If you'd like to see Richard Dawkins as a guest on the Oprah Winfrey Show:

Please see this link: http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45562

Thank you.

Thank God I work during the day.

He's just an atheist that actually talk about being an atheist. Do you call everyone that ever talks about their religion an evangelical?

He lectures on and on about the stupidity and naivete of those who believe in any sort of higher power. He talks about the hypocrisy -- or worse -- of any scientist who is open minded about the possibility of the existence of God. Hell, he even condemns agnostics.

He's a blowhard and annoying as hell. There is nor was no human who ever was as intelligent as he thinks he is.

;)

Nor did I ever encounter one. Now I feel like a friggin' expert.

That makes him evangelical?

SO when one writes a book that we should get out of the war, and then go on shows to talk about their book and reasoning for getting out of the war, and perhaps even go so far as to say that those who support the war are *gasp* wrong, you would refer to them as an evangelical?

Or is it just those that question religion that get that term from you?

Have you read any of his work?

He does more than state the foundation of his non-beliefs. He challenges others for believing anything and even ridicules them. I have not read any of his work because I don't find him compelling; I have, however, listened to at least 4 hours of his discussion and debates with others. Within those 4 hours, he has spent at least 25% of his time pronouncing the rightness of his belief and the total wrongness of any notion that God or gods might possibly exist.

And, with regard to this question:


No, I'd call them an activist. I reserve my use of the term "evangelical" to those involved in discussions of religion.

Please refrain from attempting to criticize the man until you've at least familiarized yourself with his work.

And since when is it illegal to challenge others? That's what free speech is all about. You do not have the right not to be criticized, or not to be offended.

If you disagree with his points, refute them. Otherwise, ignore him, atheists, and this thread.

By the way, unlike some of you, I've actually read his scholarly (i.e., not anti-religious) work. He's a brilliant scientist.

He simply got bored.

(Lucy -- I never said he was wrong. I said he's arrogant and he evangelizes. Period. I don't have to like him, nor do I have to justify these opinions.)

That's why most people write books and go on TV shows.

I don't get the "arrogant" vibe from him AT ALL, and have never understood why people react that way, unless it is just because to criticize religion at all in taboo. He calls a spade a spade, but politely. He never resorts to ad hominem attacks, for instance, or rants and raves. Christopher Hitchens is a different animal - he does strike me as arrogant. But I still like him, cause he's so damn entertaining.

and you're it. COngratulations. :toast:

I thought you were going to say I was the perfect example of shitty new posters. So, thanks.

That makes someone arrogant by default. ;-)

much like activist. I kind of doubt that.

I think you have problems with atheists that are vocal.

Read one of his books. You might find something that makes you think.

I find him pompous and boring.

And, yeah, I have a problem with vocal atheists. I could never understand why someone who is devoid of a particular belief needs to spends hours (or a career) ridiculing those who hold religious beliefs. The beliefs themselves are not a threat to anyone.

And that statement is why you should read The God Delusion.

:)

How many atheists have been killed by the religiously insane over the centuries? Religion has been responsible for more deaths than just about anything else.

I loved the God Delusion. He makes a good case, as does Christopher Hitchens, although I don't think the Hitchens book is as well written.

if we lived in a world where the religious beliefs of those that hold them never bothered me. But we don't, in case you haven't noticed. The only reason for banning gay marriage is religious. Abortion, too. But we shouldn't talk about how those beliefs are not valid, somehow.

And you didn't even mention evolution.

But how many millions of people embrace religious beliefs without even expressing them publicly and would never think of legislating them?

It's not the religion or the tenets, it's the people. Converting them to atheism would simply transfer the problem -- suddenly we'd have people trying to pass legislation outlawing religious expressions in public, removing references to God from everything, and suing those organizations that include religion as part of their functions. Oh, wait. That's happening already.

See the problem?

"I could never understand why someone who is devoid of a particular belief needs to spends hours (or a career) ridiculing those who hold religious beliefs. The beliefs themselves are not a threat to anyone."

This is where you and I part ways, and I suspect is the reason I like Dawkins and you don't. For me, religious belief is antithetical to a rational, logical approach to solving the world's problems. Religion and it's devotees are an obstacle to social and scientific progress, not merely irrelevancies to be ignored.

