I think it's more of an artificial selection for the members of this site. We've all latched onto this site because a lot of people share the same views. I was shown VS by a friend of mine and of course we tend to share some of the same viewpoints. I don't think that this website, or the internet in general (until maybe more recently) is an accurate cross-section of any particular part of the US or the US as a whole.

Calvados, I believe you are right with your guess about vocal atheists being a backlash against vocal evangelicals. If nobody talked about religion (specifically with the "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude), then I wouldn't speak out about it either.

With the world slowly becoming more and more secular every day, the evangelicals are pushing back, especially here where they have more people and more politcal clout. This brings up issues like prayer in schools and teaching evolution. And when they bring these issues up, those of us with strong opinions will rise up to slap them down.

In my opinion, the more educated you are, the more *likely* you are to be agnostic or atheist. (Not saying all educated people are, just more.) So with more education comes a greater propensity to use the internet, and you end up with more atheists on the net than anywhere else. Add to that the fact that atheists are still shunned in a number of areas, and the anonymity of the net is very attractive.

It's a reaction to the Bush administrations radical lunge towards theocracy.

(Furthering my previous comment)

The past couple decades has seen a rise in religious violence. From Jews firing missiles at Muslim civilians, to Muslims blowing up World Trade Center Buildings, to Christians carpet bombing Muslim Iraqis.etc ad infinitum.

I think many have had enough.

theocracy is a label....never been one of late, never will be, religion the tool, the mortar, used to build and to break down-dualism is a problem, like a gun in the hand of a chimp......

The real problem lies in the lies, that religious proclivity with relation to a society's prosper or failing, is at issue....

the rub is robot monkeys, believing lies, with relation to their well-being....

atheists are dupes
evangelical-fundamentalists of any faith, dupes as well....

^never mind grandpa's ramblings above. I'm sure he's well aware that there are several countries that are a theocracy. And while I'm sure he'd like to think deny that the us could become a theocracy. Let's looks at some legislature that is working it's way through congress.

In light of this post this video sure seem timely.

http://www.videosift.com/video/HR888-Rewriting-Americas-History

With House Resolution 888, the religious right seeks to rewrite American history, turning the founding fathers into Christian fundamentalists.
________________

http://www.videosift.com/video/Huckabee-Scares-Me

A quote from a recent Huckabee stump in which he advocates changing the constitution to be in line with his religious beliefs.

church-state - a state ruled by religious authority
hierocracy - a ruling body composed of clergy
form of government, political system - the members of a social organization who are in power, this third is the closest to America USof...

Maybe some Islamic dives,
another instance of fringe voyeurism, Huckafuck, ....Inside Edition, clap-trap-, grandpa can see bullshit for what it is, it's been around a while..re-writing history isn't so bad ....everyone does it-

so, to answer yer question calvados, I am in the buckles of the bible belt, "Praise the lords", sayin' graces, and, evidence of evangelism, though not as hard and heavy as in the seventies and 80s, lotta professed Christains here, shows up on their desks, bumper-stickers, and speech.....gotta get NE of Texas for some Bible bashiers in numbers....we love Gee whiz down Texas way......

Thanks for weighing in, Sifters, please do keep it comin'.

Backlash all the way. I was never a church goer but a few years ago I might have said I had some belief, though never in the strictly literal way many do. My wife did grow up in a church going family and for years she took our kids to church herself.

But, as they got more judgmental and harsh toward others she stopped going and I started to research the subject a bit, lost what sympathy I did have for them and started thinking for the first time about how much I really believed and why. Once they got me to examine it there wasn't much there to support or believe in, it was just habit.

For my wife it was a little different, I left her alone on it because it's such a personal issue and she should figure it out for herself, but one day someone suggested she actually read the bible. Not with the idea that it's automatically right about everything but actually looking at what's said and done, weigh it same as if it came from anywhere else. A kid with a magnifying glass and an anthill was her basic impression, demonstrations of power just to impress in too many cases and choices she thought were obscene once stripped of automatic sympathy for the source.

