It is however also easily turned around: Atheism is true: As Atheism is not a coherent theory, and there are many shades and variation, it cannot be true, as some of the statements contradict each other. Atheism is useful: Atheist convictions might be useful, but that in no way suggests their legitimacy. Religion is bad: Rather than argue for the truth of Atheism, or produce evidence that atheism is useful, apologists for Atheism often attack Religion as though it were a scientific theory. It relies, however, on a many false ideas about religion
Sorry, i am not spending much time here to develop it, someone linguistically more able could make this more fun. And I am also not making a serious argument here. My point however is thus:
There are legitimate (who is to judge?) questions from atheists about the human condition and their answers are of value, legitimate, self sufficient, but they are only touching on the tiniest of area of interest for a person of faith. While atheist remain unaware of that, their arguments with people of faith are entirely futile. (As are discussions among people of faith, if they are ignorant of the other persons faiths details, history, dogmatic limitations etc.)
While atheist remain unaware of that, their arguments with people of faith are entirely futile. (As are discussions among people of faith, if they are ignorant of the other persons faiths details, history, dogmatic limitations etc.)
Sigh - yet again - Dawkins is NOT primarily concerned with very committed religious people - believe it or not he's not stupid and knows very well that rational argument is unlikely ( it CAN happen) to influence them. Try reading the diary for what he IS trying to do and some examples of success.
Do you really think I have to read everything about fairies before I dismiss belief in fairies, or Thor, etc., etc. ? Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
I grew up with being harassed by Mennonites who were eager to save me.
As the presence of atheists who are involved with religion hints at, not all religious people KNOW some absolute truths. Some religions, like Unitarians, are - (at lest the congregation I attended when I was growing up) mostly atheist based. I think it would be a major disservice to Unitarians to claim they KNOW some absolute truths.
aspiring to genteel poverty
If they are "atheist based" what makes them a religion ?
Anyway, to repeat what was made clear in the diary, it's just wrong to suggest that Dawkins traets all religions, or groups within religions as exactly the same. He's made it clear in several places that of course there are non-extremist Christians (as is obviously the case with Muslims, etc.). That he acknowledges that - as I've pointed out in another comment, is evident from the fact that his criticism of nice, moderate Christians is that they lend respectability to the more aggressive, extreme groups. I also quoted an example of him working with leading Christians in the UK who are themselves concerned about extremist Christians and their attempts to spread creationism. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
