Are Atheistic Fundamentalists Any More Desirable Than The Jim Jones University Brand?

[Pegasus_Voyager]

currentchristian started a thread asking for input on Christianity Today's article , The "New Intolerance" which addressed militant atheism. Being the swell-headed egomaniac that I am, I will start a whole new thread to discuss my views. By and large, I agreed with the article, right up to the last point, when it went "brain-dead", stating that the best form of apologia is love. Yes, it's true, but if anyone wants to see the love demonstrated by funny-mentalists, check out the responses I get from "warm, loving" Christians, on CARM (www.carm.org)in my posts in atheism, abortion, and "The Whining Forum" ( In which my thread, "Why I left Christianity after 40 years", was moved by the "sensitive" moderator.) Criminy. I thought I jumped into a nest of vipers!

 

The problem as I see it, is that the difference between hard-core atheism and Christian fundamentalism is tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum. They are both idealoguic, arrogant, intolerant, smug, sneering, insulting. and arbitrary. They have both drawn conclusions in their minds and then seek to crush any argument that contradicts or invalidates that conclusion. This is not how an objective-minded critical thinker functions. Many evolutionists are just as pig-headed and dogmatic as creationists, proclaiming that evolution is a PROVEN FACT! Uhh, no it isn't. There is no "smoking gun" conclusively proving evolution. Many of the arguments creationists pose against evolution are very valid, just as evolutionists arguments against creationism are valid. When evolutionists stupidly maintain that if American children don't believe in evolution, we will lag behind the world in science, that is the most unsubstantiated fantastic postulation ever. Whether or not I believe that I am a distant cousin to "bonzo the chimp" and "koko the gorilla" has no bearing on my ability to be a physicist, mathematician, botanist, zoologist, astronomer, electrical/aerospace/mechanical engineer, or even a biologist. Yes, believing in the 6000 year old Earth drivel is scientific quackery, but so is the notion that some "pool of goop" somehow threw itself together into life, survived a brutal primordial environment long enough to reproduce, mutate, bi-sect, whatever. and "bubbled up" into sentient species by sheer dumb chance. The odds of 1,000,000,000 chimps randomly typing and coming up with the Encyclopedia Brittanica are better.

 

Ultimately, I am not an atheist. Why? Simply put, in Data-like style, I do not have sufficient information to draw a valid conclusion as to whether or not a supreme being(s) exists. It can't be proven or disproven conclusively either way. Absolutist, arbitrary. subjective, rigid, "this is the way it is, don't confuse me with facts" thinking is fundamentalist thinking, and is not confined to religion. Humanist fundamentalism is just as dangerous and a threat to free thought as the "Bible Belt" variety. A philosopher once said, "In order to know everything that isn't, you have to know everything that is!" We don't even know what's in Alpha Centauri, our closest neighboring star system, let alone what's beyond. Now granted, I maintain that the burden of proof is on the apologist to prove the Bible or the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, but it is also incumbent upon me as a skeptic debater to come up with arguments beyond '"You can't prove the Bible, so, nyah, nyah, nyah!". Many of the claims in the Bible can be debunked rationally and logically, and that is how fundamentalism should be defeated, in the intellectual and academic arena, not the in the lion-filled one, or by "out-maneuvering" them in the courts or political elections, or via "red herring" arguments or ad hominem. Out-lawing religion, censoring it, or all out persecution of it, are the tactics of a dull-witted lazy brute. You don't crush a "Ponzi Scheme" by killing it's perpetrators, you expose their duplicity to the light, just as Prime Time did with Robert Tilton, and let nature take it's course. In short, the Red Chinese communists who crucified Christians upside down are no less Bastards than the puritan Nazi's who hung witches. If atheists, skeptics, humanists, etc, don't demonstrate altruism, charity, benevolence, mercy, kindness, tolerance, and compassion, I will fight just as hard to keep them from the helm of government as any religious despot. I would rather see a supreme court and congess filled with Mother Theresa's and/or Father Damien's than with the Pol Pot's, Hegel's, or Stalins. Conversely, I would rather see the Albert Schweitzer's running the show than the Jerry Falwell's, Pat Robertson's, or John Hagee's.

 

PV

[Guest Idoless]

I totally agree with everything you just said. Fundamentalism is bad, no matter what the fundamentals are; it discourages rational and critical thought. Furthermore, I don't identify myself as an atheist because too many people think that means that I aim to prove there is no god. You can't prove it. I identify as an agnostic because I don't believe in any established religion's deity.