They forced too many people to actually look at the issue for the first time, and when that happened they came up on the short end of it. Their own fault for being so pushy.

i'll go with the backlash theory. the US atheists on here tend towards the rabid side of things. there is a general trend in US discourse of "debate team" style... "us vs them" polarisation, either your an extremist or your a flipflopper etc etc etc.

elsewhere nobody really cares about either god or atheism. in england many people say they are christian but don't go to church. *shrug.

if i mention that i "believe" then instantly there are rabid atheists assuming i am a bible basher and telling me how everything should be logical, captain.

you're all a bunch of sheep following the loudest bleater anyway.

it's like people arguing rap vs rocknroll without having the intelligence to make their own music.

quote Jesus:
“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.”

>> ^MINK:
you're all a bunch of sheep following the loudest bleater anyway.


Ehh, both sides accuse the other of that, it isn't just the atheists. Personally I'd rather stick to why we think what we do and leave the option open that others can have their views as well without being sheep for it. The militants on both sides turn me off.

^i addressed my sheep comment to both sides.

i am one of the "in the middle" mixnmatch thinkers, maybe you jumped to the assumption that i was religious (i am not)... just because i quoted jesus?

you see the problem?

i could quote marx or jefferson too. but people get confused when stuff bleeds across categories.

maybe you jumped to the assumption that i was religious (i am not)... just because i quoted jesus?

Nope. Just wanted to toss the other side in since in the example atheists do that, figured someone else would jump on it if I didn't and I planned to be friendly about it. I know you're no extremist and don't care about it past that, it's your life and doesn't concern me if you aren't pushing laws based on it into mine.

you see the problem?

Yeah, I do. I get the same thing when I mention some of the subjects I'm into, they think they've heard it before because they met some idealist one day who couldn't source or back it up. It's a fight sometimes to get them to understand that you aren't them, this is a new conversation with a new person. Sucks, doesn't it?

yes!

thing is, if one likes discussing things, one has probably explored all the avenues already, said every comeback in the book, it gets tiring (unless you are a troll, which i can be sometimes, out of frustration)

the wise man knows nothing, etc.

that's actually why i am not a total atheist/scientist/rationalist.... the ancient literature contains so much basic human wisdom that i can't believe those people were totally stupid, and you definitely can't discount them just because they hadn't invented the combustion engine (look where that got us).

ok, ancient literature also contains a lot of mumbo jumbo and stoning virgins to death, but you don't have to pick one book and swallow it whole (a popular course of action for fans of "the god delusion")

anyway, extreme atheists and extreme bible bashers are all in the same category if you ask me: the disthinkers. people like dawkins try to cover up their disthinking with fancy words and books and qualifications just like the terrorist imams. ok so dawkins never advocated killing anyone in the name of atheism, but that's hardly proof of his hypothesis.

Here's a good mantra to start the day with..."Everything I know is wrong."

Start from this point, to gain wisdom.

I do not see moderate religious people standing up to fundamentalist, they are enablers. They don't call out fundamentalist for what they are, "extremists" who warp their religion.

Sure let christians change the true history of our country so they can keep promoting even more falsehoods about this being a country founded on christian values and the ten commandments. Then let's denigrate any atheist who speak up to point out that what they are doing is decietful.

any of the following groups below could have (and probably were) described the same way as many of you are making atheists out to be)

those darn women extremists wanting equal rights
those darn colored extremists wanting equal rights
those darn gay extremists wanting equal right
those darn atheists clamoring so loud in the face of ignorance and bigotry wanting to be viewed as equals for simply not holding superstitious beliefs and calling fundamentalist on their bullshit assertions and forcing of false ethics and values down others throats. In addition the false histories they promote are equally disturbing (whether it is that of our country or the earth - creationism).

the common theme that none of these groups should have equal freedoms were derived from religious texts that promoted bigotry and hate.

MINK, when did you get into comedy? this is an instant classic.

"people like dawkins try to cover up their disthinking with fancy words and books and qualifications just like the terrorist imams."

you have fallen a notch or two in my respect for you and your suppossedly enlightened views..

Atheists are rampant on the internet because it's the only place they can get their misguided views heard without being ridiculed. Sorry, but it's true. I've NEVER in my entire life met an atheist who admitted it face to face. Not one. And I've met Jehova's Witnesses, Bhuddists, etc... who were quite open about their faith. Atheists aren't in real life, so they come to the safest place to espouse their views, i.e. the internet.

who supposed my views were enlightened?

