Richard Dawkins is but a speaker, just like Hitler.

[SolusCado]

I think his answer to the question posed is great! It shows the fallacy of religions as the source of morals. Society and the evolutionary advantage of social groupings are the source of morals, not religions. Religions just hijacked morals because they were a strong method of controlling the behavior of the masses by the religious elite.

KRR

I would argue that he did eventually answer the question (stating that secural morality was based on reason, though, discussion, law, etc.), but not until he went off on a tangent about how immoral religious morality is, which wasn't relevant to the question at all. That he started with that indicates either a deep-seater anger/hatred towards religion, or a relatively masterful method of emotionally charging the audience.

Moreover, his popularity is nothing like Hitler's. It's not a cult of personality, he is well known and liked among many atheists because of his intellect. Only the most deluded religious idiot would try to pass it off as a hatefest and that's because those people are basically too stupid to understand his arguments.

It doesn't come across in this video, but I've read some of his books and he IS full of hate. I actually agree with him that civil law should not be based on religion (which, frankly, is part of the foundation of the United States, and I would argue a key point of Christ's, as well as a core tenant of Christianity), but his desire to eradicate religion is unnecessary, hateful, and as much a war-mongering approach as any other fanatical leader.

Non-sequitur

It does not follow that morality is a leap of faith if it is not an absolute.

Furthermore your point is in complete opposition to what dawkins said. His point is that morality should NOT be a leap of faith based on the 4000 year old dribblings of some middle eastern goat header, but instead should be discussed and debated to a rational consensus - quite the opposite of a leap of faith.

Agreed, though his tangent on religious immorality WAS a red herring. He cherry-picked the religious traditions of long-dead religious faiths in an attempt to curry favor with the audience. You cannot judge a modern faith with ancient references.

Yes, this is the question. I think Dawkins was trying to point out that faith is no guide to morality, since it leads one to such strange decisions as killing people for not believing in a certain thing. Rationality is the only truly ethical guide to deciding what actions are more moral. It is only subject to the facts of the situation and an understanding of the feelings and outcomes of the sentient beings involved. Death is nothing to a theist, since it isn't really death, it's just a phase. Death to an atheist is terrifyingly final.

Dawkins often tries to "re-frame" the argument, which I think is what scifes objects to. It's only because the premises of theist arguments are often misguided to such an extent, the arguments against them must address their delusions, not indulge them.

Dawkins statements regarding an unwillingness to engage in absolute morality WASN'T relevant to the question. He did eventually answer the question, but he did a little preaching first.

 

[spidergoat]

What's wrong with a little preaching? And what's wrong with a little outrage at the cost of religion in our society? ...The churches that harbor pedophile priests? ...The lies and misplaced guilt with which they seek to run our lives?

 

[SolusCado]

What's wrong with a little preaching? And what's wrong with a little outrage at the cost of religion in our society? ...The churches that harbor pedophile priests? ...The lies and misplaced guilt with which they seek to run our lives?

Regarding preaching, I'm of two minds on that one. Frankly, I get annoyed at ANY debate - and particularly political ones - that fail to address things with rationality and reason, and instead resort to emotional appeals and preaching. As Hawkins says, policy SHOULD be based on reason and rational debate... So it is more than a little hypocritical for him to then step into the realm of emotional appeals in his own response. The fact that he does so with so little emotional presence of his own INDICATES that he knows full well what he is doing, and I cannot just chalk it up to human error. It would appear to be deliberate hypocrisy.

Outrage at pedophilic priests, terrorist plots, crusades, inquisitions, etc. is perfectly fine - but we should all be able to see past the emotional reactions to all of that. The Catholic Church doesn't teach that it is okay for priests to sexually abuse children, so you cannot blame Catholicism. The Bible doesn't teach that you should force conversions at the threat of torture, so you cannot blame Christianity for the crusades and inqusitions. Recognize the true sources for what they are. Evil in humans. Hate-mongering. Fanaticist control over a populace. These things are not endemic of religions, but of people. These people (like Hawkins - a claim I make based on the above paragraph's reasoning) are the problem. They use things like religion as a tool to whip to frenzy the populace, and by Hawkins' own claims that is NOT how we should be operating society. Tolerance is the only path to peace. Well, that and wiping out everyone on the face of the earth who disagrees with you.

