[zasterguava]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've always considered atheism as a non-belief or absence of faith. It isn't really anti anything. I mean, when I was 5 years old I didn't believe in God; thus I was an atheist, or atleast an unconscious atheist. I was not against religion or the idea of a god. I am now but that merely makes me a antitheist atheist as opposed to a "new atheist".

The great thing about atheism IMO is it has no requirements other than absence of faith- not dislike or hatred of faith. This, and the advancement of science, simply makes atheism the rational stance. It is quite irrelivent that there are some atheist who are fervent in their view and wish to intefere with other peoples beliefs. What's important is that unlike religion, hatred and arrogance is not a component or requirement of atheism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree as long as you arent lumping Dawkins in with "those who wish to interfere with other's beliefs". There are certainly others who would, but in the context of a thread on "new atheism" it is too to confuse those who wish to engage in legitimate discourse with a Joseph Urbanski.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps the way I worded it makes it sound as if I implying that "those who wish to interfere with other's beliefs" are doing something bad. I would certainly consider Dawkins as doing that and I applaud him. He writes, appears on tv and works to advance the scientific knowledge disputing the idea of a creator.. this certainly "interferes with other's beliefs".

Hitchen's: "Religion should be met with HATRED, CONTEMPT and RIDICULE."

My point was that although an atheist can be very much against religion as are Dawkins et al... it is not a requirement of atheism and thus any arguments as to whether or not it should provide an alternative to faith are futile at best.