I want to apologize to everyone on Mudcat for continuing this specious thread, the premise of which I don't agree.

In fact, it seems to me that militant religion has created an" atheist "movement.

There might have been a time when non-belief was just another way of looking at things
but since the actions of violent and vituperative religionists have come to the fore, a war has been created.

I deplore the sarcastic, smart-assed comments that have attended this
sham of a discussion. The only reason that this thread continues is that it provides a forum for shallow criticisms and unfunny remarks by those unwittingly or willfully ignorant.

A reasonable understanding of why people adopt or reject religion would be useful if
nothing else than to reveal how these differing points of view reflect changes in the brain or culture.

I can understand, having once been religious, myself, how others who espouse their
ideas with enthusiasm or evangelism are motivated to do so. I left religion, not with animosity or pain but a recognition that religion serves no constructive purpose for me.
I don't see it as a means to ease the problems we face in society today.

The thread's title here, and make no mistake about it, is an attack on non-belief.
The false equivalency of non-belief to religion muddies the waters of clear thinking.

There are those who are angry in the so-called "atheist" community such as Christopher
Hitchens, but he was a combative guy to begin with. Dawkins never criticizes individuals but focuses his attention on the institution of religion where it belongs. Sam Harris and
Daniel Dennet take a philosophical view to the issue but not ad-hominem or accusative to any person.

In summary, I apologize to all for having subjected you so this attack ad.