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.