I make a clear distinction between those who condemn and belittle

[pegleg]

anyone for their religious beliefs or lack of them AND those who merely criticize those beliefs. There are those like Dawkins and his followers who call for the abolition of religion in society, and there are the Robertson and Falwells and their adherents, along with radical Islamists who would abolish the right of others to practice their beliefs. I lump them together and consider them a threat to a free society. I have no problem labeling them as intolerant and as bigots.

[Az]

1. Do you allow for those who question religious belief?

Or even those who perhaps see absolute conviction to a cause as dangerous. Whether that cause is a religion or a political system?

[pegleg]

3. Questioning religious belief is healthy and if your beliefs aren't open to questioning

then you must consider the validity of those beliefs. As far as absolute conviction to a cause - if that cause is dangerous to the lives, health, or free beliefs of others, then I think that cause needs to be condemned. There is absolutely no excuse for intolerance in matters of race and religion. No one should be immune to criticism. Religious extremism is a danger because it would usurp the rights of you and I to freely choose and to express ourselves. Militant racism is a danger. Intolerant atheism is a danger. Atheists who want to be respected as nothing more than ordinary human beings who deserve respect, need to have their rights protected.

[beam me up scottie]

2. Do you really think Dawkins wants to abolish your right to practice your belief?

Anti-theists don't necessarily want to stop believers from practicing their religion.

[pegleg]

4. Not in those exact words, no. But I have read his words on the need to

get religious belief out of society. I truly believe that diversity is healthy because it holds extremism in check. I think religion in a society is healthy and I also think that questioning religion and it's tenets is healthy. Making a publicly exhibition of the practices(as long as they are legal)of others for the purpose of shaming or degrading others, or merely for public entertainment and amusement, is bigotry. I can think of no other word to use. One more thing - I think we are all guilty of bigotry to some extent and I think we all need to make an attempt to be more tolerant.
Would I attend a Dawkins event? Yes,definitely, because I believe that he has adopted his opinions and beliefs after much critical thought and after witnessing bad behavior on the part of religious adherents. The only problem I have with his views is that he condemns and degrades the religious views of others and is intent on eliminating them from society.

[beam me up scottie]

5. I doubt that he intends to eliminate the religious views of others from society.

Personally, I would love to see the end of organized religion, but I'd like for us to get there by evolution, not force.

We all think we're right, of course, but I don't think religious beliefs or other superstitions should be automatically respected, believers yes, but not the belief.




edit: speeling

[pegleg]

6. I agree with you religious beliefs should not automatically be respected.

Those beliefs must be freely accepted to be of any relevance. As far as organized religion ending through a process of evolution, who knows what will happen a decade or a century down the line?

[beam me up scottie]

7. Hopefully humans will still be around that long.

I've always believed if we get annihilated, it will be because of religion. Other nuts know they need to survive to reap the reward of a cleansed planet, but people who believe they'll only be rewarded in heaven have no qualms about killing themselves too.

[pegleg]

8. That last sentence of your's is unfortunately too true.

"but people who believe they'll only be rewarded in heaven have no qualms about killing themselves too." Not all religious hold that belief. A large number of us realize that we will be held accountable for our actions in this lifetime.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

9. Also unfortunate is the fact that it takes

only a few crazies to hurt, maim, or kill millions of people. Look at Bush.

[beam me up scottie]

10. I know you're not one of the nuts. :)

I just wish there weren't so many of them.

[Az]

11. The problem isn't so much the belief in god as it is in souls

The idea of a persistent identity that survives the death of the brain seems to be at the center of a lot of troubles. Dogma is the tool that makes the troubles happen. But the soul is the motivation.

God is really just a byproduct. Its the idea of a soul that enables good people to do horrible things to others in the name of goodness. The idea of the soul usurps our own sense of identity and relays it to whatever the dogma happens to insist the soul is. Instead of fighting for survival of our identity we can be turned into tools of the dogma fighting for our souls. And as these souls supposedly survive our bodies they become more important than our bodies. So torturing a persons body becomes completely acceptable if the intent is to save the immortal soul. Killing someone to save their soul becomes acceptable.

