News Should religion be a subject of criticism?

[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.

 

[rbj]

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

i didn't say that it's either fanatic (from a scientific POV) nor dangerous (again from a scientific POV). i want you guys to stop trying to change the subject and weasel out of this. you keep repeating two falsehoods that are so easily disproved, even Dawkins would say you're silly.

Dawkins is an atheist. Dawkins definitely has an agenda to promote his way of thinking in such a way to displace theism (he not only promotes the virtues of atheism, he denigrates theism). not commenting on if that is bad or good. but it is what he does, particularly of late.

it is silly to deny that, at least some atheists (and some spokespersons for atheists), have focused agendas pushing the POV on others. that is clearly what they are writing about (at least in part). doesn't say that Dawkins is wrong about it or that he doesn't do science. but it's silly to deny that atheists, as a class of people, have no agenda. it's semantically silly.

 

[kasse]

A global blasphemy law

 

[LightbulbSun]

it is silly to deny that, at least some atheists (and some spokespersons for atheists), have focused agendas pushing the POV on others. that is clearly what they are writing about (at least in part). doesn't say that Dawkins is wrong about it or that he doesn't do science. but it's silly to deny that atheists, as a class of people, have no agenda. it's semantically silly.

Again, confusing secularism with atheism. Religious people can be secularists too. Now you're going to have to show us this atheism agenda without trying to lump in a bunch of other ideologies with it.

 

[out of whack]

Anyone who voices his or her opinion obviously has an agenda: to convince others of said opinion. Duh.

 

[kasse]

it's silly to deny that atheists, as a class of people, have no agenda. it's semantically silly.

Atheists is not a group of people more than disbelievers in the flying spaghetti monster are.

 

[out of whack]

A global blasphemy law

Scary, isn't it?

 

[kasse]

That article scares the hell out of me.

 

[Proton Soup]

A good astrophysicist too.

ok, i'll agree with you on this one thing.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Anyone who voices his or her opinion obviously has an agenda: to convince others of said opinion. Duh.

True, but there's no group agenda for atheism since there's no such thing. Some atheists are pro religion still, others are anti-theist. Atheists can also still believe in the supernatural. An atheist bright is one who doesn't believe in gods or supernatural phenomena.

 

[out of whack]

Worth dying for.

Lucky you won't have to, they failed (this time) and a non-binding bland proclamation was adopted instead.

From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...11/13/AR2008111301921.html?hpid=sec-religion":

The more than 70 countries attending the conference issued a declaration affirming "their rejection of the use of religion to justify the killing of innocent people and actions of terrorism, violence and coercion which directly contradict the commitment of all religions to peace, justice and equality."

 

[rbj]

Again, confusing secularism with atheism. Religious people can be secularists too.

when did i ever say that religious people can't be secularists? i only am strictly keeping you to supporting your wild-a55ed statement that atheists have no agenda. i said nothing about secularism nor the agenda of secularism.

Now you're going to have to show us this atheism agenda without trying to lump in a bunch of other ideologies with it.

again, all i need is a single counter-example to refute your broadly sweeping statement that atheists have no agenda. Dawkins makes for an easy source. i'll have to dig it out, but besides the general agenda that Dawkins has promoting atheism (his thesis is that it is mind-numbingly silly to believe in God and that is an ideology of atheism that cannot be attributed to another ideology), he has some social agenda. one is that he believes that theistic parents should not bring their kids up in the faith thus poisoning their minds at their young vulnerable age with this God delusion. that's a social agenda that is essentially that parents should teach their kids what Dawkins believes rather than what these parents might believe. that's an agenda. and it's an agenda for atheism.

i do not have the time to find the specific page (in The God Delusion) for that, let alone to find the time to even dig the book outa whatever box i have it stored in (bookshelf space is tight in my house), so Evo, I'm getting outa here. these guys can have their echo chamber, if they want it.

 

[LightbulbSun]

when did i ever say that religious people can't be secularists? i only am strictly keeping you to supporting your wild-a55ed statement that atheists have no agenda. i said nothing about secularism nor the agenda of secularism.

I said you were confusing a secularist agenda as being an atheist agenda.

again, all i need is a single counter-example to refute your broadly sweeping statement that atheists have no agenda. Dawkins makes for an easy source. i'll have to dig it out, but besides the general agenda that Dawkins has promoting atheism (his thesis is that it is mind-numbingly silly to believe in God and that is an ideology of atheism that cannot be attributed to another ideology), he has some social agenda. one is that he believes that theistic parents should not bring their kids up in the faith thus poisoning their minds at their young vulnerable age with this God delusion. that's a social agenda that is essentially that parents should teach their kids what Dawkins believes rather than what these parents might believe. that's an agenda. and it's an agenda for atheism.

