The Dick Dawkins Summer Camp

[stargalaxy]

There's plenty of people in this country whom I hate with a passion. But there's one particularly smug bastard who always gets my goat - Richard Dawkins. How anyone can treat him seriously after he was mocked in South Park, I don't know.

http://www.flavinscorner.com/garrisondawkins.JPG

This cocktrumpet is a man who wastes no opportunity to tell us that people who believe in God are stupid and deluded, a man who condemns the brainwashing that religious nutters carry out in summer camps in the USA. So what does he decide to do? Ah yes, he decides to start one up himself! (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196063/Richard-Dawkins-launches-childrens-summer-camp-atheists.html)

According to the Mail, (yes, I know) they will have the chance to "sing along to John Lennon's Imagine and have lessons in evolution". The reporter excitedly tells us that "There will even be a £10 prize for the child who can disprove the existence of the mythical unicorn" and that the day will finish with the "Kim-bi-ya budding atheists will belt out 'Imagine there's no heaven...and no religion too'." Wow, I bet children all around the country can hardly wait! :rolleyes:

When religious fanatics and nutjobs run summer camps, it's called called brainwashing. When a pure as driven snow atheist such as Richard Dawkins does it, it's something completely different. What a cunt.

Over to you for your reasoned and relevant contributions/musings/bile etc...

[ShyBoy]

A warrior without a cause it would seem

[Kermit]

Atheism is a religion like any other and it has more than it's fair share of fundy nutcases. Dawkins is definitely one of them. He is an odious man who seems to spend most of his time trying to upset everyone.

How odious you find him just depends on your particular religious view.

[FireFly85]

When religious fanatics and nutjobs run summer camps, it's called called brainwashing. When a pure as driven snow atheist such as Richard Dawkins does it, it's something completely different. What a cunt.

Mmm. Of course, if you actually to bother to read the article, you'll see that neither the existing US version of the camp, nor the new UK one, has actually been set up by Richard Dawkins at all; the UK version has simply been subsidised by him.

[stargalaxy]

Of course, if you actually to bother to read the article, you'll see that neither the existing US version of the camp, nor the new UK one, has actually been set up by Richard Dawkins at all; the UK version has simply been subsidised by him. If he's subsidising it, it means he effectively owns it.

[FireFly85]

If he's subsidising it, it means he effectively owns it.

You can't really assume that, would depend how much he is contributing. Since it is modelled on the US version, clearly the original idea had little to do with him or his influence, and I do believe at least some atheists are able to come up with ideas independently of RD and without clutching a copy of the God Delusion (shocking, I know!).

Would we be surprised at a high profile religious establishment providing funding for childrens' activities with a religious ethos? In fact - would it even be newsworthy? I think not. The fact Dawkins has thrown some cash in that direction isn't worthy of debate in my opinion, just seems like an excuse for people to ride the hatred wave for him without actually considering the idea of the camp itself.

[Flashman's Ghost]

I find something creepy about sending kids either to a religous camp or an atheist one - give me the good old Scouts any day

[CptCoatHanger]

Atheism is a religion like any other and it has more than it's fair share of fundy nutcases.

You don't believe that.

[CptCoatHanger]

There's plenty of people in this country whom I hate with a passion. But there's one particularly smug bastard who always gets my goat - Richard Dawkins. How anyone can treat him seriously after he was mocked in South Park, I don't know.

Ah, yeah, South Park - a fantastically cogent critique of Dawkins, if ever there was one.

According to the Mail, (yes, I know) they will have the chance to "sing along to John Lennon's Imagine and have lessons in evolution". The reporter excitedly tells us that "There will even be a £10 prize for the child who can disprove the existence of the mythical unicorn" and that the day will finish with the "Kim-bi-ya budding atheists will belt out 'Imagine there's no heaven...and no religion too'." Wow, I bet children all around the country can hardly wait! :rolleyes:

When religious fanatics and nutjobs run summer camps, it's called called brainwashing. When a pure as driven snow atheist such as Richard Dawkins does it, it's something completely different. What a cunt.

Over to you for your reasoned and relevant contributions/musings/bile etc...

Oh, hang on, I must apologise! It appears you have actually done your research. Oh wait... no, you've just regurgitated The Daily Mail.

[Kermit]

You don't believe that.

It is a religion like any other. Atheism is couched in scientific terms but there's no empirical evidence for the Big Bang or for evolution. No 'missing link' fossils have ever been found and nobody can explain how nothing blew up one day into a Universe.

I'm not saying there's no truth in it, but there's some truth in most religions. Hell, you can even find evidence for some of the things the Raelians say.

Dawkins' stance is basically 'religions can't prove the existence of God'. All fine and dandy, but Dawkins can't prove what he believes either.

[Martin_Bashir]

It is a religion like any other. Atheism is couched in scientific terms but there's no empirical evidence for the Big Bang or for evolution.

Unless you are on a piss take, that is just about the most clearly & demonstrably incorrect statement I've ever read on these boards.

My view on Dawkins: I've met him and as a person he's horrid - but his earlier works, particularly in popular science in 'The Selfish Gene' and 'The Blind Watchmaker' are brilliant examples of rigourous popular scholarship.

[Thunderstruck]

I think atheists would have people believe that it's the absence of a belief rather than the belief in an absence. I guess it's whether you want to believe in something or not believe in something until you see evidence to the contrary

However, I do find atheism and the whole doctrine, if you can call it that, a very small-minded view of things. Plus the zealous atheists, of whom Dawkins is the poster boy, are no better than those against whom they waste so much misdirected and often very ignorant bile.

[Yerascrote]

He's actually a vey very smart man. I do think he pushes his atheism too much down people's throats but so do a lot of religious fanatics so you can't criticise him too much.

[Aladdin]

Dawkins is the product of two thousand years of religious indoctrination. If his methods seem unpleasant and excessive, they are only the reflection of what he's opposing.

Two wrongs might not make a right, but for as long as we are happy to tolerate the words and actions of one side we're going to have to tolerate those of the other.

[Flashman's Ghost]

I'm quite happy to tolerate both christianity and atheism as I am of all religions as long as they don't force me to go to Church on Sunday or force my wife to stop doing so. But its mad not to see atheism as a mirror image of christianity - with its adherents ranging from wishy-washy liberals to mad fanatics. It may not be a religion, but many of its supporters seem to treat it as such...

[ShyBoy]

I think atheists would have people believe that it's the absence of a belief rather than the belief in an absence.

I think this is an important distinction to make - I said in a previous thread about religion that I was personally agnostic - that I didn't believe all religions were absolutely false. Actually I see them as more a part of our culture than a science but that's my perspective. We never ask if when a musician writes a song whether it was based on a true story or not and really to a big extent it doesn't matter.

