Happy Atheist Forum

I've heard some atheists saying "he is an embarrassment to atheism and atheists". Personally while I don't view him as a spokes person for atheisim, I do view him as a very intelligent, well educated and insightful person.

I like him.  I think he's intelligent and I like how soft spoken he is generally and I can relate to his feelings about religion to a degree.  I appreciate his dedication to educating people abut evolution.  I think different kinds of atheists prefer different popular outspoken atheists, if any at all, so while I can understand people who consider Dawkins a spokesperson for their feelings about atheism, I don't personally feel that way about him.  Then again, I don't really feel that way about anyone.  Except maybe Dennett.  I like Dennett a lot.  

I like Dawkins and Dennett. Don't care much for AC Greyling. My favorite outspoken atheist of all time though is no longer liver. Herr Friedrich Nietzsche. God, I love that man.  

I have never met RD in real life. I've watched him on various TED and YouTube videos. I've read a few of his books. The first discussion forum I ever joined was RichardDawkins.net (RDF). The God Delusion changed my world view from passive atheist to active anti-theist (Christianity, Islam and Judaism). The Blind Watchmaker is the best of his books that I have read. Evolution, The Greatest Show on Earth! didn't quite live up to my expectations as I was expecting a tour-da-force on evolution not a diatribe of mixed quality against creationism and ID. As a scientist he is generally despised in academia as a narcissistic self publicist and I do think he has rather fallen for his own publicity of late.

He did a TV program, 3 episodes, on the UK Channel 4 about Darwin. I watched the first, half of he second and didn't bother with the third. It wasn't about Darwin it was about Dawkins as the inheritor of Darwin's crown. In it he went to see some school kids (15 'ish) he was cringe worthy in his patronising behaviour towards them. One kid had the temerity to say he believed in God, Dawkins response was very poor. Dawkins appears to be the product of his upbringing, not a shock really, and that upbringing in Africa and in academia really does seem to have resulted in person very much out of touch with the average person in the street.

His management of RDF was almost indescribably bad. It was a complete clusterfuck from one end to the other. I don't have a spare day to detail all the mistakes he made. But the root of the issue is 'Ivory Tower Syndrome' (ITS). Now I've never met the guy, Martin has so he may have a different view, my impression is somebody who really needs to rein in his ego a bit.

His contribution to evolutionary neo-Darwinist thought is undoubtedly concept changing. His raising awareness of the dangers of science denial is equally important. His war against theism is worthwhile but Dan Dennett trumps him when it comes to a polite and reasoned attitude. But maybe one needs the good guy and the the bad guy.

Not quite a genius, not the best philosopher, rather narcissistic but a brilliant educator (with the right audience), a flawed individual whose contribution to the furtherance of the Theory of Evolution since the publication of 'The Selfish Gene' has been incalculable.

I would let Richard Dawkins naturally select me

Quote from: "Ellainix"I would let Richard Dawkins naturally select me lol  She went with the intention of having this erudite and intellectual conversation with him. All she managed was to squeak 'fank u' in a tiny voice and shuffle off. By all accounts the encounter was every bit as awe inspiring as she had expected and formed the basis for a number of pre-sleep fantasies.  She met him again later and actually managed to string a whole sentence together before melting into an incoherent wreck!

Quote from: "Tank"His management of RDF was almost indescribably bad. It was a complete clusterfuck from one end to the other. I don't have a spare day to detail all the mistakes he made. But the root of the issue is 'Ivory Tower Syndrome' (ITS). Now I've never met the guy, Martin has so he may have a different view, my impression is somebody who really needs to rein in his ego a bit.

Because of the above, the term 'farce' has now been changed to 'dawkins' in the dictionary.

Quote from: "karadan"

Quote from: "Tank"His management of RDF was almost indescribably bad. It was a complete clusterfuck from one end to the other. I don't have a spare day to detail all the mistakes he made. But the root of the issue is 'Ivory Tower Syndrome' (ITS). Now I've never met the guy, Martin has so he may have a different view, my impression is somebody who really needs to rein in his ego a bit.

Because of the above, the term 'farce' has now been changed to 'dawkins' in the dictionary.

I'd laugh if that wasn't so true  

Quote from: "Ellainix"I would let Richard Dawkins naturally select me

Haha. Yes, yes, good.

I like the man. He does only speak for himself and he makes that clear. I doubt I agree with everything he says.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOyP44Xu5FA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOyP44Xu5FA)
not exactly his words, but it's priceless.

