Why agnosticism fails

dvpower

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

The thought had crossed my mind. I'm convinced H. Clinton is an atheist. Faith I guess you could call it!

Who needs faith when you can have evidence.

drkpower

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I am saying exactly that. I came to this conclusion because a person who is both intelligent and thinking is not going to be a theist, by my definition, and if they expected to get elected in the US, they'd lie about it.

Yeah, Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Tutu, to name but two of thousands, off the top of my head, are not intelligent and thinking. Your arrogance is astounding.

dvpower

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Hurin, I'm gonna have to disagree there...there is something to be said for hostile ridicule.

I have to agree. There's nothing at all wrong with ridiculing the ridiculous.
But its not mandatory and sometimes its better to keep your powder dry.

Zillah

drkpower wrote: »

No; I am becoming irritated because you accused me of changing the goal posts. Then I clearly show that you were the one who mentioned "election", yet you wont just say 'oh yeah, you're right' and move on!! Disappointing.

This is just getting silly. I shall put on the forum equivalent of a puppet show to explain the situation

Me :pac:
You

:pac: Ireland has pro-religious laws and being atheist can cause difficulties for politicians.
I don't think being an atheist politician would cause them much more difficulties.
:pac: There's all that other stuff too, like the blasphemy law and the schools...
What the hell does that have to do with politicians!
:pac: What the fuck? I'm talking about other stuff too, don't move the goalposts.
How dare you say I moved the goalposts! Look, here you said stuff about politicians and pro-religious laws so clearly we're only talking about politicians rawr!
:pac: You crazy turkey. Let me put on an awesome puppet show for you.


And so we come full circle.

Sunrise sunset. Beautiful isn't it?

Improper influence is not dominance, Zillah. You are floundering.

We are burning the Americans in their tanks!

Obviously I'm not referring to 1984 control your thoughts type of domination, but you try walking into a pub in rural Dublin holding your boyfriend's hand and we'll see just how much hold Christianity has over the minds of the average Irish person.

But if that specific word upsets you I suppose we can choose something else to refer to when a specific cult has itself referenced in the Constitution as having a special status in the nation, has laws shielding it from criticisim, can deny children entry into most of the nations schools if they're not the right religion, massively influences the morality and opinion of a huge number of Irish people...etc etc

Let's say "strong influence" then, shall we?

How do you want me to support it?
Do you question that the 'arrogance' of many atheists turns moderates off Athesit Ireland and other such organisations? Do you question that many moderates were turned off Athesit Irlenad by their proposed reaction to the blasphemy law?
Lack of popular support is precisely why Atheist Ireland/Humanists etc are not an effective lobby.

Yes I question all of this. I wouldn't be surprised if some of it were true but right noq these are just pure assumptions on your part. Nor does it do anything to address the complexities of the situation.

ChocolateSauce

drkpower wrote: »

Religon is allowed to run schools. The Government could change it tomorrow and the public, by and large, wouldnt give a damn.

I'm still waiting for them to do it....and I think the public would grumble a bit more than you think they would if it went to a non-denominational system rather than a multi-denominational one.

They did not get away scot free; every religous abuser is just as open to the criminal justice system as any non-religous.

It doesn't appear that way to me. It looks to me like the government is helping them pay 10% instead of 50%, to name just one example. Another is how the names of the offenders are secret.

And what are you talking about re: atheism being political suicide before Dawkins. Religous profession/belief really has not been an issue in electoral politics in this country for many years - in many ways, it is remarkable in that way. We've had loads of elected protestants, jews and muslims going back decades. Lack of belief isnt a problem.

How many atheists have led Ireland? Indeed, how many atheists are even elected to office? One, according to Senator Ivana Bacik (her). There is a difference to electing a non-catholic and electing an atheist. More Americans would vote for a Muslim than an atheist, clearly demonstrating that it isn't really what you believe, just so long as you are not a rational secularist.

Hurin wrote:

That's a stunningly ignorant and culturally prejudiced statement. Do you think that most of the people who created the concepts that built up our civilisation, including science, such as Aristotle, Aquinas and Descartes, were pretty much idiots because they were not atheists?

