Though I sometimes bash the more obnoxious examples of atheists on this blog, I like to give credit where due. I'm am often sad about the confrontational approach many atheists take towards "believers" as I believe many of us could be natural allies in a number of areas.

We both (should) believe in an objective reality. We both (should) place a very high value on truth, and believe that we should follow the truth no matter where it takes us. We both should really, really hate lies, no matter who says them.

Take, for example, debunking charlatans. I've witnessed a number of events which I can only describe as miracles. Yet, from my experience, they don't happen "on demand" -- and I'm not even completely sure they violate the laws of physics (perhaps only probability). (And even if they did, ordinary laws of physics still rule 99.9999% of the time, so it's nothing you want to bet against in any regular way.)

So I consider many who purport to be "Christian faith healers" (and clearly profit from that charade) as much as problem as palm readers and peddlers of perpetual motion machines. But James Randi considers me an enemy, so, well, whatever.

So I find Ilya Somin's non-hateful, non-angry approach very refreshing.

In particular, I like the fact that he rails against one of my pet peeves: the "used to justify" argument. If X is "used to justify Y" (where Y is bad), then X must be opposed. Of course that's stupid: concern for the poor was used to justify socialism and totalitarianism. Both are harmful, but it doesn't mean we should suddenly be opposed to 'concern for the poor'.

One possible justification for atheist proselytization is that religious beliefs are often used to justify harmful practices. For example, various religions have defended slavery, sexism, racism, and religious intolerance. This is true enough. But the same can be said for various secular ideologies that have also promoted injustice. One of the weaknesses in Dawkins' and Hitchens' claims that theism is a uniquely dangerous source of harmful beliefs is their failure to come to grips with the record of harmful nonreligious ideologies such as communism and fascism...

Wow. An atheist who gets it. And so publicly. So sad that atheists like Ilya aren't heard from much -- and are even being actively assailed by guys like Dawkins for coddling and making peace with us dangerous religionists.

I loved this line too:

Moreover, most voluntarily accepted religious burdens don't exactly rank high on the scale of serious social problems. We have vastly more important fish to fry than the possibility that Jews who keep Kosher are needlessly foregoing the chance to dine on lobster.

Amen! I know my own life, and the life of many of my co-religionists. We go to church potluck meals and social groups. We give money to charity, including secular charities. We usually attend church (when not tempted otherwise) where we sing songs about God being good, and given a sermon which often leads us to feel more humble or incites us to care more about other people.

Really, that's probably better for a person than the equivalent amount of time spent watching TV.

So I'm always tickled when I hear angry sorts like Sam Harris describe people who have religion as the biggest threat to the known universe. Please. As Ilya points out, we should be more concerned about, say, the atheist government of Burma, who is committing atrocities, than the brave Buddhist monks or Christian Karen insurgents who bear the brunt of their wrath.

Unlike Ilya, I don't mind when atheists proselytize. I think every group should make a vigorous argument in favor of its beliefs. But it's possible to be in favor of one thing and not need to be quite so angry and hostile towards everyone who sees things otherwise.

And when we hear atheists talk about or imply the revocation of the civil rights of their opponents (as Harris seems to, when he says we shouldn't "tolerate" such practices), we should all be quite concerned.