 

Atheist fundamentalists are just as annoying, ignorant, and potentially dangerous as the Christian/Muslim/Jedi ones.

[Lycorth]

Atheistic fundamentalists are as bad as any other group, except that only Abrahamic fundamentalists can go as far as to want to kill others for not adhering.

 

But intolerant, divisive, slave-like devotion to an idea or belief is always a bad thing. Fundamentalism is one of the reasons we oppose Xianity, since Xian doctrine so easily leads to intolerant, fundamentalist behavior by its very nature. However, anything can be taken too far, even the best of ideas or truths, and Atheism is no different.

[Dave]

That was just another redefinition of Atheism so that it can be attacked so the attacker can feel superior. Such attacks do little to promote or support Atheism or other non believers. In such attacks they always get some very simple things wrong. Evolution for instance, it is a fact. It doesn't matter how much denying one wants to do, evolution is a fact. It happed. There is a "smoking gun" and they'd know this if they just bothered to read up on the subject. They'd also know that all the complaints christians have about evolution are RELIGIOUSLY based, not scientifically based. Not one of them is a valid argument against evolution and all of them show an ignorance of science at the very basic levels.

[Vigile]

Seems you have many of the same misconceptions about atheism and evolution that christians do. Oh well. I'm tired of debating the subject. I'll let others who have more energy to deal with these old claims again to rebut.

[Jubilant]

Um, the only place that I see "hardcore" atheists out to "destroy" other beliefs is on the internet. Atheists are not out trying to force their views on others so I really think that that whole argument you posted is moot. The only time I stand strong outside of this website is if someone tries to threaten me with hellfire and brimstone, most of the time, outside of that...I don't stand on the street corners, pronouncing to the world that I am an atheist and here is why and if you disagree, screw you.

 

I fail to see how anyone can call atheists fundamentalists for not believing. That is all that atheism is, disbelief in a deity. And you know what? How fucking hypocritical for that stance to be looked down upon; it is as silly to me as someone stating that because you don't believe in elves and santy-claus that you are a anti-santa/elf fundy. Substitute an Elf for God and this is the argument...Because elves can't be proven or disproven, to close your mind to the possibility of elves is arrogant, insulting, arbitrary, sneering and smug.

 

Put freakin' unicorns, invisible dragons, whatever for god. If you are going to knock atheists for disbelief in God or the possibility of God then knock yourself for not believing in elves, santa claus, unicorns, and other MYTHICAL beings! Afterall, you can't disprove them so there is a "possibility" that they exist.

[Jubilant]

Ultimately, I am not an atheist. Why? Simply put, in Data-like style, I do not have sufficient information to draw a valid conclusion as to whether or not a supreme being(s) exists. It can't be proven or disproven conclusively either way. Absolutist, arbitrary. subjective, rigid, "this is the way it is, don't confuse me with facts" thinking is fundamentalist thinking, and is not confined to religion.

 

So according to you, if one disbelieves in three-headed dogs, men that are part man/goat, Zeus, Ammon-Ra, Isis, Mythra, ghosts, boogie men and other mythical beings; they don't have sufficient enough information to either prove or disprove them, so for one to declare "Those things do not exist!" is absolutist? Color me absolutist then.

 

And lastly; technically, people who go around militantly telling others or speaking about others who don't believe in any deity or the possiblity of one as if they are wrong for doing so...outta take a damn hard look at the four fingers pointing directly at themselves.

[currentchristian]

currentchristian started a thread asking for input on Christianity Today's article , The "New Intolerance" which addressed militant atheism. Being the swell-headed egomaniac that I am, I will start a whole new thread to discuss my views. By and large, I agreed with the article, right up to the last point, when it went "brain-dead", stating that the best form of apologia is love. Yes, it's true, but if anyone wants to see the love demonstrated by funny-mentalists, check out the responses I get from "warm, loving" Christians, on CARM (www.carm.org)in my posts in atheism, abortion, and "The Whining Forum" ( In which my thread, "Why I left Christianity after 40 years", was moved by the "sensitive" moderator.) Criminy. I thought I jumped into a nest of vipers!