I can understand going after folks like John Hagee and such, but why do athiests here spend so much time berating DU religious members? Is it a conversion thing?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Your beliefs are not sacrosanct to the rest of us. I will die to defend your right to believe in fairy tales, but don't expect me to sit quietly by while you spout them in a public forum. Sorry.

Unlike evangelical Christian bullies, I don't want you to burn in hell.

But I don't understand the open hostility to everyone who embraces religion. It's a form of intolerance that I find truly amazing.

because religion has, for so long, gotten away with claiming special status as an unassailable subject.

But, yes, I AM hostile to religious ideas. Such as stoning women for adultery, killing homosexuals and shellfish eaters, suicide bombings against infidels, unquestioning acceptance of arbitrary and unearned authority, abusive dominion over the environment, attacks on science, etc., etc., etc. ad nauseum.

If you or anyone else want to be religious, please do so. As I already said, I am willing to fight and die for your right to do that. But don't expect me to "respect" totally irrational and anti-human ideas. I will continue to challenge them in every venue. If they cannot be defended in a debate, just like any other ideas, perhaps they should rightfully be abandoned?

This country was populated over disputes concerning religion. The freedom to pursue (or not pursue) religion is part of this country's Constitution. I haven't practiced religion for 40 years, and nobody I know cares in the least.

You're trying to convince me that you suffer some sort of persecution for your non-religious beliefs?

Holy shit.

Have fun tilting at windmills and shouting at clouds. Personally, I am comfortable with allowing people to work out their own salvation (or not) in peace.

If not, you have no idea about being persecuted for your non-religious beliefs. I daresay there are plenty of people here who can tell you lots of stories about being persecuted for being atheists in America.

This country was also populated by people importing human slaves to literally build it - and your point is?

If you're comfortable leaving other people in peace, why are you still commenting in this thread that you don't care about?

So, since you personally have never witnessed a phenomenon, then it has never occurred. Thank you for explaining logic to us, O Wise One.

any Christian person who would want or presume that an atheist would end up in Hell. (I may know OF some of them, but they aren't the majority. Nor are they posters here at DU.)

I just want you to know that not all Christians are monolithic and wishing Hellfire on any non-believer.

of fire?

As far as I can tell, liberal Christians believe in a different Jesus than the one in the Bible.

I DO NOT have to "respect" anyone's religious beliefs. EVER. So-called "honest people of faith" tolerate the religiously insane. They do not condemn strongly enough those fundamentalists that are responsible for the deaths of thousands at their hands. For starters, there are the religiously insane people responsible for 9/11. But the Christians and Jews are not immune to the same charges. The Crusades for starters. Fundamentalists of all stripes are dangerous and need to be expelled and roundly condemned by their fellow travelers.

The truth matters. Facts matter. No one should expect to invoke their religious beliefs as part of an argument for anything while simultaneously expecting others to not take a critical view of those beliefs.

I don't want ANYONE to STFU. What I do expect is that any discourse on issues confine itself to reason and rationality and not require leaps of faith to justify a given position. "Because the bible tells me so" has no place in modern debate.

I don't have a problem with religion provided that the religious don't try to legislate their beliefs and discriminate against those that believe differently.

Personally I blow off steam here because everything in America and especially in my area is steeped in religion. Discrimination against open atheists is real.

Anyway if a religion is true then the followers wouldn't fear critical questioning and examination. All religions discourage any sort of real inquiry simply because none of them hold up to scrunity. Don't kill the messenger if there is no evidence to support your beliefs.

Fundie Christianity only succeeded in this country because the more liberal branch enabled them by keeping quiet. Perhaps if you and other liberal Christians spent more time and energy against fundie Christianity, the religion as a whole wouldn't be so tarnished.

I feel very unwelcome here, sometimes, because I'm a progressive christian. The bullying needs to stop, and the "discussions" limited to certain boards, imo. I'd be very happy to support that financially.

'the "discussions" limited to certain boards'

?????

Really - you really mean that? Religion is the one thing we're not allowed to discuss in the "general" forum?

Huh.

If you post something here just about sports, it will be moved.
If you post something just about the primaries, it will be moved.
If you post something about 9/11 conspiracies, it will be moved.
If you post something about Israel/Palestine, it will be moved.


It's about order, so climb out of your victimhood.

I was just making a statement - I am the least victim-hood obsessed person you will meet, thankyouverymuch.

