Love him, loved the book, love the fact that atheists are coming out of the closet, and I think that is, at least in part, due to Dawkins.
Well, that’s the impression I had, but having rewatched a few interviews, it’s clearly not the case; he remains remarkably level-headed and in a couple of cases, quite noticeably identifies and corrects a strawman argument that the interviewer had tried to lead him into.
BTW, in my memory, I think I had Dawkins slightly mixed up with Jonathan Miller.
Hmm… I haven’t heard of this one, but I think it’s a good analogy. A teapot orbiting saturn seems unlikely for a few reasons. I certainly wouldn’t claim that somebody who believes it exists is RIGHT. But until we have the technology to go out and look for one, they’re not wrong. Who knows, maybe an alien spaceship came by our solar system in the late 17th century and… well, it’s a long and involved story, and I’m not going to go into the details. 
Now, of course, if you want MY tax money to pay for something do to with this saturn teapot, (along the lines of the Eiffel tower bunny,) or you want to embark on a course of action that could hurt people, damage others’ property, etcetera, because of it, then you’re going to need a much better justification than ‘You can’t tell me I’m wrong!’ The same goes for religion and invisible bunnies, and also, (in my opinion,) goes for a lot of things that there is stronger scientific evidence for, if the interpretation of the evidence is somewhat in doubt.
PS: The strawman thing was meant as an honest question, not a leading hint, because I haven’t read much of his writings.
Yeah, the “even more of an…”-part of my post was out of line, and not really what i meant. Apologies. What I mean is that when you’ve reduced religion to a managable level, out of government and out of education, there’s no need to stomp out the remains of it. I believe it has been shown that living a great life while believing in God et al is feasible.
I know too little to debate US religiosity and this was supposed to be a poll. I just wanted to point out MHO that Dawkins’ books and approach won’t sell in an already secular country such as Sweden.
Religion is not a problem? What planet are you from? Of course religion is a problem, but it’s not ***the ***problem. ***The ***problem is irrationality, which contains other problems in addition to religion. And “happier lives”? Surely there are some people who lead “happy lives” due to constantly being on drugs or in states of psychosis. Is that the kind of happiness that we should aspire to?
Catholic.
Personally, Dawkins annoys me. I consider him a bit of a loudmouth jerk and I doubt I’d enjoy having a beer with him.
That said, evangelical Christians have been loudmouths and bullies for a lot longer. It’s not entirely unsatisfying to see them becoming the target of atheist bullies for a change. Maybe the experience of being publically ridiculed themselves will make them a little less eager to inflict it on others. In the long run though, I think that respect and courtesy, on both sides, will go a lot further than derision.
I’ll take a stab at this.
Shintoist.
Personally, I feel the aggressive approach to Atheism is a double edged sword. On one hand there is a need to relegate religion to its proper place; IMHO as a collection of symbolic and cultural practices that one may or may not freely choose to indulge in. On the other hand, vigorously shaming and taunting people for intrinsically believing in something that has been drilled into them since children isn't the way to go about it. While this seems to be focused primarily on the religions that have and continue to pull a lot of social and political clout, we seem to forget there exists a plethora of smaller faiths that have little or no interest in a socio-political agenda.
Many, many people hold these beliefs dear at their very core, and DEFINE themselves by them. By trashing them so flippantly you are initially at least also sending the unintentional message that they are in fact and invalid and useless PERSON. It takes a lot of time, patience and logical conversation to convert some away from a strongly faith based mindset. Many smaller faiths have had a significant impact on the traditional culture of their localities. We must be careful not to turn atheism into another sort of western imperialism; invalidating and forgetting all manner of traditional dress, song art and custom.
Lastly I'd like to say that the scientific community needs to learn to be more objective in their mindset. We do not now, nor have we ever understood the entirety of any of the scientific disciplines that we use to explore the universe. When we DO have an answer it's important to explain a phenomenon so that those who continue to cling to a dogmatic belief can be educated. When we don't have an answer; scoffing dismissal is not the way to go about explaining someone's experiences.
-regards-
Acid Lamp
Agnostic of some sort here and recovering Roman Catholic.
I fail to understand faith and worship. It has no logic, the followers know it has no logic and they are fine with this. If they do not try to legislate their beliefs into law and action, I do not really care. We still have morons trying to get more religion in politics however. I do not think organized religion has been a positive force overall in world history. I do not have much respect to the last resort of the truly devout in a debate. “It is true because I have faith”. All that said we have many almost completely rational religious folk around this board and my area, who make their religion a very small part of their life. At worst, some are guilty of not overcoming their childhood indoctrination. At best, they accept their religion for all of its questions and try to live out the positive messages of their respective religion. I have a soft spot for Quakers who seem both devout and yet always positive and not seeking much power. Etc.
On the other side, I respect Atheist. They try to live by reason and logic. I admire this but again I do not understand why they seem so sure that a Creator or supernatural forces or the Sky Pixies do not exist. There is no proof that God(s) does not exist. It sometimes appears to be blind logic, which resembles faith to say explicitly that God does not exist.
Finally, I find the Fundies to be extremely scary and obnoxious. I fear their agenda and belief system. On the other side of the coin, the worst Atheist only seems to be guilty of being obnoxious.
Jim
Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.
Atheist, and I say long live atheism. We’ll get together, and talk about what happens when we die, and how that should impact our conduct during our lives. We’ll get together and make buildings where we do this. We’ll get organized. Then we’ll write these ideas down in books, and go tell people what those books say, and expect them to agree with us. We’ll convert them to our way of thinking. We’ll start gently, but we can become more forceful if we need to.
We’ll do this because religion is bad, and assuming we all don’t die of irony, this is a good plan.
“We believe in nohssing, Lebowski. Nohssing.”
