Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion)
- Thread starter BaSICCally
- Start date
I have no doubt that Dawkins defines "fanatics/zealots" as those who will not accept his arguments and throw out their religion. He indirectly admits this in one interview I saw where the interviewer asked him about whether he thinks people will really get rid of their religion and he responds with something along the lines of, "well, not the really hardcore religious people, but there is a class who rest in the middle who will"
How is Dawkins a religious leader and how is atheism a religion?
Dawkins clearly says that he considers the possibility of the existence of God a scientific hypothesis and then it all comes to the evidence available in support of the hypothesis which is exactly zero at the present
What you're saying is hypocritical, not Dawkins's views
Dawkins clearly says that he considers the possibility of the existence of God a scientific hypothesis and then it all comes to the evidence available in support of the hypothesis which is exactly zero at the present
What you're saying is hypocritical, not Dawkins's views
^You're on point with this post right here, and I actually have respect for agnostics, I've been an agnostic longer than I have been a theist. It took tons of comparative, multi-disciplinary research and observation for me to accept, with in myself, that there's a God out there. But in essence, by logical standards agnostics make more sense in their arguments than do atheists, those are usually harder fought debates that leads no where and tends to make both sides look nieve at times.
I have stated my position clearly, if you haven't understood it, it's your problem, not mine
Religion is the cause for all religious wars, there's been plenty of them
BTW this was actually a good thing in the past as it helped keep the population size in check to a certain extent, but I am sure it is not a positive thing for you.
Religion (Chrisitanity to be exact) was one of the major cause for the extermination of all the indigenious cultures in America, Pacific islands, Australia and a reason for the current situation in Africa
You would be a fool to deny that. Of course, europeans probably didn't do it because of their religion, economy was a much stronger reason, but religion was used to justify what they were doing.
Religion is the reason why we're still so technically undeveloped, compared to what we could have achieved if it wasn't there to block the progress of science and technology and, what is most important - it has imposed an irrational way of thinking on most of us, incompatible with the requirements of the world we'll be living in in the future.
Which brings me to my last point - religion is the ultimate reason for the ecological catastrophe we are experincing right now and which we will be experiencing in the future and everything bad that will come out of that - wars, famine and diseases. Why? Because of the anthropocentristic way of thinking that characterizes all the major religions. The opposition to abortions and birth control, the total disrespect to the right of living of the other species on this planet, the unwillingness to face and solve the global problems (the "It's God's will, we won't do anything" way of thinking"), etc.
In my opinion these are much more serious issues than a few wars and that's the reason why religon is not just a harmless phenomenon and we should not just let people have it if they want it.
The problem is nobody can go out and openly state these things because nobody will want to hear him, Dawkins hints at some of these problems in "The Root of All Evil" and you see how outrageous some of the reactions are. While Dawkins has been in fact pretty mild with religion so far.
Yes, I listened to the whole thing and the conclusions I'm drawing out of it are different than the ones you did. I didn't notice any change in Dawkins except for the toning down a bit which is expect given that the audience is american.
You can comment on my thinking process only when you get to know me in person. So far all I can tell about you is that you sound exactly like somebody with a weak major (philosophy, literature, or something like this) that spends all his time in meaningless discussions about meaningless things, has no opinion on anything (I am still wating to see you state a clear position on something) because he's too "concerned" about "critical thinking", "different views" and other BS, and will never contribute a single useful thing to humanity in his life.
Believe me, critical thinking (and reading) is the major requirement for a good scientist (something Francis Collins clearly lacks) and I have recieved plenty of training in it but I have no reason to think religious people know what critical thinking is as faith is its exact opposite.
Religion is the cause for all religious wars, there's been plenty of them
BTW this was actually a good thing in the past as it helped keep the population size in check to a certain extent, but I am sure it is not a positive thing for you.
Religion (Chrisitanity to be exact) was one of the major cause for the extermination of all the indigenious cultures in America, Pacific islands, Australia and a reason for the current situation in Africa
You would be a fool to deny that. Of course, europeans probably didn't do it because of their religion, economy was a much stronger reason, but religion was used to justify what they were doing.
Religion is the reason why we're still so technically undeveloped, compared to what we could have achieved if it wasn't there to block the progress of science and technology and, what is most important - it has imposed an irrational way of thinking on most of us, incompatible with the requirements of the world we'll be living in in the future.
