Dawkins: Unlike Islam, Christianity a fundamentally decent Religion.

[brewerb]

And Dawkins is a Biologist and should stick with his day job.

He stopped being a biologist a long time ago and is now a right wing nut job there to give a veneer of respectability to whatever culture war or moral panic is currently being whipped up.

Dawkins has long since lost any integrity he built up from his days as a scientist.

That seems to happen when you become a 'professional atheist'. I hope the money was worth it.

[AutisticWill]

I still like 'Growing Up in the Universe.' Make Dawkins Sane Again! [or at least use his old stuff in schools as an intro]

[Edible crust]

I've read the god delusion. It was alright I suppose, I've read better books.
It's funny that two recent threads started by two different theists have mentioned the names of 'atheists' who they perceive to be important in our non belief.

Newsflash, they're not.

[jerry mcmasters]

Theists would like atheists to have 'atheist' role models so they can pick fault. Unfortunately for them that's not how it works.

To me it's one of the funniest things that theists haven't picked up on yet.  It's like it's still 2004 (or whatever).  The "Four Horsemen" had such a big publicity splash with their best-sellers and media presence and all so ever since then somehow they're the Sacred Cows that, if slaughtered, will be the end of atheism, so therefore taking them and their now two-decades old arguments on is to them the height of apologetics.  Today most of them are in some form or another of ill-repute and probably most atheists under 30 have never even heard of them.

[jerry mcmasters]

Lol I didn't see your last post as I was typing mine, but yeah that's the gist of it

[Dexta]

And Dawkins is a Biologist and should stick with his day job.

He stopped being a biologist a long time ago and is now a right wing nut job there to give a veneer of respectability to whatever culture war or moral panic is currently being whipped up.

Dawkins has long since lost any integrity he built up from his days as a scientist.

Oh contrare - he's written many excellent scientifically valid books which have been published, notably The God Delusion and The Selfish Gene, to name but a couple. If you or I EVER reach such heady hights perhaps we might be in a position to talk him down. Until then we should veritably fall to our knees. Then again you're a faith head so.....

[Minimalist]

Dawkins retired from Oxford in 2008.  He is 82 years old as of this year.  

The man is allowed to retire and it does not invalidate his prior career.

[SYZ]

Richard Dawkins is sad. Sad and angry and frustrated.
And rightly so, I would imagine. His past few years have
been—as one would expect as a person ages—quite
enfeebled. And he’s especially enfeebled in the public
square.

Richard Dawkins is Sad.



Richard Dawkins once promoted the atheistic slogan that was
splashed all over buses in London back a decade or two ago,
"There’s probably no God, so stop worrying and enjoy your life".

[Thumpalumpacus]

He lost me at the trifecta of publicizing atheists as "the Brights", Gamergate, and that stupid logo as if commercializing disbelief mattered.

Doesn't hurt that I was an atheist 20+ years before TGD came out, and I'd already figured most of that shit out as a 15-year-old back in the early 80s.

He's been full of shit and himself for a long, long time. But book sales and convention fees are a nice income stream. We agree about one thing; we neither believe in god. Cheerio, bud, have a cookie. Doesn't mean I take anything else he says as Gospel.

[Minimalist]

Um...I don't even take anything the fucking "gospel" says as "gospel."

Gospel, in greek means "good news."  It does not mean "fact."

[Thumpalumpacus]

Um...I don't even take anything the fucking "gospel" says as "gospel."

Gospel, in greek means "good news."  It does not mean "fact."

Yeah, that's kinda my point.

[Xavier]

Re: Atheism and Communism. True, not all Atheists are Communists. Yet, almost all Communists are Atheists. Communism isn't also just an economic system to be peacefully advocated for, otherwise there would be no issue with it; it's basically a plan for a centralized dictatorship to be achieved by any means necessary, including Revolutionary Terror, which the Bolsheviks faithfully carried out. In his writings, Anti-Christian Militant Atheist Karl Marx is very clear that he, like Mohammed, and unlike Jesus Christ, has no problem using not only Extreme Violence but even Revolutionary Terror to advance his Communist objectives: "In his article "The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna" in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung (No. 136, 7 November 1848), Karl Marx wrote: The purposeless massacres perpetrated since the June and October events, the tedious offering of sacrifices since February and March, the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.[21]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution...in_Marxism Stalin, another Atheist, and well known Mass-Murdering Dictator, also "wrote a nota bene—"Terror is the quickest way to new society"—beside the above passage in a book by Karl Kautsky.[22][23]" as documented in the link above. Marx also wrote about how he lost faith in God's Law and objective morality, and that was one of the reasons he lost his moral compass and advocated such senseless murderous violence.

