However Dawkins describes himself, if he does indeed describe himself as a "militant atheist" which I would like to see proven, he is one of the rational outspoken proponents of non-belief and sees no reason why any religious belief should be treated as sacrosanct, which is far more dangerous thing than any ideas that he may have.

There are those who would sit on the fence in intellectual snobbery and refuse to take any position on matters such as these without actually appraising the value of these ideas but resort to ad hominem condemnation of individuals whose ideas they don't like.

Among non-believers, there is no reasonable threat of fanaticism since there is no unifying ideology among them.

As to science, there is no one on Mudcat that has a monopoly on this game. Science is constantly changing as new empiricism replaces the old. Who here has the authority to claim superior knowledge about it?

BTW, this thread is a continuation of one that has thankfully left and the subject matter was not started by me. Note that I used the same title as the other one.

Grishka's accusation that I wanted "to win it" is not true. I really wanted a decent discussion to take place, one where I might learn something. I think what I've learned so far is that legitimate discussions of this nature often turn into "one-up-man-ship" with pretentious erudition replacing honest communication.

I still maintain that the labeling of "militant atheism" is a weapon used by religious folk who have little substantive "faith" in their respective religions otherwise they wouldn't be so defensive and use derogatory labels.