[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Fair enough.

[Rama Set]

At a certain point in your life, generally in adulthood you have the freedom to examine your beliefs and decide if they hold true with you; hence this site. Once you become aware of all the other competing religions, followers of one over the other choose to believe they are right and others are wrong.

[Ghost Spaghetti]

[Tintagel]

At a certain point in your life, generally in adulthood you have the freedom to examine your beliefs and decide if they hold true with you; hence this site. Once you become aware of all the other competing religions, followers of one over the other choose to believe they are right and others are wrong.

The first part is absolutely correct.  Emphasis mine.

I'm not certain that all religions believe that the others are wrong, as I know several religious people who are of the "many facets, same jewel" school of thought when it comes to alternative belief systems.  It seems to me if one is going to be religious, spiritual, or otherwise hold a belief in a deity of some sort, this is the healthiest way to do it. 

[Ghost Spaghetti]

Only assuming that you have no interest in what reality is. If a god/goddess/gods exist then I want to know who they are, what powers they have over me and what they demand in terms of worship. A wooly 'What if we're all right' theology might be nice for feeling good about yourself but it doesn't help tell us what the divine looks like.

[Tintagel]

Only assuming that you have no interest in what reality is. If a god/goddess/gods exist then I want to know who they are, what powers they have over me and what they demand in terms of worship. A wooly 'What if we're all right' theology might be nice for feeling good about yourself but it doesn't help tell us what the divine looks like.

On the contrary, I am keenly interested in what reality is.  That's why I'm here.  I suppose the wooly version sits better with me because I'm of the opinion that the divine is imaginary. Still, if some people want to make themselves feel good by having a theology that allows everybody to be happy and right, well... at least they're happy and getting along.

[fappenhosen]

So right about the existence of God or not they must be doing something right that you aren't.

Living longer != doing something right.

Disagree? Walk into an old folks home with an industrial canister of helium connected to a respirator. Watch the queue form.

[Saddam Hussein]

It's interesting how multiple people in this thread brought up Dawkins for the sole purpose of attacking him.  Nobody was bothering to defend him, he wasn't the subject under discussion, and yet they all felt the need to announce that they dislike him.  It kind of reminds me of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.  Just make an incredibly uncharismatic and unlikable person the "face" of a movement or organization, and watch as everyone's opinion of the movement or organization goes down dramatically.  1984 had it right all along.  It's so much easier to hate a person than an abstraction.

[beardo]

I have nothing against Dawkins or the late Hitchens.

[Vindictus]

I have nothing against Dawkins or the late Hitchens.

I like Dawkins. I think he's well spoken and intelligent in debates. I think a lot of people hate him unseasonably. He certainly doesn't come across as arrogant to me.

[Saddam Hussein]

However, he is distinctly uncharismatic, which makes him a bad person.

[fappenhosen]

However, he is distinctly uncharismatic, which makes him a bad person.

I don't think it would help if he was charismatic. What he does is use reason. Religious people get angry when other people use reason. If using reason was important it would be one of the ten commandments.

[Rama Set]

Sam Harris and Hitchens are more liked because they are more affable. People were roaring with laughter as Harris publicly embarrassed Deepak Chopra. If you can make them laugh they might forget you offend them.

[Blanko]

The way I see it, anybody who seriously listens to or cares about Dawkins turns into an /r/atheism user (or one of those "new atheists" that Roundy and Thork are talking about), and the people who hate him end up having a horribly twisted image of atheism in general. I don't really have anything against the guy, but I can't help but think that he's a horrible influence.

In the end though, if Dawkins didn't exist, there would be someone else people would think of as a spokesperson of the "movement". He's a product of religious controversy in America, and purely exists to fuel that controversy. There's a reason there isn't a Dawkins or a need for one in secular countries.

[rooster]

Honestly, I don't even get into these guys at all. I'm just a blaise atheist. Religion or non-religion is just not apart of my life in any sense.

[Rama Set]

I don't agree with your first comment Blanko. Dawkins makes really good points about people's irrational attachment to their religious belief. I do not find rationalism to be as crucial as Dawkins does, but I do respect his point of view. This does not make me a "new atheist"; I cannot recall ever lecturing a religious person on the absurdity of their belief. This includes my neighbor who prays to God for more money.

[Rama Set]

Honestly, I don't even get into these guys at all. I'm just a blaise atheist. Religion or non-religion is just not apart of my life in any sense.

Sam Harris is pretty funny and smart. He makes some hilarious comparisons between religious belief and believing in Elvis still being alive. Hitchens is possibly the most eloquent dude ever.

[fappenhosen]

was. He's with the angels now.

[Vindictus]

The way I see it, anybody who seriously listens to or cares about Dawkins turns into an /r/atheism user (or one of those "new atheists" that Roundy and Thork are talking about), and the people who hate him end up having a horribly twisted image of atheism in general. I don't really have anything against the guy, but I can't help but think that he's a horrible influence.

In the end though, if Dawkins didn't exist, there would be someone else people would think of as a spokesperson of the "movement". He's a product of religious controversy in America, and purely exists to fuel that controversy. There's a reason there isn't a Dawkins or a need for one in secular countries.

Well Blanko, you're wrong, because I hate /r/atheism and I like but don't follow Dawkins. The last time I heard of him was when I saw his new documentary last year.

Also I'm not from America, so I have no investment in whatever goes on over there.

[Snupes]

Seriously, I really don't get the "well if you like dawkins you're a nazi atheist 9/11" arguments. Apparently it's not possible to like a guy's reasoning and be interested in his logic without being a militant atheist? That makes no sense whatsoever.