I Thought Only the South Published Morons

This month seems to be the month for poorly written opinion pieces at college newspapers. My school had one concerning same-sex marriage, and Ohio University had blatant racism flash their student newspaper. Now, a freshman at Yale places a foot in his mouth concerning atheism and its "lack" of morality.

He writes:

Christians and other theists have raised the objection that naturalistic materialism — the notion that only the physical world exists — can provide no foundation for morality. That’s not to say that naturalists cannot behave morally, but merely that they can have no real and consistent reason for behaving morally. As this has been a long-standing and widespread objection to naturalism, it would seem only reasonable to expect atheists to devote careful attention to the question of morality.

Atheistic philosophers have, indeed, spent time describing a naturalistic morality. Where has this kid been? How moral tendency develops as a result of our ability to possess empathy toward others. It is a natural human condition to project oneself into the situations experienced by others, because chances are we have experienced said situation. Our knowledge grew not from revelation or "magic" but by human experiences and human observation. We know stealing requires removing possession of property from one individual to another. We know rape involves sexual penetration and violence. We know the result of murder is the vanquishing of a life. We have experience and knowledge of the results and outcomes of given circumstances.

Morality is nothing more or a less than a reflection of knowledge. It is not a gene, and it is not a a deus ex machina. I find it a bit repugnant to declare that the sole reason beings are moral is due to posthumous judgment by a mythical being who supposedly walked the earth and floated into the sky or any other fancy mythology one can contrive. I act righteously because I have the ability to discern how the other individual desires to be treated. I act according to the law because that is what I accept as being a citizen of the nation. No need to call forth Jesus, Zeus, or any other deity of desire.

Concerning our ability to choose to act rightly or wrongly, the author writes:

C.S. Lewis puts the matter nicely: “If a man asks what is the point of behaving decently, it is no good replying, ‘in order to benefit society,’ for trying to benefit society, in other words being unselfish (for ‘society’ after all only means ‘other people’), is one of the things decent behaviour consists in; all you are really saying is that decent behaviour is decent behaviour.”

You are certainly free to disobey the moral tendency and do wrong and violence on to others. However, with every wrong committed a person exists who desires justice for the wrong. Hence, our morality stems from the social contract, an extension of our human empathy.

The freshmen enters into the famous is-ought paradigm: "naturalistic materialism gives no basis for this ought." Indeed, no such system has a true basis for an ought, and he is blinded to think religion does. The simple existence of a system or parameter does not necessitate the individual to follow said parameter. In the Christian tradition, no one is forced to act morally, that is there is no forced reason to commit oneself to ought statements. It is only inner volition which causes one to follow the oughts prescribed by Christianity, Judaism, or any other flavor of theism imaginable. Why limit the is-ought problem to only naturalism when it equally applies across the board? As stated previously, the individual can fall outside of the bell curve for following the natural moral tendency, but our social order determines the reaction to this individual's actions. Again, the social contract is held.

The author fails to convince the reader that morality is dependent upon God. The onus is on him to demonstrate how theism transverses the is-ought problem of philosophy. I am content with my naturalistic morality and its source, and I am content following the ought parameters established. I have no need to call forth supernatural entities to determine not to kill, to bathe every day, and to conserve energy and materials. Does the author only act morally because he is afraid of the lake of fire? What a prick to act out of fear of the unknowable and unseen and then condemn those who act due to their knowledge of the world and humanity.

An Atheist Survey

angelsdepart posted an atheist survey. I have not had the chance to air out my views on various topics. Perhaps I can utilize this venue to give a general description for each topic covered.

1. Why do you not believe in God?

I do not subscribe myself to various versions of deities, such as the God of Abraham or those of the Hindus, due to lack of historical accountability of the various myths espoused by their holy books, priests, shamans, etc., failure for consistent reproducibility of outcomes for specified rituals, and the gods possessing the faulty attribute of pure self-interest. There are also unique and general philosophical questions and faults possessed in analyzing each dogma.

I do not subscribe myself to a form of agnostic deism for pragmatic reasons. It is impractical, in my opinion, to state that some unknown and unknowable entity is involved in the underlying mechanics of the universe, whether the mechanics involve solely creation of the universe, shaping the universe into its current state or form, or being completely involved in every function within this universe. I simply do not find this approach any pragmatically different than the metaphysical naturalism with which I ascribe to. That is, the questions of our existence and life in general yield either similar answers or the answer is completely impractical. I will expand on this thesis at a later date.

