You know, I hold it with Groucho Marx: "I don't want to be a member of any club that would want me as a member."

Because humans are tribal. We always have organized ourselves around certain "ideas". Our entire concept of civilization is build around this. For the longest time religion was a really good way to "unite" people, the divides we have seen happened as our population expanded and became more mobile and we ran into other…

I think what many people fail to understand is why so many people are drawn to religion. I don't think Atheism CAN give the same sense of "belonging" etc. simply because what unites is the absence of something, not the existence of something. That's why I would argue that taking Atheism beyond a philosophical position…

"I do, in much the same way as I woke up not believing in Santa any more."

If humans are good at something it's tribal thinking. All the ills people ascribe to religion will not just magically disappear when we all suddenly would no longer belief. They exist because the way we organize ourselves, how we form power structures etc.

I would say the proof for that is still outstanding.

Yes, but our form of Government is a pretty new invention, probably dating back to the late 19th century. Before then the idea of Government as a support structure for the individual didn't really exist. Either it was just not able to do so (think US), or it was in the hands of "monarchs" etc. and Government was just…

Very likely yes. That was the point I was trying to make :)

Yes, I actually do see many who flocked to "new Atheism" as "immature" because I do not think that you can get to atheism on the snap of a finger. It is a philosophical position and thus requires investement into it.

What I mean is they were surrounded by (a) religion and tried to get away from it. Atheism was the perfect escape as it seemed to remove the underlying reason for a religion to exist. So they said: "Well, I am not Christian, thus I am atheist" which I think is a logical shortcut that can't hold up the test of time.

I use religion in the context of the churches, that is: There is a clear struture and "truth" that gets imparted. Dawkins is a good example, his approach to Atheism is a pretty dogmatic one and his bible is "The God Delusion". He often "talks from the pulpit" in this context as well with little regards for people who…

I think we have religion because it provides a structure that allows people to "hold on to", same reason why we have Governments etc. Many people require a frame work.

No, they would just go over the interpretation of someone who wrote about atheism. Heck, take a look at the kerfuffel that "Athemism+" is righ tnow. If you can count on one thing it's that some people always perceive themselves as more special than others and will find a way to start a fight over it.

Do you honestly think that if atheism would be a world wide thing people wouldn't splinter over it and then create subsets of it?

You don't really need to be a religious zealot to call yourself an atheist. Actually, I would say the majority don't.

Well.... Yes and no.

Well.... Yes and no.

1. You inferred a statement, you know the "When did you stop beating your wife?" kind of thing. And before you say: You did it too! No I didn't. I put mine in brackets which does not make it part of the actually question just infers a second, minor, opinion in relation to the main question. But feel free to try to…

No, what you wrote and replied to was:

Do you want me to call you some moving guys to help you move that goal post?