That man Dawkins

Exactly, absent. I was confirmed as a christian at the tender age of nine. But I never was one. I didn't have a choice at that age because of, ahem, indoctrinating behaviour on the part of the adults who were in control of my life.

What I was trying to illuminate was the flaw in Dawky's oft-repeated mantra that it's wrong to describe children as being members of a particular faith.

And what we're trying to illustrate is that it's not wrong. He's right about that, as well as a few other things.

I mean his "mantra" as you call it isn't wrong. Children can only be described as the children of [insert parents' religion].

It seems militant to me when I make a tiny little attack criticism on of a well known activist (see what I've done there ?) atheist and immediately come under fire from several posters - some of whom frequently post adverse comments on religion and matters connected with religion. I can't say fairer than that!

Lilygran - 'militant atheists'? Would you care to withdraw that remark?

A Christian, Moslem etc. child is only a member of that faith in the eyes of adults of that faith because they believe that babyhood ceremonies, such as baptism, bring the child into that faith. The child did not enter that faith knowingly and willingly. If you can legitimately refer to a Christian child, then surely you could equally refer to a socialist child or a capitalist child.

So it's allright for us to call you That Woman Lilygran before making 'tiny' criticisms of you, is it?

Yep! Don't mind at all. Don't mind being called a 'militant' Christian, either, if you feel moved to do so.

I prefer to describe myself as a 'Humanist' because it is more specific than 'Atheist' which, to some, may smack of the worst excesses of Soviet repression. If those who feel this way would like a definition of Humanism, the following web site is probably the most complete as it defines Humanism is positive terms rather than a purely negative definition of Atheism. In other words, Humanists are atheists (or agnostics) but Atheists are not necessarily Humanists.

www.iheu.org/adamdecl.htm

Yes, I'll vote for that, anno. I endorse and support everything in that statement.

anno, please don't confuse Stalinism with secular atheism. That would be as bad as confusing it with secular humanism, which I don't think you'd like at all. Quite rightly. Neither would I.

I call myself a humanist atheist, if anyone wants to know.

Learning a lot from this thread.

So how are atheists wishing to speak up for atheism supposed to behave when a militant Christian confronts them? Are we supposed to bow and scrape and pretend to agree? Come on, lily, you didn't really expect no-one to argue with your opening post.

Can you not be a Christian Humanist? I am also a humanist, although I haven't belonged to a group for some time, but I am also glad to declare myself an atheist.
Lilygran - I don't understand why it is fine for believers to criticise atheism but not for atheists to criticise religions. Nobody on this site has ever made a personal attack on another member on account of their religious beliefs. We attack those aspects of religion which are pernicious and hurtful to others.
Please do not adopt the pose of a martyr - if you want to join in debates on religion surely you must accept that some of us are very sincere in our hatred of certain religious practices. We respect the right of all people to believe in anything they like so long as they do not try to impose those beliefs on others. I am sure you respect my right to criticise religious practices - NOT individual believers.

Before I inally lost my faith, I defined myself as a New Testament Christian which is more or less what Jesus was. He told his disciples that he brought them a new commandment - 'that you love one another'. This would supersede and encompass the ten commandments. Too many so-called Bible Christians - fundamentalists, especially in the USA - believe every word of the Old Testament which is why they are so supportive of Israel.
Once, on a flight from Hong Kong, I found myself beside a young man with an open Bible. it wasn't long before he asked me if I believed in god. I said I didn't and he asked why. We had a very amicable discussion, the gist of which was that I said I had grown up and decided that I didn't need to believe in a god to live my life in an ethical manner, but that I agreed that Jesus had given us a pretty good ethical code. We agreed to differ. No, Bags, I didn't 'bow and scrape and pretend to agree'. Maybe I was lucky in that he wasn't specially 'militant'! Poor lad was a cop with the Met and I bet it's hard to hold on to your beliefs in that company.

I know you didn't bow and scrape, anno, and that you wouldn't. That phrase wasn't directed at you, or at anyone in particular. It was a general, open question. As for one's beliefs being hard to hold onto anywhere, all that suggests to me is that they're not worth holding onto.

Hello...my name is soop and I'm a decent-living atheist. I shall not go to heaven or hell when I die. I make my own heaven and hell whilst I'm alive, after which, I shall return to the sea, from which I came - and that's absolutely fine and dandy with me.

Just 500 yards from my house is a Church of Latter Day Saints which provides hospitality for lots of overseas visitors, particularly Utah. Most mornings, I drive past small groups of well-dressed young men who are out and about to spread the Mormon word and evangelise to my neighbourhood. They can often be quite pushy. When I first moved here, I was being door-stepped every week until I said no more, and although I don't have a sign at my door, they seem to have me on a list, and will now only look at my front door and move on. I wouldn't call them militant, but they are flippin' persistent. I don't come anywhere near broadcasting my humanist atheist views to people who might be offended, should I behave like this.

Why is this sort of behaviour not called militant, yet engaging in a debate about religion on a forum is, if atheist views are explained, but are not being imposed?

I posted the original comment because I expected a robust and lively debate. Which it is. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, of course I don't. It is quite interesting to toss a stone into a pool and see where the ripples travel to.

Isn't that what we call stirring? You can hardly engage in that and then get all hurt when people join in.

Oh, Greatnan, I'm not sure where anyone got the idea that I've been hurt by anything anyone has said on this thread! My comments about tiny criticism were a response the the shock horror reaction to me using the term "militant atheist". It would be stirring - and also quite cynical - if I didn't truly believe in the existence of God and the importance of faith - all the major faiths - in human life. I think it's worth arguing for.

I think we all have faith in human life, lily. It's having faith in gods that some of us find strange and difficult. Human life very evidently exists. The same cannot be said for gods.

Just had a look at my email and there was one from the Scout Association called "Shouting about Scouting". Here's their definition of what that means: We have a great opportunity for young people to let MPs know how brilliant Scouting is and what it's done for them.

I reckon that's what prominent atheists like Dawkins do – lets people know in the best way he can how brilliant atheism is and what it's done for him.

I like that.