvenile antitheist crap, along with routine personal attacks on DUers, that's often peddled there is considered to be prima facie evidence of disruption.

[truebrit71]

76. "It's a very small, but very loud group that are running that particular show."

Project much?

[cbayer]

77. I try not to. What about that do you see as projection?

There is no other group similar to the one I describe here and I am not a member of any group that you might have imagined.

[truebrit71]

79. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight....

...

[cbayer]

83. Brilliant and so, so succinct!

[truebrit71]

73. Ah, yes, more of that 'fundamentalist atheist' bullshit you like to spew...

...

[cbayer]

81. No, it is you that spews the fundamentalist atheist bullshit.

[truebrit71]

85. Um. No. Not remotely.

Fundamentalist atheism is not a thing.

[cbayer]

86. Well, again, the fact that you don't recognize does not mean it doesn't exist.

And I didn't make the term up.

I can understand why you would want to reject it, but I would point out that if you want to see an instance of projection, you need look no further than this.

[truebrit71]

75. "Atheist communities"...

Wait, we have communities now? Which ones, the ones like the Amish, without the cool beards and buggies?

[cbayer]

78. Have you completely missed the growing number of non-believer groups

that have sunday meetings? It originated in the UK and has grown very substantially.

I know it's hard to imagine that there may be communities when you are not a part of them, but they do exist.

[truebrit71]

82. Oh, you mean all of those atheist churches that keep popping up everywhere...

...in never-never land?

Those communities?

[cbayer]

84. You really need to keep up.

It looks terribly foolish for you to deny the existence of something that exists.

[Kalidurga]

28. I would feel sorry for persecuted theists

except that is something they are supposed to welcome.

[okasha]

31. No, dear, it's not.

As a Native American Traditional, I belong to a faith that has only recently been relatively free from persecution by governmental agencies. I think Jews have probably had enough, too.

[Kalidurga]

35. Sorry I forgot the /sarc

I don't think people should target other people for their beliefs that are harmless regardless what they are. If someone says they are waiting for the Great Pumpkin, I am okay with that. If someone says that my gay daughter should be jailed and executed, we got problems.

[okasha]

38. Totally agree.

[cbayer]

34. Say what? Where do you get that idea?

[Kalidurga]

36. Bible

[cbayer]

37. The bible says that christians welcome persecution?

Where does it say that?

[Kalidurga]

40. I haven't read that book in a couple decades now, but...

The church I went to for years preached it. Turn the other cheek, people will make fun of you, it's an opportunity to change hearts etc...

[cbayer]

41. I don't think turning the other cheek really has to do with welcoming

persecution but more to do with avoiding retaliation.

Anyway, I read your other posts and think you did not mean to come across as I initially read you.

[Kalidurga]

43. I am neurologically atypical so I really do have a tendency to forget sarc tags

It's worse in real life, but no matter. The church I went to said that persecution was a sign of Revelation coming about so we really were supposed to welcome it, not bring it about, but to understand it was part of the plan.

[cbayer]

48. I love that term "neurologically atypical"

and I am not being sarcastic in any way.

If you are comfortable, I would be most interested in knowing what that means.

I have seen you around and always come away with a very positive feeling, so I do not want to offend you.

I am sincerely interested in what you have to say, Kalidurga, and hope we have the opportunity to talk again in the future.

[Kalidurga]

55. I haven't been diagnosed by a professional

but, my history and the way I am with people strongly suggests Aspergers. It is totally not what I thought it was new research suggests a hypersensitivity to the world rather than a lack of empathy. Even without that diagnosis though I have a lot a whole lot in common with people on the spectrum so much so that it's merely splitting hairs to say I don't have it that it's something else.

It would totally explain my problems with being able to connect with people.

[cbayer]

63. Hypersensitivity to the world is a great description.

If it helps you understand how you interact with the world, that makes sense to me.

Thanks for sharing that.

[bvf]

44. Here

http://www.openbible.info/topics/persecution

Romans 5:3 is especially pithy, as is 1 Peter 4:14.

[cbayer]

49. Wait, you are quoting the bible?

Saying that someone will be persecuted is not the same as saying that someone welcomes persecution.

[bvf]

58. Do I have your permission to do that?

Not meaning to step on anyone's toes here.

Your response indicates you might not have read the citations I provided. I didn't bother reading through all one hundred, but I'll guess there are more equally clear counterexamples to your argument, such as it is.

[cbayer]

64. You did a google search, came up wit a list that didn't support your

premise at all and used a book to try and support your premise when you dismiss the book.

And you are trying to teach me something about logic?

