Perhaps a hasty generalization on my part with all things considered, but in my expierences, it's prevelant to the point where it's not generalizing at all. Much the same way people generalize cops as being bad without taking into consideration that there are good cops, though few and far between. But to answer your question, it is similar, but not the same. I think maybe atheists give off the impression of being more boisterous because they are such in the minority. To be quite honest I found nothing wrong with your post. In fact, my first response was poking fun at the inconsistancy, or rather, the extreme variation in religion, which in and of itself is self-defeating. In other words, the very existance of literally hundreds of different variations of religion is evidence of it's futility.
I'm going to back out of this because I think both atheists and theists can be very obnoxious. But using siccness as a small sample size, it tells of the imbalance between theists that keep to themselves and atheists that [don't] keep to themselves.
That's all well and good but if it is your intent to counter my position, you must realize you are standing closer to me than you think. Just because I criticize what someone says doesn't mean I believe the opposite.
The fact that history shows much of the tyranny in this world came from leaders who were Christian, should not blur the line between something done with Christianity as the sole driving force and something done out of the iniquity of someone who happens to be Christian. You are sure to use as examples of the countless leaders who have used God as justification for war but it is important to now understand the difference between doing something out of God's will, and using God as a tool to gain the allegiance of a population. What I'm saying is, IF I were an atheist trying to gain office and, much further down the road start a war, I would profess to the world that I was a God fearing man. How else am I going to get the masses to believe I am best suited to lead them and more specifially, that the decisions I make have great moral standing.
I'm going to back out of this because I think both atheists and theists can be very obnoxious. But using siccness as a small sample size, it tells of the imbalance between theists that keep to themselves and atheists that [don't] keep to themselves.
That's all well and good but if it is your intent to counter my position, you must realize you are standing closer to me than you think. Just because I criticize what someone says doesn't mean I believe the opposite.
The fact that history shows much of the tyranny in this world came from leaders who were Christian, should not blur the line between something done with Christianity as the sole driving force and something done out of the iniquity of someone who happens to be Christian. You are sure to use as examples of the countless leaders who have used God as justification for war but it is important to now understand the difference between doing something out of God's will, and using God as a tool to gain the allegiance of a population. What I'm saying is, IF I were an atheist trying to gain office and, much further down the road start a war, I would profess to the world that I was a God fearing man. How else am I going to get the masses to believe I am best suited to lead them and more specifially, that the decisions I make have great moral standing.