Richard Dawkins

[jimboalee]

I don't think Dawkins has ever said that science disproves the existence of God. He just sees no evidence for a god (or gods) and, in the absence of any such evidence, declines to believe in in/them.

People believing what they want to believe is fine (and I don't think Dawkins disagrees with this). It is when people want other people to believe what they believe, or at least obey the rules that they believe their god has set.

I have no problem with people who want to die for their beliefs - it is when they want others to die for their beliefs that it is a problem.

Or when a belief leads to things such as banning of contraception, even to the extent of disapproving of the use of condoms which can protect against HIV and other infections as well as preventing unwanted pregnancies. That's the problem with people believing in the great sky daddy (insert other deity of choice here).

He's now got himself a ireversible reputation. He can't backtrack.

So much so that he'll be first against the wall when Quetzalcoatl returns at the end of 2012 to claim back his planet.

Bye bye Mr Dawkins.

 

[jimboalee]

God moves in mysterious ways. Without all the death that religion has caused, this planet would be over-run with human beings.

 

[craigwend]

Generally agree with wider sentimnets of dawkins - though for waht ever reason did not warm to him & his approach

many of the religous people were reprehensible too, though I have many friends who are religous & i share a great deal in common with them.

A good question was about were we would we get our laws from without the inference of religion, indeed a great deal of english law in escence is based on the bible...

I'm not condoning or condeming all religion, it a seems extremist of all persuasions that start conflicts.

if we did not have religion we would invent something to replace it as an ideology

- oh yes politics

or even campag Vs shimano!


I gave up trying to label myself as an atheist many years ago, as not fully assured of it, neither an agnostic as i don't beleive in some supreme being, tend to prefer NOTA (though put jedi on my last census )

 

[Spinney]

He's now got himself a ireversible reputation. He can't backtrack.

So much so that he'll be first against the wall when Quetzalcoatl returns at the end of 2012 to claim back his planet.

Bye bye Mr Dawkins.

Don't know that I agree with you there - if he is a proper scientist, evidence would persuade him.

Personally, I prefer the FSM. At least if you end up having to eat his body and sauce, it would at least be tasty!

May his noodly appendages touch upon you...

 

[downfader]

God moves in mysterious ways. Without all the death that religion has caused, this planet would be over-run with human beings.

I think disease has played a bigger part.

I'm happy to say I'm athiest. Not even agnostic. I personally think that if something exists it will be proven via science and science alone, and thats the main reason we call them "faiths" in that you have faith that there might be something more powerful out there.

Its when religeon becomes a danger, a brainwash to reason that we should be concerned. People are inbuilt to search for reason, and sometimes that search and want can be misdirected and abused by others. There is no reason why now, given our advances as society, that we cant use science to search and use that for the good that religeon has done in the past.

Science is grossly underfunded in the UK. I find it sad that people arent attracted to the sciences in the same way they are to religeon.

When I was a lad one of my schools had a strict protestant doctrine. Morning prayers, singing hymes etc.... I remember getting in trouble at schoolfor asking questions. Two of which were "if there is a god why doesnt he just show himself properly to the people?" and "who is god to tell me what to do or think?" It seems a contradiction of logic to create free-thinkers and then ask them to live via a set of ideals.

However I feel about religeon I would never treat religeous people with contempt but with politeness and friendliness. They may well oneday formulate the same views as me, and I'm pretty sure having religeon doesnt make you a bad person.

 

[Riverman]

Dawkins just strikes me as someone who believes quite passionately about a cause to the point where he will greatly offend people if he argues for this cause with too much venom. He seems more concerned with people not 'thinking' rather than believing in God.

I think it would do him good to try and balance this with venom with a little humility occasionally. As a person he seems pretty down to earth and easy going.
http://news.bbc.co.u.../uk/8049711.stm

I'm a Christian myself.

It's funny because when he says "What matters is what's true, the universe doesn't care what I like", it also doesn't care what you think is right based on the evidence. Whatever the 'truth' is as to the nature of the universe, we'll probably never know 'for certain' in our lifetimes but we can believe stuff, based on limited evidence and on trust.

 

[darkstar]

As an agnostic I don't think there is enough data either way. However little men like Dawkins jumping up and down shaking their fists really makes me shy away from the militant atheist camp. Arguing that science disproves the existence of God(s) seems to begin from a misunderstanding of the nature of the divine.

Having been brought up with a generally Christian background and had an insight into Islam as an adult (only white guy in the mosque) I can see why people have faith and I really wish I did. But if Dawkins et al really do believe beyond all doubt that these people are wrong I don't understand why they can't just let them be wrong. Belief is a very personal thing and telling people what they should and shouldn't believe is the worst type of egotism, for atheists as well as missionaries.

I really don't think he is 'jumping up and down shaking his fists'... He has written extensively on the subject. He does not object to the fact people have faith, or believe in one of the many religions. He is however, passionate about the effect it has on the world, through wars and education. Take his previous program for example, tacking the subject of Faith Schools. He objects not to allowing people to have their own opinion, he objects to children being surrounded by so much propaganda, not allowing them to make their own mind up! The majority of the syllabus is controlled, as in normal schools, Religious education however is not. This results in huge number of people refusing to believe in Evolution, despite the overwhelming evidence.

 

[darkstar]

I don't mind that Dawkins is an atheist - everyone is entitled to their opinion. What I do find both objectionable and personally offensive is the way that he aggressively attacks religious beliefs - even those of people who bear him no ill will and seek only to do good for others.


For example, I have a friend who is a Christian minister, he's one of the most softly spoken, kind hearted and genuinely caring people I have ever met - and I am sure that Dawkins would take great delight in spitting anti-religious verbal venom at him.

