No arguement, there.
My issue is not with atheism, but with the people who espouse it. Organised atheism, if you will.
Atheism doesn't need defending, as it has nothing on which to be attacked (unless you compare it with agnosticism, which is arguably more rational).
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Mon 9 Jan 2012, 14:16, 1 reply)

Atheism does have something to be attacked
Its lack of conformity to the belief in established religious 'right and priveleges'. A lack of belief is largely speaking, in the eyes of most religions, a problem and something to be corrected. Your assertion that it cannot be attacked would presumablyequally apply to, say, a conscientious objector not wishing to agree with a war being waged and I am fairly sure that many were and indeed still are castigated for this stance. An absence of acquiescence does not remove a belief, direction or viewpoint. It is an alternative, surely?

To say your problem is with the espousal of atheism is essentially an attack on voicing ones opinion because it can be ' a bit loud and in your face' which whilst not pleasant or always constructive is no different to just about any other argument whether it is political, religious or even whether or not Harry Potter is suitable for mature adults. Either all sides get their say or none. The church has enjoyed a position for centuries (millennia in fact) where it has literally been 'God's law, the one true law' and it doesn't like the fact that not only do some folk not agree with it but actually find it logically flawed based as it is on a premise of accepting the unprovable.
( number5 has been fighting tramps and losing., Mon 9 Jan 2012, 14:40, closed)

War is a demonstrably real thing,
and demonstrablt harmful, and thus can be argued against. Attacking atheism for its lack of beliefs is pointless, as it's a perfectly sound, logical position (you could argue for a belief in god, but that's not an attack on atheism, it's a defence of religion), and I fail to see how you could attack it for its non-conformity, outside of a society ruled by religious edict.

I have no more time for mouthy christians, muslims, hindus, or whatever, than I do for outspoken atheists.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Mon 9 Jan 2012, 16:10, closed)

Religion is demonstrably harmful.
Ladies and gentlemen I give you the crusades (cheap and dirty example); fundamentalism; scientology et al. Religion as a way of life can be a wonderful thing for many people giving them direction, purpose, succour etc but it has been the catalyst for or cause of innumerable wars and atrocities throughout human history. Pacifism as an objection to violence as a tool and the reasoning behind it appears, to me, to be remarkably similar to atheism. They both stem from a slightly unnatural rejection of human reliance on instinct and reject the arguments therein.
( number5 has been fighting tramps and losing., Mon 9 Jan 2012, 17:17, closed)

The acts of man against man are demonstrably harmful,
regardless of what justifications you hang on them. At least you didn't bring up Palestine.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Mon 9 Jan 2012, 17:31, closed)

So you agree?
Sorry I was mid edit of my previous post when you replied.

Religion is dangerous in the hands of the wrong people. Atheism can at least take personal responsibility for acting like a dick.
( number5 has been fighting tramps and losing., Mon 9 Jan 2012, 17:42, closed)

I posted a piss weak response to your cheap arguement,
and have just noticed that I completely missed the point!
Arguements against religion are reasonable (if somewhat tiresome, after a while), it's arguements against atheism that don't work.

I seem to have wound up arguing both sides of the wrong arguement. Probably time for me to give up.

[edit: I've now read your edit, and am going to agree, in spite of myself, as I don't have the energy to start taking a pro-religion stance.]
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Mon 9 Jan 2012, 17:57, closed)