If I were God or one of his beurocrats at the pearly gates, I'd let in Dawkins just for a laugh.

Pascal's wager should be recalculated to include the possibility that if God does exist, whether or not he has a sense of humour.

I wonder if his obituary will read, "Brilliant scientific career cut short by his own burning desire to find new and creative ways to be rude to old ladies."

Pascal originally advocated spending time with religious people

Maybe antitheist (as proposed by Mr Hitchens) is a better term than atheist? It doesn't carry the same 'baggage'.

Must admit i don't like the negativity of antitheist and that is part of my problem or uncomfortableness (is this even a word?) with my atheism in general.  It just isn't very positive or comforting.  A bit like saying at someones funeral or to your grandmother - "Nothing after this...just getting eaten by worms".  In gambling terms it has often occurred to me that non believing is like the ultimate -EV bet.  There is basically no upside to it at all.  If there is even a 0.00001% chance of God existing presumably by not believing in it I have made it difficult for myself and there isn't much to be gained from not believing.  If I am right then I just become dirt.  unfortunately there is nothing in my brain logically that can think anything else although Buddism appeals on a couple of levels.

What's the upside or positive to believing in a god, what do you gain? I can think of things that you gain by not believing - although you obviously have to define that belief. I don't see why one side is more positive than the other.

It´s Pascal´s wager: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

Dawkin´s would say something like what you gain by not believing in God is the knowledge that it´s really important to make the very most of this life as it´s all there is, he put adverts on the side of London buses saying basically this.

The very reason I think he should concentrate more on the Biology. His call though obv, just like everyone else he's free to crack on with whatever takes his fancy.

I'd lay Cardinal Peter Turkson.

Then I'd bet against him.

It is an interesting one. As much as I like questioning the conclusions and actions of some atheists, there's no doubt that atheism is increasingly prevalent in occidental society and that the communication of scientific advances in the fields of biology and physics has been a factor in this.

People who happen to be atheists should be participants at all levels of our representative democracy in the sane way that people who happen to be female, disabled or ginger should be. They are in Britain, they are not in America. Let the Americans worry about that though. I have no interest in solving problems here that don't really exist by means that don't really work.

Agree totally with your reasoning although I would say that I think atheists are probably participants in all levels of democracy in the States too but they just daren't say that they are. For example, Obama had very little by way of religious upbringing and it wouldn't be a massive stretch to
suggest that his church going is somewhat contrived. 

Indeed, there are undoubtadely atheists within the American system who keep these beliefs to themselves.

Don't have a problem with that on an individual level (indeed atheists who keep their atheism to themselves are my favourite type of atheists) but when none of them are happy to stand up and say they don't think there's a God it's symptomatic of a problem.

Similarly in Britain we have a suspicious lack of gay people in professional football. It's up to the individual whether to be out or not but when none of them are out there's probably an issue.

Our system still offers religious privilege. That still needs to be addressed.

I'm not sure I agree and I'm concerned that any direct action to bring about that which you desire would have unintended consequences that run contrary to what you desire.

No CofE-er at the moment is taken seriously when they complain of oppression of marginalization within the United Kinggdom. The importance of the church within public life has slowly been reduced and that trend looks set to continue. No-one really cares. Pressing the issue with sone symbolic change that is radically different to what the masses are used to and this might galvanise popular opposition to the gradual scaling back of the importance of
religion.

Essentially, what you want is already happening. Pressing the issue and you risk losing a 'won' position.

It is an interesting one. As much as I like questioning the conclusions and actions of some atheists, there's no doubt that atheism is increasingly prevalent in occidental society and that the communication of scientific advances in the fields of biology and physics has been a factor in this.

People who happen to be atheists should be participants at all levels of our representative democracy in the sane way that people who happen to be female, disabled or ginger should be. They are in Britain, they are not in America. Let the Americans worry about that though. I have no interest in solving problems here that don't really exist by means that don't really work.

