I don't believe Athiest have a supreme goal (or even a cohesive group that compares in any way to any organized religion).
It appears that they do. Maher spoke about moving forward. Again, to what are he and others like him trying to move? There's something he wants to accomplish, and for some strange reason, he can't get it done without religion being gone.
According to atheists.org, "
Your petitioners are Atheists and they define their beliefs as follows. An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.Is this the lofty goal which Maher wants to reach?
An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.Is it this?
An Atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow mancan he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.Or it is that?
From my perspective, the recent increase in movies/books like the kind from Maher and Dawkins is necessary response to the infiltration of radical religious agenda in our society and government. The Bush administration is filled with people who filter their regligious beliefs into social policy. An example is the massive amount of tax payer $$$ spent of faith based initiatives such as the patently worthless abstinence programs or pushing to teach a Christian creation myth as if it's the "other side of the coin" to the theory of evolution. If we're going to teach a creation myth in school then it should be taught in a class about mythology and it should be taught alongside the creation stories of other religions. This would be a more of a 200 sided die rather than a 2 sided coin.
First of all, faith-based initiatives are PRIMARILY of a humanitarian nature. There's no need to build shelters or food banks in a community if several of those already exist with local churches.
Second, exactly what's so "worthless" about abstinence education? People have been yapping about condoms for ages, yet STDs among teens have gone UP. That makes the point of, regardless of which type of sex education is touted, these kids aren't using it. They ain't abstaing; they ain't using rubbers. But, I suppose since too many teens aren't using contraception and condoms, we should scrap sex education altogether, by your logic.
Thirdly, with regards to your comments, if these other folks have the scientific data to support their claims (as Creationists do), then let them have at it. Of course, that isn't the issue here.
It is rather strange, though, that despite the virtual monopoly evolutionists have had, with regards to science classes, they still struggle to get their message across, which frustrate a number of "enlightened" folks to no end.
Bottom line - I'm for freedom of all religious thought and that includes the freedom to reject all religious doctrine and keep all religious doctrine out of the running of our government.
Does that include the "religious doctrine" of humanism/atheism, or is that some sort of exemption?
People's beliefs shape how they form policy. So, no matter how you slice it, you will have religious doctrine (to some degree) running the government.