 

The problem as I see it, is that the difference between hard-core atheism and Christian fundamentalism is tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum. They are both idealoguic, arrogant, intolerant, smug, sneering, insulting. and arbitrary. They have both drawn conclusions in their minds and then seek to crush any argument that contradicts or invalidates that conclusion. This is not how an objective-minded critical thinker functions. Many evolutionists are just as pig-headed and dogmatic as creationists, proclaiming that evolution is a PROVEN FACT! Uhh, no it isn't. There is no "smoking gun" conclusively proving evolution. Many of the arguments creationists pose against evolution are very valid, just as evolutionists arguments against creationism are valid. When evolutionists stupidly maintain that if American children don't believe in evolution, we will lag behind the world in science, that is the most unsubstantiated fantastic postulation ever. Whether or not I believe that I am a distant cousin to "bonzo the chimp" and "koko the gorilla" has no bearing on my ability to be a physicist, mathematician, botanist, zoologist, astronomer, electrical/aerospace/mechanical engineer, or even a biologist. Yes, believing in the 6000 year old Earth drivel is scientific quackery, but so is the notion that some "pool of goop" somehow threw itself together into life, survived a brutal primordial environment long enough to reproduce, mutate, bi-sect, whatever. and "bubbled up" into sentient species by sheer dumb chance. The odds of 1,000,000,000 chimps randomly typing and coming up with the Encyclopedia Brittanica are better.

 

Ultimately, I am not an atheist. Why? Simply put, in Data-like style, I do not have sufficient information to draw a valid conclusion as to whether or not a supreme being(s) exists. It can't be proven or disproven conclusively either way. Absolutist, arbitrary. subjective, rigid, "this is the way it is, don't confuse me with facts" thinking is fundamentalist thinking, and is not confined to religion. Humanist fundamentalism is just as dangerous and a threat to free thought as the "Bible Belt" variety. A philosopher once said, "In order to know everything that isn't, you have to know everything that is!" We don't even know what's in Alpha Centauri, our closest neighboring star system, let alone what's beyond. Now granted, I maintain that the burden of proof is on the apologist to prove the Bible or the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, but it is also incumbent upon me as a skeptic debater to come up with arguments beyond '"You can't prove the Bible, so, nyah, nyah, nyah!". Many of the claims in the Bible can be debunked rationally and logically, and that is how fundamentalism should be defeated, in the intellectual and academic arena, not the in the lion-filled one, or by "out-maneuvering" them in the courts or political elections, or via "red herring" arguments or ad hominem. Out-lawing religion, censoring it, or all out persecution of it, are the tactics of a dull-witted lazy brute. You don't crush a "Ponzi Scheme" by killing it's perpetrators, you expose their duplicity to the light, just as Prime Time did with Robert Tilton, and let nature take it's course. In short, the Red Chinese communists who crucified Christians upside down are no less Bastards than the puritan Nazi's who hung witches. If atheists, skeptics, humanists, etc, don't demonstrate altruism, charity, benevolence, mercy, kindness, tolerance, and compassion, I will fight just as hard to keep them from the helm of government as any religious despot. I would rather see a supreme court and congess filled with Mother Theresa's and/or Father Damien's than with the Pol Pot's, Hegel's, or Stalins. Conversely, I would rather see the Albert Schweitzer's running the show than the Jerry Falwell's, Pat Robertson's, or John Hagee's.

 

PV

 

Many good points were made in this post. It's quite likely that while it is perfectly fine to be firmly convinced of "truth" in our own minds, it is wise to remain open to the possibility of additional information turning everything on its head. Leaving some room for doubting our own established views is a good thing. Evolution of thought is, too. Fundamentalitic rigidity, about just about anything, is not helpful in advancing peace on earth.

 

-CC in MA

[The Sage Nabooru]

Well I agree entirely with the first poster. Poor stupid me.

 

And for the record, people, and plenty of them, have killed in the name of atheism.

 

Really my big beef is the basic presumption that true peace, equality, happiness, etc. can only be achieved once every human being is subject to a particular creed or anti-creed, that fundamentalists seem to carry. The Muslim fundamentalist believes that Allah's Will will not be carried out until all of humanity submits themselves to it, and the disagreers (which include everything short of fundamentalism, so that also includes liberal Muslims) are killed off. The fundamentalist Christian believes that Jesus will not come to bring about the Second Kingdom of God until the nations of the world realize Christ's Sacrifice and feel the true wrath of God. The atheist fundamentalist believes that the planet will be stuck in a miserable dark age until all of humankind is forced to admit that there is no God(s), soul, afterlife, or supernatural - whether they like it or not. (Then they often have some kind of bizarre religion-like idea of a world untainted by hate, inequality, poverty, or war in a sort of anti-religious Paradise.)

