Richard Dawkins and The God Delusion

[OpenMind]

I am watching a programme on TV at the moment. It's called The God Delusion and is presented by an ardent atheist called Richard Dawkins.

He has just interviewed a muslim who has stated that the goal of the muslims is to expand throughout the globe and indoctrinate the world in Islamism.

They do not seek to justify their religion with science. They consider their faith to be the only true state for the world and it should never be questioned.

If they succeed, humanity will surely step back over centuries of progress. They will reintroduce inhumane practises and the world would be ruled by a corrupt religious council.

[Lon]

OpenMind;1329330 wrote: I am watching a programme on TV at the moment. It's called The God Delusion and is presented by an ardent atheist called Richard Dawkins.

He has just interviewed a muslim who has stated that the goal of the muslims is to expand throughout the globe and indoctrinate the world in Islamism.

They do not seek to justify their religion with science. They consider their faith to be the only true state for the world and it should never be questioned.

If they succeed, humanity will surely step back over centuries of progress. They will reintroduce inhumane practises and the world would be ruled by a corrupt religious council.


Do you mean inhumane practices like the "Catholic Spanish Inquisition"? or the burning of witches in Salem, Mass, or the KKK atrocities (some Baptists)?

I like Dawkins and have read a couple of his books. Not an easy read.

[OpenMind]

Lon;1329334 wrote: Do you mean inhumane practices like the "Catholic Spanish Inquisition"? or the burning of witches in Salem, Mass, or the KKK atrocities (some Baptists)?

I like Dawkins and have read a couple of his books. Not an easy read.


Christianity has moved on from those painful methods. They now practise the less painful removal of the contents of your wallet and bank account.

[Bryn Mawr]

OpenMind;1329330 wrote: I am watching a programme on TV at the moment. It's called The God Delusion and is presented by an ardent atheist called Richard Dawkins.

He has just interviewed a muslim who has stated that the goal of the muslims is to expand throughout the globe and indoctrinate the world in Islamism.

They do not seek to justify their religion with science. They consider their faith to be the only true state for the world and it should never be questioned.

If they succeed, humanity will surely step back over centuries of progress. They will reintroduce inhumane practises and the world would be ruled by a corrupt religious council.


It is in his interest to find and interview extreme elements of each religion to make his points against religion.

What is important is the opinion of typical members of each religion, not the extremes and you will not find that in such a program.

[OpenMind]

Bryn Mawr;1329364 wrote: It is in his interest to find and interview extreme elements of each religion to make his points against religion.

What is important is the opinion of typical members of each religion, not the extremes and you will not find that in such a program.


He is interviewing people who are involved with preaching to their followers. he is also interviewing people who teach their respective faiths to children. There have been one or two extreme cases but most of the religious 'officials' he has interviewed from Christianity, Islamism, and Judaism, do not appear to be extreme examples.

It's a two hour documentary.

[gmc]

It's also on you tube.

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

YouTube%20-%20The%20God%20Who%20Wasn%27t%20there%20Documentary]YouTube - The God Who Wasn't there Documentary

I've read some dawkins as well. I say some because I actually find him a boring read. The god delusion wasn't really telling me anything I hadn't already worked out. I think he makes a mistake in suggesting atheism as an alternative to religion - it's not in the sense that there is a set of beliefs and practices you can follow - It gives the godly a chance to say science is just another religion. better advocate people get a chance to make up their own minds.

YouTube - Eye2EyeIIV's Channel

Note the message at the very end

You might find this interesting.

YouTube - Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry versus The Catholics, 1 of 5

[Snowfire]

I watched all five episodes of Christopher Hitchens and Steven Fry versus the Catholics. Hitchens was as good as I though he would be but I think Stephen Fry was just superb. The telling point of the whole debate was the poll at the end.

[OpenMind]

gmc;1329402 wrote: It's also on you tube.

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

YouTube%20-%20The%20God%20Who%20Wasn%27t%20there%20Documentary]YouTube - The God Who Wasn't there Documentary

I've read some dawkins as well. I say some because I actually find him a boring read. The god delusion wasn't really telling me anything I hadn't already worked out. I think he makes a mistake in suggesting atheism as an alternative to religion - it's not in the sense that there is a set of beliefs and practices you can follow - It gives the godly a chance to say science is just another religion. better advocate people get a chance to make up their own minds.

YouTube - Eye2EyeIIV's Channel

Note the message at the very end

You might find this interesting.

YouTube - Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry versus The Catholics, 1 of 5


Alas, until I can replace my audio system or acquire some PC speakers, I can't listen to anything through my PC. Quite frustrating considering I have a large audio and video archive on the beast.

