I find Richard Dawkins to be annoying.

[otherlander]

I'm an atheist, but if other people believe in God, why should some guy be applauded for calling them delusional (The God Delusion)? Why should we fight over what is if we share an idea of what should be? (Note: this does not include fundies who think the gays are going to hell. But it includes a lot of enlightened progressive people who happen to believe in God. Or Allah. Or nirvana. Or something.)

I posted this poem in the Lounge about a year ago when my grandfather died:
http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~keith/poems/dover.html

"...The Sea of Faith / Was once, too, at the full, and round earth's shore..."

At the time, I had already considered myself an atheist for a year or so, so losing faith in religion wasn't an issue. Really, it never was. But it was the human race that I lost faith in, riding through the streets in the back seat at 3 a.m. to the hospice to see the body. I saw drunk men walking through the darkness, stumbling towards some unknown destination. I knew my own life would not go on forever, and the cold night air would leave me with nothing, not even my memories. And I knew that in the morning, we would go to arrange the funeral service and buy a coffin, even death being a business opportunity for someone.

"... let us be true / To one another! for the world, which seems / To lie before us like a land of dreams, / So various, so beautiful, so new, / Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light, / Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain..."

In the face of this reality: In the face of the people who wander through the dark and loveless streets, in the face of the reality that even the best-lived life will end in tragedy and loss, and in the face of the commodification of all that is human, the reduction of compassion, love, pain, and life itself to monetary values: In the face of this final truth, why cut each other to pieces over whether or not there is a man in the sky? What gives us the idea that we have any light to spare, that we can afford to waste a single potential human connection? Why not take all love and all logic, all scientific enlightenment and all holy preachers of peace, and all wine-sharing saviors and all empirical truth, and hand them to each other as candles, and tell each other our stories in their various lights, until they all melt together in to one great human light shining out against the darkling plain?

Note: This Post Not Intended To Defend The Turkish Government's Disregard For Freedom Of Speech.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. He's a bit of an ass.

Shermer's worse.

[Naturyl]

5. I went to a scheduled chat session with Shermer once.

He was pre-occupied with a football game and barely responded to the participants. I found it rude.

I'm an agnostic/atheist, btw.

[RagAss]

8. ...may I ask what game?

[Naturyl]

21. No idea, I hate sports. His local team, as I recall. (n/t)

[trotsky]

7. And I'm glad he is.

You gotta have a few people not just poking at the sacred cows, but making hamburgers out of them.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. There's a difference, trotsky...

between poking sacred cows, and just being a prick.

[NeedleCast]

29. You know

that's probably one of the wisest things I've seen posted on DU...and it's only one sentece long.

[Lance_Boyle]

37. back in the days of the Fat Actress wars, a comment about

poking cows would've gotten the poster banned. ;-)

[trotsky]

60. But everyone draws that line at a different spot, don't they?

You of all people might have a little experience with that. ;-)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

66. Sure.

I draw the line at blaming Islam for 9-11.

[trotsky]

72. Then you haven't read his words very closely - he didn't claim that.

http://newhumanist.org.uk/469

How can I say that religion is to blame? Do I really imagine that, when a terrorist kills, he is motivated by a theological disagreement with his victim? Do I really think the Northern Ireland pub bomber says to himself, "Take that, Tridentine Transubstantiationist bastards!" Of course I don't think anything of the kind. Theology is the last thing on the minds of such people. They are not killing because of religion itself, but because of political grievances, often justified. They are killing because the other lot killed their fathers. Or because the other lot drove their great- grandfathers off their land. Or because the other lot oppressed our lot economically for centuries.

My point is not that religion itself is the motivation for wars, murders and terrorist attacks, but that religion is the principal label, and the most dangerous one, by which a 'they' as opposed to a 'we' can be identified at all. I am not even claiming that religion is the only label by which we identify the victims of our prejudice. There's also skin colour, language, and social class. But often, as in Northern Ireland, these don't apply and religion is the only divisive label around. Even when it is not alone, religion is nearly always an incendiary ingredient in the mix as well. And please don't trot out Hitler as a counter-example. Hitler's sub-Wagnerian ravings constituted a religion of his own foundation, and his anti-Semitism owed a lot to his never-renounced Roman Catholicism (see http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/murphy_19_2.html).

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

75. LOL

"(Hitler's) anti-Semitism owed a lot to his never-renounced Roman Catholicism "

Council asks the bench to treat this witness as hostile.

[trotsky]

77. So your lack of a response indicates you agree, he didn't blame Islam for 9/11? n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

78. Ricard Dawkins blamed Islam for 9-11.

"Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!"

Whether or not he tried to weasel out of it later is irrelevant.

His blaming the holocaust on catholicism is probably at least slightly relevant.

[trotsky]

85. Perhaps you can point out exactly which sentence blames Islam for 9/11?

I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

90. I just did.

The whole damn thing.

You know, just because you like Dawkins it doesn't mean you have to defend him. Or play dumb.

[trotsky]

94. Not playing dumb, and no, you didn't.

The paragraph warns of the dangers of religion, but there is no mention in it of expressly blaming Islam for 9/11. That is why I asked you to specifically point it out.

And whether or not I "like" Dawkins has nothing to do with you establishing your claim. Ad hom?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

97. Is he saying the hijackers were Christian?

Mormon, maybe?

"The paragraph warns of the dangers of religion"

Yes, exactly. He warns of the dangers of Islam, specifically 9-11.

"And whether or not I "like" Dawkins has nothing to do with you establishing your claim."

Your like of Dawkins is the most logical explanation of why you're defending the indefensible.

[trotsky]

101. You are completely avoiding my request.

I can only take that as an admission of error. Unless you will relent and give me Dawkins' exact words that blame Islam directly for 9/11.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

104. I didn't avoid your request.

Like I said, I already posted it.

The fact that Dawkins doesn't distinguish between Islam and other religions is irrelevant, he is still blaming Islam for 9-11.

Like I said, stop playing dumb.

[trotsky]

112. What you posted didn't even have the word "Islam" in it.

Sorry if you think I'm playing dumb. I just think you're reading what you want, not what's written.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

113. It doesn't need to.

What does Dawkins blame for 9-11? Their religion.

What religion is that? Islam.

"I just think you're reading what you want, not what's written."

I think you're making excuses for a bigot.

[trotsky]

133. So you judge someone, call them a bigot...

because of what you have chosen to read into their words. Alrighty. At least the record shows that you never did prove your claim.

