graham if this conversation isn't going anywhere it's because you ignore anything which actually deals with your crap, and you're apparently as dumb as a rock. i addressed almost every bit of what you just wrote in the two posts which you just chose to ignore. ajp addressed it before that.

1) ATHEISM IS NOT A BELIEF SYSTEM

the fact that people say "we're atheists? now what?" has no more content than "there are no god-given laws, and we're free to think: now what?"

it doesn't mean that atheism CAUSED stalinist nastiness any more than the freedom to think, and to not call on god for moral laws caused stalinism.

the alternative, you god-bothering moron, is religious fundamentalism. if that's what you want, good for you. but thank christ i live in an age and a country where the majority of people think people such as you are religious twats.

2) no one denied the possibility of a militant atheist. i have no idea what the writer of your link, or what the ussr at various times regarded as a militant atheist. it may well be they are referring to people for which the adjective "militant" is appropriate.

3) the problem was, you called dawkins a militant atheist. on what grounds? either substantiate it, or retract it, you slurbag.

GY

I have no doubt that militant Marxist atheists exist. As do militant religious fundamentalists. I don't NEED to google either nasty minorities.

Therefore, what is your point?

While I do not concur with BB's level of vitriol I do agree with his final question to you:

<<< you called dawkins a militant atheist. on what grounds? either substantiate it, or retract it >>>>

And I repeat my question:

Finally, by inferring the culmination of meaning of your posts on this topic, why are you so determined to cast atheism as, well, wrong?

Yep Severin, Bushbasher is on the verge of being suspended. You can get away with flaming me more than you can flame anyone else on the forum, but there comes a time when you've over-stepped the mark.

My point is that Atheism cannot avoid its association with nasty behaviour anymore than Christianity, or Buddhism, or Islam or Hinduism can avoid their associations with nast behaviour. Atheists pretend that they can. It's a nonsense.

It doesn't follow from this that I am saying that atheists or atheism is evil. However I would argue that it is of its nature more prone to oppressive behaviour than at least Christianity, if not some of the other religions, because it encourages an unrealistically high assessment of human infallibility. Lack of humility is a strong element in many of the oppressive behaviours in which mankind has indulged, certainly those behaviours driven by belief.

If what I have stated to you is indeed flaming, then there's not much I can say is there?

You da boss.

Well Graham, Stalin was also a non-Fascist, and I am fairly sure so are you. Pol Pot, Mao, and Godfrey of Bouillon were also Non-fascists.
It appears that militant Non-fascism has a certain nature that lends itself to violent atrocities doesn't it?

In this way I can also associate you with the Stalinist atrocities.

This is fun eh?

stoopid, but.

What is all this about all Marxists being atheists?
Just because Marx was the first to separate –already existing- communism from the Christian principles doesn’t mean that Christians suddenly all became non-communists. They didn’t embrace Marx’s philosophy, but didn’t oppose many of his economics.

I really do not find this Marxism argument a significant argument to support the stance that ‘atheists have faith’.
So what, if Marx was an atheist? Big deal; if anything, Jesus (if he existed) was not a capitalist and would’ve spoken out against capitalism and class (and I believe that he did just that, on some occasions).

Graham,
“My point is that Atheism cannot avoid its association with nasty behaviour anymore than Christianity, or Buddhism, or Islam or Hinduism can avoid their associations with nast behaviour. Atheists pretend that they can. It's a nonsense.”

It's not nonsense because nasty behaviour has happened, no doubt, by atheists.
But was this behaviour in the name of atheism? Atheism has no dogma, has no umbrella for all atheists to sit under apart from the 'not-convinced-that-there-is-such-thing-as-a-god umbrella.
There are socialist atheists, libertarian atheists, capitalist atheists, charitable atheists, destructive atheists like there are all kinds of people in these categories.
Atheists can fit under almost any other umbrella EXCEPT the theist umbrella.
Atheism does not form a ‘group’ apart from not accepting without sufficient evidence that there is a god. That’s why ‘atheism’ cannot be blamed for ‘nasty behaviour’ as such. What atheist do, they do as individuals, or from under a different umbrella, not from under the atheist umbrella.

All that is needed to turn atheists into theists is proof.
Religious faith, will only continue to exist as long as there is no sufficient evidence of a God.
That's why atheists can not have faith.