Originally Posted By: redewenur
The appellation 'fundamentalist atheist' is a term of blatant abuse applied by a 'believer' to an atheist who stridently attacks certain aspects of theistic belief. Such atheists as Richard Dawkins have a very lucid and highly reasoned approach to their attack on those aspects of religious belief that are very well known for their destructive effects.


Actually Dawkins has been criticized by his non-religious peers for his very limited understanding of what he is attacking and for his knowledge of theology. I will look out some example.

I cringe sometimes at some of the things he ignorantly says about religion. Sam Harris is exactly the same.

Dawkins also throws out any scientific methodology when he wants to back up his assertions.

Such as religious input in children?s lives being tantamount to child abuse. Real scientific studies have been done that clearly counter this, and children of religious families are actually more likely to be happy, stable and show less negative psychological traits than children from non religious families. I have posted a study on this before at SAGG.

Suicide terrorists (which he ignorantly places fully at the door of the religious) have been subject to real study. Robert Pape?s ?Dying to Win? was the result of an in depth study on the subject. From Wikipedia:

?Pape claims to have compiled the world?s first ?database of every suicide bombing and attack around the globe from 1980 through 2003 ? 315 attacks in all? (3). ?The data show that there is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world?s religions. . . . Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland? (4). It is important that Americans understand this growing phenomenon (4-7).?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_to_Win:_The_Strategic_Logic_of_Suicide_Terrorism

Dawkins should be sacked from his post of Simonyi Professorship of Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, because he shows little regard for science and facts when he wants to rail against religion. What are the public to make of science when he makes all sorts of unverified assertions. He is bringing science into disrepute, and again, many of his peers have said this.

Blacknad.