I've read the main article in an edition of Wired Magazine about the new 'evangelical atheism'. The "Brights movement" it is called. Richard Dawkins is at the forefront.

To be quite frank, they make me uneasy. Taking a more aggressive approach to debating religion I think just makes the situation worse. If anything, people will come off with a worse view on atheists and reinforce their religious beliefs and put more trust into what ever their institutional dogma may be, instead of questioning the logical premise of their faith.

Obviously, a lot of people will be immediately turned off by his book just by looking at the title, "The God Delusion". Right away it implies that religious people are living under a delusion. That's not really a great way to start off a persuasive essay, even if he may think it to be true.

I'll concede the point that he did say that agnostics and faith-questioning Christians (mostly liberal Catholics) are the intended targets of the "Brights movement". But the point still stands...I think the aggressive approach will still turn away even the most questioning religious people.

That aside, from an atheist standpoint, I obviously like Richard Dawkins. I think he has great ideas. Although I might not agree how he delivers his message, I still think he's a great person for already-atheists to read. I haven't read this book yet, but I do intend to.

It is true that the only way of knowing for CERTAIN that there is no God is to be omniscient. But Richard Dawkings did not claim to know for certain. He said that there is "almost certainly" no God. To say that requires nothing more than a human mind.

To use a simple example, you'd have to be omniscient to know that dragons do not exist. However, using simple reasoning, we can show that it is almost certain that dragons don't exist. Almost certain is as close as it gets when trying to prove nonexistence, and it should be plenty close for most people.

Well put.

Very well put Jaxian.

On point to the first post, I would like to point out this two-part show Richard Dawkins did on BBC:

Richard Dawkins - Root of All Evil Part 1: The God Delusion

Richard Dawkins - Root of All Evil Part 2: Virus of Faith

I think he hits many of the same points as he does in his book in this documentary. Plus I liked watching the documentary because he goes and interviews some of the most radically religious people (radical Muslims and radical Jews in Jerusalem, member of Army of God, etc.). Plus it's definitely worth the time in watching that to see Richard Dawkins debate face to face with Ted Haggard!

great movies. watched them both.

I just read "Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris, and it was actually quite enlightening. I'm not an atheist yet, but it certainly answered more than a few of my questions about it.

I don't like the idea of evangelical atheism, because it seems just as bad as any other form of evangelism, but it's good to have at least a reaction to all of the negativity atheists and agnostics get these days. I'm a firm believer in keeping up a good defense, but only going on the offense when you need to.

The book is small, too, so all those Brights Movement people can use it as their pocket companion in making conversions.

Where do theists come up with this notion that one has to "know everything" to know that there's no god?

Do believers know everything in order to make their god claims? Is one required to "know everything" in order to claim that leprechauns are imaginary?

Yes, you have a point, Ruffian. I would like to ask you though, do you also believe that no matter how much we know or do not know, and no matter our belief in God or disbelief in god, do we all in some way to reach our conclusions take a bit of a leap or even just a hop of faith?

OD

Welcome to the Church of Reality. Welcome to the Real World. That's our church greeting. Thank you for visiting our web site. If you are frustrated with the current state of the religious world and you are looking for some sanity, you came to the right place. The Church of Reality is a positive force for change and you can be part of it. You can help make it happen. There is a lot of material here. We hope you will invest the time to read it.

The Church of Reality is a religion based on the practice of Realism, believing in everything that is real. Our motto is, "If it's real, we believe in it." Since no one knows all of reality, the Church of Reality is really a religious commitment to the pursuit of reality the way it really is. We think about thinking. We wonder about wondering. We try to understand the understanding of understanding. We are Explorers not followers. The phrase "What is Real?" is our Sacred Question and the word "Reality" is our Sacred Message. We talk about reality, think about reality, and make reality more important in society.

The Church of Reality is a new breed of religion that is based in reality rather than mythology. We answer the great questions that other religions address like what is right and wrong, how do people live in community, and what are our responsibilities, and we do so in the context of our evolutionary history, our present reality, and what we as human want to evolve into as we take control of our evolution. We are a religion that is focused on the future which we call the Sacred Direction.


Church of Reality