Which brings me to my last point - religion is the ultimate reason for the ecological catastrophe we are experincing right now and which we will be experiencing in the future and everything bad that will come out of that - wars, famine and diseases. Why? Because of the anthropocentristic way of thinking that characterizes all the major religions. The opposition to abortions and birth control, the total disrespect to the right of living of the other species on this planet, the unwillingness to face and solve the global problems (the "It's God's will, we won't do anything" way of thinking"), etc.
In my opinion these are much more serious issues than a few wars and that's the reason why religon is not just a harmless phenomenon and we should not just let people have it if they want it.
The problem is nobody can go out and openly state these things because nobody will want to hear him, Dawkins hints at some of these problems in "The Root of All Evil" and you see how outrageous some of the reactions are. While Dawkins has been in fact pretty mild with religion so far.
Yes, I listened to the whole thing and the conclusions I'm drawing out of it are different than the ones you did. I didn't notice any change in Dawkins except for the toning down a bit which is expect given that the audience is american.
You can comment on my thinking process only when you get to know me in person. So far all I can tell about you is that you sound exactly like somebody with a weak major (philosophy, literature, or something like this) that spends all his time in meaningless discussions about meaningless things, has no opinion on anything (I am still wating to see you state a clear position on something) because he's too "concerned" about "critical thinking", "different views" and other BS, and will never contribute a single useful thing to humanity in his life.
Believe me, critical thinking (and reading) is the major requirement for a good scientist (something Francis Collins clearly lacks) and I have recieved plenty of training in it but I have no reason to think religious people know what critical thinking is as faith is its exact opposite.
"I think that God is highly unlikely, highly improbable, but I'm not absolutely confident that there is no God. No sane person could really say with absolutely certainty that there isn't anything...that's the sort of agnostic that I am..."
-Richard Dawkins
He is an atheist in practice, so to speak, but by acknowledging that proving divinities do or don't exist, he is a "sort" of agnostic. I don't know if that makes him a hypocrite or not, and don't really care because the man is brilliant. Take him for what he's worth, just like anybody else, but don't dismiss someone because you assign a title to him. (And nho, I'm not saying/implying that that is what you're doing, I'm just throwing this out there as a general statement.)
-Richard Dawkins
He is an atheist in practice, so to speak, but by acknowledging that proving divinities do or don't exist, he is a "sort" of agnostic. I don't know if that makes him a hypocrite or not, and don't really care because the man is brilliant. Take him for what he's worth, just like anybody else, but don't dismiss someone because you assign a title to him. (And nho, I'm not saying/implying that that is what you're doing, I'm just throwing this out there as a general statement.)
I agree, you have stated your position quite clearly....
Wrong. Religion is NOT the cause for all religious wars. In many cases, the cause of so-called religious wars had more to do with economics, control of passageways/ports/trade routes and acquiring land than religious zealotry. Many wars were done in the name of religion and under the banner of religions, but if you actually study these wars you'll see the majority were not caused by religion.
Sure whatever, as long as you get to molest a couple of corpses in the name of science you're all for it.
No, christianity was not the cause. A perverse form of christianity, racism, greed and EUROPEANS were the major causes for the extermination of all indigenious cultures in America, Pacific Islands, Australia and Afrika.
You are an idiot. If the religious affiliations/beliefs have caused all of these problems why don't we just say that ALL WHITES are evil and the cause of every problem on the planet today since whites were the main ones using religion to wreck havoc?
We have gone over this in the past, and you have provided nothing new.
SEE ABOVE.
SEE ABOVE.
Again, TOLERANCE. This concept is obviously foreign to you.
No, I don't need to know you personally. You are VERY easy to read, and in several threads I have said you would do something that you actually ended up doing. Moreover, you are posting here, so your thought process is not exempt from scrutiny and people have the right to be skeptic.
No, I am majoring in criminal justice, and I will either venture into a specific field of law or I will pursue criminology. I am leaning more towards criminology, and if I go that route I'll have to major in a behavioral science, or I'll have to major in something like biology or chemistry. However, you are entitiled to believe WHATEVER you want about me, and I ENCOURAGE you to think the wrong things.
There have been MANY threads were I have stated a clear opinion and position, and if you would stop fondeling that white lab rat you'll see that I have stated my position of DAWKINS and his beliefs. :dead: But I get it now. Because I don't waste my time spamming the board with articles that few people care about I have no opinion. LOL!
LOL! Critical thinking allows one to formulate their own opinion without outside influence, but these concepts are foreign to you, so I can expect nothing less askg.
But you have NEVER shown that you possess the ability askg.
