The Dawkins criticism page

[brooksieb]

(no editing has been done here, i just said what was coming out of my mind)
(thread could and will definately change as i know it's not professional to do this)

I really don't understand why this extremist is famous, if he was a religious person he would get called so in a tabloid or online, which is unfair, when alot of people are trying to get on with their' lives and he comes along to upset the balance, (or what is left of it) he is very biased and almost definitely has something against christianity, i would like to know what his childhood was like or if there was any contributing factors that made him have a grudge against religion (christianity especially), he complains against christianity being a brutal religion? Is it really? Maybe it was in the times of Darwin, but not anymore, if it was such a brutal religion they would of had his head on a pike ages ago (and that never even happened in Darwin's time), can he try and resolve something that actually needs resolving? Like radical Islam for example.

I my self am a practising christian (C of E to be precise), i have been for over 40 years and is not considering of converting anytime soon, i believe in Evolution (the only difference is god evolved all the living things in this universe), yet Dawkins believes religion and faith can't co-exist, well guess what? they can in my mind and i'm not going to let this extremist tell me otherwise, i can do what i want with my life.

[Frigidus]

Yes! Thank you brooksie, we needed a good thread like this. I would agree that Dawkins is an athiest extremist, if only in the sense that your average athiest simply doesn't deal with religion, while Dawkins is rather vocal on the topic.

I personally don't see a problem with religion, only with people who are religious. When passive, religion can be (sort of) charming. The more religious someone is, it seems, the more of an impact they have on those around them. To see what I mean, listen to the proponents of intelligent design, watch Jesus Camp, or read some Qutb (one of the main inspirations for the modern Jihadists). Note that all these examples deal with the intermingling of government and religion (even Jesus Camp, there isn't much mystery as to those poor kids future party affiliation). I can see where Dawkins comes from, but I don't blame an overarching philosophy for the crazies that happen to follow it.

[Backglass]

I really don't understand why this extremist is famous

I really don't understand why a religious extremist like Jerry Falwell is famous.

alot of people are trying to get on with their' lives and he comes along to upset the balance

Huh? How is he upsetting the balance?

i would like to know what his childhood was like or if there was any contributing factors that made him have a grudge against religion (christianity especially)

It always falls back to the "you must be deeply unhappy" trip, simply because one doesn't believe the fairy tales. Maybe he had a FANTASTIC childhood free of rituals, which is why he finds them so bizarre?

he complains against christianity being a brutal religion? Is it really? Maybe it was in the times of Darwin, but not anymore, if it was such a brutal religion they would of had his head on a pike ages ago (and that never even happened in Darwin's time), can he try and resolve something that actually needs resolving? Like radical Islam for example.

An atheist doesn't believe in ANY gods. Don't worry... I am sure Mr. Dawkin's feels just as strongly about Islam.

Dawkins believes religion and faith can't co-exist, well guess what? they can in my mind and i'm not going to let this extremist tell me otherwise, i can do what i want with my life.

Of course you can. You can worship little orange monkeys if you want. How exactly is this man keeping you from your chosen religion? By expressing his opinion?

I always find it funny when the ultra-religious start yelling "extremist".

[heavycola]

Hmm.
Atheism doesn't really have sects or creeds the way religion does. Atheists just don't believe in gods or supernatural beings. And i think that makes them less inclined to be as passionate about their atheism as, say, abu hamza is about his version of islam.
And so you're right; Dawkins isn't passionately atheist - and i'm not sure what that would even entail - he is passionately anti-religious. But that's not extreme. if anyone is goign to argue that we don't need religion anymore, and that we can all live moral, helpful, peaceful lives without it, it needs to be a very clever atheist who loves arguing. That's why he's brilliant. BUt he argues, that's all. He doesn't condemn people to hell, or bomb abortion clinics, or pray for apocalypse.
I <3 richard dawkins but I <3 daniel dennett more.