I was then informed in the aformentioned thread that agnosticism is an invalid perspective to hold, because its just saying 'i cant prove anything', and that either I believe that god created the earth in 7 days, or I don't.

I don't quite agree with this, because I don't actually think you have to have an opinion either way. You can read the bible without fathoming whether it's true or not, you can read the stories and understand the lessons just like if you read harry potter.

This is my personal experience, but some atheists are happy to acknowledge that everyone has their own beliefs and are entitled to them, and that they are no boundary to friendship and such - that they believe that there is no God, no divine presence in the Universe and that's as far as their belief goes. But some are of the opinion also that those who do have faith are somehow misguided, and that they are potentially dangerous (citing the horrific acts of some organised religion), and like Richard Dawkins I assume (I am not sure), feels the need to convert these to atheism. To 'save' them from their ignorance.

I do believe, and this may come off sounding provocative, but I think this second set are largely 'warriors without a cause' as I said earlier. They are just trying to find something to stand up for and fight for and argue for, even if that thing is nothing. It's true that organised religion causes plenty of problems but that is to ignore the billions who enjoy their religion whether they just take lessons about humanity from the books or whether they believe it literally and do so peacefully and in harmony with their society.

My 2p.

[I'm With Stupid]

I'm quite happy to tolerate both christianity and atheism as I am of all religions as long as they don't force me to go to Church on Sunday or force my wife to stop doing so. But its mad not to see atheism as a mirror image of christianity - with its adherents ranging from wishy-washy liberals to mad fanatics. It may not be a religion, but many of its supporters seem to treat it as such...

It really isn't though. Firstly, let's make the distinction between secularism and atheism, because the former is what you're talking about. Take China for example. The government are secularists. The buddhist monks are are atheists, but not secularists. It's a massive distinction.

Now there are certainly examples of secularism becoming the equivalent opposite of religious fundamentalism. The equivalent would be anyone advocating the banning of religion from society, such as the aforementioned Chinese government, which place restrictions on religious activities (although in practice, that's more about destroying any potential threat to power than anti-religious sentiments - and the same would apply to many religious dictatorships too).

However, there is this ridiculous idea that someone like Dawkins, or indeed any high-profile secularist I can think of, is just as fundamentalist as the people he's opposing. I'm sure he enjoys the reputation, but in reality, it's nothing but hyperbole. Suggesting that religion shouldn't be funded out of general taxation, and that religious beliefs should be subject to the same evidence-based scrutiny as the rest of public discourse, isn't an extremist opinion in the slightest. I'm unaware of any secularists who openly advocate restricting people's religious activities. They simply oppose religious privilage. To say this is the equivalent of people who think that people who draw cartoons and right books should be arrested or even killed, is clearly a pisstake. Complete religious freedom, but no religious privilage. I would suggest that there are many religious people who agree with this. But if we say it often enough, it'll become true, and none of these people will even listen to his arguments.

[I'm With Stupid]

It is a religion like any other. Atheism is couched in scientific terms but there's no empirical evidence for the Big Bang or for evolution. No 'missing link' fossils have ever been found and nobody can explain how nothing blew up one day into a Universe.

Oh dear Kermit. Do you know what you actually mean by "missing link fossils." The fact that you put it in quotation marks suggests you're just parroting what you read on one of the many anti-evolution websites run by religious fundies who will oppose any scientific theory that challenges their religious beliefs. Incidentally, another clever use of language is "gaps in the fossil record." It's particularly brilliant because by definition, it's always true. In fact, with every fossil that is discovered, the number of gaps increases by one. Genius. Unfortunately for intellectually dishonest people like this, the fact is that you could wipe out all knowledge of the fossil record, and the DNA evidence would still be so overwhelming as to put the certainty of evolution up there with gravity or the fact that the earth revolves around the sun (which now I think about it, is the same thing). But there's no opposition to gravity, because there's no religion that it poses a problem for.

You see the mistake people like Kermit make is to attack evolution or even the big bang as if it has any bearing on the question of a god existing whatsoever. Usually more accurate is that it poses a problem for the existance of their concept of god. Evolution has been opposed throughout history because it disproves the idea that God created all of the animals as they are, not because it disproves the idea of a god existing. Science only comments on what we can prove. People only have a problem with it when they made it all up beforehand and are then proved wrong. Especially when they've set up an entire moral philosophy on their assumptions, the authority of which is then essentially shattered. Because the difference between religion and moral philosophy is that philosophy has to survive rational scrutiny, whereas religion just has to claim divine authority and get enough people to believe it.

Dawkins' stance is basically 'religions can't prove the existence of God'. All fine and dandy, but Dawkins can't prove what he believes either.
He certainly can prove what he believes in terms of scientific evidence for evolution and the big bang, which will disprove certain religious beliefs. And he can make a rational argument for the existance or non-existance of god. But frankly, the answer doesn't matter that much, because you've already said it. You admit religions can't prove the existance of God, which from the point of view of a secularist, is all that matters. Whether or not a god created the universe might be an interesting question, but since you can't prove it either way, it doesn't really matter in the way we organise society. There is no proof that any god exists, so there is no proof for anything that is attributed to him. And it means that any claims made on religious grounds have to be subject to the same rational critique as those made on non-religious grounds. But it seems certain religious people have a problem with that, and they want religion to have a special status. Admitting you can't prove that a god exists also makes in intellectually dishonest to teach children that there is, but not only do people do so, but we all pay for people to do so. That's all secularism has ever had a problem with, and you don't have to take a position on the god debate to recognise that if the evidence isn't there, the justification for acting under the assumption that it is isn't there either. I respect religion as a philosophy, I just don't respect the way it attempts to give itself additional authority by making claims it has no evidence for. Christianity, or indeed any religion, are no different from the work of Sartre, Russell or Confucius in the way they should be treated as a set of ideas.

[I'm With Stupid]

You can listen to an interview with the person who organised it here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00ld4w3). It's 48 minutes into the programme, and it's not Richard Dawkins, unsurprisingly.

[CptCoatHanger]

I’d just like to echo IWS comments. There seem to be a lot people equating atheism, a single position on a single issue, with, well I don’t know what with really... maybe Dawkins? Atheism != Dawkins. Anything an atheist believes outside of there not being a god (or gods), is not his atheism; ShyBoy seems to have be the only one who mentions the strong and weak atheism nuance – either lacking a belief or actively disbelieving, and that doesn’t really alter the debate too much.

(And ShyBoy, you’re still wrong about agnosticism :p)

I’m not quite sure what planet Kermit was on last night, but I’m sure he’ll have come back down to earth today. Too many Newcastles Browns, perhaps? :D

[Kermit]

There is no empirical evidence whatsoever for the Big Bang theory, it is just a theory along with the theory that a benevolent God made all things bright and beautiful and Scunthorpe. Regardless of which theory you accept, you accept it because of faith rather than empirical study.

