I’ll take Truett by the hand like a lazy toddler and show him the information related to his bald assertions.

Courtesy of Matt Dillahunty the supreme court does not consider atheism a religion, it considers atheism an equivalent of religion within the specific context of the first amendment. Basically, under the law government privilege of one religion over another injures the minority in the same manner as government privilege of religion over non-religion.

http://www.atheist-community.org/library/articles/read.php?id=742

Ta Da

“@54 Horatiio,

How is Harris hate speech? Honestly?”

Legally, it isn’t.

Otherwise, just about anything disparaging that anybody says about a group of people or their ideology is hate speech. In other words, any negative comment you make about anybody is hate speech. The term hate speech is basically P.C. B.S.

How is Harris hate speech? Honestly?

Boz, do you consider the Westboro Baptist Church to be “no better example” of Baptist evangelism? Why or why not?

“Its not my term, I picked it up from The Blaze.”

Glen Beck’s The Blaze?! Glen Beck, the talk show huckster? Are you serious?!

As I have repeatedly written here, you are redefining words in order to create a false premise, and thus a false argument. Evangelism is word that has been “stolen” to mean “spreading the word” of whatever idea is being discussed. But that is not what evangelism means.

Consider the term American Taliban. There’s really not any such thing as an American Taliban. But the term Taliban has been “stolen” and used with American in order to create a sensational definition for a group that already has a name that has nothing to do with the real Taliban, just as with the term atheist evangelism.

If you labeled the atheists who promoted the billboards as aggressive atheists, then that would be a much more accurate and correct description than evangelical.

Your or Beck’s “view” doesn’t redefine words. That’s true regardless of whether or not you think my head is in the sand.

That may be true, but when you have an atheist organization spending money on billboards all across the country selling atheism (or anti-theism), there is no better example of atheist evangelism in my view. Its not my term, I picked it up from The Blaze.

Lou,

You just don’t like the truth. Wake up and get your head out of the sand.

Boz,

You missed the most obvious.”

Yes Boz, you did.

“If you can borrow a copy of “The God Delusion” you will find the manual on atheist evangelism. You can throw in some Hitch, some hate-speech of Harris and you have the atheist trinity.”

Those statements are obviously more idiotic than yours, Boz. How could you miss that?

If you all insist on incorrectly referring to atheist evangelicalism, then I will accept that atheist evangelism can only be considered to be one thing – evangelically sensible.

You missed the most obvious. If you can borrow a copy of “The God Delusion” you will find the manual on atheist evangelism. You can throw in some Hitch, some hate-speech of Harris and you have the atheist trinity.

This is not you father’s atheist.

“lol, Do no-stamp collectors start their own churches? Well, moving on”

No, of course not.

Do stamp collectors form churches? No of course not. But they do form organizations with fellow stamp collectors. Are those churches? Of course not. Similarly, there are atheists who were raised as church goers who miss the ritual and fellowship of going to church. They have created organizations wherein other atheists can meet with them, even on Sunday mornings. But like a stamp collectors’ meeting, it isn’t a church meeting.

“Cap that off with atheist evangelism. Yes, the very religious dogma they claim to detest, they too practice.”

Those statements are utter nonsense, if not lies. In its most common usage, evangelism is the sharing of a belief in Christianity or Jesus. If you remove Christianity or Jesus (or any other belief in and allegiance to a supreme being or leader), then the simple sharing of ideas is not evangelism. By definition of both dogma and atheism, atheism cannot be “religious dogma.”

The problem with your continued false arguments is that you can only express yourself (and perhaps think) in the context of religion. So it’s very obvious that the only way you can argue against and attack atheists is to attempt to redefine those terms to fit your “worldview,” because otherwise your arguments are illogical and fraudulent.

Do stamp collectors try to make it illegal for gays to use stamps? Do stamp collectors try to make it illegal for anyone to rip a stamp? Do stamp collectors howl and scream if stamps don’t match their exact specifications? Do stamp collectors control the goverment? The courts? The schools?

Do stamp collectors try to make everyone else into a stamp collector?