Also, percieved problems elsewhere, (in this case the US) do not always good arguments make to changing our current system here. Especially when the change being proposed makes us more similar to the place where the problem is.

The lack of declarations of atheism among congressmen and congresswoman in the United States cones from a country which has the separation of Church and State enshrined into their constitution. One may call that evidence that similar changes to the British constitution (we do have one, though not a single document and it is more fluid than that of America's) are pretty pointless and they won't stop declarations of faith from political leaders if that's what they perceive the prevailing electoral climate to be demanding.

Think describing people such as that as millitant is a bit harsh and the proportion of theists that display a similar attitude to atheists and worse is much higher.  I also think that the stock view of most thinking atheists isn't really a dislike of religion, just a quiet (and quiet is the key word) disdain for their lack of intellectual capacity.  I have never seen anyone in the street shouting that the passers-by need to lose God, Allah or whoever.  I rarely walk down a street on a saturday without seeing the opposite.  Not really sure why theists should be allowed to ram their, frankly ridiculous (imo of course), views down our throats.  On the rare occasions atheists have publicly demonstrated or
shown their voice the treatment they have received, particularly in the US, is nothing short of disgraceful.

Dawkins described himself as being a militant atheist, albeit with a dash of irony.

I make no apology for questioning atheists. Those claiming a monopoly on the  intellectual high ground should be
 open to opposition. Christopher Hitchens taught me that.

I'm not in Somalia, Saudi Arabia or Northern Ireland though. Revolution not required here just because it may well be required elsewhere. Campaign for change in Somalia, Saudi Arabia and Northern Ireland and I'll leave you be and wish you well.

That's maybe a good idea for all the militant atheist disciples who want to promote the idea a secular society.

It's all well and good saying that you don't need religion to stop you being a cock. To reinforce this idea then, atheists oughta stop behaving like cocks. Being rude to old ladies and calling everyone with a different viewpoint an idiot is cock-like behaviour.

Cannot remember ever having seen someone on the telly talking making an argument against religion without them being a bit of a cock about it.

A secular society should be a must for people of faith surely?  By definition the separation of faith from politics means that you're free to practice any faith whereas in a state intrinsically tied to a religion the people of that state are not free to worship their particular faith.

Privilege through religion is a major problem imo, and whereas faith is a personal thing that doesn't have to impact on others, religion affords
people power - and when certain individuals or groups are given power in this way it means others have some freedoms or rights taken away from
them.

I think the intrinsic ties between favoured religions and the state which you speak of are a bit of a red herring.

Inequalities with regard to religion and people's decision to practice a particular faith will always exist irregardless of what the state does. Just as inequalities with regard to sport and what sporting activities people want to participate in will exist. The major factor behind both of these inequalities will be the relative popularity of others in the population making similar choices.

In practice people are free to crack on with whatever religion they choose in the UK. It's probably easier to be CofE than a Buddhist but eliminating whatever privliges Rowan Williams enjoys will not really acconplish anything. Eliminating all inequality would be a fools errand.

"militant atheist" in inverted commas. I forgot the commas, beg your pardon.

Atheists who, given sufficient oppurtunity, are rather keen to talk about their dislike of religion and the role it has within our society.

That's maybe a good idea for all the militant atheist disciples who want to promote the idea a secular society.

It's all well and good saying that you don't need religion to stop you being a cock. To reinforce this idea then, atheists oughta stop behaving like cocks. Being rude to old ladies and calling everyone with a different viewpoint an idiot is cock-like behaviour.

Cannot remember ever having seen someone on the telly talking making an argument against religion without them being a bit of a cock about it.

I use the Navigon app as my satnav and I'm very happy with it.

It speaks the names of the streets "in 100 yards turn right into Chestnut Place" rather than just "in 100 yards turn right.
Gives me the illusion I'm in control of my own destiny as I know where I am. I'm in Chestnut Place baby!

Not just blindly following directions to streets that may as well not have names at all, just codes. Now I can join in converstions with older people talking about the best routes to go to the post offie as I now know the names of the streets.