Is Richard Dawkins Dividing The World?

[footprints]

My point is not that religion itself is the motivation for wars, murders and terrorist attacks, but that religion is the principal label, and the most dangerous one, by which a "they" as opposed to a "we" can be identified at all.
-- Richard Dawkins, The Devil's Chaplain (2004)

Yeah, Dawkins is a real prejudiced idiot isn't he, and proves himself a right hypocrite with the above statement.

Heaven forbid, according to Dawkins, he is the only person in the world who has it right, and becomes the "they," instead of the "we."

In life people have many beliefs, Dawkins belief isn't the only one, and prejudice is never the right one. History sure has proven this.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yeah, Dawkins is a real prejudiced idiot isn't he, and proves himself a right hypocrite with the above statement.

Heaven forbid, according to Dawkins, he is the only person in the world who has it right, and becomes the "they," instead of the "we."

Read it again - he doesn't say anything like that. He says that religion is the most dangerous dividing force in wars through which people can label others as "they" and themselves as "we". Dawkins has never, and would never, claim that he is the "only person in the world who has it right".

I also find it funny that you call him hypocritical, yet you fail to provide a contradictory statement he has made.

In life people have many beliefs, Dawkins belief isn't the only one, and prejudice is never the right one. History sure has proven this.

Dawkins isn't prejudice. He just thinks belief in God is a delusion held up largely by ignorance, and nobody has yet demonstrated him to be incorrect in that assertion.

Perhaps, rather than attacking the man you could contest his arguments.

 

[footprints]

Read it again - he doesn't say anything like that. He says that religion is the most dangerous dividing force in wars through which people can label others as "they" and themselves as "we". Dawkins has never, and would never, claim that he is the "only person in the world who has it right".

Religion of course isn't the most dangerous, dividing force. Human nature is. This just shows and proves prejudice and the unreasonable position Dawkins takes.

Dawkins does more labelling than any other person I know of. Only idiots like Dawkins labels religion the most dangerous and dividing force.

Dawkins produced a whole book, "The God Delusion," to try and prove his position right. The null and alternate hypothesis, Dawkins is right and everybody is wrong.

I also find it funny that you call him hypocritical, yet you fail to provide a contradictory statement he has made.

The whole statement is contradictory, when aligned with the God Delusion.

Dawkins isn't prejudice. He just thinks belief in God is a delusion held up largely by ignorance, and nobody has yet demonstrated him to be incorrect in that assertion.

Yeah, yeah, Dawkins thinks, this means he has a belief based on his own thinking and the dogma he attaches to that thinking.

That in itself is prejudice. Dawkins like any other idiot with an opinion, wants to be right.

Perhaps, rather than attacking the man you could contest his arguments.

There is a thread for this. I have told you before. This thread pertains to Dawkins dividing the world, which has already been concluded, that Dawkins does indeed divide the world. And this was from Dawkins own supporters.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Religion of course isn't the most dangerous, dividing force. Human nature is. This just shows and proves prejudice and the unreasonable position Dawkins takes.

He said it was the most divisive label people use in war to justify a "them and us" mentality. He even specifically states that he does not think religion on it's own causes war.

Dawkins does more labelling than any other person I know of. Only idiots like Dawkins labels religion the most dangerous and dividing force.

Personal attack without any validation whatsoever.

Dawkins produced a whole book, "The God Delusion," to try and prove his position right. The null and alternate hypothesis, Dawkins is right and everybody is wrong.

False dichotomy, since you're suggesting that it's "everyone" versus Dawkins. Obviously, that's not the case, since myself and a great deal of atheists worldwide have read the God Delusion and happen to agree with him. Dawkins is not an intellectually vain person who just thinks he is right and everyone else is wrong - he simply things theists are wrong and makes his case. A case you have yet to address to any degree whatsoever.

The whole statement is contradictory, when aligned with the God Delusion.

Name a statement from it that renders this statement hypocritical, then.

Yeah, yeah, Dawkins thinks, this means he has a belief based on his own thinking and the dogma he attaches to that thinking.

So, all thinking is belief?

That in itself is prejudice. Dawkins like any other idiot with an opinion, wants to be right.

And now you're saying that thinking and having an opinion makes you prejudiced. Are you serious?

There is a thread for this. I have told you before. This thread pertains to Dawkins dividing the world, which has already been concluded, that Dawkins does indeed divide the world. And this was from Dawkins own supporters.

Which thread is this?

And no, it is not concluded because I'm still contesting it, and you have yet to respond to the majority of my arguments.

