Dawkins

The thing that concerns me about the classification of atheism as non-religion is that I fear that the rights of atheists to assemble, etc. could be threatened by religious conservatives campaigning against a "freedom from religion". For instance, as an atheist and potentially future parent I want my kids in school to have the same protection against religious harassment that, say, a Hindu or Muslim would (and should) have. In a nation of predominantly Christian worshippers I think that's important.Perhaps it's best to say that atheism is an equivalent religious alternative. equivalent in the sense of being an equally protected outlook.So, if by "religion" people mean "a belief about the supernatural", atheism would be "a belief that the supernatural doesn't exist", which would be a belief about the supernatural. In that sense it could be a religion. But most people use "religion" to refer to traditional beliefs and rituals concerned with specific supernatural entities held and followed by a group of people. Atheism has no ritual; ergo, not a religion. But close.Also that most people come to atheism through a process of initally rejecting religion first, then belief in gods in general, is telling to me. Another reason to suggest atheism as a religion-alternative, I think.------------------
Epimenedes Signature: This is not a signature.

You have evidence of this? Did it have this effect on you? To the contrary, the book demonstrates that behavior that is better for the group but negative - even fatal - for the individual can be selected for, genetically. I don't think Dawkins' intention was anything but to sell books. To do that he needs an engaging read, aimed at the comprehension of people who tend to buy the most books - laypersons. Dawkins isn't trying to do science here, but rather to explain science in an engaging way. The book in fact says that genes are selfish, not organisms (hence the title "The Selfish Gene", not "The Selfish Organism".) Altruistic behavior can be considered "self-serving" from the perspective of genes. What about this aren't you getting?Honestly I haven't even read the book (I've heard the explanations though) and I know this. Your arguments are pretty weak unless you can quote direct passages that support your claims.

If that's your interpretation of the theme of the book, you'll have to support it with evidence (quotes) from the text. That's how literary criticism is done.I know for a fact that the theme of the book is not "organisms have, by exception, some altruistic traits" but that alturistic traits can be looked at in a way that is advantageous to the organisms genes. Hence, "The Selfish Gene" and not "The Selfish Organism". How did you miss the title?