^ BillO meet choggie and recant that totally unsupported statement. and what exactly are atheists supossed to admit ? at least your consistent

glad to see this thread turning humorous instead of more serious.

MINK, i'll try not to use any big fancy words. i like how you don't address the merit of dawkins ideas, but instead attack his manner of speach.

BillO, like I said before, atheists are still oppressed in this country, because the majority are still religious.

I am technically an atheist, but I call myself agnostic to most people because I hate the term "weak atheist". That means that I don't buy into something until it is logical or backed up with evidence. I hate to be lumped in with those extremists who declare there is no God, but that's where the terminology puts me at the moment.

If you were to meet me in person and ask me whether I was religious or atheist, I would say atheist. Most people don't ask. I don't tell most people. That's because most people don't like hearing the truth, that their beliefs are based on the writings of people who have been dead for two to four thousand years. Writings that are terribly slanted toward the ethics of their day and are largely irrelevant in modern society. That's why most people don't read the bible. They don't really want to know what's in it.

Whatever. You want to give away your power to priests and politicians, it's your wasted life.

In the immortal words of Jack Nicholson in 1989 - "Better be sure."

>> ^MaxWilder:
especially here where they have more people and more politcal clout.


I'm sorry, have you ever visited this site before?

The majority are atheists here.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
>> ^MaxWilder:
especially here where they have more people and more politcal clout.

I'm sorry, have you ever visited this site before?
The majority are atheists here.


Once again outwitted by the supposedly dumb old jarhead. Like the Miller guy would say - pitiful.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
>> ^MaxWilder:
especially here where they have more people and more politcal clout.

I'm sorry, have you ever visited this site before?
The majority are atheists here.


You are ignoring context, the original post is RE:US not RE:VS.

We should have a poll to see if we really do have an atheist majority.

^ i think a poll would be helpful to actually determine whether MGR comments are correct. I personally don't think atheists are the majority here. But it would be interesting to find out. Keep in mind any poll would probably not include the total user base of VS, only the most active (and those who see and partipate in the poll). But all of this is straying from the original intent of the post.

The rise of vocal Atheism in the US does seem to be tied to attempts to religify the government. Before the whole "culture war" thing got going I was happy to call myself an agnostic. and I didn't much bother about it. Now I call myself an anti-theist and feel fully justified in counter attacking theism in self defense.

The non-over lapping magisterium argument was a truce agreement, and some radical theist factions broke the truce. I don't have a problem railing against theists in general because even moderate or woowoo theists didn't do anything to make this an intra-religious debate which could have confined it to philosophy instead of letting it expend its energy trying to impose theology on law and science, where it does harm to those of us who don't think the philosophical debate is even worth having.

Until recently, in America, it has always been considered inappropriate and disrespectful, to speak out against the existence of god. I dont recall having people around me who thought as I did. The conversations just didnt exist. As people like Dawkins and others spoke out, it empowered un believers to speak their minds(on the web). The web has become the "church" or the club house for un believers.

qruel, you're just being snide and not debating me either. why should i debate dawkins. he's 99% right anyway. he's just too certain, and dismissive of everyone else, that's all.

>> ^eric3579:
Until recently, in America, it has always been considered inappropriate and disrespectful, to speak out against the existence of god. I dont recall having people around me who thought as I did. The conversations just didnt exist. As people like Dawkins and others spoke out, it empowered un believers to speak their minds(on the web). The web has become the "church" or the club house for un believers.


I could be very wrong, but since when do you need "empowerment" to speak out/stand up for what you believe in???????????

Mink, you are correct I was being snide. I've seen you articulate your views much better than reverting to calling someone a disthinker because they use fancy words (you should have put a smiley after the comment :-).

If you agree with 99% of what he says why the harsh words ? I'd be interested to hear what you think of the 1% that he is wrong about.

Most things dawkins says can be related to "any" religion and I guess that's where you find offense ?

Along with Max Wilder above, I can't say that "there is no god". But i can say that I don't believe in the god(s) based on the evidence (or lack there of) that has been presented to me.

this is how i see the issue of vocal atheists.

1. People who believe in god(s) don't want their views challenged, and when they do (get challenged), they call those who are pointing out the obvious rude, militant and disrespectful.

2. "Some" people who believe feel the need to push their religious beliefs, ethics and values on others, which brings up questions of validity of their beliefs, so now we are back at square one with people questioning the "truth" of those beliefs.

