For more than a few (though clearly not all), the adoption of atheism as a personal philosophy results in the acceptance of a mistaken belief.

This mistake is not the belief that there is no higher power; people are certainly entitled to this ethos. The mistake is the belief that militantly throwing their belief (or absence thereof) in other peoples faces is somehow less irritating than the devout Christian/Muslim/Jew/etc. pushing their religion on you.

Hitchens is as annoying as Hagee.

Wow! I've never heard that before!

Next time an atheist tells your child they will burn in an everlasting hell if they tell a lie, or a group of atheists convinces your government to teach teenagers that condoms don't work and to wait until het marriage to even think about having sex, or atheist producers with bottomless pockets start their own cable station with TV/radio programs 24/7/365 featuring Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, Isaac Asimov, Richard Dawkins, Ayn Rand, the Amazing Randi, etc., etc., or can demand the head (quite literally) of those who oppose it's nefarious goals, then, uh, get back to me.

Or, indeed, the next time you sneeze and someone says "No god bless you."

No presidential candidate asked Hitchens for his endorsement. (Although I might have voted for McSame if he had...Nah, forget that!)

What makes atheists is that freethinkers get beat about the head by the theists. The only way to stop it is to actively oppose theism.

Its nefarious goals, of course.

Carl Sagan? LoL! It would take god to get in touch with him!

Just the magic of videotape; no gods necessary.

though I do agree that militant atheists are annoying. I do find Dawkins to be quite charming and interesting, though.

I think you missed the point, or have not had seen some of the things I have.

It's 'militant' athiest. Someone who is just as gung ho to convince a person to not believe as an evangelical fundamentalist is to convince a person to believe. I have seen a case where such acted in much the same way as an evangelical fundamentalist. Badgering attacks, belittling, etc etc.

Thankfully, such types seem to be few and far between. Most athiest I've met fall into the 'so, you want to believe that silly stuff? Fine. Just don't try to convince me about it.'

Wrenn:

I think you missed the point, or have not had seen some of the things I have.

It's 'militant' athiest.

The only issue I have with this is that "militant atheist" is often defined as 'one who speaks above a whisper.'

Virtually every discussion/argument I've had about my atheism with someone who is NOT an atheist, the whole "atheist fundamentalist" canard gets tossed out. As soon as you "speak above a whisper" about the fact of your non-belief in a deity, why, you're just as bad as Pat Robertson (or whoever)! It's a lame, obvious, tired, trite, unsophisticated and inexperienced point to bring up. Sorry if we want to express our delight in critical thinking and reality. I know neither of those can hold a candle to mythical beings and living in the clouds forever, but hey, whatever gets you through the night, right?

willerror:

!

Next time an atheist tells your child they will burn in an everlasting hell if they tell a lie...

What about the teacher that openly mocks you child in front of other kids for wearing a symbol of faith? Your example may happen more often, but it doesn't mean that nastiness from the other side is somehow justified.

And if I wasn't clear initially, I don't think anyone should get to shove their beliefs down your throat, whatever they are. But at the same time, you can skip past CBN just as easily as I can not read "God is not Great."

bugger:

Wrenn:

I think you missed the point, or have not had seen some of the things I have.

It's 'militant' athiest.

The only issue I have with this is that "militant atheist" is often defined as 'one who speaks above a whisper.'

*nod* I belong to a private (22 years and going strong) fannish message list on the east coast. Tolerance is what we strive for, and it's a discussion board, mostly. To my knowledge there have only been 2 people banned. A third, almost was banned last year. We do call him our resident militant athiest, but his ongoing dozen a day diatribes against another member for announcing she was going to teach the "history of the Tarot" at a new age store, and was going to charge for it, set him over the edge. THAT is what I mean by militant.

Okay?

Comparing a few well known atheists with the hundreds of millions of religious people out there is a stretch. One or two voices in a stadium full of shouting maniacs will not raise or lower the decibel level at all. If one million people ever sang in a choir and one voice was off, you would never notice it unless you were really trying hard.

You just don't want to be questioned nor do you want your children to think for themselves. Thus, you want atheists to keep to themselves. When and if Christians and Moslems return the favor, I am right with you buddy. Until then, the best thing that could ever happen to mankind is the death of religion. Go Hitchens.

An interesting phenomenon is that the atheist movement is developing into a religion of its own. However their arguments have reduced them to mere mockery as opposed to an intellect they claim to adhere to. They even scare you with silly ghost stories, i.e. oogity boogity your kids will be fry cooks if they don’t believe in evolution and the flying spaghetti monster is the same as God. They then mock you when you can’t take them seriously vis-à-vis these assertions.

An another interesting claim is that not believing in God is the same as not believing in the Easter Bunny, so then if it’s the same why do they feel the need for atheist support groups? I don’t believe in the Easter Bunny, I don’t need a support group for it to get through life. Persecution? Maybe in Iran but not in this country and not in this century.

They claim atheism is not a religion but preaching through mockery is the trade. Their foundation based on evolution is fairly weak due the frauds perpetuated by what they claim as science, for instance the Piltdown man, Haeckel embryos, and the Peppered moth to name just a few. Viewing these frauds I can now see why they don’t want open discussion in a classroom because it would unravel the foundation of their religion and expose the fact that evolution is not a science but a hoax.

Evolution is not just outright hoaxes, sometimes it is the merely avoiding objective analysis. Also interesting, is that no actual evidence be displayed, just the assertion that it is true. I observed this phenomenon recently when someone posted a link stating there were transitional fossils. The link offered no evidence just the assertion that there were transitional fossils in extant amphibians, now there may very well be transitional fossils but the link offered nada, nechevo… nothing. I can compare this sensation to be similar to that of seeing Jesus in a grilled cheese sandwich. It’s not that it was there, it was just wishful thinking.