Similarly, with evolution there is precious little empirical evidence of animals evolving into other animals. We have some anticedents and some more recent animals. There is no evidence of partially evolved creatures and, even more surprisingly, there is no evidence of the evolutionary 'dead ends' that you would expect to find.

Personally I find evolution a more convincing theory than everyone stepping out fully formed, but that's just personal belief. I can't point to anything and say 'look, there- proof!' because there isn't any.

Regardless of whether you call him an atheist or a secularist, Dawkins is a poster boy for secular/atheistic fundamentalism. Nothing wrong with that, but what he's saying isn't more valid because he has some pseudo-science behind it.

Now of course, if we want to talk about removing religious privilege then I think we'll agree on that.

[Martin_Bashir]

There is no empirical evidence whatsoever for the Big Bang theory

Again this is wrong http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang_theory#Observational_evidence

Of course it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt, but the very reason it is taken so seriously is that it is the most likely scenario based on currently available empirical evidence (which refutes the above statement).

Your conception of empirical evidence appears to be the same as irreducible truth, which is not the way in which most of the epistemologies of natural science would have it; and is not the way in which most knowledge in these areas is produced.

The production of scientific knowledge in biology and physics is more in line with what philosophers commonly call skepticism - generally it is a gradual progression of building blocks of knowledge, build upon previous stable knowledge claims built in turn upon reproducible experimental and observational data.

Natural science in general progresses along the lines set out by Thomas Kuhn - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift. Only a few events of science - The Origin of Species, Gregor Mendel's pea pod plant experiments etc. - cause what he calls a 'paradigm shift', most science works within the lines of an existing body of theory and evidence, filling in the gaps in knowledge.

Similarly, with evolution there is precious little empirical evidence of animals evolving into other animals.

Apart from that fact that we've moved from the original statement 'there is no evidence whatsoever for...' to the above; the statement is still misleading to the point of being wrong.

Following on from the above, the whole modern field of biology is underpinned by the current theoretical paradigm of Genetic Evolution, through the unison of Darwin's theory of evolution by means of Natural Selection, Grregor Mendel's pea pods plants, through to the discovery of the structure of DNA and the genome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_origin_of_species

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_genetics

There are gaps in knowledge because the way sciences progresses is as above - there are controversies and tests, refutations and conjecture; but there is still an overwhelming empirical and theoretical consensus on Evolution being THE most likely explanation for the development of species and gene selection.

It cannot be overemphasised how much the whole of modern biology is based on this, and what makes it such an elegant body of knowledge, is that as ever more rigourous tests are developed and new areas of empirical endeavour explored; the theory may be augmented and developed into more sophisticate and complex forms (as befits scientific discovery) but the core tennants of evolution are affirmed, daily.

For further information, see any respected museum, university, or your local biology department.

[I'm With Stupid]

There is no empirical evidence whatsoever for the Big Bang theory, it is just a theory

Another typical fundamentalist phrase people, that shows the most basic lack of understanding of scientific method. What Kermit neglects to say is that to get to the stage of being considered a theory, a scientific hypothetis already has to have massive amounts of evidence for it. The big bang happened. The difference between a hypothesis and a theory is evidence, so this "only a theory" by definition has massive amount of evidence for it, which has already been posted. And it's only you who's crediting it with the beginning of everything. Scientists only credit it with the beginning of the universe as we know it.

And see how he refuses to clarify anything he means, just throwing meaningless phrases around that are more popularly seen on fundie websites. So in addition to explaining what you mean by "missing link fossils" can you also explain to me what an "evolutionary dead end" constitutes?

[twisted_trinity]

i have a problem with the fact that he's trying to teach kids that unicorns don't exist...they're kids! let them live in a world that full of fairies and unicorns and dragons if they want, its a right of passage deciding if you want to continue into adult life believing these things....it is brainwashing...

[ShyBoy]

Well you can't categorically prove that god didn't invent the universe in a state of evolution etc. as we can't go back in time. Not that I believe that any kind of divinity drew up a plan to create things, I'm just playing devil's advocate.

Kermit does really have a point though, at least if we are talking about strong atheism. It's not the same as science, and picking bits of science even if they're generally accepted to support it doesn't prove the idea, as afaik you can only prove a theory wrong, you can't prove it right. So we prove atheism wrong by finding god, or prove religion wrong by.. proving there is no god - yet atheists sometimes bring up science to confirm their perspective despite the fact it's no different from someone of religion saying 'God must exist, since we are so beautiful and perfect, this can't be an accident of nature'.

So really the fundamental underlying point is that we can neither prove nor disprove atheism or religion (unless of course we find God, or we prove categorically that God doesn't exist - good luck with that - much like trying to disprove the APT :(). Therefore that's why I think to an extent it's irrellevent what you believe, and we should just appreciate religion as an element of our culture like the arts or whatever.

I guess if we define weak atheism as a skeptic of the literal facts of religious texts then I am a weak atheist, but I still think it's largely irrelevent as long as your beliefs aren't encroaching on your life i.e. you are going out and attacking people because their beliefs don't agree with yours. I think it's possible to have that seperation - I am quite a fan of marx but you don't see me going out slaughtering the bankers (rather in fact, I am hoping to be one :p, bringing it down from the inside I say...).

TLDR; atheism =/= rational science.

[I'm With Stupid]

Well you can't categorically prove that god didn't invent the universe in a state of evolution etc. as we can't go back in time. Not that I believe that any kind of divinity drew up a plan to create things, I'm just playing devil's advocate.
I agree. That's why I stated that these theories don't pose a problem for the possibility of a god existing, just particular concepts of god, and of course, particular accounts of gods.

Kermit does really have a point though, at least if we are talking about strong atheism. It's not the same as science, and picking bits of science even if they're generally accepted to support it doesn't prove the idea, as afaik you can only prove a theory wrong, you can't prove it right. So we prove atheism wrong by finding god, or prove religion wrong by.. proving there is no god - yet atheists sometimes bring up science to confirm their perspective despite the fact it's no different from someone of religion saying 'God must exist, since we are so beautiful and perfect, this can't be an accident of nature'.

Well you've got two options really. Either you can claim that if a god does exist, he would by definition be beyond our comprehension and beyond any concept of evidence. If you take that view, you can say no more. That's it. By definition, you've argued yourself out of being able to make an argument either way. The best you can say is that we don't know and can't know. Now that's a perfectly acceptable rational argument, but it essentially destroys any concept of god having a set of teachings attributed to him, or anything like that.

The other option is that we can use evidence that exists in this universe to come up with a likelihood. Many religious and non-religious people have this view. But the point is that you can't take this view, and then when the debate gets difficult, revert to the first viewpoint.

