It's not so much that dangerous fundamentalist atheism is impossible. As you said, Stalin and Mao proved otherwise, although an argument could be made that their zealotry was politically based, but I digress.

It's more that even the so called "rabid atheists" (Dawkins et al) of the present day simply aren't comparable. The lunatic fringe of religion is well documented (WBC, al Qaeda, etc) as is the harm caused by even mainstream religion (ban on condoms, hiding pedophiles).

There simply isn't anything comparable from even the most evangelical of the new atheists. Even dickheads like Pat Condell are small potatoes compared to the other side.

The reason why atheism is unique over other belief systems is because it isn't one. There is no atheist tract or creed that must be upheld. There are simply people who reject attempts by others to force them to comply with their particular belief set.

Now, if an atheist terror group appears tomorrow and starts bombing churches or even if an atheist political party* demanded the outlawing of religion, I would condemn them, but that hasn't happened.

Put simply, I've never had an atheist knock on my door and say "have you heard the word of Dawkins?"

*what would that even look like, given that atheism has no political affiliation?

I'm not confusing anything. Atheism is, by definition, the opposite of Theism. If you profess that you have some belief that there may be 'something', but you want scientific proof, then you have placed yourself in the definition of Agnostic. You can identify yourself as Atheist, which is what many do since Dawkins released 'The God Delusion', because he chose to try and force/shame/delude Agnostics into just calling themselves Atheists.

As far as a strawman, would you say that Dawkins is an Atheist? If you say yes, then perhaps you would like to know that on page 70 of the aforementioned book [Dawkins] views permanent agnosticism as "fence-sitting, intellectual cowardice". I imply nothing, while you personally may not feel this way, a well recognized New Atheist felt strongly enough to put it into print in his own book.

In any case, I understand your opinion. My opinion simply differs, I feel that you are a Theist if you believe deeply that there is 'something' of a god out there, an Agnostic if you are unsure and would like proof, or an Atheist if you feel that there is no such thing. You can certainly lump me with Atheism based on my commented beliefs, but I will lump you with Agnosticism based on yours.

If anyone is confused about the difference between Atheism and Agnosticism, it is certainly not me or the widely accepted delineation between the two. By your statements, you are by far more of an agnostic than an atheist. The literal meaning of Atheism is without gods, you do not believe in them. If, however, you believe there 'could' be something like a supreme being but are skeptical due to lack of hard evidence, you are an Agnostic.

Proponents of the New Atheism outlook, such as yourself and Richard Dawkins, tend to look at Agnostics as fence-sitting cowards that are unwilling to join the movement to openly criticize Theists at every turn. In reality, we are simply a middle of the road group who want to remain open and, mostly, congenial to both sides of a bitter debate. If you choose to think that Agnostics are in fact Atheists, that is certainly your prerogative, but most regular Atheists and Agnostics will disagree with you.

The Wise One: Maybe some otters do need to believe in something. Who knows, maybe just believing in God...makes God exist.

Sea Otters: Kill the Wise One! KILL THE WISE ONE!

Penn Jillette on Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris & Kraus

Really? It was a 1984 reference? Gee, thanks mister, I totally didn't get that, nosiree.

And while you can try to make an argument that taxation is theft, to state it outright like that is confusing opinion with fact. Most people do not view taxation as theft. It is part of a social contract.

So in the space of the first paragraph, you have engaged in a false premise and then brought up them evil commies and nazis. Yeah, this is a worthwhile argument....

I have zero interest in contacting Murphy, and I'm not surprised Krugman doesn't want to debate him either. As Dawkins says about debating creationists, "it looks good on your resume, not on mine".

Psst... Dawkins

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Richard-Dawkins-Interviews-Deepak-Chopra-Enemies-of-Reason

Dangerous Ideas - Deepak Chopra & Richard Dawkins has been added as a related post - related requested by Trancecoach on that post.

Richard Dawkins Interviews Deepak Chopra (Enemies of Reason) has been added as a related post - related requested by Trancecoach.

I love how Chopra accuses Dawkins of Ad Hominem (when Dawkins was talking about how Chopra was arguing, not Chopra himself) and then instantly transitions into Appeal to Authority.

Fail, how?! Total win in my book!!
I've always wondered what Dawkins thought of what his word "meme" had come to mean... it looks like, even though he used the pejorative "hijacked," he has decided to accept it... or at least to give up being pedantic.

The certainly most surreal moment of this video is watching Richard Dawkins blow into a weird electrical instrument. *That* felt psychedelic.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'film, science, religion, documentary' to 'film, science, religion, documentary, richard dawkins, lawrence krauss' - edited by xxovercastxx

The opinion that people who believe in religion are stupid and should be ridiculed (something Dawkins has promoted in the past) is most certainly a belief.

Funny to me that Dawkins thinks he's charming, and the lack of the trait is due to negative media. Heh.
As someone who is Atheist/doubtfully-Agnostic (understanding that something like this can never, ever be proven one way or another, damn religious "logic"), I've really hated Dawkins and the late-Hitchens monologues about religious belief.
While I wholly agree with them, I could never reconcile that someone who had the world-stage could be so obtuse and offensive about spreading their beliefs. I could never claim they spoke for my beliefs, because they treated those who held that which they found false with such disrespect and disregard to the point of actually lowering themselves below those which they attacked.
You will never change the minds of those you disagree with by calling them ignorant or stupid, and for years that is exactly what they have done, in all all their own personal ignorance and blindness in the face of their celebrity. It was disgusting.
In this interview it seems like Dawkins has now found a "rival" who has tempered his idiocy to some extent (though the quote I started this post with would be argument to the contrary), but hopefully they will learn.
I abhor fundamental religious belief, but Dawkins and Hitchens were two atheists who, by their attitudes and egos alone, proved a need for a supposed moral belief system for all of mankind.

Wish those guys had gone to school or somethin'!