that: 1. Beliefs inform actions 2. Actions are not contained within a personal bubble. 3. Actions have effects on others 4. These effects if based on untrue beliefs can have malign effects e,g. the constant stories of faith healers (who kill!), sex abusers and the cover ups surrounding them, disuading people from using condoms, discrimination of gay people. etc. etc. etc. 5. Religious beliefs based on "faith" are the ultimate expression of these untrue beliefs. There are harms and I simply cannot "live and let live" about! I care too much about people to let these beliefs go unchallenged! And it is the concept of "faith" that is the root cause. Danny Singer on October 31st, 2012 9:14 am Christopher Hitchens made an important distinction when he defined himself not just as an atheist but as an antitheist. Antitheism can be therefore defined as a confrontational reaction to organised religion, all claims to a personal god and all the tyrannical corollaries of such beliefs. This leaves us with the important question of how to actually define atheism positively rather than with reference to theism or the religions. In many ways, atheism is meant to transcend the battles of religion and anti-religion and address a world where theism is confined to the history books along with all other forms of superstition, irrational fear and ignorance. In many ways atheism only begins to make sense after antitheism has won the argument and has successfully managed to render itself irrelevant. Otherwise, it is