 

I've gotten to the point where I make almost no distinction between fundamentalists. I hardly notice their Christianity, Islam, atheism, Judaism, or whatever anymore, to me that's like the different color of eyes among a group of blind people. Superificially, yes, there is a difference, but does it really matter? I seriously don't think so. The symptoms are the same.

 

I think a lot of people just feel the basic need to 1) play the victim, 2) play the omniscient. I think that perhaps it is an ingrained human fantasy to think of oneself as the suffering sage who possesses the secrets of the universe, oppressed by the ignorant masses.

 

One thing that does irritate me, though, is that it's becoming more common for the "believer" to take an apologetic stance about their faith - i.e., upon stating it, immediately also state that their beliefs do not involve discrimination against anyone nor are they intended to condemn, whereas more often the atheist has absolutely no problem stating right off the bat that anybody who doesn't agree with him is not only an idiot but probably an asshole too.

[Pegasus_Voyager]

Ultimately, I am not an atheist. Why? Simply put, in Data-like style, I do not have sufficient information to draw a valid conclusion as to whether or not a supreme being(s) exists. It can't be proven or disproven conclusively either way. Absolutist, arbitrary. subjective, rigid, "this is the way it is, don't confuse me with facts" thinking is fundamentalist thinking, and is not confined to religion.

 

So according to you, if one disbelieves in three-headed dogs, men that are part man/goat, Zeus, Ammon-Ra, Isis, Mythra, ghosts, boogie men and other mythical beings; they don't have sufficient enough information to either prove or disprove them, so for one to declare "Those things do not exist!" is absolutist? Color me absolutist then.

 

And lastly; technically, people who go around militantly telling others or speaking about others who don't believe in any deity or the possiblity of one as if they are wrong for doing so...outta take a damn hard look at the four fingers pointing directly at themselves.

 

 

MY RESPONSE: You are mixing "apples and oranges". I said "supreme being", implying a being of higher intelligence and creative ability. I'm necessarily talking about Jehovah or Zeus or Thor or the invisibe flying spaghetti monster or invisible pink unicorns.. Only arrogance and hubris would presume that you have have the ability to say what does and does not exist. Can you conclusively prove that 3 ghosts weren't playing poker in your bedroom last night? No, you cannot. You can say you highly doubt it, that it is highly improbable, whatever, but with your finite mind and abilities, you cannot emphatically say, "No, I am 100% certain they were not there!" The fact is, there are atheists running around who do want to see religion outlawed and Christians put in gulags. I cant help but think you and a lot of other atheists are taking this thread personally. Did I say anywhere in this thread that I was referring to all atheists everywhere? No, I did not. I'm only saying that just because you are an atheist does not make you "Mr Nice Guy" and an open-minded free thinker who should be permitted to have your "finger on the button". That fact should have been evident to anyone who thinks rationally and reads my article with an open-mind, and it concerns me that you missed the obvious.

[Vigile]

And for the record, people, and plenty of them, have killed in the name of atheism.

 

That's news to me. Examples please.

[Dave]

Many good points were made in this post.

No good points were made. Many strawman arguments were made, but then you make the same ones in your desperate need to bash Atheists.

[Vigile]

Really my big beef is the basic presumption that true peace, equality, happiness, etc. can only be achieved once every human being is subject to a particular creed or anti-creed, that fundamentalists seem to carry.

 

I agree.

[Dave]

And for the record, people, and plenty of them, have killed in the name of atheism.

Many have been killed to remove the competition from totalitarian regimes, not in the name of Atheism.

Really my big beef is the basic presumption that true peace, equality, happiness, etc. can only be achieved once every human being is subject to a particular creed or anti-creed, that fundamentalists seem to carry....

Then your beef is with religions, not with Atheism. There is no such thing as a "fundamentalist atheist." That's just some pejorative term made up by those wishing to dismiss Atheism.

I think a lot of people just feel the basic need to 1) play the victim, 2) play the omniscient.....