 

[spidergoat]

There are some things I will not tolerate, toleration meaning to ignore something. Religion is not based on reason, so it's funny that you would complain about that. Dawkins' outrage is based on the lack of reason in religion, combined with their insistence on being equal in the public sphere. 95% of Dawkins' speach is reason, the rest is being indignant at the evils which religion has produced while at the same time it insists on it's essential innocence.

 

[SolusCado]

There are some things I will not tolerate, toleration meaning to ignore something. Religion is not based on reason, so it's funny that you would complain about that. Dawkins' outrage is based on the lack of reason in religion, combined with their insistence on being equal in the public sphere. 95% of Dawkins' speach is reason, the rest is being indignant at the evils which religion has produced while at the same time it insists on it's essential innocence.

I lived for a few years on the edge of a Mennonite and Amish community. Because my mother did not want to offend, we were to abide by their standards of conduct while we were in their community. That is tolerance. It is respect for the feelings and beliefs of others. It is, quite simple, respect of your fellow man. I have no problem being indignant and intolerant of people trying to exert their will over others, and frankly that is what Hawkins is trying to do - exert his desire for no religion over the BILLIONS of his fellow man that have religious beliefs. I don't care how irrational or pointless it may seem to you or me, that is the crux of tolerance, and it is the key to peace. If you start discriminating against people for their religious beliefs, where do you stop? You may find the neon colors of the 80s to be absolutely horrendous and an affront on your senses when people are wearing such hideous clothing, but do they not have a right to wear whatever they want? Is your opinion so much more worthwhile that you can launch a campaign of hate for the people who wear such ugly colors? Well, you can - but then you are acting with the same fanaticism and hate-mongering that has been responsible for the so-called religious atrocities of our past. I reiterate, the problem has always been intolerance, not faith.

 

[Michael]

In a way Dawkins reminds me of the doomsayers who said the TV would destroy the social fabric, that machines would turn skilled humans into mindless slaves, that fast food would eventuate in an unhealthy lazy nation.

They were of course all absolutely right


IMO monotheistic religions ARE having detrimental effects on society. They attack scientific thinking as well as all other religions. This has always been the case. Religion opposed scientific thought to a point where I personally think it stunted progress. Monotheism in particular crushed countless other belief systems. Here in the USA Native Americans were (and some still do) made to feel ashamed for practicing their inalienable right to worship as they see fit.

I will not be surprised if we don't see another religious war Jew-Palastine style, but, I don't think it will come to be. Things are changing so fast, that I believe people will naturally give up most of their intolerant supernatural beliefs freely creating more tolerant ones in place. I would suspect Buddhism will see growth by conversion. The monotheisms will probably go more ascetic and less Orthodox.


So, I commend Dawkins on his aims and goals but he's no more able to turn back the tide than the religious people he's railing against. Things will move in the direction they will with or without Dawkins. I completely support his move to remove religious schools from England (and AU and USA). There's no need and if anything some of these schools are doing a horrible disservice to their charges. One Islamic school Dawkins visited was reading right out of the play book from the Discovery Institute and making Evolution and Science appear as if it's a "Democratic Processes". Which it absolutely is not. They were teaching that Evolution was a theory and should be set on equal footing with creationism. Many of the children in this biology class HAD hopes of becoming Physicians. Too bad for them their parents sent them to a religious school. All modern medicine is centered around Evolution.

Having or not having these schools probably isn't going to make much a difference to society in general. Its just that the children in those schools probably won't be as competitive as children taught in schools were Science and Evolution are properly taught - thus making their lives more crap and perpetuating a poor underprivileged class of religious minorities.



So, he's right, but, it's not going to change anything - and hasn't.

 

[John99]

In a way Dawkins reminds me of the doomsayers who said the TV would destroy the social fabric, that machines would turn skilled humans into mindless slaves, that fast food would eventuate in an unhealthy lazy nation.

