... First, atheism tells us at least two things; (a) under atheism, there is no moral theory whatsoever attached to this basis for worldviews, so the morality void is definite until backfilled with something agreeable to the atheist; (b) the trend of atheist political progression is overwhelmingly to the political Left, and many migrate to the outer extremes of political Leftism. This is because there also is an overwhelming trend amongst Atheists to consider themselves intellectually superior: elites who can determine morality better than any Other and thus are morally enabled to save the Other, who is classified as Victim unless he is classified as an Oppressor. The atheist elites are thus the natural Messiah class. This was the case in the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution, turn of the century Progressives in the west, and the modern progressives of today.
It's true atheism contains no moral theory but it does not follow that atheists as individuals have no moral theory. This may surprise the author but atheists are actually human beings born into a family and a community and who inherit cultural histories, languages and traditions. We are not empty dehumanized vessels but taught by our parents, friends and teachers; we are not defined purely by atheism.
It does seem true that atheists lean towards the Left on social issues but we hold diverse views on economic and other political matters. Of course both sides of spectrum have their extremists including these who are religiously motivated. Honestly, reading these posts makes me appreciate how Christians must feel when New Atheists call religion the root of all evil.
Elsewhere, I notice Atheism Analyzed has used my post on Epicureanism to discuss the famous problem of evil :
(b) IF [He is able, but not willing]; Then [He is malevolent].This is not sound, because the consequent does not follow necessarily from the premise. If God has a superior reason for allowing the presence of evil, such as allowing His creations to have free will and agency to deal with evil vs. good, then He is not malevolent; He is the opposite of malevolent. Non Sequitur. The valid and sound statement is this:(b') IF [He is able, but not willing, in order to provide a greater good], THEN [He is justified in not removing evil, AND He is all good, giving superior gifts] [link]
The atheist communist regimes he so deplores justified their slaughter through utilitarian ethics as necessary scarifies for the greater good. So I find it strange he attributes the same utilitarian ethics to his deity. Was Yahweh's numerous genocides for the greater good really any worse than Stalin's atrocities?