Dawkins is just as extreme as any militant Christian; he can call it what he likes, but that doesn't change the reality of things.

"Militant atheists: too clever for their own good"

"Holy visions elude scientists"

"Science versus Religion"

Excuse me, militant Christians bomb abortion clinics and lynch gay people. If you're going to criticize Richard Dawkins for being rude to religious people, please reign in your own language first.

Ideologically speaking, they're equally extremist.

Aren't you painting with a broad brush here? Do you not see a problem with that?

Actually, I find proselytization, of any type, rather boring.

@ButteBlues You do have a point, although i think the first article greatly exaggerates Dawkins superiority complex. (the entire article seems to be designed for that purpose.) i think his point in saying that, is simply that atheists are often smarter. Who would you rather have fix your car, a scientist or a prisoner? -like that but then your beliefs.
I do not see how the second article can be seen as atheist militancy. Of course he is interested in what the brain does when being religious.
I think that much of the atheist militancy is not a bad thing, as long as it is reasonable. I consider atheist militancy even nessesary if you would not be able to say things like in the <a href="www.blasphemychallenge.com">blasphemy challenge</a>. (havent done it yet) And it would be silly to not try stop ideas about things that simply defy any logic -in reality. For instance some forms of believing in Intelligent Design voilate the idea that the universe behaves the same way with the same circumstances. (which is certainly a assumption we use since birth)

One side is willing to kill, the other is a bit rude and inconsiderate. Do you equate people who annoy you to murderers often?

I'm the one painting with a broad brush? A fiery but talented scientist and author just got lumped in with the most despicable elements of the far-right, and I'm painting with a broad brush?

Incidentally, I can see exactly why Richard Dawkins is always on the offensive. Atheists can be compared to some of the worst people in society, and rather than getting support while saying the two can't really be compared, I get attacked too! It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you...

There are large organizations, however ridiculous, that support and condone that sort of behavior.

There's random handfuls of so-called "militant atheists".

Which do you think is prone to mob mentality?

you're being vague. could you elaborate ?

Considering that the extremist Christian groups are much larger than the extremist atheist groups (as a pure result of logic due to their portion of the worldwide religious demographic), they're prone to suffer from the wonders of mob mentality, which, as common sense says, infinitely increases the chances that they'll do something stupid like bomb an abortion clinic.

Oh boy, I made many threads on this at another forum with some intelligent posters and it was a nice discussion, so I'll just sum up my stance that they're the same poop, different butthole. For Dawkins and crew to assume such an almost complete understanding of life, the universe, etc. is no different than geniuses like Falwell or the pope dictating "God's word."

Our knowledge and understanding of life and such thus far is breathtaking, but it's like the Charles Duell quote from 1899 that everything that can be invented has been invented. I am a strong subscriber to science and to spirituality, and life and the universe's mysteries are so, so very much more beautiful and awe-inspiring than anything either extreme end offers as sustenance for our need to understand.

I agree completely.

i would really like to know where dawkins "assume such an almost complete understanding ...". from what i've read from him, he acknowledges that we still know very little.

there is a very small part of nature we undertsand and a very large part of nature we don't understand yet. there isn't any reason to fill every little gap in our understanding of nature with supernatural fantasies.

The problem with calling them fantasies is that you can't dis-prove them (nor prove them) to begin with.

that would be the same as all fantasies then, as there is nothing there to disprove....

until you bring at least some shred of proof, they will remain fantasies to everyone but those who have already decided to believe what they want to believe no matter how unfounded it may be. it's not arguing that you do, it's comforting your own fantasies.

besides it's funny how you shield yourself from being wrong by putting your god on a supernatural plane out of reach of human reasoning every time the grilling get a bit too tough. although i could bet that the day there is evidence that there is indeed a god that could grant you serenity, courage and wisdom, you'd be the first to spam the boards with "see, i told you so..."

why can't you leave the gaps empty until you really know what's in them.
you may be missing on a few fantasies that could be proven right in the future but you're certain to avoid a lot of delusions.

Logically speaking, the disbelief is just as unfounded as the belief itself.

That's the funny thing about a lot of atheists: they try to take the high road saying that science or whatnot is on their side, but at the end of the day, they're no closer to dis-proving God than I am to proving Him.

Furthermore, God has always been defined as a supernatural being. So, my stance is neither new nor illogical - in fact, quite the opposite. Determining that one can't define a supernatural being by natural standards is as logical as you can get.

But, hey, I'm glad that you're more than happy trying to troll anyone who has the slightest belief in anything that differs from your own perspective.

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was evolutionis too.Evolution starts with first impact given by God and goes to the Omega point.You can say that is unfair to start with unpoven thesas and after that build theory.Why we accept darwinistic theory when we all know there is so called missing link necessary to hole theory.

when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest hypothetical entities.
...and that's being generous.
Disbelief is not as unfounded as belief. When will you accept that it is not up to atheists to disprove the existence of some putative metaphysical entity, which is totally unnecessary to explain the universe, and the restaurant at the end of it?