Richard Dawkins - Anti -Christ or Great Thinker?

i am drunk, and will contribute nothing but this: i met an "old testament christian" tonight, who believes that god is just and vengeful and will nail you if you do shit wrong.

he has a tattoo in hebrew that reads "SOMETHING SOMETHING SOMETHING."

(i don't read hebrew)

Ok, I'll ask the obvious question--what's the difference between and being an "old testament christian" and being Jewish?

rabid atheists

I am an atheist (not sure if I'm rabid) and have met many reasonable, decent Christians (or Muslims, or Jews) but I'm still an atheist.

Just saying.

I am an atheist (not sure if I'm rabid) and have met many reasonable, decent Christians (or Muslims, or Jews) but I'm still an atheist.

reasonable decent Christians, Muslims and Jews - good they exist but *still a problem* in that they provide cover for the fundamentalists by not actively speaking out against them and thus protecting them in the interests of "unity". better world would obv be one where Rowan Williams says to the fundamentalists who object to gay clergy "Go on then leave, you homophobic assholes! Go and form yr own church, see if I care, good riddance to bad rubbish!" but it's obv not gonna happen.

Dawkins on that same subject:

Q: But don't you need to distinguish between religious extremists who kill people and moderate, peaceful religious believers?

A: You certainly need to distinguish them. They are very different. However, the moderate, sensible religious people you've cited make the world safe for the extremists by bringing up children -- sometimes even indoctrinating children -- to believe that faith trumps everything and by influencing society to respect faith. Now, the faith of these moderate people is in itself harmless. But the idea that faith needs to be respected is instilled into children sitting in rows in their madrasahs in the Muslim world. And they are told these things not by extremists but by decent, moderate teachers and mullahs. But when they grow up, a small minority of them remember what they were told. They remember reading their holy book, and they take it literally. They really do believe it. Now, the moderate ones don't really believe it, but they have taught children that faith is a virtue. And it only takes a minority to believe what it says in the holy book -- the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Quran, whatever it is. If you believe it's literally true, then there's scarcely any limit to the evil things you might do.

Q: And yet most moderate religious people are appalled by the apocalyptic thinking of religious extremists.

A: Of course they're appalled. They're very decent, nice people. But they have no right to be appalled because, in a sense, they brought it on the world by teaching people, especially children, the virtues of unquestioned faith.

He is a bit of an idiot sometimes, c.f. they brought it on themselves. He needs to understand that if he's going to persuade people of his point of view, he needs to tone down the rhetoric sometimes.

its funny/ridiculous/sad that Dawkins is prepared to argue that moderate or mainstream religious parents' indoctrination of their children in the importance of faith somehow supersedes or trumps their similar indoctrination on the basic moral tents of every religion (namely that its wrong to kill, steal, lie, rape, etc.) Like, its their fault that extremist children pick up on one tenet but not the others. That's facile and overly simplistic.

The part where you argued that belief in a Creator is not actually a mainstream religious belief

what, where did I say this?

better world would obv be one where Rowan Williams says to the fundamentalists who object to gay clergy "Go on then leave, you homophobic assholes! Go and form yr own church, see if I care, good riddance to bad rubbish!" but it's obv not gonna happen.

Obv. not because they're the only people who are actually joining the Church

dawkins-classic, but blinkered lately.

good they exist but *still a problem* in that they provide cover for the fundamentalists by not actively speaking out against them and thus protecting them in the interests of "unity"

there are plenty of "good" ppl of all faiths speaking out against ppl of the same faith whos views they find morally repugnant

Ok, I'll ask the obvious question--what's the difference between and being an "old testament christian" and being Jewish?

-- aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, Thursday, October 4, 2007 7:07 AM (9 hours ago) Bookmark Link

yeah i was trying to figure that you myself. he talked a bit about the inter-testament period (?) and how the kind and loving New Testament God is a load of old horseshit, and the fucker's still wrathful. I asked him if he was a Young Earth believer, and he was evasive.

I'm not sure what inter-testament means either - maybe the old Testament stuff that isn't in the Torah, like Prophets and Micah and all that stuff...?

Presumably the period between the end of Writings and the beginning of the New Testament? That's gotta be a couple hundred years, IIRC...

Richard Dawkins - Anti -Christ or Great Thinker?

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/517VxqY4ogL._SS500_.jpg

who needs to read a book confirming their non-belief in something?

hugely relevant question.

Because there are reasons for believing or not-believing.

I think we need someone like Richard Dawkins, he never seems to get bored of pointing out over and over again the flaws and stupidities of religion, when anyone else would have just got bored and given up.

That doesn't make him a likeable character though.

yes, i really need someone pointing out the obvious flaws in something i've not believed in for my whole life over and over again.

mttp his hectoring steez is hardly going to win anyone over. he lacks basic social skills of that kind. he is a bit like a union society debater.

no he isn't. he's a fine upstanding spokesman for the atheistic cause, and i would put it to you that in fact your assumptions are based on the sort of ad hominem preset that doesn't help anyone. it is entirely necessary that people like dawkins are allowed to put their views across, for them to be silenced would be a slight towards democracy itself. at it says in act 5 section 12 of our college constitution, no man or woman should be prevented from airing their grievances within JCR-owned premises. why don't you take it up with the bursar?

it is entirely necessary that people like dawkins are allowed to put their views across, for them to be silenced would be a slight towards democracy itself.

which other people should have this right?

well, in my capacity as the equal opportunities officer for this college, i'd like to think that anyone regardless of race, creed, gender or religion should be able to stand up and say what they want to say. for you to deny this equality would be unconscionable. dawkins is an intelligent man. this is obvious because he has been published. he should clearly be allowed to air his opinions on a wide scale. on a side-note, you still haven't given me 200 quid for the 'equal opportunities' party i'm trying to arrange for our freshers. without this party, who knows what equal opportunities could pass without being taken.

dawkins is an intelligent man. this is obvious because he has been published.

http://g-ec2.images-amazon.com/images/I/51X72CE8R0L.jpg

people like jeremy clarkson and richard littlejohn provide a necessary counterpoint in this modern world. they may not cry for equality themselves, but equality is the condition under which they can and will flourish. have you read 'to hell in a handcart'? it's a romp! anyway, i must go now, because union pres has called a meeting and i've gotta argue against a negligible change to the exam marking system for an hour or three.

littlejohn 4 prime minister

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2368085271

He speaks his mind! Is it too much much to ask to have a decent NHS (not run by politicans), decent education, more prisions, tougher punishments for criminals, proper border control, no more MRSA, fairer tax system, proper pensions (yep, as LJ would say "the man who stole your old age" has a lovely gold-plated pension funded by.....the taxpayer), abolishment of the "yuman rights" act, fairer council tax, decent transport system!!

i think louis is doing a C+P exercise?

ad lib, dude, but all founded on a week of quite breathtaking pettiness.

dammit 'LJ' ;_;

I keep thinking this thread is about Brian Dawkins and getting all infuriated that anyone would suggest he's the antichrist.

It would be hilarious if Dawkins was the anit-christ.
Imagine how pissed off he'd be!

On the subject of evolution and biology, Richard Dawkins is an intelligent, original and interesting writer - his books make potentially dull subjects fascinating, and his passion for his subject is obvious.

On religion, although I agree with most things he says, Dawkins is entirely unoriginal and uninteresting. However, I tend to agree with Mei upthread - I do think it is good that someone is promoting atheism, in a world where religion does seem to be one of the exacerbating forces behind a lot of problems. On the other hand, I feel that Dawkins may be 'preaching to the converted' - I'm not sure how many religious folks he will appeal to with his confrontational approach.

Interesting article on religious experience and the brain:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleId=434D7C62-E7F2-99DF-37CC9814533B90D7&chanId=sa013&modsrc=most_popular

that research has been around for awhile, very interesting stuff.

altho this:
"Because of the positive effect of such experiences on those who have them, some researchers speculate that the ability to induce them artificially could transform people’s lives by making them happier, healthier and better able to concentrate."

....sounds like a disaster of collosal proportions in the making.

b-b-but i thought that was what ILX was for :(

"Are you sometimes doubtful of God's existence? Wishing you had more revelations? Sick of Ayuhuasca? Try Believeitol!"

http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,,2180660,00.html

In an interview with the Guardian, he said: "When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told - religious Jews anyway - than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place."

Uh oh.

not working hard enough? employer sends terrifying vision of God to inspire you.

x-post

i've been waiting for someone to notice that (xpost)

lol @ atheist homeland

Thing is, Neuroscience is such a primitive branch of biology, that trying to use what we actually KNOW about the brain to explore religious experience is truly a fool's errand, at this point. Sort of like, um, electroshock therapy.

Yup Id agree the point is we simply dont know. He may well be right but I dont think one needs to be some anti ascience sketpic to see he goes beyond what science can tell us.

Like many natural scientists I dont think hes so sharp on examining his own methodology. I think his certainty here is one of his weaknesses, he has so few self doubts about his own method.

Shakey touched on his understanding of language but any number of philosophical routes could or at least should derail his followers certainty - epistemological debates dont make for great paperbacks.
His lack of intellectual modesty turns me off as much as it clealry turns others on.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/3255972/Harry-Potter-fails-to-cast-spell-over-Professor-Richard-Dawkins.html

He really is a useless cunt.

^^^ Scientific fact.

Wow. Just WOW

The prominent atheist is stepping down from his post at Oxford University to write a book aimed at youngsters in which he will warn them against believing in "anti-scientific" fairytales.
Prof Hawkins said: "The book I write next year will be a children's book on how to think about the world, science thinking contrasted with mythical thinking.

---

Speaking recently at a conference of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, a group of Britons who have renounced Islam, Prof Dawkins said: "Do not ever call a child a Muslim child or a Christian child – that is a form of child abuse because a young child is too young to know what its views are about the cosmos or morality.
"It is evil to describe a child as a Muslim child or a Christian child. I think labelling children is child abuse and I think there is a very heavy issue, for example, about teaching about hell and torturing their minds with hell.
"It's a form of child abuse, even worse than physical child abuse. I wouldn't want to teach a young child, a terrifyingly young child, about hell when he dies, as it's as bad as many forms of physical abuse."

This is also choice:

"I think looking back to my own childhood, the fact that so many of the stories I read allowed the possibility of frogs turning into princes, whether that has a sort of insidious affect on rationality, I'm not sure. Perhaps it's something for research."

I hear he's writing a hard-hitting exposé of Father Christmas at the moment.

"When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told - religious Jews anyway - than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see."

^^^classic material