This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Comment

← Atheists should be louder and prouder

Paul's Avatar Jump to comment 11 by Paul

Hi Brent,

Sorry about that, I truly did not mean any disrespect. I guess I view atheism as a belief system, and I equated that with religion.

It seems to me that Mr. Dawkins is on a quest to enlighten people on his beliefs and put an end to faith in things that cannot be proven scientifically if I understand everything that I've read about him so far. In the literal sense of the word, he is 'evangelizing' atheism. That is, spreading the word about something.

At first I assumed that his crusade was as open an invitation to the world as any other belief system, that being that anyone may join, but now I 'm starting to view things differently as of reading your comment.

You said, "I will acknowledge people of lower socioeconomic status perhaps do not have the means to aquire (sic) a proper education, which is the point you are trying to make. That is really unfortunate and I appreciate your concern."

Why is it unfortunate? Because those without a proper education cannot become atheist?

Do you acknowledge that a person with a low I.Q. such as a person who is mentally retarded who may not be able to grasp certain scientific facts may not fully benefit from your belief system and that to be an atheist you must have a certain level of intelligence? By that rationale, atheism sounds like an exclusive belief system for educated people only.

In Christianity, we believe that God foresaw this possible issue and decided to request that His followers worship Him in a way that anyone may partake in as long as they are willing and have faith.

In atheism, it seems that not all who are willing may partake in such a belief system.

Doesn't that mean that atheists will never be the majority, as there are fewer highly intelligent people in this world than people of average intelligence?

Doesn't that also mean that in the literal sense of the word, atheism is in fact 'exclusive'?

Fri, 03 Nov 2006 04:20:00 UTC | #6877