2. Where do your morals come from?

I am human. Despite the push for individualism in modern society, our physiology is not that much different from person to person. So my morals and ethical decision making stem from not a static list of rules in a handbook but a living document of human experience and human empathy.

3. What is the meaning of life?

This question always makes me ponder a similar question: "Does life really have a meaning?" If the answer is yes, then the question above is asked. But what if the answer to my inquiry no?

The answer is yes or no depending on what one means by "meaning". Does life have an extrinsic definition or goal? No. There is no universal goal to life. Biologically speaking, this generation's goal is to continue the species via reproduction. But is that really a universal goal or a consequence of evolution and the history of the phyla? Socially we have goals and terms to meet and exceed, but are those really universal? No, not at all. So, no, there is no extrinsic, or rather platonic, meaning to life.

However, there is a particular pattern or certain reduced formalism we all undergo during our living. Thus, my answer is a cliché; the meaning of life is to live. What I mean by to live is this pattern with which we experience: growth. We grow physically due to biological processes. We grow emotionally from social experiences. We grow in knowledge through experience. These three avenues of personal growth is life. How one wishes to involve themselves with each arena (eg. with life) is solely up to their own.

4. Is atheism a religion?

No. It is a view on/of religion, but religion is often defined by ritual practices concerning a belief in divinities and higher entities. Atheism could be viewed as a religious opinion or religious point of view, but in and of itself it is not a religion. Nor is deism based on my definition above, as deism typically does not involve rituals or dogma.

5. If you don’t pray, what do you do during troubling times?

I take as much command of myself and attempt to maintain as much order as possible. As a result, I often find myself volunteering and taking action to fix or ease the tensions created by the troubling situation. From a personal account, when Hurricane Katrina made landfall and devastated the coast of Mississippi and the storm surge laid waste to New Orleans, while everyone was praying for a solution I was attempting to act out a solution. I became a Red Cross volunteer and worked the shelter established at the local conference center (the Rivercenter of Baton Rouge) during the day. During the evening and "graveyard" hours I volunteered at the temporary triage set up at my university (Louisiana State University) as an orderly/nurse practitioner. Essentially I used what resources I had available (my physical strength and manpower) to help ease the suffering of the victims. I have also volunteered several times to help clean up the hardest hit portions of New Orleans and Mississippi, regions which to this day are still wastelands and ghost towns.

Thus, I do not pray nor do I hope. Those do nothing. I act, and my action depends on the situation in question.

6. Should atheists be trying to convince others to stop believing in God?

Should atheists in general do so? No. But for those who believe that the development and retention of religion is the worst thing to have occurred in human history, then I think they are obligated to discuss the reasoning behind their viewpoint. It is their job to convince people that their position is valid. Validity does not always imply conversion.

7. Weren’t some of the worst atrocities in the 20^th century committed by atheists?

Yes, but not due to their atheism. People should be measured by their actions not their thoughts. Besides, only the individual truly knows what they believe; others can only guess and weigh the words of individual testimony.

8. How could billions of people be wrong when it comes to belief in God?

Ironically, this question is spot on. But I would phrase the question more like: "how could anyone know anything about God?" There are reported ways of how the nature of the divine can be determined (eg revelation), but the sheer amount of differences amongst individual revelations questions the reliance of such methods.

Simply put, people can be wrong due to flawed methods of determining what they seek.

9. Why does the universe exist?

Is there a platonic reason for the universe's existence? No. The universe exists because the universe exists. This simple tautology is the logical truth of the matter. Everything else is a conjecture, a guess, or an attempt to rationalize opinions with this truth. Though conjecturing can be fun and even lead one to defining and learning more about oneself or the world we experience, it does not give a finite or satisfactory answer to this question. But we do know how the universe exists and why it is in its current form. That is nothing particularly special to this question, though.

10. How did life originate?

Based on current understanding, the organic molecules of life were synthesized and collected on Earth to form the first cell-like blob of chemical mass. Eventually, these chemical mechanisms began constructing structures and patterns we recognize as being patterns found in living organisms.

