
Rather than 'There is absolutely not a shred of evidence to suggest the merest possibility of there being a god'
It's really just a matter of semantics, rather than a fundamental shift in position
( ,
Fri 18 May 2012, 10:17,
archived)
It's really just a matter of semantics, rather than a fundamental shift in position

The way Dickie "preaches" it makes me want to slap his smug face though.
( ,
Fri 18 May 2012, 10:23,
archived)

He doesn't ever say "There is NO God, FACT!" he says that we cannot teach children that the Bible is the truth and as a preference over science until there is conclusive testable proof offered.
( ,
Fri 18 May 2012, 10:29,
archived)

Personally, I just find him to be somewhat smug and patronising. For me, it's more about him than what he actually has to say. Mind you, I only read about 20 pages of God Delusion before getting bored and haven't read any of his other works, so I'm probably not best qualified to comment!
( ,
Fri 18 May 2012, 10:36,
archived)

I believe this is mostly down to bad press and the way the media lay siege to him every time he's on television and maybe he doesn't deal with that as well as he should it is very difficult and testing though to debate and discuss with closed-minded people which is for the most part what he's doing.
( ,
Fri 18 May 2012, 10:42,
archived)

He argues for rationality, but can't comprehend how and why we've developed irrationally. I find the likes of Desmond Morris' anthropology far more interesting, even though he's an equally eccentric character in himself.
Dawkins, particularly in his earlier work, has a go at religion for causing wars and oppressive regimes. When in those cases of extremism it seems to me it's just a tool used by some unpleasant and ambitious individuals to gather power.
The best argument I can see against the principles of any religion is a simple statement of how people behave. "If religion didn't exist, someone would have had to have invented it". The implication, of course, being that someone did.
( ,
Fri 18 May 2012, 11:22,
archived)
Dawkins, particularly in his earlier work, has a go at religion for causing wars and oppressive regimes. When in those cases of extremism it seems to me it's just a tool used by some unpleasant and ambitious individuals to gather power.
The best argument I can see against the principles of any religion is a simple statement of how people behave. "If religion didn't exist, someone would have had to have invented it". The implication, of course, being that someone did.

Except for his many attempts to explain how concepts like altruism and religion might have evolved and developed in social environments...he's only been working in that field since about 1976 but let's not let that get in the way of criticising his character.
[edit] Just go and read his wikipedia page - most of his work in the field of evolutionary biology has been dedicated to investigating the "irrational" behaviour of altruism - helping others without expectation of reward. If spending most of your career studying why people are nice to each other is being "wilfully ignorant of human nature", then yep, well done, you've got him bang to rights.
( ,
Fri 18 May 2012, 11:28,
archived)
[edit] Just go and read his wikipedia page - most of his work in the field of evolutionary biology has been dedicated to investigating the "irrational" behaviour of altruism - helping others without expectation of reward. If spending most of your career studying why people are nice to each other is being "wilfully ignorant of human nature", then yep, well done, you've got him bang to rights.

rather than, say, his 'meme' equivalent of a redundant organ or some other piece of genetic junk from our evolutionary past, which is where logic would ordinarily take his argument.
( ,
Fri 18 May 2012, 15:12,
archived)

even the Crusades was chiefly about feudalism and controlling very profitable trade routes and resources from the East.
Religion has always been used as a political tool to blindfold the masses into believing that killing other people is the right and correct thing to do and that laying their life down in the name of their God will buy them a ticket to their own personal heaven. This has always been the case from the Mayans, Egyptians, ancient Greeks, Romans, Vikings etc. all ebleiving that laying their life down in war will sercure them a respected place in Heaven, Valhalla, Elysium etc.
Religion is an important part of all societies from the very first primitive communities it was a way of explaining the rain, thunder and lightning, volcanoes, fire, tidal waves etc. and it worked to help people become aware of those dangers but as science has improved so as our understanding of our environment and why these things happen. But still religion evolved as a form of power and politics in which some people latched onto and used it to add controls and constraints to their societies as a form of law and order.
So it's unquestionable to deny that religion hasn't had it uses throughout history, however thesedays I think it's becoming more and more politically driven and is trying to hold society back rather than allow it to advance.
( ,
Fri 18 May 2012, 11:36,
archived)
Religion has always been used as a political tool to blindfold the masses into believing that killing other people is the right and correct thing to do and that laying their life down in the name of their God will buy them a ticket to their own personal heaven. This has always been the case from the Mayans, Egyptians, ancient Greeks, Romans, Vikings etc. all ebleiving that laying their life down in war will sercure them a respected place in Heaven, Valhalla, Elysium etc.
Religion is an important part of all societies from the very first primitive communities it was a way of explaining the rain, thunder and lightning, volcanoes, fire, tidal waves etc. and it worked to help people become aware of those dangers but as science has improved so as our understanding of our environment and why these things happen. But still religion evolved as a form of power and politics in which some people latched onto and used it to add controls and constraints to their societies as a form of law and order.
So it's unquestionable to deny that religion hasn't had it uses throughout history, however thesedays I think it's becoming more and more politically driven and is trying to hold society back rather than allow it to advance.

how did it help people become aware of those dangers?
( ,
Fri 18 May 2012, 11:53,
archived)

I suppose it didn't really make people aware of those dangers but tried to explain them probably for some control reasons. "The mountain thunders with fire, give me gold to appease the Gods!" that type of thing.
My main point was that religion as been a part of society since early communities, I kind of get there is a round about sort of way.
( ,
Fri 18 May 2012, 11:56,
archived)
My main point was that religion as been a part of society since early communities, I kind of get there is a round about sort of way.