 

[footprints]

He said it was the most divisive label people use in war to justify a "them and us" mentality. He even specifically states that he does not think religion on it's own causes war.

Religion of course doesn't cause war, and has nothing to do with war. People cause wars, and they have everything to do with people. Albeit, people of different beliefs, atheists, theists, believers and non-believers, even agnostics, can be involved in wars.

Personal attack without any validation whatsoever.

Spoken like a true Dawkins supporter.

False dichotomy, since you're suggesting that it's "everyone" versus Dawkins. Obviously, that's not the case, since myself and a great deal of atheists worldwide have read the God Delusion and happen to agree with him. Dawkins is not an intellectually vain person who just thinks he is right and everyone else is wrong - he simply things theists are wrong and makes his case. A case you have yet to address to any degree whatsoever.

Let me rephrase that, just for you then. Everybody who opposes Dawkins personal philosophy and religious thinking.

As for you agreeing with Dawkins, surprise, surprise. I could have never imagined, birds of a feather flocking together.

Name a statement from it that renders this statement hypocritical, then.

I did better, I named a whole book. The God Delusion.

So, all thinking is belief?

Only thinking that is held as a belief, as Dawkins religious beliefs.

And now you're saying that thinking and having an opinion makes you prejudiced. Are you serious?

Only when that thinking leads a person to a prejudice position, such as the position of Dawkins.

Which thread is this?

Seek and you shall find.

And no, it is not concluded because I'm still contesting it, and you have yet to respond to the majority of my arguments.

Yeah, I am sure there are some people in the world still arguing the world is flat to.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Religion of course doesn't cause war, and has nothing to do with war. People cause wars, and they have everything to do with people. Albeit, people of different beliefs, atheists, theists, believers and non-believers, even agnostics, can be involved in wars.

You've not addressed my point even in the least. The point is that religion is the most dangerous label used to create a "them and us" mentality. Again, Dawkins specifically stated that he does not think religion is the only dividing force nor cause of war - but it is a devastatingly effective means to justify divisive attitudes in war.

Spoken like a true Dawkins supporter.

You made a personal attack without any supporting evidence. Any rational person, Dawkins supporter or not, would observe the same.

Let me rephrase that, just for you then. Everybody who opposes Dawkins personal philosophy and religious thinking.

As for you agreeing with Dawkins, surprise, surprise. I could have never imagined, birds of a feather flocking together.

Another attack without justification. You have no idea of my opinions on religion, and you have given no indication that you understand Dawkins' arguments on the matter either.

I did better, I named a whole book. The God Delusion.

Since you obviously missed it first time, here it is again:

Name a statement from the God Delusion that renders this statement hypocritical.

This should be easy if what you claim is true. If what you claim is false, however, you will naturally continue to dodge.

Only thinking that is held as a belief, as Dawkins religious beliefs.

Dawkins doesn't have religious beliefs.

Only when that thinking leads a person to a prejudice position, such as the position of Dawkins.

Such as...?

Seek and you shall find.

No, name the thread and link me to it. Again, why is it that you always dodge the simplest and most straight-forward requests?

Yeah, I am sure there are some people in the world still arguing the world is flat to.

Delusions of grandeur, much?

 

[Falvlun]

Religion of course isn't the most dangerous, dividing force. Human nature is. This just shows and proves prejudice and the unreasonable position Dawkins takes.

You do seem to like sweeping generalities. Saying that "human nature" is the root of all things that humans do isn't a very interesting, or enlightening, statement to make. Of course humans act like humans.

What we are generally more interested in is why humans act in certain ways, and what motivates them to choose a particular action over another. Religion is certainly an answer, for many of the good, and the bad, things that humans do.

 

[Erebus]

I would hardly say he is dividing the world. I would say he seems to be somewhat lacking in general religious philosophies though. In summary though, like any author, I'd say he writes for his audience.

I'd say this pretty much hits the nail on the head.

I'll admit, I've only read snippets of Dawkin's work, but so far I've found I agree with him on most matters of peace and morality, but disagree with his idea that science and religion are incompatible. If people were taught to think critically, it could well reduce conflicts on a massive scale. However I disagree with statements such as:

Certainly I see the scientific view of the world as incompatible with religion

This kind of quote betrays Dawkins' misconception that religion must be based on superstition and faith. Naturalistic Pantheism for example is completely compatible with a scientific worldview.

He's certainly an intelligent man, but his arguments generally apply only to specific faiths and not religion as a whole.