[skepticscott]

12. The problem is also

people doing things that they normally wouldn't do, just because they think some supernatural daddy wants them to, even though those things may have nothing to do with souls.

[Az]

14. The soul is the lever

that dogma uses to get people to do things to spread it around more.

[pokerfan]

46. The belief in an immortal soul is egotism run amuck

Fear, The Foundation Of Religion
Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear is the basis of the whole thing -- fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand-in-hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by the help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the Christian religion, against the churches, and against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.

What We Must Do
We want to stand upon our own feet and look fair and square at the world -- its good facts, its bad facts, its beauties, and its ugliness; see the world as it is and be not afraid of it. Conquer the world by intelligence and not merely by being slavishly subdued by the terror that comes from it. The whole conception of a God is a conception derived from the ancient oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men. When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting human beings. We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these ages. A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. It needs a fearless outlook and a free intelligence. It needs hope for the future, not looking back all the time toward a past that is dead, which we trust will be far surpassed by the future that our intelligence can create.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell0.htm">Why I am Not a Christian, Bertrand Russell

[cosmik debris]

13. I love the way you go straight for the jugular.

You could have been civil and polite, but instead, you chose to go the route of name calling and insults.

You could have said "I disagree with Dawkins because..." but you went straight to the bottom by labeling him intolerant and bigoted.

The irony was not lost.

[trotsky]

53. We simply cannot be surprised given this poster's history.

They've never wanted to be civil - just attack and attack those who are different.

[TZ]

15. Dawkins might be rude...

but certainly he's not "dangerous". Unless of course you are one who thinks that speaking agaisnt religion makes one a "dangerous heretic".
Atheists however obnoxious and shrill they might be (and I'm willing to grant they can be) do NOT and probably WILL not hold any political power.
However that is FAAAAAR from the truth for the religious fanatics. Look at the presidential race...McCain called Falwell and friends "agents of intolerance" and yet know he's best buddies and has gone to Liberty U several times. And his VP Palin--she's a religious LOON.....

[knitter4democracy]

16. I don't.

I think it's about power.

Those in power who try to silence those without power aren't okay in my book. Robertson and Fallwell and Dobson have both money and power, and they work actively to silence those without power. They're totally different than someone like Dawkins who doesn't have anywhere near the money or power who says jarring statements in order to get published and airtime and get some more money and power. He's fighting back against the powerful, and that makes him different.

Intolerance, in my opinion, is an inability to see the world any other way and a refusal to respect the Other. For example, my new cleaning lady told me that I just need to find myself a church like hers where they speak in tongues to get through the difficult times I'm in, and when I told her that I was happily Orthodox, she didn't know what that was and didn't care. To her, there's only one way to deal with a crisis, and that's her way. That's intolerance. Refusing to touch our family altar where our weekly candle burns and our icons are hung while comparing us to a Sikh family she also cleans for bordered on bigotry and intolerance, too (it wasn't because she respected our icons as holy, let me tell ya). Yeah, she's going to be fired this week (many other issues as well, but that stuck in my craw).

Intolerance, therefore, can come from the powerful and the powerless. Its effect on the national conversation, though, derives entirely from the power of the person saying it.

[pegleg]

20. Being intolerant has absolutely nothing to do with religion, or status,

or intelligence.

[knitter4democracy]

23. It's a refusal to accept the Other as they are.

You're right--that can come from anyone. The reality is, though, most intolerance that we deal with on a daily basis doesn't have any effect on the national conversation.

[Odin2005]

17. Dawkins doesn't want to "abolish" religion.

He wants people to realize that they should give up religion as BS. And I agree with him.

Religion is the worship of an anthropomorphization of the Cosmos instead of reverence for the Cosmos itself. It is a debasement of the Cosmos that stems from trying to inject aspects of human "social reality" where they don't belong.