There were some islands (I forget the name) where they had planted their crops according to the regligious calendar for centuries, then westerners came and laughed at such superstition. They supplied the islanders with new seeds and fertilisers and promised that they would have four or five times the yield if they switched to western methods. And for a couple of years they did have massively high yields, but then they dropped, because the fields were overworked. Eventually they went back to the old "religious" methods because they worked.
Essentially, religions were a good way of codifying things that people needed to know to survive, but they were also a good way of codifying a whole load of bullshit. The trick is to extract the good bits and abandon the rest.
( ,
Fri 18 May 2012, 12:08,
archived)
Essentially, religions were a good way of codifying things that people needed to know to survive, but they were also a good way of codifying a whole load of bullshit. The trick is to extract the good bits and abandon the rest.

whether you could actually separate the two is another issue.
( ,
Fri 18 May 2012, 12:13,
archived)

I think it's quicker to just assume it's all bullshit and start again from scratch. All the stuff about being good to each other is pretty much hard-wired in anyway and I'm not going to be planting any crops in the holy land any time soon
( ,
Fri 18 May 2012, 13:03,
archived)

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html
It's exactly the same argument as laid out in The God Delusion, published in 2006. It's emphatically not news that Dawkins thinks this way, but it's symptomatic of how he's portrayed in the media.
For anyone who sat through the whole debate between him and Rowan Williams, it was mostly two exceedingly polite men mostly agreeing with each other a lot and agreeing to disagree on a few matters, but there's got to be a story about an arrogant atheist in there somewhere.
( ,
Fri 18 May 2012, 11:24,
archived)
It's exactly the same argument as laid out in The God Delusion, published in 2006. It's emphatically not news that Dawkins thinks this way, but it's symptomatic of how he's portrayed in the media.
For anyone who sat through the whole debate between him and Rowan Williams, it was mostly two exceedingly polite men mostly agreeing with each other a lot and agreeing to disagree on a few matters, but there's got to be a story about an arrogant atheist in there somewhere.

Dawkins is also a lot better when he's not dealing with the lunatic fringe - that brings out the worst in him, making him join the lunatics.
Also, Rowan Williams is far more intelligent than the average person who tries to debate Dawkins, and Dawkins knows that.
( ,
Fri 18 May 2012, 11:35,
archived)
Also, Rowan Williams is far more intelligent than the average person who tries to debate Dawkins, and Dawkins knows that.

When he's doing evolutionary biology, he's great. But God Delusion was preachy and smug. A lot of it was reasonable viewpoint but a lot of it was 'if you disagree with me, you're a moron'.
( ,
Fri 18 May 2012, 11:33,
archived)

Not that we need a leader but as a high profile Atheist i think he does a good job of making believers question themselves and he is ok in debates but he suffers from being in the shadow of Hitchens "The Hitchslap"
( ,
Fri 18 May 2012, 10:30,
archived)

But every word he says is massively taken out of context and people rather than sit back and ponder what he has said they jump in and attack the Godless one! I'm not his biggest fan, I've never even read one of his books but I am pleased there is at least one public person out there standing up for atheists and against Religious dogmatism.
( ,
Fri 18 May 2012, 10:36,
archived)

As time passes it is inevitable that Science will overcome religious fairy tales it is just infuriating that in my lifetime i witness so many believe in so much without evidence.
( ,
Fri 18 May 2012, 10:41,
archived)

It's still a bit tricky though in parts of the world where you're a Muslim or you're dead.
( ,
Fri 18 May 2012, 10:53,
archived)

there was an article about a man in Afghanistan who was Jewish living in a Taliban controlled area. He was never persecuted by them but they did often try to convert him. There is large movements of Atheists in Muslim parts of the world one such group is on Facebook their people could be jailed or even executed under blasphemy laws but they still exist and work against the dogmatism. So I don't think it's quite so black and white that in a Muslim country you're either Muslim or dead it is not an idea situation granted, one that I certainly wouldn't want to be in.
( ,
Fri 18 May 2012, 11:01,
archived)

Sounds better than hearing a friend telling me that on some of the islands in the Philippines people cut your throat if you're not a Muslim. I hope it was an exaggeration.
( ,
Fri 18 May 2012, 11:23,
archived)

( ,
Fri 18 May 2012, 11:41,
archived)

We are on the dawn of an information revolution and religion grows on ignorance so as more people get informed the nonsensical superstion's will die. And i hope Homeopathy and psychic mediums piss off too.
( ,
Fri 18 May 2012, 11:02,
archived)

I like to strike a happy medium :D
( ,
Fri 18 May 2012, 11:06,
archived)

gfghjjfdsdfdfghk
( ,
Fri 18 May 2012, 11:09,
archived)

or accounts of other people seeing ghosts there. So that he can pop up on television and "channel" the dead. (Channel5)
( ,
Fri 18 May 2012, 11:12,
archived)

But i find it even harder to understand the motivation to stand in front of someone and lie about getting a message from a dead son or daughter and asking them to hand over cash or buy a ticket. GRRRFUCKTHAT!
( ,
Fri 18 May 2012, 11:16,
archived)

I would never pay to have someone tell me lies about him looking down on me and such. If there is an afterlife I think he would have let me know by now but as far as I'm concerned he's still alive in my heart.
( ,
Fri 18 May 2012, 11:19,
archived)

Everyone needs to mourn and find there own way of dealing with it but how can you move on if someone is telling you that your loved one is sat on a cloud watching everything you do?
( ,
Fri 18 May 2012, 11:31,
archived)

I couldn't believe that to be true, it's more a thing where the person mourning is somehow comforted by the thought that their lost loved one is somewhere happy and safe and no longer in pain.
I find Mediums and Psychics to be irritating and irrational and merely pandering to those people who are at their most vulnerable.
( ,
Fri 18 May 2012, 11:45,
archived)
I find Mediums and Psychics to be irritating and irrational and merely pandering to those people who are at their most vulnerable.