wiegraf:
I think it's fair to accept that the more developed are more tolerant.

Reyginus: Inaddition, the greater the followers the lesser the tolerance.

wiegraf: . Not all systems preach the silly us vs them mentality.

Reyginus: And atheism is not guilty ? Isnt it hypocritical that the same atheism that criticizes religion, is guilty of the same crime they accuse the religionists of?

Anwari: Atheism is a False Doctrine
Atheists deny the existence of God(Creator)and challenge all believers to prove it which according to Atheists cannot be proven.
The question to Atheists should be... provide proof that God/Architect of the Universe does NOT exist. The Christians or the Believers are the ones asked to provide the proof of his existence.
At long last someone, Dr Joseph Noor, has appear on the scene that will for once and all prove that Richard Dawkins and the false doctrine of Atheism belongs in the trash can.
His book "Direct Evidence of God's Existence" which took 30 years of research to complete, creates at last a convincing argument
of God's existence. In short Joseph Noor re-examines an ancient text which he calls "Document X". His study uncovers new evidence and startling information about the origin and development of the Universe and Life.
In clear scientific language the document expresses its superior knowledge of the universe revealing its deep secrets and thereby demonstrating that the
answers to these issues are not the outcome of human imaginations, but rather based on divine knowledge and proof of the existence of God.
This is an extraordinary claim but one cannot argue against the rather extraordinary evidence of his 600 page book.
Dr Joseph Noor's argument is simple yet devastating to atheists and creationist. His website is www.documentx.net

engrtee:

stop misquotin d bible, FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD,(not atheist)

Reyginus: Wiegraf, why do you have to quote me without adding anything to it? Is it a form of artful dodging or what?

wiegraf:
Is it? I thought it means you made no sense. Atheists are persecuting you? Do you live in 9ja? Are you saying atheists with our high numbers and our control of society have been persecuting you? You also choose to ignore the examples I listed. Make some sense or be ignored, what do you expext?

Reyginus: When did persecution become the only form of guilt?
You can do better. I get it now. When atheists create threads to mock religionists and God it is not intolerance but tolerance.

Reyginus: When did persecution become the only form of guilt?
You can do better. I get it now. When atheists create threads to mock religionists and God it is not intolerance but tolerance.

wiegraf:
I can?
Creating threads to mock religionists IS persecution (by your definition). Maybe you could do better.

This is a forum, frankly meant for this kind of banter. Lots and lots of atheists (myself included) have cried for our own section only to be denied. Only reason I can think of is the intention is to support this sort of dialogue.

Note the very vast majority of posters here are religious. Most of the voices that hold weight appear to be atheists, it's not their fault they are better debaters or have an apparently better philosophy then yours, which you cannot defend properly it would seem, in a forum set up for this kind of banter no less.

As for persecution.... Hahaha, no. What you are witnessing, and only from a few posters, by no means the majority of us, is the voice of the vocal minority. Just like black americans (think the stereotypical angry black man). They've been oppressed so long frankly they have good reason to be angry, and so do we. We still face vast persecution daily in our lives, yet somehow you want to spin this around and claim you are persecuted in a country where 99 percent of the country is a religionist and you even get laws like the 14 year gay prison laws drafted just for you.
Incredible bro

Reyginus: You were impressing me, but of a sudden, it all changed. Get it clearer now, intolerance just like persecution is a evidence of guilt. Again! Intolerance is Not persecution.

wiegraf:

My whole existence is built around impressing you, thank you

wiegraf: @rey, "Intolerance is not persecution, but a force of persecution"... Wth does that even mean? Do you read the stuff you write?

Have I stated there aren't d1cks out there that are atheist? Or buddhist? Atheism is not a religion btw, get that through your head. Do you ask a bald man what sort of haircut he's got? Someone with zero interest in football to explain his team's philosophy?

Humanistic principles, which many atheists and secular societies adhere, do NOT encourage the us vs them mentality. This is a key difference between them and the very successful abrahamic faiths. Other similar systems have been far, far more tolerant than the abrahamic systems. Their adherents tend to not be ginormous cun.ts, even when you look at their ratios and compare them with the abrahamic ones. Also these societies tend to frown on persecution a lot more, and on principle. For crying out loud there are countries you can't get into if you're an atheist. Cities if you're not muslim. Gays can't marry who they want even though it's absolutely not anyone else's biz. Women can't vote in some countries. They show skin? Off to jail. Rape? Marry the rapist.
Etc etc etc

I don tire sef, well done. U trollin? U win. I'm off...

wiegraf:
I can?
Creating threads to mock religionists IS persecution (by your definition). Maybe you could do better.

