Did Dawkins cause a religious fundamentalist resurgence?

I have often wondered about this myself.

No, I don't think so. I think they have always tried to get creationism into biology classes. It may have slowed in the 80's and 90's, but that's only because they were getting organized and changing their tactics, ie. the Discovery Institute and Intellegent Design.

The fundies also use wedge tactics, such as getting political power by grooming future senators, congressmen, and local officials, ie. Patrick Henry College, as an example.

If anything, it's been the growth of "born again evangelical fundies" that has brought on the resurgence. Just look at the mega churches in the last 30 years.

I think there should have been more Dawkins' in the world, long ago.

Oh, come on, get real! There was never any sort of "de facto nonaggression pact." It is the creationists who have consistently tried to keep evolution out of public schools for a century now, successfully at first. Unfortunately for them, the evidence has overwhelmingly supported their nemesis until it is the only rational approach to biological instruction. But they have never willingly "let Darwinians reign in biology class," and it's not likely that they ever will.

The article is bullshit from beginning to end.

The idea that the more vocal non-theists become the more entrenched fundamentalists will become is not all that weird of an idea.

Yes, this particular argument goes of the deep end in some ways.

But has the image of atheists among the general populace improved or gotten worse?

I think it's improved--it could scarcely have done otherwise. For a long time, atheists were thought to be craven degenerates--certainly not a part of normal society. With Dawkins and others bringing atheism into mainstream awareness, the idea that it's a rational response to the questions that religion poses is now a possibility that many more consider than would have a couple of decades ago.

Mainstream folks may not be ready to vote any of us into office, but they no longer think we all belong in prison. It's a start.

In the UK humanists are sometimes seen as distinct from atheists and possibly have a more positive reputation.
E.g. this illustrates what I mean,(from a writer for Atheism UK):
http://www.atheismuk.com/2012/06/10/atheism/h...
"..based upon the evidence of these few days, although it’s members might be atheists, Humanism does not do Atheism."
I have been trying to make the point for some time that there seems an inherent problem if one allows oneself to be defined as an atheist. It is an essentially negative term and we are all apixieists too.'Atheist' or 'agnostic' are fine ways to distinguish myself from religionists, but it is not what how I would describe myself to someone.

NightSerf wrote:

I think it's improved--it could scarcely have done otherwise. For a long time, atheists were thought to be craven degenerates--certainly not a part of normal society. With Dawkins and others bringing atheism into mainstream awareness, the idea that it's a rational response to the questions that religion poses is now a possibility that many more consider than would have a couple of decades ago.
Mainstream folks may not be ready to vote any of us into office, but they no longer think we all belong in prison. It's a start.

Entirely agree, although I believe that Prof Dawkins refers to his stance as agnostic, not atheist. I think he does this (as do I) so as to avoid the 'don't atheists assert there is no god?' rigmarole.
http://richarddawkins.net/

NightSerf wrote:

Oh, come on, get real! There was never any sort of "de facto nonaggression pact." It is the creationists who have consistently tried to keep evolution out of public schools for a century now, successfully at first. Unfortunately for them, the evidence has overwhelmingly supported their nemesis until it is the only rational approach to biological instruction. But they have never willingly "let Darwinians reign in biology class," and it's not likely that they ever will.
The article is bullshit from beginning to end.

Yes, Prof Dawkins is so effective because he adheres to the specifics of issues - creationism in schools and its scientific validity or lack thereof.

If Creationists withdraw to websites, meetings and Churches, Prof Dawkins offers no objections to their theorising. That's all.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/jan/...
He is clear and specific (and polite and respectful) about what is wrong..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8814... #

When he refers to religionists as delusional, for example, it isn't to ridicule. What else can one feel on seeing scenes like these?....
https://www.google.co.uk/search...
If religionists sometimes feel stupid or ridiculed, perhaps it is because beliefs in abrahamic gods do appear to be stupid.

