Richard dawkins

[Winner]

I can't see from your post why it's perfectly legitimate argument. Why Dawkins and his followers insist on something to be rational in order to be legitimate. Why can't i do and believe in irrational things?

They're not saying you can't, they're just saying that you can't masquerade such a belief as a substitute for science.

And can you provide me some evidence for the existence of a state?

You mean the existence of a central government ruling a country via a reasonably large bureaucracy? That's not very hard, you know

You're once again confusing an abstract concept leading to a practical application (democracy, state, law, human rights etc.) with a concrete belief in a supernatural being. It's not an argument for or against anything, it's just deflecting.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I can't see from your post why it's perfectly legitimate argument. Why Dawkins and his followers insist on something to be rational in order to be legitimate. Why can't i do and believe in irrational things?

go right ahead, as long as you don't teach those irrational things to children as fact, or even that there's a debate going on between Evolutionism and Creationism, or that Creationism is science.

It's the way you present it that makes all the difference. In this thread I posted a clip of Dawkins and O'Reilly. You'll notice that Dawkins doesn't attack O'Reilly on his believes, never tells him he can't believe what he does. He simply counters with the scientific point of view.

 

[Munch]

You'll notice that Dawkins doesn't attack O'Reilly on his believes, never tells him he can't believe what he does. He simply counters with the scientific point of view.

Sadly that appears to be the chief misconception about Dawkins et al.

 

[Phlegmak]

Shouldn't that be Timelady?

Maybe, but she was never referred to as such.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

Winner I am not religious and I think he is a jerk. I have no problems with his views, I think they are generally correct, and I have no problem with him expressing them. But I do have a problem with the manner he expresses them, his proselytism makes him an "evangelical atheist". What people like Dawkins ought to understand is that faith is actually not harmful to most people, even if it is irrational (and it is not the only irrational belief peopel have - think of how many people believe in crap like homeopathy or socialism, even though both are proven to not work). For many people faith and religion are beneficial, and to not see that is to be a jerk. Now of course there are fanatics who blow things up and kill people, and they should be exposed and fought. But those fanatics might justify their craziness with religion as they might justify it with a number of different beliefs, from racial supremacy to anarchism.

If religion disappeared tomorrow the world would not be a better place at all. Hateful people would find a new way to channel their hatred.

Well stated.

That was the premise of the South Park episode "Go God Go". For being such a "genius", it's amazing that Dawkins missed the point so completely.

 

[Lillefix]

I disagree with Luiz and the tiger. Religion and religion alone are to blaim for much of what has happened in the middle East. If it weren't for religion, many of the peoples who are figthing now, might have intermarried before dawn of history.

 

[dirtyparrot]

What people like Dawkins ought to understand is that faith is actually not harmful to most people, even if it is irrational.

I don't really agree. Religion has an impact in many aspects of society and social policy. It affects anything from the issue of gay marriage, contraception and safe sex practices, medical practices and research, education, foreign policy decisions, excuse for violence and discrimination, etc. Sure, it's not bad to the days of the Inquisition, but saying that it doesn't adversely affect people is not accurate. The problem is that people want to impose their religious views on others.

 

[Winner]

I don't really agree. Religion has an impact in many aspects of society and social policy. It affects anything from the issue of gay marriage, contraception and safe sex practices, medical practices and research, education, foreign policy decisions, excuse for violence and discrimination, etc. Sure, it's not bad to the days of the Inquisition, but saying that it doesn't adversely affect people is not accurate. The problem is that people want to impose their religious views on others.

Quoted and bolded for effect.

Religion isn't an innocent victim of secularist onslaught. It is a half-banished demon waiting for another opportunity to drag us back into the Middle Ages.

How's the quote - "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." If people stand idly while religion stick its ugly head out and attempts to interfere with human progress, in needs to be sent back where it belongs.

People like Dawkins are doing this world a great service because they're not afraid of speaking out against evil religion. Thus, he's among the few good men who are willing to do something. And if there's any atheist in the world who wants to criticize him for that, he should really think about how the world would look like without men like him and his predecessors.

 

[dwaxe]

Adding to dirtyparrot's post:

Religion may sometimes be beneficial on an individual level, because it more often engender happiness than hatred.

Unfortunately, on a societal level it is severely detrimental because when it does engender hatred, that hatred is channeled into the political process and later reflects back on to the individuals who are the target of that hatred.

In the Federalist papers, Alexander Hamilton said that the biggest drawback of a pure democracy is that 51% can take away the rights of the other 49%. America's republican system is good enough to prevent that, but religion is so loud that "it still affects anything from the issue of gay marriage, contraception and safe sex practices, medical practices and research, education, foreign policy decisions, excuse for violence and discrimination, etc."

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Religion isn't an innocent victim of secularist onslaught. It is a half-banished demon waiting for another opportunity to drag us back into the Middle Ages.

I agreed with your first sentence, but the second sentence is lolwut? That description sounds a bit demonic, doesn't it?

 

[Winner]

I agreed with your first sentence, but the second sentence is lolwut? That description sounds a bit demonic, doesn't it?

A slight exaggeration for the effect

 

[Huayna Capac357]

I don't think that most religious people are believe in torture or stoning of gays or anything.

 

[dirtyparrot]

Adding to dirtyparrot's post:

Religion may sometimes be beneficial on an individual level, because it more often engender happiness than hatred.

Unfortunately, on a societal level it is severely detrimental because when it does engender hatred, that hatred is channeled into the political process and later reflects back on to the individuals who are the target of that hatred.