No thats completely wrong, from what i've seen he changes his debating style between different people. He has many friends whom are major figures throughout the world of religion, many are academics as well. He has had far worse thrown back at him, including death threats.

 

[Bill Gates]

The belief in God and religion has evolved over thousands of years and is rooted in the need to explain the inexplicable. It would have been beyond the comprehension of early man to understand the origin of species. So superstition and ignorance governed beliefs. Add to that the heady mixture of "visions" and "miracles" and the need to have a code of conduct, a discipline to exist peacefully in a civilised society, which leads to behaving good is godly.

Who has visions or experiences miracles these days? We know better and are rightly suspicious. This after life belief is a good one. You have to die to prove it. Nah it's all superstition and my belief is that you should live and enjoy yourself as much as you can. If you believe in God that's fine. I just think you're a bit naive if you do.

 

[vikingcyclist]

A good question was about were we would we get our laws from without the inference of religion, indeed a great deal of english law in escence is based on the bible...

This is an argument I hear a lot. It is possible to build a moral code from an athiestic standpoint, based on the simple precept that anything which causes greater suffering or harm is bad.

Strangely enough many religious-based laws actually disagree with this.

 

[jimboalee]

There's a graph on the internet ( Wikipedia I think ) which shows Cranial volume vs Million Years Ago for the various identified variations of hominids in mankind's evolutionary path.
It shows a nice progression from 4 MYA to about 200,000 years ago with many hominids with cranial volumes starting at 400 cm3 up to 1200 cm3.
At 250,000 to 200,000 years ago, there is a gap where H.Erectus turns into H.Sapien. H.Sapien's cranial volume is 1400 - 1600 cm3. (Us)
Where are all the remains of hominids with cranial volumes 1200 - 1400 cm3? This is the "missing link".

Now lets read some of the world's religious texts, including the hebrew Bible. God came down from the heavens and made man in his image.

Dawkins has got a big surprise coming.

 

[Riverman]

There's a graph on the internet ( Wikipedia I think ) which shows Cranial volume vs Million Years Ago for the various identified variations of hominids in mankind's evolutionary path.
It shows a nice progression from 4 MYA to about 200,000 years ago with many hominids with cranial volumes starting at 400 cm3 up to 1200 cm3.
At 250,000 to 200,000 years ago, there is a gap where H.Erectus turns into H.Sapien. H.Sapien's cranial volume is 1400 - 1600 cm3. (Us)
Where are all the remains of hominids with cranial volumes 1200 - 1400 cm3? This is the "missing link".

Now lets read some of the world's religious texts, including the hebrew Bible. God came down from the heavens and made man in his image.

Dawkins has got a big surprise coming.

The interesting thing about many religious texts is how 'heaven' is actually referred to as the sky. Jesus rose up to heaven etc, Jesus rose up to the sky. It wouldn't be so far fetched to suggest that he did.

Both you and I know what the sky is, what the stars are etc but people in those days viewed them quite differently. Who were these mysterious visiters from the sky? Perhaps they were Gods etc, that's what they would have been thinking.

The really odd thing is the more you begin to think of the biblical texts in this way the more believable they actually become. If you're prepared to take a slight leap of faith and assume that alien civilizations do exist, and have existed for a long time (Dawkins thinks this is much more likely than there being a God for eg.), then could they be at work in the past?

The three wise men follow a big star would certainly be easier to explain. The virgin birth a lot more difficult, I personally think that's more mythology but I guess one could try and explain it as an alien abduction.

There's certainly some evidence of UFO encounters in some artwork.
http://lithiumdreamer.tripod.com/ufoart.html

 

[Yellow Fang]

I like Dawkins, but I think attacking religious beliefs is both easy and rude. The universe surpasses all understanding, even his. I don't think he has the courage of his convictions either. He seems to think that good can exist without God. Without God, good has no meaning.

 

[PBancroft]

There's a graph on the internet ( Wikipedia I think ) which shows Cranial volume vs Million Years Ago for the various identified variations of hominids in mankind's evolutionary path.
It shows a nice progression from 4 MYA to about 200,000 years ago with many hominids with cranial volumes starting at 400 cm3 up to 1200 cm3.
At 250,000 to 200,000 years ago, there is a gap where H.Erectus turns into H.Sapien. H.Sapien's cranial volume is 1400 - 1600 cm3. (Us)
Where are all the remains of hominids with cranial volumes 1200 - 1400 cm3? This is the "missing link".

Now lets read some of the world's religious texts, including the hebrew Bible. God came down from the heavens and made man in his image.

Dawkins has got a big surprise coming.

Don't forget that biological fossils are incredibly rare, transitional fossils more so (although we are lucky enough to have found plenty of what were previously considered missing links).

Religion shouldn't be the default answer. I'm not saying it isn't, but just because something isn't known yet it doesn't necessarily mean that God Did It. In contrast there is a wealth of evidence demonstrating the history of evolution with a few gaps in our knowledge - where is the evidence for God coming down from the heavens and making man in his image?

 

[Riverman]

Don't forget that biological fossils are incredibly rare, transitional fossils more so (although we are lucky enough to have found plenty of what were previously considered missing links).

Religion shouldn't be the default answer. I'm not saying it isn't, but just because something isn't known yet it doesn't necessarily mean that God Did It. In contrast there is a wealth of evidence demonstrating the history of evolution with a few gaps in our knowledge - where is the evidence for God coming down from the heavens and making man in his image?

The ancient astronaut theory is pretty interesting, if a little far out. There's certainly some evidence for it anyway. Not sure I buy the whole planet X thing though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_astronauts

[media]
]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mHe211mLV0[/media]



[media]
]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e92s-Rfh4CI[/media]