Richard Dawkins - Anti -Christ or Great Thinker?

http://i.imgur.com/NSNx0.png

lonely guy singin baout things

idk I think church-as-bookclub is one of the most appealing ways to look at it

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lrxv1wn3Yi1qzvl4eo1_400.gif

Ugh in the same way that anything a Christian said used to come across as "You're going to hell and I'm not", all these Atheist affirmations sound like "I'm smarter than you and revel in being smug about it".

Also if Simon Pegg wants to sing songs all the time about physics why doesn't he become a teacher?

would have to have a working knowledge of physics

He's the chief engineer on the USS Enterprise.

there are lots of nerds who have written songs about physics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me06I9GDM_k

these are awesome

Just curious as to why someone would want to sing about something objective and scientific (and therefor REAL) yet chose a career path that is instead pretending to be other people and creating fantastic illusions (as FAKE as the Bible, according to him).

That link is rad, tho!

I think maybe the guy who chose a career path pretending to be other people for humorous purposes was perhaps attempting to make what they call in the industry a "joke." just a thought.

imo the best song about astronomy are "k-stars" by stereolab and fuzzy sun by j o'rourke and silver morning by eno

aw no j newsom?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/02/14/richard-dawkins-giles-fraser-radio4-athiesm_n_1275468.html?ref=uk

Bishop goes "Name the full title of Darwin's "Origin of Species" then!"

Dawkins fails, and goes "Oh God!"

God goes "hey pal, don't look at me! You're supposed to be on your own innit?"

<3 Giles Fraser.

Dawkins' poll is great, though, and really gets to the heart of what most people mean when they identify as Christian (i.e. equate it with "being nice" rather than believing any of the supernatural stuff).

fraser is a twat

Eh, I suppose it's more or less a fair cop on Fraser's part, but perhaps Christianity and science place different emphases on texts on the necessity of being familiar with them?

not really, personal familiarity with the Bible is only a big deal for some hardcore protestant sects.

Fraser's point is trivial to exactly the same degree as Dawks' poll is.

Dawkins' poll reveals that the cries for a greater role for religion in public life, backed up by statements about the large proportion of Christians in the UK, are bogus, as most self-identifiers don't agree with the thrust of the religion and tend not to think it's actually true in any case. Rather more important than not being able to recall the full title of a book.

Fraser's point is trivial to exactly the same degree as Dawks' poll is.

Which was exactly Fraser's point, as I understood it.

well yeah

why does anyone listen to Richard Dawkins

Agree with his points and think that someone needs to speak up against Warsi / Pickles / poor outraged persecuted religious types (who are being asked to - gasp - play by the rules everyone else has to rather than have automatic special privileges)?

so sick of our society being dominated by major political players Baroness Warsi and Eric Pickles

Warsi had the front page headline of the Telegraph today.

OK, Gove and his enthusiasm for an expansion in faith schools, then. These aren't trivial issues.

the Torygraph treating stupid shit you say with respect does not equal being a major influence on British politics or society

before i even get into the difference between boneheaded right-wingers and boneheaded reductions of what religious belief means in the real world but fuck no way am i doing this one again

So no-one gives a shit what warsi or dawkins say, job done, lock thread.

Warsi on the Today programme this morning made me mad as hell, so I guess I give a shit, sorry.

What he say?

I guess I can't just shrug off the promotion of the idea that pro-equality = aggressively intolerant.

He? Warsi is a 'woman'. I can't remember the exact words but she said something to the effect that without Christianity politics can't have a moral dimension.

Warsi: “For me, one of the most worrying aspects about this militant secularisation is that at its core and in its instincts it is deeply intolerant. It demonstrates similar traits to totalitarian regimes – denying people the right to a religious identity because they were frightened of the concept of multiple identities.”

I'd like her to come up with an example of anyone who is being denied any religious rights, rather than being asked to play by the same rules that apply to everyone else.

French are doing a pretty good job of denying people religious rights iirc

Really? Examples? Is this the banning of religious dress in schools (i.e. everyone has to play by the same rules, religion doesn't get to trump them), or the official classification of Scientology as a cult? But as we're talking Dawins / Warsi / etc., probably best to stick to UK examples, as that's what they are on about.

yeah I dunno about the UK. France has banned burqas, headscarves, etc. for Muslims, it's blatantly racist.

If people like that want me to take them seriously they can start by pressing for Christian values like "Thou shalt not kill". Let's see a religiously backed widespread anti-war movement. I mean, it's only something your deity carved in stone on a mountaintop.

Let's see a religiously backed widespread anti-war movement.

these exist and have existed in the past fyi

well, widespread is maybe debatable

feel like warsi is trolling she is talking so much shite. and she's not even a christian.

i think the point Adam makes is actually a distinction that would serve the "new atheists" quite well if they took the time to make it more often. attacking religious or spiritual beliefs per se is never gonna get anywhere (to my mind), but pushing back against aggressive or ignorant religious beliefs which are really cover for good old fashioned provincialism/racism/nationalism/etc. is worth doing. a good friend of mine was fond of saying that most of the problems with christianity/christians would be solved if they actually read the bible. people are basically as religiously ignorant as they are science ignorant.

I'd like it to be as widespread as, say, the anti-gay marriage movement. Or the anti-birth control movement.

Would suggest that actually reading the bible would make things worse rather than better. Most people seem to think it's full of lovely stuff, rather than genocide and the like.

yeah that's actually part of his point. it becomes a text to interpret and engage with and think about.

but it IS full of some lovely stuff. there are few more powerful (and difficult) ethical precepts than "love thine enemy"--that's STILL a radical idea (not to sound like a corny pastor).

i should clarify: "read the bible" in his sense meant less "self-identify as a Christian" than "think hard about what being Christian entails as a practice."

i think many christians (that I know, anyway) read "love thine enemy" as "passive aggressively pray for thine enemy"