You claim that "no reason can ever justify the censorship of ideas" and yet you advance reasons for suppressing religion. Could you make up your mind?

Please point out where Ebon has advocated the "suppressing" of religion. And, please bear in mind that bringing counter arguments to advocate against a position that you disagree with is not the same as suppression.

You are confusing Atheism with politics or are you just wrapping yourself up in the American flag in order to gain agreement for your other Atheist comments?

I had to lol on Comment #85, as I wholeheartedly agree with Mike, as well as on #86. I also agree with Peter on Comment #83.

I am curious to know what you all think about the teachings of the Qur'an. Have any of you read the Bible or the Qur'an in entirety?

I was reading this website - it might be interesting to you or might not, don't know:
http://www.themodernreligion.com/prophet/bible_muh.htm

Looking forward to your replies!

eta: If it doesn't eliminate world evil, would you argue against such an exercise?

So do you think that if we got rid of this superstitious thinking we could have true world peace?

The history of man is filled with people dying because of belief in the salubrious effect of leeching, or the appeasement of volcano spirits, or resorting to prayer rather than medicine, and soon and so forth.

Even if you could present five different examples of the benefits of superstitious thinking, I would argue that the examples of evil arising from superstition far outweigh the the good it has evoked.

So: yes, his statement is somewhat sweeping. But in general, it holds true.

Most of what you have stated sounds fine, but this particular sentence is an unfounded sweeping generalization. Never done anything more than harm us? Really? Ever? You really can't talk about scientific method and then go on to make such claims. I'm not even sure something like this would be provable.

No. Cutting through the humanism is precisely what we want to avoid. Only by asserting our equality, can we protect ourselves from being placed on the wrong side the equation by others. Humanism insures that all are given the same opportunities, and that no one can arbitrarily deny someone's access to life, liberty, etc. The whiners, the addicts, the leeches, the criminals - I agree we do not want to reward their behavior- which is why we have an impartial and democratically controlled justice system and an economic system that should handle them fairly and appropriately. It doesn't always work, but it's the best we got, and we have the powoer to improve on it.

Drew: Why believe in vague ideas such as ‘progress’ and ‘freedom’ when we can actually make something great through force and will?

Who are "we" what do we define as "great"? What happens if I disagree with your sentiments? Will my head be on a pike? Your philosophy is perfectly matched with those of past tyrants of all ideologies. Most tyrants believe they are making the world better, and share your disdain for "the little people." This is true from Nero, to the Medieval Papacy, to Adolf Hitler, to Al Qaeda or Dick Cheney.

We, as ethical atheists who support a democratic society, accommodate all perspectives by allowing them into the debate, but subject them and oursleves to rational scrutiny- this is the 'freedom' component. By doing so, we insure that no one is marginalized, repressed, and unfairly considered, removing entitlements to use violence or force to get their way. Only then can we have a peaceful society. If a group, like Christians, Atheists, Blacks, or white males, are denied equal access, certain inalienable rights, and protection under the law, than they would have a legitimate claim to revolt and resist the will of the majority of the people - which would be antithetical to achieving 'progress'.

Are you advocating a right to arbitrary extrajudicial use of force when you don't get your way in an open society? That is a definition of terrorism. A democratic government is an agreement among the people, a contract, that should only be voided if the government violates the agreement. As long as we recognize those inalienable rights of individuals and provide equal protection under the law, I think it is unethical to advocate violence and overthrow a system. We fought too hard to establish this peaceful sociecty supervised by a publicly accountable method of law enforcement. You are breaking the contract if you use violence instead of the readily available and legitimate non-violent methods of social change- your vote, your speech, and your right to pursue justice in the courts.

It's imperfect, yes, but because it is democratic, it can be improved, and it is much better than what your alternative would offer- a fractured and tribal society of arbitrary governance by force and will.

You claim that "Every human being possesses inherent worth, and every human life is equally valuable" Why is every human inherently worthy or equally valuable?

Because societies that respect this principle tend to be far happier, more peaceful and more productive, while societies which believe that some human beings are more intrinsically valuable than others tend to be theocracies or despotisms.

What scientific proof do you have that humans are inherently worthy of anything? After your scientific arguments will you now merely persuade me with emotions? Are you now appealing to my feeling?

Indeed I am. You have an overly simplistic and distorted view of atheism if you think an atheist must find scientific proof for everything he believes. When dealing with descriptive claims about what does or does not exist in the real world, such as claims about the existence of God, atheists generally ask for scientific evidence, as science has proven to be by far the most effective means of testing the truth of factual claims.

But science does not deal with prescriptive claims about how we should or should not act, any more than it deals with claims of the artistic merit of a painting or the literary merit of a book. In those areas, we need different methods of inquiry to make our decisions. The human sense of conscience is one of those, though not the only one.

Yes basically since God does not exist we are our own gods.

Human beings are not gods, and I wouldn't want to be one if I could be. To judge by traditional mythology, including the Bible, gods are petty, vengeful, jealous creatures. They embody what is worst in us, not what is best. That's a poor ideal for us to aspire to, and I happen to think we can do better: we should strive to be the best human beings we can be, making the fullest use of our capability for reason and compassion.

I am a god and so I decide for myself what is good, bad, right or wrong.

You obviously didn't read the very next paragraph of my post: "Morality is not dependent on personal opinion or societal prejudice, but is objective and universal and is accessible to every intelligent being."

What exactly is "greatest happiness" who defines what happiness is let alone the "greatest happiness"? You again?

These are all valid questions, but you seem to be operating under the misunderstanding that religion has a better solution to this problem. If you define morality as following God's commands, you are then faced with the problem of figuring out what God's will actually is - and judging by the millions of sects, thousands of years of religious dissension, and countless lives lost in the battle between competing dogmas, human beings are no nearer an answer to this question than they ever were.

Of course, reasonable people may disagree on which action produces the greatest happiness, but at least we have the advantage that happiness is a phenomenon of this world which can be observed and measured, unlike God's will, which is utterly inscrutable. This means that disagreements can be settled through rational persuasion, rather than through force or violence. And the fact that reasonable people may disagree on how to bring about the greatest happiness most certainly does not mean that all opinions are equally valid.

So you decide what you think is the greatest happiness.

You can "decide for yourself" in the sense that you have the ability to make a decision and then act on it, yes. Any society which denied people even that freedom would be a truly awful place where no reasonable person would want to live. But if your beliefs are grossly out of step with those of people who live in the same society as you, then you cannot expect to escape censure and punishment; nor, in most cases, would you deserve to.

What exactly is “greatest happiness” who defines what happiness is let alone the “greatest happiness”? You again? Of course because since God does not exist I guess that puts you in the place of God. So you decide what you think is the greatest happiness. The only god the atheists worship is himself. Because he is he’s own god.