how one can state "I believe in no gods" and then move on without considering the implications. The passage quoted above was the first implication that was made clear to me. This is all there is. There is not afterlife, no eternal reward; putting up with oppression and abuse in the hope that it will all be alright in the next life is tragic. Oppressing and abusing others, whilst offering them hope of some karmic balance in another life, is criminal. It's the good without gods part that I keep getting hung up on. Are we? I see so many examples that show we aren't necessarily; the push back against social justice is primary. I don't understand those who say that if we want to work on social justice, we need to separate ourselves from atheism. If we do, can we take our Gw/oG billboards with us? Why can't I be an atheist and also concerned with humanitarianism, with equality? Can one really say they are good without gods in one breath, and rail against the ebil feminists or dismiss racist statements or engage in homophobic apologetics with the other? I posit that one cannot. If you're not concerned with social justice, if you're dismissive of social justice, if you're cruel to those who fight for social justice, you're not good without gods. You're just an entitled person who happens not to believe in deities, and thinks that they're all done learning now. My experience was the same. When Dawkins