Most christians are happy to live their lives without pushing their religion onto others (through government legislation). I have no problem with anyone believing what they want. I do have a problem with any religion pushing its views on non-believers. I think we could point to many, many cases here in the USA of religious zealots pushing their beliefs on non-believers.

This is shaping up to be a really interesting thread. And may I say how pleased I am that nobody is ripping anybody else a structurally superfluous be-hind?

/engie

>> ^qruel:
^ i think a poll would be helpful to actually determine whether MGR comments are correct. I personally don't think atheists are the majority here. But it would be interesting to find out. Keep in mind any poll would probably not include the total user base of VS, only the most active (and those who see and partipate in the poll). But all of this is straying from the original intent of the post.


The sift came across as having an atheist majority to me when I saw waves of Dawkins, Hitchens, Pat Condell, or random person that hates all things Christian posts getting sifted. They almost always shoot up to the top 15 instantaneously. Of course the overall user base may not have that bias, but it can really appear that way. I can think of plenty of athiest videos and could probably turn up a whole page full with a quick search, but it's almost impossible to find a video saying anything positive about Christians. In fact, just search for Christianity here and see what comes up. The funniest part of it to me is how an atheist post can sometimes turn in to people all patting each other on the back while pidgeon holing Christians as introlerant and hateful and talking about how much they loathe them all. Thats not all posts of course, but when I see it, it definitely makes me laugh. The easiest way to sift here is to either post something related to Atheism, Ron Paul, or LOLCats. Now, if someone could make some kindof hybrid Ron Dawkins cat that mocks Christians in a political debate about the constitution with a sign asking, "I can has cheezeburgr?" they'd be unstoppable.

first person to find this clip wins !

"Ron Dawkins cat that mocks Christians in a political debate about the constitution with a sign asking, "I can has cheezeburgr?" they'd be unstoppable.

heck, who wouldn't vote for that ?

on a side note, I know there are christians on VS who do not appreciate fundamentalist extremist (Marinegunrock & Doc_M come to mind) as when I've posted extreme fundie videos (where they disregard science or other peoples personal rights) they comment on how messed up they are. I would imagine that "light" christians or agnostics might not have a problem with the videos you described above, but I think you perception of videos on VS is valid.

It still think it would be neat to see a poll. I wonder if VS could tell us how many people "didn't" vote when the poll was done.

^Lurch

While we don't see much explicitly "pro-Christian" stuff we do get a good amount of woowoo (psychic/supernatural) stuff, and while many people call BS on this stuff it does not seem to me to be a given that a random sifter is >50%, or even >25% likely to be an atheist.

It seems that the people who are going to make videos and talk about their positions are those who feel that they are being treated poorly, that they are not heard. Atheist have good reason to complain about being excluded from public public office and threatened with bodily harm and abridgment of rights, and so they make videos to get their position heard. Religious extremists feel oppressed by not being able to impose their "true and pure" world view on the rest of their society, so they make videos and spend tons of money getting their positions enacted into law. Mainstream Christians on the other hand, know they are in a solid majority, and that being a Christian is not going to get them fired or beat up, and they don't make a whole lot of vids. They know their position will be heard and valued, even if they don't bother to say anything, that's the benefit of being the majority.

just don't try to run for office as an Atheist in these states.

Article 19 Miscellaneous provisions Arkansas's State Constitution
Sec. 1. Atheists disqualified from holding office or testifying as witness.
No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court.

Article 6 Section 8 of North Carolina's State Constitution
"Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God."

Article 1 Section 4 of Pennsylvania's State Constitution
"No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth."

Article 4 Section 2 of South Carolina's State Constitution
"No person shall be eligible to the office of Governor who denies the existence of the Supreme Being; ..."
Note: If you continue reading you will find that (in Section the Lieutenant Governor must also meet the same qualifications as the Governor.

Article 9 Section 2 of Tennessee's State Constitution
"No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."