[pegleg]

19. No tremendous difference. Even other avowed atheists use the term

bigot to describe Dawkins circular "is/ought" form of reasoning.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/08/01/scidawkin101.xml

[Odin2005]

21. The telegraph is a right-wing rag. n/t.

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. Flew is no longer an 'avowed atheist'

As your own article says:

"Prof Flew, a former Reading University philosophy professor, was known as "the world's most notorious atheist" before he became convinced of the existence of a "divine intelligence" in 2004."

Dawkins does talk about Einstein's thoughts on God and religion in "The God Delusion" - see http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2006/sep/23/richarddawkins for an excerpt. Flew's claim that "no mention of his belief that the complexity of physics led him to conclude that there must be a divine intelligence behind it" falls down because Einstein didn't believe in a divine intelligence, just "something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection" (which is quoted in Dawkins' book).

And calling Dawkins a 'bigot' because Flew thinks he missed out some view of Einstein's in a book is a pretty absurd claim anyway.

[pegleg]

25. I didn't call Dawkins a bigot because of what Flew said. And I

didn't characterize him as such because he is an atheist. Atheists deserve the same human rights and respect as does any group, and as individuals. I refer to Dawkins as a bigot because he openly berates and degrades those who hold religious beliefs and their institutions, and he openly expresses his intentions to see an end to those institutions. Europeans witnessed that type of behavior and its affects 70 years ago. The Soviets witnessed it 90 years ago. And that same type of circumvented reasoning has been used to justify racism in the US. We see it used by religious extremists world wide today. It's in that context that I use the word bigot to describe that sort of attitude. When anyone's race or religious beliefs are so obviously ridiculed - that's bigotry.
I realize that Dawkins thinks that he is enlightening the world by announcing that the pure scientific method is the only true form of reason and that there can be no other. It is one form of reasoning, certainly not the only one. His is the view of positivism. And in fact his view is a minority viewpoint. Science and the Scientific Method are wonderfully accurate but they alone are not the sum of reason. The method, standing alone has huge holes in it - reference, qualitative analogies.
Dawkins states that there is not one shread of evidence to support religious belief. And yet others observe tons of evidence. In the end, however, there is no possible way anyone can "win" a religious argument. And so, it comes down to finger pointing, name calling, and narrow-minded logic. The very minute someone declares that their way is the only way - they need to be called on it. There is great value in scientific endevour but it is not the end all and to say that it is, is to be narrow minded and certainly not reasonable.

[cosmik debris]

26. "And so, it comes down to finger pointing, name calling,

and narrow-minded logic."

(GASP) Who would do such a thing as that?

:rofl:

[pegleg]

27. Yer just a peach! You little bugger you. n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. I disagree that ridicule is bigotry

Ridicule can be earned. If it comes from prejudiced views, then it's bigotry. But if it comes from someone who has looked at the claims of an institution, such as a church, and has decided that they are absurd, then it's a valid viewpoint. It's like someone saying that communism, or capitalism, are ridiculous. Saying either of those isn't bigoted. The arguments used may not hold up to scrutiny, or they may not convince many other people, but saying that other people have got things completely wrong is not bigotry.

Your attempt to bring race into this is, and compare what Dawkins says to the Nazis (be honest, that's what your '70 years ago' means, isn't it?) makes your argument looks very, very threadbare.

Religion is not like 'race'. It is like political beliefs. You choose it. You do not inherit it. That is so obvious that it's amazing it has to be repeated to you.

[pegleg]

29. I think you are trying to rationalize and evade. Persecution and

ridicule because someone has a belief other than yours is PURE BIGOTRY. No different and no less toxic than any other kind. I don't agree at all with the views of atheism concerning religion but I do recognize the right to hold those views. And yes I do compare the acceptence of ridiculing religious practices and beliefs to what occurred in the early days of the Nazi era against a race and a religion. What begins as something so seemingly insignificant can snowball into an acceptible movement. There is never an excuse for bigotry!
Very few groups or individuals are so sensitive that they would condemn ordinary religious humor. That's not what this is about. When you openly state that yours is the only way and that others don't even rate being included in a curriculum or in society - its time to take notice.

