What do you think about Dawkins?

[Kerozine]

Link to video.


Link to video.

Can I change my vote?

 

[aelf]

Yes, it does. It knows how your body function, it tells you how your brain works, it tells you how humans evolved, it answers the question why are we here.

That's 'how', not 'why'.

If you don't like the explanation, fine, but it give you zero reason to believe in God just because you want "more".

Well, I think that the widespread modern conception that it's either science OR religion is idiotic. The scientific method does inform us on what we can hold for certain and what we can't. But science does not deal with issues like the meaning of life, which is what I believe religion is trying to show.

So many people don't seem to get that religion and science deal with different sorts of questions, including, evidently, you. While there may be overlaps, where I would favour science, there's just no way to say that science would replace religion. Maybe religion would die off on its own as it proves inadequate for its task in future contexts. But science would quite certainly not fill the gap.

 

[holy king]

i never really cared about the guy, havent even read his books.

 

[Winner]

That's 'how', not 'why'.

Wrong, it answers "why" as well. Some time ago, your parents had sex (I suppose they didn't have to use artificial insemination). As a result, your father's sperm fertlized your mother's egg. 9 months later, you were born.

See - it answers "why" pretty well.

Well, I think that the widespread modern conception that it's either science OR religion is idiotic. The scientific method does inform us on what we can hold for certain and what we can't. But science does not deal with issues like the meaning of life, which is what I believe religion is trying to show.

In other words, I don't like the science's explanation because it implies your existence is just a coincidence and there is no greater, divine purpose of your existence. Ergo, there must be a God which cares for you and your immortal soul which will go to heaven after you die (if you follow the rules written in some holy book, some of them anyway).

Dawkins adressed this too. Human brains are programmed to assign meaning to natural processes. "Why the lightning struck the tree in front of me? God is telling me something!" It's a survival strategy which evolved in other animals too.

My rational mind screams: what the hell is this?! If you do all that, then you're deluding yourself. You're looking for something better, because you don't like the hard reality.

So many people don't seem to get that religion and science deal with different sorts of questions, including, evidently, you.

Wrong again. Religion has always tried to explain everything. Recently, science has begun to compete with it and eventually it outcompeted it, so most religion moved to less tangible things - essentially what you just told me "why are we here, what are we supposed to do with our lives" etc. etc.

But it's all just an illusion. Religion is not something uncomparable with science and rational inquiry, it's an ALTERNATIVE to it. You can't have both - either you believe that God created humans from dust, or you believe the scientific explanation. Either you believe in reincarnation, or you stick with science which found to evidence for this assertion whatsoever. Either you believe that there is a place called Hell where a loving God tortures and mutilates souls of his children, or you're a rational person and ask "where is this Hell? What is this soul? Can we measure it, can we observe it? Is there any evidence whatsoever that these things exist?"

Dawkins' greatest contribution to the debate was that he made it crystal clear that religion and science are incompatible.

While there may be overlaps, where I would favour science, there's just no way to say that science would replace religion. Maybe religion would die off on its own as it proves inadequate for its task in future contexts. But science would quite certainly not fill the gap.

So you admit that religion is a product of human emotional needs? Humans feel bad about this world, they're scared of death which means the end of their existence, so they invent a delusion of afterlife and god who cares about them and listens to them?

Because that's a pretty rational explanation for faith. We all believe in some things without much evidence, because we want to. We're simply not entirely rational animals.

For example, I believe the girl I met yesterday was pretty interested in me. On the other hand, there is a voice in the back of my head saying "No, you're just imagining it because you liked her and want it to be true."

I think it's the same with religion, unfortunately a lot of people prefer to silence that pesky voice of reason in favour of pleasant delusion of God.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well, I think that the widespread modern conception that it's either science OR religion is idiotic. The scientific method does inform us on what we can hold for certain and what we can't. But science does not deal with issues like the meaning of life, which is what I believe religion is trying to show.

Survival of the species is a meaning of life. Sure, it's not very romantic, but being romantic is not a requirement. Does there have to be a meaning of life? Why? Because otherwise we'd have to give meaning to our own lives?

That has been puzzling me. We as humans are the only animals which have the ability to ponder the meaning of life, so there has to be one. We can also imagine Marsians, but they do not exist. What if there is no universal meaning of life? That would mean we must define it ourselves. And you know, I think that's exactly what we have been doing the last 5.000 years. And some of those were written down and touted as: this is it folks! As it is now, I think there are more than 6 billion meanings of life. I don't think THE meaning of life does exist.

And social and psychological sciences have a thing or two to say about the meaning we give to our lives.

 

[GenMarshall]

I belive in God and see that Dawkins should shut his freeking mouth!!!

 

[Winner]

I belive in God and see that Dawkins should shut his freeking mouth!!!

Great - call your believer buddies and tell them to post in this thread - you're a living proof of what I am saying

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I belive in God and see that Dawkins should shut his freeking mouth!!!

You don't believe in freedom of speech?

 

[PaulusIII]

Dawkins should by all means continue with promoting his rational view of the world. It'll help us understand... even though I don't agree with him on all counts.

