How Richard Dawkins Lost His Battle with God (hell, church, atheist)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When I was an atheist I came across Dawkins and read a couple of his books. I also watched some videos of him talking about religion and soon realized what a pompous idiot he was.
When he wrote his 2006 best-seller, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins expected to accomplish two aims that have proved to be remarkable failures. The first aim was social. He wanted to attract a horde of doubters, fence-sitters, and agnostics to gather their courage and join the atheist ranks. This never happened. There has been a quiet, steady decline in church attendance for at least fifty years in the US and Western Europe, and recently a noticeable bump in self-described atheists has occurred. At the same time, around 10% of declared atheists go to church, usually for reasons of community or for their children.
What has decidedly not happened is the success of Dawkins' agenda. As a militant movement, his brand of noisy public atheism remains a splinter group. It has had no effect on national politics, laws, the judicial system, education, etc. Whether a person believes in God or not remains a largely private matter. As for Dawkins himself, he has become an embarrassment to the atheist movement, largely for his cranky, arrogant tweets--the godless don't want to be seen with him anymore.
Let's say that thousands of people claim to have seen a ghost. Their experience isn't disproved by arguing that the universe is made of atoms and molecules, rendering non-physical entities impossible. The actual experience of seeing a ghost must be met on its own terms. The same holds true for the millions of people across the centuries who claim to have an experience of God, heaven, the soul, the afterlife, and so on. Telling them that life evolved from one-celled microorganisms doesn't say anything about their experience, which is why Dawkins, a canny propagandist, resorts to disdain and ridicule to demolish religious belief, adding a healthy dose of accusations against the evils produced by organized religion (which are undeniable but again don't address people's genuine spiritual experiences).
Richard can be ham-fisted and tone-deaf, but I have even less respect for Deepak. He of the bejeweled spectacles, and the claims that modern physics validates ayurvedic medicine. And that was before I noticed he is the former head of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's Transcendental Meditation program. Yeah, the one that charges you a thousand bucks to issue you a personal mantra. A thousand bucks per syllable, folks!
Richard can be ham-fisted and tone-deaf, but I have even less respect for Deepak. He of the bejeweled spectacles, and the claims that modern physics validates ayurvedic medicine. And that was before I noticed he is the former head of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's Transcendental Meditation program. Yeah, the one that charges you a thousand bucks to issue you a personal mantra. A thousand bucks per syllable, folks!
I'm not a Deepak groupie, but I do think he has some interesting ideas.
Dawkins I can not stand for some reason. It is not because I think Dawkins does not have anything interesting to say, it is the way he chooses to say it.
I'm not a Deepak groupie, but I do think he has some interesting ideas.
Dawkins I can not stand for some reason. It is not because I think Dawkins does not have anything interesting to say, it is the way he chooses to say it.
I trust skepdic.com as much as you trust Deepak.
I will grant you that Deepak is generally able to come off as more affable than Dawkins, although I've seen examples of Deepak's preening ego, too.
A little more skepticism might be a good thing. All I'm saying is that Deepak is no scientist and by contrast Dawkins is relatively BS-free, though I share your discomfort with his personality.
Most religious people - especially the more devout - simply want atheists to sit down and shut up and let religion do whatever the hell it wants. Of course, if confronted on this directly, they'll deny it, but their true sentiment bubbles to the surface every now and again.
All you have to do in order to be branded a "militant" atheist is to write a book, go on television, or even publicly criticize religion here on this forum. And if you DO decide to be critical, you best still treat religion with the utmost respect - as if you, yourself, still believed in it. At best, you're only allowed to talk about religion like you might a naughty child whom you still love and cherish.
If you don't, then you become a Richard Dawkins.
Funny how that works. For a Christian to be considered "militant," he would have to commit a pretty heinous act of violence in the name of their faith. For an atheist to be "militant," we just have to exercise our 1st Amendment right to free speech.
I have seen the "sit down and shut up" mentality all over the place. For instance, our streets and highways are littered with religious slogans and Bible verses, but if atheists put up their own sign, it makes the friggin' national news. Now ... WHY do you suppose that is? Yeah, because Christians throw a fit when atheists express themselves.