They were of course all absolutely right

I dont think they were right.

 

[spidergoat]

I lived for a few years on the edge of a Mennonite and Amish community. Because my mother did not want to offend, we were to abide by their standards of conduct while we were in their community. That is tolerance. It is respect for the feelings and beliefs of others. It is, quite simple, respect of your fellow man. I have no problem being indignant and intolerant of people trying to exert their will over others, and frankly that is what Hawkins is trying to do - exert his desire for no religion over the BILLIONS of his fellow man that have religious beliefs. I don't care how irrational or pointless it may seem to you or me, that is the crux of tolerance, and it is the key to peace. If you start discriminating against people for their religious beliefs, where do you stop? You may find the neon colors of the 80s to be absolutely horrendous and an affront on your senses when people are wearing such hideous clothing, but do they not have a right to wear whatever they want? Is your opinion so much more worthwhile that you can launch a campaign of hate for the people who wear such ugly colors? Well, you can - but then you are acting with the same fanaticism and hate-mongering that has been responsible for the so-called religious atrocities of our past. I reiterate, the problem has always been intolerance, not faith.

Dawkins has never advocated discrimination, or turning people into atheists. You have to realize, Dawkins was engaged in a debate, not casually meeting some Amish person in his neighborhood, the circumstances are completely different. It's not a "campaign of hate", it's actually just non-believers speaking out. I respect people, not ideas. You can't help being black or something, but you adopt your religion.

 

[krreagan]

I lived for a few years on the edge of a Mennonite and Amish community. Because my mother did not want to offend, we were to abide by their standards of conduct while we were in their community. That is tolerance. It is respect for the feelings and beliefs of others. It is, quite simple, respect of your fellow man. I have no problem being indignant and intolerant of people trying to exert their will over others, and frankly that is what Hawkins is trying to do - exert his desire for no religion over the BILLIONS of his fellow man that have religious beliefs. I don't care how irrational or pointless it may seem to you or me, that is the crux of tolerance, and it is the key to peace. If you start discriminating against people for their religious beliefs, where do you stop? You may find the neon colors of the 80s to be absolutely horrendous and an affront on your senses when people are wearing such hideous clothing, but do they not have a right to wear whatever they want? Is your opinion so much more worthwhile that you can launch a campaign of hate for the people who wear such ugly colors? Well, you can - but then you are acting with the same fanaticism and hate-mongering that has been responsible for the so-called religious atrocities of our past. I reiterate, the problem has always been intolerance, not faith.

You really don't know him and I doubt that you have read much of his books from what you say. Or you have a bias viewpoint that distorts your view.
I find that, yes, he gets upset at religions for doing the most stupid things this world has seen. But his approach is that of a teacher trying to educate and enlighten those that might choose to listen. To point out, forcefully sometimes, the idiocy of what they themselves put forth.

Considering that religions (irrational and pointless beliefs) are responsible for 10's or 100's of millions of deaths over the past 5000 years, it seems to me that he is being terribly tolerant.

Your 80's colors argument falls short in that they were not responsible the millions of deaths as religions and the religious are. We are talking about leaders that justify all sorts of appalling behavior in the name of their one-and-only god.

He speaks towards rational thought and behavior and if your irrationality does not impact him or others, I'm sure he would say the more power to ya! But most of the time peoples irrational religious belief is not solitary!

KRR

 

[SnakeLord]

It is, quite simple, respect of your fellow man. I have no problem being indignant and intolerant of people trying to exert their will over others, and frankly that is what Hawkins is trying to do

I have not followed the entire conversation so I'm going to have to ask who you are talking about? Hawking or Dawkins?

With respect, if you can't even get his name right it's unlikely you've spent much time reading what he has written or following his arguments. As such, I am unsure whether it is really worth wasting much time and effort on the rest of your post.

exert his desire for no religion over the BILLIONS of his fellow man that have religious beliefs. I don't care how irrational or pointless it may seem to you or me, that is the crux of tolerance, and it is the key to peace.

