It seems the Dalai Lama (an atheist) is protesting against the atheist Chinese system and it makes you wonder if an atheist-atheist and an atheist-Buddhist can peacefully co-exist or if sooner or later the atheist-atheist and the Buddhist atheist will clash.

Something about the continuous warring of ideas in the world and human nature tell me that atheist-atheist and Buddhist-atheist are no more capable of peaceful co-existence then any other pairing of religious/non-religious groups have been.

The Dalai Lama's struggle with China indicates it:
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/china/na...Dalai-Lama.htm

Is the Dalai Lama exaggerating or is China really trying to annihilate Buddhism?

I don't know, but I'm quite disappointed that they are breaking the atheist code and attacking each other.

Now, if an atheist-atheist-atheist came in to the battle, that would be a whole different story!

You don't think the atheist-atheist/atheist-Buddhist controversy shows that the world will never be conflictless?

I thought the whole point of the New Atheists was to achieve world peace through atheism? Am I misinterpreting their aims?

If all religion were eradicated never to arise again could the world ever be safe from all ideas?

http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103800

Splendour, atheists have no overarching goals. They're just people who don't think there is enough evidence to believe in an intelligent creator. A world devoid of religion may be more peaceful, but there will still be conflict.

This is either a huge strawman or you have a source that I'm unaware of.

You mean there are things you can disagree on besides theology?

It's actually their lack of belief in a teapot circling mars that has caused this religious schism.

And the only rule of New Atheists is that you don't speak of New Atheists. I vote for kicking Splendour out.

Why because I pointed out an atheist controversy?

But really what's the point of being a New Atheist if the atheists aren't peaceful?

There is no atheist creed that says atheists shouldn't slaughter eachother. It's the same for people who don't believe in pink dragons (you for example).

There is no sensible answer because your question is very, very stupid.

Who mentioned a creed.

I'm showing human nature and if atheist human nature isn't better than theist human nature then what are the New Atheists up in arms about?

The world seems like it will be messed up with or without religion so why can't they let individuals do what works for them?

Clearly, not all atheists are irreligious so your posts aren't making the slightest bit of sense.

Most atheists are just as misguided and delusional as theists. That is no surprise.

I've never heard an argument that atheism should be more peaceful than another view, just that the other views (ones with gods) cause violence and wars, so they're bad. Atheism can't really argue for any less violence since any particular atheistic worldview can justify virtually any act. For instance, Jeffrey Dahmer (killed many people, raped men, ate people, etc.), once caught and imprisoned said evolution was the key contributor to his depravity, that if we're just animals, there's nothing wrong with anything, including killing, raping, eating our own kind, since all these things happen in the wild. Makes sense to me from an atheist perspective. He said if he had known God existed at the time he never could have committed those acts because he would have believed in human dignity, inherent human worth.

Of course atheists can believe in human dignity, inherent human worth, it's just not consistent with any worldview they can contrive; there will be a logical disconnect.

Communist countries tend to want to get rid of religion to better warp human minds and take away rights-it's population control.

When apologists for atheism such as Richard Dawkins go around talking, they're attacking religion, not defending the plausibility of atheism.

Yawn. Try something original.

It's obvious that either the Dalai Lama or the leaders of the Chinese government secretly believe in God. Otherwise their relations would be entirely positive, peaceful, and characterized by profound mutual respect. Back in the Garden of Atheism, before religion reared its ugly head, strife and conflict were completely unknown in the world.

I'd be more worried about the Dalai Llama

In other news, all Christians agree about absolutely everything.

There are reports of government repression:

Tibetan monks commit “suicide,” victims of pre-Olympic repression

http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=11287&size=A

Only they are not sure if its really a suicide.

Can Sweden defend the plausibility of atheism instead of Dahmer and China?

Strange.

I saw Dahmer interviewed with his father on tv. He didn't mention evolutionary views in the tv interview but he did say if he'd been saved he doesn't think he'd have committed his crimes.

I think he also felt traumatized from his parents divorce.

It never occurred to me to think Dawkins wasn't defending the plausibility of atheism. Thanks for the insight.

It never occurred to you because it isn't true.

Atheism does not imply any particular beliefs, you would know this already if you could read.

It doesn't have to have any beliefs for someone to think it has social or political benefits.

This is clearly false. Almost all moral theories are logically compatible with atheism, so unless you can show that all these moral theories "can justify virtually any act" (which, good luck!) you are embarrassing yourself.

atheism can't justify any act since it is a lack of belief. Many atheists are also humanists, if you wish to discuss how humanism is dangerous, go ahead, but I think you'll find you can't. Religion is often used to justify brutal acts of violence towards men all the time. It is simply the ability to take a system of beliefs and bend them to meet your needs.

Dahmer was psychologically disturbed from an early age. At 10, he was abusing animals. He was antisocial, paranoid, and obsessed with pleasing his father. He had severe psychological problems all his life. He also hated homosexuals. To blame atheism and evolution for his actions is absurd. It is very probable that with a religious mindset, these problems could have taken a similar path, albeit with an 'avenging angel' mindset.

Religion has often been used as the 'motivation' of serial killers.

Albert Fish thought god was ordering him to castrate young boys to prevent them from sinning.

Coral Eugene Watts killed women because he thought they had evil spirits.

David Berkowitz thought he was being ordered by the devil to kill.

http://www.dirjournal.com/info/ameri...erial-killers/

Saeed Hanaei killed to eliminate moral corruption.

Is religion to blame? No. Crazy people will be crazy no matter what.

This is incorrect. Humanism and philosophical buddhism both uphold human dignity.