Social agendas have nothing to do with an "atheist agenda." Epic fail.

 

[NeoDevin]

Just for clarity:

Atheism: disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Secularism: the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.

The two are not mutually exclusive, but also one does not require the other. Dawkins is both. His books (The God Delusion in particular) aim to promote critical thinking and criticize religious beliefs. He does mention atheism a few times in his books, but they do not (directly) promote atheism.

 

[NeoDevin]

atheists have no agenda

There is a difference between claiming that a particular atheist has a particular agenda, and that atheism has an inherent agenda (the "atheist agenda").

 

[LightbulbSun]

Just for clarity:

Atheism: disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Secularism: the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.

The two are not mutually exclusive, but also one does not require the other. Dawkins is both. His books (The God Delusion in particular) aim to promote critical thinking and criticize religious beliefs. He does mention atheism a few times in his books, but they do not (directly) promote atheism.

Thank you Neo! As I've said, religious people can also be secularists too.

 

[WarPhalange]

No, I said that it can be logical to choose faith, not that logic demands it.

Yes, you said it's logical to choose faith, not that faith is logical.

Who says that we must have proof to believe something? There is a difference between scientific demands, and personal demands. I don't demand proof every time my wife tells me something.

The fact that your wife is there is already infinitely more proof than any Abrahamic religion can muster, or any other faith, including Hinduism, Shinto, and Buddhism.

Look at it this way: We laugh at the crazy beliefs that the Aztecs, Norse, and Greeks had. But we claim our fairy tales are somehow better. Why?

Are you really insisting that all people accept only the doctrines of science?

When it comes to the workings of the universe? Yes. Need I mention creationism again?

 

[kasse]

i only am strictly keeping you to supporting your wild-a55ed statement that atheists have no agenda.

Some atheists can have an agenda. My 2 year old nephew does not have it.

As Lightbulb says, atheism is a very narrow field, and you're obviously trying to expand it to include everything that is not religious. My breakfast today had nothing to do with religion, but I wouldn't blame atheism if it didn't taste well.

 

[kasse]

Just for clarity:

Atheism: disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

That's only one of many definitions. The only thing all definitions agree on, is that atheists don't believe in gods.

 

[Office_Shredder]

but it's silly to deny that atheists, as a class of people, have no agenda. it's semantically silly.

again, all i need is a single counter-example to refute your broadly sweeping statement that atheists have no agenda.

No, you didn't say individual atheists have agendas, you said atheists, as a class of people, have an agenda. You cited a single individual as evidence. This doesn't prove atheists, as a class of people, have an agenda, as you've asserted for a couple pages. The 'broadly sweeping statement' is simply pointing out that atheists, as a class of people, have no agenda. Which you said is false. And have provided no evidence for

 

[cristo]

again, all i need is a single counter-example to refute your broadly sweeping statement that atheists have no agenda.

The statement "atheists have an agenda" is not the same as the statement "there exists an atheist who has an agenda." Proving the latter does not prove the former.

 

[arildno]

it is silly to deny that, at least some atheists (and some spokespersons for atheists), have focused agendas pushing the POV on others.

Obviously.
Because religionists are, to a large extent, in the WRONG, both intellectually and morally.
Thus, it should come as no surprise that there exist morally laudable, even obligatory, ways of "forcing" upon them other points of view.

 

[kasse]

Religionists often tell me that religions deserve respect because they provide a basis for morality, something that is not possible without religion. Lol.

 

[ZapperZ]

Religionists often tell me that religions deserve respect because they provide a basis for morality, something that is not possible without religion. Lol.

Then you should just show them the http://www.physlink.com/Education/essay_weinberg.cfm" , and that's the end of that!

Zz.

 

[kasse]

I think that on balance the moral influence of religion has been awful. I could point out endless examples of the harm done by religious enthusiasm, through a long history of pogroms, crusades, and jihads. On the other side, many admirers of religion would set countless examples of the good done by religion.

It is certainly true that the campaign against slavery and the slave trade was greatly strengthened by devout Christians. But Christianity, like other great world religions, lived comfortably with slavery for many centuries, and slavery was endorsed in the New Testament. So what was different for anti-slavery Christians like Wilberforce and Channing? There had been no discovery of new sacred scriptures, and neither Wilberforce nor Channing claimed to have received any supernatural revelations. Rather, the eighteenth century had seen a widespread increase in rationality and humanitarianism that led others—for instance, Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, and Richard Brinsley Sheridan—also to oppose slavery, on grounds having nothing to do with religion. As far as I can tell, the moral tone of religion benefited more from the spirit of the times than the spirit of the times benefited from religion.

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion.

 

[Hootenanny]

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion.

You like making broad, sweeping statements don't you?

Could you define what a good person is? Could you also define what an evil person is?