Is Richard Dawkins' crusade against religion causing controversy in our society?

[Hurkyl]

Yes, atheists find Dawkin's book very convincing.

Of course, one wonders whether that's because Dawkins wrote a convincing book, or because they want to believe in its conclusion.

 

[Chris Davison]

I do not "want to believe" anything. Wanting to believe is a religious
non scientific state of mind.


Religion is the early dawn of man's thinking: Bertrand Russell

 

[Hurkyl]

Wanting to believe is a religious ... state of mind.

Now why would you believe that?

 

[Chris Davison]

Here endeth the lesson Hurky , God simply does not exist
and I am not prepared to go around in circles
with someone who presumably has reached adulthood
and does not realize this.

 

[Hurkyl]

Here endeth the lesson Hurky , God simply does not exist
and I am not prepared to go around in circles
with someone who presumably has reached adulthood
and does not realize this.

I don't see what any of this has to do with your assertion that

Wanting to believe is a religious ... state of mind.​

Shall I assume that you are retracting this assertion? Or shall I go with the more likely possibility that you cannot back your statements up with logic, so you resort to red herring and ad hominem instead?

 

[Garth]

God simply does not exist

Spoken with the sure conviction of a person of faith.

Garth

 

[Doc Al]

Spoken with the sure conviction of a person of faith.

I assume you meant that as a putdown?

 

[Garth]

I assume you meant that as a putdown?

I think so.

What irritates me is the way some people make dogmatic statements about things that cannot be proven and then claim it is only others that are relying on faith.

When I argue with fundamentalist Christians I find I am talking to a wall, if you disagree with them then, as far as they are concerned, you obviously are spiritually blind.

When I argue with some atheists I find I am talking to a wall, if you disagree with them then, as far as they are concerned, you obviously are stupid and 'have reached adulthood without realising"God simply does not exist''. '

To explain the anthropic fine tuning of the physical universe that makes ours a fecund universe requires either faith in the existence of some kind of creator or in a multitude of other universes. Both responses requires belief in the existence of entities that cannot be observed by scientific means. I cannot see how one response is derided as 'metaphysical' and the other not.

Garth

 

[arildno]

I think so.

What irritates me is the way some people make dogmatic statements about things that cannot be proven and then claim it is only others that are relying on faith.

No, we don't. We haven't seen any evidence of this God thing, nor does the God hypothesis generate any sort of consequences that can be tested, and THEREFORE, the God hypothesis is as idiotic to believe in as it is to believe in the existence of pink unicorns on one of the planets orbiting Betelgeuze.

 

[sneez]

Here endeth the lesson Hurky , God simply does not exist
and I am not prepared to go around in circles
with someone who presumably has reached adulthood
and does not realize this.

Im glad you think that way. Let me put you into the group of religious fanatics who are ultimatelly right, no tolerance of other opinions allowed.

You r replacing one belief for another, applying the same irrational sense to it.

Really, wonder anyone who reached adulthood thinking this way.

 

[sneez]

When I argue with fundamentalist Christians I find I am talking to a wall, if you disagree with them then, as far as they are concerned, you obviously are spiritually blind.

When I argue with some atheists I find I am talking to a wall, if you disagree with them then, as far as they are concerned, you obviously are stupid and 'have reached adulthood without realising"God simply does not exist''. '


Garth

Thank you.

 

[Garth]

When I argue with fundamentalist Christians I find I am talking to a wall, if you disagree with them then, as far as they are concerned, you obviously are spiritually blind.

When I argue with some atheists I find I am talking to a wall, if you disagree with them then, as far as they are concerned, you obviously are stupid and 'have reached adulthood without realising"God simply does not exist''. '

No, we don't. We haven't seen any evidence of this God thing, nor does the God hypothesis generate any sort of consequences that can be tested, and THEREFORE, the God hypothesis is as idiotic to believe in as it is to believe in the existence of pink unicorns on one of the planets orbiting Betelgeuze.

Thank you for providing such a good example.

Garth

 

[arildno]

Again, the same intellectual dishonesty is shown by an apologist of religion:

My example is a PRECISE analogy to the God hypothesis, but apologists, wholly UNWARRANTED, wave it away without argument.
Shame on you.

 

[sneez]

My example is a PRECISE analogy to the God hypothesis, but apologists, wholly UNWARRANTED, wave it away without argument.
Shame on you.

If one wants to belief in god or fairy or no god that's his choice. He will find arguments to support his/her choice. If i meet such person i give him my belief if he/she is interested. If mine argument makes sense to them i they will accept it or reject. The same goes the other way.

