But it is honest, and brave, because it allows for uncertainty, whereas the dawkins types seem to want to belittle anything not them. If people cannot entertain doubt, function with doubt, and still get along despite doubt, than they are acting just like the people they claim to hate so much, but nonetheless imitate.

I don't understand the difference between religion and politics. In my mind, challenging a world view is challenging a world view. The two are intertwined. If someone worships a homophobic god, then they will be much less likely to support marriage equality. If someone worships a god who loves and accepts homosexuals, then they will be very likely to support marriage equality.

I understand the argument that it may not be wise for atheists to try to deconvert the God believers.

I also know quite a bit about Dennett, having read a couple of his books, more than once, and have listened to both interviews and speeches. I have never heard Dennett advocate anything resembling advocating deconversion let alone calling believers morons. The one position he takes strongly is that we ought to study the phenomenon of religion to understand it. He also advocates for a future where religion becomes, as he puts it, a less virulent form (while recognizing that religion is very likely here to stay).

Dennett is a gentle soul, a Santa Claus like teddy bear -- sorry for the mixed metaphors. I don't see that Dennett matches any of the unseemly characterizations about which the author complains.

So I do not understand his point. Why bring Dennett into it at all? Just because a philosopher has some objection? That's what philosophers do. It's their trade.

I just don't get this. Please, somebody enlighten me. Many thanks.

on edit: BTW, R&K

And I disagree that believers, in general, know more than atheists about religion. That cannot be true since many atheists grew up in the same culture and with the same education as the believers. Very many atheists have had religious education. This claim seems a bit like a straw man.

And I personally never try to deconvert.

Again, thanks for any responses.

especially Christians, don't have a clue about the arguments against the existence of a god. They are born into their belief system and not exposed to reason applied to that system. They are usually shocked to find that they are speaking to an Atheist because don't really believe that we exist in the general populace. It is simply beyond their small world and ability to understand.
I not only don't try to deconvert them but... I have given up trying to convince the average Christian that Atheists (truly) exist.

Believe in love and you get love. Believe prayers are answered and prayers are answered.

People who do not realize they are in control of what happens to them... I feel sorry for.

This whole life is in your head.. Believe it!

You may not grok when it has worked, but if you don't believe it will it never will. Another name for it is: Freewill.

...and at playing all sorts of games with what it means to have "wanted" something to happen a certain way, what you "thought" you wanted vs. what you "really" wanted, etc. (Whatever actually happens is the "really", of course).

It really used to hurt when people here could not read right. Now I just say, too bad for them. Warren Stupidity, heh. That's funny.

But the blowback I gave myself so infuriated me that I refused to listen to anymore of my hair brained nonsense.

Gradually I am getting more centered and if I let things cool down a few more months may once again consider listening to what I have to say.

Until then I hope that everyone will follow my lead and disregard anything I have to say, eventually we will bring the blow hard around.

Knowing when to quit being such a blowhard. Been there done that. Still doing it.

Another is being able to forgive yourself.

If you want forthright atheism in your enlightenment philosophers, turn to Baron D'holbach.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/7319/7319-h/7319-h.htm

"Good Sense without God"

My favorite among his works is "De la Cruaute Religieuse" of which I can't recommend a translation. It would be called in English "On Religious Cruelty."

D'holbach, almost unknown today, played an important role in inciting the French revolution.

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/41336