Really? Dawkins is in the same category for you as Phelps and Hamza?
Dude. That's weak. I'm afraid I'm going to have to put you on ignore and try to remember back to the good old days when you weren't a dick.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 20:52, 1 reply)

Oh, well.
You can go burn in my own imaginary hell.

Seriously, though, Phelps is a crazy old man who bangs on about his beliefs, firmly believes himself to be correct (representing one fringe of Christian belief), and is somewhat rude about those who disagree. I have no problem bunging Dawkins into that end of the no-god camp. I plucked Hamza out of thin air, as I'm not really up on Islamic clerics, so feel free to shoot me down for that one. Anyway, I don't like any of them.

Richard Coles said that Dawkins is thoroughly pleasant, so long as you avoid discussing religion with him - that's probably true, but his public persona is all I know, and that does nothing but discuss religion (I'm sure he does many other things in his spare time), so I'm left with believing him to be an odious shit. For the record, the tipping point was this website, which made me want to vomit up my own spleen (I was going through an anti-religion phase, and it kicked me into my now comfortable agnosticism). I still like Steven Pinker, though.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 21:07, closed)

Phelps runs a family business based around upsetting the relatives of dead soldiers and then suing them when they impinge even slightly on his rights to free speech, leaving them penniless as well as bereaved.
Dawkins writes pop science books about biology.

I can see why you think they're comparable.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Sun 8 Jan 2012, 22:19, closed)

Arrogant old men,
whose views of religion do nothing to foster greater understanding between cultures.

I'm more frequently exposed to followers of Dawkins, than those of Phelps (given that they're practically non-existent), thus he's higher up my list of annoyances, even if he's not actually as awful as the latter.
For me, Dawkins represents a crytallisation point for everything that's wrong with atheism.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Mon 9 Jan 2012, 8:05, closed)

you talk and think like a religionist
People don't follow Dawkins. If he suddenly 'saw the light' there wouldn't be millions of people converting overnight, because he's had a mental breakdown.
( Ring Of Fire A petty, drooling belming butthurt retard., Mon 9 Jan 2012, 8:48, closed)

Ah, but that's the problem.
People do follow Dawkins, whether he wants them to or not. By its very nature, atheism doesn't need talking about, and doesn't require exponents. For better or worse, Dawkins has become a figurehead for atheism, and he appears to relish it (I'm not sure that it's a role he chose, and he'd be swiftly replaced, were he to convert, but it's the role he inhabits, nonetheless).
Muddy this together with the humanist "religion," and other secular movements, and you wind up with a no religion as a religious movement, which is exactly what it shouldn't be.
I'm not religious, but I have absolutely no problem with people who are*, and no interest in converting them to my way thinking, simply because it's not important to me - thus, people who espouse their atheism strike me as being somewhat hypocritical (which takes us back to the accusations of "intellectual posturing" which were levelled at Tab, earlier).
Granted, it does become important when the religious views of one group impinge upon the rights of others, but I don't think a secular view that boils down to "you're all wrong, so stop being stupid" is in any way constructive, so I would seek to distance myself from it.

If I come across as a religionist, this is probably because I come from a nominally religious background, where a belief in god is assumed, and have thus made a concious choice about my beliefs (or lack of).

*It should be clear from what I've written that the exceptions to this rule are religious fundamentalists (as they seek to impose their religion on others, often through violent means), and those who claim to have no religion but wish to be treated as though they do (I think this comes from the "special status" that religious groups can enjoy, so I have some sympathy, but come at the issue from the other end - I don't want secular organisations to receive the same "special status," rather I'd see it removed from religious organisations).

Apologies if this is a bit rambling, but I'm typing it on a phone, so the editing options are limited.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Mon 9 Jan 2012, 9:19, closed)

I think you'll find (both in this thread and in general)
that about 80-90% of the pointless discussion about atheism is started by people complaining about it, accusing atheists of being religious and making feeble whimpers about being persecuted. If you're sick of hearing about atheism then you should lay the blame at the new evangelicals, creationists and conservative anglo-catholics who started the fight thirty years ago.

The churches would like atheists to be quiet because they have no coherent response. The only recourse they have is to go on the attack.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Mon 9 Jan 2012, 9:48, closed)

40% of the noise is the churches, asserting themselves.
40% of the noise is the atheists, banging on about how the churches are wrong, and isn't it awful how they enjoy such a privileged position is society.
10% of the noise is idiots like me, going "why can't you just shut up? You're all wrong, and it's doing my head in. Let me tell you why you're both wrong..."

But I stand by the points made about atheists acting as if atheism is a religion, as it's a position I've come to of my own volition, not prompted by the evangelicals.

It's all the pagans fault, anyway.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Mon 9 Jan 2012, 9:58, closed)

Banging on about the position of religion in society is secularism.
It originated with non-conformist christians rather than atheists.

There are ... what ... four notable mouthy atheists in the media and one of them recently died. Of the surviving three, Dawkins is the one who upsets people the most and he has written _one_ book about religion which was prompted primarily by a virulent reaction that included death threats to a perfectly inoccuous pop science book he wrote about evolution in the 1970s.