Now I'm of the opinion that there are concepts of god that fit the first option, and concepts of god that fit the second. A deistic god fits the first, whereas most religious concepts of a god fit the second. If you come up with a concept of a god that will always heal sick people, that will be disproved the second that someone dies of an illness. A god full stop cannot have evidence brought against him, but a god with certain attributes can. We can quite clearly look at a concept of a god that is both moral, interventionalist, cares about us and is omnipotent, and look around the world for evidence for and against the work of such a god, and come to a conclusion. I don't think there is any problem with that. If you read The God Delusion, Dawkins quite clearly states in the opening chapter that this is the type of god he believes he has evidence to disprove.

[wooooooooah]

I like the way Kermit went from saying there is absolutely no evidence for evolution, to very little evidence. Which is it?

As someone mentioned, a lot of people seem to misunderstand the scientific method. We can gather evidence for and against hypotheses, but ultimately we can only say with a degree of certainty the likelihood a hypothesis is accurate. Science doesn't claim to know the truth, however evidence-based logic can be used to predict real world situations, which is something religious explanations lack.

[CptCoatHanger]

Well you can't categorically prove that god didn't invent the universe in a state of evolution etc. as we can't go back in time. Not that I believe that any kind of divinity drew up a plan to create things, I'm just playing devil's advocate.

Atheists don’t have to prove the negative; the burden of proof isn’t on them. They simply reject the claims for the existence of deities made by religion. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence ... and all that.

Kermit does really have a point though, at least if we are talking about strong atheism. It's not the same as science, and picking bits of science even if they're generally accepted to support it doesn't prove the idea, as afaik you can only prove a theory wrong, you can't prove it right. So we prove atheism wrong by finding god, or prove religion wrong by.. proving there is no god - yet atheists sometimes bring up science to confirm their perspective despite the fact it's no different from someone of religion saying 'God must exist, since we are so beautiful and perfect, this can't be an accident of nature'.

Kermit’s parroting apologist nonsense. He clearly has little-to-no knowledge on the topic of evolution. Evolution’s a fact – just about the most solid fact in science. He’s also being a naughty one by trying to equate atheism and theism. He’s using terms such as ‘fundamentalist atheist’ in order to try level the playing field between people who take the bible literally, and people who reject the claims because there isn’t a scrap of evidence for most of it, especially the supernatural parts. It’s an old, tired and disingenuous trick. It’s akin to people use who the term ‘Islamophobia’.

So really the fundamental underlying point is that we can neither prove nor disprove atheism or religion (unless of course we find God, or we prove categorically that God doesn't exist - good luck with that - much like trying to disprove the APT :(). Therefore that's why I think to an extent it's irrellevent what you believe, and we should just appreciate religion as an element of our culture like the arts or whatever.

See above.

[Aladdin]

I'm quite happy to tolerate both christianity and atheism as I am of all religions as long as they don't force me to go to Church on Sunday or force my wife to stop doing so. But its mad not to see atheism as a mirror image of christianity - with its adherents ranging from wishy-washy liberals to mad fanatics. It may not be a religion, but many of its supporters seem to treat it as such... I am yet to encounter a single 'mad fanatic' atheist I must say. Who are they? What do they do or say to qualify as such?

Because not even Dawkins himself has ever called for religion to be banned, or religious people to be persecuted, imprisoned or put to death.

When he does, we can start calling him an atheist fanatic.

Until then, the only fanatics I have ever heard of have always been of a religious persuasion, being the only people on either side of the debate who ever call for foreceful indoctrination, discrimination, persecution, imprisoment or worse. All that vocal atheists such as Dawkins do is denounce religion as absurd, cruel and damaging, and campaign for separation of church and state and less influence of religion in education. Does that make a person a 'fanatic'?

.

[ShyBoy]

I am yet to encounter a single 'mad fanatic' atheist I must say. Who are they? What do they do or say to qualify as such?

Just because you choose not to pay any notice to people who go OTT because it would diminish your position doesn't mean they don't exist. Christ, I've heard plenty of otherwise reasonable people argue that religious people should be euthanised to make the world a better place.

Lets stop perpetuating the myth that only religious people can be bigots and idiots and that all atheists are just enlightened people trying to save the world, mmkay?

[Aladdin]

Have you really encountered such people? Are you sure they weren't internet keyboard warriors or pissed people at a party just using a bit of a hyperbole?

However the existence of religious fundamentalists is very much a reality, as mankind has found to its cost throughout human history and their malign influence going on as strongly as ever today.

I'm interested in hearing how those who like to describe Dawkins as an atheist fanatic or fundamentlist have come to such conclusion. The man might be arrogant and rude, but that is a million miles away from being a fanatic or a fundamentalist.

It seems that simply being a vocal opponent of organised religion is enough to be labelled an extremist or fanatic. Though I guess we are slowly progressing. Only relatively recently that would have resulted in imprisoment and/or death in the Western World, and it is still happening today in many countries.

[ShyBoy]

I don't agree with organised religion and I guess in this way I can come off as confusing. I think a lot of organised religion (a lot like politicians :D) is corrupt, self-serving and often destructive. But so many make the jump from this, to all religious people. Every person I've met in my entire life who holds religious beliefs holds them with dignity and would be mortified like anyone else if they offended someone with something they said.

The problem is, some new-age thinkers who want to prove that they know-it-all hold up their atheist flag (even though it's pretty much a null position and doesn't need a flag as such) and point at the flaws of organised religion and then throw that onto everyone who believes in any kind of divinity. There is an unpleasant ideology in the UK today in that anyone who dares believe in religion is seen as an anti-abortionist anti-state anti-woman anti-homosexual bigot.

I am all for the seperation of state and church. I think in the UK we are already 99.9% there and those who think we aren't probably just have nothing better to do with their time except moan about it. In some countries like Iran there is obviously a long way to go, but that's their journey to take and certainly not for us to go and protest about.

I certainly don't think organised religion has always been the best thing, but it's certainly at times been better than nothing. Instead of hospitals for centuries, we had the monastaries. Instead of counsellors and advisors, we had priests. Religion served as a binding and guiding force in society and has affected our culture massively - our morals today are intrinsicly linked with the teachings of Christianity whether you are atheist or believer.

I think it's fair to say organised religion has seen it's hayday - just look at the figures these days and you will probably struggle to find many churches full to the rafters for sunday service.

But what I and a few others object to is some people who want to assert their rejection in a strong way, saying that all those with religion are ill educated etc. and presuming them to be bigots - just because religion is no longer the #1 thing in society doesn't give people a right to villify everyone of religion. I'm not saying that is occuring here at all, but it definitely does occur, and Richard Dawkins is the poster child of a non existant battle that some think exists between atheists and religious people.