That's a matter of opinion really. But you are now being historically prejudiced by applying the standards of today to people in the distant past, and also based on their circumstance. All the people you mentioned were raised in an age of profound ignorance, and some when civilisation was so new we were taking our baby steps as a thinking species. Today we know so much more about the world and have such better education and communication that the honeymoon period is over- time to grow up and put on the big boy thinking cap.

ChocolateSauce

dvpower wrote: »

Who needs faith when you can have evidence.

I think she's lying.:p

No, really. I don't trust her one bit and think she is exactly the kind of person to actively fake being religious to get elected. She has the ambition and the ability for it.

But its not mandatory and sometimes its better to keep your powder dry.

Absolutely. Diplomacy is more often called for.

Yeah, Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Tutu, to name but two of thousands, off the top of my head, are not intelligent and thinking. Your arrogance is astounding

I've seen Tutu speak, and he is not what I would call intelligent. As for Mandela (who I don't know much about what he believes), I'd just say that you don't need to be a deep thinker to do amazing things in the name of freedom.

drkpower

Zillah wrote: »

This is just getting silly. I shall put on the forum equivalent of a puppet show to explain the situation

Me :pac:
You

.

You accuse me of something. I posted your actual post showing the accusation to be incorrect. You continue to deny and then spend god/dawkins knows how long posting a little fairy story. Its farirly clear what you said. But spend half your post talking about side-issues, if you want.....!!

Zillah wrote: »

Let's say "strong influence" then, shall we?
.

On the populus; a minority, yes.
On government, not even a strong influence, i'd settle for an influence.
But, if the secular view was organised, it could comfortably have as much if not more influence. It doesnt or hasnt - and Ive explained why I believe so.

Zillah wrote: »

Yes I question all of this. I wouldn't be surprised if some of it were true but right these are just pure assumptions on your part. Nor does it do anything to address the complexities of the situation.

Sure opinion and anecdotal evidence; I dont have time to do controlled studies on these issues. But if you question that moderates were not turned off AI by their proposed reaction to the blasphemy law, I think your view from Canada might be a little obscured.

Zillah

Húrin wrote: »

No, there isn't; there's really no merit in it. It confirms the worst stereotypes about atheists and gains the gentle atheists no listeners.

Well we'll have to agree to disagree, I strongly suspect that vociferously fighting our corner if the best way to gain a foothold. For far too long atheism has been regarded as strange, evil or downright ludicrous. In many places it still is. Gay rights didn't appear because a few homosexuals sat down and had some calm chats...they flooded the streets and demanded that they be reckoned with.

I'm not advocating rioting or anything, but yes, shattering religion's cosy shell of smug entitlement is step 1.

I thought you believed that all religious people are immunte to reasonable discussion.

My no no no no. The only ones that are immune to reasonable discourse are the one's that are very clever (they inventively deceive themselves), very stupid (they just don't get it) or a little bit crazy (pretty obvious). A great many of them can be convinced by logical discourse. I can't count the times I've been in a conversation with a person claiming to be Catholic, who then concedes they're not Catholic, then not Christian, and often not even a theist, but a deist.

Atheists have not been suppressed for hundreds of years. Religious discrimination of the past was directed mostly at other religious groups. Moreover it doesn't have much to do with religion today.

In one way or another, yes, they have. But it's not even relevant, suffice to say that at the moment and in recent history there has been a strong anti-atheist beliefs fostered by religion. I'm sure most atheists over the years were shamed into silence.

Equating people who build museums with people who fly planes into buildings is ridiculous.

Touche. I'll concede that one, but either way, they're both far and away removed from an insulting but otherwise harmless atheist such as myself.

drkpower

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I'm still waiting for them to do it....and I think the public would grumble a bit more than you think they would if it went to a non-denominational system rather than a multi-denominational one..

Stop waiting and start acting....;)

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

It doesn't appear that way to me. It looks to me like the government is helping them pay 10% instead of 50%, to name just one example. Another is how the names of the offenders are secret.

If you really are interested in the issue, you should learn more about it. The names of the unconvicted are not named because to do so could prejudice any future criminal prosecution. If they were named and then a fair trial was prejudiced, I suspect you might be cursing them for naming the offenders.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

How many atheists have led Ireland? Indeed, how many atheists are even elected to office? One, according to Senator Ivana Bacik (her). There is a difference to electing a non-catholic and electing an atheist. More Americans would vote for a Muslim than an atheist, clearly demonstrating that it isn't really what you believe, just so long as you are not a rational secularist..