You might have reached your position independently, but it is still bollocks.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Mon 9 Jan 2012, 10:10, closed)

I can't really argue against your assertion that secularism has it's roots in Christian thought,
as it's not something I've ever looked into (it is counter intuitive, though).
My experience of secularism comes from organisations like the National Secular Society, which sounds like a good idea in principle, but then they bang on about how Thought For The Day is religious propaganda (and I'm sure I've heard something similar attributed to Dawkins), and that forces me to the conclusion that they're a bunch of frothing nutters. I like Thought For The Day.

[Edit: it's taken me far too long to work out that the recently deceased, notable atheist that you were referring to was Christopher Hitchens. I think this probably says it all. Hitchens is categorised in my brain as "essayist" (somewhere near Alistair Cook, probably), whilst Dawkins represents an unpleasant subsection of "atheists". Maybe he just needs to work on his public image?]
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Mon 9 Jan 2012, 10:24, closed)

Hitchens was far more virulent and outspoken an anti-theist than Dawkins.
The NSS are a tiny group of puritanical scots who lack belief so can't share the misery of the wee frees so have to conjure up their own grim persecution complex.

90% of what Dawkins has written is about evolution. He's been elevated to his position as Atheist Antichrist almost entirely by evangelical christians because he calmy tore apart their attempts to re-label creationism as "intelligent design" and sneak it into the pantheon of science.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Mon 9 Jan 2012, 16:37, closed)

Like I said, he needs a better public image.
He does himself no favours, y'know.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Mon 9 Jan 2012, 17:30, closed)

There's a difference
People who "follow" Dawkin's are following a rational, if ultimately unverifiable, hypothesis. Occam's razor and all that. Religion is simply an appeal to authority which you are obliged to swallow undigested. (Proof denies faith etc.)
(unclestinky, Mon 9 Jan 2012, 13:49, closed)

No arguement, there.
My issue is not with atheism, but with the people who espouse it. Organised atheism, if you will.
Atheism doesn't need defending, as it has nothing on which to be attacked (unless you compare it with agnosticism, which is arguably more rational).
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Mon 9 Jan 2012, 14:16, closed)

Atheism does have something to be attacked
Its lack of conformity to the belief in established religious 'right and priveleges'. A lack of belief is largely speaking, in the eyes of most religions, a problem and something to be corrected. Your assertion that it cannot be attacked would presumablyequally apply to, say, a conscientious objector not wishing to agree with a war being waged and I am fairly sure that many were and indeed still are castigated for this stance. An absence of acquiescence does not remove a belief, direction or viewpoint. It is an alternative, surely?

To say your problem is with the espousal of atheism is essentially an attack on voicing ones opinion because it can be ' a bit loud and in your face' which whilst not pleasant or always constructive is no different to just about any other argument whether it is political, religious or even whether or not Harry Potter is suitable for mature adults. Either all sides get their say or none. The church has enjoyed a position for centuries (millennia in fact) where it has literally been 'God's law, the one true law' and it doesn't like the fact that not only do some folk not agree with it but actually find it logically flawed based as it is on a premise of accepting the unprovable.
( number5 has been fighting tramps and losing., Mon 9 Jan 2012, 14:40, closed)

War is a demonstrably real thing,
and demonstrablt harmful, and thus can be argued against. Attacking atheism for its lack of beliefs is pointless, as it's a perfectly sound, logical position (you could argue for a belief in god, but that's not an attack on atheism, it's a defence of religion), and I fail to see how you could attack it for its non-conformity, outside of a society ruled by religious edict.

I have no more time for mouthy christians, muslims, hindus, or whatever, than I do for outspoken atheists.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Mon 9 Jan 2012, 16:10, closed)

Religion is demonstrably harmful.
Ladies and gentlemen I give you the crusades (cheap and dirty example); fundamentalism; scientology et al. Religion as a way of life can be a wonderful thing for many people giving them direction, purpose, succour etc but it has been the catalyst for or cause of innumerable wars and atrocities throughout human history. Pacifism as an objection to violence as a tool and the reasoning behind it appears, to me, to be remarkably similar to atheism. They both stem from a slightly unnatural rejection of human reliance on instinct and reject the arguments therein.
( number5 has been fighting tramps and losing., Mon 9 Jan 2012, 17:17, closed)

The acts of man against man are demonstrably harmful,
regardless of what justifications you hang on them. At least you didn't bring up Palestine.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Mon 9 Jan 2012, 17:31, closed)

So you agree?
Sorry I was mid edit of my previous post when you replied.

Religion is dangerous in the hands of the wrong people. Atheism can at least take personal responsibility for acting like a dick.
( number5 has been fighting tramps and losing., Mon 9 Jan 2012, 17:42, closed)

I posted a piss weak response to your cheap arguement,
and have just noticed that I completely missed the point!
Arguements against religion are reasonable (if somewhat tiresome, after a while), it's arguements against atheism that don't work.

I seem to have wound up arguing both sides of the wrong arguement. Probably time for me to give up.

[edit: I've now read your edit, and am going to agree, in spite of myself, as I don't have the energy to start taking a pro-religion stance.]
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Mon 9 Jan 2012, 17:57, closed)