11. Is all religion harmful?

One cannot make a general statement that encompasses all forms of religious belief. Conviction and piety via asceticism may prevent the individual from experiencing what human culture and nature offers. However, that is the individual's choice. In social settings, religion tends to be more harmful than good. Mob mentality comes to my mind when church services gather. The unquestioning attitude exhibited by some dogmas also illicit more harm than good.

In general, the question cannot be addressed. Specifics need to be specified for a complete analysis.

12. What’s so bad about religious moderates?

From my experience, they do not address the fundamental problem that plagues fundamentalism: the failure to practice what one preaches. Moderates tend to tolerate their highly deluded and misinformed brothers and sisters in this aspect.

13. Is there anything redeeming about religion?

Personal reconciliation with the individual and his/her environment is the only redeeming quality I can think of.

14. What if you’re wrong about God's existence?

Which one's existence, though?

15. Shouldn’t all religious beliefs be respected?

On an individual level, sure. I don't dislike a particular person because of their personal belief system. However, religious groups that attempt to qualify their political stake from sectarian values as opposed to secular ones deserve criticism.

16. Are atheists smarter than theists?

Atheists are definitely smarter than the theists who insist and argue through dogma that their religion is the One and Only Truth^TM. Comparisons to theists of other persuasions require specifics.

17. How do you deal with the historical Jesus if you don’t believe in his divinity?

Basically, it has not been historically verified that he rose from the dead and was lifted into heaven. But even if he had done and said everything in the Bible, the possibility of Jesus being a ploy for the archetypal "god of evil" to dissuade everyone from the archetypal "god of good" is a possibility (see answer to 8 for why). I guess, though, this is when faith comes into play.

18. Would the world be better off without any religion?

In my opinion, yes.

19. What happens when we die?

I have the view based on my little knowledge of neurochemistry that an hallucinogenic compound is released during the time the brain lacks oxygen to continue cellular metabolism. Essentially, during the time period preceding absolute death, our sensory data become significantly distorted between our consciousness and the sense organs. We see, hear, taste, feel, smell things which do not exist. We drop unconscious right before absolute death (eg. no sensory data is able to be processed) and then our brain is completely dead. Every thought, emotion, and memory is destroyed. Thus, our metaphorical soul or spirit physically dies.

Immortality is obtained through being retained by the memories of future generations; nothing more or less.

Review of "The Future of Atheism"

One of the most powerful religions in the United States is the NFL.
- Daniel Dennett

This past weekend I attended a short convention at the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary (NOBTS). The Greer-Hear Point-Counterpoint Forum: Exploring the Tensions of Faith and Culture hosted a dialogue between Alister McGrath and Daniel Dennett called The Future of Atheism. McGrath is Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University and is better known for his recent books: The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World, Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life, and The Dawkins Delusion [1]. Daniel Dennett is University Professor and Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy at Tufts University. Dennett is known academically for his physicalist approach to the philosophy of mind and his staunch defense of Neural Darwinism. His recent book, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, is Dennett's book aimed at inquiring whether religion can be studied by science and an investment in the possible origins of modern-day religions. Other noteworthy speakers at the conference were William Lane Craig of Talbot School of Theology, Keith Parsons of University of Houston, Hugh McCann of Texas A&M, and Evan Fales of University of Iowa [2].

McGrath and Dennett at their podiums

I will admit that I missed the beginning of Dennett's presentation to the audience. However, from a friend who was present, he assured me that Dennett simply presented a quick overview of his book. The only thing worth mentioning for the sake of this review is Dennett's presentation of how secularism is the fastest growing identity in the United States, and perhaps even the world [3].

McGrath, however, I saw his full presentation. One of my Christian friends was simply disappointed in McGrath's dialogue. I do not blame my friend, because McGrath committed himself fairly ambiguous attacks on atheist thought. He gave a short rant concerning Dennett's use of hypothesis over empirical evidence in some parts of Dennett's book. He challenged the concept of the meme, arguing for a better defense for the concept by its adherents [4]. McGrath mentioned Stalin's communism, Stalin's atheism, and the link between his atheism and communism that drove the atrocities of communism. He made a valid point that the driving force of communist USSR was not atheism per se but fanaticism, and it is this fanaticism which religious leaders need to subdue if they desire to reconnect their people with their god. McGrath asked the question if whether science is able to sort out the 'God question,' and his position is the negative. Lastly, McGrath charged that atheism faces a potential internal coherency due to the increase in religiosity and religion's influence on society over the past few years.

