<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
On 02/03/2020 22:49, William Flynn Wallace wrote:<br>
problem with state atheism as an example of militant actions is
that atheism is not the cause of the actions.</blockquote>
This is exactly my point, which I don't feel that Guilio is getting.
Atheism in itself, does not produce or encourage, or suggest in any
way, any behaviour that could be called 'extreme', 'fundamentalist'
or 'militant'. Or anything else, for that matter. This is why I'm
saying there is no such thing, <i>can't</i> be any such thing, as
Equating people who are violent, coercive, etc., and happen to be
atheists, with people who are violent, coercive, etc. <i>because of</i><i>
</i><i>their religion</i> is false. There are very many examples of
religious fundamentalists, but none of atheist 'fundamentalists'.
It's a nonsensical concept (as I've said, I <i>really really</i>,
furiously, in the extreme and with a passion, don't play football.
How does this distinguish me from someone who merely doesn't play
football? That's right, Not at all. It's a ridiculous thing to say
(note: I'm not saying I hate football. I don't. I don't care about
it one way or the other, I'm just not interested, and don't play it.
I also don't think that football has any place in government or the
law, that nobody should be required to play it, whether they want to
or not, or judged by their ability at it or attitude towards it, and
that it should not be given special preference over other sports, or
that players should have any special privileges over other people)).<br>
I did ask for examples of this atheism-driven fundamentalism, and
examples of the "the arguments of atheists against believers" that
"can be redirected at the atheists themselves, who often behave
exactly like fundamentalist believers", but so far have got nothing
except that irrelevant link to State Mandated Atheism. What's the
difference between that, and for example, State Mandated Islam? The
latter is driven (certainly in many cases, if not all) by the
religion itself. Is the former driven by the dictates of atheism
(what are they? does anyone know?*)? Or is it driven by the
controlling tendencies and political convictions of the people in
power? I think we know the answer to that.<br>
* I do! But there's only one. And it's hardly a 'dictate', it's just
a definition. You don't believe in gods. That's it. Nothing else
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--