I can have, and express any opinion I want. When you see some evidence that I’m taking any action to restrict anyone from having, or expressing any opinion they want, or exercising any religous beliefs they want, then you can come back and actually have a valid point. Until then, you’re just exposing your own idiocy with your demonstrably fallacious accusations of hypocrisy.

Providing commentary on someone else’s opinions, ideas or points of view is called “freedom of expression” I know you’re against such ideals. I’m not. Dawkins and his ilk are free to call me delusional for my Deistic views, and I’m free to do the same to them.

I know such ideas seem horrendously dangerous to a Boob that supports fascist ideals. But, believe me, they’re really not.

Wouldn’t it be against freedom to actually create a movement to be anti-athiestic? And then wouldn’t it be as HYPOCRITICAL, as you state you aren’t, to do this?

Man, you really are a propagandist hack. No substance, just meaningless dribble. Who are you being paid by to spread this hate and discontent?

I have a few comments about your post. First, I disagree with the notion of scientism as a sort of religion. Surely there’s little difference in behaviour between people like Dawkins and Dennett and the worst kind of fundamentalist theists, but behaviour of its followers is not what defines a religion. I won’t attempt to define what religion is, but it’s clear that these people who attack religion definitely lack the fundamental thing which any religion requires: an awareness of the fallibility of reason.

People like Dawkins concede the possibility of being mistaken (in fact they brag about it when they refer to “the scientific method”), but they cannot concede the possibility of being confounded. They think the universe is big, not not big enough that it cannot fit inside a man’s head. All the silliness in their arguments really boils down to this, that they really understand the world around them, that all the ideas they hold in their heads make perfect sense when combined together. Now there are only two kinds of people who claim that: liars and lunatics. And we can feel perfectly justified in dismissing both.

The other thing that caught my attention about your post is the issue of dogma. I’m not a particularly religious person but the more I live, the more I realize that when we think we are right and religion is wrong, it’s because we don’t understand religion. Which really shouldn’t be surprising given that religion has been around far longer than we have.

Dogma is probably the single most important thing about any religion. Even though it might seem otherwise, you can’t reject the dogma and still keep the religion. Even Dawkins in his small-mindedness can see that. The word dogma has acquired a pejorative connotation in modern times, and we can’t properly understand religion if our thinking is constrained by the fashions of our time. To understand dogma we have to go back to the time the dogma was formulated; only then can we understand why it is necessary.

Many people seem to think dogma is something theologians pull out of thin air just because it suits their fancy, that there is no intellectual effort behind it. Quite the opposite is true really, at least for the Christian religion all dogmas have been the result of enormous intellectual effort of countless people through generations. And the reason they should not be questioned by the individual is really quite simple: no individual is intelligent enough to remove even one foundation of a religion without leaving the whole structure intact. The building and maintenance of a doctrine can only be achieved as a group effort. Apart from that you can only have fashionable cults.

Well, that’s all I have to say. Feel free to write to me if you’d like to discuss the subject.