Does Dawkins do that? From what I understand he’s just very meticululous at listing out logical fallacies and evidence in regards to religion. So while I can see that for someone entertaining a logical fallacy, pointing that out would be a snub, I’m not sure how else one is going to “convert” someone to atheism except through pointing out holes.
From what little I've read of him, I'd agree that he mostly pokes holes; however in the interviews and debates I've seen him in he comes across as condescending and rude. I'm not a fan of extremeism or militantism in any form, whether it be logically correct or not. Personally, I feel the best way to "convert" someone is to do the exact same thing that indoctrinated them. You have to start small and build up. You could easily invalidate YEC or the flood, but to go right from there to "There is no God" is WAY too big a jump for most people. You need to provide them information in digestable sized chunks. Most importantly you need to let them know that it's okay to hold onto customs and cutural practices that they find dear to them. Ease them out and let them keep the good bits.Well, that’s not true. Here you are clearly mistaken about the meaning of the word arrogance and yet managed to be extremely arrogant in the process.
Atheist.
I really enjoyed the book. By attacking Creationists and Creationism in his writings about evolution and the genes, Dawkins has been accused of mixing his atheism with his science writing. In the books I have read he has taken shots at Christians, but not because of their Christianity per se, but because they allow their Christianity to override reason and supersede fact.
He has taken a lot of flak, words have been put in his mouth, he has been quote-mined to the moon and back (read the book, he doesn’t have one leading question without a parenthesis in it to stop the liars from misusing his words!) and this book was his, “Fuck you!” to the lying scum of the world. Insofar as it is an enjoyable read and still informative to a new or non atheist, Dawkins deserves a pat on the back.
I will also say no. Find comments on Kenneth Miller. He disagrees with Miller’s theology, but agrees with his views on science. On topics of evolution (esp. the need for Christians to accept the facts) he has quoted Miller quite positively. On the other hand there was a conference where Dawkins threw up his hands and cried, “What does that mean? What does that mean?” to one of Miller’s theistic claims.
Dawkins would be welcome at my house for drinks any day. He’d be bored, mind you, but welcome.
I’m an atheist who has been meaning to read a few of Dawkins’ books. I disagree with the OP’s comment that there is an atheist movement. Michael Newdow and Richard Dawkins aren’t enough people to be a movement. Whatever you think of Dawkins, I think he’s primarily speaking for himself.
As a Christian, a thinker, and a book lover, I’m happy for Richard Dawkins or anyone else to write books advocating what they believe and disbelieve about religion or anything else. Make your strongest case: more power to you! And I can’t deny his right to stand up for what he believes in and to fight against what he thinks is harmful, as long as he allows that right to other people with other points of view.
I have not read Dawkins. I’ve been tempted to read his book The God Delusion, and/or one of the other recent books advocating atheism, in hopes that it would (1) help me understand the atheist point of view, or (2) bring me closer to the truth about religion and reality (whether or not that truth coincides with what the author is advocating), or at least (3) entertain me. But if he’s just going to trot out the same arguments I’ve seen plenty of times here in Great Debates, or demonstrate a profound ignorance of what thoughtful religious people actually believe and do, or point out the absurdities in the sillier branches of religion (which may, a la Sturgeon’s Law, be about 90% of it) and think that he’s thereby vanquished religion in general, so that I spend most of my reading time rolling my eyes—well, in that case I’m not inclined to waste my time or my money. (Along the lines of tomndebb’s comment in another recent GD thread.)
Too often, people who engage in atheistic “witnessing,” here on the SDMB and elsewhere, remind me of someone like Spock or Data from Star Trek, bemusedly sniffing at how irrational these human beings are, with their emotions and their intuition and their illogical behavior.
This discussion, like others that have preceded it, is a sloppy one, and will suffer for it the same way past ones have. It conflates religion and theism, mistakingly assuming that an attack on some particular expressions of theism (religions) is an attack on theism itself. The flip side of atheism is theism, not a particular expression of it. Some of you know this, yet continue down this road anyway.
Also, to have a meaningful discussion, one must define atheism. Is it the nearer to agnosticism strain of “I don’t nelieve there is a god”, or is is it the stronger version “There is no God”.
Some will whine at being asked to actually define what they are arguing for and against. And those are precislely the ones least capable of having a fair and meaningful debate on the issue.
Unitarian
I find evangelical athiest shouting “your wrong” and “religion is bad” to be as offensive as evangelical Christians telling me I’m going to go to hell because my concept of God doesn’t match theirs.
Spirituality is an individual journey. Religion is the construct a lot of people need to express it. If it makes you a better happier person I’m all for religion. I’m not for it when it becomes “imposed” and then it doesn’t make any difference if you are imposing Creationism in schools or trying to impose atheism. That’s true if we are doing Communist purges of religion or Relgious Fundamentalist driven wars.
Athiest.
I’m quite glad for people like Dawkins. People like him are needed in today’s society, or the message won’t get out. If all athiests just stayed quiet and didn’t bother anyone, then no one would think about it. With someone actually putting it all out there, it makes people think.
From what I’ve seen, he does come off this way sometimes. But it’s usually in response to who he’s talking to. I have never seen him act like a jerk right off the bat.
Sorry if I’m misinterpreting you, but I hope you aren’t implying that eventually the ‘Teachings of Atheism’ will become another monolithic faith with Dawkins’ writings as gospel, etc.
Unlike the promises of religion - subservience to its tenets in return for a cosy afterlife - the ever-approaching void at the end of an atheist’s life should lead to a more pragmatic discussion, unwrapped of angels or eternity.
Surely the rejection of superstition including religion can only help reduce the perceived need for war, where the different sides are fed equal and opposite stories of their righteousness and the other sides’ sinful nature.