Richard Dawkins

[Ardesco]

Was that anything to do with the film Scanners?

Nope, it is a film as well (1-2 years old?). Got it sitting at home and haven't got round to watching it yet tho.

A modern remake of the scanners films would be great with pyschichs blowing each others heads up

[Joe Black]

How can you be a fundamentalist in not believing a fairy tale?

Depends whether you're talking about religion or a God. A religion may be a fairytale, but whether there is a God or not is still open to question.

Atheists who 'disbelieve' in any notion of a god could therefore be called fundamentalists.

[IR35 Avoider]

whether there is a God or not is still open to question.

Whether there is a tooth fairy or not is still open to question. I can't prove there isn't, but that doesn't mean I take the possibility seriously. These days I allocate God to approximately the same category of plausibility.

I wouldn't describe myself as an anti-tooth fairy fundamentalist, even though I can categorically state that there is nothing that would make me believe. It is tooth-fairy believers (or even agnostics) who will try to call me a fundamentalist because of the strength of my opposition to a view I cannot disprove. (I may not be able to disprove existence, but I can justify dismissing it.)

While a young child of a minister of religion, I did once take the idea of God seriously though, so try not to be harsh on those who still do.

[IR35 Avoider]

I also think Dawkins is a bit odd - why devote so much effort to denigrating a belief system you don't share? People believe all sorts of nonsense, why pick on Christianity? The Christian churches are a fading force in the world and hardly seem worth fighting.

[Joe Black]

I can categorically state that there is nothing that would make me believe.

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.

[shoes]

I also think Dawkins is a bit odd - why devote so much effort to denigrating a belief system you don't share? People believe all sorts of nonsense, why pick on Christianity? The Christian churches are a fading force in the world and hardly seem worth fighting.

He refers to all organised mainstream religions, it's not chrisitanity specific.

Douglas Adams was a clever chap. Here is the beginning of an interview he did which I think is relevant. It goes on a bit so I'm only posting the start. He goes on to mention Dawkins later on, read the rest here :

http://www.americanatheist.org/win98...silverman.html

AMERICAN ATHEISTS: Mr. Adams, you have been described as a “radical Atheist.” Is this accurate?

DNA: Yes. I think I use the term radical rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “Atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘Agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean Atheist. I really do not believe that there is a god - in fact I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one. It’s easier to say that I am a radical Atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously. It’s funny how many people are genuinely surprised to hear a view expressed so strongly. In England we seem to have drifted from vague wishy-washy Anglicanism to vague wishy-washy Agnosticism - both of which I think betoken a desire not to have to think about things too much.

People will then often say “But surely it’s better to remain an Agnostic just in case?” This, to me, suggests such a level of silliness and muddle that I usually edge out of the conversation rather than get sucked into it. (If it turns out that I’ve been wrong all along, and there is in fact a god, and if it further turned out that this kind of legalistic, cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back, Clintonian hair-splitting impressed him, then I think I would chose not to worship him anyway.)

Other people will ask how I can possibly claim to know? Isn’t belief-that-there-is-not-a-god as irrational, arrogant, etc., as belief-that-there-is-a-god? To which I say no for several reasons. First of all I do not believe-that-there-is-not-a-god. I don’t see what belief has got to do with it. I believe or don’t believe my four-year old daughter when she tells me that she didn’t make that mess on the floor. I believe in justice and fair play (though I don’t know exactly how we achieve them, other than by continually trying against all possible odds of success). I also believe that England should enter the European Monetary Union. I am not remotely enough of an economist to argue the issue vigorously with someone who is, but what little I do know, reinforced with a hefty dollop of gut feeling, strongly suggests to me that it’s the right course. I could very easily turn out to be wrong, and I know that. These seem to me to be legitimate uses for the word believe. As a carapace for the protection of irrational notions from legitimate questions, however, I think that the word has a lot of mischief to answer for. So, I do not believe-that-there-is-no-god. I am, however, convinced that there is no god, which is a totally different stance and takes me on to my second reason.


I don’t accept the currently fashionable assertion that any view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and opposite view. My view is that the moon is made of rock. If someone says to me “Well, you haven’t been there, have you? You haven’t seen it for yourself, so my view that it is made of Norwegian Beaver Cheese is equally valid” - then I can’t even be bothered to argue. There is such a thing as the burden of proof, and in the case of god, as in the case of the composition of the moon, this has shifted radically. God used to be the best explanation we’d got, and we’ve now got vastly better ones. God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining. So I don’t think that being convinced that there is no god is as irrational or arrogant a point of view as belief that there is. I don’t think the matter calls for even-handedness at all.

[Diver]

If people think God is interesting, the onus is on them to show that there is anything there to talk about. Otherwise they should just shut up about it.
-- Richard Dawkins


Hear! Hear!

Load of panty waisters if you ask me (or even if you don't)

[Rantor]

If people think God is interesting, the onus is on them to show that there is anything there to talk about. Otherwise they should just shut up about it.
-- Richard Dawkins


Hear! Hear!

Load of panty waisters if you ask me (or even if you don't)

His stuff is quite powerfully argued but that book seems to wander a bit near the end. He also doesn't seem the sort of bloke that would tolerate any deviation from his view even if you agreed with him.

Good stuff though - nothing like a god blast of militant atheism and hardline intolerance

[Diver]

Religion has been a comfort to many through the ages.

It has also started more wars, caused more death, torture and mutilation than any other cause in history.

On the scales, The weight of bad would severely outweigh the good that religion has brought to humanity.

Take all priests, vicars, bishops, immams (whatever these idiots want to call themselves) out back and give them a choice.

Get a proper job or die?

Feck it. shoot the lot of them

[OwlHoot]

Worth a read in my opinion. He justifies his extreme 'anti-religiousness' in a rational way, as you would expect from him. After reading it however I couldn't help but think that in a world that isn't mostly populated by the dim and mentally ill, his vision for a religion free future sounds great.

I'd be careful what you wish for - When people in large groups reject God the first thing they do is try playing him, and then it's not long before the bones start piling up. Think the French Revolution, Stalinist Russia, Pol Pot, etc etc. Many more people have been massacred by 'rational' atheists than all the crusaders and jihadists in history..