Sure you have. :knockout:
Wrong. Religion is NOT the cause for all religious wars. In many cases, the cause of so-called religious wars had more to do with economics, control of passageways/ports/trade routes and acquiring land than religious zealotry. Many wars were done in the name of religion and under the banner of religions, but if you actually study these wars you'll see the majority were not caused by religion.
Sure whatever, as long as you get to molest a couple of corpses in the name of science you're all for it.
No, christianity was not the cause. A perverse form of christianity, racism, greed and EUROPEANS were the major causes for the extermination of all indigenious cultures in America, Pacific Islands, Australia and Afrika.
You are an idiot. If the religious affiliations/beliefs have caused all of these problems why don't we just say that ALL WHITES are evil and the cause of every problem on the planet today since whites were the main ones using religion to wreck havoc?
We have gone over this in the past, and you have provided nothing new.
SEE ABOVE.
SEE ABOVE.
Again, TOLERANCE. This concept is obviously foreign to you.
No, I don't need to know you personally. You are VERY easy to read, and in several threads I have said you would do something that you actually ended up doing. Moreover, you are posting here, so your thought process is not exempt from scrutiny and people have the right to be skeptic.
No, I am majoring in criminal justice, and I will either venture into a specific field of law or I will pursue criminology. I am leaning more towards criminology, and if I go that route I'll have to major in a behavioral science, or I'll have to major in something like biology or chemistry. However, you are entitiled to believe WHATEVER you want about me, and I ENCOURAGE you to think the wrong things.
There have been MANY threads were I have stated a clear opinion and position, and if you would stop fondeling that white lab rat you'll see that I have stated my position of DAWKINS and his beliefs. :dead: But I get it now. Because I don't waste my time spamming the board with articles that few people care about I have no opinion. LOL!
LOL! Critical thinking allows one to formulate their own opinion without outside influence, but these concepts are foreign to you, so I can expect nothing less askg.
But you have NEVER shown that you possess the ability askg.
Sure you have. :knockout:
I don't care what the dictionary says, I don't want atheism to be associated with "belief" (that's why I hate to use the word) because it has nothing to do with it. If you mean "strict atheism", whatever that means, I agree.
I don't agree with calling the atheistic views coming from methodological naturalism to be called "belief" because they're not, they're entirely based on evidence (or the lack of)
I don't agree with calling the atheistic views coming from methodological naturalism to be called "belief" because they're not, they're entirely based on evidence (or the lack of)
These are not real religious wars
And the fact remains - religion was used to justify and support them which would not have been possible without religion
see above
The fact is that these people were killed and robbed of their land and culture and for the most part this was officially done in the name of converting them to a religion they neither needed nor wanted. Whether the reason was Christianity itslef or not doesn't really matter, because without it, what happened would never have been justified
there can't be any tolerance to lies that cause so much harm
please, stay away from biology, we have enough fake scientists (Francis Collins) who ruin the image of science
BTW anything other than computational and life sciences majors is also a weak major so I was still right
it would have been nice if you did stated your opinion when I aksed you about it....
[/QUOTE]
And the fact remains - religion was used to justify and support them which would not have been possible without religion
see above
The fact is that these people were killed and robbed of their land and culture and for the most part this was officially done in the name of converting them to a religion they neither needed nor wanted. Whether the reason was Christianity itslef or not doesn't really matter, because without it, what happened would never have been justified
there can't be any tolerance to lies that cause so much harm
please, stay away from biology, we have enough fake scientists (Francis Collins) who ruin the image of science
BTW anything other than computational and life sciences majors is also a weak major so I was still right
it would have been nice if you did stated your opinion when I aksed you about it....
[/QUOTE]
Yet you have wrongly identified these wars as religious wars.
Money was used to finace them so all money is evil correct? Weapons were used to kill people so all weapons are evil correct?
But history shows that the motives were NOT religious based. The motives have been PROVEN to be ECONOMIC GAIN and the creation of closed caste systems. Again, if you place emphasis on the religious contexts and beliefs, we should also place emphasis on the nationality/ethnicity/race of those commiting teh crimes, and without a doubt, those responsible for teh crimes you listed were EUROPEAN, and MANY did it in the name of promoting white superiority, so why don't we gather up all the white people and blame them for everything wrong in the world today?
Yet your SECOND master, suggests that the bible be read as a great literary work and considers Jesus a great moralist. :dead:
Are you paying for my education? No? Shut the fuck up.
This is your opinion. But the fact that you know NOTHING about criminology and how science is used in criminolgy renders your statement null&void.
When did you ask me about it?
