Should religion be a subject of criticism?

[LightbulbSun]

It seems to be a very one sided discussion. That seems to be about all the atheists here can tolerate. I thought it was religion that was proclaimed to be intolerant??

I'm intolerant for correcting people on their false connections and misusage of words?

 

[Proton Soup]

All his books. Dawkins is a scientist, and naturally wants to promote rational thinking. Nothing is more in the way for scientific progress than religon, that's why he's attacking it. If Dawkins solely was a promoter of atheism, he would have been pleased with living in a world where nobody believes in God. But Dawkins wants more than that. Atheism is just one of many consequences of rational thinking.

And as the believer you are, please stop calling names.

what science does Dawkins actually do? i think all he does is make sloppy interpretations of other people's work to make it fit his agenda.

 

[kasse]

Certain things shouldn't be tolerated. Religion is among them.

 

[Evo]

Wait I want to post some insults.

Well, hurry up and get them in, I'm going to ban everyone before I go to bed.

 

[LightbulbSun]

what science does Dawkins actually do? i think all he does is make sloppy interpretations of other people's work to make it fit his agenda.

He was the one who popularized the gene-centered view of evolution, he also introduced the concept of memes. He's done a lot of great work in the field of evolutionary science.

 

[Proton Soup]

Well, hurry up and get them in, I'm going to ban everyone before I go to bed.

lol, I'm getting tired of this, myself

 

[kasse]

what science does Dawkins actually do? i think all he does is make sloppy interpretations of other people's work to make it fit his agenda.

He's retired now, but he was a professor of the public understanding of science at the University of Oxford.

 

[Proton Soup]

He was the one who popularized the gene-centered view of evolution, he also introduced the concept of memes. He's done a lot of great work in the field of evolutionary science.

memes are just a neat-sounding word for culture, it's nothing new. popularizing science just makes him a science writer, like many others who work for publications.

 

[LightbulbSun]

memes are just a neat-sounding word for culture, it's nothing new. popularizing science just makes him a science writer, like many others who work for publications.

So Carl Sagan is just a science writer then.

 

[kasse]

We're OT.

 

[LightbulbSun]

In 1982, he (Richard Dawkins) made a widely cited contribution to evolutionary biology with the theory, presented in his book The Extended Phenotype, that the phenotypic effects of a gene are not necessarily limited to an organism's body, but can stretch far into the environment, including the bodies of other organisms.

Yup, definitely doesn't do science.

 

[Evo]

Certain things shouldn't be tolerated. Religion is among them.

Religion 'should' be tolerated. The majority of religious people are not fanatics, they are not evil, they fade into the wallpaper, you never even know they are there. Like most non-believers.

Yes there are the lunatic fringe, and sometimes the lunatic fringe gains control.

But do not claim that all people religious and non religious are all crazy.

Religious charities do an immense amount of good in the world.

I'm about 3 minutes away from lockdown as this thread has two sides throwing rocks at each other and nothing of any meaning is being rationally discussed.

 

[rbj]

I'm intolerant for correcting people on their false connections and misusage of words?

okay, whos words are these and how are we misusing them?:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction. Jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic-cleanser; a misogynistic homophobic racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal….

now, either of you guys (Lightbulb, kasse) tell me: what is the biology in such writing? how can that be anything other than pushing an agenda?

i am not commenting (at this time) on the value of what Dawkins is saying. just to refute the obviously mistaken canard you keep repeating that Dawkins has no agenda and that his writings are simply about evolutionary biology. it's simply false, and easily refuted. all i need is a counter example.

 

[kasse]

Let's hear what Pat Condell has to say about the topic. Does religion deserve respect?

 

[LightbulbSun]

Religion 'should' be tolerated. The majority of religious people are not fanatics, they are not evil, they fade into the wallpaper, you never even know they are there. Like most non-believers.

Yes there are the lunatic fringe, and sometimes the lunatic fringe gains control.

But do not claim that all people religious and non religious are all crazy.

Religious charities do an immense amount of good in the world.

I'm about 3 minutes away from lockdown as this thread has two sides throwing rocks at each other and nothing of any meaning is being rationally discussed.

I'm not throwing rocks. Just making corrections to people's misinformed views.

 

[LightbulbSun]

okay, whos words are these and how are we misusing them?:

Oh, I don't know, maybe falsely connecting atheism with communism.

Sorry, not you. Proton did this.

now, either of you guys (Lightbulb, kasse) tell me: what is the biology in such writing? how can that be anything other than pushing an agenda?

i am not commenting (at this time) on the value of what Dawkins is saying. just to refute the obviously mistaken canard you keep repeating that Dawkins has no agenda and that his writings are simply about evolutionary biology. it's simply false, and easily refuted. all i need is a counter example.

You obviously have not read any of Richard Dawkins books before then.

 

[Evo]

okay, whos words are these and how are we misusing them?:

now, either of you guys (Lightbulb, kasse) tell me: what is the biology in such writing? how can that be anything other than pushing an agenda?

i am not commenting (at this time) on the value of what Dawkins is saying. just to refute the obviously mistaken canard you keep repeating that Dawkins has no agenda and that his writings are simply about evolutionary biology. it's simply false, and easily refuted. all i need is a counter example.