No conformed athesits have led Ireland; but even now, the number of self-declared atheists is relatively few so its hardly a surprise or an inditement. The simple fact is that Ireland has a long history of religous bias/conflict against other religons, and has little history of conflict with atheism, yet members of different religons have been elected by a largely catholic electorate. If you think that the people of Ireland have a major problem electing a self-declared atheist, but have seen fit to elect a Muslim or a Jew or a Protestant, then you are in cloud cuckoo-land.

Zillah

drkpower wrote: »

You accuse me of something. I posted your actual post showing the accusation to be incorrect. You continue to deny and then spend god/dawkins knows how long posting a little fairy story. Its farirly clear what you said. But spend half your post talking about side-issues, if you want.....!!

This is some elaborate joke you're playing on me because you knew I'd fall for it. Ho ho ho aren't you clever!

On the off hand that you're actually serious I'm going to show you exactly where you went wrong.

I SAID:

Zillah wrote:

We still have pro-religious laws in effect, coming out as an atheist is often political suicide

So I mentioned pro-religious laws and referred to political elections in reference to the overall influence religion has on society.

Then YOU SAY:

drkpower wrote:

one's religous views are close to irrelevent in politics. I couldnt tell you who is particularly devout in Irish politics. I only heard recently that Ivan Yates was protestant and he was in frontline politics for a couple of decades.

Referring to political elections.

Then I SAID:

Zillah wrote:

Seriously what alternate dimension did you fall into? Did you fail to notice the part when our constitution references God as the ultimate authority? Where judges have to take a religious oath? Where kids can be denied entry to a school for not being baptised? Where we just got a brand new BLASPHEMY law?

Referring to my original reference to pro-religious laws, which you didn't address.

To which YOU SAY:

drkpower wrote:

And the above was posted in response to my suggestion that religous belief is all but irrelevent to those who enter politics in Ireland, why...?! Come on, you can do better than that.

Again entirely ignoring the pro-religious law point, insisting that only things to do with political elections were under discussion when in fact I was referring to a far broader religious influence on society. Goalposts moved. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.


Christ you're draining. I don't have the vitriol for this any more, we need a new generation of bitter atheists.

Zillah

drkpower wrote: »

If you think that the people of Ireland have a major problem electing a self-declared atheist, but have seen fit to elect a Muslim or a Jew or a Protestant, then you are in cloud cuckoo-land.

Really? Studies haven't been done for the Irish but in the US people would vote for Muslims and Homosexuals before they vote for an atheist.

ChocolateSauce

drkpower wrote: »

Stop waiting and start acting....;)

Way ahead of you! The charter of the UCD Humanist Society (which I founded) states that one of the primary objectives of the society is to actively promote a secular Ireland and by extension a secular education system.;) Senator Ivana Bacik is going to give a lecture on the subject next year.

[/quote]If you really are interested in the issue, you should learn more about it. The names of the unconvicted are not named because to do so could prejudice any future criminal prosecution. If they were named and then a fair trial was prejudiced, I suspect you might be cursing them for naming the offenders. [/quote] Perhaps. I'm not an expert at legalease, and I respect the work that judges do and usually don't question their decisions....but I don't extend that courtesy to FF. The new criminal justice bill (not just the blasphemy part), I've heard, is not what one would call a good overhaul of the legal system. But I'll accept your reasoning for not releasing the names.

. If you think that the people of Ireland have a major problem electing a self-declared atheist, but have seen fit to elect a Muslim or a Jew or a Protestant, then you are in cloud cuckoo-land.

I know the following isn't to do with Ireland, but is is an Anglo-Saxon culture and I think it probably holds true here too to some degree:

Gallup poll on 2007-FEB-09 to 11. wrote:

They asked American adults whether they would vote for "a generally well-qualified" presidential candidate nominated by their party with each of the following characteristics: Jewish, Catholic, Mormon, an Atheist, a woman, black, Hispanic, homosexual, 72 years of age, or someone married for the third time. Only 45% would vote for an Atheist. Atheism is the only category for whom most adults would not vote.

