In the centuries to come, (if the human race survives that long) our descendants will look back at the early second millennium as we now look back at the dark ages.

They will wonder in amazement how a society that built the Hubble telescope and launched it into orbit could ever entertain the thought that books like the Torah, Koran or Bible actually had any value to society.

IMHO, the sooner religion is removed from the minds of children and from the public arena, the better.

Misfits like runner can keep his bag of rotting prawns that he sees as his religion, as long as he doesn’t force others to eat them. I have no wish to control his mind. I just don't want him trying to control mine.

Mindless Cruelty wrote, “But fundamentalist atheists are just as ignorant and dangerous as fundamentalist theists, for both espouse ignorance and intolerance.”

What are fundamentalist atheists? “”Fundamentalist” is mostly understood to mean a person who accepts without question the correctness of a position or stance. A fundamentalist theist is a person who accepts without question everything written in his or her preferred ancient sacred text — the Bible or Koran or whatever. To be a fundamentalist atheist, one would presumably have to accept without question everything written in the ancient sacred text of atheism. But atheists are characterized not so much by what they believe as by what they refuse to believe and there is no sacred atheist text whose every word is available for them to unthinkingly accept.

So please, Mindless Cruelty, what is a fundamentalist atheist and what is it that they are all ignorant and/or intolerant of? It might help to remember that atheism is not a religion; it is an intellectual position.

@SecularGuy, you should really listen to what you’re saying, for it is tantamount to…I want a ban on all fiction, for it has no value. For the ignorant, books like the Bible and Quran are books of both philosophy and sociology…they are recommendations on how people would peacefully coexist with each other, based upon a simple premise of there being an omnipresent power, to enforce such rules. They were written in times and cultures where there was little in the way of social order other than "might is right", and under the then new idea of monotheism, created a powerfully unifying concept and authority for those respective societies, which were all still steeped in mysticism.

IMO, one of the flaws of these documents is that they are not reviewed for their appropriateness to current society, due to their supposed authoring by supernatural powers. But the fundamental message in all of these documents is how to live in peace with each other. Where that idea falls down in current world terms, is that we are not isolated anymore, and can freely roam the planet, creating a mixing of ideas and philosophies, and of course, conflict by those that adhere to the more fictional and fundamentalist ideas. Though they teach how to live peaceably with each other within the same culture and belief systems, they are poor at teaching tolerance of other ideas from other cultures, thus creating a breeding-ground of fundamentalism over time due to this perceived authority of omnipresence.

TBC...

The books have value, as all books and ideas do. And as in all books, it’s up to the readers to take from them what they will. It’s just unfortunate that so many people take the information so literally, rather than philosophically, and have little to no understanding of how to view the documents with perspective upon human history. Nor do they appreciate the heavy editing that those documents underwent by those cultures, to assist in controlling the masses and enforcing local dogma and authority at those times of editing. The Bible and the Quran both were heavily edited, about 60 years apart, around 500-550AD. For social authorities, unfortunately, religion has been used as crowd control, and as the tool to incite revolt, war or revenge. Its misuse by people does not mean that it has no use, nor any positive ideas or concepts to contribute to society.

GlenC,

I guess by a fundamentalist atheist they mean over-zealous atheists, or atheist extremists, i.e. someone who believes, without question or proof, that there is no possibility of a god or gods, afterlife etc, to the point where they'll get angry and abusive in forums like this, or elsewehere. Atheists can be as ignorantly zealous as theists. Believe me, I've met some pretty extreme atheists.

There is no way to prove there is no god, just like there is no way to prove there is. So to argue for atheism is (almost) as stupid as arguing for some particular religious belief.

There is a difference between someone who is a non-believer (no belief) to an atheist (belief in the negative).

Viva l'agnosticisme!

Many people do not accept the theory of evolution
because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.
They find it difficult to reconcile their views
that life on earth has evolved through natural
processes.

However, many people accept the basic principles of
evolution within the framework of their religious
beliefs. For example, some Biblical scholars interpret
the story of the Creation as a symbolic, rather than
a literal account of the origin of human beings and other
living things.

They don't find this symbolic interpretation incompatible
with the findings of evolutionary biologists. For many
people, the idea that human beings evolved from lower
forms of life does not diminish the uniqueness of human
capabilities and the accomplishments of human
civilisations.

Richard Dawkins tells us in his book,
"The God Delusion," that children should not be
indoctrinated with the religious beliefs of their
parents. In his book he says:

"...All right, you may want to say, so it's tough
on a child of the Amish, or the Hasidim, or the
gypsies to be shaped up by their parents in the
ways they are - but at least the result is that
these fascinating cultural traditions continue.
Would not our whole civilisation be impoverished
if they were to go? It's a shame, maybe, when
individuals have to be sacrificed to maintain such
diversity. But there it is: it's the price we pay as
a society. Except, I would feel bound to remind you,
we do not pay it. THEY do."