Thats the end of it. Long gone are the age when we needed spiritual leaders to think for us. (be it atheistic or religious priests)

Each one of us has mind on his/her own. Thats the end of it. Why do 'priests' feel like 'saving' lost souls? If one cannot tolerate another persons's belief, that person has no wisdom!

[do not be mad when if taliban would in the name of them being right start repressing atheism, christianity, any other way of thinking by means of intolerance you call for]

by the way, atheism is a belief just like any other belief. What cannt you understand about it?

 

[arildno]

If one cannot tolerate another persons's belief, that person has no wisdom!

Eeh?
Whatever are you talking about?

The fact that each person should be allowed to HOLD any opinions they want, is wholly separate from whether others should be required to RESPECT their beliefs.

In fact, when it comes to private fantasies (like religion), it is intolerant towards others to demand that they should respect your belief as something deep and rational.
This is, however, what religionists, and their apologists demand of others.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Eeh?
Whatever are you talking about?

The fact that each person should be allowed to HOLD any opinions they want, is wholly separate from whether others should be required to RESPECT their beliefs.

In fact, when it comes to private fantasies (like religion), it is intolerant towards others to demand that they should respect your belief as something deep and rational.
This is, however, what religionists, and their apologists demand of others.

Exactly. And note that religious fantasies have content concerning other people. And sooner or later religious people are going to enforce their fantasies on other people. The current example is the fight to define marriage as "a man and a woman".

To me, enforcing any kind of fantasies on somebody else is comparable to enforcing a masturbation fantasy on someone else. That is, to rape.

 

[Hurkyl]

We haven't seen any evidence of this God thing, nor does the God hypothesis generate any sort of consequences that can be tested, and THEREFORE, the God hypothesis is as idiotic to believe in as it is to believe in the existence of pink unicorns on one of the planets orbiting Betelgeuze.

Are you saying that God does not exist?

 

[sneez]

Exactly. And note that religious fantasies have content concerning other people. And sooner or later religious people are going to enforce their fantasies on other people. The current example is the fight to define marriage as "a man and a woman".

To me, enforcing any kind of fantasies on somebody else is comparable to enforcing a masturbation fantasy on someone else. That is, to rape.

Man vs woman marriage issue can be held by atheist as well or budhist or whatever.

Im NOT protecting religions (do not feel like you need to justfy atheism to me). I HATE RELIGION with utmost hatered! I just have enough honesty to admit that my opinions are limited as well as my knowledge to say somebody DO NOT BELIEF in this or that. All i can tell them fault in their reasoning or inconsistencies. Education is best weapon against ignorance.

So whatever religious ppl or their religions demand I am not protecting. I will be the first on the front line to protect freedom of belief! But i hate to see Mr. Dawkings attacking religions on something that he and his followers are guilty of as well!

The fact that one is dogmatically and violently speaking against one belief (to the point of prohibiting it) ! (not against the some of the demands of the institutions of that belief ) is clear proof that atheism as Dawkings conceives it is religion belief replacement.

 

[Astronuc]

We haven't seen any evidence of this God thing, nor does the God hypothesis generate any sort of consequences that can be tested,

So the 'existence or non-existence of God or gods is nontestable - so one is left to 'believe God or gods exist' or 'believe God or gods do not exist' - either way, one is left 'believing'. :rofl:

I am satisfied with what I know and I know that there are many things I don't know yet - but I enjoy discovering new things - and sharing those discoveries with those who are interested in such things.

Don't worry - Be Happy!

Also, religion doesn't necessarily imply mythology or belief. It does however involve living life with due deliberation as to the consequences of one's actions. There are many believers who are not religious.

 

[arildno]

Are you saying that God does not exist?

Not at all.
The hypothesis "God exists" is as LOGICALLY VALID as "God does not exist", since whatever reality MIGHT be, either one of the hypotheses must be true (neither of the statements can be regarded as self-contradictory).

Similarly, the hypothesis "pink unicorns exists somewhere" is as logically valid as its negation.

However, it does not follow that all logically valid statements are equally rational.

Whereas every illogical statement is irrational, not all logical statements are rational.

 

[arildno]

I am satisfied with what I know and I know that there are many things I don't know yet - but I enjoy discovering new things - and sharing those discoveries with those who are interested in such things. .

Of course. As long as it is DISCOVERED, rather than merely purported to exist, which is something quite different.