Meaning I think it isn't so far off to say that I'm not in cuckcoo-land and that I have a legitimate concern regarding the matter. Considering I hold a US passport, I personally find even more heavy-hitting. There isn't a single TD at the moment who has said the words "I am an atheist", and as far as I know there never has been. On the other hand, there are plenty of TD's, mainly back benchers, who are fundamentalist catholics who, if the labour party is to be believed, belong to exclusive or even secret Catholic organisations which press these TD's to vote Catholic.

Considering at least 10% of the population (probably closer to 30%) is non-religious, I think we deserve more than one Trinity-college-elected Senator to be representing us. I think there are probably proportionately more atheist TDs than there are in the population; after all, the smarter and better educated you are, the more likely you are to be an atheist, and it takes a smart person with an education to get into elected office in general. This of course means they are lying, and I don't elect people to lie to me.

drkpower

Zillah wrote: »

So I mentioned pro-religious laws and referred to political elections in reference to the overall influence religion has on society.

Referring to my original reference to pro-religious laws, which you didn't address.
Again entirely ignoring the pro-religious law point, insisting that only things to do with political elections were under discussion when in fact I was referring to a far broader religious influence on society. Goalposts moved. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
.

So;
1. You raised political elections first; good, that one is out of the way because I recall you accused me of doing so.
2. I did address your original reference to pro-religous laws!!!!!(see my post below); it was about 6/7 lines further down so you must have missed it....!! ("the issues you mention above were the pro-religous lwas to which you refer)
As I am gracious indeed, I will accept your apology for misrepresenting my psoition ..... (twice):eek:And for continuing to drag the arse out of this particular side-issue....

drkpower wrote:

Any time you want to ask me a question Zillah, go right ahead, but dont tell me what I believe is ridiculous when you dont know what I believe. I find most of the issues you mention above ridiculous. Mind you, most of them are of little practical effect but that is a secondary issue. .

Zillah

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I don't elect people to lie to me.

Yeah good luck with that

Zillah

drkpower wrote: »

So;
1. You raised political elections first; good, that one is out of the way because I recall you accused me of doing so.

No, I didn't, that never even nearly happened. You must be having another very similar argument elsewhere that you are confusing with this one.

2. I did address your original reference to pro-religous laws!!!!!(see my post below); it was about 6/7 lines further down so you must have missed it....!! ("the issues you mention above were the pro-religous lwas to which you refer)

The point at which I accused you of moving the goal posts was when you criticised my pro-religious law comments as being some how irrelevant or off topic.

As I am gracious indeed, I will accept your apology for misrepresenting my psoition ..... (twice):eek:And for continuing to drag the arse out of this particular side-issue....

You're not gracious, you're annoying. At least I can be honest about my pettiness: Get a God damned spell checker for God's sake.

Now, will someone please ban us both so we'll stop this abortion? I haven't slept in 24 hours.

drkpower

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Way ahead of you! The charter of the UCD Humanist Society (which I founded) states that one of the primary objectives of the society is to actively promote a secular Ireland and by extension a secular education system.;) Senator Ivana Bacik is going to give a lecture on the subject next year.

Fair play. And believe me, I do not make these criticisms of athesim for idle divillment; I genuinely believe that atheism needs to box a little more clever than they do currently and stop the patronising/ridiculing. Have a quiet word with Sen. Bacik on the point. I can guarantee you that she feels the same

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Considering at least 10% of the population (probably closer to 30%) is non-religious, I think we deserve more than one Trinity-college-elected Senator to be representing us. I think there are probably proportionately more atheist TDs than there are in the population; after all, the smarter and better educated you are, the more likely you are to be an atheist, and it takes a smart person with an education to get into elected office in general. This of course means they are lying, and I don't elect people to lie to me.

I dont think the US is comparable in any real way to Ireland on this issue for many reasons.
You are right, there probaly are more atheist TDs than let on. There are a multitude of reasons for this. One of them is the bad reputation that atheism has generally. They are being politically expedient. You might want to ask yourself why atheism has such a bad rep considering, in its purest form, it is quite benign and non-confrontational.

drkpower

Zillah wrote: »

No, I didn't, that never even nearly happened. You must be having another very similar argument elsewhere that you are confusing with this one..

Have a read of your own post #101 and then tell me who mentioned political elections first. Even in your own summary, you admitted it!!! This is a side issue I have encouraged you to leave behind for pages now; but you persist. Give it a rest. It is entirely clear what was said.

