Is Islam driving a retreat from faith?

[Goodchild]

I just watched a debate/interview between Christopher Hitchens and Ken Blackwell (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/08/christopher-hitchens-deba_n_184922.html) and something Hitchens mentions at the end really caught my attention.

It was that for the better part of the last 50 years religion had an upswing while the 'enemy' was defined as "godless communists". Over the last decade, however, we've seen a decline in religious attendance and other numbers while those stating themselves to be non-religious has nearly doubled ... and during this time the enemy has become the most 'godly' group that you can point to, the Islamic faith.

So what do you think? Is the danger posed by violent Islam, which seems to be the predominant side of Islam, spurring this transition away from faith? Is it the poster child for why religion poisons everything? I'm sure there are other reasons as well, but it seems to me that perhaps this might be one of the major factors in the West's decline in religious affiliation.

[tjakey]

What ever works to help end religion's reign of terror is fine with me, and I would hope thinking people would conclude that Islam is bad for the world in general and individuals as well.

[Ronin]

I'm with Sam Harris on this one:

"There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable."

I offer this quote because inevitably the sympathizers for "liberal", less zealously "obeyed" religion often interject that "real" religion isn't the enemy and that since Islam actually means "Peace" in Arabic any deviation is not a reflection of "true" religion.

My view is that even the mystic's religion is unnecessary to engender a more reasonable, rational and loving society based on practical reciprocity and empathy for those suffering.

[DMB]

Of course, "Islam" doesn't mean "peace" anyway. It means "submission" (to Allah).

I really do doubt this thesis, though. I think other factors are driving the moving away from religion, such as disenchantment with the Religious Right. But there are still many millions of pretty zealous fundamentalist Christians who are not going to change any time soon. There are also some hangers-on, who when trouble strikes will return to the familiar stuff they have learnt at their mother's knee. in the words of Hilaire Belloc:

Always keep tight hold of nurse,
For fear of finding something worse.

[Lanakila]

I think that the popularity of the internet has to have something to do with the drift away from faith. Information is available to anyone interested. Message boards like this one bring religious folks in contact with unbelievers that know why they don't believe. Even in the stronghold of the southern US people will have their faith challenged in ways it wasn't just 10 years ago.

[DMB]

I think that the popularity of the internet has to have something to do with the drift away from faith. Information is available to anyone interested. Message boards like this one bring religious folks in contact with unbelievers that know why they don't believe. Even in the stronghold of the southern US people will have their faith challenged in ways it wasn't just 10 years ago.

That's a very good point, Lana.

[Barefoot Bree]

Ayah. A VERY good point.

Having the good fortune to have attached myself to the Air Force for about 20 years (first as enlisted, then as a dependent spouse), and spent several years overseas and the rest far from my hometown, I attest to the truth that travel broadens the mind. Get someone exposed to lots of different viewpoints, and their own inevitably changes.

Those who cannot travel IRL as I have, have recently done much mental traveling via the internet. I think the internet revolution will become known to history as one of the half-dozen most important civlization-changing events ever.

[DMB]

Ayah. A VERY good point.

Having the good fortune to have attached myself to the Air Force for about 20 years (first as enlisted, then as a dependent spouse), and spent several years overseas and the rest far from my hometown, I attest to the truth that travel broadens the mind. Get someone exposed to lots of different viewpoints, and their own inevitably changes.

Those who cannot travel IRL as I have, have recently done much mental traveling via the internet. I think the internet revolution will become known to history as one of the half-dozen most important civlization-changing events ever.

It's probably equivalent to the Gutenberg revolution.

[Ray Moscow]

I can say that travelling changed me tremendously.

I just a redneck from rural Louisiana down deep. Can't you tell?

[lpetrich]

The late Clark Adams had made the point that Lanakila has, about the Internet making possible the "degraying of freethought", as he called it. It has done so by acting as the ultimate vanity press, complete with the ultimate in special ordering.

Susan Jacoby in her book Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism noted that the 20th century had been much more awkward for freethought than the 19th one, because of the centralization and lowest-common-denominator targeting of much of the information media. By comparison, the Internet is much more decentralized and easier to get started with.

Communism being officially Godless hadn't helped either. They not only committed lots of atrocities, but also justified them by claiming that the end justifies the means. But in the last decades of the 20th cy., Communist regimes softened and collapsed, with the biggest survivor embracing international capitalism in a massive way. The only orthodox Communist regime left is North Korea, and that's a tiny place.

The decline of the Religious Left has also helped. There used to be numerous religious-left activists in various movements over the last few centuries, but the Religious Left has been reduced to mourning its lost political clout. This has left the Religious Right with remarkably little religious opposition. One doesn't see a lot of pro-choicers scream "God has given us sovereignty over our bodies, and nobody can take that away from us!!!" or "I'll enjoy watching the fetus-worshippers burn in Hell!!!"

Alliance with religious liberals and the Religious Left had kept secularists from being very assertive; they were reluctant to alienate their religious allies with criticism of religion. It also did not help that the most prominent activist atheist for a long time was Madalyn Murray O'Hair.

Since WWII in the US at least, there had been a social consensus of "don't ask, don't tell" about religion. But while that had not done much for atheist visibility, that had provided atheists with a hiding place. But the Religious Right has been violating that consensus in a big way, as have Islamists.


Taking a longer view, secularism is a long-term trend, as Tom Flynn had noted in OP-ED Who’s Afraid of Faith-Based Charities? (http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=flynn_26_1) He started off with the collapse of the Western Roman Empire around 500 CE. If some warlord wanted to send a letter to another warlord, he'd hire a cleric to do it, and the receiving warlord would then hire a cleric to read that letter. Art, diplomacy, charity... all have become secularized over the centuries, or at least partially so.


So the rise of the Islamists is only a small bit of cause.

[HinduWoman]

I think the Pope is also doing his bit to make organized religion look ridiculous and heartless.

[LoneWolf]

I don’t know. Initially I thought Hitchens might be on to something but the more I think about it the less I think Islam as the new enemy has had much of anything to do with the increase in the non-religious. I have never heard of anyone deconverting from Christianity because they didn’t want to have something in common with “those evil Muslims”.

I agree with Lana and others that the internet has had a much stronger impact. If it weren’t for the internet I might still be a Christian. I am at least fairly certain I wouldn’t be an atheist.

[sohy]

I think the influence of the internet goes both ways. Consider all of the extremist Xian websites. My childhood fundy days were never based on anything as extreme as what I see out there today. We were far more tolerant towards others, compared to contemporary fundies, regardless of how harsh our ideology may have been stated. The internet has certainly been an avenue for information for those that have an open mind, are seeking or at least willing to mingle with secularists. It's also empowered atheists to be more openly atheistic in a public format.


My experience has been that many if not most fundies are frightened by atheists and are not willing to even read things that may threaten their beliefs. This was true back in my day, as well as today. I've had one Xian literally put her fingers in her ears and sing lalalala, rather than listen to me try to explain my atheism.

The web also offers an opportunity for ingroups to become more fanatical and extreme. Think of how it has been used as a recruiting tool for Muslim extremists. It serves a similar purpose for Xian fanatics as well. I'm sure y'all are familiar with Rapture Ready. I rest my case.

[tjakey]

I don't know sohy, I think you might be underestimating human curiosity, (even if fundies barely make the grade of "human.") Back when I was a fundy, (years ago in a universe far, far away) I couldn't have talked with an atheist if I wanted. I could have made a trip to the library to read about atheism, but making a special trip (fundies don't frequent libraries as a rule) was unlikely.

With the advent of the internet no special effort is required. I suspect a lot of religious people are curious, and can now at least access ideas that are different than their own.

I will admit though, it is Friday, spring is getting here, I hope to spend the weekend on my boat with my favorite person, and so I am in an unusually positive mood this morning.

[Goodchild]

I have never heard of anyone deconverting from Christianity because they didn’t want to have something in common with “those evil Muslims”.

I agree with Lana and others that the internet has had a much stronger impact. If it weren’t for the internet I might still be a Christian. I am at least fairly certain I wouldn’t be an atheist.

I think the internet definitely has a part in deconversion, but I don't think it's what initially leads people to question religion per se.

For myself, Islam was indeed one of the factors that caused me to begin wondering about religion as a whole. It got me to realize that religion was not inherently a good thing about lifting people up, and as I examined further I began to realize that religion in general tends to keep people down and do untold damage.

It's not what led me to deconvert, but it certainly played a large part in the initial questioning.

Conversely, being on the internet around atheists didn't make me question religion at all. But once the questioning began the internet made it possible to get all those new questions answered and contributed greatly to my deconversion.

That's why I found Hitchens' idea interesting. The current example of Islam can indeed lead people to start making those initial questions. The internet is just a tremendous vehicle for exploring them. That said, I don't doubt that some people begin to question for the first time after coming into contact with atheists online ... I'm just not sure that it might be a more prevalent catalyst for those first questions.

[SallyAnne]

I'm with Sam Harris on this one:

"There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable."




I have to disagree with that:

Liddle argues against a perceived overreliance on "cold logic" and the amoral scientific method. He focuses primarily on the track record of secular ethics, citing the role of the Jacobins and Cult of Reason in the Reign of Terror in Revolutionary France, as well as the religious persecution under Soviet state atheism.[4] He also criticizes evolutionary theory, and science in general, for Francis Galton's philosophy of eugenics and its influence on Nazi Germany's racial policies, speaking of a "direct line between Darwin, Golton, and Hitler".

From here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Atheism

[DMB]

I'm with Sam Harris on this one:

"There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable."




I disagree with that, there is a connection to the Holocaust and Social Darwinism.

How the hell was that reasonable? It was based on very poor stereotyped thinking.

[SallyAnne]

If it weren’t for the internet I might still be a Christian. I am at least fairly certain I wouldn’t be an atheist.

