Scientist fights for Atheism

[red team]

Dawkins: Religion
equals 'child abuse'

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=48252 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48252)

Nice :)

[Clarksist]

Right on athiests!

Good to see that an athiest is getting air time. Even if its across the second biggest ocean in the world from my country. :(

[Dark Exodus]

Damn I missed the program (damned Quake), must watch the next one.

[h&s]

I saw the last 15 minutes of it, hoping for something good, but I don't really htink he did it that well.
Maybe it'll be better next week.

[Jim]

I missed the first 15 minutes or so. It was well made, he had some good points to make. Although he trivalises "science" as an alternative definitive sort of "belief", against religion. As others have pointed out (not here, but in articles on line, i think Socialist Worker or something like that) he does rather neglect the other side of the coin, regarding the conflicts and limitations of science. Which i'm not too sure about, because right at the end he did briefly discuss the limitations of science, and how we don't know everything. Indeed, he seemed to imply/admite that the limitation of knowledge does mean that "god" could exist.

It must be said though, it was slightly subjective. I'm aware that he was examining where religion leads, but he did try to paint all religions as being the same thing as what the nutters are/become. Such as the two he interviewed - an evangelical leader person from america (whom are terribly conservative, especially with their views regarding creation - so don't really qualify as an entire criticism of christianity as a whole. Or even a fair criticism), and an islamic jihadist in the middle east (whom wanted every non muslim off their land).

It needs to be pointed out, before members fully embrace Dawkins, that he thinks communism is a "alot like religion" (jeremy vine show, BBC radio 2, sometime last week... possible thursday: toward the end of the show anyway. It should be available online). Which exposes what i think is the flaw in his argument: what he is arguing it is not that religion specifically that is a source of alot of evil (although i agree with him that it is); but when one person "knows" that he is "right"; and becomes intollerant of other opinions/way of life. This, of course, is not restricted to religion. But is obviously very possible in many religions.

[Clarksist]

Such as the two he interviewed - an evangelical leader person from america (whom are terribly conservative, especially with their views regarding creation - so don't really qualify as an entire criticism of christianity as a whole. Or even a fair criticism), and an islamic jihadist in the middle east (whom wanted every non muslim off their land).

It's interesting. The people who actually follow their religion till everyone else dies, or they do first, apologists call them radically insane.

The thing is, the religion they subscribe to is radically insane.


Which exposes what i think is the flaw in his argument: what he is arguing it is not that religion specifically that is a source of alot of evil (although i agree with him that it is); but when one person "knows" that he is "right"; and becomes intollerant of other opinions/way of life.

I'm glad that you think religion is a source of evil... although I find the idea of evil as a childish pseudo-religious term. But, I see what you mean. I won't argue semantics.

And I agree, that when people "know" what is "right" that is a dangerous point. The thing is: that's exactly what religion does. Religion scares people into believing hateful dogma, and they "know" that it is "right", and in a way to save their own soul they are intolerant of other beliefs.

Religion sucks. :(

[Jim]

It's interesting. The people who actually follow their religion till everyone else dies, or they do first, apologists call them radically insane. The thing is, the religion they subscribe to is radically insane.

Well i would argue that christ argued that his followers would get persecuted, and that they should take it: to the point of death. But i would strongly disagree that he instructed his followers to kill for him. Die yes; kill no. His teachings were strictly against even being angry with someone, or judging another.

But i'm not denying that other doctrines call for their followers to kill those who disagree/don't subscribe (and again, it is not something that i would only say religion does).


I'm glad that you think religion is a source of evil... although I find the idea of evil as a childish pseudo-religious term. But, I see what you mean. I won't argue semantics.

No i see where you are coming from. I expect channel 4/the producers set the title because of the theme. i.e. religions state what they think is "evil"; but are in fact the source of alot of what is evil.


And I agree, that when people "know" what is "right" that is a dangerous point. The thing is: that's exactly what religion does. Religion scares people into believing hateful dogma, and they "know" that it is "right", and in a way to save their own soul they are intolerant of other beliefs.
Religion sucks.


I see your point. But i think everyone knows themselves to be right. You don't have an opinion which you know to be wrong. But yes, i see your point that religion has that "little bit extra". Although again, i would argue that the point applies to alot of philosophy in general. And general intolleration.

[Clarksist]

Well i would argue that christ argued that his followers would get persecuted, and that they should take it: to the point of death. But i would strongly disagree that he instructed his followers to kill for him. Die yes; kill no.

Hmm... Christ maybe never said to kill. But the Bible is riddled with a God who kills and does so "righteously". In fact, the Bible explicitly says to kill people who aren't following god.

If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. - Zechariah 13:3 NAB

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. - Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives. - Leviticus 20:13 NAB

The list goes on and on and on and on.


But i think everyone knows themselves to be right.