Though the above is McGrath's presentation in a nutshell, I wish to add a few commentaries. For one, I am in agreement with him that fanaticism is a dangerous ideology. However, it was not the USSR's atheism which drove the atrocities to occur no more than it was President Bush's Christianity that drove us to war with Iraq or Afghanistan. To reduce the actions of leaders to a cultural identity without properly contextualizing the actions committed with the entire worldview pictures by the individual does violence to the cultural identity. Namely, Communism calls for a removal of religious dependency to achieve the greatest possible governing state. It is the government which controls the people, not the people's religiosity. This form of atheism is in no way comparable to secular humanism, the ethical philosophy held by most atheists, than apples can be compared to bricks [5]. It is simply a non-comparison.

Another point of contention I have with McGrath's presentation is his argument that naturalism is circular in reasoning [6]. He presented naturalism in a overly simplistic way which contradicts what most naturalists state. That is, he charged that naturalists first state that science cannot detect non-natural entities, and then comes back to say that since the data does not support the existence of non-natural entities than non-natural entities do not exist. This is a poor simplification of the creed of naturalism. It is not that the supernatural cannot be explained by science. It is simply that there has been no observable data to conclude the existence of the supernatural. As Daniel Dennett pointed out in his rebuttal to McGrath, all it would take would be a complete failure on the part of naturalism to allow the succession of belief in the supernatural as a truth and component of reality. However, as several other authors have pointed out before, no such data has been collected to conclusively support the notion of the existence of the supernatural [7]. So, the construction of the naturalist's argument isn't that by fiat the supernatural cannot be studied. The naturalist allows for the possible existence if the evidence suggests it. However, since the data does not support the conjecture, then it is not necessary at this time to conclude that the notion of the existence of the supernatural is valid.

Dennett addressed two of the major points McGrath brought attention to in his presentation. The response to the argument of circularity was mentioned earlier. Another point addressed is McGrath's opposition to memes. Dennett responded that in his opinion some of the critics of memetics offer nothing worthwhile to the conversation, and he feels that he has addressed the major critics in Breaking the Spell. He implicitly pointed out McGrath's straw man against memetics. That is, McGrath argued that memes are only irrational entities deemed by those who support memetics but other rational entities are not memes. Dennett assured McGrath that literally everything is a meme, including language [8]. In other words, the meme is not a euphemism for a delusional or irrational belief. The meme is a belief, a social construct, which social beings pass on to offspring. Lastly, Dennett admits that in Breaking the Spell there is speculative langauge. However, Dennett argued that his speculative language is simply asking questions to help see what needs to be answered. He hopes that one day his speculation will either be verified or falsified empirically, and his speculation is in the right direction to begin proper research.

McGrath gave a rather complex rebuttal to memetics that made it difficult to give accurate notes. Essentially, McGrath asked if memetics are a reflection of culture, then how does one explain how religion morphed into culture [9]. McGrath also charged that memes are possibly self-destructive. That is, if memetics is a meme, then memetics tells us nothing on the behavior of memes as the entity is subservient to the laws of nature, or the meme is apt to suffer from the consequences of memetics. To McGrath, this gets us no where near to some sort of truth on cultural development and evolution. Lastly, McGrath charged that atheism, in a sort of paradoxical fashion, is a religion [10].

Dennett's closing remarks for the evening were very enlightening. The epigraph for this entry was the first thing Dennett said after McGrath ended his oratory. Afterwards, Dennett laid out a beautiful rebuttal to McGrath's chare against memetics. "Manifestly, religions are beautifully designed," said Dennett. The theory that there was a purposeful designer is a failure. For example, the idea that conniving priests developed Christianity from scratch cannot explain the commonality Christianity possesses with other religions of that time era. Dennett stated that these traits existed prior to such clever priests. With this observation, one can see how instead of a design theory memetics can be utilized to explain the development and evolution of these older ideals. As well, memetics can be utilized to explain the historical development of Christianity from the days f the apostles to today. Essentially, Dennett proposed the utility of memetics in this example, and he further argued that memes are rationally neutral. Memes are better explanations for the unexplainable elements currently found and considered in other models.