[bvf]

93. I'm not trying to teach you anything.

You asked a question and I provided an answer.

You didn't like it and responded in the predictable way.

[cbayer]

94. Predictable way?

See, you think you know me, but you really don't. You think you can predict me because you have created a cartoon character that fits your agenda.

That's unfortunate, but I will continue to be who I am and I suspect you will continue your witch hunt.

Makes no difference to me.

[bvf]

98. I only know what I read.

And "witch hunt" is a questionable term to employ for someone's disagreement with you.

A mite unfair, but again, expected.

[JNelson6563]

87. Matthew 5:10, 11

There are others as well but this is an excellent example.

Julie

[cbayer]

88. Matthew 5:10, 11

Matthew 5:10-11New International Version (NIV)

10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.

Agree that it says that those that are persecuted are blessed, but it doesn't really say they welcome it.

Also blessed are the poor in spirit, those that mourn, those that hunger and thirst for righteousness, but I don't think christians welcome those things.

The difference here is that the poster implied that christians want to be persecuted and I do not believe that is the case.

[bvf]

97. Romans 5:3

More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance


Not sure how you could rejoice in something you didn't welcome.

[rug]

101. Proverbs 18:2

A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.

[bvf]

102. That's nice

but it doesn't seem to have much to do with the question of christians rejoicing in persecution, which is the topic of this subthread.

Understand?

[rug]

105. It has everything to do with the subthread.

Capisce?

[JNelson6563]

103. Agreed.

They don't welcome it but it entitles them to unimaginable rewards. Oy.

That's why I generally avoid this forum. It often reminds of the logic of naming your dog "Stay". Come here Stay!

Julie

[bvf]

104. Thanks.

Someone once said something about leading people, to the effect of, "tell the people they're under attack and brand those that don't come along as traitors."

The OP reminded me of that--especially with its failure to specify beyond "people who don't think like you."

You're darned right Oy.

[bvf]

106. Matthew 5:10, 11 spells it out, for sure.

1 Peter 4:14

"If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you."

Who wouldn't welcome being "blessed"?

Nearby passive-aggressive sorts certainly would seem to, bless them.

[goldent]

46. You don't have to read the DU Religion group very long to learn that

some atheists have a lot of religion in them.

(small r religion)

[Fumesucker]

52. Typically a lot of atheists realize their atheism during the teen years

Depending on your family and cultural situation it can blow your life apart pretty thoroughly if you don't manage to hide it successfully.

That can lead to some fairly severe reactions depending on the individual and the circumstances.

[DesertFlower]

57. i'm an atheist but i don't make a big deal out of it.

only those close to me know it. i just mentioned the other night to a friend who's a christian. her husband is a non practicing jew. he knew it and she suspected. she's accepted it the way i accept her christianity. generally speaking we don't discuss religion or politics.

if you push it you're just as bad as the other religions who push there's.

i'll probably get "flamed". at age 73 i don't really care.

the only time i'll react is if someone tries to push their religion on me.

[longship]

60. That's where I stand.

My atheism is just not an issue 99% of the time. When religion comes up in discussions among friends, I might volunteer my opinion. But that is rare moment and is almost always friendly.

I am generally polite with believers. I don't see it my job to proselytize my atheism. But I will stand up and speak out to those who would try to impose their religious beliefs on others, especially when they use politics or a position in government to do so. Then I can get awfully intolerant of their beliefs.

Regards.

[cbayer]

69. I think you are much more representative of the bulk of atheists

than those that think they have the one way and have as a mission to deconvert believers.

I feel the same way about those who try to push either their beliefs or their lack of beliefs on me.

[truebrit71]

74. Nah, I think the bulk of atheists just hate the passive/aggressive bullshit...

....that emanates from most believers...I think everyone despises the bible-thumping, evangelical assholes, right?

[cbayer]

80. Lol, now you speak for the bulk of atheist while simultaneously denying

the existence of atheist communities.

And in doing so you make a completely unsubstantiated broad brush attack on "most believers" and equate them all with "bible-thumping, evangelical assholes".

You are truly precious.

But I do agree with you about evangelical assholes, whether they be religious or not.

[NaturalHigh]

89. I've gotten used to it.

They have made it clear they have no use for me or those who think for me. I can return the favor without hesitation.

As for silencing me - they don't get to do that, as much as they might want to.

I have plenty of friends who are atheist or agnostic. The reason we're friends is that they don't call me stupid for my beliefs, and I extend to them the same respect.

[cbayer]

90. And that, my friend, is the way I wish it could be across the board.

I hope that someday we will get there, but in the meantime the prejudice on both sides needs to be challenged, imo.