Richard Dawkins at The Conservative Party Conference - Pt. 2

[sunonthewindow]

Dawkins is a very, very ignorant person. Watch William Lane Craig instead.

[prophetchannel]

Tories have always stood for the church of England, which today seems less religious than the British humanist association. The church is like the queen, an empty shell of tradition that the Tories love but don't really take seriously. At the same time, Tony Blair was religious and looved the royalty. British politics is becoming so moderate nowardays. We live in boring times. The middle east and latin america is the place to be for exiting political polarization and turbulence.

[xaviqaz]

@prophetchannel Ironically, non-catholic churches become more liberal and less people attend them. At least in Europe. That´s the way to destroy religion: make it look like an empty shell of tradition. But there will be another religion to fill the hole: Islam. While we celebrate women not having children as symptom of progress, religious muslims have larges families.

[YoungIvyScholar]

What political party is Richard Dawkins?

[summerstone7]

sort of ethos...[scientific fact]

absolutely sure[right]

heredity opinions of chruch,mosque.

not special abilities/ some moral philosophers...

" i think we should do away with that"

HOW. BAN RELIGION? LIKE COMMUNISM?

BURN CHURCHES DOWN. HOW SPECIFICALLY DO WE

"DO AWAY WITH THAT" OH GREAT MAN OF REASON.

[summerstone7]

people doing charity out of fear? he has no fear in him? people don t have fear?

if people do good, it doesn t matter why, they aren t killing people are they, or breaking the law. if the community of" athiesm, and people of reason,and science" can and will do the good works churches may do. then lets see them do it. lets see hitch, for example do what mother terressa does. case i don t see hitch or dawkins going on the streets and helping people.

[summerstone7]

as far as i m concerned, in the begining, he seems to be saying people can t decide what they believe for themselves. so i am assuming, he is to decide for them? i m not quite sure what hes saying. as far as i m concerned people can believe what they want as long as they aren t breaking the law. if he has a coup on reason, then now he is intolerant?if churches, for example serve a function,ie charity, lets see "the community of reason,and science" do the work of what charity does.

[smudge6699]

Aristotle verses Buddha, they are BOTH philosophers that refuted naive realism.

What is it that stops Dawkins talking about religious philosophy rather than his rants against religious theology?

Is he afraid of something?

His speach is based on pure assumptiom about how religious people behave.

:-)

[byteresistor]

@smudge6699 And your argument is nothing more than a pure appeal to authority.

[smudge6699]

@byteresistor

What argument?

I asked two questions and made a statement about Dawkins perspective of people of faith.

Where is the appeal to authority, which one?

[genericmeatunit]

As I was listening to this, I suddenly remembered the words of Syndrome, from the Incredibles, and the answer was clear to me: we should all become religions, each and every one of us, every person, every organisation - we should each invent and register our own religion.

Science could become the Religious Order of Reality Research.

Atheism could be the Fellowship of Non-Deistic Humanoids.

In this way, to paraphrase Syndrome: "When everybody is religious... nobody is."

[darmokandgalad]

I like Dawkins, but I think his suggestion that we should stop respecting religion is dead wrong. Religious desire stems from the curiosity inherent in us all. We want to know where we come from and why we're here. Religion provides answers to that in the same way atheism does. The facts are wrong, but the desire is on the right track. Religion deserves our utmost respect. Without it, atheism wouldn't mean as much to me.

[ConservativeHumanist]

Hi Darmokandgalad, Religion just pretends to have answers. Atheism doesn't provide any answers either but just because we don't have the answers doesn't mean we should make them up. It's ok to say we don't know. When RD says we should stop respecting religion he means we should stop treating religious opinion differently to any other opinion. So if someone says 'Jesus rose from the dead' we shouldn't just respect that opinion, we should challenge it, just like we would in any other discussion.

[darmokandgalad]

Yes, but don't you see that religious curiosity is the spark of all existential curiosity? Besides, I don't believe that the way to change anyone's mind is to disrespect them. I never would have become an atheist because of people like Dawkins. I know that it seems like too much trouble to respect religious people's opinions as much as they want you to, but sadly I think that's the only way to reach them. Hell, it worked with me!

[lachiemckenzie]

I don't think that's quite right. I certainly wonder how we came about but I am looking for the true answer based on evidence, reason and logic. Religious answers for these questions are just implausible. They're old- most of them thousands of years but even the new ones are absurd. You should respect people and their right to have an opinion, but you certainly do not have to respect their actual opinion, especially when it is based on no evidence or logic. Sound fair?

[darmokandgalad]

No, I think you should respect both they and their opinion. I know as well as you do that religion is bullshit, but I wouldn't put it that way to a religious person. They have their hopes and emotions tied up in religion (such as the hope that they will see the deceased again, like their parents) and when you insult religion you insult (in their minds) their loved ones and their emotions. Basically, sympathy and understanding are needed to truly convert people, not just "logos."

