The better question is will theism survive?

It won't. Not in it's current form anyway. Science consistently errodes the fabric of literal theism and the dogma that goes with it. We may never rid ourselves of the notion that "something bigger than us is out there", but organized religion is on its way out, and I think deep down theists understand that. Short of a new Dark Age, you can kiss it goodbye.

exactly, we will always be debating the existance of a higher power, but the notion of a higher power that has any human like traits such as emotion and compasion will die out, and we know enough about the human mind to put all those "God spoke to me" and "i felt Gods touch" claims to rest

Maybe religion is an evolutionary gateway, at first serving a purpose but now we're trancending it, so it's good. 

 No. David trusted in God because of his experience with the scientific method of cause and effect.

It took millions of years to create the stones he found in abundance that were just the right size to sink into the brain of Goliath.

Notice please, the behemoth of atheistic education in our scientific community.

And yet, one little stone in a river bed makes it look like such small thinking.

Thanks for the great analogy. I'll remember that as the immense crowd of atheists scream at the Christians at the next Rational Response Squad debate against them.

Or then again, I could just do the research myself. I'll head to any city in the Western world and try preaching to the huge crowds of non-believers gathered there at night, or in the daytime at coffee shops and malls.

Now Goliath has another massive army behind him. Still the same old Goliath. Ranting and all.

Huh... please do bring that up at the next debate. So when you are walking down the street and you trip on a stone, what you're telling us is that God has been molding that stone for centuries.. just sitting around and watching it... waiting for the day you'll bust your ass on it? What? Did you mean that it was his faith that helped him do it? How does that prove his faith wasn't bull? Richard Dawkins succeeds all of the time... and entirely on his own merit. Success has NOTHING to do with it. And and for those stones... if a stranger throws a rock at you and breaks your nose... in your mind it MUST be from God, correct? That stone wasn't "just right" for Goliath.  Perhaps he simply picked it because he was looking around for something to throw at him?  God also made an abundance of stones that are just the right size to hurt you, me and everyone else.  What is your point?  The analogy was that atheism is SMALL (David) and organized religion is BIG (Goliath). In the myth, David won even though he was SMALL. I don't know where you're going with this.. David wasn't employing the scientific method in any way. Prayer doesn't count. Human prayers go unanswered all the time. The scientific method WOULD have told him to NOT trust God. That is, if he had been using it... which he wasn't.  

Please tell me where these shopping malls and coffee shops 'FILLED' with non-believers are, I would love to visit them.

Oh wait.... I get it. You are saying the 85% Americans who claim to be christian are not "true christians". Right?

if i were to hit a guy in the head with a stone, it wouldn't mean much other than it was a lucky shot.

if the guy were bigger than me would that make it special? well no in fact it would be a little less so as his head would be harder to miss.

 If i say "God guide this rock" before i throw it, suddenly it becomes this magnificent divine act.

How could God put the stone there especially when free will means i could have picked up any stone, ofcourse my human mind means that i know what shape a stone needs to be to fly straight.

In other words, if God doesn't exist, would david still have picked the same stone? ofcourse because he knows enough about firing a sling to know a good stone

while we're being so sure of things in the old testament, i think there was some stuff about rape, woman beating and murder in there as well. 

Secular education is not atheistic education. Why to some believers have such a difficult time with the concept that secular does not equal atheistic?

Secular means that it does not relate to religion. It does not answer to a religion and does not oppose religion.

Secularism is about us all getting along by not forcing our opinions about god onto others. It is not about the destruction religion.

This must be realted to the way christians tell us they are being oppressed because they are loosing the right to oppress others.

Another point is that science must be atheistic, in the weak sense - some call it agnostic but Sapient will hit me if I use the term that way (note to Sapient, I was joking - please don't hit me). It doesn't say god doesn't exist but it can never invoke things outside of nature (ie God) to explain natural phenomenon. 

Science is the study of the natural (physical) world. If you use god in a theory, you are not being scientific. Not because science it anti-god but simply because, by definition, science cannot deal with anything supernatural. 

Or David just knew that if he got him square between the eyes with a hard, fast moving projectile it was game over.

Right. Because we hadn't learned to break rock at that point which is why there were no roads or buildings around then. Oh wait, there were. Opportunity doesn't imply placement.

You're trying to make a point here. I can tell, I just can't tell what it actually is.

Hey look on the bright side. At least you won't be getting stoned to death or burnt alive at the stake.

I think you're missing the point. Most atheists don't actually care - you won't get sustained abuse, just a lot of children "Mummy, look at the funny man!"

A theist metaphor for an atheist position?

Fascinating. 

Part of me is glad that the new "millitant" atheism is around. I know of certain theists working in subtle ways to increase its popularity, and many theists I know of are hoping that radicals like RRS continue to gain attention from the media. As a result of being exposed to this kind of atheism, many theists who were previously uncritical and dogmatic are beginning to reflect more deeply on the nature of their views. Many are realizing for the first time how important it is to be educated on these issues, so that they can rationally combat door-knocking atheists who suggest that they "recycle the bible" or who declare "war" on various holidays. Many are getting into philosophy and the sciences. I've heard about a project being developed by (apparently) some average "youth pastors" as a result of reading Dennett and Dawkins. They're well-funded, and they'll be traveling to different churches and systematically encouraging thousands of young theists across the nation to enter the academia and develop a more intellectual lifestyle. Apparently, they're passing out tutorials on "logical fallacies" along with academic literature that's critical of atheism. They expect the training to spread like a wildfire. But who knows if it will. And who knows how good the "training" will be. What's ironic is that they're using quotations from Dawkins's latest book as a strategy for "waking up" these young theists in rather dramatic ways.