 

[arildno]

The fact that one is dogmatically and violently speaking against one belief (to the point of prohibiting it) ! .

Who are you talking about?
Surely not Dawkins, nor have anyone here at PF advocated a ban on religion!

Those individuals most typically in favour of banning other thoughts are..the (monotheistically inclined) religious individuals.
(Check out history on that)

 

[sneez]

Who are you talking about?
Surely not Dawkins, nor have anyone here at PF advocated a ban on religion!

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html"

http://www.wired.com/news/wiredmag/0,71985-0.html (Crusaide against religion?) what do you call that?

Read dawkins's 'New Atheism'

quote:"Yes, there could be a rational religion," Dennett says. "We could have a rational policy not even to think about certain things." He understands that this would create constant tension between prohibition and curiosity. But the borders of our sacred beliefs could be well guarded simply by acknowledging that it is pragmatic to refuse to change them.
"

Those individuals most typically in favour of banning other thoughts are..the (monotheistically inclined) religious individuals.
(Check out history on that)

Dear, i could shool ppl in religious oppressions, irrationalities. Thats why i recognize one when i see one. And new atheism is religion of hate and violence. Irrational in its demans and higly non-tolerant. All that you so much complain about.

And like i said, I am not protecting religion or ahteism. I am protecting the freedom to belief in whatever you want to as long as you let other do so as well. However, when some belief comes, even when some contemporary respected ppl, that is irrationaly absolutistic i speak against.

If this thread was about christian fanatics i would be here speaking of crimes they commit. But this thread is about Dawking and his new religion, which HE calls it!

 

[arildno]

Well, I've read the article. I didn't see anyone of the New Atheists, including Dawkins advocate a ban on religion.
The closest thing was this:

How much do we regard children as being the property of their parents?" Dawkins asks. "It's one thing to say people should be free to believe whatever they like, but should they be free to impose their beliefs on their children?

This is a very important question Dawkins raises.
Why, indeed, do we have to accept parents as competent care takers who frighten small children with tales of eternal torture if, for example, you prefer to have sexual relations with someone of your own sex?

We are EMBARASSED and ASHAMED today that a staple ingredient of earlier times' child raising was physical "correction".

The mental hells conjured in quite a few children due to their parents' religious ravings is not something we "have to" accept, because it is in accordance with the "sincere and deep" religious beliefs of the parents.

While the parents should perfectly well be allowed to HOLD their opinions, it by no means follows that we must accept that they inflict damage on OTHER INDIVIDUALS (like their own children).



Furthermore, the article writer is in evident confusion:
He is so accustomed to the idea that we MUST show respect for other persons' religious beliefs, that he regards the New Atheists denial of the existence of such a duty as the result of unwarranted scorn.


However, NO private fantasy concerning what exists in the world or not, (whether religious or not) can lay any comparable claim on others' respect for it as, say, science can.
For example, I have the private belief that everything in the world is fundamentally discrete, and furthermore, that this in the last analysis may prove that continuous modelling of the world (say, by diff.eqs) is unsuitable (a difference equations approach might prove better).
In particular, I think problems concerning, for example, convergence of solutions and boundedness of them will crop up in any continuous modelling scheme.

Now, this is a PRIVATE fantasy I firmly believe in, and it is a FANTASY, because I really don't have any evidence to speak of to bolster it up.
Do I for that reason get mightily offended if others simply dismiss my idea as silly?
No, I don't! Why should I?
It is perfectly within their RIGHTS to dismiss EVERY claim about the world that has wholly insufficient evidence behind it.

That is, I do not REQUIRE that others respect my belief, because that, in my opinion would be an infringement of their rights as sovereign intellectual beings.

However, it is precisely this REQUIREMENT OF RESPECT for their religious beliefs that religionists, and their defenders, perennially put forth, and to which the article writer has submitted himself.

 

[ModernBaroque]

The most annoying thing about some atheists is not their atheism but their inconsistency.

While the parents should perfectly well be allowed to HOLD their opinions, it by no means follows that we must accept that they inflict damage on OTHER INDIVIDUALS (like their own children).

You are basically saying parents don't have a right to educate their children. This is absurd. If people don't have a right to teach kids about what they believe, then they don't have a right to teach them about things like honesty or patriotism.

NO private fantasy concerning what exists in the world or not, (whether religious or not) can lay any comparable claim on others' respect for it as, say, science can.

Nobody is asking that religion be respected. For the most part, religious people feel little respect for different religions, or even different denominations of their own religion. This has nothing to do with respecting ideas, and everything to do with respecting people.

