Richard Dawkins on Atheism. 150yrs since Darwin published the "Origin of the Species."

[alfredo]

Ted Talk video:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/23/dawkins.darwin.atheism/index.html

[BrklynLiberal]

1. He was WNYC/NPR this morning. Great, intelligent and very easy to listen to.

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/episodes/2009/11/24/segments/144916?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wnyc_home+%28WNYC+New+York+Public+Radio%29

Richard Dawkins, biologist, "professor of the Public Understanding of Science" at Oxford University author of many books on science, most recently, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, talks about Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, which was published on 24 November 1859

[alfredo]

2. His Ted talk was very good. It's shockwave, so I'm downloading it now.

[Romulox]

3. Atheism is just another form of god bothering. Not interested

in YOUR views of the afterlife any more than I am interested in those of the pope.

A true lack of faith is characterized by indifference, not a secular crusade. :hi:

[Fumesucker]

4. In an ideal world that would be true..

Unfortunately we live in a world surrounded by actual God botherers, many of whom also bother anyone who doesn't believe exactly as they do and wish to force us to live according to their theological principles.

Go somewhere there are a great many more atheists and you'll find they are far less strident, what you see in many US atheists is a reaction to constant irritation by real God botherers.

[Deep13]

5. People who are indifferent tend to be ruled by those who aren't. nt

[StarfarerBill]

6. True, when applied to Randroids and other big-L Libertarian sorts...

...but a secular progressive puts their faith in humanity; if we ain't got that, we ain't got nothin'.

[alfredo]

7. Some of us just don't need deities. It just doesn't figure into our lives. Nothing

is mentioned about it until someone gets up into our face. The theocrats don't matter until they start messing with my family by dehumanizing my sister in law because she was born gay. It bothers me that they want to keep her a second class citizen. It bothers me that Theocrats from the US are influencing anti gay legislation in other lands.

Am I an Atheist? I guess if people want to label me as such, fine. I'm just me unencumbered by fear and guilt. I don't need ritual, or someone to explain the unknown. I don't need eternal life, living a normal life that eventually comes to an end is fine with me. Born, if lucky, reproduce, grow old and die is what all flora and fauna do, and I am one of them. I am not a special creation.

[StarfarerBill]

10. Well said!

:thumbsup:

[alfredo]

11. Religion is like shaving, both infantilize you.

[StarfarerBill]

13. Unlike shaved hairs, let's hope religion doesn't grow back after losing it.

[alfredo]

14. Religion is spiritual laziness. Why accept another's definition?

He might have it all wrong.

[Chulanowa]

26. Hmmm. Ingrown facial hairs as an allegory for religion?

I can see it.

[RoyGBiv]

8. The Origin of Species

... not "the" Species.

Sorry ... pet peeve of mine.

[amborin]

9. his books are so great!

[alfredo]

12. Sharp wit too.

[Angry Dragon]

15. I am tired of you god bashers

I see no reason to bash people that have a belief in a god. The problem lies in how they believe. Christians have a god that promotes love and respect, it is the vocal group that corrupts that vision.

Many religions that believe in a god do so in a tolerant manner and have respect for others and nature. Do not attack god believers but attack the ones that corrupt the message. People that use god to justify their vulgar and obscene actions.

Religion never hurt anyone, it is the ones that are in power of churches that the sinners and the ones with no soul.

[Warren DeMontague]

16. What the fuck is a "god basher"? Sure, in the good old days, we unbelievers stayed in the closet.

However, "I don't believe in God" is no more of a divisive or bigoted statement than "I believe in God".

And "God is just pretend, made up, an imaginary fairy tale, no more real than Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny" is no more bigoted than "Jesus Christ died for your sins".


The difference being, I don't go door to door to tell people about quantum physics or evolution.

[Angry Dragon]

18. All I am saying is that

everyone has the right to believe as they wish as long as they allow others to believe as they wish.

Nobody forces others to live and believe as they do. It is the ones that try to force others to live and believe as they do that are the problem. There are a lot of people that believe in a god that try to love others, be tolerant, show compassion, help the needy without forcing others to be this way. When Christians are lumped together in one big heap it includes people that try to live the true way of faith.

[Warren DeMontague]

20. I agree with everything in your post.

I'm not one to broad-brush smear "Christians", or believers in general for that matter.

I'm not particularly worried about what other people carry around in their heads; not my area of interest or expertise.

[Angry Dragon]

21. I get the feeling that

all Christians and all believers in a god of some kind are looked down by many on this website. That is caused by the vocal idiots of churches.

There is a war going on in this country between the vocal idiots trying to force their god on everyone and the people that believe that everyone has the right to believe as they wish. If the war is won by the vocal idiots then there will be a war between them to determine which god wins.

[Djinn]

23. so not believing = looking down on?

Of course everyone can believe what they wish - I can also believe they're wrong - YOU came into the thread referring to "bashers" (presumably referring to the OP as that's who you responded to) YOU are they only one who seems to be suggesting personal beliefs are a problem

[whathehell]

24. "The difference being,..

