An absence of something cannot equal a something .

Respectfully disagree. If "pressed" I admit to agnosticism, as I cannot conclusively prove god's non-existence. In a way, this is simply semantics. But in the face of overwhelming evidence against a god (and zero evidence for, in spite of millions of people trying to prove it for thousands of years), I have to take an intellectual stand. In the same way that there COULD, POSSIBLY be baby, magical purple turtles orbiting every star we see (try to DISPROVE that!), I am quite willing to declare publicly that there ain't no such thing! Ditto the god delusion. Anyway, that's my cheap ass two cents! Peace.

I am amazed that you should so often publish anti-Dawkins post, when you share exactly the same views, especially that only fundamentalist literal religion is harmful, and the metaphorical traditions are good.

Let's shine a brief candle in the dark on @skado and the almost theomorphic success in creating debate and flashing everyone's desires and discernment.

Gray was green and Dawkins' hawk of his fork fomented the snide snippet from yesteryear: alas it's too late to suggest the second memoir title The Arrogant Atheist.

Derive dialectic from the diatribe and avoid dogma.

Lack of faith is not a substitute faith, irrespective of what Darwin thought.

Even brilliant men can sometimes be dumb.

If I declare that my god is real and that it's scriptures are infallible. I MUST be able to PROVE that my god is a real living entity, and prove that it's doctrine is infallible. Every word based upon a fantasy, however emphasized as true, is irrelevant if not proven. Proof is substantial, belief is frivolous and fickle. You cannot argue that a god, or Bigfoot, or a leprechaun, disapproves of, or hates, or even loves anything until you first prove that this being exists. It becomes an exercise in futility, you would simply be repeating unsubstantiated claims that you believe to be true. Theists must first prove there is a god, then everyone on this planet can join the conversation.

A child may believe they "love" Santa, but in actuality, they "love" the concept, the idea, of Santa. Because, Santa does not exist. You cannot love an unsubstantiated belief. You may love the concept or idea of that belief which you have conceptualized over your lifetime from many different sources. But the substance, the proof, the most important thing needed to make people believe, that they can't produce.

Atheism is not a religion. An atheist does not believe in the existence of god or gods, however, an atheist does believe that the man-made concept of god exists. Just as an atheist believes that the man-made concept of Bigfoot exists. It necessitates the acknowledgment of, not the FAITH in, the concept of a god or Bigfoot. I interchange the words belief and faith because of those who interchange these words with reference to atheists, asserting they "believe" or have FAITH that a god does not exist. Theists are wrongly trying to establish that god exists, atheists have to have faith not to believe it. When someone asserts that something exists, I do make a conscious choice to believe it or not based upon proof. When I say, "I believe that Bigfoot does not exist", I am not saying that Bigfoot exists and I have to have FAITH not to believe it. However, I do make a conscious choice not to believe it because there is no proof. Most theists make subconscious choices to believe religious myths and doctrines without proof. They wrongly believe it is an established fact, that is what faith is, as is noted in its definition, "Faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than PROOF.”

Atheism is not a religion, nor does it have FAITH there is no god. Does not believe = non-belief, it is the absence of belief/faith, not the belief/faith in the absence of something.

Dear John Gray,
Is religion a business?
Sincerely,
Tom

There is some talk in here about the proper gander. Then others want to monkey around.

Not sure what all this is about, but if it's about representation, then I would agree. I don't think it's wrong to say atheism should be represented equally with theism and other religions.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the problem presented with the statement? I admit I haven't read the material referenced written by John Gray.

If I'm understanding correctly, I would say that if there were national decisions being made, and only religious leaders were invited to weigh in on those decision, there would be a gap where an atheist leader should be allowed to speak.

In a room full of believers in various colors of unicorns making decisions, a non-believer of unicorns in general should be able to have a say in those decisions.

When I confronted our former mayor a few years ago, after county funds were used for a mostly religious event, I also questioned him about his prayer breakfast. There's also the county "interfaith" council. He invited me to attend, as a humanist minister, but I declined. I know I should have gone, but I just didn't think I could stomach it. I thought about writing a guest column in the "religion" section of our local newspaper, but I wimped out on that too. One of these days I will, maybe, because I do think the atheist viewpoint should be shared in the tapestry of religious views. (Granted I would present a "humanistic" viewpoint.)

I shook hands with Dawkins once, after attending a talk he gave here in Hawaii. I admit I didn't 100% agree with everything he said, but it was still nice to hear someone who has put a lot of thought into his views.

I have a dream.

Of two atheists arguing about whether or not the angels are not dancing on the head of a pin or not dancing on the point of a pin.

Gray's modest opinion of everything Dawkin's aside, it still leads me to the heavenly conclusion that in the final analysis a believe in god is literal.

Whether monkeys use technology to destroy in the name of god or science is a moot point of paramount concern.