Claiming that people believe in religion because they are intellectually inferior is not showing lack of respect for the religion, it's showing lack of respect for people. That is not nice as your mother should have taught you.

For example, I have the private belief that everything in the world is fundamentally discrete, and furthermore, that this in the last analysis may prove that continuous modelling of the world (say, by diff.eqs) is unsuitable (a difference equations approach might prove better).
In particular, I think problems concerning, for example, convergence of solutions and boundedness of them will crop up in any continuous modelling scheme.

Now, this is a PRIVATE fantasy I firmly believe in, and it is a FANTASY, because I really don't have any evidence to speak of to bolster it up.

First you present some evidence or your "private fantasy", then you claim there's no evidence for it?

If, on the other hand, there really is no evidence for your idea, then it would be stupid of you to believe it. Isn't that exactly what you are claiming about religiuos people?

Do I for that reason get mightily offended if others simply dismiss my idea as silly?
No, I don't! Why should I?
It is perfectly within their RIGHTS to dismiss EVERY claim about the world that has wholly insufficient evidence behind it.

People don't get offended by atheism, you're getting it all wrong. Atheists have always existed and always will. People do get offended for being labeled idiots.

If I tell you you are dim-witted for believing "everything in the world is fundamentally discrete", would not that be offensive?

However, it is precisely this REQUIREMENT OF RESPECT for their religious beliefs that religionists, and their defenders, perennially put forth, and to which the article writer has submitted himself.

You can dismiss an idea as ridiculous without insulting the people who profess it - all it takes is civility, something Dawkins and his followers do not seem to have.

 

[Evo]

You are basically saying parents don't have a right to educate their children. This is absurd. If people don't have a right to teach kids about what they believe, then they don't have a right to teach them about things like honesty or patriotism.

You are incorrect, the quote specifically states "opinions". Religious beliefs are merely opinions. It has nothing to do with educating them about "real, factual" information. You should not put words into people's mouths.

is asking that religion be respected. For the most part, religious people feel little respect for different religions, or even different denominations of their own religion. This has nothing to do with respecting ideas, and everything to do with respecting people.

Claiming that people believe in religion because they are intellectually inferior is not showing lack of respect for the religion, it's showing lack of respect for people. That is not nice as your mother should have taught you.

What do your comments have to do with Arildno's post?

And you continue to misread what he wrote.

If you're going to quote someone's words then your following response needs to address what they wrote.

 

[Hurkyl]

Not at all.

*phew* I was worried that you were making that mistake.

We haven't seen any evidence of this God thing

Would you agree that someone who has seen what appears to be evidence of "this God thing" would be scientifically compelled to believe in it? At the very least, to have more confidence in God's existence than the agnostic stance would have?


And on a completely different note...

nor does the God hypothesis generate any sort of consequences that can be tested, and THEREFORE, the God hypothesis is as idiotic to believe in as it is to believe in the existence of pink unicorns on one of the planets orbiting Betelgeuze.

Where do you get off saying that Science is the only source of truth?

First off, what evidence is there that Science is good for anything at all? (Empirical evidence. Ponder that a moment)

Secondly, why should anyone believe that there can be no other source of truth?

Obviously your core beliefs include that Science is the only source of truth, and that's fine for justifying things to yourself. But it gives you no logical footing whatsoever when debating with company that doesn't share that core belief. And thus I reject this argument; it can only be valid when you are, pardon the phrase, preaching to the choir.

 

[Another God]

First off, what evidence is there that Science is good for anything at all? (Empirical evidence. Ponder that a moment)

Aeroplanes, space ships, penecilin, heart transplantation, microwaves, refrigeration, super-computers, electricity, year round climate control, structural integrity in high rises...

need I continue?

 

[Hurkyl]

Aeroplanes, space ships, penecilin, heart transplantation, microwaves, refrigeration, super-computers, electricity, year round climate control, structural integrity in high rises...

need I continue?

Ah, empirical evidence. Ponder that a moment.

 

[Another God]

through empirical studies science has provided information which has benn applied to create empirical solutions to empirical problems allowing for empirical improvements in longevity, health, wellbeing etc.

Better or worse can't be empirical, but stats can. Stats show science improves stuff.

 

[sneez]

That is, I do not REQUIRE that others respect my belief, because that, in my opinion would be an infringement of their rights as sovereign intellectual beings.

However, it is precisely this REQUIREMENT OF RESPECT for their religious beliefs that religionists, and their defenders, perennially put forth, and to which the article writer has submitted himself.

