All Scientists Should Be Militant Atheists
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/all-scientists-should-be-militant-atheists...
Because science holds that no idea is sacred, it’s inevitable that it draws people away from religion. The more we learn about the workings of the universe, the more purposeless it seems. Scientists have an obligation not to lie about the natural world. Even so, to avoid offense, they sometimes misleadingly imply that today’s discoveries exist in easy harmony with preëxisting religious doctrines, or remain silent rather than pointing out contradictions between science and religious doctrine. It’s a strange inconsistency, since scientists often happily disagree with other kinds of beliefs. Astronomers have no problem ridiculing the claims of astrologists, even though a significant fraction of the public believes these claims. Doctors have no problem condemning the actions of anti-vaccine activists who endanger children. And yet, for reasons of decorum, many scientists worry that ridiculing certain religious claims alienates the public from science. When they do so, they are being condescending at best and hypocritical at worst.
...
I see a direct link, in short, between the ethics that guide science and those that guide civic life. Cosmology, my specialty, may appear to be far removed from Kim Davis’s refusal to grant marriage licenses to gay couples, but in fact the same values apply in both realms. Whenever scientific claims are presented as unquestionable, they undermine science. Similarly, when religious actions or claims about sanctity can be made with impunity in our society, we undermine the very basis of modern secular democracy. We owe it to ourselves and to our children not to give a free pass to governments—totalitarian, theocratic, or democratic—that endorse, encourage, enforce, or otherwise legitimize the suppression of open questioning in order to protect ideas that are considered “sacred.” Five hundred years of science have liberated humanity from the shackles of enforced ignorance. We should celebrate this openly and enthusiastically, regardless of whom it may offend.
If that is what causes someone to be called a militant atheist, then no scientist should be ashamed of the label.
= new reply since forum marked as read
But hello and all good to you anyway, Trotsky. 
[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Could you please quote me, the chapter and verse, from the:
[center][font style="font-family:'papyrus','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=6 color=crimson]Big Book Of Atheism®[/font] [/center]
where it advocates that atheists should do what they did?
Or are you just listing sociopaths who happen to be atheists?
Regardless, it is not possible to cut something off from oneself that, most likely, [font style="font-family:'papyrus','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=5 color=crimson]does not exist![/font][/font]
The founding documents of the Abrahamic religions all give very specific instructions on when it's OK (or even required) to murder someone. SPOILER: it ain't just in self-defense. Yet when pointing out the violence committed by religious people in the name of their religion, we are screamed at, called bigots, and told IT'S NOT RELIGION.
Stalin et al eliminated their political opposition; there are no instructions in atheism on when it's OK (or required) to murder someone. But then we are screamed at, called bigots, and told IT'S ATHEISM.
Up is down, left is right. 