Ok so I'm new here haveing discovered this site by chance after hearing Joe Rogan ,of all people, referance kirk camerons stupidity. Then stumbling on the Nightline debate on youtube.
However I'm not new to atheism haveing relized for sevrail years the sheer impropablity of the bible. After coming across the nightline debate I began searching for more such debates and videos and found I enjoyed them immensly. Especially the debates involving the so called four hoursemen. Having spent the greater part of the last sevrail days watching such videos I've decided it would behoove me to further explore and lay greater foundation to my belieaf.
My question to you is does believeing that theism is a irrational belieaf that actually causes harm to the world. Am I not obligated to be intolernt of such stupidity much like the so called new athiests. Or would I be better off simply following my current habit of keeping my thoughts to myself as long as not first approached by a relgious person. The biggest factor for me is that it seems apparant that Thiesm by it's very existance spreads close mindedness, intolerance, hate, and violence. If i believe this I'm I not obligated as a citzen of the world to fight aganist it? Even if I see no chance of actual victory. If so how?
I of course realize that Tolerance is a virtue hearlded by many including a large number of athiest who simply want to be left alone. However believeing the way I do it would seem tolerance is actual a weak if not immoral act. Thoughts.
P.S. I didn't know the best forum in which to post this so being my first ever post I figured introductions would work. AS a way of doing that I suppose of genrail info would be approate. I'm 27 and about to be a JR at Western Michigan I intend to get my B.A in history in then pursue a Masters in Medievil Studies, and proable a P.H.D possiable in historical anthropology. I realize I'm a horriable speller and my grammer is not much better so please have some patienace with me I'm working on it.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.