Atheist attitudes.

I agree with kbertsche here. Dawkins' is inflammatory and clearly wants to villify all theology as opposed to militant theology. Atheism to militant atheists have become its own psuedo-religion, whether they'd admit it or not, with all the negative characteristics associated with a religion that strays from moderation. That does not mean, however, that all atheists should be defined as militant by default.You may be labelled as militant, but perhaps they should take a closer look at themselves.I do find it pointless, however, in promoting atheism as if it's a little red badge of courage. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

Sammy, I'm totally sympathetic to the heinous nonsense perpetrated under the guise of religion. It's disgusting. That being said, to forget or deny all of the philanthropy that has come by way of religion is to not be looking at the matter objectively, which is what militant atheists charge against theists.Can't remember the last atheist group feeding the poor and hungry, but seem to recall many groups or various religions helping the multitude.Be an atheist, don't be militant. Judge everything on a case-by-case basis.

---

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

You sound intolerant and bigoted. Replace the word "religion" and substitute it with "black people." You can't make these sweeping allegations so that anyone that is religious is evil. You can't turn everyone with religious affections in to Hitler. You have to look at on a case-by-case basis. Yes, that is true, but it doesn't overshadow the fact that for every ugly thing that comes about from various religions, there is a lot of good too.In the keeping of the current topic, I should also add that you sound completely militant and one step away from purchasing some Zyklon B.

---

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

It's fairly common knowledge that, even amongst his peers, he's considered a firebrand with completely subjective opinions. It's not that he doesn't have very good points or that he's not a nice guy or not that he doesn't know how to be polite, it's that he's dedicated the entirety of his life and work at reducing religion and advancing a non-belief in the supernatural.As Professor Tyson explains, his delivery methods are less educational than they are passionate to his personal beliefs.I think Dawkins is a good writer and I think he has a lot to offer natural science, but he seriously needs to stop preaching, because that is in fact exactly what he does. He preaches, not teaches. It doesn't seem like indoctrination to you because you happen to agree with Dawkins beliefs, but I can assure that he's far moderate and certainly not free from bias. Over the years he's toned it down quite a bit because of the criticism he's received over the years by his own colleagues. That doesn't make him any less virulent or relentless in his pursuit to destroy all religion. That far of an extreme is dangerous, just like extremist religions, because it leaves a vacuum that needs to be filled with something. If you can't see why the freedom of religion or the freedom of irreligion serves a valuable social purpose, then there is no way that you'll be extricated from your narrow thinking in one day.

---

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

You can't see the difference? If Dawkin's were discussing specific grievances about a certain church or doctrine, I would join him in the criticism. What makes him and Sam Harris is that they have claimed that their stated aims are to uniformly destroy all religion.It is not that I don't believe they don't make valid points, because they do. I am simply at odds with their extreme methodology.For someone as driven towards naturalism as Dawkins is, I would think that he would attempt to seek some validity in religion, especially since the data overwhelmingly shows that on some level humans are predisposed towards it. Does it not then serve some purpose? Or is it, in his mind, a negative meme? I guess no more dangerous than the people he accuses as dangerous. I'm not accusing him of being dangerous in the sense that he's going to be on rooftops shooting Christians down, I'm saying that he is planting seeds of hate when he uniformly accuses everything religious as dangerous. That's extreme and counterproductive. Dennett is another one who's methodology I find questionable. He doesn't have the same draw that Dawkins does though, so most people don't think of him off the top of their head.

---

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

Now you're beginning to understand the point of the exercise, just like religious and evil aren't analogous. All I was suggesting was that a little discretion be used here and looking at everything on a case-by-case basis. Nazi's and extreme thinking go hand in hand. Would it have been better if I used the Red Police?

---

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

Maybe there is, no way to tell. It appears you and I are in total agreement about something. I couldn't agree more. They are hypocrtically the same as everything they demonize and push secularism as if it were a religion. The sad part is that they are so invested in preaching secularism that they've lost all objectivity on the subject.

---

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

It doesn't make it any more real or provable, is what he's saying. I assume though you believe Allah is as false a god as Artemis was in Paul's day, and an equal amount of people in devotion to Allah have done the same. That really does nothing to advance your argument.

---

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

Clearly you're not understanding the point of the exercise. I'm illustrating how if someone attacks religion it is socially acceptable, but is taboo for most anything else.I'm not saying that Dawkins doesn't reserve the right to say it, I'm just pointing out that his methodology is a bit severe. That's just my opinion, as in either direction it is subjective. You obviously disagree and that's fine. Well, if you look at something like what Jesus taught I doubt many people can reasonably find fault in it. Some would say he is just pointing out the obvious, yet something as simple as the law of reciprocity is almost impossible to achieve. Otherwise there would be no wars or conflicts.So, no, I don't think someone belonging to a certain religion necessarily has to behave like a "bad apple" because it is inherently flawed.I am critical of religion too for SPECIFIC reasons, but not so much that I wear a blindfold so that I can't see that some very positive things come from it. That would be unfair and unrealistic. Where I find fault with Dawkins and people of his ilk is that his assesments are extreme to automatically generalize the way he does. It's a good thing you're nothing like those hate mongering and sanctimonious Christians, Rrhain. Clearly religion makes them behave that way, and as we ALL can see, your irreligion has served you so well in not behaving like them.Congratulations!

