I think that Dawkins does his stated goal a disservice by linking critical thought with attacks on religion. He goes too far, telling people what the appropriate conclusions they should arrive at are.
Any author/philosopher/commentator tells you what “the appropriate conclusions” are. He bases his conclusions upon reason and fact. How is he “going too far” by expressing his point of view? Aren’t religionists going “too far” by asserting they know the truth about existence?
There are appropriate conclusions that people should reach about the world. Maybe hearing that makes some people dig their heels in, but I don’t see how letting their incorrect beliefs go uncontested would be any more successful.
Oh, please. There’s nothing “mind bending” about believing in a God. Quite the opposite; it’s primitive. Quantum physics is mind bending; “A powerful guy who wants us to grovel before him did it” is downright apish; an attempt to project our cruder instincts on the real world. Not even worthy of humans, much less something profound.
I don’t think it’s not so much not understanding atheism, and not realizing other atheists exist. If you grow up somewhere very religious and everyone you know goes to church and believes in god and never talks about doubt or disbelief, you might think that you’re the only one who has doubts. That’s why I prefer this kind of atheist ad, but I don’t think the bus is counter-productive.
This is exactly it. Children are not taught to think, they are simply taught. They don’t question their parents. Religion isn’t presented as a belief to children, it’s presented as fact. They say ‘god exists’, not ‘we believe god exists’, and so that’s what the child thinks. When you spend your whole life thinking that something is true, the idea that it might not be true is difficult.
Back at you. Why do you have your belief? Why do you feel you are right, and others are wrong?
You missed the point I was trying to make at Der Trihs. He said that religion is irrational and that anyone who follows it is also irrational. I want him to prove these points, how is religion irrational and how does he deduce that such people are irrational?
I would counter his first statement by saying that religion is perfectly rational. By that I mean that conclusions it draws flow logically from its premises. Now you might not agree with the premises that religion starts with, but the logic that religion follows is perfectly sound. Now, if you want to argue with its basic premises, that’s different argument, entirely, but please stop with this idea that religion is irrational.
The second point is that people who practice some religious belief are irrational. I want Der Trihs to show his credentials for drawing such a conclusion. Does he have a Master’s in Social work? Does he have any post graduate work in psychology? How does he draw such a sweeping conclusion from simply reading their typed words on one Internet posting site?
If not, then I say again he’s only spouting his opinion. He’s perfectly allowed to do so. But its only that, his opinion. And I’m perfectly allowed to laugh at his opinion and show it as much respect as he shows toward religion.
There’s a BIG difference between religion and mythology. Are you sure you know the difference? From this one sentence, I’m not sure you do.
I think that atheists/humanist would make a better argument if they’d clarify why religion is so bad and atheism is so good. Atheism seems to spend most of its time deriding anyone who practices a religion as a knuckle-dragging neandertal while anyone who’s an atheist as the next Albert Einstein.
How does atheism handle the ethical and moral questions that religion tackles?
And you’re accusing others of illogic? Friend, preposterous premises abound. Premises matter, in fact they are the very essence of faith, are they not?
Why is that Atheism’s job? Atheism is just a lack of belief in a God. We think it is “good” because we think it is the most reasonable position to hold. Do you ask people why they don’t clarify why believing the moon is a barren rock is better, more leading to moral actions, and more capable of tacking moral issues than believing the moon is full of aliens watching us? Frankly, believing aliens are watching us may very well lead to a sort of morality and ethical solutions, but it doesn’t make the barren rock theory ANY less likely for all that!
Why does the belief in the existence of a thing have to be justified as to whether it’ll make you behave better or know what to do if someone cuts you off from traffic? Thank goodness that my belief that there is not a ham sandwich in my fridge doesn’t have to be justified by whether believing or not believing this makes me a better person. 
I don’t believe in God, Thor, Cthulhu or any other deity because I haven’t seen any evidence significant enough for me to consider their existence plausible. A two-thousand year old book about God is unconvincing evidence, unless it described some form of test that would verify His existence. Which it doesn’t.
I’ll be blunt. If someone believes that 2+2=5 and cannot provide a rational explanation of how they are correct, you don’t need a degree in psychology to know that their belief is irrational - a simple understanding of mathematics is sufficient.
“Atheism” can’t spend its time doing anything.
Religion doesn’t tackle any ethical or moral questions.
looks at dictionary
Uh, what’s the difference?
Not to speak for anyone else, but atheism isn’t a belief. It’s the LACK of a belief. I lack belief in god because I have no reason to think otherwise.
I don’t believe it is reasonable for you to deride Der Trihs and his broad-brushing (though that’s certainly fair of you), while using such broad-brushes yourself. How many atheists have you heard suchlike from, and does that number approach the millions of atheists that live in this world?
It doesn’t. Atheism is the counterpart of theism, that is, it is the idea that there are no gods (simplified) against the idea that there is. Atheism itself provides no answers to ethical and moral questions; you need to look at the personal philosophies of those atheists to know how they handle them.
But if you accept obviously irrational premises, like ‘god exists’, then your conclusion can’t be anything but irrational. So what are your premises?
Acting on an irrational belief is pretty much the definition of irrationality.
If someone tells you that he’s screaming at the flowers cuz the little blue pixies keep stealing his hair, you would conclude this person is irrational, correct? But this individual has made a conclusion from premises, and so by your rules is perfectly rational. The premises matter, and if they aren’t rational, then neither is the conclusion.
Again an atheist doesn’t know the difference between Science and Atheism.
Because such things like, ‘objectivity’, fly out the window when you become a political ideologue. Dawkins becomes more of a crank by the minute.
He contributes to the erroneous linking of science with atheism that has people opposing scientific education in schools because people can’t differentiate science from atheism. You can see by this very thread, that some of the posters have trouble with this distinction.
So as a result, science comes under attack because people see it as atheism. It’s an unfortunate blowback from his extremist agenda. Religious education for children is child abuse? Come on.