That's incredible, so you lost your faith due to the internet?:eek:

[SallyAnne]

I'm with Sam Harris on this one:

"There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable."




I disagree with that, there is a connection to the Holocaust and Social Darwinism.

How the hell was that reasonable? It was based on very poor stereotyped thinking.


Hitler did subscribe to social darwinisim. I edited my post, re-read.

[SallyAnne]

Is the danger posed by violent Islam, which seems to be the predominant side of Islam, spurring this transition away from faith? Is it the poster child for why religion poisons everything? I'm sure there are other reasons as well, but it seems to me that perhaps this might be one of the major factors in the West's decline in religious affiliation.



So Christian faith is declining because Christians don't want to be tainted with fantatic extremes of Islam?

No, I don't think so. I think any sensible person realises that the few violent fanatics are exactly that, a minority movement and not representative of Muslims as a whole so I don't believe that Christians think to themselves, "yikes, I better give up Jesus Christ because Islam makes religion look bad."

[TySixtus]

I disagree with that, there is a connection to the Holocaust and Social Darwinism.

How the hell was that reasonable? It was based on very poor stereotyped thinking.


Hitler did subscribe to social darwinisim. I edited my post, re-read.

Social Darwinism is not reasonable.

When people (like me) claim that reason should be the ultimate arbiter of disputes and the basis for ethical thoughts, that doesn't mean we think people should become unfeeling robots.

Emotions and feelings are part of human nature. Ergo it is perfectly reasonable to include them in our decision making processes. The idea that "reason" led to the gas chambers is simply absurd. Nazism was, if anything, a religion -- a cult of personality complete with myths, commandments, and rules of behavior.

[TySixtus]

To put it another way, some people confuse "reason" with "cold hard utilitarian logic".

[VoxRat]

What Ty said.

(Hi, Ty!)

[SallyAnne]

How the hell was that reasonable? It was based on very poor stereotyped thinking.


Hitler did subscribe to social darwinisim. I edited my post, re-read.

Social Darwinism is not reasonable.

When people (like me) claim that reason should be the ultimate arbiter of disputes and the basis for ethical thoughts, that doesn't mean we think people should become unfeeling robots.

Emotions and feelings are part of human nature. Ergo it is perfectly reasonable to include them in our decision making processes. The idea that "reason" led to the gas chambers is simply absurd. Nazism was, if anything, a religion -- a cult of personality complete with myths, commandments, and rules of behavior.


I agree with you, but when evolutionists claim we are animals, what is there to inspire anyone not to act like one?

Dawkins believes he descended from an ape, that's what he believes he started as and he still claims we are animals. So why all the outrage when humans act like animals from those who subscribe to his ideology and evolution?

[SallyAnne]

To put it another way, some people confuse "reason" with "cold hard utilitarian logic".


Apparently the murderous French Revolutionaries didn't confuse anything.

The Cult of Reason was "cold hard utilitarian logic."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Reason

[JamesBannon]

Hitler did subscribe to social darwinisim. I edited my post, re-read.

Social Darwinism is not reasonable.

When people (like me) claim that reason should be the ultimate arbiter of disputes and the basis for ethical thoughts, that doesn't mean we think people should become unfeeling robots.

Emotions and feelings are part of human nature. Ergo it is perfectly reasonable to include them in our decision making processes. The idea that "reason" led to the gas chambers is simply absurd. Nazism was, if anything, a religion -- a cult of personality complete with myths, commandments, and rules of behavior.


I agree with you, but when evolutionists claim we are animals, what is there to inspire anyone not to act like one?

Dawkins believes he descended from an ape, that's what he believes he started as and he still claims we are animals. So why all the outrage when humans act like animals from those who subscribe to his ideology and evolution?
Firstly, get it right: we have an ancestor in common with our ape cousins. We are not directly descended from modern apes. That said, we are primates, and therefore animals. We evolved. There is no special creation.

Secondly, evolution is not an ideology, it is science. It has more empirical support than gravity, which no-one seems to question. I wonder why that is. Could it be that we humans are so self-regarding that we think we are entirely separate from the rest of the animal kingdom? Well, I have news for you, we're not. We are gentle and cruel; intelligent and dumb; rational and emotional; moral, amoral and immoral. This is how we are. Whether or not any of our behaviour is justified is an entirely different question.

[TySixtus]

Hitler did subscribe to social darwinisim. I edited my post, re-read.

Social Darwinism is not reasonable.

When people (like me) claim that reason should be the ultimate arbiter of disputes and the basis for ethical thoughts, that doesn't mean we think people should become unfeeling robots.

Emotions and feelings are part of human nature. Ergo it is perfectly reasonable to include them in our decision making processes. The idea that "reason" led to the gas chambers is simply absurd. Nazism was, if anything, a religion -- a cult of personality complete with myths, commandments, and rules of behavior.


I agree with you, but when evolutionists claim we are animals, what is there to inspire anyone not to act like one?

First of all, plenty of animals act altruistically.

Second of all, what should "inspire" you to not act like an "animal" (whatever the means) is what inspires most people to not act like animals. Most people have no desire to run around killing other people, for example.

Dawkins believes he descended from an ape, that's what he believes he started as and he still claims we are animals. So why all the outrage when humans act like animals from those who subscribe to his ideology and evolution?

I don't even know what this paragraph is trying to say. Is your question rhetorical?

You can be an animal (as indeed we are) and still have moral/ethical standards for yourself. So what is your problem, exactly?

[TySixtus]

To put it another way, some people confuse "reason" with "cold hard utilitarian logic".


Apparently the murderous French Revolutionaries didn't confuse anything.

The Cult of Reason was "cold hard utilitarian logic."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Reason

Your link doesn't support what you just typed.

[SallyAnne]

To put it another way, some people confuse "reason" with "cold hard utilitarian logic".


Apparently the murderous French Revolutionaries didn't confuse anything.

The Cult of Reason was "cold hard utilitarian logic."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Reason

Your link doesn't support what you just typed.



Oh. So the "Cult of Reason" wasn't an attempt to instill a utilitarian authority in place of religion based on "reason." Ok.

[SallyAnne]

How is that supposed to be the case -- turning evolution into an ideology?

And how has Richard Dawkins supposedly done that? And what makes him such a big villain?

Also, how is Richard Dawkins "militant" about atheism? And what is his "agenda"?


He has an agenda against religion as his writing attest to. And he is a militant atheist because he is dedicated to proselytising about atheism using evolution as his "evidence" that God doesn't exist. And anyone who doesn't agree with him he regards as deluded. He has an agenda when he sends atheistic buses around London stating that God "probably" doesn't exist, specifically aimed at the Christian God because if he attempted to say "Allah probably doesn't exist" he'd have a fatwa on his head and Muslims would be torching London in protest. But it's only the Christian God he's dissing, so no biggie but I'd love to see him sending a bus around the streets of London declaring "Allah probably doesn't exist.' Somehow, I'm thinking he doesn't have the guts to do that considering how Muslims are known to react against anyone who dares insult their god.....

[SallyAnne]

(Richard Dawkins...)
He has an agenda against religion as his writing attest to. And he is a militant atheist because he is dedicated to proselytising about atheism using evolution as his "evidence" that God doesn't exist.
What gives you that idea? He never claimed that.

And anyone who doesn't agree with him he regards as deluded.
What gives you that idea?




Dunno, maybe the title of his book, The God Delusion .

Who's deluded? God? Or those who believe in Him?

[SallyAnne]

"Allah" is the Muslim name for God, so those ads apply to Muslims also.




No they don't. The campaign was run to counter the Alpha Course which is a Christian course. It was aimed at undermining the Christian Faith not Islam.

[SallyAnne]

And SallyAnne, why be so itchy? Whatever happened to loving your enemies and turning the other cheek?




Itchy? What's that? I was providing the facts that you asked for of why I regard Dawkins as an militant atheist. So who are you calling my enemy for whom I should turn the other cheek?

[SallyAnne]

And did you ever find copies of the orders that he allegedly gave to his underlings to buy space for atheist ads on buses?



No, I just read the various news articles which stipulated it was his campaign.

The Atheist Bus Campaign by Richard Dawkins. Check it out.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,3494,Atheists-launch-bus-ad-campaign,Ariane-Sherine

[Ray Moscow]

And SallyAnne, why be so itchy? Whatever happened to loving your enemies and turning the other cheek?




Itchy? What's that? I was providing the facts that you asked for of why I regard Dawkins as an militant atheist. So who are you calling my enemy for whom I should turn the other cheek?

By "militant" atheist, do you mean one who advocates military action against theists? :)

Or do you mean one who just speaks out against misinformation spread by religion?

[SallyAnne]

And SallyAnne, why be so itchy? Whatever happened to loving your enemies and turning the other cheek?




Itchy? What's that? I was providing the facts that you asked for of why I regard Dawkins as an militant atheist. So who are you calling my enemy for whom I should turn the other cheek?

By "militant" atheist, do you mean one who advocates military action against theists? :)

Or do you mean one who just speaks out against misinformation spread by religion?



I mean someone who actively proselytises atheism, evangelises atheism as a belief system in an organised, almost religious way.

[Ray Moscow]

(Richard Dawkins...)
He has an agenda against religion as his writing attest to. And he is a militant atheist because he is dedicated to proselytising about atheism using evolution as his "evidence" that God doesn't exist.
What gives you that idea? He never claimed that.

And anyone who doesn't agree with him he regards as deluded.
What gives you that idea?




Dunno, maybe the title of his book, The God Delusion .

Who's deluded? God? Or those who believe in Him?

It wouldn't hurt for you to read the book before discussing it.

[SallyAnne]

(Richard Dawkins...)

What gives you that idea? He never claimed that.


What gives you that idea?




Dunno, maybe the title of his book, The God Delusion .

Who's deluded? God? Or those who believe in Him?