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. 'Persecution'? Where have you dug that up from?

What atheist is persecuting people now?

Your argument is looking worse, every time you post. You're introducing straw men. This is not about race. This is not about persecution.

When we, on DU, say about a freeper "they think that the rich should pay less taxes, and that there should be no support for the poor - this is a bad view to hold, and it's bad for the world - it'd be better if no-one thought that; they are a bunch of morons", do you think we're 'persecuting' them? Do you call it bigotry?

[pegleg]

31. This has nothing to do with political discussion or economics.

You are evading again. It's about religious beliefs which are in large part tied to ethnicity. By your reasoning it would be acceptible to ridicule atheism and atheists, but we both know that's wrong, don't we? And like you say, it is a choice we make. If I started on a tirade against atheists or any other group, and did whatever I could to make an individual or a group appear a little less worthy of their simple right to be - then I would be persecuting that group and I would certainly fit the discription of a bigot.

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. "It's about religious beliefs which are in large part tied to ethnicity" - rubbish

Christianity claims to be a world religion. So does Islam. Buddhism doesn't restrict itself to any ethnic groups. Hinduism is largely associated with one ethnic group, but there's no restrictions. Even the smaller religions, like Sikhism and Judaism, that are mainly associated with one ethnic group will accept converts in some situations. And note that Dawkins is criticising all religions. He's not singling out any religions that might be more common among certain ethnicities.

So, your attempt to bring ethnicity into this has failed too.

Yes, it's acceptable to ridicule atheism and atheists - if you can manage it. Go ahead, give it a try.

"to make an individual or a group appear a little less worthy of their simple right to be" - I haven't seen Dawkins do that anywhere. He's just saying that various religious ideas are wrong and possibly dangerous. He's not talking about stopping anyone's right 'to be', any more than DUers try to stop a Republican's 'right to be'.

What is it you are accusing me of 'evading'?

[pegleg]

37. I am accusing you of evading the obvious.

Very few Saudi Arabian catholics or Polish muslims or Italian buddhists. My point is this - bigotry is unacceptible in all cases, when it comes to race, religion, ethnicity, sexual preference and age.

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. Which is the odd one out: race, religion, ethnicity, sexual preference and age?

Yes, that's right, religion - the only one you can change at will, and which is a matter of your beliefs. Dawkins does not criticise on the basis of ethnicity, but you have played the race card with no basis whatsoever.

Point? Your point is that you want to be able to call Dawkins a bigot, without having any actual reasons to do so.

[pegleg]

41. People believe what they believe. And if that belief is in your

head and your heart - no, you may outwardly say it changes, but it doesn't. That's why religious beliefs are,in theory, if not in practice, protected in most developed countries. Your assertion that beliefs can be changed is only philosophical.

[muriel_volestrangler]

42. My assertion is firmly part of the real world

Are you seriously claiming that people can't change their mind?

[pegleg]

43. I don't think it has anything to do with changing your mind, per say.

Certainly people can change their minds. And certainly people do change their religious beliefs, their most deeply held perceptions - but only when they perceive things not to be as they had previously believed. I think that is totally different from changing affiliation to a certain group or religion. Affiliation can be changed even though your beliefs do not change. I could officially become whatever, but that certainly doesn't mean my beliefs will change along with it. I made that change one time, not because someone said so, but because I honestly could do nothing else.

[muriel_volestrangler]

44. Whether you change your beliefs at the same, or a different time as your religion

is not particularly relevant - you're saying that "people do change their religious beliefs" and "their most deeply held perceptions", and that "affiliation can be changed". So that means that people can change their religion. :shrug:

[pegleg]

45. Then go ahead and change. I won't try to stop you.

If you feel like you need support, I can help you there too.

[PassingFair]

47. "the only true form of reason"

Reason, by definition, relies on VERIFIABLE truth.

Religion is NOT based on this.

[pegleg]

49. Neither can it be disproved.

[PassingFair]

50. But there is no science without proof.

No one is denying endless possibilities.