I agree with your comment about atheism. It is simply the lack of a religious belief. I prefer the concept of humanism which is a fairly wide concept and includes moral values. On the other hand, any 'ism' can be taken to extremes and I wouldn't like to see anything taken up as a cause as that's when it becomes corrupted.

My main criticism of his programmes, that I've seen so far, is that he doesn't provide enough examples of opinions from any particular religion or branch of religion. Though I realise he is under constraints to fit everything into a set time. Perhaps he has more material that he hasn't shown.

To me, he succeeded in underlying the general prejudices that exist in Christianity and Islamism, and how they take their religious teachings to be more valid than any piece of scientific research or knowledge.

I can't remember his name now, but I liked that guy responsible for teaching religion to children at a school. He didn't care what anyone thought. He was just doing his job.

[gmc]

He has his own channel.

YouTube - richarddawkinsdotnet's Channel

Quite like this one as well

http://www.youtube.com/user/Eye2EyeIIV

Some of the christian counter arguments are quite interesting. In isolation the point of view is compelling and if you don't have the habit of questioning and finding things out for yourself or are conditioned to just believe it it takes a lot to break away from it.

[OpenMind]

gmc;1329518 wrote: He has his own channel.

YouTube - richarddawkinsdotnet's Channel

Quite like this one as well

YouTube - Eye2EyeIIV's Channel

Some of the christian counter arguments are quite interesting. In isolation the point of view is compelling and if you don't have the habit of questioning and finding things out for yourself or are conditioned to just believe it it takes a lot to break away from it.


I had a feeling you liked that latter site.:wah:

[gmc]

OpenMind;1329531 wrote: I had a feeling you liked that latter site.:wah:


I do. I've always tries to look at both sides, the sheer vitriol and hatred you get on some of the christian sites is unbelieveable as is the appalling ignorance of anything beyond what they want to believe. If they were just prepared to live and let live all would be well but no the extremists want everybody bowing to the same god and drag everybody into the argument and turn on esch other at the drop of a hat. The american ones in particular are quite disturbing but we are getting the same kind of thing here, except it doesn't really hit the mainstream much.

On the othet hand you find the same kind of ranting on anti-religion sites as well, just not quite to the same extent.

When you look back at all the religious wars and then ask yourself which side would you have been on and it's not actually that easy to answer - and you would have had to choose. Some of the atrocities that were commited they go beyond just the "normal" ill treatment of the losers. When you see that of religious fervour you begin to understand where it comes from and how people can be induced to do things in the name of a faith. Catholic/protestant still affects politics now - if you vote for a politician do you want one that will follow the dictates of the pope over the law of the land and wishes of those he represents. Trouble is it's an issue being brought back in to politivs when it doesn't have to be that way. In scotland We've had labour openly courting the catholic vote in a nation that isn't catholic. . When the christians tried to ban the teaching about homosexuality as part of sex education in schools their candidates lost their deposits and the petitions got little support yet we allow some schools and organisations to discriminate on religious grounds. All it means is that sectarianism starts being an issue again even amongst those who don't actually care just when it was dying down.

Monotheism can't allow dissent, maybe it's a flaw in mankind or one that's caused by religion I just don't know. We live in a secular society, I would like it to remain that way.

[Snowfire]

I expected an archbishop and a former Member of Parliament to withstand a bit of flak and put forward a reasonable defense. Stephen Fry, singlehandedly ripped them both apart. I'm sure Anne Widdicombe looked a little embarrassed at the end of his closing speech

[gmc]

Snowfire;1329590 wrote: I expected an archbishop and a former Member of Parliament to withstand a bit of flak and put forward a reasonable defense. Stephen Fry, singlehandedly ripped them both apart. I'm sure Anne Widdicombe looked a little embarrassed at the end of his closing speech


I remember her calling a press conference to announce she was converting to Catholicism because the church of england was going to allow female priests.

[Snowfire]

gmc;1329601 wrote: I remember her calling a press conference to announce she was converting to Catholicism because the church of england was going to allow female priests.


Now Pope Benedict has graded Womens Ordination as a "grave sin" its in the same catagory as sex abuse of minors.

Catholics angry as church puts female ordination on par with sex abuse | World news | The Guardian

[OpenMind]

gmc;1329587 wrote: I do. I've always tries to look at both sides, the sheer vitriol and hatred you get on some of the christian sites is unbelieveable as is the appalling ignorance of anything beyond what they want to believe. If they were just prepared to live and let live all would be well but no the extremists want everybody bowing to the same god and drag everybody into the argument and turn on esch other at the drop of a hat. The american ones in particular are quite disturbing but we are getting the same kind of thing here, except it doesn't really hit the mainstream much.

