I agree with your comment that deist/theist (same thing different label) believe that all atheist are immoral, however I prefer the argument ‘that if you need a deity to set your moral code then what sort of human are you’
Evangelicals and I use this term to describe the followers of the American, possibly the Southern version of Christianity, of which I may say is somewhat and alarmingly prevalent in modern day New Zealand Christianity, appear from either one; or all sections of society that could be termed ‘the used, the abused and the confused’ their views on morality come from their current and most influential educator.
I do not believe that atheist need to convince these people of either their lack of a belief system or of the cultural morality inherent in most humans, as atheism and human culture far outdate their contrived and often selected morality; remember these people are the usurpers not ourselves.
I feel that the best interest of atheist is not to mimic, but to discredit evangelical arguments with clear and reasoned logic.
Ev. Hitler and Stalin were atheists.
At. Richard the third (Coeur de Leon) and the Inquisition were Christians, Galileo Galilee was denounced by the Christian church for teaching Copernican astronomy.
And so the argument goes, however most atheist are people of reasonable intellect and the evangelical arguments are weak and often end with an assertion of belief, the intellectual version of the cop out.
In summary, my view is thus; that atheism is neither a movement a belief nor an umbrella faction. Atheists often arrive from the broad church of society and the varietals of political belief. People such as Richard Dawkins choose to bring his view to the fore; however, Dawkins chooses to stay apolitical and non-subscriptive, as we should all choose.
I take your web page as a satire an applaud your bravery in today’s America and thoroughly enjoy this conversation.
I agree that atheism isn’t a coherent movement. Instead, “atheist” is a descriptive term that encompases a wide variety of beliefs and opinions (as does “Christian”).
Personally, I think that talking about whether atheism came before theism is irrelevant to which is superior. The same can be said for naming good and bad atheists/theists, as heroes and villains can be found in both camps.
I agree that arguments against atheism or for theism should be met with reason and logic. However, it is my opinion that being able to counter arguments such as these is not nearly as important as trying to help others examine their own beliefs for logical flaws. If everyone were reasonable, moral, and logically consistent, it would make far less difference whether we were theists or atheists.