Militant Atheism?

[The Valkyrie]

The difference between his profession and your hobby.

Boru

Those were 1970s dollars. Plus free trips to Bangkok whorehouses.

Not sure I'd want a free trip to a Bangkok whorehouse.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Bullshit. Refute the claims I made in the link. Otherwise you have no refutation.

Holocaust Denial is utter bullshit.

Re-fucking-futed!!

Life’s too short to engage with fuckwits who seek to marginalize the systematic butchery of 11 million human beings.

Boru

[Deesse23]

That was not an answer to my question.

That was part of my response to your post. Part of my answer.

Ok, you dont want to engage in a honest conversation.

You consider atheists posting on atheist forums as militant atheists. Do you consider catholics posting on a catholic forum to be militant catholics as well?

The majority of atheists are not military atheists because they aren't at war with theism. They wouldn't consider devoting time to posting on atheist forums rational behavior, so atheists that post on atheists forums happen to be militant. This is an anecdotal observation from posting on atheist forums for 27 years, not a scientific consensus. I've never posted on a Catholic forum, but if it involved being at war with any other portion of humanity and resulted in said Catholics posting on Catholic forums then the answer to your stupid question would be yes.

Thank you for demonstrating that you ARE a bigot. You just claimed atheists posting on atheist forums are militant, but catholics on catholic forums arent, while admitting you havent even been on a catholic forum. Exaclty what i said.
Your argument as to WHY atheists post on atheists forums is ridiculously ignorant, like everything else you had to say in this thread, so far.
Go ahead, keep showing what a fool you are. I certainly wont stop you.

Another non answer.
Please read my question (again) before you respond.

No. My objection to answering your questions is to respond in a way that I think appropriate.

And that way is not to address my questions. Why all the fuzz about it: You arent interested in a conversation.

Not to appease your fragile eggshell mind. In this case, once is enough. You don't like it? That's your problem, not mine.

Nice try. Totally not impressed.

I gave a hypothetical scenario in which i would call you a bigot if i were militant. Am i militant?

You're calling me a bigot means nothing to me.

Sure, thats why you put so much effort in not responding to my actual topics and trying to attack me personally
What part of "if", didnt you get by the way? Or do you think i am a militant atheist?

You really ned to upgrade your trolling. Its boring.

Dude. This isn't me trolling, this is me pretending to be nice. I can show you what trolling is. I invented trolling in the mid 1990s when I chased the entire core lead posters off of the Watchtower Observer forum in one single night. The Watchtower Review, a Christian former JW forum run by Larry Ingram was shut down - deleted - when I simply appeared there and was followed by one former poster from the Observer who had got such a kick out of my trolling at there (at the Observer) that he imitated me just for fun. The Sceptic's Annotated Bible forum never bans people for any reason. I've been banned from there probably a half dozen times. I am the undisputed God of trolls. You don't want to see me troll, but you probably have. That isn't an idol boast, it's shame.

You are SO cool. Honestly, and really.
Well, not really. You are a troll.

So you went to holocaust denial as i have seen. What can we expect next? Flat earth? Your trolling still is anything but unique and your half-life is probably already reached. You are a firecracker. Lots of noise, and will be gone in a flash within a split second.

[Data]

It would only be hypocritical if I acted against my own professed ideology.

If your ideology is to object and you object to objection what is that if not hypocritical.

It isn't hypocritical to think my opinion is best and others not.  That's not hypocrisy.  It may be other things, but it's not hypocritical.

I'm really curious why so many fundamentalist militant atheists use words without conforming to their standard definition, even while accursing others of doing the same while the latter use the source of that standard definition. Hypocrisy: "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense." You object to others objecting. Double standard. Hypocrisy.

I agree it's not fair.  I put murderers behind bars and allow non-murderers to walk free.  It's not equal.

Stop that. It is fair. Murderers should be put to death and non-murderers should walk free. It doesn't always work like that, though, sometimes murderers walk and non-murderers are put to death. Because people think they are right when they're not or they think they make the rules and can decide which is which.

They think they're right, but they are wrong.

The same may apply to you.

I don't believe in live and let live.  I don't want to ignore my neighbour molesting his kids.  I won't just let him have his opinion and lifestyle.

I didn't say molest and let molest, I said live and let live. I'm not talking about murder and child molestation, I'm talking about religious belief or lack thereof. Someone who believes in something has the right to do so just as you do. You take that away because you think you're right and someone else will eventually take it away from you.

Actual harm.  Yes, that's what we are talking about.  I totally understand someone might think the same about me, but I would think they are wrong.  A Nazi thinks they're in the right.  I don't.  That's not stupidity or hypocrisy.  That's a difference of opinion.  Yes,everyone prefers their own beliefs.  So I'm no different.

But you're doing the same thing as the Nazi. The Nazis thought they were right. The British and Americans thought they were right committing the atrocities they've committed.  