 

[footprints]

You've not addressed my point even in the least. The point is that religion is the most dangerous label used to create a "them and us" mentality. Again, Dawkins specifically stated that he does not think religion is the only dividing force nor cause of war - but it is a devastatingly effective means to justify divisive attitudes in war.

So in other words, Dawkins is labelling religions, due to his own prejudice of religions, as he projects his imagination, that it is an effective means to justify divisive attitudes in war. Dawkins doesn't prove this statement wrong, he proves it right, because that is what Dawkins is doing himself, using religions as a divisive attitude to war. Not only that, he is promoting it.

You do more to prove Dawkins a radical, irrational hypocrite, than any person so far.

 

[footprints]

You do seem to like sweeping generalities. Saying that "human nature" is the root of all things that humans do isn't a very interesting, or enlightening, statement to make. Of course humans act like humans.

Of course humans act like humans that is why I said it. Seems to me, you agree with this generalisation of humans, it would have been totally irrational, illogical if you didn't.

What we are generally more interested in is why humans act in certain ways, and what motivates them to choose a particular action over another. Religion is certainly an answer, for many of the good, and the bad, things that humans do.

So is atheism the cause of paticular actions of good and bad that humans do. So what is your point, that the common denominator is, that we are human? Products of our environment, creatures of habit built from intelligence and emotion?

When you answer why atheists act in this manner, you will also have the answer why theists act in this manner.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So in other words, Dawkins is labelling religions, due to his own prejudice of religions, as he projects his imagination, that it is an effective means to justify divisive attitudes in war. Dawkins doesn't prove this statement wrong, he proves it right, because that is what Dawkins is doing himself, using religions as a divisive attitude to war. Not only that, he is promoting it.

Not one thing in this entire argument makes sense.

Dawkins is not labeling religion simply by stating that it is divisive. He simply states that it can and has been used as a means to stir up divisive attitudes in war, and has been shown to be the most commonly (and dangerously) used means of creating a "them and us" attitude. He doesn't make any generalities, nor does he assert that all religion is divisive, or inherently divisive, nor is it the only means to divide people. All of these claims you have made of him, but none of them have any truth.

But where does Dawkins' use religion "as a divisive attitude to war"? What on earth are you basing that on? And, to make it worse, you then claim that he is promoting the attitude that he is criticizing. You're just pulling arguments out of thin air at this point.

You do more to prove Dawkins a radical, irrational hypocrite, than any person so far.

It's one thing to make a claim, it's another to support it with logic and references. You have shown so far that you can make a claim, but you have repeatedly refused to support them with anything whatsoever. From what I can tell, you just seem to dislike Richard Dawkins for the sake of disliking him, in spite of having no real understanding of his ideals nor any actual knowledge of his claims. You just object to just about any claim he makes by virtue of the fact that he made it, without any rationale whatsoever.

If I'm wrong, then rise to the challenges I pose above.

 

[Falvlun]

Of course humans act like humans that is why I said it. Seems to me, you agree with this generalisation of humans, it would have been totally irrational, illogical if you didn't.

I am saying that it is a meaningless, banal, uninteresting statement. It adds nothing to the discussion.

If we were to ask why a dog bit someone, we wouldn't simply be satisfied with "because it is within a dog's nature to bite people". This would tell us nothing. We would want to know whether the dog was mistreated or unsocialized, whether he was trained to be aggressive, whether he had an illness or pain that caused him to lash out, or whether he was being antogonized to react in such a way. This would allow us to get to the root, or cause, of the dog's action.

So is atheism the cause of paticular actions of good and bad that humans do. So what is your point, that the common denominator is, that we are human? Products of our environment, creatures of habit built from intelligence and emotion?

I am sure atheists have done bad things as a direct result of their atheism, just as I am sure that there are theists who have done bad things as a direct result of their religion. Once again, simply saying "well they are both human, so it is human-ness that is the base cause of the action" tells us nothing. Showing the pathway between a particular belief system and an action based upon that belief would be more informative.

When you answer why atheists act in this manner, you will also have the answer why theists act in this manner.

What? That there are certain belief systems that lend themselves to violence? Yes, I do believe so.

 

[footprints]

Not one thing in this entire argument makes sense.

Dawkins is not labeling religion simply by stating that it is divisive. He simply states that it can and has been used as a means to stir up divisive attitudes in war, and has been shown to be the most commonly (and dangerously) used means of creating a "them and us" attitude. He doesn't make any generalities, nor does he assert that all religion is divisive, or inherently divisive, nor is it the only means to divide people. All of these claims you have made of him, but none of them have any truth.