Yes, that's exactly what the detractors of Atheism are doing. They make up all kinds of fantasies about Atheists and Atheism and then claim that those fantasies are real. Then they make themselves, and the world, a victim of those fantasies.

[currentchristian]

I've gotten to the point where I make almost no distinction between fundamentalists. I hardly notice their Christianity, Islam, atheism, Judaism, or whatever anymore, to me that's like the different color of eyes among a group of blind people. Superificially, yes, there is a difference, but does it really matter? I seriously don't think so. The symptoms are the same.

 

I think a lot of people just feel the basic need to 1) play the victim, 2) play the omniscient. I think that perhaps it is an ingrained human fantasy to think of oneself as the suffering sage who possesses the secrets of the universe, oppressed by the ignorant masses.

 

I'll have to think about these two paragraphs more. My first impression is that you are on to an important truth here.

 

-CC in MA

[Dave]

MY RESPONSE: You are mixing "apples and oranges". I said "supreme being", implying a being of higher intelligence and creative ability.

I say you're just playing with words.

I'm necessarily talking about Jehovah or Zeus or Thor or the invisibe flying spaghetti monster or invisible pink unicorns.. Only arrogance and hubris would presume that you have have the ability to say what does and does not exist.

Tralfamadorians do not exist. A great civilization with miles of canals does not exist on Mars. Giant flying whales do not exist. I can make up millions of things that do not exist. Gods are no different. They were made up by humans. Just because someone made up something does not mean we have to assume it exists, or play some silly game where we cannot say it does not exist.

The fact is, there are atheists running around who do want to see religion outlawed and Christians put in gulags.

There might be one or two. You cannot blame all of Atheism for what one or two of them say.

I cant help but think you and a lot of other atheists are taking this thread personally.

Since the whole thing was a dig at Atheists based on an army of strawmen, it should be taken personally since it was meant as a personal attack on Atheists.

That fact should have been evident to anyone who thinks rationally and reads my article with an open-mind, and it concerns me that you missed the obvious.

I did not see an open mind. In fact, the opposite of an open mind was obvious.

[Dave]

I'll have to think about these two paragraphs more. My first impression is that you are on to an important truth here.

You mean like you, and christianity, are playing the victim in another thread?

[currentchristian]

....

The fact is, there are atheists running around who do want to see religion outlawed and Christians put in gulags. ....

I'm only saying that just because you are an atheist does not make you "Mr Nice Guy" and an open-minded free thinker who should be permitted to have your "finger on the button". ...

 

I go along with MLK Jr. in that what matters is content of character. Give me an upstanding, trustworthy atheist to be my senator any day over a lying, cheating theist! Character counts, not beliefs.

 

-CC in MA

[Pegasus_Voyager]

That was just another redefinition of Atheism so that it can be attacked so the attacker can feel superior. Such attacks do little to promote or support Atheism or other non believers. In such attacks they always get some very simple things wrong. Evolution for instance, it is a fact. It doesn't matter how much denying one wants to do, evolution is a fact. It happed. There is a "smoking gun" and they'd know this if they just bothered to read up on the subject. They'd also know that all the complaints christians have about evolution are RELIGIOUSLY based, not scientifically based. Not one of them is a valid argument against evolution and all of them show an ignorance of science at the very basic levels.

 

MY RESPONSE: Evolution may be a fact, dave, but it is not a PROVEN fact just as life in outer space may be a fact. Is there strong evidence for it? Yes, but there is also strong evidence for spontaneous creation. Believing in spontaneous creation doesn't mean you believe in a suprnatural God. How do you know that there are not alien civilizations so advanced that they could not create a universe "in a bottle", and program that universe to spawn life thru whatever scientific means? Also, you are completely mistaken that all arguments against evolution are religious based. There are scientific arguments. Are you aware that there are atheists who don't believe in evolution? why? because it is so implausible. It has been firmly established that protein can't evolve. So how did it come into being? DNA is required to create RNA, but RNA is required to create DNA. Which came first? Evidence is not proof, dave. But everyone has different standards for "proof beyond a shadow of a doubt". Mine are extremely high. When I see it in the present world manifested, or they build a time machine that can go back to "day one" and confirm it, that'll convince me. Question, dave: If evolution is a fact, why hasn't the scientific community come out and made that emphatic statement to the world? Why is it still called a theory in textbooks? Ultimately dave, you have ironically proven my point. Like a fundamentalist who emphatically states that the Bible is absolute truth, you are saying the same about evolution. And like the fundamentalist's belief in the Bible, you don't really know if evolution is absolute truth, you WANT it to be truth because you, like the fundamentalist, desperately want a foundation to rest upon, and have reached a conclusion, and can't be swayed from it. As a philosopher said, "a conclusion is the place you come to when you get tired of thinking!"

