Collaboration with theists?

[Violet]

That wing of anti-theism does exist (to a great deal in fact). But how 'visible' it is... that is a harder question to answer. I think many atheists are anti-theistical... but that many of us are quite cordial/calm in our 'dislike?-disdain?'... but there certainly is a much 'angrier?' wing

Here again, I'd like specifics.

Just exactly how is it that being an angry atheist violates some theists freedom of thought, belief or free exercise of religion?

Like Pippy, you seem to think that if an atheist despises religion to the extreme and engages in outreach activism to educate people, that equates to trying to obstruct someones free exercise rights. I want to know what logic you, Pippy and others use to arrive at such conclusions?

Exactly what has any atheist done that you feel trampled on the legitimate rights of theists?

If you can't cite specifics of actual incidents, then do you really think it's fair to continue to nurture this unsupported indictment?

I don't think that 'angry atheism' violates any freedom of thought... unless you have indoctrinated somebody with it of course I just feel it is rude and disrespectful to preach... especially when a person hasn't even granted another the right to do so (Like going to a specific preaching quarter voluntarily).

I do not think that a person is a fanatic (or preacher) simply because they dislike (despise?) religion... and seek to actively counter propaganda with facts. However, there is a fine line between doing this, and being a

---

fanatic |fəˈnatik|
noun
a person filled with excessive and single-minded zeal, esp. for an extreme religious or political cause.

---

... and sometimes being a fanatic is not such a bad thing. However, it can easily get in the way of others in a number of ways (Cutting across people as they are talking, scaring people away from atheism [see giving the wrong impression?], etc).

I think we have a right to free speech... but also a right to free silence. Not everyone wants to hear the message... and I think time is wasted on those who do not want to learn... time that should instead be spent on those eager to learn. I think that one should supply the resource, and as apposed to trying to sell the product to all: sell only to those who would like to buy. You can see this easily in marketing (particularly advertising).

What legitimate rights, might I ask? Well, example can come from myself. The last time I ever went to church... I sat through an hour long sermon about how homosexuals were the devils work in the eyes of the 'Lord'... and I was so furious to the point that I reached the breaking point and exploded outward my pure venom for the evils that had just tormented my eardrums for the previous hour. I vowed to modify that terrible and evil behavior, and swept out of the room (If only you could imagine my overzealous and exhibitionistic presentation... I actually wish I had a video of it [that goes for most of what I do ])

I think I 'stepped out of acceptable bounds' in that instance, so there is one atheist who has trampled on the toes of ridiculous theistic rights. Did they deserve to have their toes smashed 1234567890 times by a baseball bat? Yes. Does that mean I should give them what they deserve for perpetuating such abominable acts and lies under the guise of goodness? No. If I were to do that, then it would be to stoop close to their level. That's what I think anyway