[piccolo]

his earlier works, particularly in popular science in 'The Selfish Gene' and 'The Blind Watchmaker' are brilliant examples of rigourous popular scholarship. Unfortunately he's no theologian. He would produce better work if he educated himself in what many people actually believe rather than railing against a minority. It's the majority of religious people he wants to prove wrong, but he doesn't actually know what many think.

[CptCoatHanger]

I don't agree with organised religion and I guess in this way I can come off as confusing. I think a lot of organised religion (a lot like politicians :D) is corrupt, self-serving and often destructive. But so many make the jump from this, to all religious people. Every person I've met in my entire life who holds religious beliefs holds them with dignity and would be mortified like anyone else if they offended someone with something they said.



The problem is, some new-age thinkers who want to prove that they know-it-all hold up their atheist flag (even though it's pretty much a null position and doesn't need a flag as such) and point at the flaws of organised religion and then throw that onto everyone who believes in any kind of divinity. There is an unpleasant ideology in the UK today in that anyone who dares believe in religion is seen as an anti-abortionist anti-state anti-woman anti-homosexual bigot.

I think a strawman atheist has begun to to be created in this thread. I simply haven't met people who are atheist and who behave this way. I discuss religion with as much vigour as I discuss politics, football and how I think things should be done at work; I don't shirk away from discussing the ridiculous in religion the same way I wouldn't sensor myself when discussing what a bell-end Dave Cameron is. You're also starting to paint the picture of frothy-mouthed atheist towering over a cowering, meek religious type, and let's be fair, the imposition on ideology is largely religion's trick.


But what I and a few others object to is some people who want to assert their rejection in a strong way, saying that all those with religion are ill educated etc. and presuming them to be bigots - just because religion is no longer the #1 thing in society doesn't give people a right to villify everyone of religion. I'm not saying that is occuring here at all, but it definitely does occur, and Richard Dawkins is the poster child of a non existant battle that some think exists between atheists and religious people.

As I stated earlier, Dawkins doesn't equal atheism. Dawkins equals Dawkins - that's all. I also think there is a lot of ground that still needs be wrestled away from religion and brought into the secular realm: stopping public funding of religious schools would be a good starter for ten.

[Kermit]

I think anyone who puts their religious beliefs on the side of a bus is a fundy, to be completely honest.

As for evidence of the Big Bang, there's plenty of evidence to show expansion of the universe. But there's precious little evidence of a Big Bang, other than what Wikipedia (sourced by others on this thread) calls 'speculation'. The universe is expanding but nobody has been able to come up with a plausible reason for why it is or how nothing can expand into a Universe.

Evolution is different. There's circumstantial evidence of it, particularly around DNA profiling, but you'd have expected to find evidence of transitional animals by now. Some of that could be mis-cataloguing, but hey.

[I'm With Stupid]

Unfortunately he's no theologian. He would produce better work if he educated himself in what many people actually believe rather than railing against a minority. It's the majority of religious people he wants to prove wrong, but he doesn't actually know what many think.
Why would being a theologian give any credibility to his arguments? You don't need to do a course in homeopathy or mind reading to make a judgement regarding their validity. And how would you answer someone like philosopher Dan "Santa Claus" Dennett, who has done in depth studies into people's religious beliefs and the way they've developed throughout history, and still comes to the same conclusions as Dawkins?

[I'm With Stupid]

Kermit, you're dodging the issue again. Transitional fossils? Missing link? You're parroting all of the language of a fundie without giving an explination of what exactly these terms mean. What is a transitional fossil? Every fossil is transitional between something and something else. You can't expect anyone to take you seriously if you just stick your fingers in your ears at the first sign of anyone trying to question your views.

[ShyBoy]

I think a strawman atheist has begun to to be created in this thread. I simply haven't met people who are atheist and who behave this way. I discuss religion with as much vigour as I discuss politics, football and how I think things should be done at work; I don't shirk away from discussing the ridiculous in religion the same way I wouldn't sensor myself when discussing what a bell-end Dave Cameron is. You're also starting to paint the picture of frothy-mouthed atheist towering over a cowering, meek religious type, and let's be fair, the imposition on ideology is largely religion's trick.

Perhaps the reason you don't see it, is because you excuse the behaviour? I have no idea how you don't. I mean, don't get me wrong, the vast vast majority of atheists or apatheists (people who can't be bothered :p) are absolutely fine, we are talking about a vocal minority here. But there is a minority that is vocal and aggressive about this. And what's more, it's not just innocent banter like talking about the cock that is David Cameron, but it can be accepted because religion is seen as bad. I don't believe atheism or religion is conspiring to get one over on the other, more that some vocal atheists (and there are vocal theists as well) cross the lines of accepted discourse and are not challenged for doing so, because religion and people who are religious are seen as a legitimate target.

As I stated earlier, Dawkins doesn't equal atheism. Dawkins equals Dawkins - that's all. I also think there is a lot of ground that still needs be wrestled away from religion and brought into the secular realm: stopping public funding of religious schools would be a good starter for ten.

Well the religious schools I don't know too much about, but really I think every child is entitled to a state funded education, so if they go to a religious school I don't think they should be excluded from that i.e. either go to a secular school or lose out. That is stopping people's religious freedom isn't it? As all schools religious or not still have to conform to OFSTED's standards, it's just a different choice.

As for Dawkins = Dawkins, I agree with you - and I admit I don't know 100% what he stands for and his perspective on things, my point really was in chipping in that he is held up as the poster boy by people who call themselves atheists (which is why I say atheists, but you could call them something else - I have called them antitheists in the past!) and these people imo act improperly not in attacking religion, but in crossing the line between fair and respectful discourse and more akin to the anti-fascist group a few weeks ago 'protesting' against the BNP, in which they violated their freedoms.

I didn't really intend to get drawn into an all out argument suffice to say I agree with Kermit when he says:
"Atheism is a religion like any other and it has more than it's fair share of fundy nutcases."

though it does depend how you define atheism, some could call me a weak atheist or an agnostic depending on perspective. But it's pretty hard to disagree that there are some atheists who take it too far just like any other group of people, and in that their 'perspective' of atheism is just as flawed in it's absolute belief as is a religion.

Note though that some who hold religion could count as atheist by some definitions, they admit there are plenty of holes and they can't be sure that there is a divinity, they don't claim to 'know' it, but rather than this is what they believe. In exactly the same way you might claim you don't 'know' your partner has not cheated on you, you have no proof of such, but you trust them and believe in their fidelity.

[Teagan]

... but you'd have expected to find evidence of transitional animals by now.

Evolution happens every year as the flu virus mutates, as a simple example. Right before our very eyes.

Remember too that most fossils are found due to the type of soil they fell into when they died. So unless the preservation environment was perfect at the time of death, I am sure most fossils will never be found because they just disintegrated into the ground.

