
IMO, the influence of Stalin, or for that matter, Ayn Rand, invalidates your 
assumption that theism is the factor to be considered.  Gullibility, 
blind obedience to authority, lack of scepticism, and so on, are all more 
reliable indicators.  And the really dangerous people - the sources of
fanaticism - are often none of these things.  They are cynical manipulators
of the gullible, who know precisely what they are doing.  Now, *some*
brands of theism, and more precisely *some* theists, do tend to fanaticism,
I grant you.  To tar all theists with this brush is bigotry, not a reasoned
argument - and it reads to me like a warm-up for censorship and restriction
of religious freedom.  Ever read Animal Farm?


Well, there is a glaring paradox here:  an argument that reason is useful
based on reason would be circular, and argument not based on reason would
be irrational.  Which is it?

The first part of the second statement contains no information, because
you don't say what "the beliefs" are.  If "the beliefs" are strong theism 
and/or strong atheism, then your statement is not in general true.  The
second part of your sentence is patently false - counterexample: an
axiomatic datum does not lend itself to rational analysis, but is
assumed to contain reliable information regardless of what process is
used to obtain it.


I can't agree with this until you are specific - *which* theism?  To
say that all theism is necessarily antirational requires a proof which
I suspect you do not have.


I don't understand this.  Can you formalise your argument?