[lachiemckenzie]

Of course you have to respect people, but you can't respect it when children are denied a proper education, when war is waged on religious grounds, when people rape, beat and stone people to death because it says you can in some old book. That's when you stop respecting them and start questionning them. I'm not saying all religious people do these things, but religion causes more problems than it solves. You don't need religion to be a good, moral person.

[darmokandgalad]

Most religious people (in America) are not "stoning" others to death. While there are definitely a few crazy people out there, 9/10 religious people aren't physically hurting anyone. For them, the best attempt at relations is to be respectful of their ideas and they themselves. Only then can you truly win them over. Unless you're ready for an all out war against religious people, try to be polite. I know it sucks, but its the only shot we have. You're not going to convert anyone by being an ass.

[lachiemckenzie]

True, but many are killing eachother and 'hating' because of religion. I'm not saying that the problem is only in America. The twin towers were destroyed by people who belived that god was on their side and that they'd go to heaven. The response? Let's go kill them because god is on 'our' side. Remove god and what do you have? Less violence, less killing, less discrimination against people because of what they look like or what their favourite book is (So much choice, Bible, Quran, Torah...)

[darmokandgalad]

I understand that a few religious people do harm others and I indicated that in my post.

[artyfarty2]

"While there are definitely a few crazy people out there, 9/10 religious people aren't physically hurting anyone."

You do not have to pull the trigger to be complicit in a crime against humanity. Who the hell do you think opposed abolition of slavery in the US? who do you think is blocking stem cell research in the UK? a few crazies? No, this is mainstream religion, and it causes untolled harm as a direct result of people's religious beliefs!

[darmokandgalad]

Listen, I'm an atheist too. You don't have to do all these arguments on me. The only thing I'm saying is that we should treat religious people with respect and be sympathetic to their beliefs. I'm not saying we should tell them religion is a good thing. If we act like we're attacking them, though, they're not going to listen to anything we have to say. We should share the beauty we know exists in the universe with them, not destroy them.

[artyfarty2]

"we should treat religious people with respect and be sympathetic to their beliefs"

Why? would you be sympathetic to my belief that homosexuals should be hung drawn adn quaterer? Would you be sympathetic to the beliefs of the parents of 11 yr old Madeline Neumann? (look her up my friend).

You would have to be immoral to respect beliefs like that, yet plenty of christians think like that, and they get away with it because they are not brought to task by enough people!

[darmokandgalad]

Yes, I would be sympathetic to those beliefs. As I've tried expressing to you a hundred different ways, there is a difference between being sympathetic to a belief and condoning a belief. You can be sympathetic to a person's state of mind while you're stopping them from doing something wrong. I don't know how else to say this. You obviously don't understand what I'm saying, so there's no point in continuing this argument.

[artyfarty2]

"Yes, I would be sympathetic to those beliefs"

Then you are immoral.

"You obviously don't understand what I'm saying"

Actually it seems that you don't know what you are saying.

[darmokandgalad]

You've got to be one of the most childish people I've ever spoken with on YT.

[unfad1ng]

@darmokandgalad

we should destroy those bastards

[oneeyednarn]

I think you misunderstood Dawkins. What he meant was that religion shouldn't automatically be given more respect than you would give everything else. A lot of people think respecting religion means that you are not allowed to criticize it, and that's not true.

You should respect someone's religion just as much as you should respect someone who supports a different political party or a different football team, but no more. You shouldn't give it extra respect just because it is religion.

[aweiss]

contrived answers don't help us get real solutions, but teach us lies and fake morality

[TheHappyHumanist]

CountFistfuldollars - I agree!! I can't wait until the Republican party shifts into more rational territory. It will definitely lead to more valuable political discussions. At first I didn't understand how Richard Dawkins and Conservative could go together lol. But I am very happy that they do. This is a great video!

[CountFistfuldollars]

As an agnostic working within the Republican Party in the US I can't tell you how glad I am to see this. I hope that one day we will see the return of rational, principled thought dominating the Republican Party.

[greenjoker713]

I agree because that is what is keeping me from trusting the Republican Party. It's sad that politics in this country is reduced to two sides: Republican and Democrats. Republicans believe in a free economy, individual responsibility, fiscal conservatism, but are dominated by the Religious Right.

On the other hand, the Democrats support progressive humanism and equality for all, but tend to have statist attitudes towards government, the economy, and individuals akin to socialism.

[dd8630]

"It's OK to be an atheist in the Church of England"

I lol'd :D

[Immy1993]

lol..I wanted to see Dawkins expression when asked "Please explain how science has benefited society".

Dawkins should have asked the Official "Did you drove to work?"

Official - "Well of course."

Dawkins - "Next time put some butter on your arse and slide to work....don't use the car"

[kiss904]

dawkins is a fool not to beleive! god is real christ is with us.

[Xariabyron]

god told me your a twat.

[PepsiMewMew]

@Xariabyron Intelligence told me it’s ‘you’re’ not ‘your’.

[Scrapheap71]

You would know, being a first-class passenger on the Ship of Fools yourself...

[raithrover1976]

Keep taking the medication, kiss!

Lol

[RentTheSpokeMan]

lol yeah course