It wouldn't hurt for you to read the book before discussing it.



So who is deluded? God? Or those who believe in him? Because I got the strong impression when I READ his book that he regards religious faith in God as a delusion which by natural extension implies that I am deluded.

Do you disagree with his reasoning? Or have I just misunderstood his writing?

[Ray Moscow]

Dunno, maybe the title of his book, The God Delusion .

Who's deluded? God? Or those who believe in Him?

It wouldn't hurt for you to read the book before discussing it.



So who is deluded? God? Or those who believe in him? Because I got the strong impression when I READ his book that he regards religious faith in God as a delusion which by natural extension means I am deluded.

Do you disagree with his reasoning? Or have I just misunderstood his writing?

Sorry -- you were arguing based on the book's title, not its contents.

With which argument in the book do you disgree? I thought he was spot on with pretty much all of them.

ETA: And yes, religious believers are deluded, since they are basing their life-shaping beliefs on fabrications without a single item of decent evidence to support them. Feel free to refute this statement by presenting some evidence hitherto overlooked.

[SallyAnne]

It wouldn't hurt for you to read the book before discussing it.



So who is deluded? God? Or those who believe in him? Because I got the strong impression when I READ his book that he regards religious faith in God as a delusion which by natural extension means I am deluded.

Do you disagree with his reasoning? Or have I just misunderstood his writing?

Sorry -- you were arguing based on the book's title, not its contents.

With which argument in the book do you disgree? I thought he was spot on with pretty much all of them.



I asked the questions because the title of the book makes a statement about why I believe Dawkins is a militant atheist. It's all in the title.

Don't you agree?

[SallyAnne]

[QUOTE=SallyAnne;24221]
ETA: And yes, religious believers are deluded, since they are basing their life-shaping beliefs on fabrications without a single item of decent evidence to support them. Feel free to refute this statement by presenting some evidence hitherto overlooked.


Interesting. I grew up in a secular home and an uneblieving environment, I didn't grow up in religion so my only "life shaping" experience has been one of secular ideals. So when I became a Christian as an adult, it felt like the other way around to me and that the unbelief was the deluded state with no evidence to support it.

Please present the evidence hitherto overlooked to refute my life as a believer so I may be convinced to return to the unbelief if you regard me and my entire life experience as a delusion.

[Ray Moscow]

So who is deluded? God? Or those who believe in him? Because I got the strong impression when I READ his book that he regards religious faith in God as a delusion which by natural extension means I am deluded.

Do you disagree with his reasoning? Or have I just misunderstood his writing?

Sorry -- you were arguing based on the book's title, not its contents.

With which argument in the book do you disgree? I thought he was spot on with pretty much all of them.



I asked the questions because the title of the book makes a statement about why I believe Dawkins is a militant atheist. It's all in the title.

Don't you agree?

I mean someone who actively proselytises atheism, evangelises atheism as a belief system in an organised, almost religious way.

I don't think your definition makes much sense, and so no, I don't agree.

[SallyAnne]

Sorry -- you were arguing based on the book's title, not its contents.

With which argument in the book do you disgree? I thought he was spot on with pretty much all of them.



I asked the questions because the title of the book makes a statement about why I believe Dawkins is a militant atheist. It's all in the title.

Don't you agree?

I mean someone who actively proselytises atheism, evangelises atheism as a belief system in an organised, almost religious way.

I don't think your definition makes much sense, and so no, I don't agree.


Why doesn't it make sense? Dawkins is not running an organised atheist campaign?

[Ray Moscow]

ETA: And yes, religious believers are deluded, since they are basing their life-shaping beliefs on fabrications without a single item of decent evidence to support them. Feel free to refute this statement by presenting some evidence hitherto overlooked.


Interesting. I grew up in a secular home and an uneblieving environment, I didn't grow up in religion so my only "life shaping" experience has been one of secular ideals. So when I became a Christian as an adult, it felt like the other way around to me and that the unbelief was the deluded state with no evidence to support it.

Please present the evidence hitherto overlooked to refute my life as a believer so I may be convinced to return to the unbelief if you regard me and my entire life experience as a delusion.

It's actually very simple.

The lack of belief in improbable things, like miracles, magic or various other woo-woo, is the default, because these things require a lot of evidence to support them. Natural explanations are preferred because they have a lot of evidence to support them.

Now, if you have evidence to support, let's say, the bodily assumption of the Virgin Mary to heaven, please trot it out to support that idea, and reasonable people will consider it. Without the evidence, it's just a silly idea.

It's the same for most other religious beliefs. If you have evidence to support them, bring it out. Otherwise, they are just silly ideas.

And to the extent that you believe silly, unsupported ideas, you're deluded.

[Ray Moscow]

I asked the questions because the title of the book makes a statement about why I believe Dawkins is a militant atheist. It's all in the title.

Don't you agree?

I mean someone who actively proselytises atheism, evangelises atheism as a belief system in an organised, almost religious way.

I don't think your definition makes much sense, and so no, I don't agree.


Why doesn't it make sense? Dawkins is not running an organised atheist campaign?

It doesn't make sense to call such a person a "militant" atheist, even if your description accurately described Dawkins.

And which campaign would that be?

[SallyAnne]

I don't think your definition makes much sense, and so no, I don't agree.


Why doesn't it make sense? Dawkins is not running an organised atheist campaign?

It doesn't make sense to call such a person a "militant" atheist, even if your description accurately described Dawkins.

And which campaign would that be?


The Atheist Bus Campaign and associated gimmicks.

[SallyAnne]

ETA: And yes, religious believers are deluded, since they are basing their life-shaping beliefs on fabrications without a single item of decent evidence to support them. Feel free to refute this statement by presenting some evidence hitherto overlooked.


Interesting. I grew up in a secular home and an uneblieving environment, I didn't grow up in religion so my only "life shaping" experience has been one of secular ideals. So when I became a Christian as an adult, it felt like the other way around to me and that the unbelief was the deluded state with no evidence to support it.

Please present the evidence hitherto overlooked to refute my life as a believer so I may be convinced to return to the unbelief if you regard me and my entire life experience as a delusion.

It's actually very simple.

The lack of belief in improbable things, like miracles, magic or various other woo-woo, is the default, because these things require a lot of evidence to support them. Natural explanations are preferred because they have a lot of evidence to support them.

Now, if you have evidence to support, let's say, the bodily assumption of the Virgin Mary to heaven, please trot it out to support that idea, and reasonable people will consider it. Without the evidence, it's just a silly idea.

It's the same for most other religious beliefs. If you have evidence to support them, bring it out. Otherwise, they are just silly ideas.

And to the extent that you believe silly, unsupported ideas, you're deluded.




Thanks for your input, but nothing you've said convinces me that you have the answers to life's mysteries let alone the evidence to support them. But thanks for trying to convince me I'm deluded even though you failed.

[Ray Moscow]

Why doesn't it make sense? Dawkins is not running an organised atheist campaign?

It doesn't make sense to call such a person a "militant" atheist, even if your description accurately described Dawkins.

And which campaign would that be?


The Atheist Bus Campaign and associated gimmicks.

Dawkins didn't design, initiate, or manage that one.

[Ray Moscow]

Interesting. I grew up in a secular home and an uneblieving environment, I didn't grow up in religion so my only "life shaping" experience has been one of secular ideals. So when I became a Christian as an adult, it felt like the other way around to me and that the unbelief was the deluded state with no evidence to support it.

Please present the evidence hitherto overlooked to refute my life as a believer so I may be convinced to return to the unbelief if you regard me and my entire life experience as a delusion.

It's actually very simple.

The lack of belief in improbable things, like miracles, magic or various other woo-woo, is the default, because these things require a lot of evidence to support them. Natural explanations are preferred because they have a lot of evidence to support them.

Now, if you have evidence to support, let's say, the bodily assumption of the Virgin Mary to heaven, please trot it out to support that idea, and reasonable people will consider it. Without the evidence, it's just a silly idea.

It's the same for most other religious beliefs. If you have evidence to support them, bring it out. Otherwise, they are just silly ideas.

And to the extent that you believe silly, unsupported ideas, you're deluded.




Thanks for your input, but nothing you've said convinces me that you have the answers to life's mysteries let alone the evidence to support them. But thanks for trying to convince me I'm deluded even though you failed.

Where did I claim to have "the answers to life's mysteries"? :dunno:

I'm just saying that religion doesn't have them, since it's basically just one falsehood after another. Apparently you've been happy to grasp at false answers, which means you're deluded (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:deluded&ei=cV3kSfK6CoLG-Abo2aj9CA&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title).

You'll have to look elsewhere for reliable answers. Fortunately for us, there are actual answers to be had, from science and other reality-based investigative disciplines.

[SallyAnne]

It's actually very simple.

The lack of belief in improbable things, like miracles, magic or various other woo-woo, is the default, because these things require a lot of evidence to support them. Natural explanations are preferred because they have a lot of evidence to support them.

Now, if you have evidence to support, let's say, the bodily assumption of the Virgin Mary to heaven, please trot it out to support that idea, and reasonable people will consider it. Without the evidence, it's just a silly idea.

It's the same for most other religious beliefs. If you have evidence to support them, bring it out. Otherwise, they are just silly ideas.

And to the extent that you believe silly, unsupported ideas, you're deluded.




Thanks for your input, but nothing you've said convinces me that you have the answers to life's mysteries let alone the evidence to support them. But thanks for trying to convince me I'm deluded even though you failed.

Where did I claim to have "the answers to life's mysteries"? :dunno:

I'm just saying that religion doesn't have them,


Right, religion doesn't have them but I believe in Jesus Christ not religion. He is a real Being, Alive and Risen. So no, I don't put my faith in "religion" but in the personage of Jesus Himself.

Call me deluded, it makes no odds to me because the Bible already says that the Gospel is foolish and an offense to the Greeks so I'm not exactly expecting an atheist to think I'm not deluded when he puts his own faith in man's reasonings.