This is a forum, frankly meant for this kind of banter. Lots and lots of atheists (myself included) have cried for our own section only to be denied. Only reason I can think of is the intention is to support this sort of dialogue.

Note the very vast majority of posters here are religious. Most of the voices that hold weight appear to be atheists, it's not their fault they are better debaters or have an apparently better philosophy then yours, which you cannot defend properly it would seem, in a forum set up for this kind of banter no less.

As for persecution.... Hahaha, no. What you are witnessing, and only from a few posters, by no means the majority of us, is the voice of the vocal minority. Just like black americans (think the stereotypical angry black man). They've been oppressed so long frankly they have good reason to be angry, and so do we. We still face vast persecution daily in our lives, yet somehow you want to spin this around and claim you are persecuted in a country where 99 percent of the country is a religionist and you even get laws like the 14 year gay prison laws drafted just for you.
Incredible bro

Reyginus: Simply put:
Religion has been demonstrated in the culture of man since time immemorial. Never has their been a time when man operated outside its confines. Atheism on the otherhand is a new culture, a strange one at that,judging from the history of the world. But a time will come(if we keep representing our faith in bad light) when religionists will be treated the same way as atheists are now. Then atheists will do all the stuffs they've accused the religionists of. Not because they hate them, but because it is not the culture of the generation.

wiegraf:

I really ought to find time to study it, I hear good things about Zoroastrianism as well. It's really, really depressing people choose more violent/hate filled belief systems. Then again, sadly, most of them didn't choose, they're going along with the flow...*sigh*

Reyginus: You dont have to write some unrelated random texts to defend your stand. 'As their are intolerant religionists so are their intolerant atheists'.
Let me help you understand what is meant by 'intolerance is a force of persecution'. Force in layman's terms is anything that brings about the workings of an object or thing. It can be by pull or push. There are contact and non-contact forces. The contact requires contact before they exert their pressure. Example, frictional force. The non-contact forces do not. Example of non-contact forces are electromagnetism, gravitation and intolerance.lol. Intolerance leads to persecution because it's only when you can't tolerate a person or thing that you decide to make them extinct. Hope you got it now, since that's what you want. The bottom line is , atheism does not in any way redirect your actions, it only changes who you are.

Uyi Iredia:

Seriously, when have atheists lobbied for tyheir own section. I'm unaware of that. BTW, if it is indeed true that some atheists lobbied for a section it will strengthen my stance that atheism is a religion.

plaetton:

I once met a guy from Iran who happened to be a Zoroastrian. I was suprised to see that the oldest religion still survived and delighted to learn first hand from a real practitioner.
I learnt that they have a large, though minority population in Iran, and enjoy freedoms to practice their ancient religion.

wiegraf:

pls note the bold. You mean to say "persecution is a force of intolerance", not the other way round. I'm not sure why I have to point this out. Also, using the word 'force' to describe what you mean is inappropriate, though I can now at least see what you are trying to convey. I'm not sure I agree with that assertion fully though, persecution does not always come about because of intolerance, but basically before you attempt to make someone look foolish pls try and make sure that at the very least you are coherent. I only engaged you because your concerns are valid but since then you've made little sense.

If you think the rest of the post has little to do with the discussion then you have little grasp of the problem (despite you highlighting it), or we're talking about completely different things. It might be that you are only concerned with your lot, ie, only the persecution that concerns you personally, in this case certain atheists haranguing you. But this a global problem, applicable to many different situations. Then again, your last line:
"The bottom line is , atheism does not in any way redirect your actions, it only changes who you are."
Good #deity, what does this mean?

Reyginus: I thought you signed out.
Lol. You got me there. What was I thinking. I meant 'for' and not 'of'. Btw, what else apart from intolerance can bring about persecution?
Can we go straight to the point and stop moving in circles. Explaining the last line to you, will only take me back to the circle.

wiegraf:

Not really, the last line makes little sense as well.

Greed can lead to persecution. Fear too, and fear is not always brought about by intolerance. Fear can lead to intolerance though, then persecution. But with greed in particular, there is no real intolerance involved, just self-preservation.

Note we are talking about morals here, a subjective merry-go-round. But we can ignore all of that and define persecution as unmerited or unfounded judging by our respective moral standards.

Reyginus: Or better still, greed and fear lead to intolerance, which leads to persecution. Though I agree with your issue of greed and self-preservation, it is not always so.
With these words, your last line is golden:' its causative agent is intolerance'.

wiegraf:

I think you mean to say YOUR (ie you, reyginus) last line is golden.