xcanadian, your post intrigues me. I don’t want to be contrary or insulting, but here are the first three things that popped into my mind:

1) Epicurus was an agnostic, not an atheist. He argued that the gods (referred to singularly as a collective in ancient greek), if they existed, were indifferent to man. That quote is taken *way* out of context. The idea was that we should be indifferent to an indifferent God. The idea of there not being a creator of some sort, however, was a pretty difficult concept for people without concepts of modern science.

2) In spite of his accent, Richard Dawkins is not intellectual. I can’t believe you mentioned him and intellectual in the same breath. He’s just the atheist equivalent of the ultra-extremist Christians that piss me off equally as much. One’s right to *demand* someone believe something begins where sanity ends. The most alarming thing about Dawkins is the fact that he considers religion “dangerous” and attacks Freedom of Conscience. Mao, Pol Pot and Stalin had something in common with the Santo Ofício and the Muslim extremists, and it ain’t religion. Here’s a hint: None of them believe in *F*R*E*E*D*O*M*O*F*C*O*N*S*C*I*E*N*C*E* It’s not any particular -ism that causes great tragedies, it is the idea that you can force people to believe what you do.

3) Does it really matter if atheism has a historical precedent? I’m not up on my logic, but if your premise is strong, should it matter who believed it or when? If you want some real Greek philosophy, try reading the Apology: it doesn’t matter what other people know to be true so long as you know it to be true.

I have a hard time believing that, Ando. Although he doesn’t come right out and say it, he uses the language of those who have opposed freedom of conscience historically. He supports attacking moderates, for one. I suppose by attack he means “debate”, but his intention is very much revealed by the words he uses.

He also accuses religion of being untouchable by criticism. Is it? Maybe things are different in the states, but I can think of *very* few examples of atheists being persecuted by governments in the last thirty years in the developed nations, save a bit of censorship here and there, all of which has come under intense fire openly and publicly. Dawkins has, by tricky rhetoric alone, created a fiction which distorts the lines between past and present, the developed world and countries like Afghanistan.

Infact, the only thing Dawkins wishes to change that doesn’t already exist in the developed world is that he doesn’t want children raised religious. What a load of crap. Of course, children can be raised atheist because there isn’t a burden of proof. He doesn’t propose *how* we do this, but I’d like to ask you if there is a way to control what parents *say* to their children that is humane. Build residential school? Keep an eye out for Ateus-Novos, as it were? I’m a history student in Canada of Brazilian-Portuguese background, and I could list off examples of terrible violent atrocities in all those countries which has sought to change the beliefs of children or prevent parents from sharing their beliefs with their own children. And none of the ideologues justifying that madness said ‘kill em all’, they used very tricky and persuasive propaganda which sounds to me exactly like the sort of rhetoric Dawkins is using. It’s a slippery slope, man. Maybe that’s overblowing it a bit, but I’ll say this: It’s ironic that he doesn’t want the beliefs of others forced on him, when he wants to eliminate the very *language* (christian child, muslim child) used to suggest a belief based background eliminated. I’ll remind you that belief – theist or no – is inevitably tied with culture. In fact, it is culture. Scary stuff.