Jesus died and people don't come back from the dead according to science so you believe in that and I believe Jesus is who He says He is.

[Ray Moscow]

Right, religion doesn't have them but I believe in Jesus Christ not religion. He is a real Being, Alive and Risen. So no, I don't put my faith in "religion" but in the personage of Jesus Himself.

If you don't consider yourself religious, why are you defending religion?

(BTW, this sort of "bait and switch" fools no one.)

Call me deluded, it makes no odds to me because the Bible already says that the Gospel is foolish and an offense to the Greeks so I'm not exactly expecting an atheist to think I'm not deluded when he puts his own faith in man's reasonings.

**Yawn** Another retreat to 1 Corith 1 to avoid rational discussion. Do you have any idea how lame this is?

Jesus died and people don't come back from the dead according to science so you believe in that and I believe Jesus is who He says He is.

I'm still waiting for the evidence to support your belief in the resurrection or other silly religious ideas. You should show us how your beliefs are not delusional but instead are supported by reason and evidence.

I've been waiting, and actively looking, for such evidence a long time, but it never seems to come to anything.

[Ray Moscow]

I'm just saying that religion doesn't have them, since it's basically just one falsehood after another. Apparently you've been happy to grasp at false answers, which means you're deluded (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:deluded&ei=cV3kSfK6CoLG-Abo2aj9CA&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title).

You'll have to look elsewhere for reliable answers. Fortunately for us, there are actual answers to be had, from science and other reality-based investigative disciplines.



I spent the majority of my life believing I had reliable answers according to science, unbelief and secularism. Fortunately for me, Jesus answered when all of those failed.

And what "questions" did Jesus "answer"?

[tjakey]

Only because this bullshit gets tiresome...

Just what does the fact that Eighth grade science is beyond Sally Ann have to do with a question on Islam driving a retreat from faith?

[TySixtus]

Apparently the murderous French Revolutionaries didn't confuse anything.

The Cult of Reason was "cold hard utilitarian logic."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Reason

Your link doesn't support what you just typed.



Oh. So the "Cult of Reason" wasn't an attempt to instill a utilitarian authority in place of religion based on "reason." Ok.

Welll you'd have to provide some evidence that is was in order for your sarcastic point to have an effect.

[lpetrich]

And SallyAnne, why be so itchy? Whatever happened to loving your enemies and turning the other cheek?
Itchy? What's that? I was providing the facts that you asked for of why I regard Dawkins as an militant atheist. So who are you calling my enemy for whom I should turn the other cheek?
You were implying that Richard Dawkins is one of your enemies.

And you have not succeeded in showing that Richard Dawkins is much more militant than (say) you.

[Goodchild]

So Christian faith is declining because Christians don't want to be tainted with fantatic extremes of Islam?

That's not what I said at all. Actually, further posts of mine should have clarified that what I was talking about is that the example of Islam can lead people to question religion in general. It's hard to decry the example of Islam when you then look to your own religion and see much of the same general attitude, typically not carried out as violently but still there nevertheless.

[Goodchild]

It doesn't make sense to call such a person a "militant" atheist, even if your description accurately described Dawkins.

By the definition given, wouldn't that in turn make Sally a militant theist? And if so, why even bother with the militant tag at all?

[Goodchild]

Only because this bullshit gets tiresome...

Just what does the fact that Eighth grade science is beyond Sally Ann have to do with a question on Islam driving a retreat from faith?

Yeah, I was wondering how my thread suddenly shifted into a discussion on evolution, Richard Dawkins and the concept of delusion :)

Admittedly, they're all fun (though indeed tiresome) topics, but not the initial thrust of my question.

[JamesBannon]

Firstly, get it right: we have an ancestor in common with our ape cousins. We are not directly descended from modern apes. That said, we are primates, and therefore animals. We evolved. There is no special creation.



Sorry, but I disgaree with you on our origins just as you disagree with me regarding Creation. I didn't evolve from an ape. But feel free to believe that for yourself, just don't expect me to.
It isn't a question of belief, SallyAnne, it's a question of scientific evidence. You know, that thing scientists use to form parsimonious theories about the world we inhabit. I'm sorry to have to burst your bubble, but DNA evidence alone strongly supports the view that you, me, and everyone else are primates. We share much of our genetic code with modern apes; to all intents and purposes, we are simply sophisticated apes. I suggest you get used to the idea. It really can be quite a glorious thing to share so much in common with the rest of the natural world.

[TheBear]

Indeed.

[SallyAnne]

Your link doesn't support what you just typed.



Oh. So the "Cult of Reason" wasn't an attempt to instill a utilitarian authority in place of religion based on "reason." Ok.

Welll you'd have to provide some evidence that is was in order for your sarcastic point to have an effect.


Oh, so you want me to search around for a link to explain the obvious to you, no thanks, I don't have that much time to waste.

[SallyAnne]

Right, religion doesn't have them but I believe in Jesus Christ not religion. He is a real Being, Alive and Risen. So no, I don't put my faith in "religion" but in the personage of Jesus Himself.

If you don't consider yourself religious, why are you defending religion?



I'm not defending religion. I'm defending my faith in Jesus Christ as per the fundamentals of the faith in Him.

If you believe I am defending religion then please explain what denomination because I don't belong to any denomination so I'm not here to represent a "religion" per se.

[SallyAnne]

It doesn't make sense to call such a person a "militant" atheist, even if your description accurately described Dawkins.

By the definition given, wouldn't that in turn make Sally a militant theist? And if so, why even bother with the militant tag at all?


Probably not. I'm not a theist.

[SallyAnne]

So Christian faith is declining because Christians don't want to be tainted with fantatic extremes of Islam?

That's not what I said at all. Actually, further posts of mine should have clarified that what I was talking about is that the example of Islam can lead people to question religion in general. It's hard to decry the example of Islam when you then look to your own religion and see much of the same general attitude, typically not carried out as violently but still there nevertheless.


Where? What ideology is there that permeates certain extremes of Christianity to engage in homocidal suicide campaigns against civilians comparable to Islamic terrorists?

Sorry, there just isn't.

[VoxRat]

So Christian faith is declining because Christians don't want to be tainted with fantatic extremes of Islam?

That's not what I said at all. Actually, further posts of mine should have clarified that what I was talking about is that the example of Islam can lead people to question religion in general. It's hard to decry the example of Islam when you then look to your own religion and see much of the same general attitude, typically not carried out as violently but still there nevertheless.


Where? What ideology is there that permeates certain extremes of Christianity to engage in homocidal suicide campaigns against civilians comparable to Islamic terrorists?

Sorry, there just isn't.Well, there was that whole Crusades unpleasantness. Is the key element whether the homocide is also suicide?

[SallyAnne]

That's not what I said at all. Actually, further posts of mine should have clarified that what I was talking about is that the example of Islam can lead people to question religion in general. It's hard to decry the example of Islam when you then look to your own religion and see much of the same general attitude, typically not carried out as violently but still there nevertheless.


Where? What ideology is there that permeates certain extremes of Christianity to engage in homocidal suicide campaigns against civilians comparable to Islamic terrorists?

Sorry, there just isn't.Well, there was that whole Crusades unpleasantness. Is the key element whether the homocide is also suicide?



Do you regard the Crusades in line with the teachings of Jesus? And was the goal of recapturing of the Holy Land from the Muslims a terrorist act or a military campaign being waged between conquering empires?

And do you regard the present suicide bombers of extremist Muslims against civilian sites such as a the Twin Towers as the same? What is the goal of the Islamic suicide bomber?

[SallyAnne]

No-one knows, which allows scope for people to postulate a god of the gaps.

But I don't buy that, myself, because I don't see how a creator who existed before the big bang could be part of our universe, among other reasons.






Why?

[David B]

No-one knows, which allows scope for people to postulate a god of the gaps.

But I don't buy that, myself, because I don't see how a creator who existed before the big bang could be part of our universe, among other reasons.




Why?

Well, in short, because everything we can be reasonably be said to know about the universe points to any entity being able to observe things, do things, to judge things being very complex, as is, for instance, a brain.

And what we see points to things being less complex in the past.

And also points to conditions in the early universe where nothing very structured could exist.

David

[hecaterin]

By "militant" atheist, do you mean one who advocates military action against theists? :)

Or do you mean one who just speaks out against misinformation spread by religion?I mean someone who actively proselytises atheism, evangelises atheism as a belief system in an organised, almost religious way. Which is a bad thing to you, right?

I do love how religionists like to denigrate atheists by calling them religious.

[SallyAnne]

By "militant" atheist, do you mean one who advocates military action against theists? :)

Or do you mean one who just speaks out against misinformation spread by religion?I mean someone who actively proselytises atheism, evangelises atheism as a belief system in an organised, almost religious way. Which is a bad thing to you, right?

I do love how religionists like to denigrate atheists by calling them religious.



No I don't consider it a bad thing. I'm just making the distinction that when atheists claim that they are not religious because they have no core ideology, that isn't exactly consistent when you have someone who is a militant atheist such as Dawkins.

I do regard Dawkins as religious in his beliefs, even a fundamentalist, but no, I don't see that as a denigrating comment, just an observation of how he approaches his subject which in some ways one could take as a compliment. But if you take it as a denigration that's your call but it's not meant to be because I actually warmed to him when I could see how passionate he was in what he believed (even though I personally vehemently disagree with him).

[VoxRat]

... a militant atheist such as Dawkins.

I do regard Dawkins as religious in his beliefs, even a fundamentalist, but no, I don't see that as a denigrating comment, just an observation. If you take it as a denigration that's your call but it's not meant to be.What's your definition of "militant", and what's your definition of "fundamentalist"?

I don't see how either of those adjectives applies to Dawkins.

[SallyAnne]

... a militant atheist such as Dawkins.

