Broad brushes indeed. Dawkins is a fundamentalist and not liked by lots of scientists, regardless of whether they have a faith or not as his combative and confrontational manner does more harm than good. Hitchens was more complex character and his atheism was less crusading and more personal in nature; Hitchens was't trying to convert people as he didn't care what people thought, he was just being himself.

As for Fry... well, I'm less of a fan than I was. I have no issue at all with his questioning of why god lets innocents suffer (an issue totally avoided by those on this forum who might be able to answer the question), but I'm tired of him as a personality and I wonder if we've overestimated his talents. He's a witty and amusing writer, but is there any more? Not sure.


"Mudcat atheists paint their positions with a wide brush, and insult all who have religious inclinations."

Well, I don't think they* all do and sometimes you need a wide brush to cover a large area. Let's talk specifics!

*I don't count myself as an atheist because I have my own ideas on all this, all though to all the major religions in the world folk like myself are probably indistinguishable from atheists, so feel free to include me.