1. Of course. Notice that my only criticism of atheism is that I find it boring, the other points were aimed at certain atheists themselves.
As it should be...i fail to find anything exciting about it myself.
2. In normal circumstances I would agree, however recently I've seen atheism spouted with fanatical fervour on too many threads. There does seem to be a particular "brand" of atheism that would perhaps be better off being given its own title and considered a religion in its own right.
Every time i hear this suggestion, i wonder if the proponent has considered how much that debases the idea of religion.
3. I don't think much of theists forcing their ideas upon others either.
That would largely defeat the point of having ideas in the first place, i fear.
Progress dosen't often pace in solitude. The realm of ideas are presented for the sake of critisism; otherwise, they're of little use by and large. While i believe that freedom of thought is among the most important aspects modern of civilization, respecting others ideas is hardly required, or reccomended. Theists prosletyze because
they can. Dissenters, likewise.
By and large, idealogues will always highjack a forum if they think they can get away with it, be it via ridicule, complaint or any apeal that may garner a restricted and favourable forum of ideas. I view the outcropping of threads trying to force atheists from expressing their opnions on theists to be counterproductive to understanding a fairly common view of religion.
I welcome theists to prosletyze, because it highlights their foolishness. I doubt atheists have much to preach about, although, as previously stated, there's no restriction from an atheist from being an ideologue.
So if you want to make a new catagory, why subdivide a group, as "a whole" you don't much understand? Let's just go with "fools" and be done with it.
