Listen live by the gun, die by the gun is the outcome. If u came to power thru force, someone else is going to remove u from power thru force. The system u create will reflect your own downfall. Force sounds good to short term thinkers but u will be lookin over ur back internally/externally when ppl use the same measure on yourself.
Fidel Castro died of old age. Stalin I believe lived to an old age. Mao lived to an old age.
Anyways, if you have some sort of revolutionary cause, you don't necessarily care if you die. Your death is sort of inconsequential, what matters would be the eventual victory of the cause, so I don't think the mindset of is necessarily one of a "short term thinker".
But anyways, all of this is drifting far from what is my actual point.
As I see it, what you are expressing basically is
A- God does not exist
B- Therefore Western liberal ideology
now what I am disputing here is that A leads to B. A does not necessarily lead to B. There is no reason that Conclusion A necessarily leads to Conclusion B.
If you accept A as being true (which it's not but I'm just being hypothetical here).... you could take the route of B... or you could choose from an infinite set of other routes.
you could go the route of Pol Pot. the route of El Chapo. you could go the route of Stalin. you go many, many other routes.
even if I woke up tomorrow and I was an atheist, I still wouldn't care anything about "gay rights" or Western liberal ideology. now myself, due to whatever reasons... personally if I woke up as an atheist, I think I'd be more interested in Fidel Castro and Soviet ideology rather than Western liberal ideology.... but that's just using myself as an example... in reality, people could go in all sorts of different routes... it wouldn't necessarily lead to Western liberal ideology.
in reality, it's completely arbitrary to claim A needs to lead to B. you keep positing these things as being these sort of primary, inherent values.... things like peace, for example. ok but from an atheist point of view, what proof is there that peace is a primary value?
in reality, I think you're not being logically consistent and going all the way. you want to reject religion but then hold on to this psuedo-religious worldview of Western liberalism. if we reject God, the logically consistent thing would be to reject objective, ultimate values as well. so with the gay person, if we were consistent atheists, then it would be the same whether you protect them or you send them to the gulag. personally I'd send them to the gulag.
my point being- "A therefore B" is an utter non sequitur. If A, then anything goes and there is no higher law, neither derived from religion nor from reason- it would be truly anything goes. without God, morality and human rights would just be a fairy tale in the minds of those who believe in such thing. the really consistent approach to atheism would be to reject morality and human rights as well. so it is an absurdity for atheists to preach morality and human rights, if they were to be consistent, they should be honest about where atheism logically leads and openly oppose the concepts of morality and human rights as well. all this talk on the part of atheists about morality and human rights, it is like their version of Shia taqiyyah. openly or secretly, all you atheists know that atheism would entail morality and human rights being figments of human imagination. but admitting this would be bad for your image as atheists and so you atheists refuse to openly admit this.
