---In [email protected], <turquoiseb@...> wrote :
From: "jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife]" <[email protected]> ...But many so called atheists today consider Dawkins to be one of the leading apologists for atheism. Don't be an idiot, John. *No one* considers Dawkins a "leading apologist for atheism" because being an atheist requires no apology. Good to know, that he is not a leading apologist. What I don't get is, what's all the fuss about? Why would an atheist want to convince anyone of his persuasion? If you feel, there is no meaning or sense in life, neither good or bad karma, if you believe in a sort of nihilism (?), then what's in for you, convincing anyone about it? I accept totally that the atheist position is a complete valid one, but then you cannot know either way, and it's everybodies choice. Believing in an invisible man in the sky is the thing that people should apologize for. There are still a few other alternatives to the invisible man in the sky, don't you think? Just knocking down a strawman is not a great argument. There are many, many different positions wrt some final reality, I wouldn't know personally anone who believes in a very literalist version of religion anyway (they do exits, but probably not around here). To argue against a simplistic and literalist version of belief, just weakens these arguments. That's all.