North Korea? North Korea is an officially Atheist State: "Officially, North Korea is an atheist state" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_North_Korea Now, if you want to say, they "are not True Atheists" (cough, scotsmen), then you must give some universally binding definition of "True Atheists". But I'm not blaming every Atheist for Communism. I agree many Atheists are not Communists. It would be historical revisionism, however, to claim the Godless Evil Empire wasn't Godless, and that it's Godlessness/Atheism played a key part in its war on Religion, Religious People, Religious Monuments etc. 

Anyway, I know Dawkins is not an "Atheist Pope" or anything, but I think it's quite interesting a formerly Anti-Christian Atheist is now, if somewhat begrudgingly, accepting the positive aspects of Christianity: "Is one of today’s most famed atheists making a flip-flop? According to several articles now circulating, Richard Dawkins says he has mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, “in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse ... When someone truly knows the power of Christ, they can’t help but be changed, and even the world’s most famous atheist recognizes that God is protecting us from evil." https://charismanews.com/culture/richard...his-world/ If Dawkins lived in an Islamic country, he'd probably have been violently killed for "apostasy", "blasphemy" etc, long back. Re: someone said this or that Christian may behave badly, not show love etc. True. But when Christians do that, you can legitimately ask them: "WWJD? What would Jesus do in this circumstance? Isn't His Commandment to love others above all. You better change your behavior follow Him better". etc. Next, if Islamists ever became the Dominant Majority in Europe, as they conceivably could in some time, could you really challenge Muslims in the same way? "Why are you trying to kill us "infidels/atheists", rape women, wage relentless jihad on non-believers/take sex slaves etc? Is that really something Mohammed would do?" They would probably answer you, YES, and keep doing it, lol. Christianity is protecting the world, even Atheists, from all that. And even Dawkins begrudgingly effectively admits that.

[SaxonX]

1. No Communism in no way requires Atheism and Marx didn't create Communism nor is his the only kind and no Atheism had zilch to do with any crime committed by communist regimes' ideology did Atheism can't kill anyone or compel anyone to kill so this statement is nonsense


2. NK aren't atheists they are a wacky personality cult and no that's not a true Scotsman nor does it require a universal definition of Atheism to reject them as an atheist state (Atheist states can't exist you can't base a state on simply not believing in something) as for any persecution of Christian atheism had nothing to do with that as again merely not accepting the existence of god can no way be blamed for any action against religion 


3. Lastly no one cares what Dawkins thinks, and no Christianity isn't protecting anybody from anything your religion has its own dark theocratic agenda it's just you have switched to sneaking it into law rather than burning heretics 


4. Muslims are mostly good and decent people who will never intact the worst notions of their religion 


You have failed in your preaching again

[SaxonX]

Atheism can't make you believe anything or do anything it has no inherent influence on any decision you make outside of not accepting a god exists. It can't found any states or compel and state to commit any action an atheist state is an impossibility a state cannot be founded on the mere disbelief in an idea what compelled NK is an ideology based on a personality cult a religion essentially not Atheism.

[SYZ]

Atheism and Communism.
True, not all Atheists are Communists.
Yet, almost all Communists are Atheists.

All bananas are fruits.

       Therefore, all fruits are bananas.

[jerry mcmasters]

Anyway, I know Dawkins is not an "Atheist Pope" or anything, but I think it's quite interesting a formerly Anti-Christian Atheist is now, if somewhat begrudgingly, accepting the positive aspects of Christianity: "Is one of today’s most famed atheists making a flip-flop? According to several articles now circulating, Richard Dawkins says he has mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, “in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse ... When someone truly knows the power of Christ, they can’t help but be changed, and even the world’s most famous atheist recognizes that God is protecting us from evil." https://charismanews.com/culture/richard...his-world/ If Dawkins lived in an Islamic country, he'd probably have been violently killed for "apostasy", "blasphemy" etc, long back. Re: someone said this or that Christian may behave badly, not show love etc. True. But when Christians do that, you can legitimately ask them: "WWJD? What would Jesus do in this circumstance? Isn't His Commandment to love others above all. You better change your behavior follow Him better". etc. Next, if Islamists ever became the Dominant Majority in Europe, as they conceivably could in some time, could you really challenge Muslims in the same way? "Why are you trying to kill us "infidels/atheists", rape women, wage relentless jihad on non-believers/take sex slaves etc? Is that really something Mohammed would do?" They would probably answer you, YES, and keep doing it, lol. Christianity is protecting the world, even Atheists, from all that. And even Dawkins begrudgingly effectively admits that.