If people didn't consider themselves right in what they did, no one would do much of anything.


You don't have an opinion which you know to be wrong. But yes, i see your point that religion has that "little bit extra".

More than just a "little but extra".

Would you fuck with God? Most people can honestly say, "Maybe we don't get along, but I can live."

The Bible says to kill naysayers.

I say we instead kill the myth and nonsense that is God.

[James]

True the old test has passages of such kind. But that does not translate into christianity: i'm not "doding the issue".
Don't mean to talk down to you, but there is often this confusion regarding the old test and covenants.
The first covenant between god and humans was that of the old test, between him and jews. The second covenant, predicted by the old test, came with christ.

It is a completely different "contract" with God. It is a completely different religion (if you use everything that christ said, and not just bits and bobs).

[Clarksist]

It is a completely different "contract" with God. It is a completely different religion (if you use everything that christ said, and not just bits and bobs).

I've grown up in a Roman Catholic family... I know all about how to follow the Bible.

It seems that the common interpretation, and the rule of thumb for almost all known sects of Christianity, uses everything from the Old Testemant if it is not in clash with the New Testemant.

Sadly, the New Testemant contradicts with itself, and its predessesor.

[James]

Well i'm glad you have this foundation understanding. Hence, i'm sure you shall agree, merely judging other people is wrong to christinaity.

Yes?

[Clarksist]

Well i'm glad you have this foundation understanding. Hence, i'm sure you shall agree, merely judging other people is wrong to christinaity.

Yes?

Depends. If you judge a christian... that's bad.

But if you judge a "heathen" and non-christian. Its fine.

They're just devil fodder in God's eyes, right?

[James]

I think when there is a clash in the new test, it makes sense to side with what is said in the gospels.

I disagree with your claim that it is ok to judge heathens. Find support for it in the gospels.

[Hegemonicretribution]

;) First of all I am gutted that my 500 or so word rant has just been lost because of my crap computer but I will try and make a basic rehash of it.

Dawkins is a class A jackass with little worthwhile to say

I have skimmed over much of this thread, but I had been anticipating it, so I just wanted to say this, because I see how he could be appealing to some.

First of all what Dawkins does well: I will admit that in his manipulation, and creation of propoganda, Dawkins is more than apt. He is the Michael Moore of the Atheist movement, and useful for firing up the uneducated in this arena. I have seen little else from this man.

Where Dawkins Falls Down: This is all well and good to a point, but how far does he actually further debate, or seek to dismiss religion as a whole? Well that is it, he doesn't. Dawkin's tactic is one that appeals to people that either agree with him from the outset, or the easily led. What Dawkin's does is liken fundamental and extreme examples of religion to all religion. He goes in armed with his holy weapon "science" and attacks people with views so backwards (even if partially representitive) that it isn't an argument so much as a ridicule. Those that agree with the extremist will continue to do so, those agreeing with Dawkins will continue to do so, the exercise is largely pointless.

When this is applied to less extreme examlpes the result is similar. Dawkins basically asserts that science is better, and disagreeing with his views, which he zealously displays as superior, is incomprehensible to him. This isn't about replacing belief with something more, it is about replacing one belief with one he is more comfortable with.

I am not saying that science is believed in the same way as science, but Dawkins would be as happy if it was. This isn't about teaching everyone understanding of science (which most for practicallity take on faith), but trading belief in religion for this belief.

If you have a bag of 100 slightly past their best apples, you do not accurately show that apples are all ineddible by showing the 10 very worst ones. If you show all apples, or the very best ones at least to be ineddible you do, but not the other way. This analogy is similar to the majority of Dawkin's work on religion. That is purposeful manipulation, and poor use of inductive inference.

These tactics are useful if you agree that religion is negative (as I do), but are not good. They "prove" nothing, in fact they avoid attempting any such thing.

Dawkin's has in some of his earlier work even went easy, and said he could respect Deists. Is this because it wasn't as easy to mock? He has also shown his views to be held not as a reasoned response to the surrounding world, but something more than that. Most the time he comes off as dogmatic as those he chooses to argue against.

Where Dawkins is actually counter productive:Dawkins, in my oppinion, actually makes a small, but substantial negative contribution to the atheistic movement. Because of how he holds his views, and his reliance on easy targets and propoganda, this guy could actually put off borderline atheist/agnostics. If this is what atheism has become, then I am not an atheist ;)

If Dawkins wants to do what he wants to, then he would have to attack something common to all religions, otherwise he is attacking individual occurances. Look at Raven's paradox.

Where Dawkins redeems himself:This guy has produced interesting research into a so called "selfish gene" and turned down funding from righties. Why? Because he knew it would be manipulated, when it actually seeks to further collectivist logic.

Dawkins should lay off religion, because his attack on it sucks.