On the othet hand you find the same kind of ranting on anti-religion sites as well, just not quite to the same extent.

When you look back at all the religious wars and then ask yourself which side would you have been on and it's not actually that easy to answer - and you would have had to choose. Some of the atrocities that were commited they go beyond just the "normal" ill treatment of the losers. When you see that of religious fervour you begin to understand where it comes from and how people can be induced to do things in the name of a faith. Catholic/protestant still affects politics now - if you vote for a politician do you want one that will follow the dictates of the pope over the law of the land and wishes of those he represents. Trouble is it's an issue being brought back in to politivs when it doesn't have to be that way. In scotland We've had labour openly courting the catholic vote in a nation that isn't catholic. . When the christians tried to ban the teaching about homosexuality as part of sex education in schools their candidates lost their deposits and the petitions got little support yet we allow some schools and organisations to discriminate on religious grounds. All it means is that sectarianism starts being an issue again even amongst those who don't actually care just when it was dying down.

Monotheism can't allow dissent, maybe it's a flaw in mankind or one that's caused by religion I just don't know. We live in a secular society, I would like it to remain that way.


Politics and religion pretty much go hand in hand to a greater or lesser extent. The two have always been linked historically. Politicians are also just as ready to ignore real evidence to promote their own causes. The recent resignation of the Government's Chief Scientific Advisor is testament to this.

I would take a guess that it is corporate money that keeps us secular. That would be ironic considering the churches played a big part in the development of capitalism.

[gmc]

OpenMind;1329609 wrote: Politics and religion pretty much go hand in hand to a greater or lesser extent. The two have always been linked historically. Politicians are also just as ready to ignore real evidence to promote their own causes. The recent resignation of the Government's Chief Scientific Advisor is testament to this.

I would take a guess that it is corporate money that keeps us secular. That would be ironic considering the churches played a big part in the development of capitalism.


Now in England you now have even more faith based schools funded by corporations and rich christians and no doubt rich muslims will get on the bandwagon. It's depressing and retrograde.

[OpenMind]

gmc;1329618 wrote: Now in England you now have even more faith based schools funded by corporations and rich christians and no doubt rich muslims will get on the bandwagon. It's depressing and retrograde.


If Dawkins's show last week is anything to go by, faith schools are still favourable because they turn out the best results. Parents are readily converting to the relevant religion so their children can attend. This is the only basis of their conviction to the faith. This could be one reason why some adherents spew out religious dogma over scientific evidence - simply to keep up appearances.

Of course, the reason why these faith schools are turning out better school leavers could be because of pressure from the parents on their children to be successful.

[Snowfire]

OpenMind;1329621 wrote: If Dawkins's show last week is anything to go by, faith schools are still favourable because they turn out the best results. Parents are readily converting to the relevant religion so their children can attend. This is the only basis of their conviction to the faith. This could be one reason why some adherents spew out religious dogma over scientific evidence - simply to keep up appearances.

Of course, the reason why these faith schools are turning out better school leavers could be because of pressure from the parents on their children to be successful.


As ghastly as I think it is, I think you are absolutely right. Parents are clamouring to get their kids into faith schools because of their superior results. Its an anathema. Its a statement on our education system rather than a testament to faith based schools

[gmc]

I don't profess to be familiar with the English system but i would have thought it's more to do with the fact that the faith schools in effect are selective schools (Non faith schools have to take anybody in the catchment area and councils have an obligation to provide schooling) and can reject anyone they think won't do well and yes the parents who take the trouble to get their kids in tend to be the ones that encourage the kids. They can also expel kids who cause problems whereas they have to go somewhere and they will end up in the local non faith school. Tony Benn had the right of it, it wasn't grammar and selection on ability they should have ended it was the fee paying public schools. They've created a two tier education system that will split kids up on sectarian lines rather than one for all and that gives everybody a fair chance. In Scotland the education authorities can't discriminate against a teacher on religious grounds but a protestant or just someone who is not religious can't get a job in a catholic school. there is a provision that they must promote the ethos of Catholicism - and presumably it will be the same for muslim and jewish schools. I agree with dawkins on that one - it a bad idea to have faith schools.