[jiminski]

Hmm.
Atheism doesn't really have sects or creeds the way religion does. Atheists just don't believe in gods or supernatural beings. And i think that makes them less inclined to be as passionate about their atheism as, say, abu hamza is about his version of islam.
And so you're right; Dawkins isn't passionately atheist - and i'm not sure what that would even entail - he is passionately anti-religious. But that's not extreme. if anyone is goign to argue that we don't need religion anymore, and that we can all live moral, helpful, peaceful lives without it, it needs to be a very clever atheist who loves arguing. That's why he's brilliant. BUt he argues, that's all. He doesn't condemn people to hell, or bomb abortion clinics, or pray for apocalypse.
I <3 richard dawkins but I <3 daniel dennett more.

I do agree with you HC but i did find his position and tone* to be the antithesis of religion. I found his absolute faith in the truth of Science to be unscientific actually. His complete contempt for religion and utter belief in Science was anti-religious and as such teetered on being religious; simply swapping one unyielding dogma for a more intellectually viable one.

I agree with many of his tenets but i also see that his latest full-blooded, uncompromising style weakens his case.


*in his latest series of programmes

[pimpdave]

I haven't paid much attention to Dawkins/Falwell, but he strikes me as the type to need attention twenty four hours a day.

He's found a drum to beat that will get everyone to look at him and the faces he makes and the words he makes come out of his mouth and then he feels happy because people are paying attention to him.

Maybe if he had just learned how to share his toys on the playground, he wouldn't feel like being such a jackass.

[heavycola]

Hmm.
Atheism doesn't really have sects or creeds the way religion does. Atheists just don't believe in gods or supernatural beings. And i think that makes them less inclined to be as passionate about their atheism as, say, abu hamza is about his version of islam.
And so you're right; Dawkins isn't passionately atheist - and i'm not sure what that would even entail - he is passionately anti-religious. But that's not extreme. if anyone is goign to argue that we don't need religion anymore, and that we can all live moral, helpful, peaceful lives without it, it needs to be a very clever atheist who loves arguing. That's why he's brilliant. BUt he argues, that's all. He doesn't condemn people to hell, or bomb abortion clinics, or pray for apocalypse.
I <3 richard dawkins but I <3 daniel dennett more.

I do agree with you HC but i did find his position and tone* to be the antithesis of religion. I found his absolute faith in the truth of Science to be unscientific actually. His complete contempt for religion and utter belief in Science was anti-religious and as such teetered on being religious; simply swapping one unyielding dogma for a more intellectually viable one.

I agree with many of his tenets but i also see that his latest full-blooded, uncompromising style weakens his case.


*in his latest series of programmes

I hear you brother. Just been having a think on this...

Adopting a religion means adopting a moral stance on certain issues. God wants us to behave in a certain way. If you are Muslim, then not fasting during Ramadan is immoral, for example.
Atheism, of course, has no shared moral code - but does that mean that atheists shouldn't take their own moral stance on religion itself?
Just because I don't believe in gods doesn't mean I feel morally neutral about religion. In fact, as Dawkins and Dennett have said, there is a case to be made that kicking your moral responsibilities upstairs to god or allah or whatever, instead of making decisions according to your own moral compass, or to the context of a situation, is itself immoral!
So I like Dawkins for taking a stance on this, and for arguing so loudly and uncompromisingly, even if he is insufferable at times. Being atheist doesn't mean we can ignore our responsibilities as moral agents, particularly if we find religion itself to be immoral.

I don't agree that he is blinded by science, either. In The God Delusion he wrote something like: 'I am agnostic about god, in the same way as I am agnostic about the fairies at the bottom of my garden'. That is the approach of a rational, not a blinded, man. Look at the argument about the atheist bus- do they write 'probably' or 'almost certainly'? Note that no one, not even rabid atheist RD, argued for 'there is no god'.

already approaching tl;dr territory i fear

[jiminski]

Sorry HC, I do hate these tiresome lists of definitions but if you look through it really is not much of a stretch to place the title of 'Religious' onto Dawkins. Indeed his zealous stance almost invites it.

