On 1/2/2012 7:53 AM, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott<sel### [at] npgcablecom>  wrote:
>> Yep. The thing being that, not that long ago, they would have said the
>> same thing about each other. There was a poll some time back which
>> basically placed the trustworthiness of rapists higher than that of
>> atheists...
>
>    I wonder at what point atheists became the big monsters. I'm assuming
> it was somewhere around when communists stopped being so scary.
>
Generally, they equate them. All the time, even back when communists 
where the "biggie". The reason being, unfortunately, that to appose the 
church, you have to either a) pick one that will support your tyranny, 
or b) appose all of them. Its gotten.. slightly more complicated to pick 
the first one, so... by definition, if you want to be a dictator, the 
easiest way to do so is to also claim you think they should all be banned.

So, its understandable that, now that its hard to find a communist 
threat, atheists get nailed instead. But, as someone pointed out, with 
respect to their own view on the matter, and which I agree with, the 
goal of atheists isn't necessarily to get rid of religion, or conquer 
anyone. The main goal is to be made irrelevant, and so long as wackos 
insist that stupid shit, that doesn't work, contradicts reality, etc., 
especially claims about gods, persist, apposing such nonsense isn't 
irrelevant.

However, if everyone gave up on gods, most would still be skeptics.

>> And, they will mention Buddhists, sometimes, only, I think they
>> understand what those are about as well as they understand evolution.
>> lol Buddhist is, in a sense, atheism that never gave up the
>> supernatural
>
>    By the strict definition of atheism, buddhists are atheists. That's
> because they don't believe in any gods (in the theistic sense). AFAIK
> in buddhism the question of where the universe and life came from is
> irrelevant, and one shouldn't bother oneself with such inconsequential
> questions.
>
Yeah, but since when have the religious ever used the strict definition 
for anything? They even redefine there own words, based on context, 
depending on whether its convenient, embarrassing, or fight inducing. 
Definitions of what things are, when it comes of faith and spirituality, 
are entirely mercurial in their hands, and purely situational.

Post a reply to this message