Why Aren't Atheists A Protected Group Like Muslims?

When responding to the statement "There are black people on TV in the US. That doesn't say much.", it's relevant to note that our President is more than "just a person".

 

What's the news today from Storm's favorite country, the "progressive, tolerant, safe place for atheists", Iraq.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_F9EVh7pPI

Iraq, just a great place to live, for anyone!

 

any identifiable group that doesn't tell themselves the same lies you tell yourself. same thing hitler did. for the fascists in the u.s., islam is today's target.
excuses for it, sure, you can find excuses for absolutely anything.
they came for the islamists, but i wasn't an islamist, people of color, gays, and the list goes on, list of excuses, till they run out of 'others' and turn on themselves.
hitler made jews a target with krystal knockt.
9-11 was america's krystal knockt.

 

In the US we like to say we have the best justice that money can buy. Atheists are a small percentage of the population and lean towards communism, meaning, they can't afford to buy any justice. That's why militant atheists are so notorious as online trolls just as blacks are notorious for being violent and so on and so forth.

Its a dysfunctional relationship if you ask me where atheist metaphysical views evolved out of religious mystical ones and by pitting the two against one another the US became the empire of the world. The more atheists complain about being second class citizens the more the religious dump on them until they cough up something useful in the hallowed halls of academia or whatever. Notably, both religious totalitarian states and communist atheist ones alike are now largely relegated to the third world and American hate a loser.

 

The Atheist rhetoric widely used to this day was invented by Soviets who wanted to convert the entire western world to communism. Its essentially the same approach fundamentalists use and, ironically, today in China long avowed Atheists are converting to Christianity in record numbers. Atheism and fundamentalism both tend to share an aggressive Three Stooges approach to politics of arguing for the sake of argument and being notorious as online trolls or proselytizing door to door. The New Atheists in particular are infamous for their approach of converting as many agnostics and others to their cause using aggressive rhetoric and even just drowning anyone else out if they don't hear anything they agree with.

 

I think that's when you lose points for calling a peanut a nut when it's really a vegetable.

 

Here's a list of no less than 17 types of atheism:

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6487

These people like to push the idea that agnostics are atheists and use rhetoric including etymological arguments. Sort of like trying to use old English definitions instead of modern ones or debating the literal interpretation of the Bible. They'll insist on redefining any words in the dictionary or that dictionary definitions require their elaborate interpretations. Once, just for fun, I got one atheist troll to insist that a dozen two syllable words were defined wrong in the dictionary. Its just semantic splitting of hairs and arguing for argument's sake. The idea is to encourage agnostics to stop sitting on the fence and join their cause of fighting the good fight.

When you can no longer identify that you have identified nothing you have personal problems. An agnostic atheist is an oxymoron, but their sense of humor is stunted by their anger.

 

So a nut, a vegetable, and a legume enter a bar.
Which one leaves first?

Whichever one was the Muslim.

 

Those are not definitions of atheism, they are atheist rhetoric. If you can't tell the difference I offer free lessons in how to use a dictionary and a search engine.

 

Anytime.