This is the same “we’re not the bad guys yet” argument I’ve already described. And it’s still a pathetic excuse for hateful speech.
Intolerant speech begets intolerant action, even if it’s not always immediately apparent. And if the ignorant idea that theists who aren’t harming others deserve ridicule and scorn becomes accepted, the effects will indeed become apparent, and probably in a violent way. That point still stands even if it won’t be Dawkins waving the guns around.
You’re basing your conjecture on faith. Militant Atheism is a myth.
As far as physical violence goes, yes, it is. For now. Hate speech, which is what anti-theism is, will inevitably snowball into that physical violence. You ignore this point, quite conveniently, for your entire reply.
Militant Islam and militant Christianity are alive and well.
Neither of these two terms exist unless each and every sect of the two religions are indeed militant. If there is even one non-militant Christian or Muslim sect in existence, the terms you’re using are illogical, as your terms imply everyone bound by the same theistic belief is militant.
“We’re not the bad guys yet?” We definitely are. We’re getting arrested in Indonesia for blaspheming Allah. We’re getting stoned in the US for being homosexual. We’re getting fined and executed in Pakistan under the blasphemy laws. We’re being slandered in a free country for supporting gay rights and the choice women should have to abort. We don’t carry guns; we don’t bomb abortion clinics; we don’t strap bombs to ourselves in the name of a false promise; we don’t violate human rights, not even your right to believe unsubstantiated claims.
And you’re diverting from my point. Atheists are not the “bad guys” in a sense of physical atrocities (again, only for the time being). The persecutions of atheists you list are horrific. However, it’s extremely ironic to have atrocities which could have been prevented with some coexistance numbered to me by someone who fights tooth and nail to deny his own responsibility to coexist.
We take a stand against your Gospel; we take a stand against the lies that are perpetuated in order to expand a religion based on human sacrifice.
Why do you insist on putting the burden of proof on yourself? You have no justification for making an absolute claim.
Atheists are already the villains though we don’t deserve the title.
And you could so easily help rectify that situation, but you choose to further the preposterous intolerance which got atheists (and Christians, at other points of history) that undeserved title.
The truth is that militancy rests on the Theist side of the spectrum.
Not if your type of speech continues to gain its platform, it doesn’t.
It has been this way since the Dark Ages. Let us thank humanity for the progress our laws have made. If not for the laws of the New World, the Old World would still have us bleeding in its tyranny.
And plenty of theists helped make this new world possible because they argued for equality through the concept of a species created by a higher power. You can say it was not theism itself which made people fight for equality - and I’d agree with you! Theism is not responsible for much of anything, in fact, no more than science is responsible for the possibility of nuclear war. Both of them are mere vessels for the humanity you credit. It is humanity which has used them as they please.
That’s precisely what makes some Theists pacifists. If not for the laws in the US, Christians who hold up “god hates fags” picket signs would stone them instead.
Funny, I thought theists were only good because of their crazy faith in deities? Interesting, that you propose the opposite - that they obey the secular law as much as any atheist.
If Dawkins is a militant Atheist, you are a militant Christian. You verbally attack the beliefs of others. You use your blog as a channel for intolerance.
Intolerance of intolerance is not intolerance, try again. But that aside, I don’t attack beliefs, even those of anti-theists, even those of you! If you want to think yourself in possession of absolute knowledge that no god exists, if you want to think theists are only stopped from stoning others through the law, go right ahead. I only have a problem when you insist on expressing those views in a way which furthers intolerance among those of different religious beliefs. It’s only the expression I have a problem with, because it’s only the expression which is harmful.
A Theist like yourself is no different from Richard; difference being, Richard is justified in his views. On the other hand, you believe in a lie that parades itself as the absolute truth.
Dawkins is not justified because he needlessly attacks a non-harming party, that of the religion, instead of attacking the harmful doctrines.
And it’s amazing how much you know of my beliefs. I love it when strangers entitle themselves to predicting how I think, especially when those predictions are entirely unfounded. Theists and non-theists alike can logically see the harm of anti-theism, and that’s all I’m doing. It has nothing to do with my faith or lack thereof.
Oh, and there’s little absolute truth involved on the theist side. As the meme goes, “It wouldn’t be called faith if it were based on proof.”
