Sometimes theists find it odd that atheists would have web sites explaining, discussing, and defending atheism. If atheism is not a philosophy or religion, what's the point? If atheists don't believe in God, why spend so much time discussing God? These theists are, I believe, misunderstanding the purpose and reason for atheist sites. The reason for this misunderstanding may lie in the fact that atheism and religion are completely separate categories, and as such cannot be directly contrasted.
A fundamental and vital aspect to the evangelical Christian worldview is being 'saved.' The whole purpose of Christianity and the goal of individual Christians is to be saved, which means avoiding hell and going to heaven. In fact, even just considering oneself to be a Christian doesn't equate with being "saved," at least not in the ideology of evangelical Christianity. How does a person know whether they are saved or not, though?
Most decent colleges and universities have some sort of religious studies department. Given how important religion is to history and culture, this is unavoidable - but how should these departments approach religion and teach religion? Should they be more skeptical and critical or more defensive and supportive of the beliefs of people in the community?
Many Americans have dismissed complaints about mishandling or mistreating copies of the Qur'an, whether in front of Muslims or just in general. They regarded Muslim reactions is trivial and ridiculous. What so many Christians don't understand is the fact that the Qur'an is not simply the 'Muslim bible' and their reactions betray a profound failure to understand Islam.
Contrary to popular belief, freethought has not traditionally been equated with atheism or even irreligion, though it's understandable if the two frequently go together. Anthony Collins certainly didn't equate freethought with atheism or irreligion and this attitude is exemplified quite well in this short passage written by Leo Tolstoy...
Pope Benedict XVI came out many times during his papacy blasting secularism and political liberalism. Given how entrenched those two have become in the modern West, this might seem strange, but in fact what's probably stranger is that the criticisms weren't harsher.
Should a person launch into a detailed and involved study of the entire Bible before deciding that atheism is more reasonable than Christianity (or any other sort of theism)? Some Christians seem to think so by the way they act - sometimes asking, for example, just how much an atheist has studied the Bible.
Observers have noticed a disturbing pattern in Muslim communities: many people spend far too much time looking backwards and lamenting the loss of a Golden Age and too little time trying to construct a new, better age in their future. What people want is to restore what they think they had and have lost. They are sacrificing their own future for the sake of dreams about the past.
One of the most important features of Jesus' ministry, as it is described in the New Testament, appears to have been the creation of new social structures for his followers. He openly described those following him as his family, deliberately rejecting his biological family.
Secularism is used in a restricted sense today, but it retains a philosophical aspect in political and social situations. Secularism has always carried a strong connotation of the desire to establish an autonomous political and social sphere which is naturalistic and materialistic, as opposed to a religious realm where the supernatural and faith take precedence.