Purple Knight wrote:
There is no law or moral principle that prohibits persecuting atheists, nor should there be.
It should be considered unlawful and even immoral to persecute anyone without justification.
Purple Knight wrote:
Technically arguing against a person's religion may be persecution and in fact hate speech.
I would agree if a religious person was approached out of the blue and someone started to argue or bully them for believing in their religion. But there's no excuse for anyone to come onto a religious debating site and cry foul because there are people here prepared to debate why they reason that various religions are obviously false.
Purple Knight wrote:
Atheist culture is about being rational - nothing is sacred. Nothing is above Reason. Anyone can ask why. This is how my brain works, and I can't change it.
I don't accept your blanket accusation against an imagined "Atheist Culture". In fact, I would argue that there is no such thing as an "Atheist Culture" save for perhaps very specific organized atheist clubs. But how should that be viewed any different from all the disagreeing religious clubs?
Let's not forget that while Atheists argue against ALL religions, religious people also argue against ALL religions
EXCEPT their favorite one. So theists are pretty much the same as atheists when it comes to arguing AGAINST other people's religions.
Theists are quick to renounce the religions of those who don't buy into their specific religious faction. Even within specific religions theists do this to each other. There are even Christian preachers who put down other Christians for supposedly believing the wrong things. If you don't believe me try tuning in some religious radio stations once in a while.
Purple Knight wrote:
people do have a right not to have their religion questioned
Again, this is a religious
DEBATE site. Not a Bible Study group.
If a religious person can't handle debating their religion then they shouldn't have joined a debate forum.
Purple Knight wrote:
They don't need to let down that justified legal shield and allow debate.
If they are an apologist or an evangelist then they absolutely must allow their religion to be questioned. They should have compelling answers to those questions, but they don't.
In fact, I'm pretty sure that the Bible even says that religious devotes should be prepared to give answers to any questions that are asked of them.
The problem is that their answers aren't compelling. And no one should need to have to humor them and pretend that they are compelling when they aren't. In fact, to do so would be quite dishonest.
Do you think we should be dishonest with apologists and evangelists who are trying to proselytize their religions to us?
If they give me absurd answers I'm going to tell them precisely why I see their answer as being absurd. If they are offended by that, that's just too bad.
They need to come up with better answers if they expect to be apologists or evangelists.
Otherwise, they'd be better off just keeping their beliefs to themselves.
You can't proselytize to me and claim foul when I tell you why I'm not buying your baloney. That doesn't make any sense.