[wooooooooah]

What was the book in which the demons planted dinosaur fossils to make people doubt God? :)

People will believe what they want to believe, regardless of logic. The difference with scientists studying evolution or cosmology is they don't have an agenda to discredit religion for their own gain - the evidence speaks for itself.

[CptCoatHanger]

Perhaps the reason you don't see it, is because you excuse the behaviour? I have no idea how you don't. I mean, don't get me wrong, the vast vast majority of atheists or apatheists (people who can't be bothered :p) are absolutely fine, we are talking about a vocal minority here. But there is a minority that is vocal and aggressive about this. And what's more, it's not just innocent banter like talking about the cock that is David Cameron, but it can be accepted because religion is seen as bad. I don't believe atheism or religion is conspiring to get one over on the other, more that some vocal atheists (and there are vocal theists as well) cross the lines of accepted discourse and are not challenged for doing so, because religion and people who are religious are seen as a legitimate target.

I’m not quite sure what behaviour we’re talking about. I’ve never come across someone aggressively putting across atheism to a religious person – or at least with no more fervour than anything else would be discussed. But, even if we grant that there are a small minority of hard-line atheists – something I’m perfectly willing to do – I’m not sure what can be gleaned from that. Religion and religious ideas should be subject the same level of scrutiny that every other point of contention should be. Even Dawkins, who isn’t as strong a critic as, say, Hitchens, has never in all the debates I’ve seen, and literature I’ve read, gone after someone on a personal level. He’s a strong critic of supernatural belief and doesn’t pull punches when talking about it. People caricature and misrepresent him because he’s a cogent critic of something they believe in, and so it serves them to do so. Now, I’m not a massive fan of the guy, but he’s an intelligent guy who puts his points across well.

Well the religious schools I don't know too much about, but really I think every child is entitled to a state funded education, so if they go to a religious school I don't think they should be excluded from that i.e. either go to a secular school or lose out. That is stopping people's religious freedom isn't it? As all schools religious or not still have to conform to OFSTED's standards, it's just a different choice.

Every child should be entitled to a state-funded education, I agree, however, if you want separation of church and state, which I very much do, then you have to take religious indoctrination out of state-funded education. Every child should receive a secular education from the state. If parents want to cram religion into their kids’ heads then they can do it on their own time - I’m not having them do it using my money.

As for Dawkins = Dawkins, I agree with you - and I admit I don't know 100% what he stands for and his perspective on things, my point really was in chipping in that he is held up as the poster boy by people who call themselves atheists (which is why I say atheists, but you could call them something else - I have called them antitheists in the past!) and these people imo act improperly not in attacking religion, but in crossing the line between fair and respectful discourse and more akin to the anti-fascist group a few weeks ago 'protesting' against the BNP, in which they violated their freedoms.

Read The God Delusion and watch a couple of his debates. It’s as good a starting point as any. I don’t suspect you’ll come out loving the guy, but at least you’ll have an accurate representation of what he believes.

People should always be ready to have their views questioned; it’s how you advance a society. The problem is religion often wants, and is frequently is afforded, special dispensation. That’s what a lot of people take issue with.


I didn't really intend to get drawn into an all out argument suffice to say I agree with Kermit when he says:
"Atheism is a religion like any other and it has more than it's fair share of fundy nutcases."

though it does depend how you define atheism, some could call me a weak atheist or an agnostic depending on perspective. But it's pretty hard to disagree that there are some atheists who take it too far just like any other group of people, and in that their 'perspective' of atheism is just as flawed in it's absolute belief as is a religion.

Atheism isn’t a religion. It’s a single stance on a single issue. Kermit’d like it to be a religion because he feels that’d somehow level the playing field. The fact is there aren’t dogma, doctrine, tenets, and deities attached to atheism; it’s simply a lack of a belief. What Kermit may have an issue with is strictly enforced secularism, but that’s something different.

[ShyBoy]

Big post ;) but I do agree with what you're saying and you're right people should be happy to have their views challenged, even me god forbid. But I still believe there are a vocal minority who step over the line at least what I would feel comfortable saying - they do actually cause offense to those who are religious. Joking about jesus being nailed to a cross is offensive to Christians but c'est la vie. It seems this minority want to prove they have the right to say what they like and forget about considerations of how it might make people feel. And I did qualify my agreement with Kermit's statement by saying "though it does depend how you define atheism".

[piccolo]

how would you answer someone like philosopher Dan "Santa Claus" Dennett, who has done in depth studies into people's religious beliefs and the way they've developed throughout history, and still comes to the same conclusions as Dawkins? I would treat his views with more respect, that's all. The end doesn't justify the means and I don't think Dawkins has done the research that writing a book like the God Delusion necessitates. It makes him look ignorant, when we know that is not true.

[CptCoatHanger]

I would treat his views with more respect, that's all. The end doesn't justify the means and I don't think Dawkins has done the research that writing a book like the God Delusion necessitates. It makes him look ignorant, when we know that is not true.

Whereabouts does Dawkins fall short in his critique of religion in The God Delusion? Genuine quesion. I've read the book and didn't think he came across as ignorant - far from it in fact.

[Glenn Quagmire]

This is bullshit.

Dicky "dickhead" Dawkins hasn't set up an 'atheist camp', he isn't involved with it whatsoever. He made a small financial contribution, that's all.

[Jim V]

As to transitional fossils - can we just clarify what we mean

I understand the term to mean fossil remains of a primitve creature that undeveloped traits that are seen more developed in life-forms to which it is related.

Given that's my understanding, and apparently evolutionary science's understanding of the misconcieved term (all creatures, forever and all of time are transitional - since nothing ever ceases random evolution - though as the human race demonstrates, evolutionary factors are vastly reduced once environmental factors are removed from development), then there are a huge number to pick from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

[Martin_Bashir]

It makes him look ignorant, when we know that is not true.

Which is a perfect illustration of knowing one thing and believing another.

[Uncle Joe]

There's plenty of people in this country whom I hate with a passion. But there's one particularly smug bastard who always gets my goat - Richard Dawkins. How anyone can treat him seriously after he was mocked in South Park, I don't know.

http://www.flavinscorner.com/garrisondawkins.JPG

This cocktrumpet is a man who wastes no opportunity to tell us that people who believe in God are stupid and deluded, a man who condemns the brainwashing that religious nutters carry out in summer camps in the USA. So what does he decide to do? Ah yes, he decides to start one up himself! (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196063/Richard-Dawkins-launches-childrens-summer-camp-atheists.html)

According to the Mail, (yes, I know) they will have the chance to "sing along to John Lennon's Imagine and have lessons in evolution". The reporter excitedly tells us that "There will even be a £10 prize for the child who can disprove the existence of the mythical unicorn" and that the day will finish with the "Kim-bi-ya budding atheists will belt out 'Imagine there's no heaven...and no religion too'." Wow, I bet children all around the country can hardly wait! :rolleyes:

When religious fanatics and nutjobs run summer camps, it's called called brainwashing. When a pure as driven snow atheist such as Richard Dawkins does it, it's something completely different. What a cunt.