Dennett closed with an interesting remark. In the past he has gotten emails from individuals claiming the familiar mantra of how everything must be taken on faith. To Dennett, the faith card is a declaration of sitting out of the discussion for truth and reality. To Dennett, those who sit on the sidelines holding their faith card do a disservice to their religion by believing out of sheer believing. I am forced to agree with Dennett due to my experiences in the past. The faith card is an excuse and a white flag. There is no victory but an admission of defeat to those who pass it off as a genuine answer.

McGrath concluded the first night with a quick admission that he enjoyed the discussion of the designer. However, he also conceded that he still did not think memes are a viable means to describe how cultural information is passed on to future generations.

Overall, the conference was entertaining and enlightening [11]. Both Dennett and McGrath are highly intelligent and articulate men, both worthy of praise of their oratory capacities. McGrath was a jovial Brit, and Dennett was a charming Santa Claus. I learned a lot from this convention, and it left me desiring to read more from both sides of the argument.

But what about the namesake of the convention? That is, what about the future of atheism? The entire conference was centered not around its namesake, it seems, but about different positions held by naturalists and Christians [12]. However, during the question and answer session of the first session, someone asked Dennett what he thought the future of atheism entailed. Dennett gave a witty remark, and I will end this entry with his answer:

No, [there will be no future for atheism] because we will destroy our planet before the future comes.

Daniel Dennett

Notes
1. I think it is rather funny that when asked what he thought of McGrath's criticisms, Dawkins responded: "Alister McGrath has now written two books with my name in the title. The poet W B Yeats, when asked to say something about bad poets who made a living by parasitizing him, wrote the splendid line: 'Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?'" (Source) [Accessed 2/26/2007]
2. I plan on interacting with the other speakers in a later post.
3. American Atheist. "Survey Indicates More Americans 'Without Faith'". [Accessed 2/26/2007] (This was not his source, but it gives a good outline)
4. McGrath has inspired me to research memetics and analyze the criticisms from respected cultural anthropologists and other such scholars.
5.
6. It is interesting to note that McGrath is possibly attacking methodological naturalism, which is fairly agnostic concerning the existence of God, versus other forms of naturalism, such as metaphysical naturalism, which concludes that the current data does not support the existence of the supernatural. The distinction is signifcant but always overlooked.
7. For an example, read Richard Carrier's Sense and Goodness without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism. Though I do not ascribe to Carrier's vision of aesthetics, it is an enjoyable read.
8. From the viewpoint of etymology, I see how this makes sense. Language evolves, literally, under a Darwinian model of 'best fit' words in cultural context. Words which do not fit are phased out, whereas words that do fit remain.
9. I apologize for the lack of notes on this. However, I am too poor to purchase the convention's CD.
10. Though I disagree with McGrath that atheism is a religion under strict definition of a religion, I do admit that there are many atheists whom procliaim their atheism with great vigor.
11. I will address the other speakers in different posts, especially William Lane Craig.
12. During the entire conference, 'atheism' and 'naturalism' were used interchangeably. This practice agitates me to no end. Typically, what happens is a clever theist projects a worldview held by some atheists (for example, egotism or hedonism) and generalize this worldview to apply it to all atheists.

Analysis of an Opinion Concerning the Evils of Atheism

Here is the article: Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history (Yahoo! Opinion by Dinesh D'Souza)

A few critiques follow [1]. From the article:

The best example of religious persecution in America is the Salem witch trials. How many people were killed in those trials? Thousands? Hundreds? Actually, fewer than 25. Yet the event still haunts the liberal imagination.

I wouldn't use the term haunt, but it is a reminder of how a superstitious cultural unit can turn to fanaticism under any form of counter-cultural stimulus. However, America isn't afflicted with religious persecution so much as oppressive prejudices based on religious ideals and formulation. Slavery is the optimum example in American history because defenders were very quick to cite their right to own slaves as Biblically sound. Modern versions of religious oppression or simply religious oriented prejudices include attitudes toward homosexuality, abortion, stem cell research, and non-mainstream religious convictions such as Scientology and Wiccan. From the article:

In the name of creating their version of a religion-free utopia, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong produced the kind of mass slaughter that no Inquisitor could possibly match. Collectively these atheist tyrants murdered more than 100 million people.

This is a rather gross misinterpretation of the history of World War II Germany and Communism reformations.

