If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
POTW. Dawkins is as annoying and bigoted as Christian Voice.
Harold Crick: Miss Pascal, what you're describing is anarchy. Are you an anarchist?
Ana Pascal: You mean, am I a member of...
Harold Crick: An anarchist group, yes.
Ana Pascal: Anarchists have a group?
Harold Crick: I believe so, sure.
Ana Pascal: They assemble?
Harold Crick: I don't know.
Ana Pascal: Wouldn't that completely defeat the purpose?
Really? Can you give me an example of Dawkins attempting to prevent the freedom of adults to do and say what they want, as Christian Voice did when they tried to shut Jerry Springer the Opera down? And I don't mean simply protesting outside theatres btw, I mean actually taking legal action to try and prevent adults from being able to choose to watch a play that expressed something contrary to their beliefs. Dawkins may have views that he stresses expresses stridently, but the proof is in the actions of individuals, and Dawkins has done nothing that compares to Christian Voice actively campaigning to ban homosexuality and divorce (i.e. freedom for consenting adults to make their own choices about their relationships). Dawkins obviously has a big mouth, but to in any way compare opposition to the state funding of religious institutions to wanting to repeal the law recognising the concept of rape in marriage is clearly hyperbole of the worst kind. It's literally like comparing the French separation of church and state to Saudi Arabia's implementation of their particular brand of Sharia law.
That's an idea - perhaps at the same time we could Godwin Christian Voice for exactly the same reason
The trouble with these discussions is they quickly descend into the extreme fringes so every Christian becomes a witchburner and every atheist becomes a zealot
Me too! I have a weird kind of intellectual crush on him.
I see why people find him annoying. It's never going to be pleasant to have someone point out that all the incoherent and irrational beliefs which you are desperately clinging to are nothing more than superstition, and rationally equivalent to believing in goblins and fairies.
If he had lived in ancient Greece, they would have sentenced him to death for corrupting the youth.
There's a marked difference between pointing out inconsistencies and and incongruities in people's beliefs in a rational and well-argued manner and ramming your personal views down others' throats with all the zeal and fervour of the very organisations he criticises.
I have no beef with atheism or atheists for that matter. I may be a Catholic but each to their own. I just don't want to be preached at or criticised for holding the views that I hold any more than atheists wish to be preached at by the God squad.
Dawkins is not the king of atheists (though I'm sure he sees it that way). He's just a bigot. And bigots sadly are present in both camps.
Meh, not a lot to say about that then. Obviously I totally disagree with that interpretation of what Dawkins does - I have never thought he "rammed his views down other people's throats" and always find him exceptionally rational and his arguments coherent and well-presented - but since that's a subjective judgement, there's not a lot more to be said. We just disagree in our subjective readings of his manner.
But personally, I like his fervour. I am glad that there are people arguing in favour of humanism and scientific rationalism with passion and fervour - I don't see why those should be reserved only for the devout religious believers.
Plus, the quality of debate is improved with a diversity of views and modes of expression, so even if he can be too fervent on occasion, overall I'm glad he's around.
I've no idea who Christian Voice are, but if they're an organisation that are geared towards promoting their Christian world-view, then the Dawkins and they aren't exactly analogous.
The trouble with these debates is they go at people's core beliefs, and it invariably gets too emotionally charged. That, and debating theists is like trying to punch a sponge.
Yes but that's exactly the point. Nobody on here has equated mainstream Christianity with Christian Voice. However, we have had an attempt to portray the views of Dawkins as being equal and opposite to religious fundamentalists like Christian Voice, which they quite obviously aren't.
They are analogous because both are at extremes of the debate.
And vice versa of course...
Possibly, though didn't he endorse a legal action against the Pope to stop him coming to the UK, which seems to be to be trying to push his beliefs using the law.
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5415-richard-dawkins-calls-for-arrest-of-pope-benedict-xvi
ETA because I forgot to evidence the claim
Dawkins would, if he could, suppress the freedom of religious people to speak about their faith and he stigmatises everyone with faith as being complicit with "young men on buses with bombs in their rucksacks".
If you think the Pope is facilitating child abuse I'd agree, but to hold that opinion seems to be extreme in itself. And the raid on the Belgium Church seems to be way over the top (drilling into coffins?)
Perhaps because I'm an agnostic I see atheism and religion as mirror images (not the same of course), whereas religous people and atheists seem to be more forgiving of the looney tunes parts of their side
It's not weird to have an intellectual crush on Dawkins, for his mind is HOT!
Why does it? If you have letters showing that the pope was aware of this abuse, at a time he was in a position to do something about it, then it seems like a reasonable case to answer. I haven't seen the letters myself, of course, but we do know that there are people in the church that have been covering up such incidents, and it's not a massive leap to at least entertain the possibility that the current pope was one of them, particularly as he seems so keen to refuse to cooperate with any level of investigation into it. Saying that if a case could be brought in front of a court you would support the arrest and questioning of a particular individual is not what I would call an extremist opinion.