Over to you for your reasoned and relevant contributions/musings/bile etc...
Steady on! I seriously haven't read beyond this first post (and you're just going to have to take my word on that, like Joe Don Baker said in 'Whacko!'), because I want to say without any further imput that this sounds like a wind-up on somebody's part. Dawkins doesn't have the keenest sense of humour, but he knows you can't disprove anything, and I don't think he'd joke about that. He'd have an aneurysm if he tried.

I can remember, well over ten years ago, him once telling the Independent that 'natural' crops were far more dangerous than GM versions. He was actually making a point about the simplistic way genetic modification was being reported, but the paper's journalists, specifically a bloke named O'Connor (forgotten his first name) assumed he was defending GM crops, and put this on the front page. Sarcasm is a dangerous thing in Richard Dawkins' hands...

[Uncle Joe]

I had a feeling the thing had been over-egged. He has his own forums, but they're a little too busy for me... http://richarddawkins.net/forum

[CptCoatHanger]

Steady on! I seriously haven't read beyond this first post (and you're just going to have to take my word on that, like Joe Don Baker said in 'Whacko!'), because I want to say without any further imput that this sounds like a wind-up on somebody's part.

It's just StarGalaxy parroting The Daily Mail, don't worry about it. You'll notice that as soon as the thread got down into details and substance, he had nothing else to say.

[Kermit]

The fact is there aren’t dogma, doctrine, tenets, and deities attached to atheism; it’s simply a lack of a belief.

No, it's the belief in a lack of belief. It's far more doctrinous (is that a word? is now) than simply not believing in something.

You don't spend £200,000 on bus adverts for a lack of belief.

To finish off with my own views, I'm firmly agnostic on the issue. I've had too much Catholic education to ever believe in the One True God, but I think people like Dawkins take their atheism to sinister levels.

My point was not that the traditional monotheistic view of the world is correct, rather that the atheistic view does not have proof. Even the wiki articles linked to say that much of what is said is pure conjecture.

[CptCoatHanger]

No, it's the belief in a lack of belief. It's far more doctrinous (is that a word? is now) than simply not believing in something.

You don't spend £200,000 on bus adverts for a lack of belief.

To finish off with my own views, I'm firmly agnostic on the issue. I've had too much Catholic education to ever believe in the One True God, but I think people like Dawkins take their atheism to sinister levels.

My point was not that the traditional monotheistic view of the world is correct, rather that the atheistic view does not have proof. Even the wiki articles linked to say that much of what is said is pure conjecture.

You're trying to equate theism and atheism again, and you can't. I understand why people who have a belief in God, or who are least unsure, would want to equate the two positions, but convenience plays no part in validity. At its strongest atheism is an active disbelief; for me this means I've been presented with the case for the supernatural, and found it completely lacking in validity - as well as being patently absurd. You can glean nothing more about me by my using the atheist label; you've no idea what my opinion on the bus adverts is; you've no idea whether I believe in homoeopathy; you've no clue about my political leanings.

Sam Harris argues that atheists should drop the term. He says that we don't have terms for non-astrologers or people who don't believe that Elvis has reincarnated, so why bother with non-theist? I'm a little ambivalent on the matter, but think that the term is useful and shouldn't be abandoned just because people are trying to mess with it.

The proof argument is silly. I don't have 'proof' that a lot of things don't exist - I've never been able to disprove Big Foot. In fact I don't have 'proof' that anything doesn't exist. It would just be ridiculous to operate under the assumption that a thing for which there is no evidence, did exist.

[katralla]

It is a religion like any other. Atheism is couched in scientific terms but there's no empirical evidence for the Big Bang or for evolution. No 'missing link' fossils have ever been found and nobody can explain how nothing blew up one day into a Universe.

Self identifying as an athiest does not mean that you are also procalaiming you DO believe in evolution, or anything else, it means you DON'T believe in gods.

[ShyBoy]

I've mentioned this before CptCoatHanger though, if atheists feel a lack of belief why do they go out and parade it? Just like non-astrologers don't etc.

Obviously atheism doesn't have a unifying doctrine like most theism, but if you look at the conduct of some atheists in pronouncing their atheism and advocating atheism strongly (even provocatively) then that reflects on everyone who uses that label really. That's the reason in the past I've called them antitheists because I think it's a more appropriate label - just like we called misandrist and hysterical feminists 'pop-feminists' as they were painting a bad picture of all feminists (which now ridiculously as a consequence of those who 'went too far' some women feel feminism itself is an extreme anti-man perspective to hold... when it should just be about equality).

There are certainly people who can take any given belief and push it to an extreme, and atheism is no different. That shouldn't stop people being atheist, but it is important to acknowledge that there are varying shades of grey, and that some things are over the line - just like how some feminists I imagine condemned some of the misandry that came from the pop-feminists.

Feminism has garnered the wrongful image, that it's about man-hating mouth-frothing women who all believe men are inferior and rapists and such, because of the 'vocal minority' or polecemists as someone once labelled them who either in an innocent attempt to stir debate or a slightly more sinister motive possibly anger at patriarchy have said some outrageous things and supported some outrageous perspectives.

Atheism is the same and as it is becoming an increasingly held perspective as typical monotheistic religion is dying out, the 'vocal minority' atheists are swelling in number and growing in boldness. Just look at the bus adverts, even though they were quite tame, it's a sign that some parts of atheism aren't just about 'not believing' anymore, but rather pro-actively stopping others believing. Whether just like with feminism this is just to stir debate and make people question things, or whether it's because there is animosity towards religion, it doesn't matter. I condemn those who make a target of 'the other side' wrongfully in whichever debate.

I mean, if you consider your definition, I am an atheist (with an appreciation for the cultural implications of religion ;)), so I certainly have no reason to argue against my own opinion. I'm not going to preach that we need more religion in society, that any lack of morality is down to the decline in attendance in church, or any other such nonsense.

But equally, and importantly, I'm not going to join the 'polecemists' and say that religion has caused every ill in this world and that we will all be better off when it's gone, because that's nonsense too.

[Teagan]

.

[Teagan]

Just look at the bus adverts, even though they were quite tame, it's a sign that some parts of atheism aren't just about 'not believing' anymore, but rather pro-actively stopping others believing.

