[sgentle]

Argh. This makes my blood boil. There are many good responses to this comment but I want to address one idea in particular: the idea that by putting things in the same category you can make them equal.

It's terribly poetic to say that Dawkins, in his opposition to fundamentalism, has become a fundamentalist himself. But poetic doesn't mean true, and this particular trope abuses poetry for deceptive ends. Let us exhaust this "fundamentalism" idea. What does fundamentalism mean? Does it mean strongly believing in something? Does it mean accepting that thing as true? Am I a fundamentalist gravitarian because I tell everyone who asks that gravity is true?

Any definition of fundamentalism as "strong belief that something is true" is so common as to be useless. But that's not quite what's happening here. You might characterise a fundamentalist belief in God as one that would brook no counter-argument. A stronger definition than before: "belief that something is true that accepts no evidence to the contrary". Does Dawkins believe that? Let's ask him:

"I am no more fundamentalist when I say evolution is true than when I say it is true that New Zealand is in the southern hemisphere. We believe in evolution because the evidence supports it, and we would abandon it overnight if new evidence arose to disprove it. [...] My belief in evolution is not fundamentalism, and it is not faith, because I know what it would take to change my mind, and I would gladly do so if the necessary evidence were forthcoming."

This is from his book The God Delusion, which I infer that you haven't read. I don't blame you - I put it off until last year because I had heard that Dawkins was uppity and confrontational. I can't speak to who benefits by that impression, but it is fiction. The book is, if utterly uncompromising, extremely polite and calm in tone. Dawkins treats religion with neither kid gloves nor boxing gloves. His intent isn't to injure, it's to challenge.

It frustrates me so much that people repeat mistaken ideas like "Dawkins is a fundamentalist" even while he seems to take such great pains to make his points clear. People who are not familiar with his work or his opinions accuse him for things he's never said. To gleefully point out that a biologist and someone who mutilates female genitals for a living are both "fundamentalists" is not clever. It's a deceptive attempt to make unequal things equal by putting them in the same category.

You echo that idea in your earlier allusion that people should be left to believe what they believe. Can I label anything as a belief and therefore make it equally valid? Is a 'belief' that man was created by ejaculating into a river equally valid to a 'belief' that the total momentum within a closed system will remain constant?

We can do better, and you owe it to yourself to do better. I know disagreement isn't in vogue, and it might not win you friends at parties, but it's the intellectually honest thing to do.

Please, read Dawkins' work. Disagree with him if you like, but at least don't do it out of ignorance. Feel free to start with "Fundamentalism and the Subversion of Science", the entire chapter of The God Delusion dedicated to your "fundamentalists are equal" argument.

[ellyagg]

Good point. I'm an atheist, but it always makes my blood boil when atheists apply false moral equivalence between the effects of different religions, as if all religions have equally bad consequences.

[pjscott]

In case anybody was wondering, Richard Dawkins explicitly says that there are huge differences in harm between various religions and the members within those religions, and that if all religious people were the friendly, liberal kind, he probably wouldn't have bothered writing a book about it.

[xavoy]

I _never_ stated that Dawkins and someone who circumcises unwilling females should be compared. I never said all fundamentalists are equal. I used the word fundamentalist liberally, as I have explained elsewhere.

The comparison was made because both religious evangelists and Dawkins both believe they know what is best for someone else and would like to force that upon them.

And yes, you should be allowed to hold you own beliefs, no matter how wacky they might be, and still be respected. And you do. They mightn't be as wild or deep rooted as the world being created in six days, but you still have them. You might find that many of your beliefs aren't based on reality, or scientifically provable.

[ugh]

Why should I respect people’s believes? What’s the reasoning behind that? Shouldn’t I be free to not respect what other people think?

Also: Where are you getting the idea that Dawkins would like to force something on people? I would like a quote for that. Does Dawkins really demand, say, laws?

[xavoy]

I never said you should respect people's personal beliefs. I said you should respect people, irrespective of their beliefs, out of common decency. Simply for being another human being.

And Dawkins carries on like a child when people won't accept his version of events (once again, a version that I believe). Watch any one of his hundreds of interviews or YouTube videos. Specifically, if you like, linked twice on this thread, where he quotes someone else to enable him to tell those who don't believe him to 'f##k off'. Or the innumerable where he calls people idiots for not agreeing with him.

[ugh]

You make no sense. Dawkins respects people and is polite. If you had read his books or watched his talks you would know that.

You also seem quite unfamiliar with this concept called humor and jokes.