I do regard Dawkins as religious in his beliefs, even a fundamentalist, but no, I don't see that as a denigrating comment, just an observation. If you take it as a denigration that's your call but it's not meant to be.What's your definition of "militant", and what's your definition of "fundamentalist"?

I don't see how either of those adjectives applies to Dawkins.


Why?

[VoxRat]

... a militant atheist such as Dawkins.

I do regard Dawkins as religious in his beliefs, even a fundamentalist, but no, I don't see that as a denigrating comment, just an observation. If you take it as a denigration that's your call but it's not meant to be.What's your definition of "militant", and what's your definition of "fundamentalist"?

I don't see how either of those adjectives applies to Dawkins.


Why?
militant: (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militant)1 : engaged in warfare or combat : fighting
2 : aggressively active (as in a cause) : combative <militant conservationists> <a militant attitude> I don't see Dawkins engaged in warfare, and I don't see standing up for the right to not believe something as being "aggressive".

fundamentalist (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fundamentalist)1a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b: the beliefs of this movement c: adherence to such beliefs
2: a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles He certainly doesn't qualify under 1a, 1b, or 1c; I'm sure you would agree to that. Nor do I see where he's stressing "strict adherence to a set of basic principles".

[SallyAnne]

What's your definition of "militant", and what's your definition of "fundamentalist"?

I don't see how either of those adjectives applies to Dawkins.


Why?
militant: (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militant)1 : engaged in warfare or combat : fighting
2 : aggressively active (as in a cause) : combative <militant conservationists> <a militant attitude> I don't see Dawkins engaged in warfare, and I don't see standing up for the right to not believe something as being "aggressive".



So you don't regard his attacks on religion and dismissal of all us who believe in a "personal God" as deluded, as combative in any way? That's not aggressive or disrespectful at all? To accuse others of being deluded because they don't happen to agree with his point of view?

That's just him standing up for the right not to believe? If that is the case, what has my belief got to do with his unbelief? His unbelief has absolutely ZILCH to do with my belief but he attacks people of faith as being deluded. So does his unbelief only rest on the fact that many of us believe?

[SallyAnne]

fundamentalist (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fundamentalist)1a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b: the beliefs of this movement c: adherence to such beliefs
2: a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles He certainly doesn't qualify under 1a, 1b, or 1c; I'm sure you would agree to that. Nor do I see where he's stressing "strict adherence to a set of basic principles".


Yes he does, his principles lie in science and a ferocious opposition to the supernatural.

[VoxRat]

fundamentalist (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fundamentalist)1a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b: the beliefs of this movement c: adherence to such beliefs
2: a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles He certainly doesn't qualify under 1a, 1b, or 1c; I'm sure you would agree to that. Nor do I see where he's stressing "strict adherence to a set of basic principles".


Yes he does, his principles lie in science and a ferocious opposition to the supernatural.He doesn't advocate "strict adherence" to science; He's perfectly fine with not everyone being a scientist. And he's not opposed, ferociously or even mildly, to the supernatural. How could he be? he doesn't believe it exists!

[VoxRat]

So you don't regard his attacks on religion and dismissal of all us who believe in a "personal God" as deluded, as combative in any way?If I say I don't believe in leprechauns, and I don't think anyone else has a good reason to, I'm not attacking leprechaun-believers.

That's not aggressive or disrespectful at all? To accuse others of being deluded because they don't happen to agree with his point of view? No, it's neither "aggressive" nor "disrespectful". And it's not an "accusation". Why is it "aggressive" and "disrespectful" to simply call it as you see it? Would you regard me as terribly aggressive and disrespectful if I say I think scientology is hogwash?

That's just him standing up for the right not to believe? If that is the case, what has my belief got to do with his unbelief? Absolutely nothing. That's why he hasn't imposed in any way on your belief. Am I required to hold my tongue on scientology? Even if I think it's not only hogwash, but is a scam?

His unbelief has absolutely ZILCH to do with my belief but he attacks people of faith as being deluded.If I say I think scientologists are deluded, am I "attacking" them? So does his unbelief only rest on the fact that many of us believe?:confused:

Well I doubt he'd feel the need to write about beliefs that no one holds.

[SallyAnne]

fundamentalist (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fundamentalist)He certainly doesn't qualify under 1a, 1b, or 1c; I'm sure you would agree to that. Nor do I see where he's stressing "strict adherence to a set of basic principles".


Yes he does, his principles lie in science and a ferocious opposition to the supernatural.He doesn't advocate "strict adherence" to science; He's perfectly fine with not everyone being a scientist. And he's not opposed, ferociously or even mildly, to the supernatural. How could he be? he doesn't believe it exists!


Then why is he so intent on trying to debunk something that doesn't even exist? I sure as heck don't feel the need to write endless tomes on why Zeus doesn't exist because I don't believe it does.

[SallyAnne]

So you don't regard his attacks on religion and dismissal of all us who believe in a "personal God" as deluded, as combative in any way?If I say I don't believe in leprechauns, and I don't think anyone else has a good reason to, I'm not attacking leprechaun-believers.



Ah, but if you then call a leprechaun-believer "deluded" then you are attacking leprechaun believers.

Dawkins doesn't merely say "I don't believe in God" he actually calls Christians deluded.

[SallyAnne]

That's not aggressive or disrespectful at all? To accuse others of being deluded because they don't happen to agree with his point of view?

No, it's neither "aggressive" nor "disrespectful". And it's not an "accusation". Why is it "aggressive" and "disrespectful" to simply call it as you see it?




Wow, so if I called you "deluded" for being an atheist, you would be ok with that? Because that's how Dawkins refers to us. I dunno, when I was growing up it wouldn't be proper to call someone who doesn't agree with your view of the world "deluded." You have a difference of opinions and beliefs maybe....but deluded?

[SallyAnne]

Would you regard me as terribly aggressive and disrespectful if I say I think scientology is hogwash?





Put it this way, if there was a scientologist here, I wouldn't be happy if you straight out called him "deluded" because that might hurt his feelings because it is disrespectful. If you said to him that you think what he believes is "hogwash" I think that would be permissable because you're not attacking him personally.

[SallyAnne]

Well I doubt he'd feel the need to write about beliefs that no one holds.




Why doesn't he just write about his own beliefs? It's like he doesn't have any unless they go contrary to others.

It's like without a belief in God, he has no unbelief. LOL. Religion defines what he believes whether he likes it or not. :p

[VoxRat]

Yes he does, his principles lie in science and a ferocious opposition to the supernatural.He doesn't advocate "strict adherence" to science; He's perfectly fine with not everyone being a scientist. And he's not opposed, ferociously or even mildly, to the supernatural. How could he be? he doesn't believe it exists!


Then why is he so intent on trying to debunk something that doesn't even exist? I sure as heck don't feel the need to write endless tomes on why Zeus doesn't exist because I don't believe it does.
He believes God doesn't exist. He doesn't believe belief in God doesn't exist. Not many people these days believe Zeus exists.

[SallyAnne]

He doesn't advocate "strict adherence" to science; He's perfectly fine with not everyone being a scientist. And he's not opposed, ferociously or even mildly, to the supernatural. How could he be? he doesn't believe it exists!


Then why is he so intent on trying to debunk something that doesn't even exist? I sure as heck don't feel the need to write endless tomes on why Zeus doesn't exist because I don't believe it does.
He believes God doesn't exist. He doesn't believe belief in God doesn't exist. Not many people these days believe Zeus exists.



Oh. So he just has a beef with those of us who believe in the non-existent entity, I get it. I would have thought an atheist could quickly get over himself regarding that, God doesn't exist remember? :rolleyes:

[VoxRat]

...
Ah, but if you then call a leprechaun-believer "deluded" then you are attacking leprechaun believers. No you're not. Why do you think that? Psychiatrists have to treat schizophrenic patients all the time, patients who suffer from delusions. Do you think those psychiatrists are attacking their patients? My wife is an M.D. When she was doing her psychiatric rotation in medical school, the mentor brought in a patient that went on and on about "the Blue Army" and its role in defending or promoting (damned if I know) the Virgin Mary. The psychiatrist was telling the students how this was a classic case of schizophrenic delusions. My wife, raised Catholic, had to tell him that this patient had not made this stuff up. I'm inclined to think that the line is not so clear between "delusion" and "traditional beliefs".

Dawkins doesn't merely say "I don't believe in God" he actually calls Christians deluded.Do you call Wiccans deluded? If so, are you attacking them?

[VoxRat]

That's not aggressive or disrespectful at all? To accuse others of being deluded because they don't happen to agree with his point of view?

No, it's neither "aggressive" nor "disrespectful". And it's not an "accusation". Why is it "aggressive" and "disrespectful" to simply call it as you see it?

Wow, so if I called you "deluded" for being an atheist, you would be ok with that? Well? Isn't that what you believe? I expect it is. And, yes, I'm OK with that. Because that's how Dawkins refers to us. I dunno, when I was growing up it wouldn't be proper to call someone who doesn't agree with your view of the world "deluded." You have a difference of opinions and beliefs maybe....but deluded?Both are possible. I have differences of opinions and beliefs with doctrinaire Communists, and with right-wing anti-communists. But I don't necessarily think they're "deluded". I also have differences of opinion with Mormons, Muslims, and Scientologists. And, yes, I do think they're deluded. I don't go into their gatherings, and up-end their tables, and disrupt their normal operations (like Jesus did, incidentally); that would be aggressive and disrespectful. But I do think they're deluded. Am I a bad person for thinking that? Am I a bad person for saying what I think?

[VoxRat]

Would you regard me as terribly aggressive and disrespectful if I say I think scientology is hogwash?

Put it this way, if there was a scientologist here, I wouldn't be happy if you straight out called him "deluded" because that might hurt his feelings because it is disrespectful. If you said to him that you think what he believes is "hogwash" I think that would be permissable because you're not attacking him personally.Has Dawkins told anyone they're deluded, to their face? I don't think so. He's spoken his mind. People are free to listen to him, or read his books, or not.