Adolf Hitler was influenced heavily by the Christian Social Party of Germany. This is not an implied influence; he directly admits it in Mein Kempf. He was very religious and believed he was doing God's work. Though modern Christianity may disagree with his version of Christianity, the point remains that he was not an atheist. In fact, he disliked atheists as much as he disliked Jews. I am not saying his actions were a direct result of his religion, either, but it was definitely not from any sense of areligious attitudes [2].

Mao Zedong killed many people during the tragedy known as the Great Leap Forward and the preceding Cultural Revolution in China. Unfortunately for the author of the opinion letter, neither of these events can be adequately attributed to oppressing religion or killing someone for strictly religious reasons. Those sentenced to death and killed in massacres during this time period in China were the opposition to Zedong's regime. Indeed, his opposition included religious people, but he singled these individuals out not due to religious conviction but because of political alignment. To ignore this attribute of history is simple negligence to push an agenda.

In the case of Josef Stalin, the majority of the deaths attributed to his regime were under the purges of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Typically, members of the non-working class and those with hints of disliking of the Soviet party were sentenced to death. In particular, during the Great Purge, many of the Lenin Bolsheviks were executed. Though social standing and other criteria were utilized to measure one's worth to the party, to conclude that all these deaths were religiously motivated is simply absurd. Again, just like China under Mao Zedong, the atrocities committed in Russia were due to the political atmosphere and not religious versus areligious attitudes [3].

From the article:

But if religion sometimes disposes people to self-righteousness and absolutism, it also provides a moral code that condemns the slaughter of innocents. In particular, the moral teachings of Jesus provide no support for - indeed they stand as a stern rebuke to - the historical injustices perpetrated in the name of Christianity.

Unfortunately, this is simply naive hope to believe that a religion which exults itself on self-righteousness is free from ridicule or being utilized as a means to justify atrocities against society. Not to mention when there are details in the holy books of such religions in which the moral authority relaxed morality and allowed for and even called for atrocities to occur. It's tough to speak as if the teachings of a later prophet can easily undo the behavior patterns before, and it even marks the moral authority as one who waffles on issues of moral behavior. From the article:

Whatever the motives for atheist bloodthirstiness, the indisputable fact is that all the religions of the world put together have in 2, 000 years not managed to kill as many people as have been killed in the name of atheism in the past few decades.

I think it has been shown quite adequately that the ruler's lack of religion is not the root of the atrocities, but the sense of nationalism and political pride involved in such affairs. Not to mention that in the previous paragraph the reference to the Jews as a reference to Hitler is simply misplaced, as stated before.

It's time to abandon the mindlessly repeated mantra that religious belief has been the greatest source of human conflict and violence. Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history.

Political agendas and motivations are the source of the more atrocious mass murders, not areligiosity.

Lastly, I disagree that the statement of religion being a malady on society due to its propensity for conflict is mindless. Though I myself would not go as far as saying religion is the direct cause of horrible atrocities such as mass murder, in modern days it does play directly into the oppression of culture and the retardation of social development. When religious appeals are utilized, they are seen as a scapegoat from thinking critically and reflecting on socio-economic issues. Despite the existence of secular reasons for disallowing homosexual marriage, abortion, and stem cell research, it is easy to find many people whom hold negative attitudes toward homosexuals, abortion, and stem cell research solely from religious reasoning or a religious source.

To conclude, I will make some remarks. The author of this opinion is negligent of history. His association of Hitler with atheism is simply false, and his assertion that atheism is the source of violence is not supported by his evidence when critically analyzed. Even his claim that religion dictates moral action is based off the naive hope that self-righteousness precludes the ability to do harm onto others. This neglects the other events in such holy books which describe righteous individuals committing atrocities out of the commandment of their moral authority. Lastly, his implied argument that religion is greater than atheism is weakened even further when realizing that religious thought is a significant source of social prejudices and cultural oppression in modernity.

Note
1. I wrote this as a reply in a Myspace forum. I hope to revists some of the topics mentioned, especially atheism and its role in Communist governments
2. Though some sources indicate Hitler was not a Christian, it still remains true that he never ascribed to a form of atheism.
3. An area of interest to some of my Socialist and Marxist friends is to analyze the philosophies and actions of Zedong and Stalin and see how they compare to Marxist and Socialist ethics. I await there research, because I would not be surprised if such forms of Communism were perversions rather than the norm.
3.