My point was that turnabout is fair play. If atheists think it is OK to push their views on others, to then it is OK for theists to push their views on others as well. If you feel you are justified to be a "mitilant" anti-theist, then you are not addressing my point about atheists providing a justification for the actions of theists, by their own rules.

Have 6 million atheists been wiped out systematically?
Have thousands of atheists been crucified on crosses?
I don't think you even begin to understand the level of persecution religious people have endured.

Moreover, it denies the concept of evolution. You really think your ideas are the pinnacle of human civilisation? You really think you have achieved the best that humanity has to offer, that everyone else can never achieve what you have achieved? You are just one link in the chain. After you, will come others, and they will come up with more ideas. Who knows what the future may bring?

No. You're just doing the same as the Germans in World War 2. You've come up with an unjustifiable viewpoint, and now you want to force everyone else to live that way.

Let's be honest. You qualfied your claims by saying that they only apply to the West, which is the richest group in humanity by a wide margin/ History has shown us repeatedly that the rich tend to become decadent, thinking that they no longer need what their civilisations were built on, and in so doing, weaken the foundations of that civilisation more and more, until it falls apart.

If you said that to my face, I'd be punching you right now. A lot. I won't bother going into my family history, or what they did during the war, but suffice it to say that's one of the worst things you could possibly say to me.

It is NOT POSSIBLE to go to far in agonizing theists! If that is the only way of getting through their ignorance and letting a little slice of reality in, so be it!

I understand he is attempting to connect the individual and social levels.

Mate... whether I think it is OK for theists to push their views onto me or not, they will keep doing it. Therefore, I am reacting in a manner that may well be described as Newtonian - I don't even bother to posit whether it is OK or not, I'm simply doing it too.

Well, you'd never know, really - most atheists are terrified enough of the religious majority, that they'd never admit to being atheist.

That said, I'm glad you mentioned those thousands and millions - because they would not have died, if religion didn't exist. Behold the Jews, targeted for being Jews. Religion once again brought about their downfall.

No, I don't think my ideas are the pinnacle of human civilization. Hell, I admit that chances are, people born 100 years from now will view me as a savage, no better than the savages who bow to a crucified carcass, or a pedophile prophet, or a multi-limbed anthropomorph.

I do however think that my ideas are a better option than devotion to some superstitious, idiotic belief in an omnipotent creator who happens to look just like us. Praise white Jesus! That's what keeps me going - I am firmly secure in the knowledge that my way of viewing the world is vastly superior to any idiot who prostrates himself before a being conjured of man's own imagination.

If you said that to my face, I'd be punching you right now. A lot. I won't bother going into my family history, or what they did during the war, but suffice it to say that's one of the worst things you could possibly say to me.

No, I merely used the west as an example, since I reside there now. Let's face it - what happens in the west, defines cultural trends for the rest of the world.

I'm not western originally, but I see these things from an outsider's perspective.

I'm just going to kick in that I've noticed a certain periodic cyclicity to the mannerisms of the posts made by the person you are responding to; but that, if I posted my own interpretation of what causes that (without any proof), then I would be committing libel.

Not saying this as any sort of justification; just to say that I will certainly step up and offer an apology for what sounds to be a deeply hurtful personal insult.

I myself am rather fond of the approach that Deleuze and Guattari take to this problem, and their solution of joining the personal ("unconscious") with the social using the concept of production: desire-as-production (as opposed to the Freudian desire-as-lack); and society as a machinic composite.

Some do not like the idea of people as 'human machine parts'; but anyone who has ever worked in a factory knows just how true that can be.

Since the concept of 'assemblage' becomes pivotal in this kind of analysis, the whole question concerning how "any essentializing arguments in the end fail empirically" is displaced by considerations defined through assemblage: variation is defined by the fitting together of the components, not in any 'essential character' of those components.

Recently, my own studies have lead me to some very interesting 'precursor' concepts of these ideas in the writings of Jean-Paul Sartre, who certainly fits into the existentialistic-humanistic scheme of things where one tends to find Nietszche and Camus.

So, yes there is still a very wide gulf between the Anglo-American and Continental schools of philosophy; and to my mind, Dawkins is very much of the Anglo-American school. But it is nice to have contrasting points of view; one never knows what one will find in between them.

I know you will keep doing what you want. Nietzsche tells us that the Will to Truth is a result of the Will to Power, that our claims are to support our lifestyles. If your lifestyle dictates that you wish to live in harmony with others, then your opinions will reflect that. If your lifestyle dictates that you wish to refuse to acknowledge that not everyone agrees with you, then your opinions will reflect that. You tell me about your lifestyle, when you voice your opinion.

Many religions have already expressed this idea in another manner, in the form of a consciousness of a whole people.

If you want to, no-one will stop you posting libel here. Plenty of posters have made accusations against me. If you don't want to post such things in public, because you do not want to embarrass me, then there is still a moral obligation upon you, to inform me of me weaknesses, by mailing me directly, so that I might change my behaviour. If you wish to claim that I won't, then I formally state here, that I will adapt to whatever is a genuine moral complaint. My mailing criteria is completely open, so that is no barrier either.

Put up, or shut up. If I really have a problem, you should inform me, in order that I might do something about it. If not, then every action that I take in that vein, is with your open approval.

Such a "human machine parts" approach, is just a possible explanation for an existing religious idea. It might, or might not, hold merit. The scientific method can aid us in constructing scientific experiments to determine if this approach is valid or not.