[VoxRat]

Well I doubt he'd feel the need to write about beliefs that no one holds.
Why doesn't he just write about his own beliefs? It's like he doesn't have any unless they go contrary to others. If I think X is seriously wrong, it doesn't mean I don't believe Y is probably true. He obviously believes that evolution happens, for instance. He's written several books about it. You might want to read them sometime.

It's like without a belief in God, he has no unbelief. LOL. Religion defines what he believes whether he likes it or not. :pDoes Thor define what you believe in, whether you like it or not? Dawkins just believes in one (or maybe three; I've never got the hang of this Trinity thing) fewer gods than you.

[VoxRat]

Oh. So he just has a beef with those of us who believe in the non-existent entity, I get it. I would have thought an atheist could quickly get over himself regarding that, God doesn't exist remember? :rolleyes:He has a beef with the harm done by people believing in non-existent entities. Mohammed Atta, for instance. He actually did exist.

You know, you seem to have a real hostility - dare I say hatred? - for Richard Dawkins. It doesn't seem healthy. Why do you care what he thinks or says?

[VoxRat]

...Oh. So he just has a beef with those of us who believe in the non-existent entity, I get it. I would have thought an atheist could quickly get over himself regarding that, God doesn't exist remember? :rolleyes:
You know, the "Oh... I get it... :rolleyes:" makes me think that you're being sarcastic and bitter. Why is that? I'm just telling you what I think; asking what you think. Why the sarcasm and bitterness? Or am I wrong to infer that?

[hecaterin]

I think that most of us do not care at all what deluded beliefs anyone else has. What we do care about, is when people try to impose their deluded beliefs on the rest of us.

Which they do, ad nauseam. Crusades, jihads, pogroms, screwing up science education, killing each other, killing women and gays, you know the drill. If it were really just a private relationship with God, Allah, Bozo the Clown, the IPU, the FSM or the voices in your head, then that wouldn't be a problem for anyone. (Except perhaps your immediate friends and family.)

[SallyAnne]

...
Ah, but if you then call a leprechaun-believer "deluded" then you are attacking leprechaun believers. No you're not. Why do you think that? Psychiatrists have to treat schizophrenic patients all the time, patients who suffer from delusions.


Pardon moi? Are you for freaking real? You're going to now justify Dawkins calling all of us who believe "deluded" and back that up by comparing it to a doctor who treats schizophrenic patients?

First off, Dawkins is no world renown psychiatrist personally treating mental patients, nvm having any experience of medically diagnosing anyone as "delusional." So who is he to think that he can accurately and medically diagnose the world's entire population of believers as "deluded" and why the heck should I or any one else take him seriously? Because he's a biologist? LOL, whatever.

Secondly, I really don't care anymore whether Dawkins believes we're deluded or whether you agree with him, but what I will say is that I think you really take the cake to think you can compare Dawkins to a trained medical professional treating deludenoid schizos.

[VoxRat]

Pardon moi? Are you for freaking real? You're going to now justify Dawkins calling all of us who believe "deluded" and back that up by comparing it to a doctor who treats schizophrenic patients?Wow! That was dramatic! Yes, I am "justifying" Dawkins for calling it as he sees it. In fact, wouldn't it be sort of disingenuous not to? And, yes, perhaps I am "comparing" it to a doctor who treats schizophrenic patients. However, "comparing" is not "equating". You understand the difference? The question - which you conveniently avoided in your high dudgeon - is the psychiatrist attacking his patient in labelling him "deluded"? See, I don't think so. The psychiatrist could be mistaken, as my wife was trying to tell this one, but I don't think he's attacking the patient. I guess you do?

Secondly, I really don't care anymore whether Dawkins believes we're deluded or whether you agree with him but what I will say is that I think you really take the cake to think you can compare Dawkins to a trained medical professional treating schizos.Remember: "compare" is not the same as "equate".

[SallyAnne]

I think that most of us do not care at all what deluded beliefs anyone else has.


Dawkins seems to, he's assigned himself as the World Psychiatrist of Deludenoids, especially of all those he doesn't personally know and has no qualifications to diagnose.:D

LOL! Methinks Dawkins is the deluded one if he thinks his biology degree qualifies him as a Psychiatrist of a world of patients he hasn't even met....haha.:p

[VoxRat]

... Are you for freaking real?

... I will say is that I think you really take the cake to think you can compare Dawkins to a trained medical professional treating deludenoid schizos.I will say I think I'm treating you with more respect than you're reciprocating.

[VoxRat]

I think that most of us do not care at all what deluded beliefs anyone else has.


Dawkins seems to, he's assigned himself as the World Psychiatrist of Deludenoids, especially of all those he doesn't personally know and has no qualifications to diagnose.:D

LOL! Methinks Dawkins is the deluded one if he thinks his biology degree qualifies him as a Psychiatrist of a world of patients he hasn't even met....haha.:pI think YOU'RE deluded if you think Dawkins thinks that.

I think Mohammed Atta was deluded. And yet, I have no training in psychiatry. Is that terribly presumptuous of me? Am I not allowed to think that? If I do, am I not allowed to say it?

[SallyAnne]

Wow! That was dramatic!

LOL! Not really, that was just me being a little bit enthusiastic.:innocent:

:evil:

Yes, I am "justifying" Dawkins for calling it as he sees it.

Based on what? His myriad of psychiatry degrees and honours and luggage loads of experience in the medical profession dealing with delusionals?

Or just because he says so?


In fact, wouldn't it be sort of disingenuous not to?

It's sort of disingenuous to believe you can medically diagnose others when you're not a medical professional, yeah. But if you want to support him in that delusion of himself, who am I to stop you?


And, yes, perhaps I am "comparing" it to a doctor who treats schizophrenic patients. However, "comparing" is not "equating". You understand the difference?


There is absolutely no "comparison" what-so-freaking-ever! Dawkins is a biologist, plain and simple. He's no psychiatrist so his opinion on any psychiatric condition means absolutely jack. But he's put himself on record as making that audacious assessment. Blimey, I'm beginning to think he has his own "illusions of grandeur."


The question - which you conveniently avoided in your high dudgeon - is the psychiatrist attacking his patient in labelling him "deluded"? See, I don't think so. The psychiatrist could be mistaken, as my wife was trying to tell this one, but I don't think he's attacking the patient. I guess you do?

A psychiatrist is a trained professional qualified to medically diagnose a condition. When he DIAGNOSES someone as "deluded" he's not labeling him without a thorough medical examining. He may very well be incorrect, doctors don't always make the right call but they are highly trained to assess the situation as accurately as they can.

But when a trumped up biologist called Richard Dawkins makes himself into a psuedo-psychiatrist by believing that he has the ability to label an entire group of people with a medical condition that he isn't qualified to assess, and is not even in a position to diagnose, then one must conclude that he's the deluded one to think his opinion carries credible weight.

[SallyAnne]

... Are you for freaking real?

... I will say is that I think you really take the cake to think you can compare Dawkins to a trained medical professional treating deludenoid schizos.I will say I think I'm treating you with more respect than you're reciprocating.


Don't make me laugh! I think you didn't treat me with any respect when you thought you could compare what Dawkins is doing to a psychiatrist dealing with mental patients who are "deluded."

No, that isn't respectful. But who the heck cares, it's not like I expect any anyway.:D

[SallyAnne]

I think that most of us do not care at all what deluded beliefs anyone else has.


Dawkins seems to, he's assigned himself as the World Psychiatrist of Deludenoids, especially of all those he doesn't personally know and has no qualifications to diagnose.:D

LOL! Methinks Dawkins is the deluded one if he thinks his biology degree qualifies him as a Psychiatrist of a world of patients he hasn't even met....haha.:pI think YOU'RE deluded if you think Dawkins thinks that.

Hey, you're the one who compared him to a psychiatrist. But for all my so-called "delusions" I can pretty much comprehend that Dawkins uneducated opinion on that means jack. He's not a psychiatrist and he's not in a position to credibly assess anyone as deluded, nvm brand and entire group of people as deluded.

[VoxRat]

Yes, I am "justifying" Dawkins for calling it as he sees it.

Based on what? His myriad of psychiatry degrees and honours and luggage loads of experience in the medical profession dealing with delusionals?

Or just because he says so?Remember, Dawkins never claimed any kind of psychiatric expertise. I made the comparison. It's a comparison; not an equation. You seem to be intent on accusing Dawkins of... something. Practicing psychiatry without a license? But the fact is the word "delusion" predates psychiatry, and Dawkins, or you, or I, are free to use the word without fear of malpractice suits.

It's sort of disingenuous to believe you can medically diagnose others when you're not a medical professional, yeah. But if you want to support him in that delusion of himself, who am I to stop you?Again: the word "delusion" predates psychiatry. There is no pretense, anywhere, of a "medical" diagnosis. Why are you going on about it?


And, yes, perhaps I am "comparing" it to a doctor who treats schizophrenic patients. However, "comparing" is not "equating". You understand the difference?


There is absolutely no "comparison" what-so-freaking-ever! Dawkins is a biologist, plain and simple. He's no psychiatrist so his opinion on any psychiatric condition means absolutely jack. But he's put himself on record as making that audacious assessment. Blimey, I'm beginning to think he has his own "illusions of grandeur."I'm beginning to think you have an unhealthy hatred toward the man. No, he's not putting himself on record as making any kind of "medical" assessment. No, the word "delusion" is not reserved for people with medical training. No, sharing your opinion that scientologists, or radical muslims, or Christians are "deluded" is neither egregiously "audacious" nor symptomatic of "illusions of grandeur".