Is that a bad thing though? Male and female circumcision, female subjugation, religious intolerance, religious 'superiority', sexual intolerance, complete blindness to what science HAS proved in the recent decades, etc .. I think atheists are entitled to raise issues to show that there are other equally plausible schools of thought because these religious beliefs often infringe on our own day-to-day freedoms.

[CptCoatHanger]

ShyBoy: I’m not a strong critic of large parts of religion because I’m an atheist. I’m a critic of large parts of religion because it’s a dangerous, absurd, degrading, patently wrong, and reason-destroying entity. If I go too far slamming a person for a religious view they hold (and I’m talking about some of more innocuous views) then it’s because I’m a dick, or not sensitive enough, or on some sort of intellectual jolly, perhaps. Not because I’m an atheist.

People try to load up atheism and present it to be something it simply isn’t. They do so because they believe it helps bolster the position in which their religious beliefs are held. If atheism and theism could be equated then maybe that’d be the case, but it isn’t, and you seem to accept that.

If a consortium of astrologers was trying to force astrology into the science classroom you’d hear me on here waxing lyrical about that; If my tax money was going toward schools that only let in people who’d affirmed a strong faith in Elvis reincarnate, I’d be banging on about that too; If Manchester United supporters were trying to claim special dispensation for wearing their team’s colours in school... etc. It wouldn’t be my non-astrology that pushed me to be vocal about these topics, it’d be the rational part of me crying out at the criminality of it. If I went too far criticising astrology – I’d be interested to hear what too far is – then it wouldn’t be my non-astrology to blame.

All ideas need challenging. Bad ideas need challenging more so. I’m not denying that there are people who bash religion - and if they're doing it in a manner I'd deem inapporopriate then I'd criticise them. Still, has a religion-based debate ever gone further than the heated discussion you’ve had about any other topic? In my experience the taboo of criticising religion tends to keeps debates relatively tame - face-to-face ones, at least.

[I'm With Stupid]

I've mentioned this before CptCoatHanger though, if atheists feel a lack of belief why do they go out and parade it?
Again, an example of you confusing secularism with atheism. People "parade it" because they take the view that religion has a negative affect on society. Such a view doesn't necessitate being an atheist, nor do all atheists agree with such a view (case in point: buddhists).

And as for putting views on the side of a bus (another misrepresentation that this was in any way Dawkins' idea) making atheist groups the equal but opposite of religious groups that do the same, what a fallacious argument. By that measure, the Lib Dems must be just as extremist as the BNP, because they both advertise their views on billboards. :rolleyes:

[ShyBoy]

I didnt say that IWS did I? I was trying to make my point clearly and concisely and I guess on here it gets obfuscated a bit :blush:. It was merely a point that for some what they interpret to be 'atheism' is more than what we are defining as 'atheism' as the lack of belief in anything.

And as soon as we accept that, then we can accept that some 'atheists', because of their atheist belief or lack of belief, will challenge opposing viewpoints. This is a good healthy part of society I feel, with the feminism analogy being the perfect example. Women didn't get the right to vote by sitting about holding the silent agreement that patriarchy was a bad thing, did they?

But if we accept the premise that not all atheists are alike, then we must also accept that some atheists can be extreme? No? Whether that truly represents the core of atheism is neither here nor there just like if some 'extreme' feminists decided male babies should be aborted that doesn't truly represent feminism. But it doesn't stop them being feminists.

So what I was saying if you hark back to my first point, was a criticism of these extremist atheists, who do largely get carte blanche in society because it's a popular perspective at the moment. "A warrior, without a cause." What are they fighting for? Why this adversarial attitude towards religion?

[I'm With Stupid]

I didnt say that IWS did I?
No. It was Kermit that seemed to be equating the two,

It was merely a point that for some what they interpret to be 'atheism' is more than what we are defining as 'atheism' as the lack of belief in anything.
Well then they interpret it incorrectly. They're interpretting secularism as atheism, which it quite clearly isn't, no matter how often one may lead to the other. Again, I bring you back to Buddhists. They're atheists, yet quite obviously in a lot of cases, fully in favour of religion having an important role in society.

But if we accept the premise that not all atheists are alike, then we must also accept that some atheists can be extreme? No? Whether that truly represents the core of atheism is neither here nor there just like if some 'extreme' feminists decided male babies should be aborted that doesn't truly represent feminism. But it doesn't stop them being feminists.
I can accept that some atheists might be extreme, but I can't accept the premise of extremist atheism. To be an extremist, you have to positively affirm something, and generally want some sort of change. Not wanting religion to control society is neither a necessary product of atheism, nor do you need to be atheist to hold such a view. America is far more religious that the UK, and yet there are millions of committed religious people who consider the seperation of church and state to be one of the single most important things upon which their society is founded. In their views, these religious people would be closer to this "extremist atheist" viewpoint than a lot of non-religious people in this country, who are quite happy to continue to fund faith schools, for example. So I can accept extremist secularism, but not extremist atheism.

Incidentally, isn't femenism the belief in and movement for the equality of women? And therefore, no, the viewpoint you mentioned wouldn't be feminism, any more than black power movements would be an extension of racial equality movements. It's misandry, which is quite different. Don't confuse agenda driven groups tagging along with popular equality movements to be part of the same ideology.

So what I was saying if you hark back to my first point, was a criticism of these extremist atheists, who do largely get carte blanche in society because it's a popular perspective at the moment. "A warrior, without a cause." What are they fighting for? Why this adversarial attitude towards religion?
Sorry, but would you care to name some of these "extremist atheists" that you're talking about? I'm willing to accept that some might exist, but I've honestly never come across one. The only example I can thing of is the banning of headscarves in French schools (which I would support if they had a uniform, but when they don't, seems like a specific attack on religion, which I consider unacceptable). Every secularist I've ever read only wants religion to be treated the same as any other belief system. It's only because of the privileged status that religion enjoys that it is considered "anti-religious" to do so. How is saying the law about carrying knives should apply to everyone, whether or not you think god requires you to do so, an attack on religion, for example? How is saying that motorcycle helmets should either be compulsory, or voluntary, regardless of what religious beliefs you might hold, an attack on religion? Etc, etc. It is this system of automatically holding religious beliefs in higher regard than any other beliefs that secularists oppose.

And I'm sure you already know many of the reasons for people arguing in favour of secularism. Many of them have already been mentioned on this thread, so I'm sure you don't need me to come up with another list.

[Aladdin]

Yet again we hear claims of Dawkins and his ilk being 'sinister' or fanatical.

I'm still waiting to hear an explanation of why he should be labelled as such.

Because if Dawkins is a fanatic or extremist for saying what he says, then every single last religious person is an ultrafundamentalist a thousand times more extreme.

Now, I wouldn't call the majority of religious people ultrafundamentalists. So let's do away with pretending someone who is simply a vocal critic of organised religion is suddenly 'sinister' or 'fanatical'.