Quotehe is an embarrassment to atheism and atheists

nonono... there are way crazier atheist out there.
and Dawkins never said he represent atheism in any way. he just outspoke and happened to be an atheist.
IMO his aggressiveness on imaginary friends is just awesome.

Richard came across to me, when we talked privately, that a lot of what people see in public doesn't really reflect his private personna.  I believe that Richard attempts to fight fire with fire, sometimes.  He uses his own ego to reflect the egotism of religious "faith heads" as he calls them, and I think he feels that to be a quiet atheist does nothing to fight the ignorance of religion.  If all atheist simply go quietly into the night, the religious fanatics will simply ignore us and continue to do harm to society.

I don't agree with everything he's said, and he actually wants people to disagree with him, in spite of his personna that might reflect otherwise.  Richard once told me that if religion suddenly dissappeared he'd be out of a job, to which I replied that he's rich enough to retire.  But, I understood what he was saying, he's made his mark on the world at the expense of ignorance.

Now, my favorite atheist, besides myself and my wife (and maybe Tank), is Dan Barker over at the Freedom from Religion Foundation in Wisconsin.  This guy really gets it from the perspective, not of science, but of the whole faith/mind control thing.  He was a former Evangelical Preacher, his book Godless, is really interesting.  If you ever get a chance to watch him debate, he's very much different than Dawkins.  You can look online for his debate with DeSousa, and he rips this guy with kindness.  He's as laid back, but serious about atheism, as Dawkins is out front.

I also like Tank's description of the public Dawkins, it's actually the exact personna that Richard strives for.  I'm trying to say this the right way, but Dawkins believes that he has to be just as "out there" as some of the Televangelists he rails against.  His belief is to be as ardent about science as "faith heads" are about religion.  Now, I'm not talking for Richard, here; these are MY interpretations of what I gathered from him during our five years of knowing each other.  I met Dawkins in 2005 in England when I was presenting a paper on race relations in America, he was at the same meeting presenting a paper on science, NOT atheism, and we had the opportunity to strike up a conversation and hence a five year, on and off, sharing of ideas.

I met Barker in Detroit a couple years ago at a debate, and he and I have spoken on and off, for a couple years.  I've done a little work for the FFRF on some of their First Amendment cases.

So who's making a difference?

I enjoy reading his books; he has an entertaining style and I find myself learning.

But I disagree with his trope that religious upbringing is abuse. And yes, he does seem to be self-infatuated, but that's only my perception, from afar.

I think Richard Dawkins is a brilliant scientist.  I do think that he can become a bit zealous in his rail against religion but, hey, that's his thing.

Quote from: "Squid"I think Richard Dawkins is a brilliant scientist.  I do think that he can become a bit zealous in his rail against religion but, hey, that's his thing.

I agree Squid, that's his thing.

He's an exceedingly intelligent dude, and one of the biggest intellectual forces for Atheism of our generation. The God Delusion's an awesome book!

That being said, I get the sense that he is a guy who really hates religion. Like really fucking despises any non-scientific conclusion that anyone has ever come to. He's also attacked psychics and astrologists with the same malice he holds for the Abrahmic Religions.  He has no respect whatsoever, and seems to desire the complete destruction of the whole damn concept of religion.

He would never admit that religion has done good things, like built schools, hospitals, feed the hungry, donate billions to charity, develop impoverished nations, bring people together, and enrich our lives with The Inebriated Feeling of Having Our Minds Filled With Untrue Hope.

Religious extremists can be dangerous and destructive. And the things they're blowing shit up over are basically old fairy tales. But he is so deluded for thinking that this justifies the total abolition of all religion.  He's an evolutionary biologist, he doesn't have any expertise in Philosophical or Sociological aspects of religion, but he considers himself an expert.

He has the expertise to completely balk creation myths, but that's about it.  He can only say that there is no god based on lack of scientific evidence (and the fact that the god of the bible is a megalomanic) Just because scripture isn't true, doesn't mean there is definitely no god.  I don't think people need to believe in god, but it is the most poignant fairy tale in all history, and it can't be balked with the ease that Richard Dawkins thinks it can.

Faith is an appeal to a person's emotions, not the intellect. Richard Dawkins is arrogant enough to think that intellect alone can reign in the complexity of faith, and treats those who have it as if they were idiots. Love, and happiness, and friendship are just as illogical as the concept of God (Granted: Love, happiness, and friendship don't assert the existence of things that aren't real, but they don't necessarily make any more fundamental sense.) My point is, just because something is illogical isn't grounds to destroy it.  We can remove practices that hold back society, WITHOUT destroying spiritual faith.