The question - which you conveniently avoided in your high dudgeon - is the psychiatrist attacking his patient in labelling him "deluded"? See, I don't think so. The psychiatrist could be mistaken, as my wife was trying to tell this one, but I don't think he's attacking the patient. I guess you do?

But when a trumped up biologist called Richard DawkinsExcuse me? "Trumped up biologist"? Are you in a position to critique Dawkins's expertise as a biologist? Again, it seems to me this thing you have about Dawkins is beyond reasonable. makes himself into a psuedo-psychiatrist by believing that he has the ability to label an entire group of people with a medical condition that he isn't qualified to assess, and is not even in a position to diagnose, then one must conclude that he's the deluded one to think his opinion carries weight.This is nuts. Dawkins did not "make himself into a psuedo-psychiatrist [sic]", he didn't label anyone with a "medical condition".

Really. Get a grip. Why do you care what he thinks?

[SallyAnne]

...Oh. So he just has a beef with those of us who believe in the non-existent entity, I get it. I would have thought an atheist could quickly get over himself regarding that, God doesn't exist remember? :rolleyes:
You know, the "Oh... I get it... :rolleyes:" makes me think that you're being sarcastic and bitter. Why is that? I'm just telling you what I think; asking what you think. Why the sarcasm and bitterness? Or am I wrong to infer that?


Not bitter, not one bit. Sarcastic yes, but not at you, at Dawkins. Because I fail to understand why someone can be so obssessed about trying to debunk something that they believe is non-existent. He scribbles pages and pages dedicated to the subject. I find it bizarre and dishonest, it makes me think he really does believe there is a God to be so concerned about it.

[TheBear]

I don't have to be a psychiatrist to claim that adults who believe leprechauns really exist are deluded. ....or do I?

[VoxRat]

... Are you for freaking real?

... I will say is that I think you really take the cake to think you can compare Dawkins to a trained medical professional treating deludenoid schizos.I will say I think I'm treating you with more respect than you're reciprocating.


Don't make me laugh! I think you didn't treat me with any respect when you thought you could compare what Dawkins is doing to a psychiatrist dealing with mental patients who are "deluded."

No, that isn't respectful. But who the heck cares, it's not like I expect any anyway.:DOK. I missed this one. With that, I bid you a fond adieu. Have a nice life. I'm not going to try to reason with you any further.

[SallyAnne]

Excuse me? "Trumped up biologist"? Are you in a position to critique Dawkins's expertise as a biologist?



LOL! Nope. He is a kosher Biologist.:notworthy:

[SallyAnne]

I will say I think I'm treating you with more respect than you're reciprocating.


Don't make me laugh! I think you didn't treat me with any respect when you thought you could compare what Dawkins is doing to a psychiatrist dealing with mental patients who are "deluded."

No, that isn't respectful. But who the heck cares, it's not like I expect any anyway.:DOK. I missed this one. With that, I bid you a fond adieu. Have a nice life. I'm not going to try to reason with you any further.



You weren't attempting to anyway. You were trying to justify Dawkins comments and thought you could compare that to a psychiatrist treating schizos. No offense, but believers in God aren't schizos or "deluded" no matter how much you want to agree with and "justify" Dawkins opinions. That's ignorant.

Farewell.

And for the record, I think you are a nice person and I hope you don't take this personally because I like you, I just don't agree with you.

[SallyAnne]

Really. Get a grip. Why do you care what he thinks?



Yes, great point indeed! Why do I care what he thinks? I don't. So no more wasting time chatting about him and what he thinks. Thank you.:)

[SallyAnne]

I'm beginning to think you have an unhealthy hatred toward the man.

(Last comment on Dawkins)

Actually no, that is where you are very wrong. I warmed to him when I watched his doco about Darwin. I liked his passion for his subject and found him much nicer than his writing. He seems personable and amiable in person, well, what I saw on TV. I quite liked him.

[SallyAnne]

Wow, so if I called you "deluded" for being an atheist, you would be ok with that? Well? Isn't that what you believe? I expect it is.



No, it's not what I believe. I don't believe you're deluded.

[SallyAnne]

I don't think any sane person believes that. Actually, the only ones I'm aware of who believe that way, are religious people. 'Magic Man dun it all.', they'll tell you. 'Just look at Genesis 1 and 2 for confirmation and verification. It's all the proof you need!'

As opposed to the "mysterious big bang and hairy evolving ape man" didn't do it because it was all just a chance encounter which no-one really has a clue about before the big bang but we believe it anyway because science says so even though it can't go back in time and measure what was before the big bang or why it happened. That kind of proof?

There is no "before the Big Bang", that doesn't make any sense. (Actually, it wasn't a "bang" as such, more an "inflation"). We have scientists called cosmologists who spend their working lives studying this stuff. They can tell you what happened a few millionths of a second after the inflation started (I'll give you a clue - it was rather hot). And this, although not certain, nothing involving observation is ever certain, is backed by large amounts of empirical data cosmologists have gathered by studying stars, galaxies, and so forth.

As for what caused the inflation in the first place, see HNA's cheese sandwich! In other words, we simply do not know. There are ideas floating around (M-theory is one such) based on quantum observations and theoretical mechanics, but these are only ideas as yet, not mainstream science. They may become mainstream, but they have to be able to generate testable predictions first.


Ok, thank you, interesting stuff.:)

[Lanakila]

I think that Dawkins was being purposely pointed in the title of his book the God Delusion. Yes he believes that God believers are deluded, but he titled his book that way as a challenge.

I don't think anyone should be offended that others think they are deluded. Opinions are like assholes and all that.

[SallyAnne]

I think that Dawkins was being purposely pointed in the title of his book the God Delusion. Yes he believes that God believers are deluded, but he titled his book that way as a challenge.

I don't think anyone should be offended that others think they are deluded. Opinions are like assholes and all that.



LOL! Yes, I think you make a really great and valid point. He was being purposely pointed in the title of that book. Thinking about it from that pespective, it's quite clever actually and is designed to be a direct challenge which is why I found him to be militant because the "challenge" is encapsulated in the title of the book itself.

Yikes, I just went and talked about him again when I said up there "last comment" LOL.

[Lanakila]

I think that Dawkins was being purposely pointed in the title of his book the God Delusion. Yes he believes that God believers are deluded, but he titled his book that way as a challenge.

I don't think anyone should be offended that others think they are deluded. Opinions are like assholes and all that.



LOL! Yes, I think you make a really great and valid point. He was being purposely pointed in the title of that book. Thinking about it from that pespective, it's quite clever actually and is designed to be a direct challenge which is why I found him to be militant because it's encapsulated in the title of the book itself.

Yikes, I just went and talked about him again when I said up there "last comment" LOL.

It sold books. :evil:

[SallyAnne]

I think that Dawkins was being purposely pointed in the title of his book the God Delusion. Yes he believes that God believers are deluded, but he titled his book that way as a challenge.

I don't think anyone should be offended that others think they are deluded. Opinions are like assholes and all that.



LOL! Yes, I think you make a really great and valid point. He was being purposely pointed in the title of that book. Thinking about it from that pespective, it's quite clever actually and is designed to be a direct challenge which is why I found him to be militant because it's encapsulated in the title of the book itself.

Yikes, I just went and talked about him again when I said up there "last comment" LOL.

It sold books. :evil:

Exactly right! :evil: My exact sentiments when reflecting how clever it was to pitch the title that way, LOL. haha.:D

[VoxRat]

Getting back to the subject of Islam driving a retreat from faith, I must say I found little to disagree with in what Dawkins (bringing him back from the sidelines to the center of this discussion) wrote on Sept. 15, 2001 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/15/september11.politicsphilosophyandsociety1):... It's a tall story, but worth a try. You'd have to get them young, though. Feed them a complete and self-consistent background mythology to make the big lie sound plausible when it comes. Give them a holy book and make them learn it by heart. Do you know, I really think it might work. As luck would have it, we have just the thing to hand: a ready-made system of mind-control which has been honed over centuries, handed down through generations. Millions of people have been brought up in it. It is called religion and, for reasons which one day we may understand, most people fall for it (nowhere more so than America itself, though the irony passes unnoticed). Now all we need is to round up a few of these faith-heads and give them flying lessons.

Facetious? Trivialising an unspeakable evil? That is the exact opposite of my intention, which is deadly serious and prompted by deep grief and fierce anger. I am trying to call attention to the elephant in the room that everybody is too polite - or too devout - to notice: religion, and specifically the devaluing effect that religion has on human life. I don't mean devaluing the life of others (though it can do that too), but devaluing one's own life. Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end. I just give this little excerpt, but click the link and read the whole thing.

[DMB]

Posts on creation and evolution etc. transferred to here (http://secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=1349).

[DMB]

And did you ever find copies of the orders that he allegedly gave to his underlings to buy space for atheist ads on buses?



No, I just read the various news articles which stipulated it was his campaign.

The Atheist Bus Campaign by Richard Dawkins. Check it out.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,3494,Atheists-launch-bus-ad-campaign,Ariane-Sherine

That is really funny. If you watch the video at the top of the page you linked to, you will see that it was Ariane Sherine's idea. She enlisted Dawkins's help downstream. You will also see Dawkins agreeing that while it is mild to say that there is probably no god, of course one can't say that there is definitely no god. How militant is that? I really do suggest you actually watch the video to see what Ariane was reacting against as well.

[DMB]

It doesn't make sense to call such a person a "militant" atheist, even if your description accurately described Dawkins.

By the definition given, wouldn't that in turn make Sally a militant theist? And if so, why even bother with the militant tag at all?


Probably not. I'm not a theist.

Eh? You are an atheist? You don't believe in any gods?

[VoxRat]

... I'm not a theist.

Eh? You are an atheist? You don't believe in any gods?
:confused: wondering if I was missing something, I checked out good ol' Webster-Merriam (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theist):theist
One entry found.

