I appreciate your response to the article.

One major factor atheists have against them is a lack of any cohesive group – something us religious folk have had a long time to organize across history and society.

But i think more organization is taking place and the prominent ‘spokespersons’ like Dawkins et al are doing a good job of fronting the ’cause’.

All the same atheists are not immune from criticism in the same way that any ideology or position is not immune. Allen is exercising her right of free speech just as you and I are. But that doesn’t mean we have to agree of course.

I certainy disagree with those atheists that use dehumanizing rhetoric and derogatory language – this only creates a circle of hate. Allen is merely joining the fray with this polemic rant.

The tendency to place views in ‘either or’ categories is a major stumbling block to constructive dialogue in any arena. You Shane do not fit into the ‘angry atheist’ category as far as I can see. I don’t consider myself a fire-breathing extremist – I attest that most people do not fall into that category – extremists just tend to be the loudest and excite the media.

Give your take on this POV please:

http://carthuryoung.wordpress.com/2009/05/28/neo-atheists-the-fundamentals/

Thanks! Look forward to more exchanges with you.

It sounded like a perfectly logical means of teaching evolution to those reluctanct to learn.

The biggest misconception many atheists have is that the logical weaknesses of religion they are so keen to point out could not possibly have occured to the slow-witted believer. There CAN be a certain smugness associated with atheism – a sense of superiority by default. To be fair, that swings both ways. But it’s not the greatest danger.

Last year, The Rev Prof Michael Reiss, director of education at the Royal Society, proposed ideas of how best to teach evolution to religious pupils, who may be reluctant to learn. He suggested that allowing pupils to discuss their beliefs in class was the best way to engage them, and to demonstrate why evolution is scientifically viable where creationism is not.

Maybe we disagree with his solutions, but Reiss believes in evolution and has repeatedly pointed out that creationism has no scientific merit. Nonetheless, atheists jumped at the chance to pretend Reiss was proposing the teaching of creationism alongside evolution, and feign suitable outrage.

Eventually the “teaching creationism” line was dropped and The Guardian accused Reiss of merely “lacking the intellectual integrity” to teach science (ie as a believer in God he should be sacked, regardless). Feeble argument maybe, but the damage was done and Reiss was forced to resign.