This is an extremely popular myth about the nature of church/state separation as well as atheists' goals: separation is designed to push religion out of the public view and into the private realm, thus serving the atheist agenda of pushing religion underground and eventually destroying it. Many seem to find this claim to be persuasive, never realizing that it rests upon a logical fallacy known as equivocation: the meanings of 'public' and 'private' are conveniently changed mid-way through.

 

Read Article: Myth: Atheists Want to Eradicate Public Religion, Driving it Underground

You can't choose what you believe, but you can choose what you learn and that, of course, goes a long way in determining what you know and and end up believing. When you choose to learn about something, you are choosing to learn about some aspect of our world. It's an attempt to engage with that aspect of the world as it really is as opposed to what we might want it to be. In contrast, a refusal to learn about the world is an attempt to live in denial, to pretend that the world conforms to our desires, and to exalt ignorance over knowledge.

Everyone is ignorant about lots of things, but we're only ignorant insofar as we choose to be because we choose not to inform ourselves and thus acquire that knowledge. I'm ignorant of Chinese literature, for example, because I have chosen not to inform myself about the topic. It just doesn't interest me. So long as I don't presume to lecture anyone about it, it won't really matter. The consequences are much more serious, though, when it comes to subjects like climate change, evolution, genetics, economics, etc. Read More...

The most fundamental doctrine of Christianity is probably the idea that people's sins can and will be forgiven by God. Added to this are usually the belief that people are inherently sinful, cannot be forgiven on their own deeds or merits, and so need to rely on God's mercy by believing in Jesus Christ. All of this raises serious questions about personal responsibility.

If simply believing in Jesus is sufficient to be forgiven of sins, no matter how heinous, how can this fit in with the idea of being responsible for one's actions? Can you truly claim to take responsibility for crimes or misdeeds if adopting a single belief automatically "washes away" your sins? How can that serve as a foundation for any coherent system of morality or justice? Read More...

It's common to hear religious theists complain about "militant atheists," but just what is a militant atheist? What separates militant atheists from regular (pacifist?) atheists? It's not always easy to tell and the people most likely to call atheists "militant" seem to be the least likely to try to explain the label. So here is a guide to militant atheism derived from the sorts of situations where religious theists insist that atheists are being too militant and demand that atheists be quiet or otherwise behave more deferentially towards religion, religious beliefs, and religious institutions.

Read Article: You Might Be a Militant Atheist If...