Zillah wrote: »

The point at which I accused you of moving the goal posts was when you criticised my pro-religious law comments as being some how irrelevant or off topic...

Nope; never said they were off-topic. Said they were a secondary issue. Read it again in the morning when you are a little more awake.

Zillah wrote: »

I haven't slept in 24 hours.

Ah; that explains it. I forgive you.:D

ChocolateSauce

drkpower wrote: »

Fair play. And believe me, I do not make these criticisms of athesim for idle divillment; I genuinely believe that atheism needs to box a little more clever than they do currently and stop the patronising/ridiculing. Have a quiet word with Sen. Bacik on the point. I can guarantee you that she feels the same

Thanks, I will!

You might want to ask yourself why atheism has such a bad rep considering, in its purest form, it is quite benign and non-confrontational.

I think it isn't because of anything, whatsoever, that people like Dawkins and Hitchens have done. They've written books, insulted religion, and generally argued an academic point. Religion, on the other hand, has called for the blood of the non-believer for thousands of years, and to this day there are religious people who teach their kids to mistrust atheists, who in every day conversation talk about how immoral we are and how we are wicked for disbelieving, and even hate us for who we are and what we represent. In short, our bad rep is the fault of an intrinsic property of almost every religion, and their followers, not the militant atheist, who wants nothing more than equality, fairness, peace and respect, and has gotten tired of waiting for it.

ChocolateSauce

Zillah wrote: »

Now, will someone please ban us both so we'll stop this abortion? I haven't slept in 24 hours.

And you have to be awake for 4 more? What are you doing?

Zillah

drkpower wrote: »

Have a read of your own post #101 and then tell me who mentioned political elections first. Even in your own summary, you admitted it!!! This is a side issue I have encouraged you to leave behind for pages now; but you persist. Give it a rest. It is entirely clear what was said.

No I meant that I never accused you of being the one to bring it up. Try quote that one smart ass

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

And you have to be awake for 4 more? What are you doing?

It's...complicated.

ChocolateSauce

Zillah wrote: »

It's...complicated.

Okie dokie. More complicated than boiling water I assume.:pac:

Sam Vimes

drkpower wrote: »

You might want to ask yourself why atheism has such a bad rep considering, in its purest form, it is quite benign and non-confrontational.

I know why it has a bad rep. It's because people build their egos around their religious beliefs but they have nothing to back up their beliefs other than they want them to be true. The mere existence of atheists is a threat to these people because we don't buy any of their bullsh!t reasoning and bullsh!t reasoning is all they have. It's just easier to find some excuse to dismiss people who are able to point out all the flaws in your philosophy when you can't explain rationally why they're wrong

An example would be Dawkins who I've always found to be polite and respectful, all he's doing is giving rational arguments and he's dismissed as an offensive fundamentalist or whatever particular insult they can use to ignore him. They never say why they think he's wrong, just that he's offending them

The only way for the religious to accept atheists is for us to stop being atheists

Flamed Diving

I find Dawkins to be brash and arrogant when doing the Atheist thing, and I'm not religious. How does this fit your model?

Sam Vimes

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I find Dawkins to be brash and arrogant when doing the Atheist thing, and I'm not religious. How does this fit your model?

You see this is the thing. If it was any other topic it'd just be a debate but when talking to religious people you have to walk on egg shells. You have to explain why their beliefs are wrong without actually explaining why they're wrong because when you explain why they're wrong, they get offended. We're conditioned to think that religious beliefs should for some reason be afforded a respect that isn't given to any other ideology or opinion

He actually specifically mentions this in The God Delusion:

I am not in favour of offending or hurting anyone just for the sake of it. But I am intrigued and mystified by the disproportionate privileging of religions in our otherwise secular societies. All politicians must get used to disrespectful cartoons of their faces, and nobody riots in their defence. What is so special about religion that we grant it such uniquely privileged respect? As H.L. Mencken said: 'We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.'

