Atheists who stick to just stating that they, personally, don’t believe are in a much more secure position, in terms of argument. Who can deny that they are the best witness as to what they believe?

But regarding Berkowitz, he’s just another person who doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Instead of actually giving atheists the time of day to tell him how they actually are, he instead mischaracterizes them and the atheist position. I’ve never read anything from D’Souza, but I liked the sound of this article.

And it begs the question of why the 20th-century embrace of secularism unleashed human depravity of unprecedented proportions.

I have a really difficult time containing myself when I hear people claim that somehow atheism and atheistic ideologies were the cause of death and destruction throughout history, as if atheism and morality are mutually exclusive.
The problem isn’t so much religion as it is faith. When someone has belief without reason (i.e., faith), it doesn’t matter what object, person, or concept the faith is directed toward: it ceases to be anything other than corrupt, and it ceases to be atheistic. Why?

Atheism has an entire context surrounding it which incorporates humanism, education, free thinking, open discourse, and a goal to eradicate willful ignorance (i.e., faith). We didn’t see this in any other society.

I think it was Harris who said (something to this extent) that: “No society ever collapsed from thinking too much.” I probably have that somewhat wrong, but I’m sure you get what I’m saying. I’m tired of people thinking these strawmen and false compositions are somehow accurate representations of atheists and atheism.

I thought Dawkins was our pope. There is no god, and Dawkins is his prophet.