Who's the most influential athiest of the 20th century?

When religious people are face with vocal non-believer, it's usually because the religious people were pretending like they had a corner on the Truth, and that you either agreed with them or you went to hell. Who's acting superior?

- I've never claimed that atheism was superior to anything - my personal feelings on belief in invisible superbeings and magic are my own personal feelings.

- Religion has indeed perpetrated a host of wrongs over history -- Man seems to have this need to bomb and kill people who don't accept his gods. I can think of no atheist who has ever started a war (Hitler was not an atheist, and Stalin didn't start WW2). Religion, on the other hand, seems to have this nasty habit of slaughtering, maiming and oppressing.

- Finally, I did say that I think SOME people's religious beliefs are founded in fear. They've admitted it to me, who am I to tell them they're wrong?

It poses a philosophical question: Who is the most moral? The man who lives a moral life because he chooses to, or the man who lives a moral life because he's afraid of being punished?

in my opinion, they are equally moral. they both chose morality for a variety of subjective unsubstantiated and irrational reasons. we can only judge them by their actions. the internal monologue remains unknown to us. furthermore, to suggest that the mental cause is of greater importance is to fall into the framework of christianity's and it's platonic heritage - that the mind/eternal soul/virtuality is of greater importance than the body/material/reality.

if the reason for living morally is privileged over results, then are the results are irrelavent because intentions and motivation trump? who then is more moral? the man who chooses to live a moral life for no apparent reason and had less success, or the man who chose to live a moral life out of fear and had more success?

two men, one acutely self aware, and the other dumb as an ox, both equally moral - is the self aware one more moral because of his awareness of the choices and implications of morality?

So you're a nihilist then? You'd have to be to assume that both are irrational without knowing the internal dialogue. I can't make that same leap. I think moral behavior is mutually beneficial to both the person acting morally and those who benefit from it (by not being killed, robbed, or raped for example). They're more likely to act morally in return. I can't see that as irrational.

I would say that irrational or random behavior that was by chance universally beneficial (deontology) or maximally beneficial for given situation (utilitarianism) is not moral. Isn't that interesting -- that morality requires rational thought.

in the context of cindy's question "because he chooses to." i interpret that to mean "on a whim," as no further explanation is offered.

both people in her example made a choice. the later had a reason - fear. the former, the reason is not stated.

Satan of all people is not an Atheist. Perhaps more accurately is it's impossible for him to be an atheist.

Also, Adolf Hitler was not an atheist, he's Catholic (unfortunately). Also, wouldn't Chairman Mao be buddhist?

It's a humorous troll thread, so it's inaccurate by design.

if hitler was catholic then so is every other atheist born in a christian household.

Who are you to speak for the entire organization of NAMbLA?