However, can you kindly cite a valid reason that we should just sit back and not say anything to these billions of people living in delusion? What valid reason can you assert for not pointing out and arguing reality over ancient superstition? 'Let them live in their delusions' is a statement made by the uncaring.

What strikes me as extraordinarily inept however is that you would denigrate Dawkins on the basis that he writes a book or makes a video - of which trillions exist - when nobody who wants to persist in their state of delusion is forced to read or watch them, (maybe I'm mistaken, tell me if Dawkins is holding a gun to your head), and yet you label it intolerant.

Your own basis of labelling it intolerant negates the ability of anyone to write anything because in doing so it will go against some belief or ideal that some people hold.

Secondly I must point out error in your statement. Tolerance is not key to peace. You made no distinction, you just demanded tolerance - in which case we should be "tolerant" of paedophiles, nazis and so on.

The amusing thing is that your version of 'tolerance' means that nobody can argue against your theist beliefs whilst you can go about being intolerant to anyone that attempts it. It seems your version of "tolerant" is entirely one-sided.

If, as you claim, tolerance is key to peace, then kindly be tolerant of Dawkins and other atheists who denigrate, argue or debate your beliefs. Where is your tolerance now heh?

If you start discriminating against people for their religious beliefs, where do you stop?

If we cannot argue or debate peoples beliefs, how can we ever get anywhere? How can we learn or progress? Your demands are silly but then I'm not allowed to say that if applying your demands. What a ridiculous concept.

You may find the neon colors of the 80s to be absolutely horrendous and an affront on your senses when people are wearing such hideous clothing, but do they not have a right to wear whatever they want?

Of course they do, but do you not have the right to say they look horrendous?

Regards,

 

[SolusCado]

In a way Dawkins reminds me of the doomsayers who said the TV would destroy the social fabric, that machines would turn skilled humans into mindless slaves, that fast food would eventuate in an unhealthy lazy nation.

They were of course all absolutely right

That statement reminds ME of the fact that everyone has been referencing the "Good old days" for generations. There was never any such thing. People just get wistful in their old age.

IMO monotheistic religions ARE having detrimental effects on society. They attack scientific thinking as well as all other religions. This has always been the case. Religion opposed scientific thought to a point where I personally think it stunted progress. Monotheism in particular crushed countless other belief systems. Here in the USA Native Americans were (and some still do) made to feel ashamed for practicing their inalienable right to worship as they see fit.

I think you are confusing the misappropriation of religion (which I noted in a previous post) with the religions themselves. There have always been montheistic followers who full embraced scientific discovery; they were also systematically oppressed/suppressed by the religious authorities of the day. Once again, it was intolerance and fanaticism that caused the problem, not the monotheism itself.

I will not be surprised if we don't see another religious war Jew-Palastine style, but, I don't think it will come to be. Things are changing so fast, that I believe people will naturally give up most of their intolerant supernatural beliefs freely creating more tolerant ones in place. I would suspect Buddhism will see growth by conversion. The monotheisms will probably go more ascetic and less Orthodox.

Agreed.

So, I commend Dawkins on his aims and goals but he's no more able to turn back the tide than the religious people he's railing against. Things will move in the direction they will with or without Dawkins. I completely support his move to remove religious schools from England (and AU and USA). There's no need and if anything some of these schools are doing a horrible disservice to their charges. One Islamic school Dawkins visited was reading right out of the play book from the Discovery Institute and making Evolution and Science appear as if it's a "Democratic Processes". Which it absolutely is not. They were teaching that Evolution was a theory and should be set on equal footing with creationism. Many of the children in this biology class HAD hopes of becoming Physicians. Too bad for them their parents sent them to a religious school. All modern medicine is centered around Evolution.

It is my opinion that we don't have the right to impose our will on those communities that wish to teach ... 'alternative' educations. If that is what the community wants, then they should be able to do that. They should have that freedom. AND, if their education really does stunt their growth, then such communities will never thrive enough to surpass those communities that focus on other things, and social darwinism can run its course. To make the choice to stamp out those things you disagree with IS intolerant, and it WILL lead to violence. It always has, and there is no reason to think it wouldn't in this day (not a 24 hour period) and age.