LOL for something that didn't make sense, you sure did answer it.

Simply stating it is a means to stir up divisive attitudes in war, is devisive. He is singling out religions and projecting this notion. Point out to me where he also states, money, greed, power, national pride, fear of being ridiclued by ones own society for not fighting, defence of ones homeland and loved ones, defence of ones cultural values, attack is the best form of defence, better stop this person before they take over the world. He doesn't use any of these things, he just uses religions, due to his own religious beliefs and dogma.

Religion hasn't been shown to be the most common and dangerous means of creating an us and them mentality. This is just another unsupported fact used by Dawkins and his supporters due to the delusion they carry.

But where does Dawkins' use religion "as a divisive attitude to war"? What on earth are you basing that on? And, to make it worse, you then claim that he is promoting the attitude that he is criticizing. You're just pulling arguments out of thin air at this point.

Ah derr..... it can and has been used as a means to stir up divisive attitudes in war, and has been shown to be the most commonly (and dangerously) used means of creating a "them and us" attitude.

It's one thing to make a claim, it's another to support it with logic and references. You have shown so far that you can make a claim, but you have repeatedly refused to support them with anything whatsoever. From what I can tell, you just seem to dislike Richard Dawkins for the sake of disliking him, in spite of having no real understanding of his ideals nor any actual knowledge of his claims. You just object to just about any claim he makes by virtue of the fact that he made it, without any rationale whatsoever.

I do not need to make any claims, Dawkins supporters do this for me nicely.

Your perceptional garbage continues, who says I do not like Dawkins? You, that would make you completely irrational and bordering on lunacy.

If I'm wrong, then rise to the challenges I pose above.

Not only have I done that, Dawkins supporters in this thread have also done it. You just want to argue that the earth is still flat.

 

[footprints]

I am saying that it is a meaningless, banal, uninteresting statement. It adds nothing to the discussion.

I think you mean it makes your point look stupid and weak.

If we were to ask why a dog bit someone, we wouldn't simply be satisfied with "because it is within a dog's nature to bite people". This would tell us nothing. We would want to know whether the dog was mistreated or unsocialized, whether he was trained to be aggressive, whether he had an illness or pain that caused him to lash out, or whether he was being antogonized to react in such a way. This would allow us to get to the root, or cause, of the dog's action.

We discussed environment. Perhaps you missed it.

I am sure atheists have done bad things as a direct result of their atheism, just as I am sure that there are theists who have done bad things as a direct result of their religion. Once again, simply saying "well they are both human, so it is human-ness that is the base cause of the action" tells us nothing. Showing the pathway between a particular belief system and an action based upon that belief would be more informative.

This is where we discussed environment.

What? That there are certain belief systems that lend themselves to violence? Yes, I do believe so.

I can agree, atheism being one of them. So when you have the answer why atheists do it, you will also have the answer why religions do it. ...... Generally because they can, and sometimes they get away with it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

LOL for something that didn't make sense, you sure did answer it.

Yet another statement that makes no sense.

Simply stating it is a means to stir up divisive attitudes in war, is devisive. He is singling out religions and projecting this notion.

No, he is not. He simply states that religion is the most divisive label used in war. He is not singling-out religion, he is simply making the claim that it is religion more than anything else that allows people to generate said "them and us" mentality in war. Again, you have said nothing to refute that statement and merely seem to be claiming that just because he said it makes him hypocritical or wrong.

Point out to me where he also states, money, greed, power, national pride, fear of being ridiclued by ones own society for not fighting, defence of ones homeland and loved ones, defence of ones cultural values, attack is the best form of defence, better stop this person before they take over the world. He doesn't use any of these things, he just uses religions, due to his own religious beliefs and dogma.

And you're implying that just because he doesn't mention those things means that he is being biased. That is obviously nonsense to anyone who has even a basic grasp of the kind of argument Dawkins is making. You seem to have a lot of difficulty distinguishing your imagined argument ("Religion, and only religion, causes war!") from what Dawkins actually said ("Religion is the most dangerous means of labeling others and creating a divisive attitude in war.").

I might as well write your entire argument off and call you a hypocrite because you're accusing Dawkins of being biased based on a single snippet, without referencing or even mentioning any of his actual beliefs or claims. You just see the argument, see that he wrote it, and decided to violently oppose it without even really understanding the point he was trying to make.

Religion hasn't been shown to be the most common and dangerous means of creating an us and them mentality. This is just another unsupported fact used by Dawkins and his supporters due to the delusion they carry.

Another unsupported claim. People willingly fight and die for their particular religious convictions, and it is those convictions that are often put at the forefront of major conflicts throughout history. Again, I am not saying that religion causes all wars (though it undoubtedly causes many), but it is undeniably a dangerous tool used by governments and other agencies in order to whip people up into a warlike mentality. This is exactly the point that Dawkins was making, and is exactly the point you seem incapable of addressing, let alone refuting.

Ah derr..... it can and has been used as a means to stir up divisive attitudes in war, and has been shown to be the most commonly (and dangerously) used means of creating a "them and us" attitude.

Do you have a point?

I do not need to make any claims, Dawkins supporters do this for me nicely.

There's another claim.

Your perceptional garbage continues, who says I do not like Dawkins? You, that would make you completely irrational and bordering on lunacy.

Another claim.

See, my claim that you hate Dawkins has a pretty firm basis in the fact that you inherently and violently protest anything that he says (even prior to discerning it's meaning or intention), refuse to referencing any of his particular opinions you disagree with (implying heavily that you have never read any of his books), and the fact that you have repeatedly referred to him as an "idiot" who practices his "dogmatic religion".

Meanwhile, you accuse me of being completely irrational and "bordering on lunacy" because...? Well, because you say so.

See, this is your ridiculous mentality. Everything Dawkins says is wrong because he says it, and everything you say is right because you say it.

Not only have I done that, Dawkins supporters in this thread have also done it. You just want to argue that the earth is still flat.

At this point, you've made it clear that there's little point in arguing with you because you flat-out refuse to listen to any opinion other than your own, and offer no refutation to any argument put forward to you other than baseless assumptions.

Someone told me recently that trying to argue with someone's delusions only reaffirms them. So unless you actually have something intelligent, rational or even approaching an argument in the near future, I'm just going to sit back in my chair, comfortable in the knowledge that I have proven myself and Dawkins to be a lot smarter than you.

It's the the little things in life.

 

[footprints]

No, he is not. He simply states that religion is the most divisive label used in war. He is not singling-out religion, he is simply making the claim that it is religion more than anything else that allows people to generate said "them and us" mentality in war. Again, you have said nothing to refute that statement and merely seem to be claiming that just because he said it makes him hypocritical or wrong.

That is an unsupported claim, and show Dawkins irrationality on the subject.

To a Dawkins supporter, the above statement by Dawkins would seem rational and reasonable, this is part of their delusion, for it is an unsupported arguement and premise, held only in their minds by a perceptional faith of belief.

Someone told me recently that trying to argue with someone's delusions only reaffirms them. So unless you actually have something intelligent, rational or even approaching an argument in the near future, I'm just going to sit back in my chair, comfortable in the knowledge that I have proven myself and Dawkins to be a lot smarter than you.

It's the the little things in life.

Did somebody just tell you that, I have known that for years, albeit the saying goes, "you cannot talk comonsense, logic and reason to a madman." I knew that the first time I posted back to you. Still I try, you never know when some commonsense, logic and reason, will get through their closed, minds.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Good thing your arguments are so weak I can basically set myself on auto-pilot to refute them.

That is an unsupported claim, and show Dawkins irrationality on the subject.

Obviously, you missed this part of my argument:

"And you're implying that just because he doesn't mention those things means that he is being biased. That is obviously nonsense to anyone who has even a basic grasp of the kind of argument Dawkins is making. You seem to have a lot of difficulty distinguishing your imagined argument ("Religion, and only religion, causes war!") from what Dawkins actually said ("Religion is the most dangerous means of labeling others and creating a divisive attitude in war.")."

"I might as well write your entire argument off and call you a hypocrite because you're accusing Dawkins of being biased based on a single snippet, without referencing or even mentioning any of his actual beliefs or claims. You just see the argument, see that he wrote it, and decided to violently oppose it without even really understanding the point he was trying to make."

"People willingly fight and die for their particular religious convictions, and it is those convictions that are often put at the forefront of major conflicts throughout history. Again, I am not saying that religion causes all wars (though it undoubtedly causes many), but it is undeniably a dangerous tool used by governments and other agencies in order to whip people up into a warlike mentality. This is exactly the point that Dawkins was making, and is exactly the point you seem incapable of addressing, let alone refuting."

See, rationale.

To a Dawkins supporter, the above statement by Dawkins would seem rational and reasonable, this is part of their delusion, for it is an unsupported arguement and premise, held only in their minds by a perceptional faith of belief.

I'm still waiting on a refutation of his claim. You can't call something irrational without demonstrating it's irrationality.

Did somebody just tell you that, I have known that for years, albeit the saying goes, "you cannot talk comonsense, logic and reason to a madman." I knew that the first time I posted back to you. Still I try, you never know when some commonsense, logic and reason, will get through their closed, minds.

Considering you have not once provided any basis for your claims, I conclude that you are the madman in this scenario. Therefore, you are projecting.

Again, still waiting on a refutation.


And finally I'm going to do what I should of done several pages ago. Provide the context and the rest of the Dawkin's argument from which that quote came from:

"In the Guardian of September 15th (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/0,423,4257777,00.html), I named belief in an afterlife as the key weapon that made the New York atrocity possible. Of prior significance is religion's deep responsibility for the underlying hatreds that motivated people to use that weapon in the first place. To breathe such a suggestion, even with the most gentlemanly restraint, is to invite an onslaught of patronising abuse, as Douglas Adams noted. But the insane cruelty of the suicide attacks, and the equally vicious though numerically less catastrophic 'revenge' attacks on hapless Muslims living in America and Britain, push me beyond ordinary caution.

How can I say that religion is to blame? Do I really imagine that, when a terrorist kills, he is motivated by a theological disagreement with his victim? Do I really think the Northern Ireland pub bomber says to himself, "Take that, Tridentine Transubstantiationist ********!" Of course I don't think anything of the kind. Theology is the last thing on the minds of such people. They are not killing because of religion itself, but because of political grievances, often justified. They are killing because the other lot killed their fathers. Or because the other lot drove their great- grandfathers off their land. Or because the other lot oppressed our lot economically for centuries.

My point is not that religion itself is the motivation for wars, murders and terrorist attacks, but that religion is the principal label, and the most dangerous one, by which a 'they' as opposed to a 'we' can be identified at all. I am not even claiming that religion is the only label by which we identify the victims of our prejudice. There's also skin colour, language, and social class. But often, as in Northern Ireland, these don't apply and religion is the only divisive label around. Even when it is not alone, religion is nearly always an incendiary ingredient in the mix as well. And please don't trot out Hitler as a counter-example. Hitler's sub-Wagnerian ravings constituted a religion of his own foundation, and his anti-Semitism owed a lot to his never-renounced Roman Catholicism (see http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/murphy_19_2.html).

It is not an exaggeration to say that religion is the most inflammatory enemy-labelling device in history. Who killed your father? Not the individuals you are about to kill in 'revenge'. The culprits themselves have vanished over the border. The people who stole your great-grandfather's land have died of old age. You aim your vendetta at those who belong to the same religion as the original perpetrators. It wasn't Seamus who killed your brother, but it was Catholics, so Seamus deserves to die 'in return'. Next, it was Protestants who killed Seamus so let's go out and kill some Protestants 'in revenge'. It was Muslims who destroyed the World Trade Center so let's set upon the turbaned driver of a London taxi and leave him paralysed from the neck down.

The bitter hatreds that now poison Middle Eastern politics are rooted in the real or perceived wrong of the setting up of a Jewish State in an Islamic region. In view of all that the Jews had been through, it must have seemed a fair and humane solution. Probably deep familiarity with the Old Testament had given the European and American decision-makers some sort of idea that this really was the "historic homeland" of the Jews (though the horrific stories of how Joshua and others conquered their Lebensraum might have made them wonder). Even if it wasn't justifiable at the time, no doubt a good case can be made that, since Israel exists now, to try to reverse the status quo would be a worse wrong."

Source: http://newhumanist.org.uk/469/time-to-stand-up

So, there's his rationale. Care to pick holes in it?

 

[Falvlun]

I think you mean it makes your point look stupid and weak.

No. I meant exactly what I said. Just like in the "Is Good the Absence of Evil" thread, where you simply claim that "all is perspective", your assertion here that "all is human nature" says absolutely nothing. Both statements are non-issues.

We discussed environment. Perhaps you missed it.

Perhaps you missed the implications. Religion has the potential of playing a large part in a person's environment. It actively encourages believers to perform certain actions. It could very well be the most influential force in a person's life.

So, we have human nature at base. We inherit certain predispositions. We then add environmental factors on top of that. Certain predispositions might never be expressed if the environment doesn't trigger them. Religion is most certainly one of those triggers (for both good and bad behaviors.)