This is totally valid to my thinking.  As an atheist, if you said I could be surrounded in my community by 1000 people of the religion "x" and then "x" is whatever religion I choose, I'm going to do some careful thinking about it and Muslims ain't gonna be first.

Dawkins is disliked for other reasons than this, reasons I'm not entirely familiar with but I think are culture war stuff.  The man is simply brilliant and if you are uncertain about the truth of evolution by natural selection I would advise some of his popular works as a good starting place.  (His academic stuff is still designed to inviting to a popular audience, but is tough sledding)

[SYZ]

A couple of decades ago Dawkins published his controversial
"Spectrum of Theistic Probabilities".  As I've said previously
on this forum, I cannot agree with his self-styled "spectrum".

1) Strong theist. 100% probability of God. In the words of C. G. Jung: “I do not believe, I know.”

2) De facto theist. Very high probability, but short of 100%. “I don’t know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.”

3) Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50%, but not very high. “I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.”

4) Completely impartial. Exactly 50%. “God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.”

5) Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50%, but not very low. “I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.”

6) De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. “I don’t know for certain but I think God’s existence is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.”

7) Strong atheist. “I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one.”

Only #1 and #7 espouse any truth.  The rest are just nonsense.

   A woman is either pregnant or she's not
   pregnant.  She cannot be nearly pregnant.

[Minimalist]

We've had people drop by here insisting they are "deists," SYZ.

Deism is represented by #3 and #5 to slightly different degrees on different sides of the question.

#4 Sounds like every Agnostic who has ever posted here.....fence-sitting people who can't make up their minds!

#2 and #6 are less-than-certain restatements of #1 and #7.  I figure that I'm a 6.5.  "God" is a bullshit concept and I don't buy a word of it but if any actual evidence were ever presented for any given god I suppose I would have to accept it..... if it survived the smell test.

Of course with the way religion stinks smell tests are hard for them.

[jerry mcmasters]

A couple of decades ago Dawkins published his controversial
"Spectrum of Theistic Probabilities".  As I've said previously
on this forum, I cannot agree with his self-styled "spectrum".

1) Strong theist. 100% probability of God. In the words of C. G. Jung: “I do not believe, I know.”

2) De facto theist. Very high probability, but short of 100%. “I don’t know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.”

3) Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50%, but not very high. “I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.”

4) Completely impartial. Exactly 50%. “God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.”

5) Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50%, but not very low. “I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.”

6) De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. “I don’t know for certain but I think God’s existence is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.”

7) Strong atheist. “I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one.”

Only #1 and #7 espouse any truth.  The rest are just nonsense.

   A woman is either pregnant or she's not
   pregnant.  She cannot be nearly pregnant.

But you can have different beliefs about being pregnant.  You can be 1 or 7, you know for sure you are pregnant or know for sure you are not.  Or you can be somewhere in the middle and be pretty sure you aren't, or maybe missed a period and think you might be, or whatever.  So he's talking about the state of ones belief, which can be a spectrum, rather than in the truth of the thing being believed.

[Rhythmcs]

Anyway, I know Dawkins is not an "Atheist Pope" or anything, but I think it's quite interesting a formerly Anti-Christian Atheist is now, if somewhat begrudgingly, accepting the positive aspects of Christianity: "Is one of today’s most famed atheists making a flip-flop? According to several articles now circulating, Richard Dawkins says he has mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, “in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse ... When someone truly knows the power of Christ, they can’t help but be changed, and even the world’s most famous atheist recognizes that God is protecting us from evil." 

Richard Dawkins is a cultural christian - in fact..all of the figures that rode the crest of a demographic wave to become suddenly popular as explicit atheists are culturally christian.  Though... I suspect above that's you or some other author speculating about what dawkins thinks about "the power of christ" or whether some silly god protects us from evil..lol..and not something dawkins ever said.  

