In a completely unoriginal move, I have been called a zealot, due to the fact that I deliberately and publicly blaspheme and have a Big Atheist Meanie avatar.
In my dictionary, I have the following:
zealot n. a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals
I don't think trying to remove arcane and idiotic laws that can punish blasphemy by prison is fanatical, but I'll admit to being uncompromising on the issue. Given my calendar showing 2016 years after the birth of the alleged sky-daddy's bastard son, I think having laws punishing blasphemy by prison are insane and won't back down on the issue.
The only thing I'm fanatical about is stopping churches being given the opportunity to teach their religion at primary schools. If schools want to teach a subject of "religion" and explore different religions and their values, I'd be very cool with it. Getting a captive audience of impressionable young minds and trying to infect them with one's own brand of religious delusion, I draw the line at and that is what happens under the banner of "religious instruction" in the NZ public school system.
Everything else on the subject, I'm completely compromising about.
Ironically, more than once I've been called a "religious apologist" on this very forum, because I insist that the good points about religion be acknowledged.
Thus my question:
Can one be both an anti-religious zealot and an apologist for religion?
In my dictionary, I have the following:
zealot n. a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals
I don't think trying to remove arcane and idiotic laws that can punish blasphemy by prison is fanatical, but I'll admit to being uncompromising on the issue. Given my calendar showing 2016 years after the birth of the alleged sky-daddy's bastard son, I think having laws punishing blasphemy by prison are insane and won't back down on the issue.
The only thing I'm fanatical about is stopping churches being given the opportunity to teach their religion at primary schools. If schools want to teach a subject of "religion" and explore different religions and their values, I'd be very cool with it. Getting a captive audience of impressionable young minds and trying to infect them with one's own brand of religious delusion, I draw the line at and that is what happens under the banner of "religious instruction" in the NZ public school system.
Everything else on the subject, I'm completely compromising about.
Ironically, more than once I've been called a "religious apologist" on this very forum, because I insist that the good points about religion be acknowledged.
Thus my question:
Can one be both an anti-religious zealot and an apologist for religion?
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1mL7cPM
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire