Dawkins!

[Sunstone]

As Fluffy has said, this is exactly the kind of reaction that helps support Dawkins's arguments. This is exactly why he attempts to "de-mystify" (if you will) religion, and make it something that can be talked about objectively.

Unfortunately, the responses of several theists in this thread seem to support much of what Dawkins has to say about the special status accorded religion in discussions of it.

 

[Willamena]

Unfortunately, the responses of several theists in this thread seem to support much of what Dawkins has to say about the special status accorded religion in discussions of it.

I haven't read Dawkins, but do you refer to the idea of arguments flowing from the idea that "religion is untouchable"?

 

[Sunstone]

I haven't read Dawkins, but do you refer to the idea of arguments flowing from the idea that "religion is untouchable"?

Sure. That's a large part of what Dawkins has been saying. That religious beliefs are accorded a special status -- I suppose you could say an untouchable status -- not accorded to such things as political beliefs, beliefs about global warming, etc.

 

[matthew.william]

I can accept the fact that you think Dawkins is intolerant, Pete, and I am very interested to see any argument you might have to support that claim. I disagree with you and think you are doing various damages (which I outlined previously) whenever you make it so I feel a responsibility to you.

- Dawkins has stated that a nation founded on God's Law and the Ten Commandments is a mirror image of an "Islamic fascist state". No Islamic government has ever been fascist. The word 'fascism' is used as an insult, and a large one at that.

- "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence." ~ From his blog.

- He has also stated that religion is the main cause of war, a huge accusation, but fails to back it up with any real facts or empirical evidence.

- According to Dawkins, children brought up in a religious home are being "abused"

- Stated that the morals of the Bible should be found "poisonous" by any civilized person.

Those are just a few, but I suggest you take a look at his blog. He has subcategories as "Wingnut News" and "Religion as Child Abuse". The whole atmosphere of the site is ripe with ad hominem attacks towards the religious.

~matthew.william~

 

[Fluffy]

Thanks very much for your reply matthew.willam. I must head out right now but I'll come back and reply a bit later.

 

[logician]

Of course religious values are accorded special status, look at our currency, and the pledge of allegiance. No atheist had a say in what was put on or in these.

 

[3.14]

- "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence." ~ From his blog.

are you saying noone has ever used faith as a cop out?

- He has also stated that religion is the main cause of war, a huge accusation, but fails to back it up with any real facts or empirical evidence.

there are some wars that started by religion that are historicly proven, but there are also wars that started indirectly by religion and because of that it is harder to prove religion is behind it

- According to Dawkins, children brought up in a religious home are being "abused"

all depends on your perspective, if you teach a child that he has to hit himself 5 times a day , that would be considered abuse by most but if religion tell them it is a way to find "god" then people will accept that

- Stated that the morals of the Bible should be found "poisonous" by any civilized person.

well there are some parts in the bible that are indeed outdated and moraly wrong nowadays


its all in preception

 

[lilithu]

And this is what I wonder. If it wasn’t Richard Dawkins saying these things, if it was just some anonymous poster on this board, if it was me, would you have more patience?

No. Have you not seen me interact with certain proselytizing atheists on this forum? I have no more patience with them than I do Dawkins than I do proselytizing religionists.

 

[logician]

- .

- According to Dawkins, children brought up in a religious home are being "abused"

-~matthew.william~

This is misstated, he says that children that are forced into one religious mindset w/o being exposed to other possible mindsets/phlosophies are being abused. He gives horrifying accounts of children literally taken from their parents and forced into Christianity.

 

[matthew.william]

- "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence." ~ From his blog.

are you saying noone has ever used faith as a cop out?

No, I'm sure people do all the time, but what's used as a cop-out is not my problem with the statement. It's the implication that those who are religious are intellectually inferior.

- He has also stated that religion is the main cause of war, a huge accusation, but fails to back it up with any real facts or empirical evidence.

there are some wars that started by religion that are historicly proven, but there are also wars that started indirectly by religion and because of that it is harder to prove religion is behind it

How can you say there have been wars started indirectly by religion, but it's harder to prove religion is behind it? Are you sure religion was actually a major force in it? I don't want to off topic, but there are very few wars in the grand scheme that have been completely religious based. Also, Dawkins statement was that religion is the main cause of war, not that it was a driving force behind a good number.

all depends on your perspective, if you teach a child that he has to hit himself 5 times a day , that would be considered abuse by most but if religion tell them it is a way to find "god" then people will accept that

Well he hasn't made that line clear, has he? If a parent is forcing a child to hit themselves, then yes, that's abuse. Is it abuse to raise a child in your religion? No. As long as you don't cause harm to your child, it's not abuse. Dawkins does NOT make this distinction.

well there are some parts in the bible that are indeed outdated and moraly wrong nowadays


its all in preception

Are you talking about the laws of the Old Testament? If so, I agree, but that's a theological matter. You have an issue with the legality of the OT, as do I, but the morals of the Bible are anything but poisonous.

~matthew.william~

 

[matthew.william]

This is misstated, he says that children that are forced into one religious mindset w/o being exposed to other possible mindsets/phlosophies are being abused. He gives horrifying accounts of children literally taken from their parents and forced into Christianity.

So you should raise your kid to believe in everything? Are you honestly telling me if you had children, you would encourage them to explore Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and all the other religions of the world? What if your child wanted you to help them understand their faith in God? Would you encourage their beliefs in something you as an atheist believe to be false and dangerous?

You can give horrifying accounts of children being forced to do a lot of things. That's not exclusive to religion, and religion certainly isn't the worst thing children have been forced to believe/do.

~matthew.william~

 

[Autodidact]

I must admit that Dawkins excels as a bigot. My hat is off to him there. He has made such bigotry palatable to the masses as well. I guess you can fool some of the people all of the time. That he equates religion to a mind virus is hypocritical as his theories are espoused with much the same fervor. It's funny that I believe in evolution and find other proponents (like Gould) to be perfectly acceptable.

Would you be so kind as to cite some of his remarks or written statements that you consider examples of bigotry? Thank you.

How can a statement about religion be bigoted? Wouldn't it have to be an expression of prejudice and judgment about people?

Are you familiar with the meme concept? Under this metaphor, all ideas, including all scientific and religious ideas, can be examined as akin to viruses. It's very useful for understanding the dissemination of ideas, including religion.

 

[Autodidact]

I am one of Dawkins' most vocal critics on RF, so let me give you my perspective. I too was a fan of Dawkins since the mid 80's through the mid 90's. I think his concept of the meme is brilliant and eagerly read books as The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, and Climbing Mount Improbable as they came out. I have said and still maintain that no one does a better job of explaining evolutionary biology in straight-forward terms than Richard Dawkins. There's no question that he's a brilliant man and I admired him greatly.

So imagine me surfing the web one day and coming across an address that he had given on the topic of religion. (This was circa '95 or '96 I think, tho I'm really bad with dates, definitely before 9/11.) Wow, someone whom I greatly admire talking on a subject of great personal interest to me - what could be better? I read the text wondering what interesting insights he might have, and to my growing surprise and dismay, what I read was a disdainful diatribe against religion. He cited the tendency for people to remain in the same religion in which they were raised and how this was "proof" for their inability to think for themselves. He was derisive and contemptuous, hardly befitting an academic presentation. I was confronted with the knowledge that a man whom I respected and liked had no such respect for me, simply by virtue of my being religious.

I was deeply disappointed, but we can't all see eye to eye. I did not think much of it again for another few years, until after 9/11, after which books like "Climbing Mt. Improbable" were replaced by titles such as "The God Delusion" and he was everywhere in magazines and on tv in an all out attack against religion.

I know very well how smart Dawkins is, which makes his blind hatred all the more disappointing.

You seem to think that because he disagrees with you, that shows a disrespect for you personally. That is not at all logical.

Don't you think it's rather telling that the overwhelming majority of religionists believe in whatever religion they were indoctrinated as children?

 

[Autodidact]

Especially if you consider his brand of anti-theism as a religion.

Then you would be just plain wrong.

There is no justification for such bigotry.

Exactly what is the bigotry?

 

[Autodidact]

Dude, you and I disagree about religion. Jay and even TVOR and i disagree about religion. You will have to do better than that than to paint my issues with Dawkins as me merely being pedantic.

Well, what are your issues? You keep saying he's a bigot. Other than criticizing the basic foundation of religion, what exactly does he do or say that's bigoted? Does he say that Christians shouldn't be allowed to breed or adopt children? Does he say that anyone who believes in God is stupid? Does he say that all Muslims are evil, or that Hindus should be rounded up and gassed? Does he advocate for laws discriminating against religious people? Can you point me to examples of this alleged bigotry?

 

[Autodidact]

There is far more than ONE quote and you are some how suggesting that Dawkins believes that God is "OK". Too funny. But hey, if you feel the need to spread Dawkin's propaganda: go for it. Just don't expect me to respect you for it.

Why would he think that something he doesn't believe exists is O.K.? Or that believing in things that don't exist is O.K. I don't think that believing in things that don't exist is O.K., do you?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Exactly what is the bigotry?

Some of the best examples I can think of are Dawkins' books.

 

[Autodidact]

And I would suggest that if you can't accept the fact that I see Dawkins as intolerant, then YOU are too sensitive to criticism of your idol. Go figure.

Go for it. Present your case.

 

[Magic Man]

So you should raise your kid to believe in everything? Are you honestly telling me if you had children, you would encourage them to explore Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and all the other religions of the world? What if your child wanted you to help them understand their faith in God? Would you encourage their beliefs in something you as an atheist believe to be false and dangerous?

You can give horrifying accounts of children being forced to do a lot of things. That's not exclusive to religion, and religion certainly isn't the worst thing children have been forced to believe/do.

~matthew.william~

I plan to encourage religious exploration in my children. I plan to take them to a Catholic church a few times, to let them see what it is. If nothing else, it's good for them to understand Christianity at least a little bit, since it's such a big part of life here. That is not to say that I'm going to try to push them into religion, but I think it would be good for them to know about many different ones. I won't encourage their beliefs in something that I believe to be false, but I won't discourage it either. I will encourage exploration more than any particular belief. If they turn out to be Christians, I'm fine with it. If they get into beliefs that are dangerous to them or others, I'd take some kind of action, just as anyone would if their child joined a cult.

 

[lilithu]

You seem to think that because he disagrees with you, that shows a disrespect for you personally. That is not at all logical.

Saying "Some people believe in God. I don't" is disagreement. Saying that "People who believe in God are delusional" is disrespect. I will stand by that logic regardless of what you say.

Don't you think it's rather telling that the overwhelming majority of religionists believe in whatever religion they were indoctrinated as children?

I think it's very telling that you phrased the question in such a way that either a yes or no answer would still assent to it being described as "indoctrination."