Is Dawkins out of line here?

[harvey1]

Richard Dawkins is quoted as saying:

Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!

Is Dawkins just an intolerant person, or is he ahead of his time in seeing the need to try and squelch religion?

[Manny]

Religions are not responsible for the actions of their adherents.

Well..thats like saying "Mein Kampf" had nothing to do with the Holocaust. Ideas of bigotry and exclusivity, religious supremacy. Ethnic cleansing as theological doctrine etc that targets people outside of that particular group... have a major part in it.

Quote:

Sociological mandates of a religion are also of two kinds: internal ones, such as the varna system, marriage customs, gender relations, and so forth, that only impact the internal society within a particular religion; and external ones, such as the requirement to proselytize or to kill or ill-treat outsiders, that impact those who are outsiders to a given faith.

In my view the theological and internal, sociological, aspects of a religion are not the primary causes of global conflict. Rather, the external, sociological, aspects of religion are the direct causes of global conflict.

It logically follows that it is the business of the world at large to interpret, question, and challenge those aspects of a religion that take a position concerning outsiders. If I am the subject of some other religion's doctrine, and such a doctrine states how I am to be treated, what is to be done to me, what I may or may not do freely, then, even though I am not a member of that religion, it does become my business to probe these doctrines and even to demand a change. On the other hand, if a religion minds its own business, and has little to say pertaining to me as an outsider, then I should respect its right to be left alone.

In other words, a given religion's right to be left alone by outsiders should be reciprocal and contingent upon its responsibility to leave outsiders alone.

BTW.. I have no problem with individuals who are very religious (that does not affect outsiders). Spiritual quest seems to be an intrensic quest for man. I am a libertataian... so I am speaking from that perspective, rather than from a religious perspective.

[Jose]

But Dawkins is not saying that Revealed Truth always breeds terrorism. He's saying that it can--and that its basic method of getting adherents to Believe regardless of other information is the very method that makes it work. Dawkins would agree that most religions don't go to such extremes. He would also say that some do. That is precisely why you used Mormonism and Judaism in your suggestion.

Of course, I'm not sure I agree...especially on Mormonism. My dad grew up in Salt Lake, and learned a lot of Mormon history, including their massacres of US troops, etc. The Missouri wars between the Mormons and the Gentiles are also a bit of a cautionary tale. Then there's Warren Jeffs... It's all kinda reminiscent of, and supporting evidence for the stories told in Under The Banner of Heaven. There's some serious weirdness in some of the enclaves. Take a trip to Colorado City, AZ for example.

For Judaism, I'd say we have to look specifically at the hard-line fundamentalist orthodox radicalists. There may well be potential for feistiness there, especially when it comes to conflict with those they consider heathen...and may have displaced in prior wars.

[Cathar1950]

Judaism or Mormonism and see how well it sits.


True..neither Judaism nor Mormonsim have a history of terror behind it.

He should have just said "Islam and Christianity".

I hate to say this but Judaism has the same intolerance built into their system.
If you look at the OT it is obvious. The difference is they never had a world empire.
They have been stuck being a small nation that may or may not have been successful.
During times of expansion or struggles for identity they created writings that promoted their desire for conquest. Islam and Christianity took their writing seriously and grafted themselves into a intolerant absolutist system of thought. Granted they take history seriously despite the reality of their interpretations. But they have for the most part grown up. Some of it is self-fulfilling prophecy that we promote to include ourselves.

Manny:

Well..thats like saying "Mein Kampf" had nothing to do with the Holocaust. Ideas of bigotry and exclusivity, religious supremacy. Ethnic cleansing as theological doctrine etc that targets people outside of that particular group... have a major part in it.

It is built into the system. When they came back from exile (the nobility) they dominated the remaining populace with their writings and laws created for the purpose of control and a means for the Persian overlords to administer judgment. The puppet rulers had the nerve to make Jews divorce their foreign wives and reject their families all in the name of ethnocentricity enforced by Persian the very culture that gave them and all of us dualism, hell, Satan and the vision of judgments on evil usually projected to the enemy.

If your dog tells you to kill people then you look at your dog sternly and say, “bad dog”.

[Scrotum]

Richard Dawkins is quoted as saying:

Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!

Is Dawkins just an intolerant person, or is he ahead of his time in seeing the need to try and squelch religion?

Are you joking Harvey? He is telling the TRUTH, thats all.


To say he is "intolerant" shows the ignorance of certain people. I have said the same thing for years. It just shows that intelligent people simple are not liked by inferior people, in this case, Religious ones, remember, Religion equals ignorance (even admited by some of them).

So while we live in the real world, point out the harm done by, lets say religion, we (the intelligent ones) are insulted... Very amusing indeed.


A World without religion is a better world, end of story, this is just the Truth (aka: Reality), nothing more. People can have all the spirituality they want without ´religion´ persay, so it would work out very well for the inferiors njeeding a fantasy to make their world better (fear of death etceera). Cheezes, Ahead of time, i didnt know i was that superior, i just assumed everyone KNEW this, especially someone like you Harvey, but i suspec its the fear of death / Need of fantasy world that controls you there, feelings instead of brain, its sad really.

[Partialartist]

Richard Dawkins is quoted as saying:

Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let's now stop being so damned respectful!

Is Dawkins just an intolerant person, or is he ahead of his time in seeing the need to try and squelch religion?

Are you joking Harvey? He is telling the TRUTH, thats all.


To say he is "intolerant" shows the ignorance of certain people. I have said the same thing for years. It just shows that intelligent people simple are not liked by inferior people, in this case, Religious ones, remember, Religion equals ignorance (even admited by some of them).

So while we live in the real world, point out the harm done by, lets say religion, we (the intelligent ones) are insulted... Very amusing indeed.


