" It is the great protection afforded civilisation by atheism. It is the underpinning of a method of thought that recognises no human concept or reliance on tradition can provide absolute answers."

Had they been still alive, would the Atheist Foundation of Australia have considered inviting the world-renown atheists, Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao, who specialised in ethnic cleansing and intellectuals cleansing respectively, along to the 2012 Global Atheist Convention

Suseonline,
as Pericles says, "It would be a shame if Hitchens became defined merely by his atheism". Indeed his atheism is the least interesting aspect to Hitchens's life and oeuvre. Atheism's just as boring as theism; a load of tedious equivocation over belief or the lack of it, and as you say, we'll probably never know. As Pericles suggests, it's the social/political implications of our beliefs, as institutions, that ought to concern us. While atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief to the average punter, organised atheism that sets up to institutionalise unbelief and be an influence in the world, should be interrogated as to its political/ethical credentials.
Spruiking unbelief as if it's a panacea in itself and all that's wanting in the world, is daft, obsequious and potentially dangerous.
Clear thinking, unencumbered by superstition, is only the beginning; it still has to consider the human condition and how we should live.
I'm going to take advantage of the link Pericles provided and read more Hitchens in order to try to understand where he at least stood on the broader question of how this world should be run.
In the meantime I look forward to the publication of an Atheist Manifesto.

Raycom

'Had they been still alive, would the Atheist Foundation of Australia have considered inviting the world-renown atheists, Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao, who specialised in ethnic cleansing and intellectuals cleansing respectively, along to the 2012 Global Atheist Convention '

Thats a classic. Maybe they could of debated the Pope as to who murdered the most people.

Gee, I get tired of this dopey of line of thought…

<<Had they been still alive, would the Atheist Foundation of Australia have considered inviting the world-renown atheists, Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao, who specialised in ethnic cleansing and intellectuals cleansing respectively, along to the 2012 Global Atheist Convention>>

…Duh.

Why would they, Raycom? There’s nothing within atheism to support what they were famous for doing. Unlike all the slaughter in the name of God - which is actually endorsed by holy scriptures and in writing.

Suseonline,

So in what way are you not an atheist?

<<I don't class myself as an atheist as such, although I am very much a skeptic who will continue to ask questions and not believe everything I am told just because it has always been that way.>>

Because you really don’t seem to believe in any Gods.

AJ is blinded to the dogmas of atheism that has led to millions of deaths. Pseudo science is used as justifcation to murder the unborn as much so as people use the name of God. No wonder he gets tired of the 'dopey'lines.

"would the Atheist Foundation of Australia have considered inviting the ... Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao, ... along to the 2012 Global Atheist Convention"
Posted by Raycom, Wednesday, 21 December 2011 1:41:55 PM

Considering both were religious, they probably would not have accepted.

Stalin set his religion aside soon after leaving his seminary studies, but found religion again in WW2 and remained personally religious for the rest for his life, not that the Committee cared.

Mao was raised Buddhist.