That's all I've got to say...

Intellect is not apposed to faith; intellect is apposed to emotion.  Skepticism is apposed to faith.

Quote from: "KebertX"He's an exceedingly intelligent dude, and one of the biggest intellectual forces for Atheism of our generation. The God Delusion's an awesome book!

That being said, I get the sense that he is a guy who really hates religion. Like really fucking despises any non-scientific conclusion that anyone has ever come to. He's also attacked psychics and astrologists with the same malice he holds for the Abrahmic Religions.  He has no respect whatsoever, and seems to desire the complete destruction of the whole damn concept of religion.

He would never admit that religion has done good things, like built schools, hospitals, feed the hungry, donate billions to charity, develop impoverished nations, bring people together, and enrich our lives with The Inebriated Feeling of Having Our Minds Filled With Untrue Hope.

Religious extremists can be dangerous and destructive. And the things they're blowing shit up over are basically old fairy tales. But he is so deluded for thinking that this justifies the total abolition of all religion.  He's an evolutionary biologist, he doesn't have any expertise in Philosophical or Sociological aspects of religion, but he considers himself an expert.

He has the expertise to completely balk creation myths, but that's about it.  He can only say that there is no god based on lack of scientific evidence (and the fact that the god of the bible is a megalomanic) Just because scripture isn't true, doesn't mean there is definitely no god.  I don't think people need to believe in god, but it is the most poignant fairy tale in all history, and it can't be balked with the ease that Richard Dawkins thinks it can.

Faith is an appeal to a person's emotions, not the intellect. Richard Dawkins is arrogant enough to think that intellect alone can reign in the complexity of faith, and treats those who have it as if they were idiots. Love, and happiness, and friendship are just as illogical as the concept of God (Granted: Love, happiness, and friendship don't assert the existence of things that aren't real, but they don't necessarily make any more fundamental sense.) My point is, just because something is illogical isn't grounds to destroy it.  We can remove practices that hold back society, WITHOUT destroying spiritual faith.

That's all I've got to say...

I kind of agree with Dawkins that ALL religion is inherently wrong, mainly because at it's core religion seeks to control the masses and stifle free thought.  Do I believe that the world will ever be rid of religon, probably not, though I wish it would.  There are FAR more reasons to hate religion that to respect it.  As to the good that has been done, my response is this.  Do you know how many millions were spent in California to fight the Gay Marriage issue?  Those millions could have fed many people, that money could have provided health care to how many children, how many homes could have been built using that money.  I believe that churches have overstepped their intent and purpose, by attempting to control government, particularly in the US.  Just my rant for the day.  

Quote from: "Martin TK"I kind of agree with Dawkins that ALL religion is inherently wrong, mainly because at it's core religion seeks to control the masses and stifle free thought.  Do I believe that the world will ever be rid of religon, probably not, though I wish it would.  There are FAR more reasons to hate religion that to respect it.  As to the good that has been done, my response is this.  Do you know how many millions were spent in California to fight the Gay Marriage issue?  Those millions could have fed many people, that money could have provided health care to how many children, how many homes could have been built using that money.  I believe that churches have overstepped their intent and purpose, by attempting to control government, particularly in the US.  Just my rant for the day.  

There's more to religion than myths and dogma. We have every reason in the world to hate Religious Intolerance, but at it's core (buried deep deep deep down in many cases) There is a spark of something intrinsically good that we shouldn't be so quick to throw away.  By all means get rid of the psychopathic bullshit that makes people bomb buses and illegalize homosexuality.  But let the people who really want to keep their God. And don't throw out spirituality. I sound like a religious person when I talk about this: but people who want to should be  given the opportunity to tap in to the spiritual parts of their mind. Because we do have it in our minds (some might call it imaginary, but...) And I think we might want to hold on to that for the time being.

So they've done some reall sick twisted shit in the past few thousand years, but I have to give credit where credit is due. On a day to day basis, for the average religious person, Faith (even if it's nothing more than False Hope) is a nice thing to have. If we can remove the myths from the core spiritual beliefs, I think it'd be worth it.

Quote from: "KebertX"

Quote from: "Martin TK"I kind of agree with Dawkins that ALL religion is inherently wrong, mainly because at it's core religion seeks to control the masses and stifle free thought.  Do I believe that the world will ever be rid of religon, probably not, though I wish it would.  There are FAR more reasons to hate religion that to respect it.  As to the good that has been done, my response is this.  Do you know how many millions were spent in California to fight the Gay Marriage issue?  Those millions could have fed many people, that money could have provided health care to how many children, how many homes could have been built using that money.  I believe that churches have overstepped their intent and purpose, by attempting to control government, particularly in the US.  Just my rant for the day.  