I can agree, atheism being one of them. So when you have the answer why atheists do it, you will also have the answer why religions do it. ...... Generally because they can, and sometimes they get away with it.

Religion is potent because it actively seeks to change a way a person interacts with the world, both in his perception of it, and his behavior within it. It provides a framework. The more rigid the framework, the more the person can be controlled by the religion. If the framework is help thy neighbor and feed the poor, then so much the better. But if it's go exterminate the infidel, then so much the worse.

One of the differences between atheism and religion is that atheism tends to have a pretty loose framework. There's just not that much there to go on. Religions tend to have much more extensive frameworks, with rigidity ranging from the loose to the strangle-hold. Religions also tend to provide more motivation for adherence than simple atheism. Combine a rigid framework, with strong motivation, and you've got a potentially dangerous group of people, depending, of course, on what the content of the framework is. You seldom get both those ingredients in atheism.

 

[footprints]

Good thing your arguments are so weak I can basically set myself on auto-pilot to refute them.

Many people live in instant denial, you are not alone.

Obviously, you missed this part of my argument:

"And you're implying that just because he doesn't mention those things means that he is being biased. That is obviously nonsense to anyone who has even a basic grasp of the kind of argument Dawkins is making. You seem to have a lot of difficulty distinguishing your imagined argument ("Religion, and only religion, causes war!") from what Dawkins actually said ("Religion is the most dangerous means of labeling others and creating a divisive attitude in war.")."

"I might as well write your entire argument off and call you a hypocrite because you're accusing Dawkins of being biased based on a single snippet, without referencing or even mentioning any of his actual beliefs or claims. You just see the argument, see that he wrote it, and decided to violently oppose it without even really understanding the point he was trying to make."

"People willingly fight and die for their particular religious convictions, and it is those convictions that are often put at the forefront of major conflicts throughout history. Again, I am not saying that religion causes all wars (though it undoubtedly causes many), but it is undeniably a dangerous tool used by governments and other agencies in order to whip people up into a warlike mentality. This is exactly the point that Dawkins was making, and is exactly the point you seem incapable of addressing, let alone refuting."

No I got all that. Dawkins is using the label of religions as the most divisive means in war. His personal war between his beliefs and religious beliefs.

See, rationale.

Never in your argument. I could never see rationality in a flat earth mentality.

I'm still waiting on a refutation of his claim. You can't call something irrational without demonstrating it's irrationality.

I already have proven it. Your own intelligence is what stops you from seeing it.

Considering you have not once provided any basis for your claims, I conclude that you are the madman in this scenario. Therefore, you are projecting.

With your faith of belief, you wouldn't be able to see logic and reason if it bit you.

Again, still waiting on a refutation.

With your faith of belief, you will, no matter how much contrary evidence is offered you.

And finally I'm going to do what I should of done several pages ago. Provide the context and the rest of the Dawkin's argument from which that quote came from:

"In the Guardian of September 15th (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/0,423,4257777,00.html), I named belief in an afterlife as the key weapon that made the New York atrocity possible. Of prior significance is religion's deep responsibility for the underlying hatreds that motivated people to use that weapon in the first place. To breathe such a suggestion, even with the most gentlemanly restraint, is to invite an onslaught of patronising abuse, as Douglas Adams noted. But the insane cruelty of the suicide attacks, and the equally vicious though numerically less catastrophic 'revenge' attacks on hapless Muslims living in America and Britain, push me beyond ordinary caution.

How can I say that religion is to blame? Do I really imagine that, when a terrorist kills, he is motivated by a theological disagreement with his victim? Do I really think the Northern Ireland pub bomber says to himself, "Take that, Tridentine Transubstantiationist ********!" Of course I don't think anything of the kind. Theology is the last thing on the minds of such people. They are not killing because of religion itself, but because of political grievances, often justified. They are killing because the other lot killed their fathers. Or because the other lot drove their great- grandfathers off their land. Or because the other lot oppressed our lot economically for centuries.

My point is not that religion itself is the motivation for wars, murders and terrorist attacks, but that religion is the principal label, and the most dangerous one, by which a 'they' as opposed to a 'we' can be identified at all. I am not even claiming that religion is the only label by which we identify the victims of our prejudice. There's also skin colour, language, and social class. But often, as in Northern Ireland, these don't apply and religion is the only divisive label around. Even when it is not alone, religion is nearly always an incendiary ingredient in the mix as well. And please don't trot out Hitler as a counter-example. Hitler's sub-Wagnerian ravings constituted a religion of his own foundation, and his anti-Semitism owed a lot to his never-renounced Roman Catholicism (see Hitler Was Not An Atheist).