Having or not having these schools probably isn't going to make much a difference to society in general. Its just that the children in those schools probably won't be as competitive as children taught in schools were Science and Evolution are properly taught - thus making their lives more crap and perpetuating a poor underprivileged class of religious minorities.

Just my point.

 

[SolusCado]

Dawkins has never advocated discrimination, or turning people into atheists. You have to realize, Dawkins was engaged in a debate, not casually meeting some Amish person in his neighborhood, the circumstances are completely different. It's not a "campaign of hate", it's actually just non-believers speaking out. I respect people, not ideas. You can't help being black or something, but you adopt your religion.

My comments were not based on the video clip, but rather on one of his books that I read... "Letters to a Christian Nation" was the title I believe...

 

[SolusCado]

You really don't know him and I doubt that you have read much of his books from what you say. Or you have a bias viewpoint that distorts your view.
I find that, yes, he gets upset at religions for doing the most stupid things this world has seen. But his approach is that of a teacher trying to educate and enlighten those that might choose to listen. To point out, forcefully sometimes, the idiocy of what they themselves put forth.

He wrote "Letters to a Christian Nation" didn't he? Or am I confusing him with another author?

Considering that religions (irrational and pointless beliefs) are responsible for 10's or 100's of millions of deaths over the past 5000 years, it seems to me that he is being terribly tolerant.

I HAVE to insist that it is foolish and naive to believe the religions were the cause and not the tool of the vast majority of religious wars. If they were indeed the cause, the teachings of the religions would support the religious wars, and they almost never were. (Actually, the invasion of the exiled Jews from Egypt into the land of Judah is the only scenario I can recally where any Judeo/Christian religion DID support a war.)

Your 80's colors argument falls short in that they were not responsible the millions of deaths as religions and the religious are. We are talking about leaders that justify all sorts of appalling behavior in the name of their one-and-only god.

See above. Religions are not responsible; they are a tool used to manipulate and motivate others.

He speaks towards rational thought and behavior and if your irrationality does not impact him or others, I'm sure he would say the more power to ya! But most of the time peoples irrational religious belief is not solitary!

KRR

I again refer back to the Amish as an example. History is full of peaceful and non-imposing religious followers. They just don't make as much of a splace as the religious wars and persecutions.

 

[SolusCado]

I have not followed the entire conversation so I'm going to have to ask who you are talking about? Hawking or Dawkins?[/QUTOE]

Sorry, I was being dislexic. I meant Dawkins.

With respect, if you can't even get his name right it's unlikely you've spent much time reading what he has written or following his arguments. As such, I am unsure whether it is really worth wasting much time and effort on the rest of your post.

Perhaps I do have him confused with another author... Who wrote "Letters to a Christian Nation"? That is the one book I read that was absolutely FULL of hate-mongering and rhetoric. Few if any points were logically connected, and it was clear that the author simply hated religion.

However, can you kindly cite a valid reason that we should just sit back and not say anything to these billions of people living in delusion? What valid reason can you assert for not pointing out and arguing reality over ancient superstition? 'Let them live in their delusions' is a statement made by the uncaring.

I suppose my response depends on what delusions you are referring to. It has been pointed out many times over that the presence of a deity, or the lack thereof, cannot be proven either way - so whether anyone has logical reason to believe in one or not is irrelevant; neither side is in a position to "point out reality" - they can merely point out rationality. "Let them live in their delusions" is the epitome of respecting one another's sense of individuality (again, whether it is their unhealthy fast-food eating lifestyle, a hideous wardrobe, or - as you put it - the superstitions they want to believe), it is nonetheless THEIR RIGHT to do so. Teaching alternative points of view is fine, but berating them and treating them like second-class citizens because they do not share your beliefs is little better than the religious condemnation that has preceded this generation for thousands of years. Acting in such a way makes the atheist movement as guilty as the religious ones, and as long as people use it to stir up hate against other groups of people, it will indeed lead to religious wars once more. THIS above all else is why tolerance is what should be getting pushed here, not anti-anything.

