I haven't read this book by Richard Dawkins yet, but i've recently watched his two part documentary which basically covers the same stuff.

I now agree that people should not be taught to be members of any religion until they are old enough for well-reasoned thought (I actually agreed before, but this documentary shows how crazy some people are).

Anywho, you can watch the documentary on Google video. Not sure about the legality thought...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6169720917221820689 Part 1
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5752208690443739173 Part 2

Each part is about 45 minutes, but it's pretty interesting.

I can't watch the vids, 'cause I'm at work right now... but I think I like where this thread is going.

/insert image

You suggested this was a new video, but actually the programme is titled "The Root of All Evil" and was released quite a while before his book.

From what I remember from when it was on TV, he had some valid points but just spent most of the time bashing religion.

I'm not even going to bother because every time I hear Richard Dawkins I end up incredibly pissed off. He's never going to win any converts if he keeps calling all religious people idiots.

I didn't suggest it was a new video. I know what the programme is called.

He spends most of his time explaining why religion is wrong, I don't think he outright insults religious people but he's completely unapologetic about voicing his views.

I know he makes points and explanations, but there's a not-so-subtle vehement and insulting air about everything he says.

Also, isn't it kind of accepted that atheism is a belief and agnosticism is the only purely rational view?

Thirdly, being that antagonistic towards other beliefs is being just as bad as the antagonistic religions he assaults.

This sounds like my kind of video.

Agnosticism basically says you can't outright say God doesn't exist because there's no actual proof that he doesn't exist. But Dawkins shows the flaw in this reasoning by saying that it can apply to anything like magical teapots in space and the flying spaghetti monster. We can't prove that they don't exist, but to actually entertain the idea that they exist is foolish.

No it's not, because he only advocates intellectual attacks. He doesn't advocate killing people who don't agree with his beliefs. When he's actually interviewing people it's generally the other person who makes the first attack. He comes across as rude, but I expect he's just fed up with educational progress damaged by incredibly poor arguments.

Sounds like a neat guy but I'm not gonna watch long videos that aren't porn. >:|

Richard Dawkins basically falls under the 'militant atheist' category, but he's very reasonable and intelligent.

So far I'm agreeing with just about everything this guy has to say.

Ok, all things aside, it really comes down to a misunderstanding of faith and belief. Faith is not blind acceptance, even though some relgious leaders would have you believe that. Remember that Kierkegaard was, at the same time, a famous existentialist and a devout Christian. Kierkegaard also attacked the Church, not for believing in God, but for telling people to believe in God without questioning.

What if I were to existentially question my life, seriously break all my beliefs down and then come to the conclusion that God exists? That's what faith is, not doing what a priest tells you without thinking, like Dawkins thinks it is. The problem comes from that misunderstanding. Religion does not need to be destroyed. Maybe it needs to be reformed, but shouldn't we let religious people (like Martin Luther) do that?

And that's basically why I don't feel like having Richard Dawkins call me an idiot for being an idiot.

(Side note: who here really believes that eliminating religion entirely will make the world a better place? Humans will still find things to be fanatical about (Animal Liberation Front?); humans will still find ways to make other humans do what they want; humans will still kill and hate. Eliminating religion might eliminate a few evil influences, but also a lot of good influences)

SMOCK pretty much made the point I was going to make.

I don't like being called an idiot either, but that doesn't mean I don't sometimes deserve it.

...

I'm fine with being called an idiot when I think I deserve it. Here I don't think I deserve it. I've put lots of thought into this.

From what I can see, faith is simply a self imposed lump of wool that people stuff into their eyes.
Arguing about whether or not you come to the conclusion God exists becuase you've thought about it or done what a preist tells you doesn't alter the fact that you're putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "lalalalala".

I finished TGD last week and watched those two programmes a few days ago. Dawkin's may come across as rude, but I believe as Detty says, that he's fed up with explaining himself to people who should be explaining themselves instead. His approach may cut a little, but if you're so convinced of your 'faith' then you shouldn't be shaken by somebody questioning it.
"How dare he insult my God!" - why can't he? Surely your God can punish him if he doesn't like what he hears... ? Oh wait...
This is a question that I'd love to see put a certain small section of Islam (yes and others...) when they start burning things in the street.

To start another fight: Dawkins made me realise something that had been festering at the back of my mind for quite some time: I don't agree with children being labelled and brainwashed from an early age.

My favorite part:

"The age of the earth being 5000 years old. I'm sorry Rabbi, but that's just ridiculous."