It is not an exaggeration to say that religion is the most inflammatory enemy-labelling device in history. Who killed your father? Not the individuals you are about to kill in 'revenge'. The culprits themselves have vanished over the border. The people who stole your great-grandfather's land have died of old age. You aim your vendetta at those who belong to the same religion as the original perpetrators. It wasn't Seamus who killed your brother, but it was Catholics, so Seamus deserves to die 'in return'. Next, it was Protestants who killed Seamus so let's go out and kill some Protestants 'in revenge'. It was Muslims who destroyed the World Trade Center so let's set upon the turbaned driver of a London taxi and leave him paralysed from the neck down.

The bitter hatreds that now poison Middle Eastern politics are rooted in the real or perceived wrong of the setting up of a Jewish State in an Islamic region. In view of all that the Jews had been through, it must have seemed a fair and humane solution. Probably deep familiarity with the Old Testament had given the European and American decision-makers some sort of idea that this really was the "historic homeland" of the Jews (though the horrific stories of how Joshua and others conquered their Lebensraum might have made them wonder). Even if it wasn't justifiable at the time, no doubt a good case can be made that, since Israel exists now, to try to reverse the status quo would be a worse wrong."

Source: Richard Dawkins - Time to stand up | New Humanist

So, there's his rationale. Care to pick holes in it?

Dawkins says please don't trot out Hitler as a counter agrument, then trots Hitler out. Dawkins believes and conceives he can use Hitler, but nobody else can. Dawkins in nothing but a bigot and hypocrite.

Oh so much prejudice and bias in Dawkins works, isn't there. Logical and rational people see Germany and German's starting the second world war. History gives all the backing to prove this. Most logical and rational people, see Hitler as a main cause of this. LOL Dawkins is so irrational, so illogical, so distorted and so confused, he sees a never renouced Catholicism for the cause of this.

One day Dawkins may snap back into reality and find, that wars and everything we have which he condemns and slams religions for, existed well before the world had religions.

 

[footprints]

No. I meant exactly what I said. Just like in the "Is Good the Absence of Evil" thread, where you simply claim that "all is perspective", your assertion here that "all is human nature" says absolutely nothing. Both statements are non-issues.

I am sure you meant what you said, and I am also sure I meant what I said.

An understanding of human nature, of human perception, explains all this. If you do not understand human nature and human perception, then say so, I will do my best to explain it to you. Other than that, I am going to assume, you know just as much as I do, and are just taking an unreasonable position.

Perhaps you missed the implications. Religion has the potential of playing a large part in a person's environment. It actively encourages believers to perform certain actions. It could very well be the most influential force in a person's life.

For some religion does play a large part in their environment. For those that it does, it just doesn't have the potential to influence their perception, it does influence it.

The same of course applies to all beliefs, atheism isn't excluded.

Whatever a person fully believes and accepts as their own, is the most influential force in their life, be this a choice of sport, who they marry, who they vote for, what they like to do with their leisure time, what their hobbies and interests are, down to what their spiritual beliefs are, be this agnostic, atheist, theist, deist, ignostic, pagan, et al.

So, we have human nature at base. We inherit certain predispositions. We then add environmental factors on top of that. Certain predispositions might never be expressed if the environment doesn't trigger them. Religion is most certainly one of those triggers (for both good and bad behaviors.)

We are all a product of our environment. This is never disputed.

Religion is potent because it actively seeks to change a way a person interacts with the world, both in his perception of it, and his behavior within it. It provides a framework. The more rigid the framework, the more the person can be controlled by the religion. If the framework is help thy neighbor and feed the poor, then so much the better. But if it's go exterminate the infidel, then so much the worse.

As is every belief. So what is your point? To single out religions and make them somehow different to everybody else in life?

One of the differences between atheism and religion is that atheism tends to have a pretty loose framework. There's just not that much there to go on. Religions tend to have much more extensive frameworks, with rigidity ranging from the loose to the strangle-hold. Religions also tend to provide more motivation for adherence than simple atheism. Combine a rigid framework, with strong motivation, and you've got a potentially dangerous group of people, depending, of course, on what the content of the framework is. You seldom get both those ingredients in atheism.

Have you actually looked at religions? Do you know how many different variations of Christianity there are? How many branches to Hinduism, Buddhism, Islamic practices et al there are? Atheism is no different, it is filled with people of many beliefs.