What strikes me as extraordinarily inept however is that you would denigrate Dawkins on the basis that he writes a book or makes a video - of which trillions exist - when nobody who wants to persist in their state of delusion is forced to read or watch them, (maybe I'm mistaken, tell me if Dawkins is holding a gun to your head), and yet you label it intolerant.

How do you judge others (in the sense of making a judgement call, not in condemning), except based on the things they say and write? I am NOT comparing him to Hitler, but I am putting forth opinions based on the things he has said and written. How would you suggest I form an opinion about him?

Your own basis of labelling it intolerant negates the ability of anyone to write anything because in doing so it will go against some belief or ideal that some people hold.

Again, the education and teaching of an idea is one thing, but one should be able to present it based on reason and rationality, not based on emotional appeals.

Secondly I must point out error in your statement. Tolerance is not key to peace. You made no distinction, you just demanded tolerance - in which case we should be "tolerant" of paedophiles, nazis and so on.

It is so tiring and such a red herring to bring that up. I am not and have never suggested that people be tolerant of such behavior. To try to suggest that is what I am saying is to avoid the real conversation in an attempt to once again make emotional appeals. If you really do require that extreme of specificity on my part, let me make the statement as clear as possible: "Insomuch as an individual is not imposing his will on another, so too does no one have a right to impose their will on the former." So, a pedophile is imposing his will on the child - not right. Nazism in and of itself - insomuch as it being an attitude and series of ideas - actually SHOULD be allowed, as long as no violence or other imposition of will is executed against another. It is easy to tolerate those who share your views. True tolerance is accepting those who don't.

The amusing thing is that your version of 'tolerance' means that nobody can argue against your theist beliefs whilst you can go about being intolerant to anyone that attempts it. It seems your version of "tolerant" is entirely one-sided.

Far from it, and at this point I suspect you only read a single post and are reacting to it. Those who have conversed with me on this forum know that this statement does not apply to me. I am intolerant of intolerance, and that is about it.

If, as you claim, tolerance is key to peace, then kindly be tolerant of Dawkins and other atheists who denigrate, argue or debate your beliefs. Where is your tolerance now heh?

To reiterate... espousing a position is one thing, stirring up hate in a group in an effort to stamp out the opposition is another.

 

[GeoffP]

To sum the thread up, as described by the OP:

Richard Dawkins is a breather - just like Hitler. But not like Hitler. But he breathed, much as Hitler did.

 

[spidergoat]

My comments were not based on the video clip, but rather on one of his books that I read... "Letters to a Christian Nation" was the title I believe...

Sam Harris, not Richard Dawkins.

 

[quadraphonics]

The real question, as I see it, is why Richard Dawkins is witholding the brain-transplant technology that he used to implant Hitler's frozen brain into his own skull.

 

[GeoffP]

Don't be silly; it's a well known fact that he could only get Goering's.

 

[Bells]

The real question, as I see it, is why Richard Dawkins is witholding the brain-transplant technology that he used to implant Hitler's frozen brain into his own skull.

He must have used the same technology that was used to transplant fully functioning human brains into mice, a la Christine O'Donnell.

 

[iceaura]

. Who wrote "Letters to a Christian Nation"? That is the one book I read that was absolutely FULL of hate-mongering and rhetoric. Few if any points were logically connected, and it was clear that the author simply hated religion.

It wasn't that bad - it was actually pretty reasonable, considering the debate it was in. Sam Harris is taking on the US Bible Belt, there - home of the KKK and the Tea Party and the team prayer before football games, the lynch mob and the segregated school and the pledge to "under God", the plantation heritage and the chain gang and the revival tent, the death penalty and the honor culture and the sundown town.

And Richard Dawkins's books, which are quite different, are even more reasonable and tolerant. You might want to read a couple of them, before assigning to him the kind of character flaws you seem to think inevitably accompany - or even lie behind - serious and motivated objections to the institutionalized Abrahamic theisms.