I feel it is a bit sad how many believers seem so hostile to Richard Dawkins in particular. He is actually a joy to listen to! He is often (to my ears) just pleading for religion to be kept in the realm of ART?BEAUTY? and is NOT asking for it to be eradicated as such, but just kept from interfering directly in government/science specific matters especially.

My recent experience suggests that for some, this "god-belief" has just NEVER existed in any shape or form for them at all, and as such, the theme of genuine bafflement and frustration with god-belief ( i.e: Dawkins and Hitchens in particular) really tends to dominate their talks. I feel many theists get caught/stuck on this seemingly ...

I feel it is a bit sad how many believers seem so hostile to Richard Dawkins in particular. He is actually a joy to listen to! He is often (to my ears) just pleading for religion to be kept in the realm of ART?BEAUTY? and is NOT asking for it to be eradicated as such, but just kept from interfering directly in government/science specific matters especially.

My recent experience suggests that for some, this "god-belief" has just NEVER existed in any shape or form for them at all, and as such, the theme of genuine bafflement and frustration with god-belief ( i.e: Dawkins and Hitchens in particular) really tends to dominate their talks. I feel many theists get caught/stuck on this seemingly arrogant attitude and miss some of what is actually being said. I know it sounds so offensive when relayed in this manner, yet perhaps in understanding this point- the speakers absolute lack of ANY god-belief whatsoever, ever---can possibly soften and slow the believing-listeners inclination to take personal offense as to HOW it is said. Maybe then the conversation can move even an inch forward?

Alternatively, people like Sam Harris have a fascination with "spiritual" matters and although study and examination of the history of religions/ belief in general has apparently led to the place where any god-belief has been dropped... the same sense of outright revulsion at god-belief/believers in general is not present in the same way.....to my reading and impression of their works anyways.

@Antara
I'm confused about one point you make. You seem to be saying that because certain atheists have never been religious that their arguments should be viewed differently than if they had been religious at one time and subsequently became atheist? It seems as though you're implying that they should be what? Pitied?

And you brought up theist's view that the atheists viewpoint is arrogant. If anything, my impression is the exact opposite. What could be more arrogant than the theists viewpoint that they are "special" not by naturally developed abilities but by being picked out by an omnipotent god and granted dominion over all other life forms.

the same sense of outright revulsion...

@Antara
I'm confused about one point you make. You seem to be saying that because certain atheists have never been religious that their arguments should be viewed differently than if they had been religious at one time and subsequently became atheist? It seems as though you're implying that they should be what? Pitied?

And you brought up theist's view that the atheists viewpoint is arrogant. If anything, my impression is the exact opposite. What could be more arrogant than the theists viewpoint that they are "special" not by naturally developed abilities but by being picked out by an omnipotent god and granted dominion over all other life forms.

the same sense of outright revulsion at god-belief/believers in general is not present in the same way

I sense that perhaps you're taking this too personally. There is a wide difference in criticizing an idea or belief and criticizing the person herself. This may be a natural reaction and one that we've all felt yet it betrays the fact that it's the belief in a deity and not the person holding the belief that is being challenged. Now if then that person attempts to force his belief upon others I feel that the person becomes open to personal criticism.

Or have I simply misstated what you were saying?