Article 1 Section 4 of Texas' State Constitution
"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

I come from an upper-middle-class liberal suburban place pronounced Missour-EE within a red state called Missour-UH in the United States of Jesus. My high school had a very high percentage of children of professors at Washington University, and if you added up all the jews, blacks, asians, and mixed people, that was probably over 50%. My mother hails from UCC, which is probably the second most welcoming and nondogmatic of sect of Christianity behind Unitarian Universalism (Barack Obama is in UCC). My father was a woowoo evangelical. Some of my recollections on the subject of religion during childhood are:

1. In third grade, some kid started going around asking everybody, with a dichotomous intonation, "Are you Catholic, or Christian"? I suspect he was an evangelical. I don't recall giving any reply, but even at the time I had doubts due to the lack of any fulfillment of prayer. I had grown to distrust all adults and authority figures as a reasonable extension of my discovery, as a five or six year old, of Santa Claus, the first thanksgiving, Pocahontas, and many other lies. I had also grown to suspect something was terribly rotten in our society due to the cruelty of many homophobic bullies who called me names that weren't even true and the teachers who didn't care. Because of my alienation, I was not inclined to presuppose that the majority opinion was more likely to be correct.

2. Around this time, my (divorced remarried noncustodial) father also took me to see a faith-healer. I don't recall what he was trying to cure me of. He attended some crackpot semirural megachurch, and his business was "no money down" real-estate, another religion.

3. Within two years afterward my father was involuntarily committed to a mental institution for schizophrenia because he believed he could communicate directly with the spirits of Joan of Arc, Jesus, and other saints, and they told him to fight demons by committing arson. He later said the charges were trumped-up and unsuccessfully tried to get out with a religious freedom argument.

4. Teachers from sixth through twelfth grade stressed the importance of critical thinking and incorporated it into the curriculum.

5. In seventh grade, I recall being asked of my religious affiliation, and replying that I was sitting on the fence between agnosticism and atheism. There was no retribution or suprise or stigma. I was already an outcast and had nothing socially to lose, anyway. About a year prior I first acquired persistent unsupervised access to the internet, which I have had ever since. In the following two years I did quite a lot of research online and debating in online bulletin boards. This drew me closer to atheism by gaining a greater understanding of physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, etc. In other words, a greater understanding of how the world came to be the way it is. However, I would still call myself a teapot-agnostic.

6. In high school, I found a clique of atheists and agnostics. Shortly after 9/11, when the Missouri legislature enacted a bill that compelled schools to recite the pledge of allegiance at least once a week, some of my classmates and I openly expressed our disapproval on the grounds of separation of church and state. No gasps were heard. This was long before the Newdow case. When the Bible As/In Literature was taught in English class, several of my classmates and I expressed our disapproval again on the same grounds. In classroom discussions on that book, I recall many viewpoints being expressed with no great gasps of shock. I, the nerd, said openly that I thought the bible was a collection of fairy tales, poems, and forgeries, while the big football jock next to me expressed a predilection for biblical literalism in not so many words. I recall a very hot semi-orthodox Jewish girl who told me she would only date Jews.

I agreed with, or even said openly online, much of what is contained in the God Delusion, before the book was published. I suspect some others have had similar experiences. Not every consensus is a flock.


The ID movement, and the fact that every single suicide hijacker/bomber is faith-based, and the loosening of taboos by (e.g.) the Daily Show, have probably been three of the most important factors that led to the books of Dawkins and Hitchens. In Dawkins' case, the ID movement alone may have been the most important factor because of his biological profession. Hitchens tends to write books extremely quickly (averaging a book a year for the past 24 years), and it's very plausible that he began writing his after, and because of, the success of The God Delusion.

Most nonatheist people's comments on the Sift about Dawkins accuse him of being too shrill. Accusing one's opponent of too much enthusiasm (stridency, shrillness) is irrelevant to the subject matter of the debate. I personally find nothing unpleasant about Dawkins' manner of speech except his affinity for hooptedoodle. His grotesque description of the god of the old testament is spot-on. A book only appears strident in relation to one's perception of orthodoxy, and neither the orthodoxy nor one's perception of orthodoxy are necessarily correct. Rather, debate the substance of the issue. Neither Dawkins nor any of his followers is advocating curtailing the religious freedom of believers, so his opponents have nothing to fear but the holes in their theories.

^ speaking of Missouri.

On MARCH-02-2006, a committee of the Missouri House approved a resolution to both

1. Repudiate the principle of separation of church and state and
2. Give Christianity a preferential position in Missouri.

read more here http://www.religioustolerance.org/scsmo.htm

atheists, agnostics and believers in separation of church and state have plenty of organizations to get involved in.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State
http://www.au.org/

Freedom From Religion Foundation
http://ffrf.org/

you get the idea...

