Do you see the difference?

You say paedophilia fits with evolution and therefore should be legal. By definition, paedophilia is sex with a child. Children cannot become pregnant so this is nonsense. But by the same reasoning, presumably you must think any rape should be legal?

However, it’s still true to say that all irrational belief systems deserve equal amounts of scorn and derision, and just as much fun is derived poking fun at Xtian nonsense as at Muslim. I think your point might be that there are many more Xtians who would see the humour in J & M than there are Muslims who would.

Perhaps author could take the p*** out of Mormons & Witlesses a bit more … not to mention Tom Cruise & John Travolta (another duo??) that would balance things out for me

The point is not whether an individual believes or unbelieves. The point is if the person imposes his belief on someone else through power and force, such as a minor. I really don’t care if the person believes or not, as long as its kept to the person.

What I see are many unbelieving atheists who will never criticize religion, god, the prophet or superstition, as long as it is held by disadvantaged groups (hint hint), and never care that such superstition is forced upon others in their group. These so-called atheists actually do not care if the believer imposes his belief on others such as minors and try to indoctrinate them to their faith through power.

But if the believer happens to keep his belief private, but does not belong to a victim-group, then the atheist gets himself into a knot as to why the individual is an irrational believer.

Its a bit more complex than you think. This type of atheists are the “neo-progressive” kind and are betraying atheism or maybe rather secularism, and the enlightenment of society.

A true atheist or shall we say secularist is one that looks at the empirical fact of indoctrination, and not at the rational state of belief. There is no way you can prove a person a believer or unbeliver. So get off the back of the individual and look at the group dynamics.

In this sense, secularism is a lot more interesting and meaningful than atheism.

So the “neo-progressive” is a non-secular atheist.

“divisiveness” — the most devisive is the “neo-progressive” atheist that actually accepts Islam for others and enables it.

Absolutely. It’s as simple as that.

Never said atheists believe in god(s). But the neo-progressive atheist thinks its OK for a believing group to believe in a crap like god(s).

That is the difference between a real atheist, and a neo-progressive atheist.”

no i read it fine thank you, i’m aware you never said anything about ahtiests beliveing on god(s).
but i just find this idea that there are “neo-progressive atheists” and “true atheists” to be a bit pointless and silly.
an atheist is a person who does not believe in any kind of god or gods. that is what an atheist is, that is what atheisim means.
any wider opinions on the role of faith in the world etc etc, added onto that are just your personal politics, there is no point in classifying them as different types of athiesm other than to be pointlessly devisive.

You misread. Read again. I said a “true atheist KNOWS the issue with religion …”

Never said atheists believe in god(s). But the neo-progressive atheist thinks its OK for a believing group to believe in a crap like god(s).

That is the difference between a real atheist, and a neo-progressive atheist.

Your reference to ’somebody’s homo-erotic fantasy’ is peurile and juvenile. If it’s based on fact, provide a link to show that was the intention of their being there.

no, a true athiest is a person who doesn’t believe in a god or gods.

why some feel the need to overcomplicate that be beyond me.

So you are saying, lets take revenge on Xtianity for its past – even when it has disavowed it in many ways? And you say lets take some preventive measures against Xtianity, for further insurance, by beating what is essentially a dying horse. And to equate South Carolina to Tehran is an act of moral equivalence and dissonance. In South Carolina, the state will protect you, even though it may be riskier than New York City in this regard. But in Tehran, the state will disappear you.

A true atheist knows that the issue with religion is not the personal god – but its sociopolitical impact. But the neo-progressive has no concern on Islam’s sociopolitical impact, but seems to have a problem with Xtians maintaining an irrational personal belief system in Jesus – hence wanting to rub their nose in it.

So the neo-progressive can’t stand Xtianity because it has reformed into a personal god. But Islam which is a communal religion gets a passing grade because it does not have a personal god that warrants attack. This is religious atheism, as opposed to enlightened secularism – where the person is attacked for his belief, while the community mired in religious oppression, superstition, and obscurantism goes scott free cause “we should not be insulting group feelings”.

As you know, the argument between rationalism and empiricism has long been settled in favor of empiricism. I say:

“go to the city square in London and in Tehran, and shout “F*** god (allah)”. See what happens. Report back, if at all possible.

That will be a quick lesson for our rationalistic equators.

There are more accidents when drivers are turning at intersections and roundabouts than on the straight-aways. We need to get these straight people more in touch with their gay skills. Suggestions?