You do not require respect for your belief? Do you realize that your belief(s) is what you are? All you know is a belief!

how can you let such thing to come out of your brain out loud, that you call for NOT RESPECT of another person's belief?

Pls, next time you have conversation with someone in work place of any other place tell the person straight in the eye "I do not respect your belief"! (and i mean when you discuss nature of matter, or science, or biology, or what ever that person is expressin his opinion-belief about, not just religion)
See, how long your conversation will hold. NExt, imagine that this pathetic belief is of everyone around you, hmmm, what a place to live in.

Surelly, you seem to be smart, able to rationalize your fallacies, but with no wisdom ( on this issue). To win an argument does not make you right. Stop trying to win an argument and let concentrate on the meaning of what you're (Dawking) talking about.

Soverentity of a being is not diminished by respect of something. If i do not need to respect your belief, on the same note i do not have to respect your race, your color...you get the idea.

 

[arildno]

You are making the same fallacy as muslim fanatics when you say that your beliefs are what you are. They're not.
For example, I have a body, and have wishes that no one is to intrude upon my body space unless I want it myself.
This is not a "belief", and if you haven't any respect for my set of beliefs (and being entitled to that), it does not follow that you are entitled to intrude upon my body space.

The muslim fanatic, however, thinks that he is entitled to murder,maim and burn any bodies belonging to persons disrespectful of his beliefs.

 

[sneez]

You are making the same fallacy as muslim fanatics when you say that your beliefs are what you are. They're not.
For example, I have a body, and have wishes that no one is to intrude upon my body space unless I want it myself.

arildno, All you know, all you say, all your opinions are your beliefs. Do you agree. Therefore, i say you are your belief. You are what you think. What you think is your belief. What you just wrote is your belief. You cannot get out of it.

The moment you take respect for a belief out of the equation tell me what is left? What is there when respect is gone?

and please let me know your opinion on:]
Soverentity of a being is not diminished by respect of something. If i do not need to respect your belief, on the same note i do not have to respect your race, your color, sex, rights,property...you get the idea.

You see, mistake is made by dawkin the not agreeing is the same is not respecting. Humanity was trying to learn for centuries to respect another belief through religious wars and etc.(well almost when ppl had it, and even put it in constitution) Now, some person tries to say we don't need it as long as we BELIEF in no god. (hope you see the keyword).

Do you see that it has been long recognized by ppl that to respect another's belief is to respect the being?
Can you respect me if you do not respect my belief? (And i do not mean disagree with an belief, i mean to not respect an belief. That is a world of difference).

 

[Doc Al]

You seem to conflate "respect" for a person--extending common courtesy towards fellow human beings--with respect for a person's beliefs. Sorry, but just calling a thought or idea a "belief" does not make it any more rational, evidence-supported, or worthy of respect. Propositions about the world must earn respect. This doesn't mean you must be nasty to people, but it surely doesn't mean that any crackpot, off-the-wall, nutball idea should get "respect" just because someone "believes" it. Enough is enough. One of Dawkin's (and Sam Harris's) points is that religious ideas are statements about the world and should be subject to the same critical scrutiny as any other proposed idea.

 

[selfAdjoint]

You do not require respect for your belief? Do you realize that your belief(s) is what you are? All you know is a belief!

how can you let such thing to come out of your brain out loud, that you call for NOT RESPECT of another person's belief?

Pls, next time you have conversation with someone in work place of any other place tell the person straight in the eye "I do not respect your belief"! (and i mean when you discuss nature of matter, or science, or biology, or what ever that person is expressin his opinion-belief about, not just religion)
See, how long your conversation will hold. NExt, imagine that this pathetic belief is of everyone around you, hmmm, what a place to live in.

Surelly, you seem to be smart, able to rationalize your fallacies, but with no wisdom ( on this issue). To win an argument does not make you right. Stop trying to win an argument and let concentrate on the meaning of what you're (Dawking) talking about.

Soverentity of a being is not diminished by respect of something. If i do not need to respect your belief, on the same note i do not have to respect your race, your color...you get the idea.

But this is a two-way street. The Cardinal Archbishop of Chicago used to take a bull horn (perhaps he still does) and stand across he street from an abortion clinic and thunder at the women who might be going in. The only reason he was across the street was that the law made him be. His coreligionists (my ex-coreligionists) used to impinge on these women waving rubber fetuses.

Do I have to respect his belief, their beliefs? If they had regularly respected the beliefs of the women, things like Dawkinism would never arise.