If you insist. :-)

Anyway, you wrote, "Moderates 'enable' extremists by not speaking out against them." Have you not heard of the Sojourners' campaign, "God is Not a Republican (Or a Democrat)"? Heck, you seem to be forgetting the whole evangelical left. In the JREF forums, tkingdoll pointed out that moderate Muslims had put up billboards against suicide bombings in Birmingham, right in the hot spots where racial tensions run high and other Muslims, for example, put up "kill Jews" posters:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3004356#post3004356

Don't assume that the moderates aren't speaking out just because you haven't heard them.

Denis Loubet: "The very existence of atheists is considered an insult to theists."

Depends on the theists. The ones in Midwest churches, maybe, but depending on the crowd, you may invite pity rather than scorn, which is irritating, too, but beats a boot in the head. That seemed to be the reaction, too, of many Seattle churchgoers picketed by ApostateAbe from IIDB, who apparently managed to keep a smile on his face as he held a "God is Fake" sign in front of their churches. The theists at Ship of Fools vary widely in their attitudes toward atheists.

Denis Loubet: "Obviously, if we don't agree with them, then we must think they're mistaken or deluded, and they can't stand that."

Right, because thinking that someone is mistaken means not being able to stand his/her presence.

We have to remember that, at least with fundamentalist Christians and Muslims, they enter the conversation agreeing with their god that atheists DESERVE to be tortured forever.

So yes, we may enter the discussion thinking they're a little deluded, but they enter it thinking that we deserve infinite torture.

Yikes.

Denis Loubet

From what I can tell, Harris thinks that moderates "enable" extremists, which is just ridiculous. Moderates don't like fundamentalism any more than we do.

I don't know why you would think this is ridiculous. Moderates "enable" extremists by not speaking out against them. They think they can hide behind the old, "Well, my god is different," routine and we should just accept that? But, when the chips are down, many of them find that it is more important to be on team god than to do what is right, if what is right means siding with the dreaded atheists.

The real reason to attack moderate religion is that if we don't, we are open to criticism that we seem to think all religious people are fundamentalists. The courtier's reply (which states that atheists ignore "sophisticated" religion) arises because atheists have not been arguing against moderate religion openly enough; instead, atheists seem to dismiss it without justification.

And in response to your other comments, I'll just simply say, let's agree to disagree so I'm not accused of moving anyone off topic or "preaching".

If you wish to discuss the matter further, I'd be happy to create an open thread. In the meantime, however, I'll just say that the notion of "agreeing to disagree" over a matter of objectively verifiable fact is absurd - a point ably covered by a friend of mine at A Load of Bright.

Obviously I'm not a historian and do not pretend to be one but I'm well aware of where our forefathers stood in regards to faith, including Thomas Jefferson.

Then you know that the majority wanted a separation of church and state (TJ especially) and that many of them were not xians and would not agree with your statement that this country was formed on judeo-xian beliefs.

As I'm sure you're well aware this country was formed on judeo-christian beliefs. It is because of this fact that America has been blessed, ironically by the God you curse!

No, it wasn't. Why don't Christians ever learn history?

For over 200 years America has enjoyed tremendous freedom, safety, and opportunities, the likes no country or kingdom had or has ever had the pleasure of receiving.

Only if you're a straight white male. It wasn't too long ago that I wouldn't have been allowed to vote, own property, attend school, etc. Come to think of it, a lot of us still aren't free. Maybe once black kids can sit under a tree without being threated with lynching and arrested, then you can say we're all free. Until then, you sound like a troll.

What science are atheists supporting/performing that helps mankind, exactly?

Something like 60% of biologists are atheists.

Atheism wants to erradicate the world of all faiths that do not line up with theirs, which is obviously a very hostile stance for all other faiths. Remove God and you most definitely are not bettering mankind!

Atheism is not a monolithic belief system. There may be some atheists who do wish to eliminate all religions, there may be some who don't. Most atheists probably don't care if you believe that the sky is pink and the clouds are made of cotton candy - just don't legislate it. Remove the gnomes from our assholes and you are most definitely are not bettering mankind!

First of all, hereigns, you did know that John Adams and John Quincy Adams were two separate people, right? If you didn't, then I politely suggest you have a touch more humility when making claims about what America's founding fathers believed.

I stand corrected, how big a bite of some humble pie shall I take? :) I was aware they were two different presidents, our 2nd and 6th, but I didn't investigate which of the two was involved in the Treaty of Tripoli. Obviously I'm not a historian and do not pretend to be one but I'm well aware of where our forefathers stood in regards to faith, including Thomas Jefferson.

...it doesn't matter what any of the founders personally believed, because they did not write their personal beliefs into law. What they did write into law was the Constitution, and that was a specifically secular document, containing no reference to the desires or will of God, but only the will of the people.

We agree! And in response to your other comments, I'll just simply say, let's agree to disagree so I'm not accused of moving anyone off topic or "preaching".

Thanks!

Of course, this plenty and safety has NOTHING to do with two oceans guarding the majority of our frontier, nor with possession of the fourth-largest territory in the world, with all the resources therein. Of course not.

"Society…ultimately fails everyone", boy, talk about a mouth full. Sounds like a comment made out of fear rather than truth. The list of people/organizations/countries, religious and non, who have brought conflict, wars, turmoil as well as peace and hope, are obviously too numerous to name.

I'm not sure if you left out "on the basis of contradictory belief" for economy or obfuscation. Whichever, most of the bloodiest conflicts that spring to my mind stem from religious intolerances. I am British and lived a lot of my life in the shadow of the IRA terrorist campaigns; the middle east conflicts are all at heart religious ones. The "truth" is that although there may often be economic and political contention between regions, a religious divide will often be the spark for war. My "fear" is that living as we do in a world of growing fundementalism, both Christian and Islamic, we may all be sacrificed for the sake of irrational beliefs.This is why the "just enough God" brigade, apparently harmless as they appear, should be challenged by atheists. Tolerence of religious motivation in government allows Bush to "crusade" against Islam(ic terrorism)and Iran to openly call the West "Enemies of God". When a nation believes that it is God's own chosen people, all other people become less than human in their eyes.

Odd, I thought it was for this reason America was formed, it's called freedom. You can choose NOT to bring your child to a Catholic school.

This may be more relevant in the UK than the US. The point is, consider that the best public school in the area is a Catholic one. Non-Catholic parents may with to send their children to the best school possible. Now how would they feel if that school gives its last few places to children of Catholic parents in preference? In the UK religious schools are currently granted exemption allowing them to discriminate on the grounds of religious belief (or lack thereof) when selecting prospective pupils.

It's that kind of issue that atheists have a problem with.