It may be how Dawkins sees atheism or it may be how John Gray interprets the way he thinks Dawkins sees atheism. Either way..I’m deliberately spelling atheism with a small “a” because there is no such thing as an organised movement or religion called “Atheism”. There are no creeds, churches or temples, no hierarchy, priests, diktats, censures or punishments…no mantras or chants or dogma. It therefore passes no test of any religion that I know of. Some individual atheists may possess a degree of insistence in their disbelief, comparable one may say to religious zeal, but to say that this makes atheism itself equivalent to a religious belief is nonsensical and fallacious.

Though yes Dawkins does take an almost religious view of his own position, so what ?

In the first place, John Gray is factually incorrect in his statement that literalism did not exist before the Reformation, admittedly a common fallacy apologists love to promote with religious zeal, so he is not to be blamed too much if he picked it up. One of the proofs of that, is his own quoted source, St Augustine himself, whose main, perhaps only, reason for stating his belief in a metaphorical interpretation of scripture, at all, was to explain his conversion to that view from literalism. In which he was certainly not alone, if as he claims, he had spent at least half his life in theology before he encountered non literal explanations. That John Gray fails to spot that obvious, elephant in the room, glaring error in his particular argument, is a prime example of the mental damage that religious thought, and its requirement for constant cognitive dissonance causes.

In the second place, why should Dawkins or anyone, not concern themselves with purely with literal religion, ( Since apart from the few sad individuals, like J. G. who literally, and in a religious sense delude themselves, that the great Metaphor, is itself literally a god who solves all problems. ) fundamentalist religion is the only sort which is of any real significance or threat to anyone. John Gray is also factually wrong in believing Dawkins includes the metaphorical interpretation in his anti religious stance, Dawkins himself has, ( being a snob, ) been fulsome in his praise, of what he calls "sophisticated" theologians with non literal interpretations.

Because if taken as non literal and truly interpreted metaphorically, then why should anyone care about the biblical scriptures ? Since they are then of no more significance than any other work of literature which may be so interpreted, from Homers Iliad to Winne The Pooh. It is only when it is given extra fake authority, that any book, or random collection of writings, becomes dangerous or potentially harmful. Whether that fake authority comes from a supposed supernatural origin, from the false faith in the wisdom of tradition, especially interpreted metaphorically so that it can be made to say anything, or from limited understanding promoted by narrow reading, it does not matter.

A figurative holy text, like any metaphorical myth, can make sense. But that's not what we're dealing with today by any stretch. I personally keep the Agnostic in front of my Atheist, because I dare not say that I KNOW that no deity exists, even though I'm convinced there are none. I cannot prove a negative. No one can. Tea cup. If others choose to be more assertive in their expression of that, I find no fault. Someone has to prove them wrong with concrete evidence, which hasnt happened yet in the lifespan of this planet. Yes, that goes both ways, which is why this madness continues.

As Always, someone tries to attack and run him down with a Philosophical mind!
in front of a scientific perspective, philosophy is Totally useless/worthless.
In the best scenario, the philosophical mind can argue about pointless subjects with religion, which both of them have the same root!
Oh, btw, IMO, the philosophy of science is JUST A JOKE!

That was an example of propaganda. Hitler did it, politicians do it, and religious leader do it. It is B.S.

"To the best of my recollection, I have met Dawkins only once and by chance, when we coincided at some meeting in London. It must have been in late 2001, since conversation at dinner centered around the terrorist attacks of September 11. Most of those at the table were concerned with how the West would respond: would it retaliate, and if so how? Dawkins seemed uninterested. What exercised him was that Tony Blair had invited leaders of the main religions in Britain to Downing Street to discuss the situation—but somehow omitted to ask a leader of atheism (presumably Dawkins himself) to join the gathering. There seemed no question in Dawkins’s mind that atheism as he understood it fell into the same category as the world’s faiths.

In this, Dawkins is surely right. To suppose that science can liberate humankind from ignorance requires considerable credulity. We know how science has been used in the past—not only to alleviate the human lot, but equally to serve tyranny and oppression. The notion that things might be fundamentally different in the future is an act of faith—one as gratuitous as any of the claims of religion, if not more so. Consider Pascal. One of the founders of modern probability theory and the designer of the world’s first mass-transit system, he was far too intelligent to imagine that human reason could resolve perennial questions. His celebrated wager has always seemed to me a rather bad bet. Since we cannot know what gods there may be (if any), why stake our lives on pleasing one of them? But Pascal’s wager was meant as a pedagogical device rather than a demonstrative argument, and he reached faith himself by way of skeptical doubt. In contrast, Dawkins shows not a trace of skepticism anywhere in his writings. In comparison with Pascal, a man of restless intellectual energy, Dawkins is a monument to unthinking certitude."

I think the operative term here might be 'closed mind'.
I suspect atheists can be as dogmatic as anyone else. If that makes some people lump them in with 'the world's faiths', so be it. They're just words anyway.

From the Agnostic .com link.

The closed mind of Richard Dawkins
His atheism is its own kind of narrow religion.
By John Gray

I'm calling human scat on this claim atheism is a religion.

I've yet to hear any argument that convinces me that atheism is a "religion".