 

PV

[currentchristian]

And for the record, people, and plenty of them, have killed in the name of atheism.

 

That's news to me. Examples please.

 

Stalin's USSR. Mao's China. The first official atheist state on the planet, Albania.

 

The point is that one cannot judge another's character based upon his/her belief in a god. A theist can be a free-thinker and an atheist can be a dogmatic fundamentalist. And vice versa, of course!

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

Many good points were made in this post.

No good points were made. Many strawman arguments were made, but then you make the same ones in your desperate need to bash Atheists.

 

Dave, you are so intolerant of my views (likely because I'm a theist) that I could say snow is white and you'd disagree. That's how I see you behaving. But that's certainly your right and privilege.

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

I'll have to think about these two paragraphs more. My first impression is that you are on to an important truth here.

You mean like you, and christianity, are playing the victim in another thread?

 

Okay, Dave, I feel stalked by you again. Please refrain from responding to my posts for a while. Thank you.

 

-CC in MA

[Pegasus_Voyager]

MY RESPONSE: You are mixing "apples and oranges". I said "supreme being", implying a being of higher intelligence and creative ability.

I say you're just playing with words.

I'm necessarily talking about Jehovah or Zeus or Thor or the invisibe flying spaghetti monster or invisible pink unicorns.. Only arrogance and hubris would presume that you have have the ability to say what does and does not exist.

Tralfamadorians do not exist. A great civilization with miles of canals does not exist on Mars. Giant flying whales do not exist. I can make up millions of things that do not exist. Gods are no different. They were made up by humans. Just because someone made up something does not mean we have to assume it exists, or play some silly game where we cannot say it does not exist.

The fact is, there are atheists running around who do want to see religion outlawed and Christians put in gulags.

There might be one or two. You cannot blame all of Atheism for what one or two of them say.

I cant help but think you and a lot of other atheists are taking this thread personally.

Since the whole thing was a dig at Atheists based on an army of strawmen, it should be taken personally since it was meant as a personal attack on Atheists.

That fact should have been evident to anyone who thinks rationally and reads my article with an open-mind, and it concerns me that you missed the obvious.

I did not see an open mind. In fact, the opposite of an open mind was obvious.

 

MY RESPONSE: I'm not going to get into a"pissing contest" with you dave, because you are not being rational at this point, you're being flat-out beligerent. If you think only one or two atheists want Christians in gulags or religion outlawed, you are out of touch with reality or slept through the 20th Century. Communism was an atheistic phenomanae. Wholesale persecution of Christians occurred in Communist nations, millions disappeared. Ask any Christian that escaped the horror of Red China, North Korea, or the USSR. To reiterate, dave, you obviously slept through the 20th Century. As far as it being a personal attack on atheists everywhere in the whole wide, wide, world I told you that it was not and I DO NOT appreciate being called a damn liar! Personally, I just think you've got a weed up your ass for anyone that challenges your narrow perspective on reality.

[Mythra]

Out-lawing religion, censoring it, or all out persecution of it, are the tactics of a dull-witted lazy brute.

 

Okay PegasusV. - WTF are you talking about here? I have books by Dawkins and Harris and Mills right here beside me. I've read all of them. I don't recall a single sentence in any of them proposing the outlawing or censoring of religion. Unless you consider stopping the teaching of creationism in science classes "censoring".

 

And, another point: do you really think that the evidence for evolution is the same as the evidence for extra-terrestrial life? I'm no science geek, but this statement is pure crap. (to put it politely)

 

Anyone can point to a few morons in the history of the world who behaved like morons. To equate atheists with Pol Pot is like saying all christians have the character of yahweh.

[Pegasus_Voyager]

And for the record, people, and plenty of them, have killed in the name of atheism.

 

That's news to me. Examples please.

 

EXAMPLES: North Korea, USSR, Red China, Yugolslavia, Communism was atheistic, remember, not Druid or Bob's Church of the Sub_Genius. Read "Tortured for my faith" if you think atheists can't be bastards.