EdSed wrote:

In the UK humanists are sometimes seen as distinct from atheists and possibly have a more positive reputation.
E.g. this illustrates what I mean,(from a writer for Atheism UK):
http://www.atheismuk.com/2012/06/10/atheism/h...
"..based upon the evidence of these few days, although it’s members might be atheists, Humanism does not do Atheism."
I have been trying to make the point for some time that there seems an inherent problem if one allows oneself to be defined as an atheist. It is an essentially negative term and we are all apixieists too.'Atheist' or 'agnostic' are fine ways to distinguish myself from religionists, but it is not what how I would describe myself to someone.

so you tell folks that you are an apixieist? what sort of response do you get?

EdSed wrote:

<quoted text>Entirely agree, although I believe that Prof Dawkins refers to his stance as agnostic, not atheist. I think he does this (as do I) so as to avoid the 'don't atheists assert there is no god?' rigmarole.
http://richarddawkins.net/

Why avoid it? It is easy to answer. Some atheists assert that there is no god - and those are often called strong or hard atheists. Sometimes atheists of that sort assert that they know there is no God, and some others assert that they know the Christian-Jewish-Muslim God does not exist.

Other atheists do not believe in a God, but do not claim to have knowledge. Not claiming to have knowledge is called agnostic, so a good term for these types of atheists is: "agnostic atheist." They are not soft or weak, however. Those terms are silly. The socalled hard or strong atheists cannot be called gnostic athiests, because gnostic means knowing - and they just claim to know.

The zealots just got nervous when they realized that we're now working to prevent them from destroying the education of kids. Meh, they should just fall silent on the matter, but as long as they're being noisy, we'll be noisier.

betterlatethannever wrote:

<quoted text> so you tell folks that you are an apixieist? what sort of response do you get?

Why would I tell anyone I was an 'apixieist'? The word doesn't even exist. I wrote, "[Atheist] is an essentially negative term and we are all apixieists too." The point is that 'atheist' defines only my stance on religion. Religion doesn't interest me except in so far as it causes problems or trouble - as far as I have to be interested. I see little value in religion compared to how divisive it is and the harm it does.

As for the definitions you site regarding atheism - you would think so, wouldn't you? Try it and see.

Some people, even in the face of the dictionary definition, insist that an atheist is someone who knows for certain that there is no god. That depends on the definition of 'god'. Are they referring to an abrahamic god? Etcetera... I have found that some people don't even accept the dictionaries definitions of the word 'atheist'. For instance, they argue the root of the word is "a" meaning not and "theist" meaning deity. Hence "without a deity" and so atheists insist there is no deity. And so it goes on and on.

I know that is ridiculous but I have found it here on Topix and elsewhere.

Atheist is a term useful to distinguish some people from the religious. That's all,(I thought the point about apixieist exemplified that).'Atheist' is essentially negative. If people ask "who are you" or want to know what one thinks or 'is about', I prefer to say something positive rather than a response relating me to those who are religious. Arguably, that dignifies religion or gives it importance unnecessarily.

Also, atheists seem to have a relatively negative image. Humanists seem to have a better one and that is probably because of a more positive approach rather than simply a negative reaction to religion.

Dawkins "caused a backlash"? Dawkins WAS the backlash.

Religitards like Falwell and Robertson have been spewing their shit on radio and TV in the US since the 1940s. Atheists have kept their heads down ever since the fictions of Joe McCarthy made it unsafe to publicly admit being an atheist.

Blaming atheists for responding to decades of christard propaganda is like blaming a woman for injuring a man who tried to rape her. The perpetrator is pretending to be a victim, and the only ones who believe it are those who would be willing to rape society with religion.

.

There are no Darwinist. Darwin is not an 'ism'. That is a creationist term. The correct term is 'evolution'. It is a science, not a belief. Darwin was the first to observe and record natural effects on various species. It is knowledge. If you know the law of gravity, you are not a Newtonist that believes in Newtonism. Creationism, however, is a story told differently in many books with different followers. It is only limited by your imaination.