The term "freethinking" presupposes a belief in "free will." However, in the deterministic worldview of atheistic materialism, there is no free will. In other words, every thought or belief that an atheist has or entertains was completely predetermined and could not have been otherwise. This hardly constitutes the idea of freethinking.

The bottom line is that if there is no free will, then there is no freethinking. Moreover, the term "freethinking atheist" is actually an oxymoron. That being said, I will kindly ask the atheists on this forum to refrain from describing themselves as freethinkers. Intellectually honesty demands this.

Thank you.   

I have always said that both of these doctrines are very similar. For starters, they are very controlling and are very dogmatic.

I am gonna try to find some similarities between both of them:

(1) Followers of both doctrines like to control people. In North Korea, for example, hidden cameras are used to spy on people in the streets. A man with long hair could easily get arrested.

(2) Censorship. They both censor whatever offends them. Let's not forget that during the Cold War, most forms of music were banned in the Iron Curtain, and let's not forget Christian organizations were constantly attacking different types of music

(3) Extreme altruism: communism took sharing to an extreme, by forcing farmers to share their belongings with other farmers to create equality. Communism's tendecy to abolish social classes was no different than Jesus preaching against the rich. Or one of the ten commandments saying you should never covet thy neighbor's goods.

(4) Persecution of gays, feminists, etc.

(5) A tendency to turn followers of their dogmas into saints. Typical of the Catholic Church, but the communists did canonize Stalin and Lenin, as if they were saints.

(6) Genocide. Christians like to say communists killed people because they were atheists, but the truth is, communists destroyed anything or anyone that went against their doctrine. The conquistadors, Charlemagne, Oliver Cromwell were no different.

Let's get this out of the way up front - my opinions about Stalin:

Stalin was one of the the most effective leaders any country has ever had. He was instrumental in turning Russia into the Soviet juggernaut that, for a time, was equaled only by the United States in international power and influence, he was a key figure in removing a power structure from his country that had held terrible sway for centuries and had largely reduced it to squalor, he was able to do the most important thing (re: leave the biggest decisions in the hands of his generals) when it came time for the key initiatives to be played-out on the Eastern Front in WWII and managed his country's war economy so effectively that even after the Germans had made their deepest penetrations into Soviet holdings, the production of T-34s was such that the Soviet tanks outnumbered German Panzer IVs and Panthers by odds of 3 to 1 even in the darkest days of the war.

Stalin's rule was brutal, egotistical and, in many places, outright disgusting. I find it notable, however, how very 'pro-Soviet' and 'pro-Stalin' most of the Soviet public remained, even in the shadow of their dictator. He was VERY GOOD at what he did, and even better at making people see this fact.

So, that being said:

 Here is something interesting: Christians are always talking about Stalin and Pol Pot, as if they woke up one morning and said: "I am an atheist, so I'll kill lots and lots of people."

Thing is, it is a shame these murderers existed in the twentieth century, when Christianity didn't have the sharp teeth it used to have, unless you count Hitler, whose theism is debatable, according to Christians.

They were tyrants, and they are seen as tyrants. But when it comes to theocracies, theist crimes, and those in charge, Christians sing a different song. Recently, it was determined that Leonardo DaVinci is the most influential person ever. And one of the people in the list is, of course: Charlemagne. 

Charlemagne massacred a lot of people who refused to convert to Christianity. The guy had concubines in his palace and defended Christian ideals -- provided they didn't apply to him. He ordered the beheading of 4500 Saxons for refusing to convert to Christianity. He fought for Christ, against Muslim saracens, and against Saxons whom he regarded as savages.  Imagine that lunatic with the kind of weapons Stalin had, or Mao. 

Then there is Francis Xavier. A saint. But guess what? He traveled to Asia and said that an inquisition was needed there. That inquisition arrived eight years later, and to this day, we don't know how many Asians were tortured and killed.

My former Christian belief system viewed God as a sort of Divine Police Officer who never allowed anything into the life of a believer ( referring to myself ) except by his divine will.  There are no accidents; all circumstances, whether pleasant or unpleasant, were permitted by God. 