 

[GenMarshall]

Great - call your believer buddies and tell them to post in this thread - you're a living proof of what I am saying

How in earth am I living proof?! Dawkings is nothing but a blow hard militant atheist that has nothing better to do than bash religion and people who are religious.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

How in earth am I living proof?! Dawkings is nothing but a blow hard militant atheist that has nothing better to do than bash religion and people who are religious.

So you are of the opinion that those who bash people who have different believes should shut their freeking mouth?

Interesting

Not to mention arrogant, offensive, rude, and hold a "Me smart atheist, you dumb religious" attitude.

 

[Winner]

How in earth am I living proof?! Dawkings is nothing but a blow hard militant atheist that has nothing better to do than bash religion and people who are religious.

I want to avoid another lengthy and pointless exchange, so I'll ask you a simple question - did you read the previous 5 pages of this thread, including my posts in which I outlined my hypothesis of why so many believers react so angrily when they hear Dawkins refuting their religion?

If not, do it.

 

[GenMarshall]

So you are of the opinion that those who bash people who have different believes should shut their freeking mouth?

Interesting

People like Dawkins does only more harm than good. He compleately ignores anything that is good with religion. All he does is attack the religious belief's which they hold deer. Along with making people deconvert and turn away from God.

Also, what you quoted, that only describes the annoying militant atheists who do nothing but flame and troll other religious people and never leave them alone in their never ending quest to deconvert the religious.

 

[El_Machinae]

Winner, it's not fair to jump on his answer, considering that he's answering according to the nature of the poll! "He should shut up" is part of the humour.

 

[PaulusIII]

People like Dawkins does only more harm than good. He compleately ignores anything that is good with religion. All he does is attack the religious belief's which they hold deer. Along with making people deconvert and turn away from God.

Dawkins' view is based on scientific explanations, reason, and proof. That's definitely more good than harm in my book. It promotes a better understanding of the world than the 'God did it' argument.

 

[GenMarshall]

I want to avoid another lengthy and pointless exchange, so I'll ask you a simple question - did you read the previous 5 pages of this thread, including my posts in which I outlined my hypothesis of why so many believers react so angrily when they hear Dawkins refuting their religion?

If not, do it.

Frankly, I only skimmed through them and strongly disagree with your hypothosis. I'd rather save myself from reading such atheistic dribble. I've already seen your previous post in regards to atheism and how your country picks on the religious because they are a minority. I simply posted what I voted, I did not expect some atheistic inquisition . No need to jump on me like a ravid pyro who just saw a spy (thanks El Mach)

I'm not living proof of your hypothosis. I have not been to church in months and it's been a long time since I have prayed to God.

 

[Winner]

Winner, it's not fair to jump on his answer, considering that he's answering according to the nature of the poll! "He should shut up" is part of the humour.

Poll option:

I believe in god(s). Somebody make Dawkins shut up.

CivGeneral's answer:

I belive in God and see that Dawkins should shut his freeking mouth!!!

Bolding is mine. This implies that he feels strongly about it. I also know he's a believer and his other comments were similar in nature.

Since I explained that I think believers feel strongly about Dawkins because he untermines their religion that the rational part of them knows is wrong, I think it's pretty fair to use CivGeneral as an example of this.

In my view, Dawkins is so hated by many believers because they are insecure about their religion (and they have every reason to be).

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

People like Dawkins does only more harm than good. He compleately ignores anything that is good with religion. All he does is attack the religious belief's which they hold deer.

He offers criticism. If you view criticism as an attack, that really is your problem. Not his.

Along with making people deconvert and turn away from God.

It is strange that a religious person would argue against proselytising.

But Dawkins is not trying to convert anyone. He has no business in trying to convert people, what he does is trying to promote the Theory of Evolution in spite of Intelligent Design and such. I heard him say many times that he does not care what people believe, he cares about what people make other people believe when it flies into the face of facts.

Also, what you quoted, that only describes the annoying militant atheists who do nothing but flame and troll other religious people and never leave them alone in their never ending quest to deconvert the religious.

Sure, this is always the cop-out of people making sweeping statements.

And what's wrong with trying to deconvert the religious?

 

[GenMarshall]

Dawkins' view is based on scientific explanations, reason, and proof. That's definitely more good than harm in my book. It promotes a better understanding of the world than the 'God did it' argument.

Unfortunately, he is overly critical about religion. He does nothing but bashes religion and equates the religious as mental morons trapped in delusion . He may have used Science, Reason, and proof. But his message is just covered with anti-religious dribble.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

He does nothing but bashes religion and equates the religious as mental morons trapped in delusion

Quote please.

Here's mine:

I think the important thing to learn is that we can retain a sentimental loyalty to the cultural and literary traditions of, say, Judaism, Anglicanism or Islam, and even participate in religious rituals such as marriages and funerals, without buying into the supernatural beliefs that historically went along with those traditions. We can give up belief in God while not losing touch with a treasured heritage.
Richard Dawkins

"a treasured heritage"! How rude!

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.”
Richard Dawkins