I don't go door to door to tell people about quantum physics or evolution".

You come here...What's the big difference?



P.S. The vast majority of non-atheists do NOT "go door to door" telling people...about anything.

[Djinn]

22. not believing in nonsense made up by people 2000+ years ago is not bashing

I don't care if the 'god' in question is a fluffy bunny one or a fire and brimstone one, same as if you believed in invisible goblins that lived in mushrooms that float in the sky, I don't care if you think they're nice & tolerant goblins I'd still think it's utter childish nonsense.

EVERYONE is an atheist, even those who believe in a god because you simply can NOT believe in ALL of the gods invented by man throughout history given their contradictory stories.

My lack of a belief in ANY god is no more of a "bash" than your (presumed) lack of worship of Thor, Baal or Ninhursag.

Why is that professing a lack of belief is considered an attack when it is exactly what the religious do every minute of the day by the very dint of their belief in ONE god.

[Name removed]

Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NashVegas]

27. As an Agnostic, and an Artist, It's Disappointing That Promoters of Atheism Offer Nothing Creative

Nor seem to comprehend the intrinsic parallels and symbiotic relationships between legendary creation myths and human creativity in the present, and the need to make room for morality.

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. But atheism isn't about creating anything

It's about a lack of belief in gods. Atheism doesn't preclude making up stories; but fiction is a far larger part of human culture than just 'creation myths', and is relevant whether or not you believe in supernatural entities that have or have had some power over the universe, or over people.

I don't understand your comment about "Promoters of Atheism ... (do not) ... seem to comprehend ... the need to make room for morality". Atheists all have ideas and opinions on morality. They derive them from their experience of living in human society, and from a wide range of opinions of other people that they listen to and consider. This gives us such things as polite behaviour, laws and politics. Theists do that for that matter too, though most believe that one or more gods has dictated what is moral as well, and they are just interpreting it under present conditions (since the instructions from gods are never explicitly up-to-date with the latest changes in society, apart from for the lucky few who claim to hear directly from gods).

[UndertheOcean]

17. kick and rec!

[Warren DeMontague]

19. I'm reading "Greatest show on Earth" right now.

:thumbsup:

[struggle4progress]

25. This debate became stale long ago. The debate occurs between two uninteresting philosophical camps,

both erroneously believing their positions exhaust the alternatives. Philosophical debates are almost always inconclusive: usually the best result one can obtain, from such a debate, is an improved understanding of the ways in which all the debaters are wrong

Dawkins, of course, does not seem to be wrong about evolution: it is a theory of breath-taking beauty that currently provides the only credible approach to synthesizing the data into a natural theory of origins, and it has been very successful in that respect. One could not complain -- one would, in fact, be rather grateful -- were he to spend his life educating the public better about the scientific foundations of evolutionary theory: matters like geophysical dating techniques, the fossil record, mutation rates, cladistic analysis based on DNA or morphology, &c &c. Instead, sadly, Dawkins has become something of a philosophical crank: he has sloppily jumbled unrelated matters together in his mind and has become convinced that the theory of evolution can only be understood as anti-theology

But the sciences (including the theory of evolution), by definition, make no reference to any deity. So the general practice of science is available to various religious believers and nonbelievers, since they can all agree that their religious views are irrelevant for the moment, and they can set aside the pointless quibbles that would result if every experiment required a religio-philosophical consensus. Moreover, this avoidance in science of religious issues typically will offend neither believers nor nonbelievers, since the nonbelievers aren't interested in discussing G-d anyway and the believers do not expect their G-d could be demonstrated by measurements with natural instruments or that the behavior of their G-d could be quantified by arithmetic laws. The political lesson, of the success of science, is that substantial progress can be made, when one sets aside irrelevant philosophical squabbles

Certainly Dawkins is entitled to his own personal views regarding theology, but his views are irrelevant to evolutionary theory; and exactly the same point must be made with respect to the creationists with whom Dawkins would do battle -- they are entitled to their own personal views regarding theology, but their views are irrelevant to evolutionary theory. Whatever one might think of the theology of the anti-evolutionary creationists, they reveal themselves as cranks from a scientific point of view, when they insist on assessing scientific evolutionary theory in the light of their theology; and an entirely symmetric point must be made with respect to Dawkins -- namely, he reveals himself as a crank from a philosophical point of view, when he insists on assessing theology in light of a scientific theory (that by definition cannot involve theological considerations)

The stale idiocy of this debate continues to do cultural harm. The shrieking noise of the anti-evolutionary creationists drowns out more interesting and useful religious perspectives, and it completely misrepresents evolutionary theory. Meanwhile Dawkins -- and others of his philosophical ilk -- are piously and busily reproducing nonsensical rightwing memes (say, Evolution and Christianity are contradictory) for their own purposes, which can only have the effect of increasing opposition to the teaching of evolutionary theory. It's a tiresome bore