My question to theists is this:  Why would God allow me to encounter skeptic resources, atheist web-sites, books, etc when he knew that doing so would destroy my faith ?   If he is truly the engineer of circumstances why did he allow me as a Christian to discover arguments that completely decimated my belief in him ?

If it was a test, was it really worth the the destruction of my faith and the loss of my "eternal soul" ...especially since he supposedly already knew the outcome in advance ?

First thing's first: read Mein Kampf. It is essential reading for anyone who cares to at all understand exactly who Adolf Hitler was, and why the Nazi campaign / holocaust was set in motion and (mis)managed as it was. After you've read Hitler's own words, if you still don't think you have a grasp on the man, come back here.

Adolf Hitler was the furthest thing from an atheist that is likely possible on a human level. Even Joseph Stalin, whom by all accounts genuinely thought himself a deity, is the spitting image of humbleness when sat next to Hitler.

Hitler was 'born again', to the extent that he essentially refused to acknowledge his own biological birth and childhood, during the end of his service in the Great War. His intelligence and courage earned him decorations by the German military and he was initially (reportedly) well-liked by his peers and commanders. Following a mustard gas attack, however, Adolf fell into hysteria and started to devlop extreme patriotic ideals about Germany (even though he himself was not a German citizen).

http://religions.pewforum.org/reports There are some encouraging things happening to the religious landscape in America.  Check out the link to read the full report.  Here are some highlights:

Australian Biologist and atheist Peter Singer debated D'Souza at a Christian university, and Singer surprinsingly did better than Hitchens and Dennett, in my humble opinion, of course.

You can see the debate here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Phgb67NAaHA

Once again D'Souza repeats the same tired arguments: atheists are bad because Stalin and Hitler were bad. Once again he claims compassion is a Christian invention, and once again he manipulates logic and fact as if he can change reality just by words alone.

Things I noticed from this debate:

(1) Singer is better at debating than Dennett and maybe Hitchens

(2) When Singer said Bill Gates donates millions to charity and Gates is not religious, D'Souza defended himself by saying Gates' actions are influenced by a Christian society, even though he is not religious. Weird. Hitler's hatred of Jews, gays, and gypsies was influenced by atheism, even though we are supposed to have no morals that can cause such influence.

(3) D'Souza repeats the anthropic principle again. Singer defends it by saying, "Well, we could be in one of multiple universes." D'Souza replies that multiple universes are not proven, and may not exist. He uses atheist logic to attack the idea of multiple universes. D'Souza even mentioned the "God of the gaps" thing and said that atheism has something similar: "Science will find the answer later on."

This is a documentary in which journalist Rod Liddle explores and exposes Atheist propaganda. Far from being an antidote to religious fundamentalism, Liddle shows that atheism too has its dogmas and beliefs like the organised groups it opposes. Meeting professors and anti-religious associations, Liddle reveals how atheists give to science a certainty when in fact there is none(Youtube video summary, not my words).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Atheism

Theists and Atheists I would like to get your views on these videos.

Theists, do you think this is an accurate depiction and comparison of Atheism with religion? If so...why?

Atheists, do you think this is the same style of journalism that programs like the "Root of All Evil" by Richard Dawkins, portray theists and supernaturalists? If not...why?

As an atheist or skeptic dismissing Christianity as false is generally done through rationality and logic. We typically approach Christian belief by demanding proof their god exists. The evidence that Christians submit is usually the Bible and the argument that a creator must be responsible for the complex Universe we observe. Several years ago I had courses in comparative religions where I studied the alternatives to Christian belief. It is from this perspective I would like to discuss Christianity as a falsely interpreted religion derived from Judaism. I am an Ex-Christian atheist and do not accept Judaism as true any more than I do Christianity. I do not believe in invisible friends that look after the Universe.  It is not just the irrational belief in Christianity that led me from being a believer it was the illogical rejection of the original beliefs of the Jews. Judaism is the belief from which Christianity sprang and the differences are quite substantial. Christians appear to have falsely interpreted Jewish scripture that had an ancient basis. Jews that understand their religion do not convert to the derived religion of Christianity and reject Jesus as their Messiah. There is however a lot more to their rejection of Christian belief than Jesus not being as their described Messiah or Moshiach.