6 dictionary results for: religion
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
re·li·gion /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-lij-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

As i say, i agree with Dawkins on most things, just not his unwavering pursuit of the labelling of 'Deity' based faith as contemptible.
Also his proposition that evolution is unchallengeable (even if we may believe it to be) is unscientific. The greatest and sturdiest scientific principle and comprehension is that every scientific fact will inevitably be undermined and disproved.

[john9blue]

Dawkins sort of pisses me off... I don't know the man himself, but it gives atheists more fuel for their "logic proves there is no God" argument. Just because someone's a leading biologist doesn't mean they can't be a closed-minded douche.

Which is more fantastical: God bringing the first atoms into existence, or the first atoms saying, "hey guys, let's start making molecules now!"?

Atheism requires just as big of a leap of faith as theism does.

The previous sentence can be used to refute any of Backglass' posts and his entire foundation for atheism, by the way. Also, I found it funny that he called Dawkins "Mr. Dawkin's".

[jiminski]

Dawkins sort of pisses me off... I don't know the man himself, but it gives atheists more fuel for their "logic proves there is no God" argument. Just because someone's a leading biologist doesn't mean they can't be a closed-minded douche.

Which is more fantastical: God bringing the first atoms into existence, or the first atoms saying, "hey guys, let's start making molecules now!"?

Atheism requires just as big of a leap of faith as theism does.

The previous sentence can be used to refute any of Backglass' posts and his entire foundation for atheism, by the way. Also, I found it funny that he called Dawkins "Mr. Dawkin's".

well i disagree with most of that too to be honest, John. I am in accord with most of Dawkins conclusions, i just feel he weakens his position by facing Religious Zealots as a Scientific Zealot. If we take that route we almost inevitably will end up with Science as a Religion which merely replaces older Myth based Religions.

[heavycola]

jim to be fair to ol' dicky, he's never said evolution is unchallengeable - anyone as wedded to science and scientific method as he is would be unable logically to do so.
Therein lies the basic difference between an unshakeable belief in god and one in science - belief in science means being willing to accept better ideas and models as they come along. Religion brooks no such flexibility. Which is part of the reason why it can be so dangerous.

[jiminski]

jim to be fair to ol' dicky, he's never said evolution is unchallengeable - anyone as wedded to science and scientific method as he is would be unable logically to do so.
Therein lies the basic difference between an unshakeable belief in god and one in science - belief in science means being willing to accept better ideas and models as they come along. Religion brooks no such flexibility. Which is part of the reason why it can be so dangerous.

exactly HC .. did you watch the latest series on Religion? In a discussion with an American Creationist he did pretty much exactly that mate. That is where i coming from, for the precise reason you give above.. he should indeed be a better Scientist than that.

[Zeppflyer]

In fact, as Dawkins and Dennett have said, there is a case to be made that kicking your moral responsibilities upstairs to god or allah or whatever, instead of making decisions according to your own moral compass, or to the context of a situation, is itself immoral!

This argument is flawed. As a religious person (Roman Catholic), I do not abrogate my moral decision making to God. the Church teaches that He wants us to be informed and thinking creatures who come to Him of their own volition, not mindless drones.

When an atheist is making an important moral judgement he would, I assume, take the principles that he has accepted as true from his family, his society, persons whose opinion he respects, his own observations, etc. and apply them to the situation. He would think the situation through to decide what course of action will best attain what he sees as the good. He may consult friends whose opinion he respects or the works of various thinkers, but the decision is still his own.

The theist's thought process is no different. Simply the source material changes. I think and believe God to be the source of truth and morality and the Bible and teachings of the Church to be the best representations of Him. I take these basic tenents and apply them to the decision at hand. I may consult friends, works of Church scholars, the Bible, or ask for guidance from God Himself, but I the decision is still mine. I am responsible for my actions to myself, my fellow man, and my God.