I don't feel victimized. I just disagree with the rules. But I guess that's not allowed.

But the relentless belittling of religion does not make one feel welcome.

I have friends I would be embarrassed to send here, and they are quite progressive. Who wants to put up with the HATE that is spouted around here?

I will not tolerate ignorance, however.

I will point it out. I expect others to do the same. We do it about public policy - why not about this? Why can you not make legitimate criticisms of religion without theists taking it personally? I don't hate any theists, or think they should not be allowed to practice whatever they want, or think they're all stupid. I think they're wrong.

I guess 'the worlds problems' are caused by people and not what they believe...

Tired argument. So, so tired.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1779,Hitler-Stalin-Mao-etc-were-atheists-and-they-were-terrible--Answer-that,RichardDawkinsnet

Start a thread to debate Pol-Pot and his areligiosity's effect on his policies elsewhere.

fact is its people that cause problems not religions...

You think Americans and Iraqi's are dying over their because of religion of the fact people in power want them to? today were fighting for 'democracy' great rally cry..

"The Khmer Rouge also classified by religion and ethnic group. They abolished all religion and dispersed minority groups, forbidding them to speak their languages or to practice their customs."

They did not do this in the name of God (or Gods) they did this for power, pure and simple... how many did Mao kill? Stalin? the fact is if tomorrow everyone on the planet woke up an atheist it would not decrease by *1* the number of people who would die in wars, famine, and plagues cause by the greed of man.

I dont need to show that *x* monster was non religious I only need to show that *y* monster was non religious, you can bring as many monsters as you wish and my point stands. greed of man not belief in God that causes problems..

The actions of totalitarians have far more in common with religious, rather than secular values.

Do not question the leader, submit unthinkingly, ethics are what the authority says they are, or else. There is no external moral benchmark.

These are the catchphrases of totalitarians through the ages. In the religious context the leader is God, the authority is the Bible and the "or else" the Inquisition. In a secular context the leader may be Hitler, the authority "Main Kampf" and the "or else" the Gestapo.

The root problem, is that Dogma and Ideology which must be obeyed without question, lead inevitably to horrors. The precedents, both religious and secular are legion. Religion is merely a subset of the primary concept. The antidote, is genuine free thought, skepticism and critical thinking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmsis-motuY

* * * * *

That's it; I'm not wasting any more of my time talking to someone who is so illogical and filled with irrational prejudice.

show that totalitarian actions have little if nothing to do with a religious belief but underlying human barbarity..

That's just a poor argument. Simply because one (or several, to head off that argument) totalitarian leader committed atrocities without invoking religion does not mean that others do not.

I just need to show religious leaders who do not right?

All of the world's problems are not caused by people of any particular belief system. That doesn't validate every possible approach to solving them.

the tired argument that 'religion' causes pain is nonsense... human greed be it from someone who is a muslim, chrisitan, or atheist, is what causes pain..

Religious belief almost universally places those who believe as it teaches above those who do not. That is the mechanism by which groups of people who fervently believe in some deity justify their callous disregard for those who do not. It is this mechanism that allows religion to serve as a partial justification for carrying out acts that would otherwise be viewed as atrocities.

Islamic fundamentalists truly believe themselves to be moral people. And yet, so many of them are able to carry out, or at a minimum disregard others who do, acts of violence against those who are not Islamic. Christian fundamentalists do the same (see: abortion clinics, etc.).

Religion by it's very nature divides people. The United States is full of people who honestly aren't too troubled by the numbers of people we have killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Part of the reason for that is that difference in religious belief. If, instead of worshiping mysterious deities that no one can see, we all devoted the same passion to love of our fellow man, do you really believe the world would be as violent as it is?

"Religious belief almost universally places those who believe as it teaches above those who do not. "

that more than one post on this thread and others like it on du put athiest as superior to the moronic mind wiped violent people who are theist..

Humans are at their base instinct greedy, violent, and self important (hence the need for government)

"Religion by it's very nature divides people. "

No, people by their nature divide some have just used religion as a tool for that..

"The United States is full of people who honestly aren't too troubled by the numbers of people we have killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Part"

Nor did they care how many Germans (many of whom were Christian) were killed in WW2.... Im waiting for a point....

