@spendius,
Quote:By polarising the debate you are holding back atheism.
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary it cannot be ruled out that the most intemperate posters against Christianity are fundamentalist Christians seeking to discredit atheism by associating it with infantile blurting, irrationality and bare-faced, ignorant bigotry:
agent provocateurs.
And imo very successful at it because I very much doubt, from reading their drivelous flounces, that any neutral person would be extremely wary of ever allowing them anywhere near the levers of power what with the
fiat being presented as their habitual fundamentalist
modus operandi along with a refusal to even listen to others whose views they are obviously frightened of. A combination known to have long-term negative consequences.
And to the extent that there is free speech it is the Christian countries which allow freest expression of it. And which Ignore is specifically chosen to limit. It rejects the benefits of free speech for the person who employs such a device. Thus the person must be an enemy of free speech. As are atheist regimes we know of.
It is not easy to discredit atheism any better than by linking it to that little concatenation of jollies. It is surprising we can muster 10%.
Is it never allowed that it is not atheism at all which is the problem but the persons who promote it? They already have the opportunity to engage in a range of sexual depravities sufficient for any normal person and it is thus not unreasonable to conclude that their mission is to have us consider them respectable and nothing to gossip about or be the subject of any lurid front page stories.
It is inconsistent to use words derived from those depravities as forceful expressions. When the depravities become respectable such words would have no force. Thus the use of them implies that the depravities are considered to be depravities by those who use those words.
