I need to interrupt the Pledge Project for a moment.
This morning I encountered news of a "video game" where:
The object of the game is to stop the spread of Christianity and Islam by murdering Abraham and the authors of the Bible, before beheading Muhammad.
According to the article:
The new game, not yet released, is giving a voice to the atheist community, that’s according to the game’s creator, a University of Virginia graduate student. He wouldn’t release his name, for fear of his safety.
It's not giving voice to this corner of the atheist community.
This corner of the atheist community says that the only legitimate way to prevent the spread of some idea is through words and private action. Never with violence. This is the whole idea behind freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
The very idea of trying to prevent the spread of an idea through violence is repugnant. It is a type of thinking that has destroyed more lives and well-being than any other force in history. There is a tendency among atheists to attribute this kind of thinking only to theists. Yet, we see here, it is not the case.
I have written repeatedly that atheism is not a virtue - any more than the belief that the earth is round is a virtue. You do not make somebody into a moral person by getting him to believe that no God exists. You simply make him more proficient at pursuing whatever good or evil he desires.
The inventor of this video game simply provides me with a living example of those claims. Atheism has apparently not taught the inventor of this game that countering ideas with violence is wrong - that ideas should only be countered with better ideas promoted through words and private action.
Ultimately, I want the inventor of this game to very quickly realize how wrong his actions were and to issue an apology. Issue a sincere apology - unlike those that we typically get from people who denounce atheism. It would not be an apology that says, "I'm sorry that others were offended by my action," but an apology that says, "I'm sorry that I advocated the use of violence as a way of spreading, or preventing the spread, of ideas. Those methods are entirely inappropriate." And says so in a way that shows that he understands these moral principles and will live by them in the future.