And, honestly, I would be cranky and sarcastic, too, if I were Dawkins - considering how often he's been brought onto shows as a guest just to be dog-piled by theists and often not given equal air time. I remember when Fox ran a story about atheists, and the one atheist guest was allowed to say two sentences. No kidding, two sentences, before the plug on his mic was literally pulled and the rest of the segment was given over to the guest pastor who used the time to tell us about how God gave his only begotten son for our sins. Yeah, preaching on the news.
Interesting, too, how a horde of Moderator cut: deleted always show up at atheist Free Thought conventions shouting prayers and Bible verses while holding their stupid signs. But you don't see atheists doing that to anyone's church.
I find it utterly and nauseatingly ABSURD to hear about how Dawkins is an excellent propagandist - while our theaters are suddenly saturated with pro-religion propaganda movies from God is Not Dead to No Intelligence Allowed to Noah to Left Behind.
People can say that they don't like Dawkins, but I dunnae - I'm not out to make him my bestest chum. I only care about what he has to say. And I will admit I am very mistrustful of any criticism of Dawkins based on his "personality" because I know ALL too well about the "sit down and shut up" sentiment that runs powerfully through religious circles.
Last edited by june 7th; 11-23-2014 at 02:55 PM..
Reason: Rude
Unfortunately, Richard Dawkins has a tendency to spout off on some things he really has no experience or knowledge of. His ability to say that the *mild pedophilia* that he experienced in the 1950s did not cause lasting harm is, for example, just backwards. He himself may not have been harmed, but he cannot know how many children were harmed. He demands rigor in his science, but not in statements that involve social problems.
He has sneered at women who advocate for anti-harrassment policies at atheist conventions (and in other places). He has been very sexist lately on twitter and other venues.
On other occasions, Dawkins himself has emphasized the importance of awakening people to injustice and mistreatment they may have overlooked. But when it comes to feminism, he’s steadfastly refused to let his own consciousness be raised. Instead, he clings to his insular and privileged viewpoint – and, worse, he’s creating the impression that “true” atheists all share his retrograde attitudes.
Unfortunately, Richard Dawkins has a tendency to spout off on some things he really has no experience or knowledge of. His ability to say that the *mild pedophilia* that he experienced in the 1950s did not cause lasting harm is, for example, just backwards. He himself may not have been harmed, but he cannot know how many children were harmed. He demands rigor in his science, but not in statements that involve social problems.
I believe he has also said that mild pedophilia is less harmful to a child than being raised in a religious home.
He also thinks that having faith is the same as having a mental illness.
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, “mad cow” disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate."
Having faith opens up my mind, so I guess I have had a different experience than Dawkins.
"I think the effect of all religious faith is negative… I think that faith teaches you to believe something without evidence, and that shuts your mind off… As a scientist and as an educator, I’m against the idea of faith — the idea that you believe something simply because you believe it."
Sorry, Mr. Dawkins but faith is not going anywhere anytime soon. People may not be going to church as much, but most people still believe in God and will continue to do so.
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,519,233 times
Reputation: 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by ashleynj
I'm not a Deepak groupie, but I do think he has some interesting ideas.
Dawkins I can not stand for some reason. It is not because I think Dawkins does not have anything interesting to say, it is the way he chooses to say it.
I trust skepdic.com as much as you trust Deepak.
Honestly you should have seen Hitchens his prime. Everybody jumps on Dawkins now-a-days and as mordant said Dawkins can be ham fisted. But Hitchens at times could be venomous and was probably the best overall debater of the "four horsemen".
Actually I'm very grateful for Dawkins and the four horsemen. But not for reasons of "conversion" or winning the battle of hearts and minds. No. It more for the fact that they (in my opinion) help create an enviroment where more athiests were willing to come out and willing to be "content" in their choice in being non-believers. I think that will be the legacy of the horsemen at the end of the day. But only time will tell.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