"If, instead of worshiping mysterious deities that no one can see, we all devoted the same passion to love of our fellow man, do you really believe the world would be as violent as it is?"

ahh thats a false paradigm the implication is that loving our fellow man is

1) A trait that can not happen in a theist life
2) Will happen in a atheist life automatically

Obviously someone can be a selfish, greedy violent atheist (see pol-pot) so the remaining question is can a religious person devote love to their fellow man for which I can present mother teresa... Therefore the question is should we do more to love our fellow man regardless of their belief system to which the answer is undoubtedly yes..

More people have died at the hands of the religious than the non-religious.

I am including the Crusades and all that but also the Catholic Church's ban on condoms has been responsible for the deaths of millions due to AIDS, to dying in childbirth and many other causes. Far more evil than Pol Pot is the Catholic Church, which is relatively mainstream. They collaborated with the Nazis, resulting in the deaths of untold numbers of Jews and others in WWII.

I could go on but the brainwashed people will always believe the nonsense that atheists are immoral, when in fact they are usually more moral, more law-abiding than your average Christian. I mean, how many religious people (Jimmy Swaggert, Ted Haggard, Jim Bakker) have paraded across our TV screens after after having affairs or embezzling money.

The fact is human greed in all forms in people of all faiths is what causes pain in the world. Lets look at the bloodiest century in human history shall we the 20th where atheism more than held its own (per capita) in causing world pain.

You can enjoy the wonderful smug feeling you get by taking a time when atheism was pretty rare and counting that up to stack the deck but in the century when it rose the most we saw the most blood.

Am I saying Atheism leads to more blood? no... Im saying its human greed that leads to all blood and if its not done in the name of God it will be done in the name of Empire, or democracy but people in power will manipulate those over whom their power exist for the pain of all..

Stalin, Pol-Pot, Mao show what atheist are capable of..

Atheism is just that - lack of believe in a god or gods.

You assert a god; I see no evidence, therefore I decline to share your belief. That's it. There is no atheist dogma, or atheist philosophy.

I daresay many of the tenets of manmade religions do a lot more to encourage greed and bloodshed than the mere absence of belief in Yahweh (or Thor or Iris or...): such as, humans have dominion over the animals and the earth, which leads to factory farming, environmental pollution, etc.; or men have dominion over women, which leads to women being treated as less-human than men, confined, uneducated, treated as sexual chattel.

You can keep all that.

For the purpose of this discussion all you need to do is notice that people who share your beliefs system (there is no God) are just as capable of terrible things as those who share mine (there is a God)

However, and this is a big however, atheists are almost totally unorganized.

We have no church, no dogma, no catechism and most of all NO COLLECTION PLATE.

For the moment play along and pretend you are an atheist who has just moved to a strange town.. How do you go about meeting other atheists?

Most of us have learned the hard way to keep quiet about our lack of belief out in real life, that's one of the reasons some of us tend to be kind of expressive online. Down here in the deep South, being outed as an atheist can get you fired and your property vandalized.

Kind of like being a vocal Democrat, say six years ago..

Either make logical arguments that are winners, and prove your religion is worthy of our legitimate respect, or exercise your right to not participate in this thread, if you find it offensive.

We will not go away.

Someone asked if they moved to a new town how could they meet atheist, I pointed out a way... They were trying to say there is no 'atheist community' built into cities and towns like there is a theist community. If you believe I was asking him to leave then your blinders left you ignorant to the context of the conversation we were having..

Your respect for my religion is pretty irrelevant, honestly if you think thats what Im after you're way off. If pointing out secular atheist who have been brutal dictators and warmongers, suppressors of human rights, genocidal madmen is not enough to show you the common factor in human atrocity is not theism but humanity then youre far beyond reason.

Im not asking you to go away and all the obtuse head in the sand hand wringing in the world is not going to chase me away either..

Because atheism entails no further dogmas or doctrines. It entails no ideology. Just a lack of belief in gods other individuals profess (Yahweh, Ra, Queztocatl, etc.).