I think that it should not matter who says an idea of philosophy, whether they are Anglo-American, Continental, or African, whether educated in a university, or no education, or growing up in a simple agricultural village, whether religious, theist, spiritual, agnostic, or atheist. It would be nice if everyone else seeks to gain knowledge and understanding wherever it may be found as well.

Yes, I read "The God Delusion", and he's not hard hitting enough. He needs to be more aggressive. More Nietzsche like.

I'm curious to see what you would propose for a controlled test of a natural and random process.

We could control the evolution, but we already know that works. We breed all sorts of animals. One could posit natural selection just from that,

The whole thing is simply logic and common sense, although it is supported by anecdotal evidence as well.

Dawkins 'The Selfish Gene' simply takes this logic to the next step.

Although Russell did have a few funny ideas (In Praise of Idleness anyone?)

I was talking with a teacher at UoP when I was going there and mentioned my firm disbelief in the concept of altruism. She suggested I read Desires and the rest, as they say, is history.

Okay, so explain to us how a “lifestyle dictates” anything, let alone opinions. You are openly stating that this thing you call ‘lifestyle’ is in direct control over personal choices;

you have no justification in stating that you can determine a person’s lifestyle from how they voice their opinions.

Oh - and you might want to do a little research into the origin of the copy of “Will To Power” you are reading. The original is just a collection of notes made by Nietzsche for a book he did not live long enough to publish. These notes were collected together posthumously by his sister - an avowed Aryan supremacist who is the one person most responsible for putting Nietzsche’s work into a form which could be used by the Nazis in ‘support’ of their racist agenda.

No, you are just assuming they have - since you have not read the original texts in question, you have no idea if this is true or not - you only have a supposition which is based upon how you want to see things as being.

I will stop myself from posting libel here or anywhere else - it is not something that I do;

nor is it something which anyone with a background in print publications would do, either.

I have no moral obligation to help you to change or alter the characteristics of your interpersonal communications.

If I did, do I think that you would change your behaviour, as you state? It is such an easy thing to say. But I just saw you accuse a man of being the equivalent of a Nazi, just because you don’t like his views on ALL religion.

Judging by his response, it seems very probably that members of his family at the very least fought against and possibly died in their personal contribution toward ending the Nazi tyranny over Europe. But of course, rather than apologize yourself, you just go on to try and justify your insult… a response that I find typical of your arrogance.

I have no wish to mail you directly. My e-mailing criteria are not open (but I suspect you know that already or you would not have mentioned it).

You have neither the justification nor the right to make any declarations in my name, nor to imply my tacit approval for your doing so.

If you had read anything of the authors I mentioned, you would realize that what they propose is nothing like the familial structure found in religious institutions.

Further, philosophy is conceptual in nature and is not defined by the functionalities revealed through scientific experimentation.

Distinct schools of philosophy have determinate historical roots and patterns of development which make then to a certain extent internally consistent, and distinguishable from one another.

It is really typical of a theistic “bleed into one” approach that someone could assume anything can be lifted from anywhere and dropped in with whatever else and still retain the meaning it had in the context from which it was taken… but of course that’s the point, isn’t it? It can’t retain its meaning or even its functional character, it can only take on the meaning and function assigned to it by the big dominating mixing bowl it has been tossed into - a very typical mechanism of over-coding which is a dominant characteristic of religious imperialism.

Which is probably what people find most obnoxious about religious fanaticism: the way in which the theistically inclines take what ever from where ever and say “oh this means that because of our belief in god. And we can‘t be wrong, because of our belief in god”

No, it doesn’t. You are wrong. And there is no god.

Unfortunately what is little recognized is that the most worthwhile scientific books are those in which the author clearly indicates what he does not know; for an author most hurts his readers by concealing difficulties.

Dawkins has re-stated his personal Alien Intelligent Design theory. This is the second time now, and this time you can't accuse Ben Stein of deceptive interview techniques. It was at the prestigious Lennox debates at Oxford Univeristy, October 21, 2008.

So let me ask you a question: what is more likely, descent by natural selection or intelligent design? Give evidence to show why you think one is more likely than the other

(btw, there isn't any for intelligent design, apart from, "ohhh this looks complex, someone must have made it!").

"Even more jaw-droppingly, Dawkins told me that, rather than believing in God, he was more receptive to the theory that life on earth had indeed been created by a governing intelligence – but one which had resided on another planet. Leave aside the question of where that extra-terrestrial intelligence had itself come from, is it not remarkable that the arch-apostle of reason finds the concept of God more unlikely as an explanation of the universe than the existence and plenipotentiary power of extra-terrestrial little green men?"

Did you have a look at the links I posted as a reference? I know it's a shock to your system. Dawkins turning out to be a closet- I.D.er., and stating that a " A SERIOUS CASE COULD BE MADE FOR A DEISTIC GOD" ~Dawkins, 2008. You'll be alright.

Heyyyy, whose the one propositioning the existence of an alien spaghetti monster now?
And not just any old spaghetti monster, but one with an interest in the propagation of life on earth!
And the Dawkins mantra is that Creationism is a pseudo-science? What kind of "science" is this?

One word of advice: at the next Dawkins lecture, don't drink the coolaid, and if he has a secretary named Applewhite who wants to show you a spaceship, just walk away quietly.