It's just not REASONING when there is no proof.

[pegleg]

51. It would depend on the type of reasoning you are engaged in.

And also the source of your authority. And yes, there is science without proof. The scientific method itself allows for alternative hypotheses and is self correcting with the presentation of new data.

[Goblinmonger]

69. There is a difference

And I fear that you know it though you claim to be obtuse now. Our words have meaning. You picked the word "abolish." That is very clearly NOT what Dawkins wants. Does he think the world would be better off without religion? Yes. Absolutely. Is that akin to "abolishing" religion. Not even close. NOWHERE does he say that he wants policies in place to actively get rid of religion. I challenge you to find a place where he does. THAT is what "abolishing" is. Kind of like "abolishing" slavery.

So either you need to take more care in the words you use or, as I would posit the case to be, stop trying to build strawmen in an arena where people are smart enough to spot them a mile off.

[knitter4democracy]

24. I'm sorry.

I'm giggling at the irony of your screen name and what you wrote. Don't mind me over here. *giggle*

[cyborg_jim]

18. When a mild mannered man such as Dawkins starts kicking ass - pray

[dmallind]

32. Well one big difference

In this society only one set of those you name has actually been successful in imposing their beliefs on others. Remember too that Dawkins et al call for the VOLUNTARY elimination of religion, not enforcing dogma on those who diagree (unlike teh religious right). If you consider them even vaguely comparable risks to free society I have no problam calling you deluded or intentionally polemic.

NOBODY I am even vaguely aware of in atheism is calling for people not to be able to believe as they wish, only for them to no longer have the right to force the wishes of their invisible friend on secular society. On the other hand plenty of fundamentalist believers want to enforce not only dogma and religious trappings on the rest of us, but even want to mandate belief (or a simulacrum thereof) itself.

[pegleg]

33. I would never voluntarily abandon my religious beliefs and I would not

expect you to either. If you notice I consider "fundamentalist believers" trying to get others to voluntarily march in step to their views wrong also.

[dmallind]

34. Agreed, but you seem to consider and even state

that they were equally problematic. This is far from the case. When the US is 83% atheistic and atheists have lockstep strongholds on all levels of government, and when they use this to erect statues of Robert Ingersoll in public places and place monuments to the lac k of divine commandments in courtrooms, pay for atheist philosophers to open Congress, print "We trust there are no gods" on our money and change a universally applicable pledge to one that states "under no god whatsoever" then you'll have a point. If they also declare any scientific research into any religious questions off limits, stop people who think sex is only for procreation from marrying, and insist that all churches spend equal time explaining the difference between protobionts and amino acids whenever they mention creation then you'll have a good point.

Until then it's like saying Dick Cheney and his neocon cabal and Cindy Sheehan are equally dangerous to American foreign policy. Both may have rather partisan views on the subject and annoy those who disagree in how they express those views, but only one of them has any influence or power to put those views in effect. This of course is valid only if you assume, wrongly IMO, Dawkins would use the force of law to mandate atheism. In reality, he would merely if he had the power eliminate the political influence of religion and leave it up to individual choice.

[beam me up scottie]

36. If only we could recommend individual posts...

:toast:

Do you care if I file that one away for future use?

[dmallind]

39. Feel free of course and thanks! NT

[pegleg]

38. Good luck with that. nt

[Goblinmonger]

58. What does that even mean?

There was a specific point made to your claims and all you can say is "good luck with that"? Hard to argue with that "logic" I guess.

[pegleg]

59. It's called allowing someone to vent. You have every right to

be accepted and respected as the individuals you are, but when your methods include tearing down and degrading the religious beliefs and practices of others, you will score very few points with those you are trying to reach. Pretty much preaching to the choir.
I see nothing wrong with memorials or statues to any great and influential Americans like Ingersoll, and certainly I would support that. That's a very positive action. do I favor inclusion of atheists/agnostics being recognized as such in public office and in public life? No problem with that. My fight is against bigotry and intolerance - period.

