America is full of creationists - there's plenty of creationism over there, and there is a rise of creationism in Britain too for example. That's more or less why Dawkins wrote his new book I believe.
As for your point about "dogmatic atheists", some atheists are assholes but so are some theists. Atheists are just people who don't believe in God. Not all atheists go around demanding others give up their belief... in fact, even the strongest atheists I know don't do that. However militant they are, they don't shout "THERE IS NO GOD" from roof tops. Some may do, but I don't know of any!
I promote conversational intolerance as Sam Harris does. Open debate is important, rationality is important. It's important to not tolerate the intolerable, so long as you do it through non-harmful means.
As for the article, the article is extremely ignorant. Atheists vary all over as I have said, there is nothing about atheism that makes them automatically equate to the bigotry in that article. That is truly a gigantic straw man. Atheists not sharing anything at all with those who believe otherwise? How ridiculous. Atheists just don't believe in God, the rest is optional.
What is described in that article is not atheism. Atheism is merely disbelief in God, the rest is open.
Oh and btw, welcome back Pippy!
I almost forgot after that article lol.
Oh, and I agree with Secularone that I think we need more militant atheists not softy ones. I think religion should be fought against by non-violent means. Religion is a virus IMO.
Also, there's no such thing as a fundamentalist atheist. There is only one fundamental and one thing that=atheism, and that's non-belief in God. There are no fundamental beliefs to be fundamentalist about, there is merely 1 disbelief. Millitant is a different thing...and you can be a rational or irrational militant atheist, depending on your arguments. E.G: Gnostic atheists are irrational, so if they militantly claim to know God doesn't exist, that's bad because they can't know that and their arguments are bullshit. Agnostic atheists on the other hand, that disbelieve God because there's no evidence for example, but accept that God may possibly exist - but is still extremely unlikely - disbelieve for a much more rational reason.
EvF
As for your point about "dogmatic atheists", some atheists are assholes but so are some theists. Atheists are just people who don't believe in God. Not all atheists go around demanding others give up their belief... in fact, even the strongest atheists I know don't do that. However militant they are, they don't shout "THERE IS NO GOD" from roof tops. Some may do, but I don't know of any!
I promote conversational intolerance as Sam Harris does. Open debate is important, rationality is important. It's important to not tolerate the intolerable, so long as you do it through non-harmful means.
As for the article, the article is extremely ignorant. Atheists vary all over as I have said, there is nothing about atheism that makes them automatically equate to the bigotry in that article. That is truly a gigantic straw man. Atheists not sharing anything at all with those who believe otherwise? How ridiculous. Atheists just don't believe in God, the rest is optional.
What is described in that article is not atheism. Atheism is merely disbelief in God, the rest is open.
Oh and btw, welcome back Pippy!
I almost forgot after that article lol.
Oh, and I agree with Secularone that I think we need more militant atheists not softy ones. I think religion should be fought against by non-violent means. Religion is a virus IMO.
Also, there's no such thing as a fundamentalist atheist. There is only one fundamental and one thing that=atheism, and that's non-belief in God. There are no fundamental beliefs to be fundamentalist about, there is merely 1 disbelief. Millitant is a different thing...and you can be a rational or irrational militant atheist, depending on your arguments. E.G: Gnostic atheists are irrational, so if they militantly claim to know God doesn't exist, that's bad because they can't know that and their arguments are bullshit. Agnostic atheists on the other hand, that disbelieve God because there's no evidence for example, but accept that God may possibly exist - but is still extremely unlikely - disbelieve for a much more rational reason.
EvF
