For instance:

If a man wants to make a women his b****, so be it? So what if you don’t like it, what if I do?

If I want to do something, and my conscience is cool with it, then I can do it. If it’s feed a homeless person, so be it. If it’s kill my neighbor, so be it. I am not bound to any morals.

The preceding comment is so transparently written by someone trying to make atheists look bad I actually laughed a little when I first read it. Pastor Fox only hurt his cause.  Contrary to his original purpose, he proved the point that the stereotypical claims anti-atheist bigots make about the general character of atheists is a lie perpetuated only by the religious that see us as a threat.  If we really thought this way he wouldn’t have to lie and post such comments, would he?  He could just point to one of us.  He couldn’t, because he presumably knows that the truth is that we are no less moral than anyone else, religious or not.

Pastor Fox seems to have forgotten the ninth commandment,  “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” (Exodus 20.13)¹?  He also has certainly not read Proverbs recently:

Six things the lord hates;
Seven are an abomination to Him:
A haughty bearing,
A lying tongue
Hands that shed innocent blood,
A mind that hatches evil plots,
Feet quick to run to evil,
A false witness testifying lies,
And one who incites brother to quarrel. (6.16-20)

I think claiming to be someone you’re not certainly falls into the category of hatching evil plots.  This is one of those times it certainly helps me as an activist for atheist rights to be a scholar of religion.  What is better when attacked by religious bigots than to throw their own scripture in their faces after they are exposed as the hypocrites they are.  And people questioned the usefulness of my degree!

It seems good and fair, until you get to the disgusting  ending.  Paul Starobin ends the article by, to start, repeating the lie constantly stated by anti-atheist bigots: that atheists are “arrogant”, claiming to know all.  This is ludicrous when it is in fact the religious who claim to have divine, incontrovertible knowledge.  When taken at face value, religion causes thinking to stop when looking at the origin of the universe and life with the conversation stopper “god did it.”

Atheists, meanwhile, understand that there is still a lot we have yet to learn, of which we can only learn through the logic, reasoning, and evidence of science.  Starobin attempts to prove his point with an uninformed claim about Darwin so ridiculous I can’t even bring myself to repeat it here.  You can read it for yourself in the article.  Basically, though, he attempts to (badly) refute a claim that atheists supposedly make about what Darwin said.  The problem is that atheists never make such a claim.  In fact, such a claim is exactly contrary to the way atheists who support science generally think.  He can’t find any legitimate criticism of the atheists, so he resorts to ad hominem attacks.

Furthering his ad hominem criticisms, he claims that we have “disdain for the religious as captives to superstitions that only a cretin could accept.”  This is a disgusting bigoted comment straight out of the anti-atheist quotebook.  Even more importantly, it isn’t true.  I have heard atheists levy some criticism on the religious, but I have never heard any atheist who is a good person call someone a “cretin” or anything close, simply due to the fact that they are religious.  We would have to think a lot of people are cretins!

Furthermore, I seriously doubt Mr. Starobin ever heard a single atheist he interviewed ever use such an insulting word when referring to religious people.  It came from his mind, no one else – from the bigotry ingrained in him by our culture that he, despite the strong points of the rest of the article, cannot avoid.  Once again, we see the double standard: that it is okay for others to criticize atheists, as Starobin does in his ending, yet if atheists criticize others we are arrogant and insulting.

The author’s bias, although hidden for most of the article, doesn’t seem to allow him to see the difference between valid criticism and insult when atheists are concerned.  The fact is that it is a completely valid criticism that religious believers are choosing not to use their reasoning, but instead forgo rationality when it comes to religion.  This is a fact, and is absolutely something which is a valid reason to criticize people.  Should we say not using your brain is good?  It seems everyone else is allowed to criticize, but once again when atheists do it we are considered arrogant, no matter how valid our reasoning is.

It gets worse.  He spreads the ridiculous and disgusting lie the people such as Stalin killed in the name of atheism or because of atheism.

Their polished debating points seldom reflect the awkward truth-awkward, that is, to their mindset- that religion is not the only source of war and strife, that the worldview of a murderous atheist like Stalin can also be a wellspring of blood and tears.

This is no truth, Mr. Starobin, and you should be ashamed of yourself for spreading it.  For one thing, atheists never claim that religion is the only source of war or strife.  We simply don’t claim that.  We argue it is a major cause, but not the only one.  Again, you resort to ad hominem attacks – claiming we hold views that we do not, then arguing against the views we never asserted in the first place!  Religion is a set of beliefs which, in the cases of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, blatantly call for the murder of nonbelievers or those who believe the wrong thing.  Religion absolutely has much blame for a large amount of violence in humanity’s history.

Atheism, on the other hand, is has no beliefs or viewpoint at all.  It is simply a descriptive term for those who lack a belief in a god.  Atheism does not lead anyone to commit atrocities because that is an impossibility.  Atheism cannot give someone a reason to kill anymore that the lack of belief in any other deity would.  No one would claim that Stalin committed atrocities due to his lack of belief in the Hindu god Vishnu, and it makes no more sense to claim such about the lack of belief in the Judeo-Christian God.   Stalin may have been atheist, but that is irrelevant.  His killings had nothing to do with atheism.  He also has a moustache – using Starobin’s logic that would mean that having a moustache can lead one to kill.  Both are just as ludicrous.

Mr. Starobin, I take back my previous statements.  You are not only a victim of the ingrained culture bias against atheists, but are a plain old bigot.  Writing a few nice things in your article doesn’t excuse you ending it with the same old religious bigot talking points.  Just as the color of skin or shape of one’s head has no direct correlation to one’s actions, neither does atheism.  You would never be allowed to publish the racist claim that being black can lead to murder simply because you can name a single black person who has murdered, yet you are allowed to publish the claim that atheism does – a claim with absolutely nothing to back it up.

Dusgusting, Mr. Starobin.  You should be ashamed of yourself.  You did a good job hiding your bias against us for so much of the article!  You just couldn’t help yourself at the end, could you?  You had to get in your jabs at us.  You will get no points for the rest of your article with any atheists who have a small bit of self respect, once they see your horrible ending.  You write an entire fair article about atheists and yet can’t help throwing in your bigotry against us at the end.  And you wonder why many of us are, as you say, “militant.”