JP,

Every society evolves criteria for acceptable behaviour, morals and ethics, etc. We are social beings and derive our sense of 'right conduct' from the social mores invoked around us.

"Atheists just don’t seem to be able to get it – if atheism is true then everyone is absolutely free to do whatever they like"

Alternatively we could say that if christianity is true then christians should be stoning homosexuals to death since that is what their holy book states. Ultimately, you are right in that people are free to do as they wish. However most humans have a sense of morality and most realise that to live in a society it is best to follow basic laws that protect the rights of others. Religion is not a necessary component in formulating morality or laws. The fact that a highly religious country such as America has such an appalling murder rate is an indicator that religion does not necessarily act as a preventer of lawlessness.

"there is nothing happening in respect to oppositon to religion today that hasn't occurred many times throughout history. Militant atheism is not a new phonomenon."

Atheism is greatly different now compared to the past. You clearly didn't try walking in to a book shop 30 years ago to try to buy a book on atheism! Atheism was regarded by society as unacceptable, and religion held a hallowed position that it should not be publicly criticised. Atheist organisations existed but where largely unheard of by the general public. Then the internet arrived!! Atheists realised that there are many like minded people out there. Atheist organisations gained momentum as the means was now available to communicate freely with others. With this realisation that atheism is a valid position books started to appear in book shops, and now there are hundreds of books on atheism available from Amazon etc. To say that there is no difference between opposition to religion now compared to the past is a complete denial of reality.

Atheism is the absence of belief in a God.

A meeting of atheists has nothing to discuss in relation to their belief or lack of belief, because they believe in nothing.

Their confabulation can only proceed on the basis of setting up something to oppose, because there is nothing for them to support.

They cannot discuss achievements, because belief in nothing has never achieved anything.

Belief in Christ has brought about at least one tremendous achievement, for a great part of the human race, in the ending of human sacrifice.

Blue Devil....

"To say that there is no difference between opposition to religion now compared to the past is a complete denial of reality."

It's a good thing JP didn't say that, then. What they did say (which you quoted, so you should really know) is this:

"there is nothing happening in respect to oppositon to religion today that hasn't occurred many times throughout history. Militant atheism is not a new phonomenon"

A comparison between bookstores in the 1970's and a discussion on public criticism of religion in the Western world over the previous short little while is completely irrelevant to what JP actually said.

Talk about lumping atheists all in the same basket. Many atheists have spent some time in arguing that atheism is not a movement or a cause, just an absence of supernatural belief, but apparently the author knows better and speaks for all atheists.

The article is not wrong in arguing for free speech and in rightly condemnation of evil acts. However this is not usually the nature of radical movements, even atheist inspired ones.

Pericles has touched on something important.

God help us if even the atheists start spouting the same arrogant rhetoric in asserting their way is the only way for everyone.

During a time when Religion is evolving and becoming more humanistic, atheists should be rejoicing at the prospect of a more broader and egalitarian approach to human rights. And yes holding organisations to account is part of that, but radical outbursts against religion per se poetentially do more harm.

While some religious groups/people have condoned, inspired or overlooked horrific acts this article sadly misses the point.

Free thinking is not confined to atheism. Indeed free thinkers are merely people not too afraid or confined in their thoughts to a cultural norm or precedent. Over time this has also included religious people in pursuit of freedoms to practice religion without fear or favour. (Yes many forget the favour part... but that is what freedom of speech is about).

There is already a wonderful system in place to punish those who would break the law whether done in the name of religion or otherwise. It is called the Law. And ultimately it is the individuals who perpetrate these acts who are responsible.

@Leo Lane

Everything your wrote would apply if this was a convention of nihilists, it isn't a convention of nihilists.

As for this comment:

"Belief in Christ has brought about at least one tremendous achievement, for a great part of the human race, in the ending of human sacrifice."

I suspect someone like Giordano Bruno would disagree with you, but he was sacrificed in a blaze of fire at the alter of maintaining the status of the Catholic Church.