Does Richard Dawkins represent the majority of atheists?

[Chuck Jones]

So the "movement" (or whatever you want to call it) is all about standing up against some perceived inequality? Like many movements (don't ask me for examples as I have none whatsoever) it's all too easy to get carried away and make out tht there's a bigger problem than there is. Instead of having the mindset of "we're more oppressed than you" it should be a case of "this is what I think, that's what you think, live and let live". No "movement" can last long if it is based on some kind of hierarchy of oppression. People who buy into all that very often fail to ealise that they are on one extreme side of a spectrum, while their "opponents" are on the other. They're opposames.

[amused]

I think it's more about being part of an ongoing wave of the enlightenment and moving further into a reason-based worldview and out of a mystical worldview. To me it's also about empowering people to demand more out of life in the here and now. Demand more from our governments, more from economic powers, more from each other. Rose tinted views that promise rewards in an afterlife work against social justice on all levels.

[Chuck Jones]

I think it's more about being part of an ongoing wave of the enlightenment and moving further into a reason-based worldview and out of a mystical worldview. To me it's also about empowering people to demand more out of life in the here and now. Demand more from our governments, more from economic powers, more from each other. Rose tinted views that promise rewards in an afterlife work against social justice on all levels.

Ok but there's 2 things about that.

1 If some people want to live like that, they can.

2 There are many ways to believe in life after "death" Some people's beliefs (aided by their own personalities, don't forget) may lead them to actin ways that aren't good. Whereas others' (like me) don't. I believe thatafter this life comes another, and another, etc etc. For me, it's stupid to do bad things just because I get another chance. Just because some people think that way, it doesn't mean that all life-after-"death" believers do.

Believe it or not, I support the idea of rational thinking. But my conclusions about stuff are very different to yours.

[amused]

If there is another life after this one, then that too is a matter of scientific inquiry and verification. Whether or not there is a god is also a matter of scientific inquiry. We have much to learn about ourselves and this universe we inhabit, and only science can provide verifiable answers. All of the old time religions were best guesses by the people who invented them long ago. Their truth claims about reality have been thoroughly discredited so far, so I think it's better to move on without them.

[JimC]

Some people get really snooty about him. I'm not sure which forum it was on, possibly RDF or RatSkep, when some saddo insisted that I call him Professor Dawkins. Was it you, Gawdzilla?

Chuck, it's a pity to bring other petty feuds into what is an interesting thread...

It woulld be officious indeed to demand that you call RD "Professor"

As for RD himself, it is much as XC says. He may represent a particular strand of atheism to the media and the world at large, but atheists in general are not a monolithic bloc in anything other than a realisation that there simply is no need for a god to explain anything...

I have read all his books on evolution, and admire him greatly as a science writer... I have also read The God Delusion, and found much to like, although I disagreed with some aspects, and find his attitude to non-fundamentalist religious people (as opposed to religions) somewhat patronising and abrasive at times.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I think it's more about being part of an ongoing wave of the enlightenment and moving further into a reason-based worldview and out of a mystical worldview. To me it's also about empowering people to demand more out of life in the here and now. Demand more from our governments, more from economic powers, more from each other. Rose tinted views that promise rewards in an afterlife work against social justice on all levels.

Ok but there's 2 things about that.

1 If some people want to live like that, they can.

But here's the rub. For many religious people, living like that is not enough. They want everyone to live like that - cos it says so in their book.

At its mildest, this presents itself as street preachers, door-knockers, protests against teddy bears named mohammed and the like. A little further down the line and we have compulsory religious education in schools, blasphemy laws, legislation based on 1000s of year old doctrine. Go further still and you have the Spanish inquisition or the Taleban.

Religiots believe that their way is the best and only way that things should be done because the book says so! The real ranting fuckwads don't stop when given an inch and the sheeple tend to go along with them.

There's nothing at all wrong with being a dissenting voice to all that bullshit.

