> I don't see much of a difference between "loud atheists" Then look closer. There is a difference between fighting human rights and trying to defend intolera

> I don't see much of a difference between "loud atheists" Then look closer. There is a difference between fighting human rights and trying to defend intolerance, homophobia, misigony in the name of some imaginary being. As for intolerance: the stuff above does not deserve any tolerance. To quote Popper: > "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend > unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to > defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the > tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, > I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of > intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and > keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we > should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily > turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, > but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to > rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the > use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, > the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching > intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to > intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement > to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."