[muriel_volestrangler]

134. Let me explain this to you:

"Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense."

Note he has not specified a religion, but 'revealed faith'. So it is characteristics of revealed faith in general he is attacking. Note he says 'can be lethally dangerous nonsense'. He's talking about the potential.

"Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness."

Note this is about what a faith does in combination with people's own ideas. He is not saying that all the bad ideas spring from a faith.

"Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others."

Again, the problem is that religion supports bad ideas. In this case it's a support that can only come from a religion - that there is an afterlife, and that it's possible to get something more by killing yourself. No secular ideology tries to convince people they can gain something by ending their life.

"Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition."

This is indeed a major problem with Islam - because it was born in a struggle with a different religion (the local pagan religions in that area), its holy book has passages that the war-like can use to justify attacks on people who belong to a different religion. But people have also used other religions as excuses for attacking those who worship something else.

"And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!"

An attack on the attitude of societies that grant religion an unwarranted respect.

So, we can see, when we read the quote, that it is not blaming 9/11 on Islam. It's saying that religion is an enabler of psychotic murderers - and in this case, the religion was Islam.

[Marie2]

149. Change the words. . .

"Many of us saw atheism as harmless nonsense. Skepticism might lack all supporting evidence, but, we thought, if people needed to pretend to be independent of God for consolation, what's the harm? The Cultural Revolution changed all that. Atheism is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches survival of the fittest to others labeled only be a difference of 'who is in power at the time.' And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects free thinkers from normal criticisms. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!"

Tremendous murder and suffering have resulted from atheist regimes, as well. Pol Pot, Mao, Lenin, Stalin. . . whenever I see religious people, whether Islamic or Catholic or whatever, blamed for this stuff, I think, does no one know any history? The zealous atheists killed more than all these religions put together!

I think there's plenty of blame to go around.

[Goblinmonger]

153. Yeah, except changing it like you have

is factually not true. That's the difference.

[wildbilln864]

143. shermer's an idiot! nt

[Taverner]

171. I like Shermer, but he's a Global Warming Denier

[mike_c]

2. because believing in invisible sky people is just simply delusional...

...no matter how you frame it. They're delusional. It's that simple.

Whether that means anything important is another matter, but I'd argue that since their delusions have been the cause of tremendous amounts of human suffering and social upheaval for centuries, yes, it's worth calling attention to.

[spoony]

44. Will you be voting for our delusional candidate?

[mike_c]

142. I don't know, frankly....

Yes, it's an issue for me. I regard religion as mental illness. That makes it hard to vote for one of the mentally ill guys....

What do *you* think about people who accept superstitions about invisible people that live in the sky?

[YOY]

3. He suffers from the problem many hardcore Atheists suffer: severe smugness.

Yet to meet the severely smug Agnostic to his level.

I do understand his frustration at times though and even agree with many of his points.

[GreenPartyVoter]

10. I get his frustration too, but his severely smug "Only I am right" is just as annoying

as the severely smug "Only I am right" we get from hardcore blinders-on believers.

Truth be told I find much to admire and agree with in Dawkins, but his attitude can be a bit off-putting.

[YOY]

13. I think that's what most of his critics here feel (although I can only speak for myself).

Unfortunately as seen here many folks are trying to turn criticism of him around as an attack against the concept of Atheism.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

20. The difference is that Dawkins is dogmatic and right.

Dawkins is indeed somewhat smug, but he's justified in being so - he finds obvious things that completely bewilder billions of people, some of them very intelligent.

[SidneyCarton]

109. Dogmatic and right is dogmatic nonetheless.

Inflexibility and intolerance of differing opinions is what got our nation into this mess in the first place.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

136. Dogmatic and right is better than undogmatic and right.

Dogmatic and right > undogmatic and right > undogmatic and wrong > dogmatic and wrong.

The reason being dogmatism is generally a bad thing are firstly that being dogmatic when you're wrong is a much greater vice than being dogmatic when you're right, and obviously different people have different ideas about who is right...

What causes problems is people who are wrong, not people who are inflexible - it's just that inflexible wrong people do more harm than flexible ones.

[Marr]

68. Is he any more "smug" than a religious person?

Really-- he has an opinion about something very concrete (religion does, after all, purport to explain the world)-- and he expresses that opinion.

A religious person who expresses their opinion on the subject of religion is called an "evangelical", but an atheist is smug?

If your just talking about his personal manner then fine-- I can't argue intelligently on the subject of who otherlander should and should not like.

[YOY]

92. It's his approach.

What the heck is "otherlander"?

[Marr]

98. The person who posted the topic.

Sorry- I should've said YOY.

[YOY]

100. I don't dislike him. He makes some good points. I just find him a bit overly smug.

Then again, when dealing with fundies. I'd rather inject doubt then beat them over the head with logic.

[Lucian]

4. Because those deluded people...

are the ones who are trying to push their agenda on everyone else in this country. They want to ban contraception, abortion, etc. because of their deluded beliefs.

Why should everyone else suffer because of a few religious whackos?

[jpgray]

6. Because millions of people are still bullied and indoctrinated into religion by accident of birth?

Because it still is used to divide people on that basis? The only thing going for religion is that if it didn't exist it would just be some other irrational form of tribalism (nationalism, ethnocentrism, etc.), but other than that there is no reason to place religious beliefs on a pedestal that is off-limits to criticism.

[stuntcat]

96. ty

I'm keeping my feelings about religion to myself lately, they're fricking violent, but you say it nice and clear :)

No religious group is stepping up to ask people to save species and preserve the planet, there's nothing good about any of them from this point on.

[trotsky]

9. So how much criticism of religious beliefs is allowed, in your opinion? n/t

[otherlander]

12. Like I said...

I'm not defending governments that take away people's right to free speech. People should be allowed to say whatever the fuck they want to say. That doesn't mean they're right, or not annoying. People shouldn't try to force their religious beliefs on others, but personally believing in a creator doesn't neccesarilly mean trying to force it on anyone else.

[jpgray]

14. What gives you the idea that Dawkins's target is the humble, personal sort of faith?

[otherlander]

16. He thinks believing in God is a delusion.

That doesn't distinguish between rightwing fundamentalists and progressive people of faith, that's pretty much just a blanket statement going after anyone who isn't an atheist.

