I respect +David Strumfels and think he posts a lot of interesting stuff, but I really don't understand this attitude.
No, I won't read an article on why atheism is a religion.  I won't do it for the same reason I won't read a Jehovah's Witness tract, or a book on why evolution is wrong.  If atheism is a religion then not believing in Jove or Thor or Shiva are also all religions -- so that we are all religious, thousands of times over, whatever we think we are or not.

What about agnosticism?  Sorry, that dog won't bark.  Agnosticism is actually theism that denies we can know God via the human mind or senses (gnostic means knowledge).  It is, in fact, the default position of all the faithful in Abrahamic religions, who rely purely on mindless and senseless faith.  It is in no way some kind of fair compromise between theism and atheism.  To believe the word means what many people think it means is to take a vague, 50-50 position on whether Russel's teapot really exists since we don't actually know for sure.  Logically ludicrous.  It only seems to be fair because we are used to the concept of God, but not Russel's teapot -- it's amusing to wonder what if the situation were the other way around.

What I like about "New Atheists", like Dawkins and Hitchens, is that they don't pussyfoot around the issue in an attempt to dishonestly sound "fair".  Indeed, they have (rightly) nothing but contempt for agnosticism (as agnostics incorrectly define it).  Simply put, there is no valid evidence or logic for gods, indeed overwhelmingly the opposite.  People do believe in them in the face of this evidence and their lack of it, and Dawkins et al are not shy in pointing this out.  There is no question as to how they made so many enemies:  as Daniel Dennet has put it so succinctly,  "There is no polite way of telling someone they have devoted their life to a folly."
Shared publiclyView activity