There's more to religion than myths and dogma. We have every reason in the world to hate Religious Intolerance, but at it's core (buried deep deep deep down in many cases) There is a spark of something intrinsically good that we shouldn't be so quick to throw away.  By all means get rid of the psychopathic bullshit that makes people bomb buses and illegalize homosexuality.  But let the people who really want to keep their God. And don't throw out spirituality. I sound like a religious person when I talk about this: but people who want to should be  given the opportunity to tap in to the spiritual parts of their mind. Because we do have it in our minds (some might call it imaginary, but...) And I think we might want to hold on to that for the time being.

So they've done some reall sick twisted shit in the past few thousand years, but I have to give credit where credit is due. On a day to day basis, for the average religious person, Faith (even if it's nothing more than False Hope) is a nice thing to have. If we can remove the myths from the core spiritual beliefs, I think it'd be worth it.

I have to respectfully disagree with almost everything you have said, and I could cite probably a hundred reasons why I feel this way.  Religion at it's core posions EVERYTHING on earth, everything.  Tantum religio potiut suadere malorum. (To such heights of evil are men driven by religion)

IF we remove the myths from the core spiritual beliefs, RELIGION would have NOTHING left.  We would simply have humanism.

Quote from: "KebertX"

Quote from: "Martin TK"I kind of agree with Dawkins that ALL religion is inherently wrong, mainly because at it's core religion seeks to control the masses and stifle free thought.  Do I believe that the world will ever be rid of religon, probably not, though I wish it would.  There are FAR more reasons to hate religion that to respect it.  As to the good that has been done, my response is this.  Do you know how many millions were spent in California to fight the Gay Marriage issue?  Those millions could have fed many people, that money could have provided health care to how many children, how many homes could have been built using that money.  I believe that churches have overstepped their intent and purpose, by attempting to control government, particularly in the US.  Just my rant for the day.  

There's more to religion than myths and dogma. We have every reason in the world to hate Religious Intolerance, but at it's core (buried deep deep deep down in many cases) There is a spark of something intrinsically good that we shouldn't be so quick to throw away.  By all means get rid of the psychopathic bullshit that makes people bomb buses and illegalize homosexuality.  But let the people who really want to keep their God. And don't throw out spirituality. I sound like a religious person when I talk about this: but people who want to should be  given the opportunity to tap in to the spiritual parts of their mind. Because we do have it in our minds (some might call it imaginary, but...) And I think we might want to hold on to that for the time being.

So they've done some reall sick twisted shit in the past few thousand years, but I have to give credit where credit is due. On a day to day basis, for the average religious person, Faith (even if it's nothing more than False Hope) is a nice thing to have. If we can remove the myths from the core spiritual beliefs, I think it'd be worth it.

Matt 7:18

If the only way religion can be considered good is to remove everything that makes it a religion (the mythology, dogma, etc.), but still call it religion, then that doesn't make religion a good thing, it makes what religion has been changed into a good thing.  If you take a thistle, remove the thorns, make the flower bigger and smell better and make them so they don't grow as much like weeds, you've made the thistle into something else, you haven't proven that thistles can be a welcomed part of a garden.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Matt 7:18

The bible is evil and shitty.  That passage is unintelligible, because Hell isn't real.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"If the only way religion can be considered good is to remove everything that makes it a religion (the mythology, dogma, etc.), but still call it religion, then that doesn't make religion a good thing, it makes what religion has been changed into a good thing.  If you take a thistle, remove the thorns, make the flower bigger and smell better and make them so they don't grow as much like weeds, you've made the thistle into something else, you haven't proven that thistles can be a welcomed part of a garden.

I see your point. But that's really what I'm saying. I think that instead of everyone giving up in religion and throwing it away (It's going to happen someday, but in the mean time...) the first step in the transition to logic and reality would be to get people to open their eyes to those aspects of their religion that are just... evil.  But removing the evil from a religion doesn't get rid of the whole thing.  There is some good in all the religions. Hell, I've even found a few specks of merit in Satanist literature...

Here's a hypothetical situation so I can try to illustrate what I mean.  A religion has 3 parts: A Moral Code, A Philosophical Construct, and a Mythology.  Dogma isn't an integral part of religion, so let's just throw that out. Imagine that the churches and brainwashed fundamentalists could give up on dogma overnight without a fight.  Now we have a tolerant functioning religion.