[Flarney]

28. What if he's just being honest, in that he thinks it's a delusion?

Why should religion have some special respect afforded to it that it hasn't earned and doesn't deserve?

[asthmaticeog]

63. Well, it IS a delusion.

It's not an attack to say so. Atheists get attacked as "immoral" all the time by theists. THAT'S an attack, it impugns one's character. Saying that a belief system is delusional isn't nearly the same thing. So who's smug?

[trotsky]

81. Consider two definitions of delusion

From dictionary.com:

* a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
* a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact

An atheist, whether s/he is "annoying" or not, believes that theists hold a false belief or opinion. Yet Dawkins gets scorn heaped on him for stating such?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

23. Dawkins.

He's made it very clear that - quite rightly - he thinks that "the humble, personal sort of faith", while less harmful than other sorts, is just as mistaken.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

22. Where did you get "not allowed" from?

The OP wasn't for a moment suggesting "not allowing" Dawkins to do anything, he was saying that he thought less of him for doing so.

You're - either by accident or design - unfairly misrepresenting what he said.

[trotsky]

83. I'm asking for the OP's opinion on how much criticism is "allowed"

before one is labeled as "annoying" or otherwise dismissed from reasonable dialog. Seems to be a fair question, wouldn't you say?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

135. Those are still two very different things.

Before one is labelled as "annoying" - not much at all, I'd have thought. It's possible to disagree with someone without annoying them, but one has to be quite careful how one does it.

Before one is "dismissed from reasonable dialogue" - probably quite a lot more than that.

[kirby]

11. That is the agnostic/athiest dilemma...

Many do not feel comfortable or in their place to disparage others religions, they just want to be left alone and not subjected to someone elses belief system or religious based moral code. But a strong tenet of Christianity, especially Evangelical, is conversion/bearing witness. So you get guys like Dawkins who are on the opposite extreme. I think it is a result of the separation of Church and State breaking down. With people in power who refuse to believe in science (like global warming) due to religious beliefs, their actions on behalf of the state is delusional.

Bill Mahr kinda bugs me when he gets on his rants too, even though I agree with a lot of it.

[RufusTFirefly]

17. Although Dawkins is right, most of us harbor delusions of one sort or another

Delusions may be dysfunctional but they often provide people with ways of escaping lives of quiet desperation.

I believe at one point Cindy Sheehan showed some compassion for other Gold Star Mothers, who insist on believing that their children died for a just cause, acknowledging that although she knew they were wrong, she understood they needed to believe in order to prevent themselves from being sucked into a vortex of depression and hopelessness.

I suspect that many believe in sky people in order to provide hope and meaning and in some cases discipline and structure for what can often seem like a confusing, chaotic world.

By the way, though, it really shouldn't be about Dawkins or Michael Moore or Cindy Sheehan, or any of a number of personalities that many people consider abrasive. It should be about the ideas, policies, and viewpoints they're putting forth. One unfortunate way of escaping discussion of these things is by "shooting the messenger" instead of examining the message.

[SweetieD]

18. Meh. I still like Dawkins.

[Overseas]

19. So don't listen to Dawkins. I really like him most of the time.

We need all voices.

I'm fine with Dawkins having the courage to come right out and call the "Good Guy in Sky Personally Looking Out for Me" imagery delusional.

You can go ahead and say things more sweetly or romantically if you like.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

24. In the grand scheme of things

Dawkins' smugness toward believers pales in comparison to the invective that is heaped upon us non-believers. A recent Pew survey showed that atheists are the most despised group in America. People are less likely to vote for an atheist than a person of any religion (well, they weren't asked about satanists but I suspect we'd be on a par with them). Atheism is equated with amorality and all sorts of other unsavory things and religious leaders and politicians disparage us publicly with impunity. Hell, they're applauded when they do it. Yet the religious are automatically entitled to respect and deference for their goofy beliefs.

It's bad enough to have to put up with their whiny entitled asses with their phony persecution complex IRL. It's even more irritating when it shows up here. "OMG why are people so mean to religious people on DU!!1! But I'm a True Christian(tm)!!1!"

[otherlander]

25. Hey, I know this game!

It's like the Olympics, except the winner is whoever gets the most people to hate them.

I don't think I like this game.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

32. That's a laugh. You honestly think you get a choice in the matter?

You may be fortunate enough to operate in a progressive environment where you're free to be who you are, but in most places in this country you'd better keep your atheism in the closet if you want to function. And you know it.

You may have so internalized being deferential to believers that Dawkins makes you uncomfortable but I haven't. I think he's a breath of fresh air.

[otherlander]

35. I don't defer to anyone.

I just don't think that everyone has to believe the same thing that I believe.

And I don't think that we should attack people for being religious unless they attack us for being atheists. And even then, it's not their religion that we should attack, but their intolerance for our lack of religion. I know lots of religious people who have no problem with me being an atheist.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

128. You don't?

What do you do when you're at a public meeting or ceremony and someone says "Please rise for the invocation"? Do you remain seated? Or do you stand and bow your head along with everyone else? If you do the latter, that would be an example of deferring.

[spoony]

70. And you don't see how Dawkins and people like him are BEHIND

those miserable poll numbers? When religious Americans think "atheist" they think "snob who thinks I'm stupid for believing in God" and it's BECAUSE of people like Dawkins. He isn't the answer, he's the problem!

[mrreowwr_kittty]

117. Well then why don't smug insulting religious leaders cause their numbers to go down?

I'm sorry but that's bullshit. Atheists were reviled in this country long before anyone heard of Richard Dawkins.

[Goblinmonger]

155. That's bullshit and you know it

Atheists aren't the most hated minority because they are smug snobs. They are hated because they are heretics. Or are you going to argue that atheists and other non-believers were killed in the various inquisitions just because they had a bad attitude about their beliefs.

And if you are correct about your interpretation of the survey, then what have the homosexuals done to be the next most hated group. Is it because they are just so elitist about their sexual preference or could it possibly *gasp* be that they are hated for a myriad of religious reasons.

Don't blow smoke up my ass.

[Flarney]

26. It's hard not to be smug when you are arguing on the basis of evidence...

...and the person you're arguing with has no evidence or even any respect for the concept. Just my opinion....

[anigbrowl]

27. Simple: religious people will *happily* cut you to pieces if you don't acknowledge their belief

Not all of them, obviously. But anyone who cites religion as justification for constraints on anyone else (rather than for their own personal life choices) is basically trying to use the authority of an invisible being for coercion, and that way lies madness.

