Sure, some regimes that commit genocide are atheist, but that doesn't mean they are motivated by atheism.

They are in fact motivated by their will to assert non belief as superior to belief. Look at some examples from the past and present. In fact, take a look at the link I provided in my initial post. Part of the propaganda campaign did in fact claim religiosity as inferior. Much of the current new atheism campaign does in fact state nearly the exact same thing.


It's a cowardly cop-out to hold believers accountable for irrationality and murder, and exonerate non believers that engage in divisive propaganda, slam campaigns, and at the very worst, persecution and murder.

I too would be ashamed of a great majority of non believers, Geo. Let's just be honest about it for once.
It would be great if you'd stop with the verbal gymnastics.

Thank you for allowing me to freely express my opinion.

I am utterly shocked at the inability of the core non believing group here to simply come forward and openly state they reject hurtful, propaganda like speech by the most prominent celebrity atheists WITHOUT resorting to these, "Yeah, but what about religion.." defensive rebuttals.


If you'd like, I can post more propaganda-like comments made by these celebrity atheists you admire so greatly.
Some of the comments made are such egregiously broad generalizations, they are utterly ridiculous.

Just say when.

johnson1010 wrote:- A wild Ant appears!-

*Ant casts: "You are like the NAZIS!" on (Johnson's entire post).
It has no effect*

*Ant casts: "You are like the COMMUNISTS!" on The Atheist.
It has no effect*

*Ant charges: Ad Hominem blitz!*

Just to let you know, I unthanked your post because it addresses no of my charges and is, well, a piece of garbage spewed by someone who happens to spread anti religious propaganda himself.

ant wrote: Propaganda of any kind is inexcusable. It often leads to persecution of peaceful innocents.
Just ask History, Geo. You'll get an honest answer.

One man's propaganda is another man's free speech. Are you actually suggesting that Dawkins and others should be silenced? If what you term "propaganda" is inexcusable, how far are you willing to take it?

ant wrote:

Sure, some regimes that commit genocide are atheist, but that doesn't mean they are motivated by atheism.

They are in fact motivated by their will to assert non belief as superior to belief. Look at some examples from the past and present. In fact, take a look at the link I provided in my initial post. Part of the propaganda campaign did in fact claim religiosity as inferior. Much of the current new atheism campaign does in fact state nearly the exact same thing.
I have even read posts that compared religion to cancer.

There's a big difference between talk and genocide. I'm still waiting for specific examples of murder and genocide committed by atheists against believers for the crime of believing in God. I don't think it ever happens. Because in our recent history, genocide and mass murders are usually committed for political reasons.

It's true, religion is sometimes blamed solely for atrocities, but I would always say it's much more complex than that. Even so, it's going to be pretty hard to separate the religious belief from the act of flying airplanes into buildings. Where is the atheist version of that?

ant wrote:I am utterly shocked at the inability of the core non believing group here to simply come forward and openly state they reject hurtful, propaganda like speech by the most prominent celebrity atheists WITHOUT resorting to these, "Yeah, but what about religion.." defensive rebuttals.

Is the atheist bus message: "There is probably no God" hateful propaganda?

*Ant charges ad hominem blitz:

"Only an imbecile would broadly generalize and push propaganda like "religion flys you into buildings"

Its super effective!

The Atheist is now an imbecile!*

Okay, all.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.

This is pathetic cow-towing and an embarrassment to any honest, critical thinker.

What are you honestly expecting with a response like this? Are you expecting your words to have an impact as if they’re true? There is nothing “implicit” in Daniel Dennet’s question other than your own assumption. If he didn’t say it, it wasn’t said. You pull this “implicit” garbage as if you have a point, when the true thrust of Dennet’s comment is to show the special attention religion receives. If you think his point is something different - that he wants clergy convicted - you need more evidence than a biased assumption. And you should have dug this evidence up before you started slandering his name as if he's a peabrained moron compared to your wit.

The brutish blind hypocrisy of the above statement left me breathless.

Then you go on to point out nothing brutish, blind, or hypocritical about it. I say I will condemn the propaganda. Do you take that to mean I won’t condemn the propaganda? Right, if it's opposite day then I'm being hypocritical. Or are you saying that condemnation of those who picket funerals is actually the propaganda? Is my vocal disapproval of the gay-bashing far right the propaganda you're talking about? If you think you’re right, clarify what you mean. Because your posts honestly come across as conceptually garbled and full of anger.

I believe what you're saying is that the condemnation of bad things should be condemned because it's propaganda.

I'm not sure why I didn't think of this, but why shouldn't clergy be punished? I'm not implying that we change the law and start sending liars to jail. If they are doing harm by defrauding people with false information, shouldn't there be punishment?

If they are doing harm by defrauding people with false information, shouldn't there be punishment

I actually wanted to sign off from this post before it got heated, but this question intrigued me.

Do you have specific allegations to consider here?