Next, let's imagine that people could suddenly wake up and realize the Mythology isn't actual historical fact. No more Jonah in the Big Fish, no more Sky Man on Mt. Zion, no more Splitting the Red Sea, or Noah's Ark, or Walls of Jericho Tumbling down, and Especially no Genesis in the Garden of Eden. People keep telling the stories, but now they realize that they're nothing but fables, and take this stuff with a grain of salt.  Once again, we pretend people are capable of this overnight with no whining and bitching about why we should believe in a talking snake.  Now all the Unicorns, Sea Monsters, and Giants are gone and people are entirely free to accept scientific progress.

Now, there's nothing left but Philosophy and Morality.  Maybe we build on the Philosophy, update the Morality for the 21st century, but all in all, these bits aren't so bad.  So if the Philosophy dictates a God, and a Soul, then why not? This religion is legitimately not hurting anyone any more.  This is my vision of what religion should be, and that's what I'm talking about when I say: Don't just throw it away, we could use some of the comfort that religion gives us, even if it is false hope. I wouldn't want to see people move past religion before it got to that point.

So yes, I've taken a thistle and turned it into something else. I'm not trying to prove the thistle was good, I'm just saying it's worth changing.  Now I realize that this hypothetical isn't realistic. Every conservative believer in the world would fight like hell to keep things the way they've always been. But this is the only way religion will ever progress, and if it is absolutely not willing to progress, it will fade out of existence. I wouldn't complain if that happened and the world were free of religion. But I would think it a shame to see religion disappear into the shadows without realizing it's potential to be something that's actually positive in the world.

I don't see any of the good qualities that do exist within religions being specific to religion though.  Humans are good.  Some humans are religious.  Therefore, some good is created in the name of religion.  I honestly don't see a loss of anything worth keeping that is specific to religion and would be lost and unattainable were religion entirely abandoned.  Do I want religion to be abandoned personally?  I don't care.  I grew up an atheist around Unitarians, probably the most lovey, happy, inclusive, non judgmental religious people out there, I had no idea religious people were actually far crueler than that until I was older so I understand the good people who aren't hurting anyone angle and I agree that they should be able to do whatever they want as long as they aren't hurting anyone.  I just don't agree that something would be lost if religion were abandoned.

Getting back to Dawkins, that's one of the things I think he and I really agree on.  It's selling humans short to just assume we as a species somehow need false hope, which is essentially what I see religion as being.  False hope that makes big bucks.  Why is that worth saving?

Quote from: "KebertX"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Matt 7:18

The bible is evil and shitty.  That passage is unintelligible, because Hell isn't real.

Ok.... you lost me.... what does hell have to do with this passage  

QuoteMatt 7:18  A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"I don't see any of the good qualities that do exist within religions being specific to religion though. Humans are good. Some humans are religious. Therefore, some good is created in the name of religion. I honestly don't see a loss of anything worth keeping that is specific to religion and would be lost and unattainable were religion entirely abandoned. Do I want religion to be abandoned personally? I don't care. I grew up an atheist around Unitarians, probably the most lovey, happy, inclusive, non judgmental religious people out there, I had no idea religious people were actually far crueler than that until I was older so I understand the good people who aren't hurting anyone angle and I agree that they should be able to do whatever they want as long as they aren't hurting anyone. I just don't agree that something would be lost if religion were abandoned.

Getting back to Dawkins, that's one of the things I think he and I really agree on. It's selling humans short to just assume we as a species somehow need false hope, which is essentially what I see religion as being. False hope that makes big bucks. Why is that worth saving?

It makes people feel good?  You and I understand that religion is an unnecessary waste of time for society. But for billions of people on the planet who subscribe to some religion... well, it's important to them. Even if they are persisting under delusion, that delusion makes them happy.  I consider it an inevitability that one day people will break free of all superstition. I just have hope that before religion is gone for good it will clean up it's act. Turn into something beneficial to the human race.  Reform itself of all it's problems before humanity realizes it doesn't need it any more.

Specific to religion. Okay with that extra bit of criteria I suppose you have me: All the good things about religion can be found in other things.  But religious faith (not a GOOD thing per say) is unique.  It gives people hope, (even if that hope isn't based on anything externally verifiable, it is still there inside the person's mind). Spirituality is a special bit of reality that appeals exclusively to your emotions. Inside your own mind, you can make whatever you want of it.  It isn't real, but anything you have faith in is as real as it needs to be.  Spirituality doesn't need religion.

