Richard Dawkins

[Euro-commuter]

Why not - they have all the characteristics of religions: blind faith, blinkered viewpoints, the certainty that only they are right and there is only one way, charismatic "messiahs" etc.

Belief in God, belief in after-life, belief in supernatural, belief that "good" done now will be rewarded later in ways that can't be seen from here, creation myth......

[wendigo100]

The single largest killer in all of human history is, by far, atheistic

Does that put committed atheists like sasguru et al into the same bracket as Pol Pot, Joe Stalin and Adolf Hitler?

[sasguru]

Belief in God, belief in after-life, belief in supernatural, belief that "good" done now will be rewarded later in ways that can't be seen from here, creation myth......

True, but the characteristics I mentioned are the ones that lead to the mass killing by traditional or secular religions. Your list would be the "nice list", the saving grace of traditional religions. Democratic capitalism works because it's the closest system we've invented to matching the true behaviour of the human animal. All the secular and traditional religions by contrast place the idea of humanity above the individual human.

[dang65]

Also, why is it that the people that love Dawkins and believe so solidly in Science are the same ones that so avidly dispute Man Made Climate Change, Peak Oil, the damage being done by private cars and junk food - all backed up by scientific and medical research.

It's all very well dropping thousands of years of human beliefs and spirituality, but is it only going to be replaced by raging consumerism? How about reading some more of the findings of the great scientists, and acting on them.

[shoes]

Also, why is it that the people that love Dawkins and believe so solidly in Science are the same ones that so avidly dispute Man Made Climate Change, Peak Oil, the damage being done by private cars and junk food

Because all of these things (man made climate change, religion, etc) are about influencing the behaviour and thoughts of a submissive population. It is healthy to question these things. Thinking for yourself is a good thing.

- all backed up by scientific and medical research.

Science has uncertainty at its core. Science typically says

'This is what we think is going on based on this whole bunch of stuff here. It is the best approximation we have to the truth at the moment. It is not the absolute truth, our opinions and theories evolve and change over time. Come up with something that explains more and we will adjust what we think.'

This inherent 'as far as we know that's what's going on' is very reasonable and rational. This uncertainty means that for a particular theory you can find another one that is just as reasonable but does not agree 100% with the first.

Claiming that one point of view is 'backed up by scientific research' is true, but misleading. Opposing points of view are also 'backed up by scientific research'.

[Diver]

God... a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man's power to conceive.

C'mon that definition could include el Duder

[IR35 Avoider]

Isn't that then a belief, a fundamental belief. No matter what you may be shown you will dismiss it because it can't be true and goes against what you believe.

I think the problem is labelling someone a fundamentalist for what they don't believe in, rather than what they do. To describe me as an Atheist fundamentalist would define me in terms of something that is irrelevant and unimportant in my world. There are lots of beliefs I don't subscribe to. It doesn't make sense to describe me as a fundamentalist anti-X where X is not something that I accord any importance to. That's why I say it is believers and agnostics in X who would call me a fundamentalist; they take X sufficiently seriously that they think it makes sense to define me in terms of my attitude to X.

[dang65]

Science has uncertainty at its core. Science typically says

'This is what we think is going on based on this whole bunch of stuff here. It is the best approximation we have to the truth at the moment. It is not the absolute truth, our opinions and theories evolve and change over time. Come up with something that explains more and we will adjust what we think.'

This inherent 'as far as we know that's what's going on' is very reasonable and rational. This uncertainty means that for a particular theory you can find another one that is just as reasonable but does not agree 100% with the first.

Claiming that one point of view is 'backed up by scientific research' is true, but misleading. Opposing points of view are also 'backed up by scientific research'.

So does that mean we have to absolutely believe Dawkins' and other scientists' views on God and religion, or should we just say, "Yeah, alright mate, that's an interesting theory. Next?"

Seems like Science is wracked with self-doubt to me.

By the way, no peer reviewed scientific publication opposes the view that climate change is being accelerated enormously by human activity. To repeat, that's none. There are a couple of renegade loons out there trying to claim it's not true or even that it's not happening, but they are pariahs. Same goes for that guy that claimed vaccinations were causing autism. He was out on his own, and look at the trouble he caused. Ridiculous. That may well be the media's fault, but a hell of a lot of uneducated and uninformed people fall for it.

[Diver]

Does that put committed atheists like sasguru et al into the same bracket as Pol Pot, Joe Stalin and Adolf Hitler?

I certainly wouldn't like to place him in a position of power just to find out

[Ardesco]

Same goes for that guy that claimed vaccinations were causing autism. He was out on his own, and look at the trouble he caused. Ridiculous. That may well be the media's fault, but a hell of a lot of uneducated and uninformed people fall for it.

Bear in mind that he wrote his paper so that it could be used as evidence in a court case against a drugs company where they were trying to proove a link. It was a biased report that was aimed at getting a win and ignored any evidence that did not agree with the link he was trying to make and he has admitted it since.