See the book "Who Really Cares."

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?