David Nicholls,
I can just imagine the reaction I would get here if i claimed that my contribution to this OLO “made you (or other atheists) think”, and I would probably deserve it.

I do not know who and when “made you think“, i.e. how old you are, but, as the saying goes, there are no old jokes only old enough people who can remember them. Perhaps something similar is true about the old arguments you (and others) present here, and the equally old counter-arguments (some of them recalled by myself a couple of times on this OLO). They should make us both, atheists and Christians (or those of a different religion), more tolerant and more humble about our own world-views.

“Without the pool of mainstream religion, fundamentalism would not exist."
Yes, and without sex neither impotent men nor rapists would exist. As I already mentioned a couple of times, I believe there are two intimacies that drive us: the horizontal (sex), and the vertical (religion in the most general sense of seeking a purpose for ones existence). Both can be fulfilling and both can be misused, and as powerful as they are, so can be their misuse if combined with an appropriate mental disposition or social conditioning. (Sorry, I already promised not to get involved any more.)

pelican,
Neither are all atheists immoral, nor are all Christians irrational: immoral are those Christians who make these sweeping statements about atheists, and irrational are those atheists who make these sweeping statements (explicitly or implicitly) about Christians.

Neither morals, nor reason can be in the sole possession of one world-view orientation. Both reside partly in our genes, that we are born with, and partly in our memes, that we acquire during our lives. Only the latter decides whether one is “religious“ or “irreligious”. At least this is what we all thought, until some recent findings of neuroscience, which again should make us both - believers as well as unbelievers - even more humble about what we believe or do not believe in.

Davidf

I share your ambivalence to the word "atheist". I don't like its implicit negativity - as it suggests anti-god rather than no belief.

For a time I contributed to the 'Brights' who felt that atheism could be represented by a more appropriate word (they referred to religious people as 'supers' as in superstitious). In the end I resigned from their network, predominately male, I found much of the same prejudices as anywhere else - except for not being religious. I concluded that atheists are highly unlikely to form cults - it is not in our nature.

I find interaction with a variety of people irrespective of their culture, sex or ideology far more interesting and enlightening. Until a better word is discovered I'll continue to describe myself as atheist, but I (like Romany) have my private philosophies formed over a lifetime of learning and questioning. All that really matters is that we are good to one another.

George, I accept that extremists would form irrespective of religion, something about being human beings. However I would remind of the following:

We are all born atheists.

AJ Philips,
“I think it's more important that religion publicly get's the message that their beliefs are no longer immune to criticism or questioning...”
And that’s why blasphemy laws should be dumped, wherever they still exist.

“Atheist is really an unsatisfactory term as it doesn't apply to all those who reject religion or a supernatural.”
Agree.
I have, for a while, considered identifying as a “Bright”, but that term doesn’t work for me either.

I’d like to avoid the term ‘atheist’ wherever possible, but sometimes you need a convenient label in discussions. I prefer to argue against specific assertions the religious make when these interfere with other people’s freedom on issues such as homosexuality, abortion, sex education, and euthanasia, without having to mention atheism, faith, religion, or God.
I don't always manage it, but I try.

I have no problem with people who are moderately religious and who live and let live.
I do agree with you that religious faith is irrational, but that doesn’t mean that being irrational is necessarily bad or wrong.
Love is not a rational feeling either, and is still one of the most valuable feelings we can experience.

I don't want to attack the feeling of faith that religious people experience, because that would be like judging their personal feelings, but instead I’d like to argue with or poke fun out of them when they play the moral high ground or are intolerant toward others. I don’t feel I have to show respect to those who don't respect or tolerate the freedoms of others.

On these fora, there are only very few (probably two) Christians who bother to argue against Christian zealots.
It’s a shame that not the majority of moderate Christians stand up against fanatic fundies.

Could atheists and moderate Christians cooperate? Christians can possibly be more convincing in arguing against fundamentalists than atheist because fundamentalists are more likely to listen to them than to atheists.

George,

“David Nicholls, Thank you for starting this thread.” - “it is most interesting to read what makes my atheist fellow humans tick.” – “I appreciate your providing the vehicle for these “insights into atheist thinking".”

I said: “This thread concerning the AFA slogan campaign is making people think as your good self demonstrates.”

Now George, I said ‘this thread’ (As do many others) has made people think. The quotes I have included from you show support for that statement. No big deal. The John Perkins thread has made me think. Also, no big deal. I am unsure of what is your point.

I am also uncertain if you are saying that the innate properties of our genes, introduced memes and neuroscience findings are greater than our reasoning ability. If so, I disagree strongly.

We cannot stand back and use genes, memes and neuroscience findings as a cause for inaction.

How much people are automatic in behaviour is questionable. It is recognising the root causes for the programmed and programmable nature of our species, which can allow for ameliorating the adverse affects, as it supplies the impetus to do something about it.

Denying we can and or that we have to change our perspective is amongst humanities greatest failing and one we have to wake up to if we are really serious about human rights and environment security. If we do not or if we refuse to recognise that reasoning ability is our only possible saviour, it is just giving lip-service to high ideals as we melt into oblivion.

If, on the other hand, I have misunderstood your post, please accept my apologies.

David

What about an Athiest movement that got the same tax free benefits.

Perhaps schools that exclude others like the Catholics do.

'What about an Athiest movement that got the same tax free benefits.'

You will probably find that the tax payer funds your abortion (baby killing) clinics and your godless education system. Unfortunately even with all your extra educational funding you can't seem to get the results. Parents would prefer to sacrifice their own money to get kids some godly values. People vote with their money and feet!