[JimC]

I think it's more about being part of an ongoing wave of the enlightenment and moving further into a reason-based worldview and out of a mystical worldview. To me it's also about empowering people to demand more out of life in the here and now. Demand more from our governments, more from economic powers, more from each other. Rose tinted views that promise rewards in an afterlife work against social justice on all levels.

Ok but there's 2 things about that.

1 If some people want to live like that, they can.

But here's the rub. For many religious people, living like that is not enough. They want everyone to live like that - cos it says so in their book.

At its mildest, this presents itself as street preachers, door-knockers, protests against teddy bears named mohammed and the like. A little further down the line and we have compulsory religious education in schools, blasphemy laws, legislation based on 1000s of year old doctrine. Go further still and you have the Spanish inquisition or the Taleban.

Religiots believe that their way is the best and only way that things should be done because the book says so! The real ranting fuckwads don't stop when given an inch and the sheeple tend to go along with them.

There's nothing at all wrong with being a dissenting voice to all that bullshit.

If religions were totally free of prosletysing and trolling for converts, and also did not brainwash their children, we could live and let live...

EDIT - well yes, we would still take the piss out of them, but with more an air of amused tolerance than angry atheism...

[Tero]

The God delusion attemts to explain why people are religious. As religion and dogma are pretty rediculous by now, the subject is difficult to discuss without making fun.

[DaveDodo007]

Richard Dawkins is probably the best figurehead of the 'atheist movement' posh, educated and a good grounding in science (anyone claiming he is rude, strident etc just doesn't like what he is saying.) His books are the best at selling evolution to the layperson, which is good but you wouldn't pass a GCSE grade in biology if that was your only reading material. It doesn't even scratch the surface of biological evolution. Even with the god delusion anyone with critical thinking abilities would have discovered these arguments for themselves which is not surprising as most of the book is just a rehash of atheist thinking throughout the ages anyway.

Most atheist thinking in the UK at least is from a working class prospective. “Religion causes all wars (debatable.) Religion is used to control people (true.) It was only when I started moving in middle class circles that I met the religious again and most of that was 'were spiritual' (puke) though followers of the main stream religions seem to be middle or upper class, it's like they think they need to thank god for not being working class (cunts.)

I have no time for posh people it bring out the genocidal communist in me. Fuck Harry Potter, and anything written by C S Lewis and all the other cunts. My twat of a conscience wont let me even eat meat but in my darkest fantasies posh people are next in line after we have put all the religious people up against the wall:-)

[Blondie]

Richard... Who?

Never heard of him, and atheist aren't a group so they don't have a fucking figurehead.

Is Howie Mandell the best figurehead of bald men?

Stupid fucking questions, both.

[Tero]

Im on ipod so cant link, but Google Joseph McCabe and see very similar thinking 1930 to 1950, also marketed as education for the masses, the Blue Booklets. A former monk, he was quite militant.

[M]

So the "movement" (or whatever you want to call it) is all about standing up against some perceived inequality? Like many movements (don't ask me for examples as I have none whatsoever) it's all too easy to get carried away and make out tht there's a bigger problem than there is. Instead of having the mindset of "we're more oppressed than you" it should be a case of "this is what I think, that's what you think, live and let live". No "movement" can last long if it is based on some kind of hierarchy of oppression. People who buy into all that very often fail to ealise that they are on one extreme side of a spectrum, while their "opponents" are on the other. They're opposames.

What do you mean by "movement"? (Really, not being facetious.) Do you mean members or ex-members of the Richard Dawkins Foundation, members of this forum, atheists in general...? I fall into all those categories but I'm not 'standing up against' anything or anyone. Live and let live is absolutely the way I go about life. Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

[Chuck Jones]

Take it however you want, MCJ. I consider it a movement.

[M]

Take it however you want, MCJ. I consider it a movement.

But what is "IT"??? I'm not being a twat, I just don't know what you mean!!

[Chuck Jones]

Other people are using the same word. Why don't you ask them?