How many here agree with Dawkins about the downfall of religion?

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

This poll is for athiests only. Please do not reply to the poll unless you are an athiest.
(Thiests are welcome to get involved in the thread discussion though of course.)

I'd like to get an idea from my fellow athiests here regarding Richard Dawkins' view that the world would be a better place without any religion at all...

I've tried to provide a decent amount of poll options, to try and clearly seperate the various 'forms' that I could see existing here.

To make my view clear, I am a Libetarian. Therefore, without question, I would be against ANY form of law that tried to 'outlaw' any aspect of religion without VERY good (scientifically demonstratable) reason.
I also find the idea that moderate religion must be attacked as strongly as 'fundemental' religion to be mis-guided. First of all, it would seem to deny the 'fact' (as I see it) that moderate thiests can be just as 'reasonable' as any athiest when it comes to anything that should be of any concern to anybody else. (Moderate thiests are perfectly capable of understanding the reasons behind the seperate of church and state - for example, regardless of their individual beliefs). And secondly, I believe that attacking moderate religion can push moderates towards fundementalism. Instead of helping, it can actually hinder.

I found it difficult to construct sensible poll options here - that covered everything. But we'll see how we go...

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Ahh - my poll options were too much for the board ;)
...I'll need some time to organise them. Sorry...

EDIT: Done

[drewjmore]

Science/atheism make no promises about it's ability to supplant the "ultimate truth" on offer from theologists. I think we're getting there, but until we do cutting theists off cold-turkey from their crutch is difficult at best and cruel at worst. For many it is a harmless addiction, it's the views of their leaders & evangelists (whose britches seem to be shrinking), that need to be marginalized.

[EvolvedAndygal]

I dislike all religion, but I have less of a problem with non-violent non-proselytizing moderate religion that doesn't interfere with science. I believe that the world would be a better place if religion didn't exist and everybody based their basic beliefs on reason. I don't support banning/restricting non-violent non-interfering with other people's lives religion, but I do think we shouldn't be giving people a freebie to do stuff we wouldn't let other people do because of their religion, or letting them refuse to do stuff that everybody else is required to do.

[espritch]

I don't like religion, especially fundamentalist religion, but I think that laws should be limited to upholding separation of church and state. I don't think you can force reason on people, and trying to use government and laws to do so would be disastrous and evil.

[XanderG]

I also have no love for religion, but I would fight any attempt to have atheism forced on people, in the same way I would fight tooth and nail against any Theocracy. My view is everyone can believe whatever nonsense they so choose, but should not expect special treatment if they cannot provide good reasons for their beliefs. I'm also a firm believer in fighting bad arguments, not with banning or threats, but with better arguments.

I also find moderate believers much easier to get on with, than the fire and brimstone fundamentalists, though I still believe that moderates are being intellectually dishonest when it comes to their faith.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Looking back at my poll options, I think I should have worded one option better.

Where I said:
I think it would be 'OK' for the world to be all athiest.

I really should have said:

I think it would be 'OK' for the world to be all atheist, but I would also be OK with a decent mixture of attitudes as long as religion played no role in law-making.

Could anybody who voted for this option confirm whether they would have given the same vote with the revised wording?
Thanks.

Also - for anybody who can be bothered - a post saying:

1. How you voted
2. Whether you consider yourself 'in agreement' with Dawkins or not on this issue. Or maybe you mainly agree, but not totally agree etc. Go into as much detail as you need.

...would be interesting.
Thanks guys.

[JamesBannon]

I only voted for one of the options (2). As far as legislation goes the state has no business either legislating on or promoting the private individual beliefs of the citizens. Therefore, all faith-based schooling would be "out": there would be no such thing as a catholic school, a protestant school, a muslim school or anything like that. If they wish citizens may gather together for communal worship and such, even if it is of the fundamentalist sort, but in no event shall such institutions have any role in government.

[OldYgg]

I voted both #1 and the last one.

I personally am opposed to religion.

But I don't think it should be illegal or anything like that. I do think that it needs to be separated from politics and lawmaking.

I mean, look at the way these pople are going after Mitt Romney?

And I remember when a Mormon kid won some Christian Olympics - and then they disqualified him because he wasn't a 'Christian'.

If you let religion get involved in government - there would be a law barring Mitt Romney from running and Christian events would be certified Christian only.

Old Ygg

[Mizled]

I would be opposed to it being outlawed but happy if the world was full of people who freely chose to be an atheist.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

I would be opposed to it being outlawed but happy if the world was full of people who freely chose to be an atheist.


Yeah - I probably should have been more specific about the 'freely choose' bit in the poll too.

The reason I voted for 7 was because I would see diversity in human thought as important. Plus, I would find it highly unlikely that - no matter how 'enlightened' we become as a society - there wouldn't be SOMEBODY who belevied in something supernatural. So if a total 'athiest' belief were ever to be attained, I would be suspicious about it being attained though our own 'athiest' kind of indoctrination.
i.e. I would wonder if the virtue of 'athiesm' had over-riden the virtue of 'free thinking'.

But it's hard to get all that detail into a poll option :)

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

OK - here's another question. This might tackle what I really want to know...

How do you think Dawkins himself would vote in the above poll?
...options #1, #4 and #8?

[Revolutionary]

I oppose bad spelling.

atheist
fundamental
believe

[trendkill]

I think it would be 'OK' for the world to be all atheist, but I would also be OK with a decent mixture of attitudes as long as religion played no role in law-making.
I wouldn't insist on religion playing 'no' role in lawmaking, and I don't feel a need to deconvert the entire world; what I really want is simply for atheists and atheist philosophies to stop being marginalized.

[Ruiner]

Homogeny sucks. Working towards homogeny sucks even more. Fundies need to go, no doubt about that. Although it would be a great comedic tragedy, I'm OK with that. There are less dangerous things to make fun of.