Comments on: What is the Future of Atheism?

By: Trevor

Trevor — Tue, 03 May 2011 01:38:28 +0000

God is just another way for people to think they will live on after they die. There is no evidence that a god has ever existed. Christians were breeded from the catholics who they hate? Interesting. The reason christanity got so big was because people would tell people that if they do not belive in god they will go to hell. It was a scam! The only reason it lives on is because people are scared. Come on people. Lets listen to the facts.

By: jodiemiller

jodiemiller — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 01:37:22 +0000

I realise you have a bible belt and creationist teaching in schools to contend with in the US, but surely the future of atheism is as simple as lead by example? Atheists can be gentle, loving, responsible and political without having to take the hard line. Go Rose!

By: teammarty

teammarty — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 21:26:28 +0000

Sit down. Shut up. Pray when we tell you to. Pretend to profess. Then we night accept you as one of us.

Same old same old.

By: Rose

Rose — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 01:15:59 +0000

The future of atheists – in my book – should be closer to being friendly and understanding, but also open and honest.

Staying closeted (for the sake of it) is dishonest. That surely is not something to aim for globally.

By: Happenings in the Blogosphere

Happenings in the Blogosphere — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 16:09:53 +0000

[...] society in which shame is not attached to a public declaration of atheism. Hemant also points to a confounding article in which an atheist says that in order to get along, atheists should just “go along.” [...]

By: postsimian

postsimian — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 21:07:08 +0000

I couldn’t disagree with the guys post more.

By: Flamboyant gays and ‘militant’ atheists « Irresistible (Dis)Grace

Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:18:47 +0000

[...] of us,” but…maybe these groups are just as vital?I got the insight from an article at Friendly Atheist. Some dude argues that the future of atheism might be imperiled by the actions of certain new [...]

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 17:38:56 +0000

Hemant, a heads up: I covered you and Spinard on this subject in my column at Examiner. I forcefully agree with almost all your points on this, and only quibble with your pronoun use in one instance: Along the lines of what Miko wrote, I'm not sure it's our responsibility to replace the spiritual institutions in the case we make for reason and atheist equality. It's awfully nice of us to supply it, but I wonder if it's even something we as advocates for rationality would effectively deliver. Anyway, check out my column (everyone!), I'd love it if you had a response.

By: Stephen P

Stephen P — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 17:25:49 +0000

The gay rights supporters did not get to where they are today because they kept quiet.

And the religious right didn’t get where they are by being quiet either. It seems to me that it’s their turn to shut up.

Any successful new belief system must appreciate the beauty of what it’s replacing …

And the beauty of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson et al is what exactly …?

By: llewelly

llewelly — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 15:06:27 +0000

… he thinks the militancy of some atheists backfires and is counter-productive to their own goals …

What word I wonder, would these people use if some group of folks started marching, and using non-violent protests to shut down businesses that were discriminating against them, as opposed to just publishing books and writing on blogs?

Until Dawkins starts handing out AK-47s to fellow atheists, people who use ‘militancy’ and similar words to describe ‘some atheists’ are thoroughgoing strawman-fetishizing idiots.