Italy, where next month posters in Genoa will read: "The bad news is that God does not exist. The good news is that we do not need him." The Genoa campaign prompted Father Gianfranco Calabrese, a spokesman for the Archbishop of Genoa, to speak out against what many opponents call blasphemy.

Brian37 wrote:

AND even well intended atheists might proclaim the same in wanting "hate speech" laws against criticizing atheists. WORD IT ALL THE DIFFERENT WAYS YOU WANT and dress a skunk up in a tux and a bad idea will still be a bad idea.

 

OK, I know that that is not your main point here but it is what I am going to comment on. Seriously, it is against the law to beat people up or to kill them. If something is a crime, then it needs to be punished under the law. Calling something a “hate crime” does not modify the fact that a crime has happened.

 

Now I am aware that you are not a huge fan of republicans but this is a basic fact: If you beat the crap out of someone, the you need to go to jail. If you kill someone in a really despicable manner, then you are going to die at the hand of the state. I really don't see much room for extra punishment because you can't think clearly.

 

 

 

I really don't see much room for extra punishment because you can't think clearly.

Ummm, Did you even bother to read the articles?

Seriously dude. The First article makes little mention of psychological issues connected with Atheism and no mention of any issues inherent in Atheism. Yes, it does trot out the ol' 'I used to be an Atheist but then I found GOTT!' thing, but that is not automatically a big lie. It is annoying, but not necessarily false.

First, he starts off his list of classifications of atheists with the statement

Quote:

There are probably as many kinds of atheism as there are atheists, but Lepp's major classifications are:

Right there, he is admitting that there is no unified doctrine and that trying to create clean categories or denominations of atheists is very difficult, if not impossible, However it is possible to notice trends within the Atheist group. He then goes on to list these major, very broad, groupings he sees.

As for psychological issues, the article specifically states;

article wrote:

Atheists by and large, he says, are not particularly neurotic.

You honestly think that is saying

Brian37 wrote:

"they sufferr phycological problems"

?

There are plenty of atheists I have met who fit the description of these 'Neurotic' Atheists he is describing, who were quite religious, or perhaps even not particularly religious, but then they see something that sets them off and go tearing across otherwise nice, intelligent people simply because they are theists, and they do so with all the grace and peaceful understanding of a chain saw with a stuck dead man's grip.

Frankly right now, You are one of them, Because I see nothing to justify your harsh appraisal of this article. Hell, he even states he is thankful towards Atheists, as when they point out problems in Christianity it lets the Christians try to fix them.

He also states, just above that;

Quote:

Lepp has found that psychology can help cure such atheists of their emotional hostility toward religion, but will not affect their unbelief. "It is not in the psychologist's power either to give or to destroy faith," he warns. "This belongs to a metapsychical domain which the theologians call grace."

Translated; Their unbelief does not stem from any psychological issues, their rabid hatred of all things religious may however be an emotional disorder. I'm not entirely sure I agree with his metaphysical domain called grace idea, but I would need to hear him clarify what he means before I pronounce my judgement upon him.

I mean, the guy specifically mentions this as one of his categories of Atheists;

article wrote:

· RATIONALIST. Lepp has considerably more respect and sympathy for the kind of atheism espoused by many modern scientists who deny the existence of God after making a reasoned study of the universe; he sees that "rational agnosticism is connatural to certain very positivistic forms of intelligence."

Emphasis added by me, notice what it says? It quite literally states flat out 'for many intelligent people, the stance of rational agnosticism is not only possible, but required.' In other words; Smart People Demand Proof. I cannot think of a better compliment for modern Atheists than the above comment.
Notice also how he says he respects these people?

As for the second article, where exactly does it state that people are silencing these atheists? Oh that's right, nowhere. It just says that christians are moving to put up their own campaigns, raising money and creating their own bus ads that say the opposite. Everyone is playing fair, and if London Atheists have the right to say 'God Probably Doesn't Exist' then London Christians have the right to say 'God Probably Does Exist'. unfortunately, given the complete lack of evidence, I would state that the chance of a Gott existing is 1:2, 50/50. So both statements would technically be incorrect from a statistical point of view, however in the common usage of 'probably' both statements can be correct depending on the person reading them's personal point of view.

As for Genoa, notice how the Mayor has told reporters that 'officials will not "act as censors"'. Right there, no one is infringing on freedom of speech. People are asking for freedom of speech to be rescinded, but guess what, if you tell them they cannot ask for freedom of speech to be restricted you are restricting their freedom of speech, Intollerance can and does go both ways. The Mayor has shown considerable moral strength by simply saying 'No, you can keep whining, but the answer is no'.

I notice you neglected to include this last part in your quote and mentioned nothing of it. Way to quote mine.

Ironically, nowhere does it say the priest actually called for the ads to be banned, merely asking for people to speak out against them, which is perfectly within his rights, and the rights of those who listen to him and speak out against it. Now of course this does not prove that he did not ask for the ads to be banned, but I remain unconvinced that he is actually calling for censorship until I see proof. The Mayor's comments could mean he was, it could also mean that someone else was, there is too little evidence to tell. Either way, nowhere does it state that the government is actually moving to ban these ads, unless I missed something.

For crying out loud, even Dawkins doesn't mind the Christian ads.

 

Ironically, nowhere does it say the priest actually called for the ads to be banned, merely asking for people to speak out against them, which is perfectly within his rights, and the rights of those who listen to him and speak out against it.

Brian37 wrote:

Hold your noses, it is really stinky.

Agreed. I still don't see the connection between unbelief and Communism, but it seems to show up every time. I'm really starting to lose hope for humanity...