It wasn't Dawkins that made people leave the Church, it was in most cases the people in the Church that treated it as either a social club or a political club or a morals club to beat people with.

Britain especially has seen major declines in interest in the Church.

New Atheism, howsomever, didn't help itself, either. (from the thread link)

"Still, though Dawkins has spoken of his "cultural Christianity" before, this feels like another staging-post on a journey towards the good Professor finally admitting that the New Atheism, of which he was such a shining light, was wrong in crucial respects.

First, in its almost touching naivety that a post-Christian world would give way to a values-neutral space, rooted in reason.

Second, in its semi-adolescent diagnosis of Christianity as a retardant upon cultural and intellectual progress.

A New Atheist would generally cite the Spanish Inquisition or some wacky US creationist as representatives of the world's largest faith " conveniently ignoring any contradictory examples."

And we still see the leftovers of that arrogance today.

Here's when Dawkins may have started doubting?

- Dallas diocese

There were few enough Catholics in Baptist TX back then as it was. I remember as a teen encountering my first Catholic priest at a basketball gym in their church. He was drinking wine and playing poker!

I thought they were pretty cool.

Who Created God? | Richard Dawkins vs John Lennox

Positive and Negative Effects of Religion

27

And what's done with it can be for good or evil, or neither, one supposes, meaning that the meme that it is always for bad is... merely a convenient meme, not an argument.

But hey, we're all, mostly all, friends here. See what you can do with this, because I know ya'll will be able to follow the humor as well as the rationale:

Richard Dawkins Takes a Step Beyond the God Delusion'
His newfound openness to the benefits of religion is a good thing, even if he has further to go.

By Mustafa Akyol

There are actually quite a few articles out there in reaction to Dawkins' comments...

"When you give up Christian faith, you pull the rug out from under your right to Christian morality as well. This is anything but obvious: you have to keep driving this point home, English idiots to the contrary." (Nietzsche)

Dawkins' version of atheism seems to have changed tack, and in a positive way, or at least in this interview. He has left behind the stinging attacks and is gently embracing the world that Christianity has provided.

To some, Dawkins must have suffered a brain aneurysm.

Aaron Bastoni tweeted,

"Bizarre from Dawkins, who wrote a book called The God Delusion' claiming religion was a deeply malevolent, dividing force in the world.

Now he's calling himself a cultural Christian'? Find it odd to use religion to extend your secular political points."

In comes Tom Holland, the super historian to the scene of the crime.

"Not really, because secularism & Dawkins' own brand of evangelical atheism are both expressions of a specifically Christian culture " as Dawkins himself, sitting on the branch he's been sawing through and gazing nervously at the ground far below, seems to have begun to realise."

more

#31

You mean like Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot?

'Strewth!

It's a fact, they were all atheists. The extent to which that was relevant to their murdering millions of their own people may be debatable; perhaps it did matter, we don't know.

What does matters is the fact that religion isn't inherently evil, nor absurd, no matter how much one might proffer that it is.

One might infer that calling religion an absurdity is a lie... or at least merely an opinion, not a fact.

Kudos to Dawkins for finally realizing that his opinions aren't facts; for getting over being a Fundie Atheist.

- Mere existence is absurd.

Stretching a definition to support a previous exaggeration is absurd.

- what science has brought to the table.

Includes that X cannot create X, ie; the universe cannot create itself.

The Laws of Physics are discovered, not invented.

- niv translates charity as love.

#42

niv is correct.

#46

The material universe (X) cannot create itself.

An eternal, non-material entity could.

Time being a human concept and all.

Of course, a fundamentalist who KNOWS everything there is to know, would say that's absurd.

Because they KNOW the TRUTH... just as any fundie theist does.

Christians, otoh, and agnostics, aren't that self-absorbed. Nor that self-deluded.