[trotsky]

60. Ingersoll quotes

If a man would follow, today, the teachings of the Old Testament, he would be a criminal. If he would follow strictly the teachings of the New, he would be insane.

Ignorance is the soil in which belief in miracles grows.

Religion can never reform mankind because religion is slavery.

The inspiration of the Bible depends upon the ignorance of the gentleman who reads it.

Who can over estimate the progress of the world if all the money wasted in superstition could be used to enlighten, elevate and civilize mankind?

There are many, many more. Ingersoll is at least as "bigoted" and/or "intolerant" as you make Dawkins out to be - but you're OK with a memorial to him? You're all over the map on this thread - which leads me to just one conclusion: you only want to bash others who disagree with you.

[Silent3]

61. Exactly how much disagreement are we permitted, by your standards...

...to express before we leave the leave the cherished realm of "be(ing) accepted and respected as the individuals (we) are", and we lapse into "bigotry and intolerance"?

Personally I'd rather you disrespect my atheism, and come out with a forceful argument why you think my atheism is an untenable position, than offer up platitudes about "respecting my position" while expecting me to limit my own vocal expression of my position to the most careful and deferential phrasing, tiptoeing gently to avoid the slightest distress that a more forceful statement of my opinions might cause some believer.

For me there's a very clear distinction between respecting someone's right to believe as they wish, and respecting beliefs themselves. Respect for the right has to be automatic in order to have a civilized, tolerant society. Respect for individual beliefs, doctrines, dogmas, practices, teachings, etc., should not be automatic. Respect there should be earned.

When a belief doesn't earn respectability, I consider that belief fair game for everything from polite, carefully and diplomatically argued disagreement to satire to eye-rolling to scorn.

You said before, "I would never voluntarily abandon my religious beliefs". Why say such a thing? Are you completely closed to the possibility of having your mind changed? No one has ever said this to me straight out, but the way I've heard many people talk about their beliefs they seem to be saying that condition of belief itself is some sacred, precious, and inviolable thing, and to dare consider disturbing or upsetting a particular state of belief, even when it's one's own beliefs, is to consider perpetrating some terrible, violating act.

[dmallind]

64. Ditto . better said than I could. NT

[dmallind]

63. But your appreciation of that fight is invalid

If you consider atheists and believers to be equally culpable bigots. Either I'm not explaining very well or you are being deliberately obtuse. We cannot oppress Christians and institute intolerance of them. They CAN, and do, this to us. Are you saying that individual atheists venting about Xians being cvredulous or even dumb is as fight-worthy an example of intolerance and bigotry as Xians collectively forcing their dogma into law and freezing out any person who does not sing from the same hymnbook from any seat at the political table?

I know of no atheists whatsoever - not one (and I know hundreds - I've been in organized atheism for many years) who will refuse to vote for a non-atheist. Obviously more than half of all Christians (the number is half the entire population which is of course more than half the Xians) ADMIT thatthey would refuse to vote for one of us. Since prejudice even against atheists is somewhat likely to be seen as a negative, we can assume more actually would not vote for one.

So wouldn't it make sense if you are wanting to fight intolerance and bigotry to concentrate first on the ones who are both more able to make it count in the real world and more likely to indulge in it in the first place? Or is it just that you want to comfort yourself with "well they do it too!" so you feel righteous in piling on with that powerful majority?

[frogmarch]

48. Superb post! Wow! nt

[dmallind]

56. But I do not wish that on believers

I just want them to stop doing it to me.

[struggle4progress]

52. What! Are you saying there is not even one statue of Ingersoll here?

http://www.historicpeoria.com/entry.php?catid=1&cid=1&eid=165

[dmallind]

57. Thanks for that!

Asmittedly it's nigh on 100 years ago and before the rise of the religious right (and I wonder if this was publicly funded even then - maybe I can find out) but nonetheless it does me good to know there's at least one!

[trotsky]

54. Complete and utter smackdown of the OP.

Nice job!

[cosmik debris]

55. And the OP's rebuttal was so telling.

"Good luck with that."

