My peer group makes a difference too, of course - 20s, educated (many in science), urban. Rural areas are less atheist-friendly, like in the states. Still, I can't really imagine a conversation like that happening with our PM.
Not only that, if it did happen chances are he wouldn't have been elected in the first place, and if it happened now his own party would probably have him removed as leader ASAP. Espousing strong views about religion, either way, is political suicide.
You know I actually believe MP that some day, if you let yourself, you'll feel really different about posts like that one. I'm still surprised you're satisfied with atheism, especially the sort you validate with posts like that one, its also incredibly curious to hear you consider that moral conduct is a practical problem, not its lack but its existence.
Although that said I think perhaps I thought similar things years ago too.
Aren't questions of morality really the most fundamental practical problem?
Go to sleep, iguana.
INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp. Live and let live will just amount to might makes right
One of them is a majority that is given clear legal advantages over the other in most countries. It follows that one would need props more than the other.
Minority status doesnt warrant props, if it did we'd all post repeatedly about what a great bunch of people the KKK are, not asserting any sort of moral equivalence between them and homosexuals, just illustrating the absurdity of what you wrote there.
I'm absolutely certain that your well meant but I think you should think a lot harder and a lot longer about this topic.
Dismissive comments that convey a sense of superiority and unwillingness to consider other perspectives. Obviously, behavior that isn't exclusive to "militant"/"new" atheists. To be more specific, any comments along the lines of "Religion is a crutch," "Religion was only used to explain phenomena that science now fully accounts for," and "Religion is inherently bad," which reflect simplistic and extremely half-hearted attempts at understanding either a. religion as a cultural phenomena, as others have mentioned and b. agnostic/ignostic arguments.
I'm a strong atheist. I think religions are inherently bad, exactly like you said. I think religions are for weak-minded, ignorant people, and in many ways, I'm more extreme than Dawkins. The sooner we get rid of these moronic superstitions, the better. I'm one of these people who, according to you, have a "simplistic and extremely half-hearted attempts at understanding religion". if you say so
But nonetheless, what I think is only my concern. I would never try to proselytize anybody. I can be very honest and very vocal with my atheism if somebody asks, but I don't give a damn to convince believers whether I'm right or wrong. I don't want to interfere: it's their choice, and I respect that.
So: in which category do you think I belong?
Am I a militant Atheist?
According to most religious folk I've met, I am a devilish abomination from hell. That's probably not a good way to start a discussion, isn't it?
Where is tolerance?
"A man who only drinks water has a secret to hide from his fellow-men" -Baudelaire