Am I making the least bit of sense? People can make what they want out of these things, and that's okay. It's when a specific spiritual philosophy gets hijacked by religion that we see the problems that we do today.  Humans have had long relationship with religion. In the next few centuries, I'm pretty sure it's going to end. It's the dawn of the age of the Internet. Knowledge is free, education is simpler than ever. Logic will inevitably win out over superstition.  But before this happens, I, personally, would like a fond farewell to the age of religion. Just to be able to look at the state of religion in the world and see something that isn't so bad.

I'm not saying save religion, in the sense that it should be preserved forever.  Just preserve the fond parts at the core of spirituality for now, as religion goes through massive reform.  I can't describe it properly, but having spiritual fulfillment is something that billions of people crave.  I know what it feels like, and it's harder to get over than God.  There is intrinsic good there, and it deserves to rise to the to surface before the very end.  I say fix the good, abolish the bad, and let the natural progression of human reason sort out the rest.  Just because it isn't real outside the human mind doesn't mean people shouldn't believe in it.

Instead of Attacking belief in God, like Richard Dawkins, Attack Dogma, Intolerance, and Myths.  God is more than just Dogma or Mythology, it's slightly more complex.  Let people have their idea of God, it's not hurting anything on it's own.  What needs to be done is the systematic dismantling of Organized Religion. Churches have got to go, god can stick around until people outsmart belief on their own.  It's not to be attacked, people have to define that reality for themselves.  On the question of Religion, I'm more inclined to agree with the Dalai Lama than Richard Dawkins.

"We are oft to blame in this 'tis too much proved that with devotions visage and pious actions we do sugar o're the devil himself." Hamlet Act 3 Scene 1... Also from V for Vendetta.

Quote from: "KDbeads"

Quote from: "KebertX"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Matt 7:18

The bible is evil and shitty.  That passage is unintelligible, because Hell isn't real.

Ok.... you lost me.... what does hell have to do with this passage  

QuoteMatt 7:18  A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Read in context, it's saying that people are all like trees. Good trees (trees that accept Jesus as their Savior) can do no evil. And corrupt trees (No Jesus) can do no good.  And when trees can bear no good fruit they get chopped down to feed the fire (OF HELL!!!)  So you need to be a Christian, or else you are incapable of doing the universe any good, and you go straight to hell.

The Bible is all Myths and Dogma.

Quote from: "Martin TK"I have to respectfully disagree with almost everything you have said, and I could cite probably a hundred reasons why I feel this way.  Religion at it's core posions EVERYTHING on earth, everything.  Tantum religio potiut suadere malorum. (To such heights of evil are men driven by religion)

IF we remove the myths from the core spiritual beliefs, RELIGION would have NOTHING left.  We would simply have humanism.

I could spend forever trying to explain the way I regard religion and spirituality.

My intense love of religion is surpassed by nothing but my extreme hatred of religion. And My hatred of religion is only surpassed by my love of religion. It's a perfect Yin Yang of love and hate.

I've listened to RD's talks in TED and youtube, too. His accent makes him a gentle speaker but his onslaught on religion is fierce. You would be sad to know that much of what I know in evolutionary biology came from his literature and not from the academe. He's not the best atheist spokesman, if he ever becomes one, but IMO, he's better than Sam Harris.

Quote from: "KebertX"

Quote from: "Martin TK"I have to respectfully disagree with almost everything you have said, and I could cite probably a hundred reasons why I feel this way.  Religion at it's core posions EVERYTHING on earth, everything.  Tantum religio potiut suadere malorum. (To such heights of evil are men driven by religion)

IF we remove the myths from the core spiritual beliefs, RELIGION would have NOTHING left.  We would simply have humanism.

I could spend forever trying to explain the way I regard religion and spirituality.

My intense love of religion is surpassed by nothing but my extreme hatred of religion. And My hatred of religion is only surpassed by my love of religion. It's a perfect Yin Yang of love and hate.

I understand what you are saying here, and also what Martin is getting at. You're both on the same song sheet, in fact I'd go as far as saying singing the same words, just with slightly different semantics.

Quote from: "KebertX"But religious faith (not a GOOD thing per say) is unique.  It gives people hope, (even if that hope isn't based on anything externally verifiable, it is still there inside the person's mind). Spirituality is a special bit of reality that appeals exclusively to your emotions. Inside your own mind, you can make whatever you want of it.  It isn't real, but anything you have faith in is as real as it needs to be.  Spirituality doesn't need religion.

...

...  I can't describe it properly, but having spiritual fulfillment is something that billions of people crave.  I know what it feels like, and it's harder to get over than God.  There is intrinsic good there, and it deserves to rise to the to surface before the very end.  I say fix the good, abolish the bad, and let the natural progression of human reason sort out the rest.  Just because it isn't real outside the human mind doesn't mean people shouldn't believe in it.