It is in light of this unparalleled presumption of respect for religion that I make my own disclaimer for this book. I shall not go out of my way to offend, but nor shall I don kid gloves to handle religion any more gently that I would handle anything else.

drkpower

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I know why it has a bad rep. It's because people build their egos around their religious beliefs but they have nothing to back up their beliefs other than they want them to be true. The mere existence of atheists is a threat to these people because we don't buy any of their bullsh!t reasoning and bullsh!t reasoning is all they have. It's just easier to find some excuse to dismiss people who are able to point out all the flaws in your philosophy when you can't explain rationally why they're wrong

An example would be Dawkins who I've always found to be polite and respectful, all he's doing is giving rational arguments and he's dismissed as an offensive fundamentalist or whatever particular insult they can use to ignore him. They never say why they think he's wrong, just that he's offending them

The only way for the religious to accept atheists is for us to stop being atheists

Again, you are focussing on the religous......atheists cant take their eyes of those damn religous....!

However, even amongst agnostics and a la carte moderate religous (many of whom, in reality, are probably agnostics/atheists), there is not much support for the likes of AI.

Your last line may have some currency amongst the very small number of hardcore religous in this country but the vast vast majority of religous dont have a problem with people who do not beieve in God. What they have a problem with is "atheists"....;) The latter have a bad reputation, partly because the word has almost evil connotations from when -eople used to associate atheism with devil-worshipping (which I certainly remember from when I was about 8!), but, has also got to do with the attitude of many atheists now.

Sam Vimes

drkpower wrote: »

Again, you are focussing on the religous......atheists cant take their eyes of those damn religous....!

You are talking about the perception of atheists. It's not really possible to talk about the perception of atheists without mentioning the religious

drkpower wrote: »

However, even amongst agnostics and a la carte moderate religous (many of whom, in reality, are probably agnostics/atheists), there is not much support for the likes of AI.

Your last line may have some currency amongst the very small number of hardcore religous in this country but the vast vast majority of religous dont have a problem with people who do not beieve in God. What they have a problem with is "atheists"....;) The latter have a bad reputation, partly because the word has almost evil connotations from when -eople used to associate atheism with devil-worshipping (which I certainly remember from when I was about 8!), but, has also got to do with the attitude of many atheists now.

You're right that most normal people don't mind someone who doesn't believe in God but even moderate religious people don't like having their beliefs questioned when they can't defend them. So really it's ok to be an atheist as long as you don't tell anyone you are and you don't explain to them why you are. Several times in my life people have asked me why I'm an atheist and I've politely declined to tell them because their opinion of me tends to change. I'm questioning things that they take for granted without quite knowing why and it makes them uncomfortable.

The vast majority of the people in the country would be the type who would say "I don't go to mass, don't go to religious events, religion plays no part in my life but of course I believe in God. you have to believe in god "

drkpower

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You are talking about the perception of atheists. It's not really possible to talk about the perception of atheists without mentioning the religious "

My point is that the perception is there amongst religous and areligous. So the reason for the perception cannot be merely as a result of the inability of the religous to reason. That explanation is closing your eyes to the issue and to the faults of atheists.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The vast majority of the people in the country would be the type who would say "I don't go to mass, don't go to religious events, religion plays no part in my life but of course I believe in God. you have to believe in god "

Fair enough; so here are the options on how to deal with such individuals.

1: "OK, you believe in God, fair enough, I disagree but thats up to you; but religon plays no part in your life. So, why not join me in trying to remove the influence of religon from schools, from our laws. That way, everyone gets an equal education, and noone gets discriminated against. Sounds good, yeah...?"

or

2: "You are a fruit case who believes in silly fairytales and I am your intellectual superior"

Now, tell me, which option is more likely to get results. And, now, tell me, which option do many (not alll, mind you) atheists resort to for some unknown stoopid reason?

Dades

This thread reminds me of Peter Griffin fighting a giant chicken.

CerebralCortex

Dades wrote: »

This thread reminds me of Peter Griffin fighting a giant chicken.

Yes I agree but my money is on Sam (I realise that may sound lame but in fairness I think he is right). Atheism is what it is and that just simply bothers the hell out of so many people. If it wasn't Dawkins being the most famous strident atheist it would be someone else and he/she would get the same abuse for just simply reporting it like they see it.

Flamed Diving

Sorry, I must repeat:

I find Dawkins to be brash and arrogant when doing the Atheist thing, and I'm not religious. How does this fit your model?

Sam's response did not address this, in the slightest.