In the Federalist papers, Alexander Hamilton said that the biggest drawback of a pure democracy is that 51% can take away the rights of the other 49%. America's republican system is good enough to prevent that, but religion is so loud that "it still affects anything from the issue of gay marriage, contraception and safe sex practices, medical practices and research, education, foreign policy decisions, excuse for violence and discrimination, etc."

I should add that I don't think that religion is all bad. If it inspires someone to help others, be kind, be honest, etc all the power to them. I have no issue with that whatsoever (although I don't think that you need to be religious to have those values). Some of the kindest and most generous people I've met were from when my parents sent me to church as a kid. I also know many non-religious people with the same attributes. I have a problem with how divisive religion is being used.

 

[Lord Gay]

You want me to provide proof for my opinion?

I'm not asking for proofs, I'm asking for examples. I'm not challenging anybody's right to think him a jerk. All I'm saying is that I'm not aware of him displaying jerkish behaviour, so having something to examine might be helpful... to me, if nobody else.

As an atheist myself who has engaged in religious debates, I've noticed many xians take umbrage at comments made by atheists that I myself didn't deem offensive. I've come to the conclusion that many, if not most of the complaints by xians of atheists being rude, arrogant, or abrasive is not actually due to atheists being such, but rather for not being deferential and obsequious towards religion. I believe xians are used to a certain reverence and respect when their religion is discussed, and when people don't show respect, but don't show disrespect either, this less than praiseworthy tone is nonetheless called rude and jerkish.

However, that's my possibly biased opinion, so I asked for examples... to consider whether my opinion holds out and people are calling Dawkins a jerk because he won't to xianity, or if he is, in fact, a jerk.

I just want to test my hypothesis.

There are many, many people who DO go about discussing/debating religion without being a jerk. If he wants to do so, he could follow their example.

And could you provide something more substantial? Some do's and don'ts?

I've expressed elsewhere that I'm anti-xian, and I make no bones about it. However, despite the animosity I may feel, I try my best to maintain a civil tone when discussing it online. I don't think insulting people or typing in caps helps to promote discussion or debate on an already emotional and controversial subject. And that is one of the two main reasons I discuss things with people.

While I certainly don't expect to ever persuade people online of anything, if there is even the slightest chance it could happen, using insults and invective will only hinder that IMO. You catch more flies with honey and all that. Also, I like to learn WHY people who have different views and opinions than me, think the way they do. People are unlikely to open up and share their deeper thoughts if they think I'm going to attack and belittle them. The internet is full of juvenile, immature people who simply get off on putting other people down. I want to avoid that, so people will open up enough to either share their thoughts, or allow an interesting discussion on a sensitive subject. I want to constantly better myself, and that means exposing myself to new ideas and opinions.

So, assuming that you are xian, perhaps you could share some common things that you think atheists should avoid or refrain from saying when discussing xianity, or just talking with xians.

 

[Earthling]

Xian sounds like a cult, or some historical thing relating to China. I prefer the term Jesusist. Puts them on an equal footing with Mohammedans, at least.

PS: Probably the above is an example of what Mise is looking for. But also, I agree with his general point - I can't say I've ever seen much at all of Dawkins being "jerky" - he often is rather polite and well-tempered, people just assume that what he's saying is inherently so.

 

[Bei1052]

I would have thought the 21st century would have dispelled this whole "Religion is t3h ebul!11!!" talk.

...And, for the love of God people, please stop talking about "religion taking us back to the Dark Ages". Not only is the term "Dark Ages" a colloquialism, but it only refers to the period directly following the collapse of the Roman Empire. And I'm not even going to point out that the thoroughly religious Byzantine Empire was way more advanced in both math and science then Western Europe was, or the fact that the Catholic church was the biggest driving force in Europe which promoted education.

*waits for the whole "But look what they did to Galileo!" speech*

 

[Kerozine]

go right ahead, as long as you don't teach those irrational things to children as fact, or even that there's a debate going on between Evolutionism and Creationism, or that Creationism is science.

It's the way you present it that makes all the difference. In this thread I posted a clip of Dawkins and O'Reilly. You'll notice that Dawkins doesn't attack O'Reilly on his believes, never tells him he can't believe what he does. He simply counters with the scientific point of view.

If this is true, then we can dismiss all claims/presumptions of Dawkins' jerkishness.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Xian sounds like a cult, or some historical thing relating to China. I prefer the term Jesusist. Puts them on an equal footing with Mohammedans, at least.

Could you use the correct term? One doesn't refer to atheists as "atists" or "atHEY!ists" or "atheamsts."

I would have thought the 21st century would have dispelled this whole "Religion is t3h ebul!11!!" talk.

I don't see what you mean...

 

[Esckey]

Faith isn't a bad thing. Its the religious institutions that does the real harm.

 

[Lord Gay]

Xian sounds like a cult, or some historical thing relating to China. I prefer the term Jesusist. Puts them on an equal footing with Mohammedans, at least.

PS: Probably the above is an example of what Mise is looking for. But also, I agree with his general point - I can't say I've ever seen much at all of Dawkins being "jerky" - he often is rather polite and well-tempered, people just assume that what he's saying is inherently so.

I would consider Jesusist slightly offensive, so I wouldn't use it. OTOH, there are many people who, for some reason, refer to evolution as Darwinism. I don't understand why they do that, but it seems to be to slur and trivialize ToE. When talking with such people who reduce a very large and broad concept to just the guy who started it, then I would have no problem in that context to calling xianity Jesusism, reducing a large and broad concept to the guy who started it. Then, as with Kirk Cameron and Darwin, we can come up with all kinds of ways to slur that one guy, and thereby dismiss the entire issue. I try to only use slurs and insults if they do so first.

And Cameron is a jerk.