Toaster strudel alliance takes on drugs, atheists and liberalism

[Esquilax]

It is significant the number of atheists that have convictions like that though. And the number that are either openly Communist, Marxist, or so deeply influenced by radical leftism that they are more or less communist. This is what a substantial portion of America is like.

Are you aware, Strodel, of a group called Bruderhof? If not, you may wish to look into them, such research might grant you valuable perspective.

Bruderhof communities are christian groups, worshipers of the same god you're so into, that have come together into little communes over a number of countries. In a Bruderhof commune, nobody owns property; everything goes toward the common good and is distributed according to need by the authorities therein.

Why do I bring this up? Well, to demonstrate that the view of humanity is wider than your "atheists=left wing communist socialist evils, theists=right wing capitalist normals" dichotomy. These christians are communists, Strodel. So why are they not representative of the entirety of christianity, while radical left wing atheists are absolutely representative of the entire group? Why do you feel the need to persistently and dishonestly propagate this insipid lie?

My point is that radicalism is a very serious thing and atheists commonly do not treat it seriously. They seem to be proud of their tolerance of extreme views for an easily discernable and praiseworthy motive, the free access to information, but at the same time tend to completely neglect the damage that radicals can cause.

Why is it that when I read this, all I hear is "the atheists don't immediately condemn everything I don't like, and that's bad!"

See, the difference between you and us, Strodel, is that we're capable of examining claims based on merit, and are honest enough to accept that even radical claims may hold something of value. You seem to be operating under the assumption that anything that falls outside of your right wing echo chamber must be wrong and dangerous.

They also will not accept the degree to which radicals use atheism to spread their beliefs. As far as I can remember, I have never seen any atheist denounce the Marxists who use atheism to build their movement.

Give me one example of anyone, let alone a Marxist, "using" atheism like that, and then we'll talk.

Someone said that atheism has no leaders, this is untrue, obviously some atheists have more influence than others and are de facto leaders,

Oh? I don't recall appointing anyone to speak for me. I certainly don't recall allowing you free reign to choose who my leaders are. Are you still not getting this? Leaders don't just suddenly become so by garnering attention; in order for them to be representative of atheism in the way you're trying to get at, they'd have to be appointed. They'd have to have a significant number of the atheist community giving them support: "Yes, this person says and does things that reflect my belief, and is therefore representative of it."

Otherwise, how on earth could you claim they say anything about atheism beyond their personal opinion of it? The process doesn't work in reverse, we don't magically change our beliefs whenever an atheist crosses a certain threshold of media attention. Do your beliefs automatically change whenever a christian with differing views to you gains notoriety?

however if it was true, it would be the scariest proposition possible. Atheists are often accepting of virtually all behavior, regardless of how destructive or how risky it may be.

Fucking prove it. And before you point to the ecstasy thread, I'll remind you that intellectually discussing something free from the prepositional moralizing of your holy book is not the same as accepting it outright.