[RagAss]

31. Where is Jim Jones when we desperately need him????

[NeedleCast]

30. No difference between Dawkins and the fundies he bashes

I have no problem when people take a stand on a position, whether it be religion or politics or economics or whatever. When someone says "here's what I think about (x)" they're not really causing a problem.

The problems arise when someone says "here's what I think about (x) and if you don't think I'm right, you're an idiot." That's the sort of thing that causes just about everything that's wrong in the world.

[RufusTFirefly]

33. You're confusing balance with objectivity, faith with facts

If someone says "If you don't believe the moon is made of green cheese, you're an idiot" and someone else says "If you do believe the moon is made of green cheese, you're an idiot," are these two people equivalent?

Of course not.

[NeedleCast]

42. I probably explained it poorly

but it's the concept of "my way or the highway" or not allowing tolerance of another point of view.

In the example you use, it can be proven that the moon is not made of green cheese. We've been there. We know what green cheese is made out of and the moon is made out of something else. So it can be proven that the moon is made out of rock, metals and various other elements and also proven that the moon is not made out of green cheese. In the same way we can prove that two apples plus two apples is four apples. We can also prove that two apples plus five apples is NEVER four apples.

The existance of God(s) can't be proven, but it can't be disproven either. Dawkins stance is that people who believe in God(s) are stupid despite the fact that he can't disprove their existence. He's going to look mighty silly if it turns out he's wrong. If someone said to me "two apples plus three apples is four apples" I'd consider that person fairly stupid because we can prove that the person is incorrect. Dawkins can't prove he's correct.

[RufusTFirefly]

46. It is the burden of believers to prove God's existence, not the other way around

With respect, you are engaging in the fallacy known as "Argument from Ignorance" or the "Burden of Proof" fallacy.

Dawkins hasn't categorically denied the possibility of the existence of a God. He just suggests that there currently is no proof for it and that people who subscribe to beliefs without proof are delusional.

If you want to posit God as a hypothesis, then it is up to you to prove it.

By the way, the notion that billions believe in God is not a proof. In fact, it is another fallacy -- Argumentum ad Populum -- better known as the "Bandwagon Fallacy."

[NeedleCast]

53. I guess Dawkins position on this just seems no different

than the fundies he rails against.

Dawkins seems like the kind of person who would have pointed a finger and said "HA HA!" to Newton's position on gravity.

I don't think I made the argument that because billions believe in god it proves (it's) existence...but if I did it wasn't my intention. Nor am I positing God(s) as a hypothesis, I'm just unwilling to label all who believe in (him/her/it) as delusional.

[RufusTFirefly]

74. Tinkerbell

If I said I believed in Tinkerbell, I can't imagine that you wouldn't consider me delusional. But I am guilty of conjecture here, just as you were in suggesting that Dawkins would've laughed at Newton's position on gravity (a hypothesis that Newton then supported with data by the way).

There's no evidence for the existence of Tinkerbell. And there's no evidence for the existence of God(s).

I'd suggest the primary differences that explain why Tinkerbell believers would be ridiculed and God(s) believers are honored (and, I might add, belief in God(s) even though it isn't mentioned in the Constitution is a tacit requirement of running for U.S. President) are numbers and tradition. That's why I brought up the Bandwagon Fallacy (numbers) and should have mentioned argumentum ad antiquitatem, which is an appeal to tradition.

[Goblinmonger]

156. Have you even read Dawkins

If you think he would have laughed at Newton, it would seem you haven't. Dawkins is a scientist, pure and simple. He would have looked at Newton's evidence and agreed with the conclusions.

How about we stop making up stories about what one of the foremost evolutionary biologists would have said to Newton.

[MBS]

36. right you are!

about Dawkins in particular and fundies of all stripes in general.

[Goblinmonger]

157. Really?

Does he condemn them to an eternity in hell?
Does he wish them dead and, in the right time period, carry that out?
Does he teach his "followers" to scorn and hate others?

Get off the atheism = fundamentalism crap already.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

40. Well, HE doesn't want the world to end. -nt

[NeedleCast]

43. Neither do the vast majority of religous people

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

49. Well, the really nasty ones do. And a minority they may be, but it's a sizeable one.

So we come to the inescapable conclusion: the nastiest public atheism proponent is WAY WAY WAY less nasty than the nastiest religion proponents.

[NeedleCast]

56. I think sites like Raputre Ready and other hard-core fundie sites

have given the illusion that their fundamentalism is shared by the majority. When it comes to fundamental/extremisim of just about any kind - whether it be religious, political or what kind of bread is best for a ham and cheese sandwhich - I'll be happy to stand up and say "not so fast..."

I have to disagree that the nastiest that atheism can produce is worse than the nastiest religious fundamentalism can produce. When you're talking about that extreme, I think both sides are happy to take the view that anything is justifiable as a means to the end they desire.

[muriel_volestrangler]

137. So are you comparing him to "the vast majority of religous people", or "fundies"?

If you had said "No difference between Dawkins and the vast majority of religous people", then your statement in reply #30 would have been unremarkable. I think your characterisation of him needs to be more consistent.

[dmallind]

151. One BIG difference

Is that I have yet to hear a proposal from Dawkins or any other athist that wants to legislate the trappings of their dogmatic nonbelief into law. Many fundies want to, and have successfully managed to because far too few people are willing to stand up to them like he does.

Ask yourself if gay marriage and stem cell research would be restricted as severely if it weren't for legislating the will of an invisible friend?

[southpaw]

34. Dawkins, along with Sam Harris

assert quite clearly that evangelical theism has been and continues to be the very core of genocide, terrorism, oppression and other lovely concepts that, when brought upon the realty based community in an age where doomsday weapons actually exist, could spell major troubles for everyone who inhabits the planet.

The inquisitions, witch trials and holocausts of the past were horrific enough... but toss a little plutonium, weapons grade anthrax or ebola into the mix and we all stand to lose, regardless of our religious beliefs or the lack of such.


Dawkins' urgency, as well as that of Harris, Hitchens, Dennett et al. has less to do with their disdain for religious belief in an academic sense, and much more to do with the danger that a continuation of religion's violent past poses in these times.

[Gwendolyn]

58. Correct!!!

And if he weren't as abrasive he would simply disappear into academic tedium, the message lost.

[southpaw]

69. Dawkins acknowledges

that his abrasiveness makes him unfit to proselytize to the religious. He is primarily preaching to the choir, but he formulates arguments very well.

[renate]

73. I haven't read his book--so I have a question

Does he draw a distinction between religion and the behavior of religious people?

That is, would he feel as strongly about religion if Christians all behaved like they were supposed to, if Muslims all behaved like they were supposed to, etc? Because I think the world would be a better place if people's behavior actually reflected the god(s) they claim to serve.

I call myself religious, or spiritual, or whatever, but I feel more strongly about the separation of church and state (and about foisting religion upon people who don't want it) than my atheist husband does. And we're equally nice. :) So I wonder whether Dawkins would think I'm a dummy, or whether he'd be okay with my thinking the way I do?

[southpaw]

80. One thing Dawkins has a problem with

when it comes to "moderate" or "liberal" believers is that they tend to demand, just as fundamentalists do, that religious beliefs be exempt from criticism simply because they are matters of faith. As if that somehow puts them out of bounds for the very criticisms that would be demanded of secular philosophies with bloody, violent histories.

These matters of faith have historically been used to justify a dizzying assortment of atrocities that, as I referenced in an earlier post, have more lethal potential than previously imagined in a world where chemical, biological and nuclear super-weapons actually exist.

To be even clearer, religious faith has literally been the motivating force behind most of history's most inhumane and horrific events.

Dawkins does believe that the world would be better served by rational understanding of how things actually work and the collaborative investigation of things we don't yet understand than it has been by the superstition and dogma of religion.

So, in a sense, he sees the moderate and the fundamentalist alike as deluded, and while the moderate is unlikely ever to launch a terror campaign in the name of their religion, they tend to shelter the beliefs of fellow religionists who are often very willing to do just that.

[spoony]

111. Nonsense.

"religious faith has literally been the motivating force behind most of history's most inhumane and horrific events."

Bullshit. I have the numbers in front of me. Why don't you start by trying to justify that comment.

Edit: I'll be back later to see what you came up with. Other than that I won't mess about with this thread anymore.

[southpaw]

115. I'm paraphrasing Dawkins there

as I'm sure you realize. I care not a whit to debate this with you, but since you have the numbers in front of you, why not share them with us?

On edit: read this for a start: http://www.skeptically.org/enlightenment/id7.html

[spoony]

145. I'd need something written with use of the enter key

My eyes cannot sort that out. In any case, if you aren't willing to go into it I will not except to say that what I referred to is a list of various wars and mass killings with numbers of casualties, showing that the oft cited examples of religious "horrors" barely rank with the historic slaughters humans have engaged in. Of course there are exceptions, but pinning the blame on religion for the "worst" is simply disingenuous propaganda. I've posted about this before if you want to search, but I'd be wasting my time if you "care not a whit" in proceeding. Good day.

[Goblinmonger]

158. Oh, please

you are going to say, what, Stalin and Pol Pot? I might give you Stalin as not being religious, but would argue that Pol Pot was a religion with him being the deity. So you are going to put Stalin up against Hitler, Inquisitions, Crusades, and all the rest?

[renate]

132. thank you so much for putting so much thought into your reply!

Interesting. As far as his problem with liberal believers goes, I guess I prefer (though I don't demand) that my religious beliefs be exempt from criticism out of good manners, nothing more.

I also have two graduate degrees in science. I like rational explanations for how things work, too.

So although I am in complete agreement with him about the effect of religion on the world, he is making assumptions about me (and I am far from being the only well-mannered, science-loving religious person around) that are at best unfair and are actually fairly rude. Good thing I don't care what Richard Dawkins thinks of me. :)

I really appreciate your explanation of his views; I'd heard he was unnecessarily obnoxious about people who believe in a creative force or whatever we want to call God, so I hadn't read his book (if he wants religious but non-dogmatic people to listen to him, he shouldn't call them "deluded," especially if he doesn't understand their actual views), but the effect of religion on public discourse is a topic that definitely needs to be discussed and I'm very glad to know a little bit more about him. Thank you!

[KathieG]

126. Absolutely...great post

:thumbsup:

[ColbertWatcher]

38. Who doesn't? His jekishness doesn't make him wrong, however. n/t

[Ignis]

47. "His jekishness doesn't make him wrong, however."

QFT. :woohoo:

It's quite possible that Galileo was no fun at parties, either. That still doesn't make the sun revolve around the earth.

[ColbertWatcher]

84. "the sun revolve around the earth" WITCH! WITCH! n/t

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

39. Proselytizing believers: look at Dawkins. He is you, seen from outside. -nt

[spoony]

41. Apparently his fan club doesn't like dissent

But then again they're just following his example of intolerance and hypersensitivity.

[NeedleCast]

45. Bingo! n/t

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

48. Pot, meet kettle. -nt

[spoony]

51. Yeah, couldn't have seen that coming.

Get back to me if I ever make a luxurious living off of calling other people names. Sadly, your side seems to have cornered the market, though.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

52. I believe you don't make a luxurious living. No reason to doubt you on that. -nt

[spoony]

54. No I don't, is that a problem? Is income related to worth?

Sounds like you might be more comfortable in circles, and on websites, where people are judged by such things.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

55. I'm REALLY enjoying watching you make an ass out of yourself.

Please DO go on. It's great wholesome family fun for all ages. :rofl:

[spoony]

57. This is sort of like talking to a soundboard

You know, they spit back random soundbites and insults, or in your case summon them from some long defined playbook. I'm glad you've entertained yourself for the feeling is certainly not mutual. No fun arguing with someone who uses the same old lines in every encounter. Have a good one.

[WhollyHeretic]

59. Atheists have the market cornered on making a living calling people names?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

64. Yeah, I know. My jaw dropped too.

You really are left with no response but to laugh. Kinda like when Reagan said that trees cause pollution.

[spoony]

65. Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, Ofray...

All filling the "Books about how stupid religious people are" niche. You can give yourself carpel tunnel syndrome posting smilies all day long but it's hard to deny that the more caustic books on religion lately are from anti-theists. Some responses have been published to the "New Atheists" (not my term, at all) but they don't call people evil or deranged. They look like this: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0470290277/ref=amb_link_7480922_2?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=right-1&pf_rd_r=18HKWZVAEADEDX5YJXFN&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=438071901&pf_rd_i=22

[Marr]

76. I don't think you've read any of his work.

It's surprisingly non-confrontational-- or at least, polite. His writing is very measured and scientific-- hardly the vitriolic attacks so many people seem to assume.

[spoony]

82. I have read "The God Delusion"--and I'll partly grant you that

as I recall he is less hostile in writing than Harris, Hitchens etc. however that does not make him "measured". I've seen him cited as referring to his critics as parasites, fleas, and other nasty bits of vitriol on his website. I can only conclude that his editors have more tact than he. Maybe later I'll dig up some notes from reading TGD and post more about this.

[Marr]

89. I'm sorry but I find that very difficult to believe.

If you can show me a quote of Dawkins referring to religious people in general with the words you mentioned, I'd like to see it. It just doesn't fit with the tone of his writing or the persona I've seen in television interviews.

[spoony]

102. He's very high-handed with anyone critical of his work

And he called the author of a book responding to TGD his "flea" in reference to a famous Yeats line, and called their author furthermore parasitic. This was in early 2007 about either Alister McGrath or Ben Wiker, iirc. I specifically said he was talking about critics and not people in general, so your request is an impossible one.

[SidDithers]

95. Yeah, 'cause nobody in the Religious Industrial Complex...

is making a luxurious living.

Creflo Dollar, anyone? Jim & Tammy? Swaggart? Benny Hinn? Kenneth Copeland?

Atheists really have the market cornered on fleecing their flocks.

Sid

[mudesi]

105. Dissent?

Exposing the truth over ignorance is not dissent.

If people think the world is flat, or that the sun revolves around Earth, is it "dissent" to point out to them that they are wrong? And if you think I'm using a faulty example, look at the people who deny evolution, or think that Earth is 6000 years old and that humans walked among dinosaurs.

Religious people need to take a good hard look in the mirror and stop living in denial.

[spoony]

108. You didn't even get the usage of the word, mate.

How to even begin with you when you didn't even get that? The "dissent" mentioned is anyone going against Dawkins.

[Goblinmonger]

159. Fail

Engaging in argument DOES NOT EQUAL not liking dissent.

[sakabatou]

50. For me...

I like most of his views. There are other atheist writers which I also agree with that might fill Dawkins' holes.

[KathieG]

147. Ditto...I enjoy his work

[BlooInBloo]

61. Of course Joe American finds one of the last bastions of intellect and rationality annoying....

That's basically what it means to be American.

[krabigirl]

62. I like him. *shrug* Yeah, he's abrasive, so what?

[UndertheOcean]

67. Well , they are delusional.

[spoony]

71. So how can you trust a delusional person with the presidency?

I truly enjoy the cognitive dissonance on DU, sometimes.

[Gwendolyn]

79. Relax... a lot of it is just business.

Approximately 75% of Americans believe in God, with 38% of those, waiting with bated breath for the end times, and okay with "anything' that might hasten the process. Only 14% of Americans consider themselves atheists, and as someone commented, many keep their mouths shut in order to facilitate life in their communities. Somehow, I think smug atheistic authors are the least of our world probs.

If it never occurred to you, part of all this is just business. Dawkins writes a book, people clamor to get it as he'll be an interesting read. Debates are organized with the religious side, which is good PR for the wash of fundie books sure to hit the market soon after. Sometimes someone like Rabbi Schmuley-kopf gets in on all the fun, and he rakes in money on his next book too.

[spoony]

87. I realise this.

Some of it's business, but here on DU it's personal. No one's making money here when they talk shit about religious people. I heartily object to that in GD when there are no fewer than three subforums to do so with total impunity.

Incidentally, I think that 14% say they have no religion. Not are atheists. There's a thread at the top of the religion-theology forum citing a new survey showing 4% of Americans say they're atheists.

[mudesi]

107. I have news for you

Jesus didn't walk on water or rise from the dead.

It's not possible.

[spoony]

110. This isn't a theology thread, but you're free to go start one.

Me, I'm fine with mine and Obama's beliefs, thanks.

[Gwendolyn]

116. 4%, well there you go then. Who do you imagine is really persecuted?

I suppose when you live in a country where fundamentalist religion has become both highly consumerist and very much politicized, people will rightfully voice their opinions and concern, because it affects EVERYONE.

Fundamentalist organizations do their utmost to ensure that elections are weighed on ridiculous wedge issues that would cost people their freedoms. The way horrified atheists voice their opinions, is far from worse than the potty mouth offered by fundies... from the pulpit, in print, from their 24 television network, etc.. against their heretic brothers and sisters.

I guarantee you, if it weren't for the very concerning political aspect of religious fundamentalism... atheists couldn't care less if you wanted to play with snakes, scream and babble till you turn blue, or send all of your money to men in terrible hairhats who offer you a better place in heaven for your contribution to the "harvest."

[mrreowwr_kittty]

125. Thank you.

A person's belief "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg", to quote Jefferson, in and of itself. It's when they want to impose their mythology on me that I have a problem.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

119. And we better defer to the majority if we know what's good for us, right?

Oh, and cry me a fucking river over "no fewer than three subforums" on DU talking shit about religion. No one is forcing you to click on them. MUST you get your ass kissed everywhere you go?

[Fumesucker]

86. Keep in mind that any atheist voting in the USA

Is voting for someone who at least professes to be a theist.

There is no choice, atheists have zero representation for their point of view in the political realm.

Now turn it around, how many theists in the USA would willingly vote for a professed atheist candidate?

The reason atheists have no representation for their point of view in the political realm in the USA is because theists are highly bigoted.

How would you like living in a nation where no theist could be elected and every single politician loudly professed their atheism?

How would you like it if the very money in your pocket said "There Is No God"?

[spoony]

93. An interesting side note, but that's not the point

Which is: how can someone, anyone, support someone for the highest post in the land if they look down on people like them?

That obviously doesn't include all atheists, and I cannot say that enough, but certainly seems to include those who think that religious people are delusional or dangerous (or any of the other various labels attached to religious belief by Dawkins and SOME people here).

[Fumesucker]

99. What's interesting is that you ducked my questions..

Clearly, theists are more religiously intolerant than are atheists, at least in the USA.

What most American theists fail to understand about atheists here in the USA is that most of us were theists at one point in our lives, we understand you far better than you understand us because a lot of us were once you.

What would your opinion be of a grown adult who still really and truly believed in the Tooth Fairy?

[spoony]

106. Lol, in a post calling religious people intolerant you couldn't resist

insulting the whole lot of us. And what did you want me to answer in that tangential post? If I'd vote for an atheist? Yeah, as long as they weren't an anti-theist prat who said I was delusional and believed in the equivalent of the "Tooth Fairy"!

[Fumesucker]

114. My opinion is my opinion..

Do you temper your opinions to spare the feelings of others? If a Republican says something incredibly stupid, do you bite your tongue in order that you not offend him or her?

Clearly again, you would not have a good opinion of a grown adult who still believes in the Tooth Fairy.

There is more evidence for the existence of the Tooth Fairy than there is for any supernatural deity.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

121. People have explained to you, repeatedly, why we do.

I have never in my life, anywhere I've lived, had the option of voting for a professed atheist for any public office. I have no doubt that I have voted for a few, but they never disclosed it publicly. I have no idea what Obama really believes but I do know that if he were an avowed atheist he'd be lucky to be elected as a county assessor anywhere in the country, much less to the Senate and possibly the Presidency. I also know that he is far less likely to impose religion on me than the alternative. You seem to think I should forego voting in order to be consistent with my principles. Sorry, but I'm not that much of a purist.

[KathieG]

148. Absolutely...so far the highest ranking politician that has identified

himself as being a nonbeliever is Congressman Pete Stark(D)of California. Of course he was already a veteran of the house when he did so.

It is likely that there are more nonbelievers in government, statistics say we are about 15% of the population...too bad they have to pretend. Sadly, I don't think an outed non-theist could win an election out of the gate in this country...not yet anyway.

[UndertheOcean]

154. I can't . I don't think Obama is stupid enough to really believe in God

It is just a show to appease the ignorant Public.

[otherlander]

162. Of all the people on DU

you're one of the last ones I would have expected to say that.

[UndertheOcean]

164. This is what I really feel ... he is too smart to be a theist

[mudesi]

88. He's telling the truth

Nothing wrong with that.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

91. Expressing his opinion, actually.

Just to be clear.

[mudesi]

103. No

The truth is that anybody who believes in an invisible man in the sky is, in fact, delusional.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

130. They say the same thing about atheists.

In both cases, it's a matter of opinion.

[Goblinmonger]

160. They may say the same thing

but I find it hard to grasp that NOT believing in an invisible man in the sky makes one delusional.

[alarimer]

118. I agree 100% with Dawkins

Nobody's religious beliefs should get a pass. No one's. I do not have to "respect" anyone's beliefs and if I think they are delusional, I will tell them so.

In any case, why should their beliefs not be able to stand up to a little criticism? Their beliefs cannot be very strong if they can't take a little criticism.

[SweetieD]

120. I agree. I think some Americans may be put off by his posh sounding accent in all honesty. When he

speaks confidently, it seems as if he is being condescending without that intention.

[southpaw]

123. I hear ya.

Among my earliest moments of doubt (I was raised a fundamentalist; Southern Baptist) came about when I was told by a pastor that I shouldn't entertain doubts or question my faith.

My attitude was, basically: "If our belief system is based on the absolute truth as revealed by the supreme creator of the universe, then shouldn't it be able to withstand the questioning of a mere mortal?"

Not much later, it became apparent exactly why the leaders of the faith tried to keep people from questioning!

[gmudem]

122. Belief in God is delusional.

Whether it's impolite to say so is another thing, but faith requires delusion. I know Obama does believe in God, and I will be voting for him of course, but his delusions do not seem to prevent him from understanding the scientific realities we face today.

[southpaw]

124. I truly wonder

Do you think Obama really believes in god?

I know he is smart enough to realize that no one has a chance of being elected to the presidency without professing a belief in god... but I'm not convinced that he truly believes.

[gmudem]

127. His faith seems genuine to me.

Misguided, but genuine. He has been going to church for 2 decades now, I doubt he would go for so long if he did not truly believe in it. If anything, I think McCain is actually an agnostic, I don't think he actually believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ, and I wish he would just admit it instead of having no principles.

[southpaw]

129. You could be right

and I certainly have nothing to base my opinion on.

It is my understanding that Obama was raised without being indoctrinated into any particular religious belief, but was exposed to the teachings of numerous religions. He chose Christianity as an adult, and his belief may indeed be sincere.

I just have this feeling that, being as smart as he is, and having examined the various religions of the world from a young age, that he may be more of a Unitarian Universalist than anything else...

Your points about McCain are interesting.

[The Straight Story]

131. Kind of like belief in atoms, things you postulate are there but can't see

until you go looking and spend money building machines that help you.

And that LHC collider might just reveal something we have never seen before but we believe exists.

I know science is different than religion, but both start out with a theory we have about something. Some will act on faith that the idea is sound, even if it is unproven.

That does not make them delusional.

[galileoreloaded]

138. I don't know, I always liked Family Feud and LOVED Hogans Hero's....n/t

[Posteritatis]

139. I'm of two minds on the guy

(For the record: I'm agnostic, slightly leaning theist most of the time.)

I'm not a fan of evangelical atheism, or evangelical any-belief-or-worldview for the most part with few exceptions, especially when it's done in an insulting or patronizing manner.

On the other hand, I do consider Dawkins brilliant, especially in his ability to explain something as absurdly, mindbogglingly vast and complex as the evolution of life on this planet in a way that civilians can understand. I haven't taken a science class since physics in high school and went on to study history at university. I 'believed in' evolution, by which I mean I was pretty damn confident that it was How Things Worked, and had thought so for as long as I could formulate the notion. When I read two of Dawkins' books - Selfish Gene and Ancestor's Tale - I felt I actually managed to understand the process, or at least had a much, much better grasp on it than I did before I read those. He took a huge topic and made it very accessible to someone with no formal training in biology and little in the sciences in general.

That's an extremely non-trivial thing to do. I find it difficult enough presenting history to people without the background in it. (Hell, I occasionally find it difficult presenting history to first or second-year undergrads, who should have an inkling at least.)

I default to it's-not-my-business as far as what people devote their energies to. On the other hand, I feel that Dawkins is wasting something by focusing on the atheism aspect these days so much more than the evolution aspect. He explained the latter really really really well, at least to me, and I know my passing the books around has convinced other people of the veracity of evolution. Given the squabbling over ID and similar creationism-in-camouflage silliness going on in schools and society in general, I've felt that ability to explain is a far stronger way of helping folks on the rationality and scientific-literacy fronts than hammering on the atheism issue, especially in a way that seems more designed to entrench than convinced.

I dunno. Obviously he's doing what he likes to do, and what he thinks is important, but I also wish he'd put some more energy into an area he is (at least in my experience) spectacularly talented in.

[otherlander]

140. Are you people replying to the message or just to the fucking headline?

We as a SPECIES cannot afford to place more importance on whether or not someone thinks there's a man in the sky than on whether or not someone thinks that human beings should be treated with compassion.

[Fumesucker]

141. I read somewhere on DU within the last day or three ...

That well over half of fundagelicals have no moral qualms about the use of torture.. As long as it is the US doing the torturing.

I'd be willing to wager a considerable sum that the proportion of American atheists who have no moral qualms regarding torture is far lower than that..

[mrreowwr_kittty]

144. Holy mother of all strawmen!

Yeah, because anyone who doesn't agree with you on Dawkins automatically assumes that religious people have no compassion for their fellow human beings. Uh, no. I happen to believe that both religious and non-religious people are capable of compassion. I also believe the inverse is true. What I dispute is the notion, espoused by many religious folks, that belief in a diety is indispensible to the capacity to have compassion. BTW, I also dispute the inverse of that.

You REALLY think a major threat to our SPECIES is that some people agree with Richard Dawkins? How many people do you think even know who Dawkins is? Upthread, a person is claiming that only 4% of Americans identify as atheists. You SERIOUSLY think a minority of that size (particulary one that is as disparaged and marginalized as atheists) has that much leverage??

A shitload more Americans don't believe in global warming and think Jesus is going to blow up the world and Rapture them up in this lifetime. And they vote. In all honesty, who do you think poses a bigger danger to our species?

[otherlander]

163. It's not a strawman.

I didn't say or imply that "anyone who doesn't agree with (me) on Dawkins automatically assumes that religious people have no compassion for their fellow human beings." What I was saying was that we shouldn't attack people, hate them, discount them as potential allies, or call them delusional simply because they're religious. It shouldn't matter what someone thinks happens after death, or how someone thinks they should live their personal life. People can have whatever personal beliefs they want to and it shouldn't matter. The problem is when they, as the fundies do, think that everyone should have to live according to their religious beliefs, or that these beliefs should be taught in place of science, or otherwise try to impose their beliefs on the population at large. Since not all religious people try to do this, being religious shouldn't be something that non-religious people automatically hold against somebody.

Yes, we are a very small minority of the population and many religious people think we're evil. But why should we have a problem with the ones who don't have a problem with us being atheists?

Someone cited that a higher percentage of Christians than atheists are okay with the government kidnapping and torturing people. That doesn't automatically make all atheists morally superior to all religious people. It just makes people who are against it morally superior to those who aren't. People should be judged as individuals, not judged by what someone else with a perverted version of their beliefs thinks. Some Muslim people think that killing Americans is a good way to fight imperialism. But we shouldn't judge someone based on whether or not they're Muslim, we should judge people based on whether or not they want to kill people.

Among us (atheists) there are a lot of smart people with good ideas, but we can't make those ideas into reality if we alienate people of faith who share our political ideals. And even if we could, we shouldn't. What we think should be on earth is so much more important than what we think is after death.

[trotsky]

150. The core of Dawkins' message is that religion is too often treated with kid gloves.

ALL ideas, including religious beliefs, need to be subject to criticism and debate for a truly free society. Or do you disagree? Should certain subjects be off-limits for discussion? Once someone says, "I believe this because of my religion", is debate over?

[and-justice-for-all]

146. I find Dawkins to be very important...

and I am thankful for his efforts in defense of reason and science.

It is one thing for someone to 'believe' in the unlikely and maintain that belief to themselves. Bronze age desert dogma holds no truth to reality and how things actually work. People want to impose those irrational believes upon us and even have it taught in schools are some sort of fact, when in reality it is pure fiction.

If one thinks that there is an invisible man in the sky, who answers prayers and is concerned for them..Ok, but I find that to be a load of wishful thinking and well, delusional.

[knitter4democracy]

152. He is annoying, but he's also a sort of spokesman.

At least his books are getting published, he's getting interviews, and they put him in roundtables and such.

After reading through the thread, the big thing that sticks out is that my atheist brothers and sisters feel a need for someone to speak for them. Dawkins does just that and with panache, you've got to admit. Being in the minority is hard, but it's even harder if people don't know you exist or only know you exist from terrible bogeymen-type stereotypes they've been taught. Dawkins doesn't do away with that stereotype, unfortunately, but at least he's out there and trying.

I agree--working together and keeping those connections alive and glowing is way better than tearing each other apart over minor differences (and yeah, what we believe is a minor difference most of the time). If we're breathing, we're connected, and we need to focus on that.

[frogmarch]

161. I find Richard Dawkins to be noncondescending

and I like him very much just the way he is.

[Crowman1979]

165. Richard has his moments.

Like his arguement with Ted Haggard over evolution. He made that closet tweeker look like a delusional asshole.

[jonnyblitz]

166. you "i'm am atheist, but...." types remind me of fucking log cabin

republicans, always more concerned about making nice with the oppressors than the truth. Richard Dawkins and others like him that fight the tyrannical religious majority are HEROES and TOUGH FUCKING SHIT if he raises his voice on occasion and gets a bit uppity. your ilk seriously pisses me off and I call you "ATHEIST BUTTS" ("i'm an atheist, but but but but...").

[otherlander]

167. Maybe I should have said

"I'm an atheist, AND I don't care if other people are Christians," seeing as it's not really any kind of contradiction.

See post 163.

[Taverner]

170. I always thought that argument was a strawman one

When someone says "I am X but Y is right here" (substitute the X's and Y's for opposing viewpoints) they are not a stealth "Y'er"...they are practicing critical thinking something we need much more of...

[Pterodactyl]

168. And I find Richard Dawson to be annoying.

Especially on Family Feud.

[Taverner]

169. I like him - he's just passionate about truth

Granted, I disagree with him that you can convince a believer with logic and reason. One either gets it, or they don't. And if they don't get it now, they might later. Arguing won't speed anything up.

Besides, all the religions you see today - they will all be quaint curios 100 years from now. Dawkin's arguing against said religions is about as useful as Yosef T. Greek arguing against that Zeus figure in Classical Athens.

But I still like his stuff.