[Zeppflyer]

To see what I mean, listen to the proponents of intelligent design, watch Jesus Camp, or read some Qutb (one of the main inspirations for the modern Jihadists

I forget where I read it, but the quote that "Jesus Camp is as good a picture of the Evangelical movement as 'Nacho Libre' is of Catholicism." sticks in my head.

[jiminski]

hah you have got to see this Dawkins Clip .. not very long but watch to the end.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik

[brooksieb]

Hmm.
Atheism doesn't really have sects or creeds the way religion does. Atheists just don't believe in gods or supernatural beings. And i think that makes them less inclined to be as passionate about their atheism as, say, abu hamza is about his version of islam.
And so you're right; Dawkins isn't passionately atheist - and i'm not sure what that would even entail - he is passionately anti-religious. But that's not extreme. if anyone is goign to argue that we don't need religion anymore, and that we can all live moral, helpful, peaceful lives without it, it needs to be a very clever atheist who loves arguing. That's why he's brilliant. BUt he argues, that's all. He doesn't condemn people to hell, or bomb abortion clinics, or pray for apocalypse.
I <3 richard dawkins but I <3 daniel dennett more.

I'm pretty sure if the State was lawless and he had a band of merry men i'm pretty sure he would be bombing churches and looting them, the same way the religious lunatics conduct their' methods of doing that. You can't trust people 100% of people just because of their' beliefs or lifestyles, even if you didn't mean that, i'm just saying to the rest of people who might believe that.

[brooksieb]

I really don't understand why this extremist is famous

I really don't understand why a religious extremist like Jerry Falwell is famous.

alot of people are trying to get on with their' lives and he comes along to upset the balance

Huh? How is he upsetting the balance?

i would like to know what his childhood was like or if there was any contributing factors that made him have a grudge against religion (christianity especially)

It always falls back to the "you must be deeply unhappy" trip, simply because one doesn't believe the fairy tales. Maybe he had a FANTASTIC childhood free of rituals, which is why he finds them so bizarre?

he complains against christianity being a brutal religion? Is it really? Maybe it was in the times of Darwin, but not anymore, if it was such a brutal religion they would of had his head on a pike ages ago (and that never even happened in Darwin's time), can he try and resolve something that actually needs resolving? Like radical Islam for example.

An atheist doesn't believe in ANY gods. Don't worry... I am sure Mr. Dawkin's feels just as strongly about Islam.

Dawkins believes religion and faith can't co-exist, well guess what? they can in my mind and i'm not going to let this extremist tell me otherwise, i can do what i want with my life.

Of course you can. You can worship little orange monkeys if you want. How exactly is this man keeping you from your chosen religion? By expressing his opinion?

I always find it funny when the ultra-religious start yelling "extremist".

I know, this is why all extremists should not be given a chance to preach and we should put a cap on it by not responding to their' needs.

By angering other extremists who could potentially feel threatened by what he is saying, who will eventually give reasons for other extremists to argue and rant about how there' belief is right when all sides say it is only a belief and not fact.

Maybe he could of, but unfortunately for you he was not, he started believing god was false at 9 years old (which is absolutely fine with me) but i would like to know what other things contributed to his prejudice stances of religion, especially christianity which he seems to absolutely dispise and think all christians and religious people are all the same savage people.

I know a athiest does not believe in any god, oh, and if Mr Dawkins feels so strongly about islam why can't he confront it like christianity? Is he scared?

I don't believe in little orange monkeys thank you very much. He is trying to convert me away from my religion, which i don't find very polite because it is my choice, i know, alot of christians are like that when they try to convert people to their' religion (which i find is very rude, people should find their' own faith and beliefs by themselves) but if you find this offensive, i recommend you f*ck off (as dawkins said), so we must put a cap on all of these lunatics.