Dawkins has an agenda when it comes to religion, even I know that. But his agenda is to address the religious fanatics. I think we can all agree that there are fanatics on both sides and they are both dangerous.

 

[rbj]

Yup, definitely doesn't do science.

never said Dawkins doesn't do science. (that fallacy of argument is called the "strawman".)

i said two things: Dawkins has a definite agenda (which is sufficient to disprove the silly notion that atheists in general have no agenda). and Dawkins is an apologist for atheism. perhaps he's correct, but to deny that he pushes (very hard, in fact) for a POV of atheism, is to deny what he writes.

 

[kasse]

Religion 'should' be tolerated. The majority of religious people are not fanatics, they are not evil, they fade into the wallpaper, you never even know they are there. Like most non-believers.

Yes there are the lunatic fringe, and sometimes the lunatic fringe gains control.

But do not claim that all people religious and non religious are all crazy.

Religious charities do an immense amount of good in the world.

I'm about 3 minutes away from lockdown as this thread has two sides throwing rocks at each other and nothing of any meaning is being rationally discussed.

You can say the same things about the nazis in Germany in the 40s. Lots of Germans considered themselves nazis, although they were peaceful citizens.

Once again: the problem isn't the fanatics, but lack of critical thinking. The "moderates" are no more rational than the fanatics; their theories are exactly as absurd. Thank God they haven't discovered the really bad verses!

Are you really saying that there's nothing crazy about believing the stories about Jesus?

 

[LightbulbSun]

never said Dawkins doesn't do science. (that fallacy of argument is called the "strawman".)

i said two things: Dawkins has a definite agenda (which is sufficient to disprove the silly notion that atheists in general have no agenda). and Dawkins is an apologist for atheism. perhaps he's correct, but to deny that he pushes (very hard, in fact) for a POV of atheism, is to deny what he writes.

You claimed he writes books about atheism, which if you read any of them, have nothing to do with atheism.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Dawkins has an agenda when it comes to religion, even I know that. But his agenda is to address the religious fanatics. I think we can all agree that there are fanatics on both sides and they are both dangerous.

Richard Dawkins is not a fanatic. As someone once said, the way he writes is "cute."

 

[kasse]

Religious charities do an immense amount of good in the world.

I'm about 3 minutes away from lockdown as this thread has two sides throwing rocks at each other and nothing of any meaning is being rationally discussed.

Which says nothing about the craziness of the religious doctrines. Nor does it mean that the charities couldn't have been done by non believers.

 

[out of whack]

Dawkins looks like a debunker to me, similar to the Amazing Randy. Their agendas are just to debunk gratuitous or deceptive claims and to make people start to think about what they believe instead of accepting claims at face value.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Dawkins looks like a debunker to me, similar to the Amazing Randy. Their agendas are just to debunk gratuitous or deceptive claims and to make people start to think about what they believe instead of accepting claims at face value.

James Randi is a debunker, yes. Richard Dawkins is an outspoken scientist, just like Carl Sagan was.

 

[kasse]

Dawkins wants people to start thinking for themselves and look for evidence. What's fanatic about that? What's dangerus?

 

[rbj]

You claimed he writes books about atheism, which if you read any of them, have nothing to do with atheism.

lessee, besides The God Delusion, how about A Devil's Chaplain? in both books, chapter 3 have nothing to do with atheism?

Lightbulb, do you know what a canard is? do you think that by continually repeating one, that it somehow makes it less of a canard?

 

[Proton Soup]

So Carl Sagan is just a science writer then.

he was also a celebrity spokesmodel.

 

[out of whack]

James Randi is a debunker, yes. Richard Dawkins is an outspoken scientist, just like Carl Sagan was.

Randi is also an illusionist and Dawkins is also a debunker. He can do both: debunk and do science. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[out of whack]

Dawkins wants people to start thinking for themselves and look for evidence. What's fanatic about that? What's dangerus?

Are you asking me?

 

[kasse]

Is it evil to hope that the doctrines of, say Christianity, are true?

 

[kasse]

Are you asking me?

evo.

 

[LightbulbSun]

lessee, besides The God Delusion, how about A Devil's Chaplain? in both books, chapter 3 have nothing to do with atheism?

Lightbulb, do you know what a canard is? do you think that by continually repeating one, that it somehow makes it less of a canard?

Ever read Unweaving The Rainbow, The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable, The Extended Phenotype? None of those books main themes had anything to do with atheism.

Neither does the God Delusion. It examines claims made by all religions on the existence of God.

 

[out of whack]

Back on topic, here's an interesting article about political attempts to restrict criticism of religion: http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1113/p09s02-coop.html"

It's clear to me that the Saudis want respect for all religions with a single one in mind: theirs.

 

[LightbulbSun]

he was also a celebrity spokesmodel.

A good astrophysicist too.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Randi is also an illusionist and Dawkins is also a debunker. He can do both: debunk and do science. Nothing wrong with that.

Nope. It's just that debunking isn't his main business.