tft-short-4578168
Ken Ammi’s True Free Thinker:
BooksYouTube or OdyseeTwitterFacebookSearch

American Atheists’ Al Stefanelli on “imbicillic politicians and celebrities”

We continue, from part 1, considering recent issued raised by John Loftus and American Atheists’ very own Georgia State Director, Al Stefanelli.

For example, he notes “Those who spout these cries of foul” referring to the “frequent cries of ‘foul’ when the more polemic amongst the atheist community make negative sweeping, generalized statements about fundamental Christianity and radical Islam” and notes that some make “demands made for tolerance and respect for the religious beliefs of all people and that nobody has a right to condemn someone based solely on their religion.”

He then concludes that they who “call for tolerance toward these two very dangerous ideologies are speaking from ignorance.” But just who, pray tell, calls for tolerance of doctrines that serve only to promote hatred, bigotry and discrimination? This is a baseless talking point which has been repeated loudly and often enough to be promulgated and believes—at least since Sam Harris baselessly made this baseless claim the premise upon which his rise to New-celebrity-Atheist stardom was based. But just who is doing any such thing?

american2batheists25e2258025992bal2bstefanelli2b-9384762

He further notes that he is referring to “Bigotry, discrimination, hatred, coercion, terrorism, slavery, misogyny…” and, oh yes, of course, in keeping with another well-within-the-box-atheist-group think-talking points-de jour, just as John Loftus did as seen in the previous segment, he brings up the Westboro “Baptist” “Church.” Again, who is calling for tolerance of these? Besides the ACLU, in the name of freedom of speech, can you think of anyone?

He refers to “Moderates and even Progressives who stand in support of extremists just because there is a claim to the same deity…” but these are generic and generalized assertions that are the fictions upon which to build a malarkey argument and nothing else.

Also, he notes:

The atheist community gets angry when we read about the antics of idiotic, ignorant and imbicillic politicians and celebrities like Palin, Bachmann, Beck, Limbaugh, Pawlenty and Santorum.

Apparently, “The atheist community”—whatever that is—are all Democrats or, otherwise liberals and so he refers to these Republicans as “creeps” who uphold a “rejection of science in favor of their fairy tales.” And with that school yard childish taunt, even Al Stefanelli’s lowest hanging fruit begins to rot.

Moreover, he notes:

The fact is that fundamentalist Christians and radical Muslims are not interested in coexisting or getting along.  They have no desire for peace. They do not want to sit down with us in diplomatic efforts to iron out our differences and come to an agreement on developing an integrated society.

They want us to die.

Their interpretation of the Bible and Koran are such that there is no other course of action but to kill the infidel, and if anyone believes otherwise they are only fooling themselves.  It is not just in the best interests of atheists to be intolerant of fundamental Christianity and radical Islam, but it is also in the best interest of mainstream believers within these faiths, as well.

Thus, he concludes that “they must, must, must be eradicated”—“they” meaning their doctrines. The problem is that he emphasizes that “the underbelly of fundamentalist Christianity and radical Islam does not operate in the legal system. They don’t respond to lawsuits, letters, amicus briefs or other grass-roots campaigns” and so, how will the doctrines be eradicated? He does not say, beyond urging generic intolerance—whatever that means in this context, however something like intolerance is supposed to look under such circumstances.

You see, having no ethical ground upon which to base his condemnations he has painted himself into an atheist corner: he wants to condemn due to his God given ethical sense but does not know how to do so since he denies his God given ethical sense. This is why he states that “When Diplomacy Fails, It’s Time To Fight Using The Law” but then states that “They don’t respond to” the law. So, just what is he urging, that laws be passed against people who will not follow them? He is obviously very, very frustrated and confused.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.


Posted

in

by

Tags: