Icky post on boing boing

[LARA]

I really don't want to link the post because it was a bit obnoxious.  The commentary was interesting and quite a bit more thought out than it usually is there.
Just trying to get the taste out of my mouth I suppose, since I usually enjoy this site for the nonstimulating eye candy and metal fluff.

I'm just sick of it really.  My whole goal is just not to care about religion, work to be a better human, take care of my family, learn about science, create my art and just live.  Religion has hurt me in the past and people claiming certain religious views have hurt me.  I'm tired of it.  Just when I have gotten good at the practice of not reading the plethora of sometimes offensive religious statements I encounter, religion has to be inserted everywhere.

I mean people got sick of Barney the Dinosaur after two years, and he was a lot better than Jesus for kids.  And it was perfectly okay to make fun of Barney, although if you did it in front of a three year-old you would be an asshole.  But the reality is that Christians are not children anymore and they need to grow up and realize that others have freedom, too, and have just as many rights to push back, be upset or offended when their viewpoints are disrespected or made fun of.

[Recusant]

Okay, so I think that the blog piece that LARA is talking about is actually silly, in an "icky" way.  By and large the comments are pretty good.
Searching through boing boing is fun, too, though there may  be some here without the patience to do that, but who are still curious what got LARA "trying to get the taste out of my mouth."  So, I hope I'm not offending you LARA, but I'm going to go ahead and post the link: The article is called Big Tent Atheism and just for the record I think it's, well, wrong-headed.      Later in the comments section (post # 137) the author explains that he's advocating a sort of 'sit-in' approach to church by atheists, which seems even more obnoxious than the "fly the flag about it" atheists he addresses in his original article.  Silly and wrong-headed.  Then in post # 229, he seems to have modified his stance even more.  Good for him for reading the comments and thinking about them.  
Even when I was much more passionately anti-religion than I am now, I saw no need to try to 'convert' others to my way of thinking, and I could be wrong, but I think very few atheists feel that need.  The author of  "Big Tent" seems to think it's a growing problem.  I don't blame you LARA, for your reaction to this twit's piece, and I apologize if it bothers you that I gave the link.

[LARA]

Recusant, it doesn't bother me at all that you linked it.  I just got frustrated with it.  I like reading boing boing because it's usually pretty lighthearted, something that helps me avoid getting too serious about things and keep laughing.  Actually your link helps people understand what I'm referring to in this less than thought-out post.

[Ihateyoumike]

So I put it to declared atheists-- the ones who fly the flag about it, not the ones who are quiet or closeted: Do you think that most of humanity is A) hopeless and doomed to kill each other because of their stupid religious beliefs, or B) capable of coming to and benefiting from your views?

My answers to these most stupid of questions:

A) If human history has been any indication, then an enthusiastic YES. Fortunately for the religious, they breed like rabbits, so they can keep their armies up. As long as those stupid religious beliefs are held, you guys will keep killing each other over them because you feel righteous in doing such.

B) YES. However, unlike religions, I'm not going to force those views on anyone else.
I'll give my opinion, if anyone actually wants it. I'll also try to educate someone, if they ask for it.
It's only through education and intelligence that people will be converted to atheism, not force.

Just when I have gotten good at the practice of not reading the plethora of sometimes offensive religious statements I encounter, religion has to be inserted everywhere.

I look at it this way: They are scared, terrified even, of atheism. And why wouldn't they be? Let's take the perspective of the catholic church for a moment, shall we? In the past, the catholic church knew who the enemies of their church were. They knew that muslims were out to convert all catholics. They knew that mormons were out there daily delivering their message. The enemy had a name, a face, an organization; then atheism started to become a force. How does the church fight atheism and keep the atheist message from spreading? There is no main atheist organization. There's no world atheism headquarters that I know of. We aren't trying to control an AA or NA type group to spread our message. The atheistic viewpoint is spread by common sense, and it's spread by intelligence. How does the church fight such a diverse enemy? The fact is, they can't. I think this is making them terrified of atheism, and they're getting more desperate. This goes for all religions whose main goal is that of turning their congregations into sheep.

I like to think of it in terms of countries and war. Let's say America represents the catholic church (I keep using catholic as an example because I'm most familiar with catholicism). Now, let's assign Germany as islam. Throughout all of history, those two countries have been at war (hypothetically for this example). It's a pretty easy war for them as both sides know important facts such as borders, number of troops, etc... Both sides will lose people, but one side may ultimately win, thereby gaining the "loyalty" of the other side.
Now, let's say that atheism is a hypothetical group of terrorists based in a country, perhaps Afghanistan. That's based in that country, of course, they actually have "cells" all across the world, even infiltrating the U.S. and Germany.
Now that my hypothetical situation is set up- how does the U.S. go about fighting the terrorists?
They can't fight the war on their turf, because nobody knows what that turf is. Is it Afghanistan? Is it possibly a surrounding country like, I don't know, Iraq? Who do they bomb? How do they fight back? And for that matter, do they focus all their attention on their easy to fight enemy, or do they turn and expose their backs for this new enemy? Could they possibly try to join forces with Germany to fight this new enemy, since they're infiltrating Germany as well? Can they possibly fight Germany and the terrorists at the same time and hope to win?
The fact is, this band of terrorists have done as their name implies and made the U.S. terrified.

I know, I know, messy analogy. Hopefully the point gets across though. The fact is, we are terrorizing religion, and we don't have to do much to do so. All we have to do is keep moving forward in scientific progress and get the proof out to people. With more intelligence, and more proof, will come more atheists. As I said above: It's only through education and intelligence that people will be converted to atheism, not force. I don't think religion knows how to handle that concept, and they are scared as hell.

Even when I was much more passionately anti-religion than I am now, I saw no need to try to 'convert' others to my way of thinking, and I could be wrong, but I think very few atheists feel that need.

I agree, I don't feel that need. And thank you, Recusant, for linking the article. As obnoxious as religious posts like this are, it gives me a little smile knowing that religious nuts are terrified of atheism because it's eating at their religions from the inside out and there's not a damned thing they can do about it.