Yeah, in the same way good health is merely a particularly comfortable illness.
Dawkins makes it clear in his book that while there cannot be certainty when it comes to God’s existence/non-existence, you can still consider evidence to establish the *most likely * state of affairs.
I haven’t received the book yet, but I am obligated to read it. My fundie cousin read The God Delusion at my urging and feels the McGrath book is the refutation.
I’m urging my cousin to join SDMB so he can participate in these discussions. No matter what his viewpoint, I’m sure he would be an asset here since he has a strong scientific background.
Atheist Fundamentalism? What a laughable attempt to control the terms of the debate to tar your your opponent. What would a “fundamentalist” atheist believe, that everything that’s not written down was actually, literally not written down by a nonexistent God? Are they taking back atheism from progressive atheists?
Sailboat
First of all, anyone who refers to “Atheist fundamentalism” loses quite a bit of credibility with me. The phrase demonstrates such a monumental lack of understanding of Christianity and atheism (or such a cynical appeal to emotion) that it puts me right off. (And yes, that includes atheists and agnostics who use the term.)
Now, I haven’t read the book, and Dio’s description makes it sound a bit more substantial than I thought (though clearly it rests on moving the goalposts, which gets old fast). However, I have heard the book discussed on Krazy Kristian radio, and those discussions invariably reveal that the hosts haven’t read Dawkins (and perhaps not McGrath either!). They’ll start in with standard apologetics like the cosmological argument, or moral apologetics, which Dawkins addresses extensively. Yet they don’t argue against his arguments - they’re just spouting the same old apologetics. Nothing to persuade any thinking person, so much as assuage any doubts among the faithful, who might be a bit worried about all the attention the “new atheists” are receiving and thinking they might be on to something.
I’d be interested to read it - I just don’t want to buy it or get on any mailing lists in order to do so.
I’ll send you my copy after I’m through with it. That way, the authors don’t get richer and encouraged to write another. 
A Fundamentalist Atheist eats only bacon on Friday, a Reformed Atheist is just in it for the children.
I wasn’t particularly impressed with McGrath’s prior book ‘the twilight of atheism’, and nor was I impressed with Dawkin’s musings on religion (his biology musings are much better).
I’ve read portions of McGrath’s book (via theists who quote them) and I’m not sure it’s going to be worth my time - primarily because I didn’t find Dawkin’s book impressive, so I don’t think a refutation of it would stir my chicken.
I’m always amazed that there are athiestic groups though.
If you don’t believe in god, why would you bother with “church”, the worst part of religion?
Do you consider all support groups to be “churches”?
I’m not talking about support groups. I’m talking about atheist groups. And I call it church because it’s a place you have to go for an hour a week to talk about your “beliefs.”
I believe in god, but church is the tool of the devil.
First and foremost, you don’t “have to go.” That right there makes it a LOT different from many religious gatherings.
Mostly, judging from the online atheist groups I’ve seen, people go to hang out and get:
- Help with practical issues of being an atheist in a predominantly Christian culture - dealing with mixed marriages, how to approach school issues, how to approach it with your kids, etc.
- Emotional support from like-minded people.
- The ability to talk about anything without having to internally censor when topics touch on religion.
The same ends (practical help, emotional support, no censoring of views) are served by group meetings of all kinds, from La Leche League to Alanon. They aren’t therefore churches!
Funny, I don’t remember anyone pointing a gun to my head to go to church either. Must be how I’m religious and don’t go to church.
I’m mostly pulling my opinions from A.J. Jacobs’ attendance of an atheist meeting in “The Year of Living Bibically” and whether the sermon is about belief in god or lack of belief, there was still a sermon.
I guess calling it “church” made the joke fly over people’s heads. But the point is that having an organized meeting over what is always professed as a “lack of belief” is just about one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard.
They’re basically support groups, not church services. There aren’t any sermons. Do you think that any kind of public meeting is automatically religious? Is any non-religious meeting “stupid?” People meet over shared interest and concerns all the time. So what?
Support groups for what? The big bad theists keeping the man upstairs?
Jesus Christ, I think religious church meetings are stupid too, that’s why I don’t go to them. And if the meeting is based around a belief (even a lack of belief), then yeah, it’s religion. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a… you get the picture.
And while they all might not have sermons, there most certainly was a sermon in the meeting discussed in “The Year of Living Bibically.”
Maybe it’s different for those of you whose religion doesn’t involve a guy in Italy with a big hat, but I seem to remember something about the fires of Hell awaiting those who don’t obey the third commandment (or fourth, for those without the hat guy).
I’ve never been to one but my understanding is that they often involve how to deal with interpersonal and family issues that arise from the issue. People often have trouble coming out to spouses or other family members about it and can also face difficulties professionally. You can sneer if you want to but you don’t really know what you’re talking about, do you?
This is complete baloney. Is a political rally automatically religious. A smoke-out for NORML? The kind of atheist meetings you’re talking about (which most atheists never attend, incidentally) are not about any kind of ritual or practice or evangelism, just a way for atheists to talk to other atheists and help each other deal with issues that can arise from it.
Because some writer in some book you read characterized a speech as a “sermon,” you now think you have all the ammunition you need to make a sweeping pronouncement that atheist meetings are all quasi-religious services? Sorry, but that’s not just so. Atheism is not a religion and that dog is never going to hunt no matter how many times religionsts try to kick it in the ass.
“It is all too easy to confuse fundamentalism with passion. I may well appear passionate when I defend evolution against a fundamentalist creationist, but this is not because of a rival fundamentalism of my own. It is because the evidence for evolution is overwhelmingly strong and I am passionately distressed that my opponent can’t see it - or, more usually, refuses to look at it because it contradicts his holy book.”
The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins p. 320
The phrase “atheist fundamentalism” doesn’t even make sarcastic sense since religious fundamentalism, by definition, is strict, literal adherence to a wriiten book or doctrine. Atheism has no written (or unwritten) doctrine or scripture so “atheist fundamentalism” is logically impossible. There is nothing to adhere to.
I dunno. A Doctrine doesn’t have to be teachings or life lessons it can simply be a body of axioms.
-
All Atheists believe humans have no souls and when they die they are gone.
-
All Atheists believe life on Earth evolved or was created through a process not yet known.
-
All Atheists believe in reason/proof over conventional wisdom.
-
All Atheists believe all the faithful are fools.
These are all things you can impart on a young child and it is ideological dogma, the actual truth (or lack of it) of the learned axioms isn’t relevant.