[Snowfire]

So presumably faith based schools can pick and choose their curriculum according to each faith. I'm thinking of many selecting to disregard the teaching of Evolution as a part of Science, even if it were taught as an option to Creation. Forgive my ignorance but wouldnt all schools be required to follow the same educational curriculum, assuming that Evolution would part of it of course

[gmc]

Snowfire;1329632 wrote: So presumably faith based schools can pick and choose their curriculum according to each faith. I'm thinking of many selecting to disregard the teaching of Evolution as a part of Science, even if it were taught as an option to Creation. Forgive my ignorance but wouldnt all schools be required to follow the same educational curriculum, assuming that Evolution would part of it of course


It's how it's taught though isn't it. That episode with Dawkins at the muslim school where they all reject evolution despite it being taught as part of the curriculum - how much is that the way they have been taught or maybe the pupils just don't want to go against the ethos of the school with witnesses present. It was telling the teacher couldn't answer when asked why are there still apes around if we evolved from them.

If you respect someone's right to their religion how do deal with those who believe the bible is the literal truth and prevent them indoctrinating their children except by banning them from doing so which i don't think would be the answer. I don't think allowing them to have their own schools is helpful. I've seen sectarianism caused by separate religious schools at first hand, I must admit do have slightly coloured attitudes.

[OpenMind]

So far, this has been a very interesting discussion, and all conducted in a civilised manner which, I not only fully respect, but is all I ask for. However, I think we've taken the discussion as far as we can at this level.

If we are to break from this mold, we need to create a new ideology. Some attempts have been made to do this, but, so far, nothing has stuck.

In my lifetime, I have met and talked to a lot of different people about the 'meaning of life', as it were. In general, I have found that the majority of people do not believe in religious tenets although they do believe in a set of rules . This actually creates a lie to much of Richard Dawkins's research. The reason for this is because he did not interview the average 'man' in the street.

FG is a case in point. FG is a gathering of minds of all flavours. Yet, I have yet to see a religious fall out. I have witnessed fallouts based on personal remarks and misunderstandings which have been construed as personal insults. But, there have been no religious fall outs. This is not for the want of trying. There are religious members on this forum who like to espouse their faith. They do not seek to disturb the mainstream and by mutual agreement, we don't disturb theirs. This is the result of simple negotiation.

All are welcome on this forum and those with extreme values have found themselves in the midst of a genuine group that will discuss anything but will not brook intolerance or inflammation.

Those that genuinely want to interact with others have stayed on and made friends.

Not being funny, but FG, and those forums stiled on FG, are unique forums. I got myself connected to the Internet in 2003. In 2004, I conducted a search of the interent to find out places where people conversed. I was shocked at what I found. Every forum I investigated consisted of the most inflammatory exchanges I've ever seen.

It was almost a year later that I tried again (in the interest of science) and stumbled across FG. The welcome was a marvelous experience.

So, FG. Is it representative of the western world? I like to think it is.

Yet, people have left because of what they believe. These weren't religious beliefs, these were beliefs based on just how far you can make personal comments.

Nonetheless, the forum has endured. Lines have been drawn and people, generally speaking, don't cross them.

Nonetheless, FG's membership is only a minority compared to Christian membership.

Yet, I see such forums as FG as being the precursor for a new force in this world. And the reason I say this is because the majority of people that I know in my life, that I have worked with, shared a drink with, met on holiday, etc., don't give a toss about religion. Each has their own reason.

So, I wonder just what future there is now for religious orgnaisations.

The only thing that could possibly give religious organisations a firm step forward would be an apolacyptic event.

[Snowfire]

This may not be the right time for me to post on such a subject given the time of night and my state of mind but I'll say a few words anyway.

I've never been shy at my admission of being an atheist and I've chuckled at the occasional derision it inevitably draws. It's something I've given very much thought to. I am not what one might describe as a militant atheist, as say, Glaswegian is. I have no desire to deny people the things that comfort them most. I don't understand it. I'm bemused by the extent to which religious people in general and fundamentalist people in particular, should wish to presume which direction my life should take. I'm bewildered at why they think there is something lacking in my life. I am the only one who can decide which road to walk. I like to listen and learn, then something inside tells you what's right and what's wrong. I struggle to understand sometimes but I know what it is that my mind and my conscience is telling me, even if I struggle to put it into a language others understand.

I see the arguments that religious people have between themselves. It's ironic to see the anger and hatred toward each other, when they should be preaching peace and reconciliation. And I'M the one who has no morals because I don't follow the scriptures. That makes me laugh.

I've drunk too much of the "holy communion" tonight to discuss this at any length but its something I would like to come back too on another day

[OpenMind]

Snowfire;1329719 wrote: This may not be the right time for me to post on such a subject given the time of night and my state of mind but I'll say a few words anyway.