Religion, however, is a SYSTEM - and every religion has been used as a license to kill other human beings. There is no such license proceeding from atheism. Atheists can be great humanitarians or cold blooded murderers, yes - but not BECAUSE of atheism. Likewise, some theists are cold blooded murderers for reasons other than their theism - but you cannot deny that religion HAS in fact motivated some people to do harm to others. Not to belabor the obvious, but Al Qaeda would have no recruits without a whole culture of people inculcated from childhood with the idiotic belief that a paradise of 72 virgins awaits martyrs for Islam.

edited for spelling typo

who live alone in the woods *all* humans live within a systems, usually multiple systems. Those systems have doctrines and rules, though only theism has true ideology. If you choose to continue to ignore that all men those of faith and those who are atheist are capabale of great eveil because all men share the same depraved nature your beyond talking with about this.

other atheist on this thread have conceded that its mans nature that causes these issues, not their doctrinal beliefs.

--

BTW Pol-Pots violence was because of his atheism, he believed that his non belief was superior and had to be what others thought so he killed people who had religious beliefs.. Thats right with no religious system at all they managed to recruit people to kill other people...

Link, please?

a"ll men those of faith and those who are atheist are capabale of great evil because all men share the same depraved nature"

This is obvious, though I wouldn't concede the typically Christian idea that "all men share the same depraved nature", as that implies we need some sort of salvation, an idea with which I wholly disagree. Of course there is the potential in every demographic group for great good and great evil. My only point is that atheism cannot by definition DRIVE people to do harm, because it lacks a philosophy, ideology, dogma, or what you will. It is simply the absence of belief in the supernatural. Theism explicitly does drive humans to do harm, particularly its more literalist strains, and particularly the Islamic ones of those.

You are obviously totally missing my point here, as well as continually ignoring grammar and syntax conventions, which makes your points even more obtuse.

The point was that all people save folks who live alone in cabins are part of a system it can be theological or non theological and in any numbers the people in that system can commit heinous acts..

"This is obvious, though I wouldn't concede the typically Christian idea that "all men share the same depraved nature""

So you'll concede that All men are capable of terrible things but not that its our nature? Like I said you don't need God to commit atrocities..

"My only point is that atheism cannot by definition DRIVE people to do harm, because it lacks a philosophy, ideology, dogma, or what you will."

And my point, which you continue to ignore, is you dont need an ideology with a God to do terrible things, I have clear evidence of this. Atheism or the lack of God will *not* cure the violence that people by nature commit.

Can we at least agree on that much?

organized *anything* makes people easy to influence. People act very different when part of a group than when not. Call it the quantum effect of humanity, people in small numbers do not behave like people in large numbers.

I have to keep taking it back to Cambodia ( I know families who had to flee because of their beliefs ) a system which it slef had no God influenced many people to do terrible things that under another system they would not have done.

That atheists are *not* organized by atheism.

Unlike a great many theists.

How does the atheist who's new to town meet other atheists?

How does the theist who's new to town meet other theists?

Do you get it yet?

there are 'atheist' meetups, *clearly* some atheist identify themselves by their lack of belief. Wether this is a function of *our* society or just the natural human tendency to separate out into camps is not proovable either way..

"Atheist meetups" indeed...

I live in small town Georgia, there is a church at the grammar school less than a half mile from my home and probably a dozen churches within two miles, roughly every third car has a fish symbol on it.

I've damn sure never seen anything like an "atheist meetup" here.

I show you a clear way to do it in most towns and suddenly that proves your point?

BTW My wife grew up a non speaking English person in a small MD town, only non white person for miles in any direction so please spare us the 'nobody knows the trouble Ive seen' mantra.. Many people in many communities feel isolate for many different reasons.

Care to let me know what county you're in?

that historically more people have died at the hands of the "religious" than the "non-religious," but I will also say that more people have been "religious" throughout the years.

I don't agree that religion is the cause of the evil. Human nature, greed, desire for power are. Religion has often been used as a tool to control the people, though. But, religion is not the evil. People who use it to get what they want are. People also use nationalism (see the drum beats of Illegal Immigration going on now), ethnicity, and many other societal constructs in much the same way.

Religion is "bad" because it encourages people to cling to "mystery" rather than seek out rational explanations for things. Religion is "bad" because each religion claims to be the whole truth about the universe, and they cannot all logically be true simultaneously - this sets groups of believers against each other and against nonbelievers in the most repulsively self-righteous way, with different groups historically trying to literally force others to their way of thinking. Religion is "bad" because it sets up the "believers" as inherently better than nonsubscribers, and allows them to justify doing all sorts of "bad" things they wouldn't otherwise do (murdering abortion providers, flying planes into buildings). But, mainly, religion is "bad" because it's not true.

