Great Schism Hits British Atheism Over New Temple

[Des Quirell]

Atheism isn't a religion.
Atheists are not unified by a set of beliefs. In fact, the whole idea of being unified by a set of beliefs would horrify most atheists.
Neither Dawkins nor De Botton represents me as an atheist. In fact, nobody represents me as an atheist.
Daft thread, all told.

Exactly. The likelihood of the pair of us agreeing on many issues (including on our shared atheism) is small.

The problem that Dawkins has created was evident at his web forum, where lots of his followers huddled together and found common positions for many issues. It was sad to see people asking what the atheist position on issue x was. They were basically asking what they should think.

One great thread involved somebody saying that they secretly liked some religious music. After some to-and-froing someone pointed out that Dawkins (PBUH) had indicted that he appreciated some religious trappings such as the architecture etc. Phew. That was ok, then. The Oracle has spoken and all was well.

[TommyO'Brien]

Dawkins is an arrogant bully and no different in his hectoring and bullying to religious fundamentalists. Both have a tone of 'I'm right. Everyone who disagrees with me is damned' whether it is damned to hell or damned to be a weakminded fool.

[statsman]

The thread title is rubbish. There is no religion, there can be no schism. Disagreement would be more appropriate.

Disagreement between two individual atheists, not within a fictious entity called 'Atheism'.

[LamportsEdge]

Actually it is a little more interesting than that. Knowing that atheism is the single fastest growing sector of categorisation of such matters in Ireland and the United States (free at last, free at last, no god almighty, we may be free at last) it reveals that the fear of the theists is not so much atheism but what they see as a 'rival' religion. They cannot conceive or understand a lack of belief so are determined to paint atheism as a rival church.

It speaks more of an inability to comprehend atheism than anything else.

[stopdoingstuff]

Relax, Atheists. If you cannot laugh at yourselves and take youselves that seriously, then you may as well be a religion. The substantive question is whether you side more with DeBotton or Dawkins.

[White Horse]

The thread title is rubbish. There is no religion, there can be no schism. Disagreement would be more appropriate.

Modern atheism (includes that the masks itstaft as secularism) shares all the characteristics of religion.

It is a belief system and quite an intolerant one at that.

[Con Gallagher]

Dawkins is an arrogant bully and no different in his hectoring and bullying to religious fundamentalists. Both have a tone of 'I'm right. Everyone who disagrees with me is damned' whether it is damned to hell or damned to be a weakminded fool.

Which are you?

[statsman]

Relax, Atheists. If you cannot laugh at yourselves and take youselves that seriously, then you may as well be a religion. The substantive question is whether you side more with DeBotton or Dawkins.

No, I'm afraid it isn't. Personally, I'm equally indifferent to both members of this pair of self-serving publicity seekers.

[statsman]

Modern atheism (includes that the masks itstaft as secularism) shares all the characteristics of religion.

It is a belief system and quite an intolerant one at that.

I doubt that LamportsEdge expected to have the veracity of his/her thesis demonstrated quite so quickly.

[Des Quirell]

Actually it is a little more interesting than that. Knowing that atheism is the single fastest growing sector of categorisation of such matters in Ireland and the United States (free at last, free at last, no god almighty, we may be free at last) it reveals that the fear of the theists is not so much atheism but what they see as a 'rival' religion. They cannot conceive or understand a lack of belief so are determined to paint atheism as a rival church.

It speaks more of an inability to comprehend atheism than anything else.

The problem is that the behaviour of some atheists has made it easy for theists to categorise them in this way.

For instance, you have the evangelising atheists such as Dawkins popping up at every juncture to offer "the" atheist perspective of things.
You have the figureheads as represented by The Three Horsemen, to whom some atheists for knowlegde and direction.
You have the advertising on buses in the UK.
You have the atheists organisations arranging meetings ans speakers (why, of why?)