Money was used to finace them so all money is evil correct? Weapons were used to kill people so all weapons are evil correct?
But history shows that the motives were NOT religious based. The motives have been PROVEN to be ECONOMIC GAIN and the creation of closed caste systems. Again, if you place emphasis on the religious contexts and beliefs, we should also place emphasis on the nationality/ethnicity/race of those commiting teh crimes, and without a doubt, those responsible for teh crimes you listed were EUROPEAN, and MANY did it in the name of promoting white superiority, so why don't we gather up all the white people and blame them for everything wrong in the world today?
Yet your SECOND master, suggests that the bible be read as a great literary work and considers Jesus a great moralist. :dead:
Are you paying for my education? No? Shut the fuck up.
This is your opinion. But the fact that you know NOTHING about criminology and how science is used in criminolgy renders your statement null&void.
When did you ask me about it?
the bible was used to support white superiority
and even if the motives were not entirely religious (which I clealry stated in my original post) it is one big lie to say religion didn't play any role
yes, why not?
What does that have to do with the accuracy of the bible and Chrisitanity?
Does this make them less false?
I'm glad I don't, it's a big waste of money
What do you know about biology?
A person who believes in God and is ready to reject evolution has abosultely no place in a biology classroom because he violates the most fundamental principles on which life sciences are based on
In criminology you'll deal with a lot of DNA analysis. How are you going to do that when you believe in the virign birth?
naw, you're not a hypocrite....
and even if the motives were not entirely religious (which I clealry stated in my original post) it is one big lie to say religion didn't play any role
yes, why not?
What does that have to do with the accuracy of the bible and Chrisitanity?
Does this make them less false?
I'm glad I don't, it's a big waste of money
What do you know about biology?
A person who believes in God and is ready to reject evolution has abosultely no place in a biology classroom because he violates the most fundamental principles on which life sciences are based on
In criminology you'll deal with a lot of DNA analysis. How are you going to do that when you believe in the virign birth?
naw, you're not a hypocrite....
So were other books, but should we overlook the fact that white people were the ones doing all of this?
No one is claiming or implying religion did not play a role. What I AM saying is the motives of such "religious wars" was NOT religion.
compare that to what you previously said:
If religion and the bible (or any other book) is a lie and has caused so much harm, why even tolerate it on a literary level? :dead: You are CONSTANTLY talking about the harms of the bible and religion, yet when your second master says it is ok you bow down and endorse it. :dead:
see above.
No, what it does is promote something that you've been saying IS a falsehood.
You are entitled to your opinion.
I know several important things about biology.
Who said I was ready to reject evolution?
Who are you that you should decide who should be in a class?
Depending on which branch I go into. If I were to go into computer forensics DNA analysis will be utterly useless. However, I thank you for once again contradicting yourself.
Here lets see this again:
vs
LMAO! :dead:
Again, DNA analysis depends on what branch I decide to go into. I may say fuck it and go into audio and voice analysis since I have a background in audio engineering, so once again, I may still be involved in criminology but have no need for dna analysis.
Why would my beliefs hinder me in my profession of choice? If I decided to go into the field, it is obvious that I am not worried about the field conflicting with my beliefs. If they do conflict, and I am faced with a dilema I shall choose the one that is most ethical and does the least amount of harm to my fellow man.
Of course not. YOU ARE.
No one is claiming or implying religion did not play a role. What I AM saying is the motives of such "religious wars" was NOT religion.
compare that to what you previously said:
If religion and the bible (or any other book) is a lie and has caused so much harm, why even tolerate it on a literary level? :dead: You are CONSTANTLY talking about the harms of the bible and religion, yet when your second master says it is ok you bow down and endorse it. :dead:
see above.
No, what it does is promote something that you've been saying IS a falsehood.
You are entitled to your opinion.
I know several important things about biology.
Who said I was ready to reject evolution?
Who are you that you should decide who should be in a class?
Depending on which branch I go into. If I were to go into computer forensics DNA analysis will be utterly useless. However, I thank you for once again contradicting yourself.
Here lets see this again:
vs
LMAO! :dead:
Again, DNA analysis depends on what branch I decide to go into. I may say fuck it and go into audio and voice analysis since I have a background in audio engineering, so once again, I may still be involved in criminology but have no need for dna analysis.
Why would my beliefs hinder me in my profession of choice? If I decided to go into the field, it is obvious that I am not worried about the field conflicting with my beliefs. If they do conflict, and I am faced with a dilema I shall choose the one that is most ethical and does the least amount of harm to my fellow man.
Of course not. YOU ARE.