Religion is not benign. I do not accept that.

Sam Harris's response to this is one of the best ones: that the Killing Fields, the Gulag and the Holocaust were not the result of societies that became too attached to critical thinking, or too demanding of evidence.

Pol Pot did what he did because of his beliefs. They may not have been religious beliefs, but they were beliefs nonetheless. If he had held different beliefs (that rounding up his opponents and killing them was wrong, for instance) then he would not have done what he did.

Holy crapoli. Ever hear of Ghandi? Martin Luther King, Jr?

And there is no shortage of brilliant scientists who completely believe in God.

You want me to list totalitarian, murderous religious leaders for you?

And who are all these "brilliant scientists" who "completely believe" in your god? (Completely, as opposed to what - 43%?) They are in the extreme minority.

Are your arguments so fundamentally unsound that you have to time and time again resort to some kind of quantitative analysis? My dad is bigger than your dad... Its somewhat pathetic..

You're the one who introduced the totally ridiculous and logically unsound "but... but... Stalin was an atheist!!!" argument into the discussion.

I'll say it again: read this

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1779,Hitler-Stalin-Mao-etc-were-atheists-and-they-were-terrible--Answer-that,RichardDawkinsnet

It was clearly a Proofs by Contradiction and if you were not so hell bent on bashing others you would have seen that.

A proof by contradiction is not quantitative I don't need to count against you I only need to shown that the instance Y does not fit into the equation X to invalidate the equation X. The equation X this time being that its religion that causes pain suffering and war. The introduction of one (let alone three from the 20th century alone) shows that religion is not the common factor..

So a clear thinking rational person would seek out a new common factor but someone who as youve put it is *clinging* to something will fight like mad against logic...

regards..

Strawman! You are trying to tear down an argument I never made.

My point was that atheism does not inherently contain seeds of possible violence, because it does not constitute a belief system.

Religions are belief systems. They lead some people to violence. Not all people; not all violence done by theists is because of their theism - but some is.

I don't cling to anything. Prove to me there is a god, and I'll agree with you. Prove to me that atheists commit atrocities because they do not believe in Yahweh, or Thor, or Mithras, and I'll concede that to you.

Not some lab rat. Collins led the Human Genome Project.

Shocking, eh? Kinda puts your stereotypes right in the toilet, doesn't it?

Now, run along and go tell all your friends about the mean man who doesn't tolerate fools.

You have not pulled a rabbit out of a hat. I know who Francis Collins is. Can you make your points without resorting to personal ridicule? Probably not.

And I agree with Dawkins's thoughts on his brilliance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tRpbkpNpgw

(Is he the only one you can name? My claim stands, in that case. There are FAR, FAR more nontheist scientists than theist ones.)

I expect you're referring to atheists who pick a fight where it wasn't sought, and use more insult than argument. I've seen people do that on both sides, and there's no excuse for plain old boorish behavior, no matter what your view of the universe is.

However, I've also seen the label affixed to atheists for doing no more than offering their honest opinion when asked for it, or for making a logical response to a piece of evangelical sophistry.

Exactly.


Again, we agree.

My only complaint is that Richard Dawkins fits your first comment in every exchange I've seen.

I think you are confusing him with Christopher Hitchens, who routinely uses very sharp ridicule and ad hominem attacks against his opponents. I have never heard Richard Dawkins resort to ad hominem attacks. He has called certain beliefs "silly" or "stupid" - but that's just calling a spade a spade. I have NOT heard him call an opponent stupid or worthy of, say, an eternity spent roasting in hell.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/andrew_brown/2007/10/physician_heal_thyself.html

This is altogether exected behaviour from him.

Midgley's original article: http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/articles/article.php?id=14

Dawkins's response: http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/articles/article.php?id=5

