I was thinking, honest!

I haven't set out to bring value to any discussion. I would have to listen to the main thrust, weigh up the viewpoints, research the areas I am unsure of and test my replies out by pm'ing a few drafts to a select few people.

No, this type of soundbite debate allows a different sort of contribution, that is giving food for thought. No real reason to think things through, as that would take time and such an approach would reduce the pool of those who could contribute.

No Jack, my apparent vitriol is based on your assertion that there are many paths from atheism to atrocity. Other than starting with the letter "a" I am not sure how you make that connection. Atheism is the lack of belief. Every despot in history has achieved his aims by taking others along with them. To say "TO MAKE ME RICH AND POWERFUL!" is not a very good rally cry, hence you have to get your followers to believe it is the right thing to do.

Or, a belief system, as Dawkins rightly put it.

Therefore, atheism to atrocity is a contradiction in terms. Also, I still contend that to ask if an atheist can know right from wrong may be an objective question, but by then spelling out your belief system, it does tend to give people a small clue as to where you are coming from here? That is what I find disturbing. We are led to believe you feel a religious belief shows you right from wrong. Whatever floats your boat, but to put it in words can be rather insulting to those who have no need for such props.