I'm sure you'll tell me I'm wrong, and continue cramming words into some geriatric non-popes mouth like they mattered.

 If Dawkins lived in an Islamic country, he'd probably have been violently killed for "apostasy", "blasphemy" etc, long back. Re: someone said this or that Christian may behave badly, not show love etc. True. But when Christians do that, you can legitimately ask them: "WWJD? What would Jesus do in this circumstance? Isn't His Commandment to love others above all. You better change your behavior follow Him better". etc. Next, if Islamists ever became the Dominant Majority in Europe, as they conceivably could in some time, could you really challenge Muslims in the same way? "Why are you trying to kill us "infidels/atheists", rape women, wage relentless jihad on non-believers/take sex slaves etc? Is that really something Mohammed would do?" They would probably answer you, YES, and keep doing it, lol. Christianity is protecting the world, even Atheists, from all that. And even Dawkins begrudgingly effectively admits that.

The whole world...fuck, start smaller, like with the kids in your care?

I see your "effectively" here, calling that asshole up above a liar. You guys are strange as shit, you know that?

[Thumpalumpacus]

A couple of decades ago Dawkins published his controversial
"Spectrum of Theistic Probabilities".  As I've said previously
on this forum, I cannot agree with his self-styled "spectrum".

1) Strong theist. 100% probability of God. In the words of C. G. Jung: “I do not believe, I know.”

2) De facto theist. Very high probability, but short of 100%. “I don’t know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.”

3) Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50%, but not very high. “I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.”

4) Completely impartial. Exactly 50%. “God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.”

5) Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50%, but not very low. “I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.”

6) De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. “I don’t know for certain but I think God’s existence is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.”

7) Strong atheist. “I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one.”

Only #1 and #7 espouse any truth.  The rest are just nonsense.

   A woman is either pregnant or she's not
   pregnant.  She cannot be nearly pregnant.

I disagree. All of them espouse opinions. "I don't know" is a valid answer when you don't know, and "I know there's not" or "I know there is" are invalid answers in the absence, or profligacy, of evidence.

Thinking is not an on-or-off switch. Is my aunt dead or alive? You'd be a four on that scale, and rightly so, because you don't know.

Comparing it to a pregnant woman is silly, because that is testable. Comparing it to my aunt is testable, but you yourself can't test it, so you're still stuck.

[Minimalist]

If Dawkins lived in an Islamic country, he'd probably have been violently killed for "apostasy", "blasphemy" etc, long back.

Explain that to Giordano Bruno.

Bruno was tried for heresy by the Roman Inquisition on charges of denial of several core Catholic doctrines, including eternal damnation, the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the virginity of Mary, and transubstantiation. Bruno's pantheism was not taken lightly by the church, nor was his teaching of metempsychosis regarding the reincarnation of the soul. The Inquisition found him guilty, and he was burned alive at the stake in Rome's Campo de' Fiori in 1600. 

Such loving motherfuckers.

[jerry mcmasters]

If Dawkins lived in an Islamic country, he'd probably have been violently killed for "apostasy", "blasphemy" etc, long back.

Explain that to Giordano Bruno.

Bruno was tried for heresy by the Roman Inquisition on charges of denial of several core Catholic doctrines, including eternal damnation, the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the virginity of Mary, and transubstantiation. Bruno's pantheism was not taken lightly by the church, nor was his teaching of metempsychosis regarding the reincarnation of the soul. The Inquisition found him guilty, and he was burned alive at the stake in Rome's Campo de' Fiori in 1600. 

Such loving motherfuckers.

Excellent point.  I know as an atheist living in a strongly Christian area in a time period somewhat later than 1600, I have to always be on guard for being caught by Catholics and being burned alive at the stake.

[Minimalist]

They would if they could.


But they can't.

[brewerb]

Bruno was one guy, why not talk about mass murder? Catholics, with Vatican blessing, comitted atrocities less than a century ago. Don't need a way-back machine.

The role of the Catholic Church in Yugoslavia's holocaust - Seán Mac Mathúna, 1941-1945

https://libcom.org/article/role-catholic...-1941-1945

I don't understand why this usually gets over looked. My guess is Hitler was the bigger villan and Catholics don't like this conversation.

More documentation: https://orthochristian.com/114594.html