> Get ready for a good time with this one, Neil. bob600 is the atheist
> omprem. :P

> On Jun 30, 10:58 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 30, 9:39 am, bob600 <b...@nireland.com> wrote:

> > > First my position, I am what most would consider a "strong" atheist, I
> > > "know" God does not exist, that in itself has attracted some attacks,
> > > so I would ask that you let it pass this one time. I have lived in the
> > > heart of a divided society for 25 years, a society, given my position
> > > in it, that tested my religious affiliations robustly and daily.  So
> > > on a daily and personal basis I experienced the "very bad" side of
> > > religion. Nevertheless, and despite my strong non beliefs, I happily
> > > accept and defend other people's right to think differently.

> > > For some time now I have been attacked for taking that position
> > > sometimes by assholes, which I consider flattery, but sometimes by
> > > others for whom I have a certain respect, and it is the criticism from
> > > the latter that leads me to ask:-

> > > Why is it so wrong to defend the "nice" theists who do me no harm,
> > > while being happy to condemn the "bad" that potentially could.

> > > Believe it or not I ask this with an open mind, and if I my position
> > > is proven wrong, I will accept it, reappraise my position and admit my
> > > error.

> > > I leave you with an apt quote from Mahatma Gandhi, 1931:-

> > > "Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It
> > > passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced
> > > and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious
> > > right."

> > You aren't depriving anyone of their freedom to err by pointing out
> > their errors. You can happilly accept and defend other people's rights
> > to think differently while criticizing the thoughts that they are free
> > to have.

> > The "nice" theists who do you no harm are doing all of us harm by
> > giving tacit approval to the theists who DO cause harm. Their silence
> > can only be taken to mean they agree with the harmful theists, or that
> > they know they are harmful but are scared of them. Either way, they
> > support the harmful theists because they aren't doing a thing to stop
> > them from acting in the name of their MUTUAL beliefs, and it then
> > becomes a slippery slope towards totalitarianism, theocracies, 9/11,
> > the Bush administration; pick your poison. Maybe the difference is the
> > nice ones should just be sweet talked out of their beliefs (though I
> > suspect a lot of the nice ones might show a darker side of their
> > personalities when that conversation begins).- Hide quoted text -

> > - Show quoted text -