A World without religion is a better world, end of story, this is just the Truth (aka: Reality), nothing more. People can have all the spirituality they want without ´religion´ persay, so it would work out very well for the inferiors njeeding a fantasy to make their world better (fear of death etceera). Cheezes, Ahead of time, i didnt know i was that superior, i just assumed everyone KNEW this, especially someone like you Harvey, but i suspec its the fear of death / Need of fantasy world that controls you there, feelings instead of brain, its sad really.

While I agree with your assertion that religion fills the gaps in knowledge, I wouldn't go so far as calling those who believe in it "inferior." They just lack the cognitive ability to use enough rational thought to govern their own actions. Human intellect is cool and all, but there are plants and animals out there that can do some amazing things. Of course, through our intellect, we've managed to mimic many of those things and do some pretty amazing things ourselves, but that's another discussion.

Religion may be unnecessary for some, but many people feel they need it. It provides a set of rules in which to conduct oneself. The problem comes from the fact that the world has changed, but the rules haven't, and people still follow them. They take them as absolute truths, and will fight anyone who says otherwise. The funny part is that, at their core, most religions say the same thing. People are killing each other over outdated rules and semantics.

If people managed to get over themselves and their differences, and actually do something about the real problems in the world, things would eventually iron themselves out. It's all about peace, love, tolerance, education and growth. It wouldn't happen overnight, but we'd get there. It's kind of funny that religion is getting in the way of that.

[harvey1]

To say he is "intolerant" shows the ignorance of certain people. I have said the same thing for years.

But, Scrot, you're a self-admitted fascist. So, you of all people are not the ideal of tolerance. You are already admitting that you feel superior to others.

[QED]

If people managed to get over themselves and their differences, and actually do something about the real problems in the world, things would eventually iron themselves out. It's all about peace, love, tolerance, education and growth. It wouldn't happen overnight, but we'd get there. It's kind of funny that religion is getting in the way of that.

I hope you mean funny as in odd -- not funny ha-ha. I see a distinct problem that is unique to religion by virtue of its appeal to an assumed ultimate authority. Harvey will put this down to my having a rebellious nature or whatnot, but it is quite clear to me that when people believe that God is "on their side" they may start behaving differently.

Quite coincidentally I've recently noticed several instances of people publicly thanking God for providing this or that favour. The classic sporting example being the "Hand of God" that won Diego Maradona's Argentinian side the 1986 FIFA World Cup against England. When we actually believe our destiny to be controlled by God and we see things falling into place we run the risk of behaving irrationally, to the extent that our actions may become harmful. Would anyone here argue that all events are controlled by God? If not, then how are we to distinguish between his will and pure coincidence?

To me it's more than mildly annoying that people connect their good fortune with God's will. It strikes me as a dangerous practice for humanity as a whole.

[harvey1]

QED, need I remind you that most of the atrocities committed in the 20th century came at the hands of atheists and anti-Christians? Pol Pot. Hitler. Stalin. Mao.

[QED]

QED, need I remind you that most of the atrocities committed in the 20th century came at the hands of atheists and anti-Christians? Pol Pot. Hitler. Stalin. Mao.

It's not as simple as that Harvey. I've presented a reason why a persons belief that what they're doing is endorsed (if not directed) by God can lead to irrational behaviour. I've tried to show there is a distinct danger for humanity as a whole in this. Now the despots you mention, with the possible exception of Hitler (who appears to have been a believer in God), are not looking for endorsement of their actions. They believe themselves to be the ultimate authority. This amounts to the exact same situation as those who believe their actions to be endorsed by God -- if that belief is at all in question.

To make this crystal clear then, I'm suggesting that the only authority that can safely be assumed is that of other men, the peers of those who make decisions affecting people's lives. Such peers are usually there to step in when things go wrong anyway. Now would you like to argue that if this did not happen God would arrive on the scene to sort things out?

[harvey1]

Now the despots you mention, with the possible exception of Hitler (who appears to have been a believer in God)

Well, there's no reason to believe that Hitler believed in an afterlife, and his belief in God was pantheistic. He saw God as part of the laws of nature.

They believe themselves to be the ultimate authority. This amounts to the exact same situation as those who believe their actions to be endorsed by God -- if that belief is at all in question.

But, most theists believe that the actions endorsed by God are in the form of major religious scriptures. Hence, there are strict limitations on what theists see as acceptable behavior. In the case of radical atheists or radical pantheists, this is not the case since they have only their own recently formed opinions to guide them.

Let's use Scrot as an example. Give him a country and a military, and how do you think his fascist views impact the world? This is clearly a feature of atheism if we used just him as an example.

To make this crystal clear then, I'm suggesting that the only authority that can safely be assumed is that of other men, the peers of those who make decisions affecting people's lives. Such peers are usually there to step in when things go wrong anyway. Now would you like to argue that if this did not happen God would arrive on the scene to sort things out?

I think what is missing in your analysis is that religion doesn't form in a vacuum. Religion takes on an epistemology and morality based on evolutionary and pragmatic experiences, and as a result, religion tends to pursue the most noblest of morals that have been tried and found true over the millenia (going back hundreds of thousands of years). In the case of radical atheism, there is sometimes an eagerness to overthrow the religious morals and values, and pursue an objective which is based on some scheme which conforms to an atheist vision. It doesn't rely on evolutionary or pragmatic experiences learned over the ages. And, this makes those beliefs extremely dangerous.

I think the lessons of the 20th century already bear this out. Look at North Korea, a fully atheist regime acting and behaving very irresponsibly in the world. Even societies with a strong history of theocracy such as Libya and Saudi Arabia are much more well-behaved. In addition, when a society begins to move away from atheism (e.g., former Soviet states) apparently their society transitions to a more sensible worldview.