Well that is the main thing that Dawkins has a problem with, which he points out in the programme and alot in the book. A vast majority of the time, the faith that people identify with is the one of their parents. Children are taken to religious ceremonies, forced to perform rituals and constantly told that something exists without any proff that it does. As children put a huge amount of faith in what they are told by their parents and other elders, it is pretty hard for them to question these things. By the time they are of an age where they are able to make their own judgements, what they have been told is so ingrained that it is difficult to fully break free of it.

I tried to watch the video, but I couldn't quite hear Dawkins over the sound of all the axe-grinding.

ok seriously. the only problem with religion comes from its abuse. abuse of power and abuse of doctrine... and ok, there are a few religions that are just wack anyhow.
i dont think its wrong to have children be part of religion, but i also think that by a certain age parents need to sit their children down and discuss with them "this is exactly what we believe, and this is why we believe it." not all, but a lot of kids that were raised a certain religion grow up to question there former beliefs anyways.

I thought it was a nicely put together and well thought out video.

The cinematography and editing were really top notch. He makes some really good points, and he scores big time each time he calls out one of the lunatic fundamentalists he talks to.

A certain amount of faith is required to believe that the sun will rise each morning, that rain will continue to fall, that gravity won't spontaneously stop, that everything we see around us will continue to behave in the manner we are used to. It is due to the fundamental incapability to truly prove any natural process. All we can do is speculate that as things have worked in a certain way under all known conditions, they will continue to do so. It is as close to proof as we can be, and sufficient that we can operate our lives around it. Faith in a deity is a completely different thing, taking a complete lack of proof and believing anyway.

That pastor from Colorado Springs was a douche bag.

Just in case anyone hasn't mentioned it yet the network made him title his work the root of all evil in order to generate more controversy. Richard Dawkins didn't actually want that title.

Why does the default position have to be no God? Just because you can't see Him doesn't mean He's not there. Just because you can't detect a god with instruments doesn't mean that it's more or less likely that one exists. It's really rather biased to start from there.



But most people who believe in a God would argue that there is. The argument is not "Let's randomly believe in something for no reason just because we like faith." That would be idiotic. The argument is "I am convinced of the existentance of the God whom I believe due to X observations and conclusions based on the world in which I live."

The whole "It's stupid to believe in God because you can see Him" argument is really in the wrong direction, because you're looking in the wrong places. You wouldn't find math under a rock would you? The same principal applies to a deity.

Religion isn't wrong. People can believe what they want to believe. Isn't that in the constitution somewhere?

However, I do agree that people should have their kids wait until they can think for themselves before choosing a religion.

Well, yes, "no god" is, in a way, the right place to start, because of the principle that the simpler and more logical explanation that still explains it is better. But...even that can be taken either way...

Like anything, it all depends on your point of view!

I don't have time to read this thread, but I'd just like to state that I saw a lecture by Richard Dawkins on CSPAN or PBS recently and was fascinated enough to purchase "The Blind Watchmaker", which I'm currently reading.

Oh, and I'm somewhat of a Deist.

Because that's the sensible option. The default position on unicorns tends (for rational people) to be that they don't exist for the exact same reason.

And those observations are...?


[quote=Robert M. Pirsig ]When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion.[/quote]

I like this thread because it reads like a list of people to ban.

I watched close to twenty minutes, and all he did was talk down to catholic people because of their silly traditions. Really, I don't see what's so profound about anything this guy says.

Can't God and non-God people just get along?

Nope. People just can't understand that it's possible for one to have a belief different than their own.

Why? The concept of a creator being is far beyond our ability to to observe empirically. It would a person in the 1930s automatically assuming that atoms don't exist because we don't have to technology to prove their existence.

Unicorns on the other hand are well with in our scope of knowledge and familiarity. Because we have already explored most of the earth's surface and know from observation of horse's behavior and bone structure that a horn would be greatly impractical we have enough data to make a very solid extrapolation that they do not exist.

Really, though, the whole point is moot. You won't be able to directly observe God that way, so there's no point it trying.

[stuff about not watching long enough to see the ending]

...how would one suggest the idea of atoms without showing some sort of evidence in the first place?

because, yknow, i smoked a joint and saw all this tiny s**t.....

The concept of atomism is over 2500 years old.. The Ancient Greeks, obviously, couldn't actually see atoms but they were still able to develop the idea through reason.

I suppose a mechanic can tell people more about teeth than a dentist.

Do we?

Horses belong to the order Perissodactyla, which also includes rhinos. Beyond that, most animals in the order Artiodactyla have horns or antlers. It could easily cause confusion in early observers or artists. However, it's almost universally accepted that the early legends of the unicorn are based on the rhinocerous.

Which means unicorns existed, but early descriptions were skewed through folklore, legend and verbal retelling. Much like the Bible.