Midgley's rebuttal: http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/articles/article.php?id=15



http://media.richarddawkins.net/documents/2008/Reply_to_Midgley.pdf

Philosophy, Vol. 56, No. 218. (Oct., 1981), pp. 556-573

I have been taken aback by the inexplicable hostility of Mary Midgley's assault.1 Some colleagues have advised me that such transparent spite is best ignored, but others warn that the venomous tone of her article may conceal the errors in its content. Indeed, we are in danger of assuming that nobody would dare to be so rude without taking the elementary precaution of being right in what she said. We may even bend over backwards to concede some of her points, simply in order to appear fair-minded when we deplore the way she made them. I deplore bad manners as strongly as anyone, but more importantly I shall show that Midgley has no good point to make. She seems not to understand biology or the way biologists use language. No doubt my ignorance would be just as obvious if I rushed headlong into her field of expertise, but I would then adopt a more diffident tone. As it is we are both in my corner, and it is hard for me not to regard the gloves as off. I will try to make my reply constructive, in the hope that it may interest those who have not read Midgley's article, as well as those who have. Unattributed quotations with page numbers will all be taken from her article. Since it was my book, The Selfish Gene (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976), which stimulated her attack, it will also be necessary for me to quote from it. I shall divide my reply into eight sections.

(snip)


Where exactly does he resort to these rude, ruthless ad hominem attacks? I think he was right to say that it appears she has not read (much less understood) the book.

What is it with you? Try responding to MY comments instead of some bizarre history or your wild-eyed interpretation.

"My only complaint is that Richard Dawkins fits your first comment in every exchange I've seen."

Which was: "I expect you're referring to atheists who pick a fight where it wasn't sought, and use more insult than argument. I've seen people do that on both sides, and there's no excuse for plain old boorish behavior, no matter what your view of the universe is."

I don't see that from Dawkins. I guess we must disagree. Dawkins comes across, to me, as perhaps TOO polite with thickminded theists.

You're welcome to disagree with them, and I'd be delighted to see you try to refute them, but if you're unaware of them, you're really not in a good position to comment intelligently on his work.

He conveniently ignores every bit of good that was ever done in the name of God and chooses to focus only on the bad.

Generally, the atrocities executed in the name of God or some religion are using religion as a cover for personal gain. Atheists are hardly immune from that -- it's part of being human.

nt

The most relevant example I can think of is the stem cell debate. The spurious Christian notion of the soul is keeping valid, and totally ethical, scientific research from being conducted. This research holds nearly infinite promise to cure genetic conditions and currently untreatable injuries of almost any imagining. It is the squeamishness of Christians that keeps this research from being done. Their (wrong) ideas are hurting an incalculable number of people.

There are plenty of other examples I could point to. You should tell an Iranian or Saudi woman sentenced to death for being raped that religious ideas never hurt anybody. You should tell the thousands of Untouchables slaughtered in the Indian countryside for little of no reason every year that religious ideas never hurt anybody. You should tell all the Palestinians living under the brutal occupation regime fostered partially by the notion of a Jewish homeland written of in the bible that religious ideas never hurt anybody.

He is not trying to convert - merely to explain.

It would take the false persecution complex of a Christian to think he's trying to convert them.

I am fucking sick of religious pandering and religious bullshit EVERYWHERE. God is a delusion and fundamentalist religion is a mental illness, I'm convinced.

Interesting. I've heard the same thing said of liberalism.

Though I don't think most religious folks are walking around insane. They are functioning with cognitive dissonance, if they are educated adults. Talking to an imaginary friend... does seem kind of crazy to me. Extremely religious people, such as nuns who make metaphysical love to Jesus, or suicide bombers who think Allah wants them to murder - yes, they are mentally ill. Functioning religious people seem to me to be more... well, delusional.

Funny how if one person believes in imaginary friends, they're "crazy" - but if a bunch of people believe in it, they're "religious" and, thus, respected. Weird. :eyes:

You've crossed the line of civil discourse into the realm of extreme insult.

I'll not engage you further.

is mentally ill, yes.

Obama is more genuinely spiritual than any candidate in the last thirty years, since Carter I'd say. Now, for someone who doesn't consider that a sign of utter madness, that's a comfort or at worst a non issue. But if you really think that religious people are mentally ill, how can you justify participating in their election to such a critical position without engaging in the exact same cognitive dissonance you think religious people suffer under?

right now instead of his religious beliefs.

But I still stick with my original premise.

That's my "HOPE".

;)

I still find his comment offensive.

He's got a position, and he can argue it very well. We wouldn't castigate someone for arguing any other point about the universe with logic and evidence-- why is rational discussion of this topic so taboo?

So religious people demand their opinions be exempt from criticism.

Not anymore.

Anyone who puts their opinion on a public forum (including legislation) are subject to criticism, logical dismemberment, and ridicule. However, crashing around radio and television picking fights with no one in particular while pushing another agenda is pure evangelism.

