"Without religion you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things it takes religion."

steven weinberg said it, though maybe not originally. freeman dyson replied:

"But in order for bad people to do good things: That, too, takes religion"

Bushbasher, the absolute weakest of excuses is "He made me do it". In its extreme it's called the Nuremberg defence.

There is also a good reason why I will not get diverted answering your questions.

I'm interested in the assertions that Atheists have never done anything to convert others to Atheism, particularly of a violent nature, and also the idea that Atheism doesn't have a belief system. If you want to talk about something else, then talk about it, but don't expect me to join the conversation. It's a free world (see my first comment above).

Pelican, Marxism is an atheist movement, and its actions prove that. It also has concerns about equality, wealth, distribution of power, but you don't understand it if you don't understand that it is underpinned by a radical humanist view of the world which is materialist.

Socialism is not Marxism. Christian socialists are not Marxists.

It's interesting that a number of posters have so much trouble accepting that Marxism is founded on atheistism. Interesting too that there is little knowledge of what Marxism is, just a lot of assertions about what people say it means. Nary a relevant citation. And then attempts to suggest that because I point out that Marxism is atheistic that I am therefore saying all atheists are Marxist. Yeah, just like all Christians are Quakers!

Celivia, in this respect you need to do some more research into suicide bombings - you'll find they were pioneered not by religious fanatics, but by Marxist Leninists in Sri Lanka - the Tamil Tigers. That is Atheists are responsible for the invention of the technique. Credit where credit is due. http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=182&issue=110

Someone earlier on suggested that Atheism is the default position. In fact, religion is the default position - you find very few natural Atheists in the history of the world until after the Enlightenment. That's because you needed the Enlightenment and the scientific revoultion to provide the philosophical tools. Which underlines the fact that it is a belief system. It depends on a particular theory of how the world operates to be viable.

Graham, while most of what you say is blindingly obvious and trivial (ie socialists are not marxists, atheists are not marxists but marxists are atheists etc), there is something unclear in your last sentence.

What "particular theory of how the world operates" that atheism requires are you talking about exactly?

I just know I'm going to regret asking the question, but I just gotta ask it.

I've always been intrigued by the Church's support of capitalism, and condemnation of marxism/socialism.
"It would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to pass through the gate of Heaven".
Capitalism?
What about the parable about 'the last shall be first'? Paying the grape picker who only worked for an hour the same amount as those who worked all day. Does that sound like capitalism?
"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat; or about your body, what you will wear. Life is more than food, and the body more than clothes... Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?"
"Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in Heaven that will not be exhausted..."
JC sounds a bit like one of those godless bloody commos, to me.
A final (topical) quote from Romans, 14: "Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgement on disputable matters."
These debates on OLO have, I believe, given me a new insight. I think not only do posters like Petersen, Runner and JP genuinely need to believe in God, but I fear society needs them to believe also.
Decent Atheists help others simply because they believe it's the right thing to do, without any carrot or stick.
Imagine taking religion away from these God botherers who cannot understand this, and only do the right thing through fear of God.
Is this what makes Stalins, and Pol Pots?

>> Bushbasher, the absolute weakest of excuses is "He made me do it".

graham, i wasn't excusing myself, i was only explaining myself. if you read any note of apology to you in my post, please unread it now. of course, as soon as you're ready to apologize for your disrespectfulness ...

>> In its extreme it's called the Nuremberg defence.

well, someone's got perspective! (and arguing provocation is hardly the same as arguing that one was following orders. sheesh!)

>> There is also a good reason why I will not get diverted

by "diverted" you mean actually addressing the issue of this thread, that the starting article is in fact baseless. yep, you wouldn't want to be diverted by relevance.

>> answering your questions.

or anybody's.

>> I'm interested in the assertions that Atheists have never done anything to convert others to Atheism,

huh? who claimed this? does trying to reason with someone count?

>> particularly of a violent nature,

who claimed this? all i, and about 10 others on this thread, want you to do is to justify referring to dawkins as "militant".

>> and also the idea that Atheism doesn't have a belief system.

it's not an idea, it's a blatant fact. and atheists/atheism are not responsible for or answerable for anybody who claims "i'm an atheist, and i think atheism means it's o.k. to send people to gulags". atheism is nothing but the disbelief in god. that's it, that's it, that's it. why is that so tough for you to understand?

graham, your post is not merely ridiculous on its merits, it also ignores ajp's, and many others', very clear, very pertinent posts on exactly these issues. ajp's latest, excellent posts hit the nail on the head, and of these you say not one word in response. that's what i mean: i'm impolite, but the level of your disrespect is unbelievable.

you're not debating, you're not even listening. you're preaching.

No, no, Graham- the CONCEPT of suicide bombing comes from the
holy books.

Take the Bible:

God gave Samson his power back KNOWING Samson’s intention was to kill himself and others:

["Then Samson prayed to the LORD, "O Sovereign LORD , remember me.
O God, please strengthen me just once more, and let me with one
blow get revenge on the Philistines for my two eyes."
(From the NIV Bible, Judges 16:28)" ]

Then, Samson was able to use his strength to kill himself
and others, out of revenge!

["Samson said to the servant who held his hand, "Put me where I can feel the pillars that support the temple, so that I may lean against them."
Now the temple was crowded with men and women; all the rulers of the Philistines were there, and on the roof were about three thousand men and women watching Samson perform. Then Samson prayed to the LORD,
"O Sovereign LORD , remember me.
O God, please strengthen me just once more, and let me with one blow get revenge on the Philistines for my two eyes."
Then Samson reached toward the two central pillars on which the temple stood. Bracing himself against them, his right hand
on the one and his left hand on the other, Samson said,
"Let me die with the Philistines!"
Then he pushed with all his might, and down came the temple on the rulers and all the people in it.
Thus he killed many more when he died than while he lived.
(From the NIV Bible, Judges 16:26-30)" ]