And before you start the obvious argument about the atheism of the Nazis or communists, Dawkins and Harris have offered pretty convincing arguments that such movements have much in common with religion, including dogma and the persecution of “heresy.”

This is about the stupidest atheist argument ever. Hey, these guys were militant atheists, but they were LIKE religious believers, therefore religion is bad! That makes…zero sense.

So. Given that we probably won’t ever get rid of religion, does it make sense to try, or is it rather a better idea to try and rein in its most dangerous forms? In practical terms I’d have to say the latter. On the other hand, maybe the appropriate tactic for doing so is to argue that all religion is silly bullshit, providing a more radical voice that makes the voice of the religious moderates seem more reasonable.

The simple fact is “There are no Gods”. I will say it again so that it will be perfectly clear to all you nice Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Hebrews, and all the other nice believers of fairy tales and superstition.
“There are no Gods!”
Now that we have gotten that out of the way maybe we can now start repairing all the damage done by all those nice people.

Look, you are not going to convince these religious types to give up their fairy tales. Personally I believe they are insane. But in this potentially Great country it is an acceptable form of insanity and rightfully so.
The problem lies in religions inherent divisiveness and intolerance. The “if you are not with us, you are against us” attitude or “ the tool of Satan”, “Evil empire”, “heretic” etc. They are all part of a dangerous stew that has been brewing and the government seems to be encouraging, sponsoring, and courting it. Faith-based anyone?
There is a, just as dangerous, flip side of this intolerance. A carte blanche tolerance for those within the collective of the ‘fable-ists’.
Protect a ladies honor and lie about an affair with her and you get impeached.
Con us into a war on the wings of lies with countless dead and butchered and you get re-elected so you can butcher some more.
But it is okay because you to talk to Jesus every night and and you say “God called me to run for the Presidency”. So lets send some more of our children to Iraq for the holy, righteous and nice, but never mean crusade.

Look I have better things to do, but can you see the danger? We do not have leaders anymore but politicians. Politicians who think nothing of pandering to the most gullible of us all.
Where the critique for serving in public office is not your skills of leadership, but rather, if you talk to Jesus.
Furthermore voting on the basis of a religious critique rather than on a candidates’ skills needed to run a country is exactly what got us into the mess we are in now.
But hell I am just that mean trouble-making Atheist out here in the Bible belt.
Maybe if I go out and have a talk with Jesus tonight then I will get with that nice ‘Purpose-Driven life’ program.
The nice ‘Purpose-Driven life’ program of lies, deceit, collateral damage, sex is evil, no condoms to Africa (let’em all die of Aids), punish children who refuse to pray in our Public schools, teach Moses as the giver of truth in our public schools but not Darwin, run all non-believers out of town or make them pay, Jesus is a white boy, two men who love each other is wrong and they should be stoned to death, but a husband and wife beating the crap out each other and their kids, that’s okay, this is a white Christian nation, those Indians were just squatters, highway 61, if you are not with us you are against us, … “fool me once, fool me twice, won’t get fooled again”.
I could go on and on…
BUT
Must we always be fooled again and again and again?
Must we always buy into the “Purpose Driven” delusional, insane nightmare?
There can be no good growth from a seed based on untruth.
So don’t debate. Say it loud and clear.

“THERE ARE NO GODS !!!”

And to my nice ‘Fable-ists’,
Wake up, smell the coffee and get on with living life and not a silly dream.
And then maybe, just maybe, we can leave our children a planet of enlightenment and not another coming dark age.
And if you see God, you bring him by, for he is in dire need of therapy.

The “Mean” to do well Atheist
Chester Smalkowski

And I think many of these aggressive atheists confuse freedom of speech with freedom from criticism. If you’re acting like a jerk, someone’s going to call you a jerk. If Dawkins et al. want to make inflammatory and (from what I’ve seen so far) under-supported accusations, then he can expect an equally vigorous response.

And before you start the obvious argument about the atheism of the Nazis or communists, Dawkins and Harris have offered pretty convincing arguments that such movements have much in common with religion, including dogma and the persecution of “heresy.”

Wouldn’t that suggest to you that it’s not religious belief that’s the significant problem but some other aspect of organized human behavior, like authoritarianism and intolerance for differing viewpoints?

And perhaps the only thing that separates Hedges from Dawkins, Harris and others is that he acknowledges of “all that is good and compassionate” in Christianity, whereas Dawkins and Harris don’t. And should they have to? Is it necessary for them to to genuflect in the general direction of faith? If they don’t, does that render everything else they say invalid?

“Genuflect” isn’t the right term, but of course they should acknowledge the positive actions of religion. First of all, because it’s not wise to antagonize people needlessly, especially when they share a lot of your same concerns about fundamentalism. And secondly because the (often gross) imprecision of speech atheists accept weaken their claims to a rational argument. When someone says “religion is responsible for most of the misery in the world,” it sounds a little like saying “microbes are responsible for most of the disease in the world.” It’s oversimplification to the point of distortion.

I understand not wanting to hurt people’s feelings, and I understand being nervous to reveal something so personal (never mind that OTHER personal things get bandied about on blogs all the time), but I was still kind of disappointed. Oh well, I guess at least no one can accuse us of being lemmings.

Well-written, balanced post. Thanks. I agree that the attack on “freedom from faith” is much more “galling” than Dawkins et al. could ever be, and much more of a threat in the US and worldwide. The “threat” of Dawkins/Harris (esp. Harris) is more to the progressive and anti-clerical movements, although that’s a topic for another day.

I think Dawkins and Harris engage in a lot of fallacious reasoning, though, and that it shouldn’t be off-limits to call them on it. The vehemence of the responses against me – most of which either ignored or grossly mischararacterized my position – demonstrates the extent to which the attack on “freedom from faith” has polarized debate. I think Dawkins/Harris have then exploited & exacerbated that polarization, but their effect is minimal compare to that of the religious dominionists’.

Still, they’d rather fall back on weak arguments and ignore historical and social data to make their point. Take their counter-argument, which you cite, when people point out that the evils they attribute to religion didn’t diminish under non-believing regimes: they say Communism is a “dogma” that persecutes “heresy.”

That’s a cheap way out, onre that actually cuts against them. Punishing heretics is a characteristic of fundamentalism, not all religion — so why not attack the problem as I and other define it: fundamentalism? Because that undercuts their argument. In my opinion, they’re trying to have it both ways.

As I say, thanks for a balanced look at the issue.

But when you made that comment about three faiths fighting over the same rock, my brain started saying “Wow. It’s a big rock. I can’t wait to tell my friends. They don’t have a rock this big.”