The contrast in both ideas and eloquence was breathtaking.

:rofl:

[Random_Australian]

62. I'm not seeing your distinction as particularly clear; though maybe my ignorance of

basically everything Dawkins has said is playing a part.

A particular example is bugging me - what if someone thought religion, or a given single religion or religous group or whatever didn't really have a part to play in society.

Of course, trying to make people leave their beliefs is going to be wrong. (duh) I'm not talking about someone trying to institute laws to make their beliefs hold sway.

But I, for instance, don't particularly like the effect on people that some cults have. Like the moonies. Or the CoGs as they were (no idea what they are up to know), or Sai Baba or Koresh or so on.

So yeah, I will say things like "society would be better off if those organisations did not exist"

But I've hit one of your phrases "who call for the abolition of religion in society" so you could easily say that I'm some kind of intolerant bigot.

In other words, with what you've given me it's too easy to say that people are bigots without establishing good criteria for them actually being intolerant.

As far as I am aware, Dawkins never said that you mustn't practice religion, and called for the placement of no special restrictions on which beliefs you can and can't practice. He did, however, say that he thinks society would be better off without religion, which can be retracted without reference to anything bigoted to the statements I made, above.

[FM Arouet666]

65. Well then......

It is a difficult task to refrain from judging another person when faced with criticism, especially if that criticism is directed at one's religious beliefs. It is ok to criticize religious belief, but only to a point. That point is reached when the believer becomes uncomfortable. At this point the skeptic become the bigot and the believer ends the conversation in moral outrage. "How dare you seek to condemn and belittle me for my beliefs."

Your attempt to take the middle ground in the religious debate is a canard. And I don't mean the QE2 variety, spelling is optional here. Seems to me that you are just trying to hide behind moral outrage whenever an argument threatens your religious belief.

On the other hand, you could level the same accusation above to an atheist. "I question your lack of belief and quote scripture to justify my position and you dismiss me as a bigot." Fair enough, ad hominem is an easy trap to fall into.

But understand, that it is a trap. "You have no problem labeling them as intolerant and as bigots."

I suggest that you concern yourself with the argument you proposed, namely that you disagree with calling for the abolition of religion in society. And please do not pose a straw man argument out of this, you claim that Dawkins and his followers, and I do appreciate the religious connotation of using the term followers, want to abolish religion. Support your claim and then propose your argument. Linking Dawkins with Robertson and Islamic radicals is just nonsense.

[Deep13]

66. You misjudge Dawkins and mischaracterize him.

He has not called for abolition of religion. He's against it and thinks we should not be religious, but that is not the same thing as wanting a legal prohibition on it which is what abolition is.

Second, he condemnation of religious belief is well considered and is grounded in observed behavior and the theological basis of specific religions themselves. He is in no way a bigot.

[TechBear_Seattle]

67. So, I can criticize the belief in a flat earth or in pixies who paint leaves red in the autumn...

But I am "a threat to a free society" if I condemn and belittle people who genuinely believe that the earth is flat or that leaf fairies are responsible for autumn colors?

[Strong Atheist]

68. I would just like to see religion

die out, peacefully due to lack of participants everywhere in the world ( or at least here in the U.S., where I live). I would not mandate it even if I could, but I would like to see everyone give it up on their own.

Now, I am a complete realist on this subject, I know it ain't ever gonna happen, nor are atheists making any real progress, despite what some think ...

[Meshuga]

70. I don't mind people choosing a world model for themselves

Even if the world model requires mystical ideas and beliefs.

People can believe (or not believe) in whatever they wish as long as the belief or lack of belief makes them feel as happy and fulfilled human beings. Religion doesn't have to go away in my opinion. But I would not mind seeing the attitude of imposing religious beliefs going away. I don't mind if people believe in God, gods, voodoo, or whatever. As long as policies are not based on the magical stuff and the holy books are not used to attack and single out a group of people, the existence of religion does not bother me. But I have a biased opinion. :-)

[Bragi]

71. If we can't belittle, can we at least pity? /nt