Yep, I have been an ACLU+EFF supporter since 8th grade or so.

I found the google cache of the resolution
here

what's all this jibba jabba about? It's pretty clear that people with valid views outweigh people that lack reason/thought. Hell, that's all I give a shit about. I've never been an atheist because "it's the thing to do" but believe it or not, I don't believe in a conscious being controlling destiny. If you do, and you have some input, I'm all eyes. I love it. I love to know that there are people willing to speak their mind. Sometimes it's hard in forums such as work or bars or school or wherever to openly address these issues. Why not reinvent these forums of discussion where this can be openly discussed. I, for one, welcome it. So what if the demographic of sifters are one way or another in belief, as long as they follow our standard of discussion and debate.

*quality

Awarding calvados with one star point for this contribution to Sift Talk - declared quality by jwray.

Ta jwray

yeah nice thread

Calvados, I didn't have time to read this entire thread and I don't have much time to respond but I was moved by your question. I was raised a Lutheran. I believed in god until I was around six when my parents made a deal with me: if I stuck around until confirmation (16), I was free to go.
I have a fair amount of religious education but I have had many people express their concerns over my soul, people who were honesty worried about me and people who wanted to sound superior, like they knew something I didn't.
I am very vocal and maybe sometimes harsh to people on the sift. The fact is, when I get into a discussion about something and someone says, "but god says this" all those experiences do come rushing back. All the arguments I've had about leaving church. All that being judged for what I did or didn't believe. So yes, for me sometimes I'm a little harsh but to me, it's only for humor's sake.
My wife is Christian and we manage pretty well. We can both respect our individual beliefs.

For me pointing out the absurdity of believing in some things is just fun. I guess you could say: juvenile.

But make no mistake, I have known quite a few motherfuckers who have argued a point with me that even they didn't understand. And I have lost a few friends over it as well.

If a friend would choose Jesus over you, they shouldn't be your friend anymore.

I am not from the US, so I have never really been in an environment, which is so heavy with religious belief (I'm from Denmark), but I think the sheer absurdity of religion in all its forms scares me.

I would have loved to have the same opinion as Steven Weinberg and just "not really care" about religion, because it's irrelevant to everything - except its historical and cultural impact. But lately it has become apparent that the biggest religions have gotten sharper edges (Christianity and Islam), and I think it is time for reasonable people to say, "enough is enough!" I really, really don't want creationism even mantioned in a proper school, I really don't want people to think and actually believe that they can speak to a God or angels or whatnot.

I do share the concern that Daniel Dennett has: "what could replace religion", given that there are many cooks that NEED religion to not break the law. All the people that argue "you wouldn't be moral if it wasn't for the bible" are those cooks. If we somehow stripped religion away from them, then, and I use the expression advisedly, all hell would break loose.

If you, like me, look at religion as a form of virus; and not a biological one, you silly person, an "idea-virus", a virtual virus, if you will; then the weaker versions - all the moderates - like a common cold, are not dangerous. However fanaticism, like, say, Ebola, is highly toxic to us. Atheism is decidedly NOT a religion no matter how much the religious want it to be. It is precisely non-religion. Atheism's primary "tool" is knowledge (science), where Theism's "tool" is faith. If you think you are inherently superior because you have faith, you are deluded. If you say it to my face, I'm going to respond.

This is how religion spreads: you want to spread the word of jesus (or whichever deity) and no one protests. This word (or idea) spreads to all those incapable to know what's true and false, primarily children. If someone keeps their religion in their own home, and prays silently (like Jesus actually told you to do - score 1 for the bible) the virus wouldn't spread and silently die out. But when evangelicals and other fanatics spread their toxic dribble it must fall on those who can call them on their shenanigans to protest and say, "Enough is enough!"

Dennett proposed a way to avoid this peacefully: teach all religions equally. I dare say that it would be impossible, but teaching even a number of world religions would immunize people towards the blind faith that most religions require and slowly expunge the idea of a religion completely.

^Dennett proposed a way to avoid this peacefully
I just saw this video on videosift recently where he "debated" dinesh. I'll try to find the link (internet is sloooow tonight here_