I've never been shy at my admission of being an atheist and I've chuckled at the occasional derision it inevitably draws. It's something I've given very much thought to. I am not what one might describe as a militant atheist, as say, Glaswegian is. I have no desire to deny people the things that comfort them most. I don't understand it. I'm bemused by the extent to which religious people in general and fundamentalist people in particular, should wish to presume which direction my life should take. I'm bewildered at why they think there is something lacking in my life. I am the only one who can decide which road to walk. I like to listen and learn, then something inside tells you what's right and what's wrong. I struggle to understand sometimes but I know what it is that my mind and my conscience is telling me, even if I struggle to put it into a language others understand.

I see the arguments that religious people have between themselves. It's ironic to see the anger and hatred toward each other, when they should be preaching peace and reconciliation. And I'M the one who has no morals because I don't follow the scriptures. That makes me laugh.

I've drunk too much of the "holy communion" tonight to discuss this at any length but its something I would like to come back too on another day


Well said, my friend.

[fuzzywuzzy]

Just watching that debate with hitch and Fry now .....interesting so far.

[Snowfire]

fuzzywuzzy;1329758 wrote: Just watching that debate with hitch and Fry now .....interesting so far.


Stick with it. Stephen fry does not dissapoint

[OpenMind]

fuzzywuzzy;1329758 wrote: Just watching that debate with hitch and Fry now .....interesting so far.


Hello Buzzy.

[fuzzywuzzy]

Hello OPEY. Well I've watched it and now I feel sorry for you Brits to have a woman with the most annoying attitude and voice .

Stephen's alright isn't he . Didn't mind the archbishop.

They made Thomas Moore a Saint??????? Good God!!!!! I love it when Fry turns to them after mentioning their excuse for upholding it ...."well what are you for then???"

[gmc]

Posted by openmind

So far, this has been a very interesting discussion, and all conducted in a civilised manner which, I not only fully respect, but is all I ask for. However, I think we've taken the discussion as far as we can at this level.

If we are to break from this mold, we need to create a new ideology. Some attempts have been made to do this, but, so far, nothing has stuck.


All you can do is share ideas and make up your own mind. I don't think anyone needs to create a new ideology just work to make sure there is freedom to go your own way in peace and prevent the godly getting a stranglehold ever again. It takes only a cursory look at history to see why that would be a bad thing, well imo it takes a cursory look but then you have to know where to look and put it in context.

You do get fundamentalist atheists as well as fundamentalist christians and Muslims - or rather you get atheists as the same kind of mindset as religious nutters - I am right you are an idiot and wrong.

posted by open mind

Nonetheless, FG's membership is only a minority compared to Christian membership.

Yet, I see such forums as FG as being the precursor for a new force in this world. And the reason I say this is because the majority of people that I know in my life, that I have worked with, shared a drink with, met on holiday, etc., don't give a toss about religion. Each has their own reason.

So, I wonder just what future there is now for religious orgnaisations.

The only thing that could possibly give religious organisations a firm step forward would be an apolacyptic event.




Not being an american it's hard to judge how big a threat religious fundamentalists actually are and how big a political force they really are, it's the extremists that are most vocal and get the most attention. In the UK it's done on the quiet - look at Tony Blair, had he converted to catholicism while he was in office there would have been uproar and the introduction of more faith schools might have got more opposition. That he waited till after says a lot about his character and motives which i don't think much of anyway.

YouTube - "The God Who Wasn't There" clip - The Rapture

YouTube%20-%20The%20God%20Who%20Wasn%27t%20there%20Documentary]YouTube - The God Who Wasn't there Documentary

You do realise that the vast majority of people in the world do not believe in either christianity or islam We tend to forget that in the west and think what we think matters the most.

[beowulf]

Snowfire;1329423 wrote: I think Stephen Fry was just superb.


i agree......superb orator..........he is an extremely intelligent man and eminatly watchable in whatever he does

one thing that struck me from that debate was anne widdecombe...........as an mp i always rated her.....not for her politics but for the way she came over in the houses of parliment....she had a good way of stating what she meant.....dont think she did a good job here..........never realised she was a fervent catholic

for me.....i consider religion to be evil.......and some religions are more evil than others, ...and that means especially the catholic and islamic faiths.....in thier own ways they create untold suffering in the world when they could easily solve problems........i take offence at what the arch bishop said about how the church does not have money and that africa was pillaged by multinational companies........originally it was countries...in the 19 century most of the european nations had colonies in africa (and asia/central america too) and most were there to exploit them of whatever possible, and it all started before that with the slave trade to the americas............since the end of ww2 i would agree that it is foreign companies that have pillaged africa...........however.....that is not the issue......the roman catholic church is obscenly wealthy......if it even used 1% of its wealth it could change the lives of untold millions of people around the world.......but why would it do that?.........to maintain its 'audience' it needs them to be poor, uneducated and subservient