Main Entry: the·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈthē-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1678
: belief in the existence of a god or gods ; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world (I was surprised to find that M-W considers "theist" = "monotheist")

[SallyAnne]

By the definition given, wouldn't that in turn make Sally a militant theist? And if so, why even bother with the militant tag at all?


Probably not. I'm not a theist.

Eh? You are an atheist?


No I'm a Christian.

[SallyAnne]

... I'm not a theist.

Eh? You are an atheist? You don't believe in any gods?
:confused: wondering if I was missing something, I checked out good ol' Webster-Merriam (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theist):theist
One entry found.

Main Entry: the·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈthē-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1678
: belief in the existence of a god or gods ; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world (I was surprised to find that M-W considers "theist" = "monotheist")


I never refer to myself as a theist. just Christian.

[Ray Moscow]

Probably not. I'm not a theist.

Eh? You are an atheist?


No I'm a Christian.

Christians are theists. Theists are people who believe in God or gods.

If you don't believe in any gods, you are an a-theist.

[Ray Moscow]

... Are you for freaking real?

... I will say is that I think you really take the cake to think you can compare Dawkins to a trained medical professional treating deludenoid schizos.I will say I think I'm treating you with more respect than you're reciprocating.

Far more

[SallyAnne]

Eh? You are an atheist?


No I'm a Christian.

Christians are theists. Theists are people who believe in God or gods.

If you don't believe in any gods, you are an a-theist.



Christians are people who believe in Jesus Christ. I don't believe in "gods"

[SallyAnne]

... Are you for freaking real?

... I will say is that I think you really take the cake to think you can compare Dawkins to a trained medical professional treating deludenoid schizos.I will say I think I'm treating you with more respect than you're reciprocating.

Far more


No, not "at all."

[Ray Moscow]

No I'm a Christian.

Christians are theists. Theists are people who believe in God or gods.

If you don't believe in any gods, you are an a-theist.



Christians are people who believe in Jesus Christ. I don't believe in "gods"

If you believe in the God that the Bible talks about, you're a theist.

Do you know how the conjunction "or" works? It's really useful.

[SallyAnne]

Christians are theists. Theists are people who believe in God or gods.

If you don't believe in any gods, you are an a-theist.



Christians are people who believe in Jesus Christ. I don't believe in "gods"

If you believe in the God that the Bible talks about, you're a theist.



Oh, I thought that meant I was a Christian.

[Ray Moscow]

Sally, you remind me just a bit too much of the fundamentalist dumbasses that I grew up among, so I'll bow out of this "discussion".

[SallyAnne]

Sally, you remind me just a bit too much of the fundamentalist dumbasses that I grew up among, so I'll bow out of this "discussion".

Great. Goodbye. I don't much care for your tone either so cheers for putting us both out of our misery.

[David B]

Christians are people who believe in Jesus Christ. I don't believe in "gods"

If you believe in the God that the Bible talks about, you're a theist.



Oh, I thought that meant I was a Christian.

Sally, to claim that you are a Christian, but not a theist is like claiming that you are a violinist, but not a musician.

David

[SallyAnne]

If you believe in the God that the Bible talks about, you're a theist.



Oh, I thought that meant I was a Christian.

Sally, to claim that you are a Christian, but not a theist is like claiming that you are a violinist, but not a musician.

David



Ok, thank you David. I actually do understand what the term means. But I think I just get a little tired of that "theist" label.

Christian, fine.

believer in Christ, fine.

Theist. Theist according to what? That doesn't exactly explain who I am or what I believe in and it's not how I think about my beliefs which I've already explained, are Christian. So when some atheist, who doesn't even know me, keeps harrassing me over a term I don't use about myself, it gets on my nerves no end.

[VoxRat]

... I never refer to myself as a theist. just Christian.Of course, the fact that you never refer to yourself as an ape does not affect your actually being an ape one iota.

[David B]

Oh, I thought that meant I was a Christian.

Sally, to claim that you are a Christian, but not a theist is like claiming that you are a violinist, but not a musician.

David



Ok, thank you David. I actually do understand what the term means. But I think I just get a little tired of that "theist" label.

Christian, fine.

believer in Christ, fine.

Theist. Theist according to what? That doesn't exactly explain who I am or what I believe in and it's not how I think about my beliefs which I've already explained, are Christian. So when some atheist, who doesn't even know me, keeps harrassing me over a term I don't use about myself, it gets on my nerves no end.

Theist according to being a believer in God, which is what the word means.

OK, you get tired of people using a correct word that you don't use yourself. Fine!

But to deny you are a theist, as you did, is to display the cavalier attitude to truth which is, sadly, all too prevalent among Christians.

David

[Barefoot Bree]

Look at it this way, SallyAnne:

Are you male or female?

I'm presuming female. Of course, there are an endless variety of shades of "female", all of us have a mixture of traits that are usually defined "masculine" or "feminine", lots of us nominal females are definite "tomboys", many of us (especially females) don't fall completely within strict heterosexuality, some few even have nominally masculine physical traits, etc.

And most important, "female" is only the merest sliver of a beginning in even a brief general description of you.

But it's a start. You are female.

You believe in a god of some flavor, so you are a theist. We all know it is only the merest sliver of a beginning in even a brief description of your beliefs. But it's a start.

[TheBear]

Christians are people who believe in Jesus Christ. I don't believe in "gods"

If you believe in the God that the Bible talks about, you're a theist.



Oh, I thought that meant I was a Christian.
Christians are theists. Christianity is merely a subset of theism, just like Islam.

[lpetrich]

(to VoxRat) Sarcastic yes, but not at you, at Dawkins. Because I fail to understand why someone can be so obssessed about trying to debunk something that they believe is non-existent. He scribbles pages and pages dedicated to the subject. I find it bizarre and dishonest, it makes me think he really does believe there is a God to be so concerned about it.
The same could be said of any other debunker, but I don't see how it's necessarily true, even if it is true in some cases. And I've read a LOT of debunking literature.

SallyAnne, why don't you read The God Delusion some time? And go beyond evaluating that book by its title.

[DMB]

I would endorse the advice to read TGD, SallyAnne. You would certainly disagree with a lot of it, but you might then understand why some of us think you mischaracterise Dawkins. Did you finally watch that video about the atheist bus campaign that you linked to? There you will see the polite, restrained and thoughtful Dawkins that some of us know. A lot of theists seem to cast him as an agressive, demonic person because he has the temerity to attack religion.

Our society tends to give religion a free pass. Believers can go merrily round consigning infidels to hell, attacking gay people and generally being thoroughly obnoxious, and we're all supposed to turn a blind eye and show "respect" to popes, archbishops and mullahs. Some of us here think that religion needs to be attacked.

AFAIK one of the reasons Dawkins was moved to write TGD was all the nonsense that was floating around after 9/11. He wrote this article shortly afterwards: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4257777,00.html

...Would they fall for it? Yes, testosterone-sodden young men too unattractive to get a woman in this world might be desperate enough to go for 72 private virgins in the next.

It's a tall story, but worth a try. You'd have to get them young, though. Feed them a complete and self-consistent background mythology to make the big lie sound plausible when it comes. Give them a holy book and make them learn it by heart. Do you know, I really think it might work. As luck would have it, we have just the thing to hand: a ready-made system of mind-control which has been honed over centuries, handed down through generations. Millions of people have been brought up in it. It is called religion and, for reasons which one day we may understand, most people fall for it (nowhere more so than America itself, though the irony passes unnoticed). Now all we need is to round up a few of these faith-heads and give them flying lessons.

Facetious? Trivialising an unspeakable evil? That is the exact opposite of my intention, which is deadly serious and prompted by deep grief and fierce anger. I am trying to call attention to the elephant in the room that everybody is too polite - or too devout - to notice: religion, and specifically the devaluing effect that religion has on human life. I don't mean devaluing the life of others (though it can do that too), but devaluing one's own life. Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end...

...Religion is also, of course, the underlying source of the divisiveness in the Middle East which motivated the use of this deadly weapon in the first place. But that is another story and not my concern here. My concern here is with the weapon itself. To fill a world with religion, or religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used.

For those of us looking at religion from the outside, it has few redeeming features and many demerits. TGD has been successful because Dawkins has said what many people thought but dared not say and has done so in his usual polished literary style, in the words of Alexander Pope,

What oft was thought, but ne'er so well expressed.

[HinduWoman]

What's your definition of "militant", and what's your definition of "fundamentalist"?

I don't see how either of those adjectives applies to Dawkins.


Why?
militant: (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militant)1 : engaged in warfare or combat : fighting
2 : aggressively active (as in a cause) : combative <militant conservationists> <a militant attitude> I don't see Dawkins engaged in warfare, and I don't see standing up for the right to not believe something as being "aggressive".

fundamentalist (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fundamentalist)1a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b: the beliefs of this movement c: adherence to such beliefs
2: a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles He certainly doesn't qualify under 1a, 1b, or 1c; I'm sure you would agree to that. Nor do I see where he's stressing "strict adherence to a set of basic principles".

Dawkins does stress strict adherence to a set of basic principles --- show me the evidence.
That proves him to be a scientific fundamentalist. :evil:

[HinduWoman]

How long would it be before Dawkins start to receive death threats?

[VoxRat]

How long would it be before Dawkins start to receive death threats?
I'd be very surprised to learn that he hasn't received quite a few already. As did the judge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_E._Jones_III) who ruled that "Intelligent Design" was religion not science and therefore not suitable for public school:

After the ruling was handed down, some pundits immediately attacked it, notably Bill O'Reilly on Fox News accusing Jones of being a fascist and an activist judge. Casey Luskin and Jonathan Witt of the Discovery Institute, and activist Phyllis Schlafly, have leveled similar charges.[3] Jones also received death threats as a result of which he and his family were given around-the-clock federal protection.[4]

[Mung Dynasty]

And of course those death threats would have come from people who profess to uphold the Ten Commandments.