Starbuzzz

And so your original statement, in light of this analogy, illogically says that: -the mere act of defending from an invading army makes both sides barbarians. -the mere act of "defending" is the real cause of problems as opposed to the invasion itself. Even without the analogy to illustrate it; your statement still spouts the same fallacy: -the act of attempting to curb intrusive theists makes both sides obnoxious(?) -the mere act of atheists attempting to curb such illegal intrusion of the theists is the real cause of the problem.(seriously?) What a fucked up hypothesis! It's screwed up because this is what theists are actually trying to do: -attempt to worm their way into centres of power to gain influence -attempting to make laws in their own favour so as to subjugate those who disgaree with their beliefs. (Good examples are laws regarding homosexuality and suicide clinics). Since the actions of atheists are not vile and abhorrent as what the theists are trying to do, "lack thereof" can be stripped away from the statement. Why? Take a good look at this thread: theists say homosexuals should be kept locked up because their dogma states so. If this is not obnoxious, I don't know what it. However, the atheist responses in this thread cannot be compared to the theists because we are not telling them how to live; but refuting their extraordinary unjust bullshit. We can tell how wrong they are and have given them the irrefutable reasons; they have thrown up their hands in the air and claimed that they are still right. Both sides are not equal; one obvious side has merit and good intentions going for it. Matching Conclusions: -The invasion is the REAL cause of the problem; defending is not the real problem (your hypothesis states the opposite). -i.e, the intrusion of church into the state is the REAL cause of the problem; the atheist attempt to eliminate this intrusion is not (and doesn't make them obnoxious in the least). -Those of faith are the invading army as they are the ones doing everything they can to turn the law to favour themselves -The atheist response to stop this trend makes them the defending army and rightly so. -Those of faith are the obnoxious shits that have creeped into government over a period of many decades enjoying great powers of influence. -"Lack thereof" are the non-obnoxious ones that are attempting to remove such unjust and illegal "occupation" of the state by the church. The invasion is the REAL cause of the problem just as the voter guide (which represents church intrusion into government) is the real cause of problem. So the atheist reaction to that is NOT the "real cause of problems" and nor can it be described as obnoxious. The theist bitches were simply asking for it when they tried to shove their crap as law. It makes them obnoxious and our side the justified counter-attackers in defense of those who would otherwise suffer under the theists' dogmatically influenced laws.

This bit is interesting, emphasis added:

Starbuzzz

So in conclusion, adding the "lack thereof" in your original statement makes your hypothesis partially wrong (due to "lack thereof" being present) while removing "lack thereof" makes it fully correct. It is those of faith that cause problems by attempting to subjugate others while those of no faith fight the injustice of the intrusive actions of the faithful. Both actions are not equal; one side is justified in their actions; the other side is SOL steaming out of excuses while at the same time, they overstep their boundaries and have greatly affected the peace-of-mind of individuals that want no part in their dogma.

Apparently, athiests have never attempted to subjugate anyone...

As mentioned, upholding equality is fine, that includes permitting people to hold faith. You are seem to be pushing for a complete removal of faith (from the world), because a few people use it as an excuse or reason to do evil.