Instead of Attacking belief in God, like Richard Dawkins, Attack Dogma, Intolerance, and Myths.  God is more than just Dogma or Mythology, it's slightly more complex.  Let people have their idea of God, it's not hurting anything on it's own.  What needs to be done is the systematic dismantling of Organized Religion. Churches have got to go, god can stick around until people outsmart belief on their own.  It's not to be attacked, people have to define that reality for themselves.  On the question of Religion, I'm more inclined to agree with the Dalai Lama than Richard Dawkins.

I think I'm following you, and I agree to some extent.  I've bolded the parts that are the most poignant to me.  I would disagree with eliminating the myths, though.  And I would add that to me, the difference between religion and spiritually is the element of worship:  one can be spiritual = open to the possibility that something larger and beyond our current ability to understand exists beyond or within us without worshipping it or trying to please it (which then turns into religion).  So when one does acts to please a deity and those acts impact others, that's when we have a problem.  But eliminating wonder and questioning and imagining of wild possibilities would eliminate much wonder and art...and science, I would argue.  That's a part of the "human spirit" that I never want to be reduced to bit maps and chemical explanations.  I guess Brave New World is how I imagine a world based solely on science and logic.    This view is why I can't label myself as an atheist proper.  I agree there's no logical proof of the existence of god(s), but I still love marveling in the "what ifs" that inspire my creative writing and meditation.  And I value emotions.  Science can tell me all the evolutionary reasons why it makes logical sense and how it aids in survival of the species to "believe" that I "love" my children and reduce it to a chemical reaction produced in my brain; but it can never convince me that I should give up that belief in love.

So to wrap it back to the original post asking about RD.  I'm not a huge fan because I feel it's black and white to him:  If one holds any belief not backed by solid evidence or logic, they are an idiot or illogical or silly.  I couldn't disagree more.  Some of the most brilliant minds are exactly such because they cannot be logically explained.  

***Off to duck behind the couch****

Quote from: "KebertX"The bible is evil and shitty.  That passage is unintelligible, because Hell isn't real.

I take it you don't think that even fiction can impart truth?

Matt 7:18 doesn't mention Hell, at all; in my NIV, it reads "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit."  Apply this to this discussion on religion in order to see my point.

Also, you may wish to google "hoist by one's petard", to see my aim.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "KebertX"The bible is evil and shitty.  That passage is unintelligible, because Hell isn't real.

I take it you don't think that even fiction can impart truth?

Matt 7:18 doesn't mention Hell, at all; in my NIV, it reads "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit."  Apply this to this discussion on religion in order to see my point.

Also, you may wish to google "hoist by one's petard", to see my aim.

That's what I thought you were implying with that passage Thump, I couldn't understand where 'hell' and 'unintelligible' came into play for KebertX, even with his/her explanation given when I asked about it.


My meager 2 cents added for this thread......
Been atheist for at least 20 years, never heard of Dawkins until I hit up this forum, neither had hubby and he's read more of this type stuff than I have.  So opinion?  Well I lived this long without him....

Quote from: "ThumpalumpacusI take it you don't think that even fiction can impart truth?

Matt 7:18 doesn't mention Hell, at all; in my NIV, it reads "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit." Apply this to this discussion on religion in order to see my point.

Also, you may wish to google "hoist by one's petard", to see my aim.

[quote="KDbeads"]That's what I thought you were implying with that passage Thump, I couldn't understand where 'hell' and 'unintelligible' came into play for KebertX, even with his/her explanation given when I asked about it.[/quote]

Okay, I'm sorry but I don't know what you're trying to say with Matthew 7:18. I just read Matthew Chapter 7, and figured you were making a point about Dogmatism being implicit to religion. I still say it was going on with a metaphor about hell.

"even fiction can impart truth" I'm missing the point of what you're trying to say, sorry. I definitely don't know what the phrase "hoist by one's petard" has to do with anything. According to Wikipedia, that means: "to be harmed by one's own plan to harm someone else"

I'm just not getting it, sorry for the confusion.

Quote from: "KebertX"I'm just not getting it, sorry for the confusion.

Heh, don't worry about me ;)

Quote from: "KebertX"Okay, I'm sorry but I don't know what you're trying to say with Matthew 7:18. I just read Matthew Chapter 7, and figured you were making a point about Dogmatism being implicit to religion. I still say it was going on with a metaphor about hell.

