I have nothing in common with Pat Robertson. I never argue that mine is even the "right" path. It's simply right for me. However, from an anthropological point of view it might be interesting to discuss. I wonder, without the early sun worship and such, which we know was instrumental in the formation of early social groups, what would culture look like today? I'm sure you could construct a scenario in which religion was unnecessary, but that still, IMO, wouldn't make it irrelevant or keep people from choosing it. I have HBO, and that's entirely unnecessary.

If you only see "It's not okay to think what you think," then you aren't looking deeper than the surface. Bottom line, the point isn't to attack belief all by itself, but the generally-accepted ignorant and naive basis for it: faith. The idea is that atheism rationally follows. When it comes to matters of supernatural belief and personal practices, true freethinkers don't like sheep mentalities and true skeptics won't accept pitiful answers and arguments, and that is why atheists speak out against these things. When nonbelievers ridicule believers, it is not just because of belief, but also the lack of foundation for such belief that is so widespread. I don't always condone or condemn insult, but criticism has a right to exist wherever it is beckoned.

Lastly, the brunt of secular ridicule isn't wholly on religious people, but religion. It's the institution that bugs us, and it's the institution we desire to root out. On the topic of Stalin, I quote from Red Crimes:

... the smoke of the burning Twin Towers, the vicious sectarian bloodletting that has burst out along religious lines in Iraq, the barbaric and regressive human-rights violations of authoritarian theocracies around the world, the ongoing (though largely unreported) campaign of religiously motivated terrorism toward family-planning clinics, the continuing vicious discrimination and persecution waged against gays and other minorities, the opposition to personal liberty in all its forms, the apocalypse fanatics who cheer the end of the world and actively fight against peace efforts in the Middle East and elsewhere ...

Cases like these show that the communists' error was not atheism, but rather a fierce and rigid adherence to their own beliefs, coupled with a murderous hostility toward those who would question or doubt them. Such irrational elevation of dogma over free thought and human life is always destructive, no matter the specific principles being held dogmatically.

... Unlike many religious texts, which contain specific injunctions to dominate or do violence to nonbelievers, atheism by itself never causes people to become murderous. Indeed, how could it? Atheists have no holy book, no sacred text directing their actions. On the contrary, atheism only causes harm when conjoined with some other dogmatic ideology that contains such instructions.

... Finally, I believe in the tremendous importance of free speech and intellectual freedom, where people have the right to educate themselves, to pursue knowledge, and to ask whatever questions they wish, even when those questions are uncomfortable or damaging to those in power. Communism denies all these principles, and so I reject it wholeheartedly.

Can you see the similarities between bona fide religions and historical communism?

The disrespect many atheists have shown based on my beliefs sends a message of "It's not okay to think what you think."

I don't like that, and I work very hard to never do that to others. Despite our disagreements, can you actually think of an instance where I've ridiculed what you or anyone here for what they believe (or don't believe)? I've objected to their expression of that belief in an aggressive way, nothing more.

I don't mind you or anyone else saying there's no God, etc.

I object to people painting the picture of Christians as manipulative, selfish, evil, and deluded.

Yes, some Christians are those things, just like any other group you'd care to name.

You can't pick the screaming, foaming at the mouth minority and use that to characterize the group. I don't do it to you. I don't bring up Stalin. You have about as much in common with him as I do. Heck, maybe I have more because I have facial hair, and my dad speaks fluent Russian.

1) Part of the purpose of this site is to bring up trash on religion to the table for inspection. As an "outside" observer, you have the opportunity to make sure we're bringing up legit trash to talk about, that we're making correct inferences from said trash, that we're taking into account the positives as well, that we're not generalizing too broadly, et cetera. If you want to point out specific stuff like that, then by all means please do so in whatever way you think helps the discussions and debates.

2) Do discern if your 'ferocious opposition' is rhetorical. Sure, I know threads have gotten personal, but do take into account that fiery language isn't always meant to stir up personal feelings, but rather relevant feelings for the arguments and issues at hand. There's also the possibility that the opposition intimidates because it has the stronger arguments.

3) Civil rights are distinct from civil liberties. You may wish people Merry Christmas, send religious cards, give money at church, wear a cross, or otherwise express yourself. You just can't do that for the government or have the government do that for you because of the First Amendment. (In the US, I hastily add to my comment...)

4) Your "line of good taste" makes no sense to me. "Atheists can suck it" is a personal attack (and a pitiful one at that), not just an belief-oriented attack. If we do not openly and freely discuss and debate ideas as a people, if we literally refuse to talk about them because of contentiousness, controversy, emotion, etc., then are we really doing ourselves a service? Is faith really best as a strictly personal matter? Do "coexistence" and "tolerance" necessitate silence? Should the discourse of religion be reduced to mere whispering, or is it safe for us to all talk about it? Is it a "grown up" thing to agree to disagreement, even in face of demonstrable evils dancing around in people's minds en masse?

You are free to make your case for the efficacy of silence; I'd like to see it. As for me, I reiterate what I said last time:

Blind belief, wishful thinking, mindless indoctrination, emotional manipulation, and so on ... When large masses of people dwelve into a world of mindless rituals and falsehoods, we have every right to talk to those masses about it. Both rationality and irrationality are inevitably relevant to more than just single people. Religion is relevant to all; it is relevant to society at large.

P.S. I agree that "Merry Christmas" is silly to be upset about. I like the saying, plus it is essentially secularized now anyways. I also sincerely hope that your "observing cultural expectations" doesn't detract from the hospital's ability to do its job in helping people.

I'm a Christian and want to say Merry Christmas, send Christmas cards that say Christ be with you, etc. I want to give money at church and wear a cross around my neck and whatever else I choose to do to express myself.

You're perfectly free to do all those things. What I object to is when religious believers claim that the government should officially favor their beliefs or discriminate against opposing views.

What I meant to say (I do think I was unclear, apologies) was that you are free to choose anything you like in terms of belief (or non-belief) but that doesn't give you the right to never have to encounter other viewpoints. You, as an atheist, are not in the majority, and I don't think it's right to make this a "it's okay to believe what you want as long as you never talk about it in public" situation.

1. I don't know of any atheists asking to never have to encounter other viewpoints or deny you your right to speak about your beliefs in public.
2. I do know of theists that seek to eliminate all criticism of their religion. Perhaps you should be on their sites talking to them.