And it would be a very good point if it was backed up with even the slightest shred of evidence that this is indeed his view.
evidence?
Ah yes, of course. You're the nice reasonable agnostic in a sea of fundamentalists.
Like I said, you've still failed to show that the "looney" parts of atheism can be equated to those of the religious. It's just a complete fallacy. The word "militant" is used to describe religious people who blow themselves up and are in favour of imposing their religious viewpoint on society as a whole. The word "militant" is used to describe atheists who write books espousing their views and arguments on the god question, and want a secular society where everyone is free to practice whatever religion they want, but none of it is favoured or funded by the state. And yet people constantly talk as if they're two sides of the same coin.
As far as I'm aware, there is a single example of an officially atheist state, that actually banned religion on ideological grounds, and that was Albania. I've never come across a single atheist who is arguing in favour of that, or that wouldn't condemn it in the stongest possible terms. Even on the internet, where all of the nutters can be found. And I've also never seen an atheist organisation with that specific aim. But we've already had one example on this thread of a Christian group for whom the Christian equivalent of Albania is the specific aim. But even if these atheists do exist, that doesn't change the main point that it's completely ridiculous to equate someone like Dawkins to someone like Stephen Green, as if they're equal but opposite versions of each other.
Given that I've worked in a Govt private office and am doing so again I can tell you that 99% of the letters sent to the top are not see by the people at the top, but that they take responsibility. It's not a big leap to assume that happens in the Catholic Church as well
And whilst I wouldn't disagree with those who committed the crimes being prosecuted I would class it as extremist to prosecute a man who may have seen a letter twenty years ago anymore than I would want to prosecute Ministers because I didn't take seriously the letter which had allegations about Devil worship by Brighton and Hove Council.
Why not compare them? Comparison doesn't mean they're exactly the same (and neither are the most extreme version - suicide bombers are much more extreme than Stephen Green and mass murder of Russian Orthdox Priests by Lenin is much further than anything Dawkins has said). I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not comparing either Dawkins to suicide bombers, nor Stephen Green to Lenin - I do think they're comparable to each other
And you keep saying how much most atheists would condemn things like Albania, which is true if you ignore the thousands who didn't. But then most Christians and Moslems would condemn the extremes of their religions.
But then I dislike the simple view - religion bad and atheism good. In Bosnia I saw a child have a hammer and sickle carved into their face by men who thought religion was the opium of the masses and saw religious people continually giving their time (and indeed risking their lives) to deliver aid to people of a different religous denomination.
(Of course this all may vice versa - I may appear to be picking on atheism, but those defending religion on The Site also seem to be either defending a reasonable position in a reasonable like Piccolo or are complete idiots like Goldsword, who it is so easy to deal with its no challenge - unfortunately you and CptCoatHangar fall into the position of defending what I view as unreasonable position in a reasonable way which makes it much more fun to debate)
Are you agnostic theist or agnostic atheist?
Neither, both?
My head tells me that its 55% sure there's no God, my heart tells me its 55% sure there is. As I've seen neither conclusive or even strong evidence either way I describe myself as agnostic (I've seen lots of philosophy both ways, which 'proves' both the existance of God and that he doesn't)
If I was religious I'd still hold to the view that he's not particually helping me or anyone else). If I was an atheist I'd still probably believe that all in all religion is a good thing.
Comparing them is one thing. Equating them is quite different. And Piccolo has quite clearly been trying to equate them, as highlighted by her subsequent comment claiming that Dawkins would remove freedom of religious expression if he could, as Stephen Green and Christian Voice would. That is simply a blatant falsehood.
You can say "some atheists are as bad as religious fundamentalists." Bit of a non-specific statement, but there's not really much to argue with there. Some people are just nobheads. But to say that a specific person is just as bad as religious fundamentalists requires a few citations. Again a bit vague, because your definition of fundie may differ from mine. But finally if you're going to say that a particular atheist is just as bad as a specific fundie, you really should be able to follow that comment up with your reasoning and a few examples. If you say something is "just as bad" as something else, that isn't just comparing them, it's equating the two. It is saying that they are equal in their bigotry, or their desire to force everyone else to live according to their belief system.
Are you a secularist though?
Again - no? yes? But probably more no than yes
I'm more than happy for the Queen to be head of the CofE, for their to be bishops in the Lords and for their to be Faith schools. So in that case no..
But I'm also off the view that you shouldn't be forced to make your children attend religous assemblies, you should be able to work Sundays and that I should be free to do what I want within the law, whether that offends your religous (or non-religous) sensibilities or not