If theists can cherry-pick the Bible, so can I.  

Quote"even fiction can impart truth" I'm missing the point of what you're trying to say, sorry.

Many works of fiction have deeper truth in them.  That is what makes great fiction great.  Even on a simple level, crummy fiction about, say, Pearl Harbor can still have truths in it about the interaction between the two nations.

QuoteI definitely don't know what the phrase "hoist by one's petard" has to do with anything. According to Wikipedia, that means: "to be harmed by one's own plan to harm someone else"

I'm just not getting it, sorry for the confusion.

That's Wiki's first explanation; immediately thereafter is the more pertinent, and equally valid, explication:  "To fall into one's own trap."  A point against Christianity assumes more weight in the Christian mind when it is propounded by their own holy book.

Quote from: "Martin TK"I kind of agree with Dawkins that ALL religion is inherently wrong, mainly because at it's core religion seeks to control the masses and stifle free thought.  

I think of religion as a belief system, religious institutions are another matter.
I see religion as factually wrong because there is no evidence of god and so many reasons to invent one.
I think some clever people see religion as a means of control.  
When clever people take control they don't want no free thinking.

Quote from: "Martin TK"Do I believe that the world will ever be rid of religion, probably not, though I wish it would.  There are FAR more reasons to hate religion that to respect it.

Well I would like it to go away to.
Master Yoda says hate is the path to the dark side.
I don't respect religion.
There are religious people doing work worthy of respect.

I like Dawkins, but what about the simple folk, I don't mean to be patronizing, but a lot of people don't want to think that much.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"I like Dawkins, but what about the simple folk, I don't mean to be patronizing, but a lot of people don't want to think that much.

Well as one of the simple folk myself, I feel that as long as one has a grasp of the fundamentals, that is acceptable. One doesn't need to have letters after their name or be employed in academia to have a general understanding of the relevant issues. Just a few little facts will suffice. Everyone should know:

The Universe was created 13.72 billion years ago.              

It is in a state of expansion.

Before it, time did not exist.

Earth was created 4.6 billion years ago.

Life began on it 3.5 billion years ago.

Man did not evolve from ape - they share a common ancestory.

He evolved 2 - 4 million years ago; dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago - they never co-existed.

All living entities are composed of the same chemical elements as the stars and planets.

The optimum distance Earth is from the Sun in order to sustain life is purely random.

If I can understand all that, then so can anyone. Nine little snippets - short, simple and precise.

Regarding Richard - he is a private man who nevertheless feels it is his moral duty to question religion, which he sees as the complete antithesis of science. This has thrust him into the public arena more than he may have wanted, but it is a price he willingly accepts. Yes he can be shrill and strident - we all can from time to time - but his natural demeanour is one of gentle persuasion. I feel sad when he is attacked when all he is doing is trying to increase our understanding of the physical world we inhabit. He isn't Christopher Hitchens who can dish it out as well as take it, but someone more meek and humble. By all means let his opponents question his views, but leave him alone personally - it's not right.

Quote from: "zerofivetwoseven"Well as one of the simple folk myself,

I admire modesty (no Churchillian quotes please), but you may be overestimating the simple folk.
Perhaps if you had one of your facts printed on each can/bottle of beer we'd make progress.

A genius, as a speaker, writer, biologist and thinker.  His meme theory, for example, is transforming the way we view history, cultures and cultural development, which can now be seen as evolving and diversifying by a selection process acting on imperfectly reproduced replicators (memes, or 'memory genes' as unit of cultural inherritance) in an almost exact replica of genetic evolution.  In fact, human evolution, including human cultural evolution, can now be seen as a single meme/gene co-evolutionary process.

Meme theory also neatly explains religion as a parasitic memeplex which uses its host, not for the host's benefit, but for the benefit of the parsite, so explaining how an organ like the human brain can evolve yet still be used in an apparently counter-Darwinian act such as being the guidance system for a bomb.  This is why we have 911, bombs on buses and underground trains and other suicide bombers.

Only the religion parasite can do this to humans and meme theory explains how.

Dawkins is cool. He makes evolution interesting.  

Dawkins is a poor "spokesperson" for atheism because he is really only famous for being an atheist.   Of course he is a brilliant scientist, but there are many brilliant scientists who aren't well known.   You sell Pepsi by getting a celebrity to endorse it, not a soda pop specialist.  Warren Buffet or Bill Gates would make a much better spokesperson in my view--if they were so inclined.

His message is great, but he is getting paid (handsomely) to deliver it.  If ridding the world of religion was his real goal, he'd give his books away for free.