And i'm not ultra religious thank you very much, just because i have suited myself to a faith for a long time does not mean i'm a extremist, if you mean it that way Dawkins must be a uber extremist, how rude.

[Simon Viavant]

I'm pretty sure if the State was lawless and he had a band of merry men i'm pretty sure he would be bombing churches and looting them, the same way the religious lunatics conduct their' methods of doing that. You can't trust people 100% of people just because of their' beliefs or lifestyles, even if you didn't mean that, i'm just saying to the rest of people who might believe that.

This is the part where this thread loses all credibility.

[brooksieb]

The thread loosing credibility? Do most of these threads have any credibility to begin with?

[pimpdave]

The thread loosing credibility? Do most of these threads have any credibility to begin with?

This one is completely credible:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=67395

[Iliad]

Dawkins sort of pisses me off... I don't know the man himself, but it gives atheists more fuel for their "logic proves there is no God" argument. Just because someone's a leading biologist doesn't mean they can't be a closed-minded douche.

Which is more fantastical: God bringing the first atoms into existence, or the first atoms saying, "hey guys, let's start making molecules now!"?

Atheism requires just as big of a leap of faith as theism does.

The previous sentence can be used to refute any of Backglass' posts and his entire foundation for atheism, by the way. Also, I found it funny that he called Dawkins "Mr. Dawkin's".

Just because Science has explained a lot about us, but not completely everything is not a reason to believe in talking snakes.

Yes not everything is explained. But this is Science. It will never be. Each answer will only give us two more questions. We have progressed a lot from say a thousand years ago, but Science, unlike religions, changes. That's the whole point of it. Testing and changing.

[Frigidus]

To see what I mean, listen to the proponents of intelligent design, watch Jesus Camp, or read some Qutb (one of the main inspirations for the modern Jihadists

I forget where I read it, but the quote that "Jesus Camp is as good a picture of the Evangelical movement as 'Nacho Libre' is of Catholicism." sticks in my head.

Naturally. In the same sense, Qutb is nothing like your average Muslim. My point had been that these extremely religious people are having a negative effect on their world.

The more religious someone is, it seems, the more of an impact they have on those around them.

In the Middle Ages the extremely religious would join an abbey. In more recent time (in America at least) they get involved with politics.

[Iliad]

The more religious someone is, it seems, the more of an impact they have on those around them.

In the Middle Ages the extremely religious would join an abbey. In more recent time (in America at least) they get involved with politics.

You enjoy those conversations with yourself?

[john9blue]

Just because Science has explained a lot about us, but not completely everything is not a reason to believe in talking snakes.

Yes not everything is explained. But this is Science. It will never be. Each answer will only give us two more questions. We have progressed a lot from say a thousand years ago, but Science, unlike religions, changes. That's the whole point of it. Testing and changing.

It really depends on one's viewpoint... whether you think that mankind can know all or it can't. Agree to disagree, I guess.

And religions sure do change... not their basic beliefs, obviously, but their interactions with the world around them. Churches will change as times change... partially out of necessity, partially to make sure that they remain popular.

[Iliad]

Just because Science has explained a lot about us, but not completely everything is not a reason to believe in talking snakes.

Yes not everything is explained. But this is Science. It will never be. Each answer will only give us two more questions. We have progressed a lot from say a thousand years ago, but Science, unlike religions, changes. That's the whole point of it. Testing and changing.

It really depends on one's viewpoint... whether you think that mankind can know all or it can't. Agree to disagree, I guess.

And religions sure do change... not their basic beliefs, obviously, but their interactions with the world around them. Churches will change as times change... partially out of necessity, partially to make sure that they remain popular.

However, your entire point was "Science hasn't explained this therefore it is all wrong and religion is right"

"God did it" should never be used as an answer. If we do not know something that does not mean religion can come in, claiming to know everything, it means we have to find out. We probably won't find out in our lifetime. Probably not even in the next hundred years. But the answer to that question will be answered, only giving us more questions on the way.