The only exposure I've had to the recent debates on the topic have been courtesy of reading Wired. I haven't read any Dawkins, but my brief exposure to him courtesy of a number of quotes is that he's less an atheist than he is an asshole.
I certainly don't blame him for lashing out. The basis of the Wired article was that people who would otherwise keep quiet about their beliefs for one reason or another are having to speak out, sometimes quite loudly, to be heard. In essence, they're tired of being in the closet.
Most of my reading on atheism comes from colonial discussions on deism/englightenment era reading that I did a number of years ago. The distinction very much an ideological one - "There is no supporting evidence, therefore there isn't a god" vs. "There is no supporting evidence and there may be a god". Much of the thought at the time turned to the idea of the watchmaker god.
Then again, there's the militant agnostic: I don't know and you don't either.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
no subject
Date: 2007-05-24 03:04 pm (UTC)I certainly don't blame him for lashing out. The basis of the Wired article was that people who would otherwise keep quiet about their beliefs for one reason or another are having to speak out, sometimes quite loudly, to be heard. In essence, they're tired of being in the closet.
Most of my reading on atheism comes from colonial discussions on deism/englightenment era reading that I did a number of years ago. The distinction very much an ideological one - "There is no supporting evidence, therefore there isn't a god" vs. "There is no supporting evidence and there may be a god". Much of the thought at the time turned to the idea of the watchmaker god.
Then again, there's the militant agnostic: I don't know and you don't either.