---

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

In the public sphere anyone is able to discuss freely their opinions. There really only exists questions of common courtesy, common sense, and civility. We are able to be as rude as we want to legally, but is it in everyone's best interest is a pertinent question?We all know the evangelical type who do no favors to their position by angrily and uncompassionately get their message across. It has the opposite effect on the desired outcome. I see Dawkins in that same arena. Again, I think he makes a lot of interesting points, but he needs to work on his method of delivery, as he sounds antagonistic.

---

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Your all-encompassing condemnation of all things religious make it seem as of you've lost all objectivity on the subject and are therefore, in my opinion, in the same arena and city which Dawkins resides.

---

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

Any number of your posts in this thread to point to your blanket statements. You say "religion" as if there some insidious plan for all its adherents. There are plenty of religious people who give all of religiosity a bad name. But there's no reason to indict one and all under that blanket statement. On another more pertinent thread, I am condemning those that do indoctrinate children. You seem to be making sweeping allegations, as does Dawkins, as if indoctrination is a pre-requisite for religion. I'm simply clearing the air.This all comes down to a matter of opinion. You think Dawkin's is perfectly within reason to make his criticisms, I see it as an unhealthy obsession that he has. I think to turn a non-belief in to something one devotes their every waking moment to kind of silly. The man is on a crusade and very much proselytizes in the name of atheism. Is he not "preaching" to people on his pulpit? Yes, that is exactly what he does. The ONLY thing that makes him any different from a religious zealot is that he doesn't ascribe to an official religion. The zealousy remains nonetheless, doesn't it? And even then, most pastors remain confined to their own private church. He travels the world preaching the "bad word" as opposed to the "Good Word," right? Does he not do all these things?What ever would the man do with himself if he actually got his wish and saw religion eradicated from the planet?That's just my own personal opinion. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

---

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

Even supposing it does, what of it?Some people survive some catastrophe and look at the laws of physics to ascertain a reason why they survived. Some times in instances the answer defies physics, like how parachutists have survived falls from well beyond a point that would cause death. Some people attribute it to miracles from God.It doesn't really matter to me what the person believes. Why are you so concerned with it?Why not argue the specifics, instead of trying to crush "God" altogether?See, I am not religious. If a person brings up a bible verse, for instance, that contradicts with another one, I let them know, and we'll debate that. You on other hand seem personally slighted if someone believes in God.With Dawkins, and possibly yourself, he seems to view it as his civic duty to tell people there is no God. Inversely the religious man feels that it is his civic duty to tell you about God's saving grace.Either way both ingratiate themselves and are very zealous for their beliefs. What then is the difference between the two, other than they believe in the opposite? It is also the SAME irrationality that lead to Lenin and Stalin murdering anyone who was of religious faith. People use all sorts of reasons to justify atrocity, but does not mean that one necessitates the other, otherwise ALL religious people would have done the same thing. Blaming religion or atheism as the sole factor is slanderous character assassination. "Love your neighbor as yourself" doesn't give people a mindset to kill. Atheism on the other hand has specific tenet that can call upon, other than the ruthlessness of survival of the fittest and clearing away the competition. Even then, one can't assume that it be a reason, justification or mindset for murder. So are a lot of social things, like the glorifaction of all the things you listed in movies, music, and television. That obviously does not explain why he has such an aversion towards religion, otherwise his own crusade would encompass much more than religion.For the ills he speaks about religion, there are incalculable acts of philanthropy associated with it. It therefore is presumptuous and unfair to only look at the negative aspects while denying the positive ones. If Dawkin's really wanted to help humanity, he could go out and feed the poor. That he hides his intentions behind the false pretense of wanting to rid religion for the benefit of "humanity" is just as pathetic as the televangelist doing the same thing.

---

"Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind." -- Bertrand Russell

No, that's just his main focus. I'm sure he has other extra-curricular activities as well, like everyone else. That really is all I'm saying. By coming across as hating religion, who by that tactic would want to turn? It's the same principle as the bible-thumping, fire and brimstone teacher. No one would respond to that kind of preaching well. Why don't they understand that?It's almost like this is all a big game to them.

---

"Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind." -- Bertrand Russell

I'm losing interest in this debate, so I will sign off with this one last thing. Let us utilize Ockham's Razor here: What is more reasonable? That mass droves of people, some who even find his position on religion favorable, see his message as being too extreme and therefore counterproductive to his own goals, or that all those people, including myself, are just crazy and misunderstand him?In many of his interviews, the interviewers often ask the inevitable question to him. This is pretty common knowledge that we're dealing with. So what better serves Ockham's Razor? Are we all just crazy or is it possible that Dawkin's has done this to himself?That is all. What a monster

---

"Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind." -- Bertrand Russell