And if I'm a hypocrite so is everyone and it's moot.

Well, I'm not going to argue that.

In short, then, I reject your claim I'm being hypocritical.

Oakey dokey.

So, again, why should I not object to religion?

Your reasons are your own. For me personally it's their violence, greed, fraud, distortion, etc. I would advise you think carefully about what you are objecting to exactly, and why, and how those objections could, if put into practice, hinder your own opinions, beliefs (disbeliefs) etc.

I think religion is harmful.

I agree.

I don't want it in society.

Societies are harmful.

If religionists don't want my ideology in society they're wrong.  That's not hypocritical, it's ethnocentric perhaps, but not hypocritical.

It doesn't matter if they are wrong, especially when you may be the one wrong. Right and wrong are subjective. Who decides what is right and what is wrong and how do they do that? What are the potential errors?

[Deesse23]

The Holocaust is a historical fact. That you adopt conspiracy thinking makes sense given that you believe in magic sky-fairies as well.

Critical thinking is clearly not your strong suit.

As for "measuring the presence of gas in the alleged gas chambers", you clearly know little to nothing about the actual procedures at Auschwitz, Chelmno, etc. I'd suggest you do better research but quite frankly don't think you'd know your ass from third base about good research.

Bullshit. Refute the claims I made in the link. Otherwise you have no refutation.

Your link is garbage, 100% pure antisemitic holocaust deniers garbage. Each and every single of your silly arguments is long refuted stereotype holocaust deniers bullcrap.
Holocaust denial is like flat earthism. Just as silly, and just not worth the effort.

Try this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRO04q_lQi4
Or the full version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wst0Yo2c91M

[FrustratedFool]

@Data

No, you've misunderstood my refutation against the false charge of hypocrisy.

Lets go with the definition of hypocrisy you provide, with which I agree: 'the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense."

Clearly I don't fall under the charge of pretense, but you think I'm guilty of the former because I object to others objecting. But that's not my proclaimed moral standard - I don't say people shouldn't object then go ahead and object. I say people should object to what I object to, and not object what I don't object. I am not guilty of acting against that moral standard. Therefore, I'm not a hypocrite by the definition you provide. Simple.

I think child molesting should be objected to, and I think religion should be objected to. Same principle applies in both cases. Unless you're going to say its hypocritical to object to child abuse then you can't say I'm a hypocrite. If I said religion should be objected to but then didn't object to it or practiced it then I'd be a hypocrite; but I don't. So I'm not.

Right and wrong are, I agree, just words for 'strongly held personal preference.' That's why I say I'm right and those who disagree with me are wrong. And also why it's impossible for me to be a hypocrite so long as I avow what I prefer and stand against what I dislike. And I do.

So, please retract your false claim of me being a hypocrite. I am self interested, ethnocentric, morally nihilistic, yes, but not a hypocrite.

[Ahriman]

@Data

No, you've misunderstood my refutation against the false charge of hypocrisy.

Lets go with the definition of hypocrisy you provide, with which I agree: 'the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense."

Clearly I don't fall under the charge of pretense, but you think I'm guilty of the former because I object to others objecting.  But that's not my proclaimed moral standard - I don't say people shouldn't object then go ahead and object.  I say people should object to what I object to, and not object what I don't object.  I am not guilty of acting against that moral standard.  Therefore, I'm not a hypocrite  by the definition you provide.  Simple.  

I think child molesting should be objected to, and I think religion should be objected to.  Same principle applies in both cases.  Unless you're going to say its hypocritical to object to child abuse then you can't say I'm a hypocrite.  If I said religion should be objected to but then didn't object to it or practiced it then I'd be a hypocrite; but I don't.  So I'm not.

Right and wrong are, I agree, just words for 'strongly held personal preference.'  That's why I say I'm right and those who disagree with me are wrong.  And also why it's impossible for me to be a hypocrite so long as I avow what I prefer and stand against what I dislike.  And I do.

So, please retract your false claim of me being a hypocrite.  I am self interested, ethnocentric, morally nihilistic, yes, but not a hypocrite.

Lol yeah, you should probably re-think your aversion to being known as a hypocrite. Maybe if you were actually a hypocrite, you would end up being right about something.

[FrustratedFool]

How does that make sense?

I prefer not to be labelled a hypocrite in public fora as it lessens my ability to engage in profitable discourse with others. Same as I don't want to be falsely labelled a child molester or slave owner.

[Ahriman]

How does that make sense?

I prefer not to be labelled a hypocrite in public fora as it lessens my ability to engage in profitable discourse with others.  Same as I don't want to be falsely labelled a child molester or slave owner.

How are those two things even remotely the same as being a hypocrite.

[FrustratedFool]

They are things about me that would be false, which would interfere with my ability to have profitbale discourse, and which I'd rather not be labelled as.

Those are the contextually relevant similarities.