Have you ever changed your mind about something religion/spirituality-related because of
what you've read in this forum?
I don't think I have, personally, although I have had many enjoyable, extended theological/political discussions here.
= new reply since forum marked as read
You should because those labels are fallacious. If I had my way, my labels would rub everyone wrong. I use labels often for convenience, but it almost always bugs me. I would love for you, or someone else, to call me out each and every time. That would save me a lot of personal grief.
In my opinion, labels are fine for convenience, but I fear that I perpetuate the belief in them every time I use them. There are other things in play for my label use too, such as habit and false beliefs.
I sincerely thank you for calling me out. 
Well written, drunk or not.
Skäl!
I stand with you, mostly.
of any sort tends to get out of control very very quick, regardless of who does it or why. For exmaple, there was a group in Italy formed to kick out the invading French. Their name was a code for "Morte Alla Francia, Italia Avanti" (Italian for "Death to France, Italy Forward!"
But we know them as the MAFIA. The fact is, when Dawkins said "Islam is one of the great evils of the world" he was feeding the machinery of death that is killing Arabs around the world, including many who were Atheist.
Asfar as the USSR being a red herring or moving goalposts, it is not the goal is not to make it easier for human to kill other humans. Like it or NOT, the USSR did use propaganda to make it easy to kill Muslims, as did the US. I know that The USSR did not get the right to define Athiesm, but the fact they professed it and did many things that were laughable shows that our Humanity, for better and worse, trumps ANY ism. All Humans fail in predicatble patterns.
Do you claim to speak for "vocal athiests"? Funny, because I read Atheists from Carl Sagan to Penn Jilette, and I find them both enlightening. Now Sam Harris I find annying, but that is because he is agressive against people who happen to be Muslim:
Here is what another Athiest, Glenn greenwald (arguably a portion of DU is devoted just to discussing him 
says:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/03/sam-harris-muslim-animus
"The crux of those columns is that these advocates have increasingly embraced a toxic form of anti-Muslim bigotry masquerading as rational atheism. Yesterday, I posted a tweet to Hussain's article without comment except to highlight what I called a "very revealing quote" flagged by Hussain, one in which Harris opined that "the people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists."
Shortly after posting the tweet, I received an angry email from Harris, who claimed that Hussain's column was "garbage", and he eventually said the same thing about Lean's column in Salon. That then led to a somewhat lengthy email exchange with Harris in which I did not attempt to defend every claim in those columns from his attacks because I didn't make those claims: the authors of those columns can defend themselves perfectly well. If Harris had problems with what those columns claim, he should go take it up with them.
I do, however, absolutely agree with the general argument made in both columns that the New Atheists have flirted with and at times vigorously embraced irrational anti-Muslim animus. I repeatedly offered to post Harris' email to me and then tweet it so that anyone inclined to do so could read his response to those columns and make up their own minds. Once he requested that I do so, I posted our exchange here."
Now, I do NOT think Sam Harris speaks for Athiests, obviously GG had a way of showing that clearly, especially by quoting other Athiests that have nothing to do with Sam harris. While I myself disagree a lot with GG on certain things (like his support of Citizen's United), I have no reason to believe he mans any religious bigotry.
A willingness to broad brush in order to defend one's scared cows is "disturbing to say the very least." Are Dawkins and O hair the only ones who get to be called "vocal athiests.",or will you share that with those that disgree? If so, take it up with Penn Jilette, Car Sagan, Gleen greenwald, and other very vocal Atheists that find a willingness to paint all Muslims with the same Brush very distrubing.
I know, you will say that quoting other vocal athiests that disagree with dawkins is "appeal to authority", but if you are going to accuse me of being "hostile to vocal atheists" the burden of proof is on YOU, in which you may want to explain why was able to give examples to the contrary. I am not hostile to the authors who I have provided with readership and coin.
Dawkins could learn a lot from his fellow atheists such as the ones I mentioned, but frankly, I doubt he will, nor will those who gild him as some sort of atheist Prophet.
But we know them as the MAFIA.Nope.
No one really knows for sure how the term mafia originated, but most serious scholars regard your tale as ahistorical nonsense. The word "mafia" is virtually unknown in Sicilian or Italian literature predating 1860 or so; though historian Guiseppe Pitre asserts the Sicilian word mafiusedda was used in Palermitin communities to describe beautiful women. Pitre suggests the masculine form of the adjective, miafiusu, would therefore connote the paragon quality of a Sicilian male--namely, courage.
Yes, the USSR is a red herring. Specifically, it is an appeal to consequences. You're claiming the murder of "millions" of Muslims by the USSR was directly related to the Soviet government's official endorsement of atheism over religious belief.
This is a claim you cannot possibly hope to substantiate.
The USSR killed a lot of people, and not all of them were theists; the sweeping majority were killed for overtly political reasons. Orthodox priests, along with Social Democrats, were sent off to the GULAGs not because deeply paranoid men like Stalin had an axe to grind with believers, but because they saw these groups as political competitors to their authoritarian rule.
And your claim that atheist language alone led to the persecution of Muslims in the USSR is, frankly, fucking absurd. Yes, in the final years of World War II, the Stalin government forcibly deported Muslims from their homelands in Crimea, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. That's a given. But these deportations weren't couched in atheistic language; Stalin accused the Muslims of collaborating with the Germans against him.
Who knows whether or not these allegations were true. Honestly, it doesn't matter, because Stalin had much more concrete, and again political, reasons to break up the various ethnic enclaves speckling the USSR. Simply put, many of them were preventative security measures. Stalin feared nationalistic uprising in these enclaves and therefore tore them up root and stem, atheists and Party members right along with the rest.
The absurdity is palpable. If you're going to accuse people of "advocating death" on such a weaksauce connection, then I could just as well accuse you of advocating the deaths of communists.
I don't see it. Most liberal circles I'm aware of have a fairly benign opinion of religions in general. And have a well justified opposition to extremist religious groups that seem intent on legislating their version of religious standards for everyone.
