[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I do not start discussions where I try to convince others of my religious convictions. Criticism a relgion, Islam in case of your reference, is something different in this case, because mainly it effects fields of politics and our societies, and I would give a damn for Islam if people falling for it just would keep it a private issue that they do not want to effect society. Unfortuhnately, the islamic agenda is being driven into our societies day in day out. To me, it is more poltiics than relgion.

And I know as much, I read all your anti-Islam posts. My point was that in addressing politics, you bring up religion; critically, perhaps, but you still bring it up. So in essence you're saying that it is acceptable to decry a religion for reasons other than that it is a religion, but it is not acceptable to promote, or even discuss, a religion for reasons other than that it is a religion. In this I am not referring to Castout's post, just trying to ascertain your criterion.

If you want to compare me to Castout's virtuous preaching that he intends as a form of missionising, you would need to show me where I start threads on atheism and trying to missionise people into it. I don't, and in a longer ago past at best started a thread on Pat Condell - and even this is long ago.

I'll just take your word for it on the "thread" thing.
However, you missionize against religion (even if you don't call it missionizing "for" aetheism) as evidenced by your first post in this thread. You openly mock it through that picture alone. In other threads, you generate long cases against it, and then you insist that people of religion should be silent, just as you are doing here. In no other area of discussion is this considered acceptable except for hacking and the like.

But I react to people reserving the right that they may sing their religious song and the neighbourhood just has to listen to it each time they do. so if they show up on the scene, so do I, and when they keep private what is a private thing anyway, then I stay put, too. The magic word is: reciprocity. Save me from you relgious sermoins, and I save you from my atheist criticsm. Bring your sermon upon us and upon me, and I am going after you. That simple. because in a scular society like ours, many people think like I do - and do not want to be bothered by other people's religous mission time and again.

Here again, you actively proselytize against religion, despite your purported platform of reciprocity. The thread title is "Religious Poll". It seems to me that such a thread would hold interest only for people who wanted to know something about a religious poll. Unlike a loud radio, you did not have to listen to it. But you went in anyway for the sole purpose of attacking religion.

It is illogical to label atheism a religion. You want to give it a bad name: that of religion. But atheism is no relgion. It is the rejection of theistic relgion, and the demand for evidence for theistic claims. You could as well conclude that refusing to learn how to drive a car is a form of car driving. It is absurd.

I don't want to give aetheism a bad name, and if I did, I wouldn't choose religion. In any case, it is kind of like a religion because it is a belief based entirely upon faith in the non-existence of a higher power, when really, nobody knows either way. Atheism has a guess. It's a pretty convincing guess to many, but it's still a guess.

NeonSamurai brought it to the point when calling it "sermonising". I reserve the right to deand that your freedom of speech ends where you demand me to listen to your sermon even if I do not want that

By that logic, all books and internet content within your sight or hearing that you are not interested in are abridgements of free speech. You don't have to read them. Sometimes, people like to discuss religion. If you don't, don't. If you want to attack religion, fine. Just don't tell people to keep their opinions to themselves simply because you don't want to hear them.

If I would do like this on atheism, and launch threads on it time and again, you would not so much call it free speech, but me trying to dominate the forum and driving people away in disgust.....

As if religion had ever dominated this forum. I've seen some threads that lasted a while, but secular events tend to dominate this forum. Besides, how often do people ever change their minds about anything here? Are you afraid they're going to start a church?

I do not wish any relgion to shape and form secular societies. Becasue that is the explciti end of secularism - but my freedom and our freedom is worth a thousand times more than any religion's desires or claims for untouchability. and that is why defending freedom can lead to situations where even offending religion can become a moral obligation and a civil duty, if you are serous about freedom.

Oh, I'm serious about freedom, and that includes freedom of religion, and the freedom to assemble. We can discuss that when I have more energy to type if you wish.

For the time being, I apologize for the sermonizing of others. I don't preach to you (other than to annoy you at times) so I hope you'll continue to talk with me. Feel free to respond to anything above, I'm ready.