That statement was grammatically ill-constructed.

But it does seem that, since you say, "Anyone who puts their opinion on a public forum (including legislation) are subject to criticism, logical dismemberment, and ridicule," I can criticize, logically dismember, and ridicule religion in this public forum, no?

Which leaves me wondering, again - what's your beef, exactly?

Go to hell. Oh, wait... you don't believe in hell.

Never mind.

Thanks for playing.

I would never tell you to go to hell, whether I believed in it or not. Now THAT is rude.

Like she'd ever have him on her show.

He needs to go on a more intelligent show.

nt

much better to just watch this....

The Root of All Evil? Part 1: The God Delusion. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9002284641446868316

Which is why I think he should be on her show. This is a timely topic, and I think she's missing out on some good TV.

I was thinking "Why does DU care if the Family Feud guy is on Oprah?"

Then, I saw the actual name.

This thread is explicitly for people who WANT to see Professor Dawkins on the strangely-esteemed Oprah Winfrey Show.

Your post is good example of post #26:
"26. The atheists on this board are no different than the hyper-religious freepers at FR: they don't want
"tolerance," they want complete and total acceptance of their beliefs or you to STFU. They berate honest people of faith with every bit of the same kind of viciousness that evangelical Christians treat non-believers. And, like those freepers, a good majority of the atheists on this board are bullys, which is why they need to be stood up to."

If you only wanted atheists to reply, you should have posted it in the atheist group.
By posting in GD, you've opened it up to general discussion.
If you don't like free speech, there are plenty of atheist-only message boards.

I never told anyone to STFU, I was just pointing out that this thread is not conforming to my expectations.

But, I do feel your pain. Poor, poor, marginalized, silenced Christian martyrs. I shed a tear.

of the "faithful" here on DU.

Sid

Dawkins smashing the silly superstitions of all those consumer Christians in her audience.

Make it happen.

That's it; you've hit the nail on the head as to why I find Oprah's brand of "spirituality" especially offensive - along with the likes of Dinesh D'Souza and Haley Joel Osteen.

:puke:

Oh, wait a minute...

It's just a statement, with neither editorializing nor evangelizing. Of course a theist immediately popped in and started making derogatory, sarcastic remarks.

It seems to me that if they didn't want criticism they'd not go so far out of their way to find it.

nt

I don't watch Oprah! She's insufferable.

I just think it would be good for the public discourse, because a LOT of people watch Oprah (and treat her like she's their god).

it's part of why I find watching her show even for 3 minutes to be painful!

Can't talk about religion except in specific places.

For some reason, this one topic is not "general". Huh.

people get really upset and argumentative about any topic that touches upon religion. And the off topic debate that the thread devolved into is really typical of this type of discussion.... hence moving it to R/T.

It's the same with conspiracy posts, 9-11 posts, Israel-Palestine posts, gun posts, and a few others.

"Discussion topics relating to religion that have little or no relation to politics or current events must be posted in the Religion/Theology forum. If you are easily offended by discussion relating to religion, you are strongly advised to avoid the Religion/Theology forum."

I haven't seen much of you in the R/T Forum. Perhaps you will visit more often.

though you probably did not hear it over your own whining, it is not the "one topic" that doesn't belong in GD. It's one of many. Sports, primaries, picture threads and other lounge stuff, 9/11 and I/P talk, etc.

:shrug:

I have no interest in repeatedly coddling those who won't listen and continue deliberately stating falsehoods to claim a greater falsehood, the notion that there's some DU-wide conspiracy against her off-topic thread. I'm happy to leave such "flies" to be moved to this forum where they belong.

You know how these shows go. Dawkins could gone on eloquently for 15 minutes, making careful, rational arguments, there would be murmurs of discontent, Oprah might ask a few totally miss-the-point questions, and maybe Dawkins would get a little polite applause before they go to a commercial break. They come back from the break, Oprah would go out to the audience for questions, some little old lady would stand up and say, "I believe in God! And you'd better get right with God too!", and that simplistic blather, not showing one iota of recognition for anything Dawkins had said, would get thunderous applause from the whole audience.

These shows run on emotion and sentimentality. IF Dawkins could break through that, I'd be pleased and amazed, but I doubt it's worth the effort to try.