This does not seem to be the goal Dawkins had in mind. Part of the reason for this, perhaps, involves the hardcore strategy that groups like RRS and Dawkins choose to employ. This strategy seems to me to push theists away from athesim; when they're pushed, they simply go to their nearest "apologist" for help. They're not being pulled in by welcoming arms.

So it seems like Dawkins, in some cases at least, is becoming a strong impetus for many (though certainly not all) theists to equip and refine their beliefs, rather than relinquish them entirely. Dawkins and other "millitant" atheists are motivating theists to be extremely concerned with acquiring the critical thinking skills that will enable them to articulate and defend their views. Uncritical forms of fundamentalism are diminishing. That's progress. What's especially good is that theists who learn these skills will be able to easily discern propaganda and rhetoric from solid argumentation; they will not be impressed by the former. This will be helpful when they read some of the popular literature surrounding these issues. I think Dawkins should be thanked for this.

I can tell you right now what's going to happen when thousands of young theists go out and get a real education: they won't be theists long.

The posts on that site were amusing. I guess the fact that some non-philosophers are getting published on philosophical matters is really rubbing some "real" philosophers the wrong way. Maybe if they ever emerged from their caves to say something that was relevant they could get a piece of the pie, too. 

It was interesting, Gavagai, to see a bit of the argument we're having on the other thread repeated there. The philosophers were attacking Dawkins et al. for going after a straw man version of religion (creationism, fundamentalism etc) that doesn't accord with the faith of the smart people. There's only one problem: the straw man is the religion that is actually out there. The "refined" God that isn't subject to logical fallacies and gross violations of physics only exists in the brains of a few intellectuals (and still isn't real!). Dawkins, Harris and other new atheists (love the term!) have their sites set on the God of the people, the God that is driving the political movements. Who cares what some ivory tower intellectual thinks about God? The important thing is to get the man in the street to wake up from his delusion.

If this is a side-effect of Dawkin's, et al writings, then I am glad to hear of it.  Like Tilberian, I do not think these people will be theists long if they truly begin to examine their beliefs and the history surrounding their religion and others.  I have no doubt that Dawkin's and the others are grateful for whatever contribution they make in encouraging theists to look at their beliefs with a critical eye since that is what is needed to successfully debate it with atheists.  I grow tired of the same old "the bible is true because I believe it is true" and god of the gaps arguments.  Educated theists would be a welcome change. 

There is a correlation between education levels and atheism but that's not the issue. We are talking about critical thinking and applying it to religion. I knew two girls who were studying biology in university but were still creationists. They had the education to see it was nonsense, what they didnt have was the inclination to apply critical thought to it. Education does not guarantee critical consideration of your opinions, sometimes not even those that relate to the subject you're educated in.

The point is that if christians are going to learn specifically about critical thinking and how it applies to their faith, then they will be better equiped to see the flaws in all the aruments that defend it.

No. The new atheism will not survive.

If atheists indeed prize rationality and logic as highly as claimed then atheists are

1) Wrong, god exists and through rational process this will be shown, hence atheim will disappear

2) Correct, there is no god and rationalism will eventually eliminate theism and there will be no need for "militant" atheism.

I suppose a third possibility is that contemporay culture collapses into violence and anarchy and then who really cares? 

So this would be the worse case scenario? 

IMHO, that will never happen. Power seized in that manner sows the seeds of its own destruction. It might succeed for a short time but then violence and anarchy takes over. 

Not yet it hasn't.

Great post Vessel!

Everyone be on guard for this strawman of the "militant" atheist that is looking to destroy religion by force. I have never seen any atheist, ever, advocate this as a course of action. I have only rarely seen atheists promoting even government action of any kind with regards to religion, and then it is usually to remove some infiltration of the public system by religion or to end some concession that religions get for no good reason (such as not paying taxes).

The atheist movement at this moment is different from theistic movements and different even from political movements in that it seeks only to convince and persuade with words and ideas. In fact it is notable that this is all that atheists have ever attempted to do, discounting Communists who were in the grip of a rival faith-based ideology rather than proper atheism. 

We should all be encouraged that the ChristCon spin machine is cranking up to start spoon-feeding lies about atheists into the mouths of its minions. It means that they feel threatened, as they should, since religion has always failed tests of critical examination, even from within its own ranks.

Thank you. I took the liberty of putting that in bold text.

Yes. For some reason an atheist  speaking out and placing their views into the public arena as a topic of discussion is always portrayed as the predecessor to an inevitable violent persecution of the poor downtrodden theistic majority. It is nothing more than a centuries old propoganda tactic. The theist (of whatever persuasion) attempts to paint all who dare to publicly challenge their dogmatic ideologies or tenuously held faith based beliefs as an agressor. It is a defense mechanism by which the theist, consciously or not, attempts to villify and naysay all objections before they are even proposed; a necessary component of such an intellectually fragile belief.  

Ha ha. That site is now proven itself as run by a bunch of amateurs who know nothing about biology, physics, philosophy, cosmology, and anything else scientific. Post awaiting moderation my ass. Theists just don't like it when they get owned do they? Rofl.