(July 10, 2015 at 8:44 pm)Dystopia Wrote:So what you think only has relevance if you control peoples actions? (easy, just poking a little). For me it isn't like or not like, it is care or not care , I chose not to care. If you have a problem with the organization(s) or Dawkins or others, you and other like minded persons can take up the cause.(July 10, 2015 at 8:26 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Willing to listen to their positions. Not willing to call them leaders or necessarily agree. Same as with any other atheist.
I have the same position, but here's the thing - What you and I think is irrelevant because we can't control people's actions. Whether we like it or not, there are atheist organizations, associations and movements that bound atheists together for many causes (usually secularism and promoting atheism, coming out of the closet, and anti-theism) - Those organizations appoint leaders like any other, and are prone to dogma and groupthinking. If there's an atheist organization with a leader, that person is an atheist leader - not a leader to all atheists, but to those who support or are part of the organization. Richard Dawkins is certainly a leader to some atheists and he is full of people on twitter telling him how much he is awesome and how his books rock and are perfect.
You also realize that religionists can have the same position, right? Any Christian can say they don't believe in the Pope, or that the pope is just a guy with some opinion, there isn't a legal or political obligation to obey the Pope.
If people want to stop hearing about atheist leaders (Some are self-appointed), atheist events, atheist conventions, etc, they can stop supporting those groups trough words or merely quoting famous atheists all the time. Seriously, there are arguments debunking theism since Epicurus, Dawkins and his legion of followers are not a special case.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental.