Richard Dawkins on Religion in Society

[felipealvarez1982]

FINALLY! REASON! Thank you Dawkins

[fastballonly]

Anyone who holds a religious belief of any kind today is an idiot.

Like Dawkins and like minds have said time and time again, it is completely irrational to believe in creationism while there is numerous evidence to the contrary.

Scientists like Dawkins actually should not have to make the same reminder all the time. Had they not have to do it all the time, mankind could accomplish so much more discoveries of the universe.

[Evolvedprimate]

Dr Dawkins, you are a naive person .

You say there is no need for religion, I ask you sir, how do we control the unwashed masses sir? how? is there another narcotic that will work as well?

[bongolongo]

@Evolvedprimate You're requesting a replacement drug...without considering rehab.

Give the "unwashed masses" education, culture and employment.

[Evolvedprimate]

@bongolongo

If you give them education and employment you can't exploit them.

Religion keeps ther demands low and they are always looking for work and that gives the capitalist the power he needs. BTW if I did'nt like it I would have moved somewhere else

[bongolongo]

@Evolvedprimate Well, as to your original question (which I suspect is loaded with some sarcasm), I think Mr. Dawkins actually is seeking a way away from a society that requires mind control to function. So no, no replacement for religion except enlightenment.

[kitchenaut]

Dawkins must be very patient to keep answering the same old creationist bollocks that has been endlessly refuted.

[Zendrig]

"moved away" is quite a pejorative way of describing what actually happened. They basically exchanged one stupid dogma for another.

[iloveusa8baby]

thank you dawkins, for finally saying that you need an explanation for a designer.

[Love9sick]

Einstein didn't believe in god. You have to be an idiot to think that.

Einstein: "If we need god to show us right from wrong than we are a sorry lot indeed"

[GarethandSarah]

It wouldn't really matter if he did anyway.

I wish the religious people of this sort would realize that scientists aren't authoritarians on what reality actually is, they're observers(they're more than that but you get the gist), and it really doesn't matter if Darwin, Dawkins and Einstein all turned out to be religious.

People need to break out of this "well he/she said" mentality.

[DoomsdayR3sistance]

A very good point and really all religion is, is a belief in what he/she said as it goes. Just your swaping he/she for some religious texts.

However while I'd love if people could do this, unfortantly it's impossible for us to know everything and alot of what we know has to come from some source. When people quote others they are quoting where they get their knowledge from, what people need to do with it however is show they understand it and comprehend it... Atheism would grow if they did.

[GarethandSarah]

Yeah, and the religious icon is largely what makes it special, it's who they are not what they said that really matters.

Yeah, if not atheism, at least a less fundamentalist religion, I don't think we're going to be able to convince everyone to stop believing in a god, it's undeniable that it's a comforting belief system to those who believe in it, but at least the crazy stuff can be kept to a minimum.

[DoomsdayR3sistance]

Religion makes rational people act in irrational ways.

If people believe that people that are theist are rational in the first place is up to them to decide. The world would be a better place without religion, almost without doubt, but it still wouldn't be a Utopia and some of those problems religion currently fuels would still remain.

Religion is just a concept and their are other concepts then religion but not all concepts are bad, Morals are concepts but can be very good...

[nazra7]

@Love9sick Einstein believes in an impersonal God. Just as Steven Hawkings and Michio Kaku does as well.

[Xaulted]

"An atheist cannot argue with a theist on terms of faith, since then it wouldn't be a scientific debate."

Indeed, but why would the atheist argue in the first place on faith since they don't believe in such things? Of coarse it wouldn't be a scientific debate if your talking about faith, not sure why you would expect something else. But it doesn't follow then that theist are 'illogical'. It seems your statement itself is illogical... to which I leave with

"Cannot argue with the illogical"

[deusexme]

Thank you for honoring me with your comment. Please allow me to explain. Self-respecting atheists do not try to disprove god(s), only to show that there are more plausible explanations (scientific theories) to some fundamental questions. Also I didn't say that theist are illogical per se, what I meant is that you cannot argue with the illogical (argument). I hope this clarified my intent.

[Xaulted]

Thanks for clarifying that, I'm glad you were not calling theists illogical just based on the fact that they're theists. I agree you can't argue with an illogical argument, it's like playing a baseball game with each team on different fields. I agree that from your ex. of an illogical theist arguement, "The atheist asks "why?" and the theist responds "because it's true". you can not argue with that... (cont)

[Xaulted]

(cont)...But to be fair, this arguement comes the other way around too, The theist asks "why not?" and the atheists responds "because it's not true". Both are equally illogical and get us no where.

There some good dialog ;)

[deusexme]

I see your point, however it is not possible to prove a negative. I can't prove that god doesn't exist any more than I can't prove the Smurfs do not exist. An atheist can really be only fundamentally agnostic, which is to say that no matter how little, he/she has to allow the possibility that a supernatural being(s) exists. However they consider the probability to be so small as to be scientifically irrelevant. To sum it up, an atheist will never come to the table with the proof...

[deusexme]

...that god doesn't exist, only with a more plausible explanation of a certain phenomenon that doesn't involve or require god. Atheists that are against the notion of god just because they don't want to be wrong are hypocrites, as they champion the cause of free thinking and scientific method. I would "jump the fence" immediately if someone provides me with either compelling evidence or a compelling argument which is based on such evidence. I praise you Xaulted for your posed responses.

[Xaulted]

Thank YOU for being an Honest atheist in that you are willing to 'jump the fence' provided compelling evidence and that you recongnize you can not know with certainty that God does not exist. I wish more atheist were as consistant as you. If you want to check out (what I consider) compelling arguments, check out my friend 'Veritas48', or 'grammastola' on here. I'm sure some of the arguments you've heard, but Veritas goes into alot of detail and he's a careful thinker, I think you'd like him.

[deusexme]

Thank you I'll make sure to check it out. Keep in mind that relatively soon you might have to jump the fence. It is not an easy thing to do to give up one's faith for nothing else than consistency and coherency. I would know. I was born and raised in a Catholic country and passed my elementary school years in a nun school, which btw was a lot of fun. It was only a few years ago that I switched to agnoticism (not atheism).

[PurityofAbove7]

hmmmmmm quite a quandry that Dawkins is that really. Glad that he realizes that God is complex and so on. Yet, he skirts the idea of spiritality and so on becuase in reality faith and wat not is the same thing as finding pleasure in music, art, etc. Also, so hes a fence sitter concernging some Darwainain ideals thats just wonderful(sarcasm). Also, Dawkins is a biologist so can we seriously listen to him concerning metaphysical things? Though dont listen to me since im just a joe shomo.

[ram0166]

Dawkins is a great illustration of the quandry man finds himself in. God is huge, to use his illustration, so great and inexplicable that the human mind cannot be wrapped around him. The religious who believe they can wrap their minds around God end up killing people. The real faith lies with those who can humble themselves to accept that they cannot fully understand God. Dawkins is at the other end. He will not humble himself to accept something he cannot explain so he just dismisses it.

[deusexme]

An atheist cannot argue with a theist on terms of faith, since then it wouldn't be a scientific debate. The atheist asks "why?" and the theist responds "because it's true". Cannot argue with the illogical.

[ram0166]

Thank you for affirming what I said. You are the perfect example of the narcissitic denial I was that I was I was trying to describe.

[deusexme]

I'm not sure if I'm following you. All I said is that there can be no debate if the same platforms are not used. In other words, how can we discuss god(s) if you propose nothing but faith as ultimate evidence? I don't get how I'm either narcissistic or in denial. All I seek is understanding, not judging. Humbleness and consistency are requirements of the true scholar.

[ram0166]

It's arrogant and foolish to declare there is no God because you don't have any way to know. You cannot point to evidence that disproves the existence of God but I can point to all sorts of things that offer evidence of an intelligent creator. You cannot consider the possibility of a god because then you would have consider possibilty that you will have to answer to something other then your own impulses. To consider the possiblity is to go outside of your own realm of existence (narcisism)

[deusexme]

Ok. It is true I cannot prove god doesn't exist, since it is not possible to prove a negative (see my response to Xaulted below). At the same time, I am extremely interested in the evidence you are talking about, so long as it doesn't involve whipping out Bible verses or flawed logic as irreducible complexity (e.g. watchmaker analogy) or the fine-tuned universe. If you have scientific evidence please point it to me and I will be forever grateful, as I will join you in your faith.

[ram0166]

I am not one to get tied up in all the scienctific debate of this. I have yet to even see one bit of evidence to support the claim that life rose up out of nothing. Once the complexity of organisms is looked at closely it all just falls apart. I used to believe that you guys may be right. It was not some creationist who convinced me that evolution was bunk. I just started paying close attention to the claims of evolutionist and discovered that you guys are the irrational ones. It does not add up

[theBigTakeover]

This guy owes me 4 dollars.

[Xaulted]

Besides, God being defined as an infinite, uncreated first cause... it becomes a meaningless question to ask who created him. Because, by definition, he cannot be created. This seems to be one of Dawkins main fall back arguments but it is a very weak argument as I just exposed.

[boogerbuttpoop]

Bullshit! "Uncreated" first cause? What the hell does that mean?

[Xaulted]

Law of Causality. Every effect needs a cause. If the Universe (nature) is the effect, it must have a cause. What is a naturalistic CAUSE for which the result IS nature? .... DING DING... there is non, that we know of anyway. But this is where IF God does exist, and created the universe, he must have certain qualities, which among them would be eternal. If something is eternal it could have not been 'created' cause being created implies a beginning. There is no beginning of something eternal.

[boogerbuttpoop]

Perfect example of circular logic

[Xaulted]

Asserting that it's 'circular logic' doesn't get you very far. Please point out where my logic goes wrong? All I'm proposing is that an eternal, all-powerful being, namely God, is a more plausible explaination for the Big Bang, then anything else. Remember, Time, Space, all the matter in the universe, and the laws of nature came into being at the Big Bang. If there is no God, then the only option is that nature popped into being, uncaused and out of nothing. Which is indeed circular logic.

[wimvandenberghe]

I reckon this is were u go wrong: 1.You can't just assume that there were no causal chains possible in whatever was there before the known universe. Why would the universe be the only system where this can happen? 2.Even if one were to accept some superdaddy explanation, what's your evidence for claiming your particular brand of superbeing did it instead of any of the thousands of others that've been and are being worshipped round the world? How do u move from tenuous deism to untenable theism?

[Xaulted]

1. But I can turn that on you, how can you assume there WAS a causal chain before the known universe? The established scientific data (which has been confirmed by general relativity) says the Big Bang was the beginning of space, time, matter, energy, and the laws of physics. Positing a causal chain 'before' that is not supported by any data whatsoever, and only pushes the question back a step, cause then you need an explanation for that causal chain. There must be an absolute 1st cause...

[wimvandenberghe]

I was just presenting an equally probable alternative to your speculation: before the known universe there could just as well've been something like laws of cause and effect. The Big Bang may have been the beginning of our laws of physics, but that doesn't mean that whatever came before wasn't governed by its own laws. And u declaring by fiat that there must have been a 1st cause is only speculation. I could just as easily state without evidence: there is no absolute 1st cause.

[wimvandenberghe]

And that still doesn't explain how you can move from vague, speculative deism to theism.

[Xaulted]

Red Herring; That has nothing to do with this conversation. Since you asked though, I have reasons to believe in the God I believe from reasoning through various evidences and arguments, and from personal experiance. I have found no reason to deny God's existance or to deny his workings in my life. I don't move from deism to theism, I've bypassed deism altogether.

[wimvandenberghe]

It has everything to do with it. If your "evidence & arguments" are of the same kind as your 1st cause argument, all u have is a speculative though harmless deist argument that has no more validity than any other guess. Although a god wouldn't be the simplest explanation as you're introducing something xtracomplex to explain something complex, requiring further explanation. If it's 'personal experience' that moves u to the theist position u might as well say u believe in X 'cos X sounds good.

[Xaulted]

Personal experiance isn't something that just 'sounds good', it's something I directly observe. So I believe in X because it has proven itself. But you haven't even began to give me an arguement opposing my argument, you just ask more questions getting off topic. Give me an positive argument that is more coherent and plausable then mine, and maybe we would get somewhere. Otherwise your just asserting I'm wrong without any reason or evidence to suggest why I should even listen to your arguement.

[Xaulted]

And the reason God would be a simple explaination is because God is an unimbodied mind. Althought thoughts may be complex, the mind itself has no working or mechanical parts, and you will not find the part of the brain where the 'mind' takes up because it's not a physical part... it is a very simple thing.

[wimvandenberghe]

A god is no explanation without a definition of what this god being is, otherwise it's just an empty word. I could also make up a word and say that that explains everything. Plus, the mind (our thoughts) is not an independent thing, it is the product of the activity of our complex (not simple at all) mechanical brains. When the brain dies its product dies with it: no mind without body. To say some being exists that is mind without body is pure fantasy without any evidentiary basis.

[Xaulted]

You seem to think I have to explain in full why I'm a theist. Not only is it absurd to think I can do that in this comment box but this has NOTHING to do with the topic. The Topic is Dawkins says that a designer for the universe isn't a good explaination cause the designer needs a designer and that it is a more complicated explaination. I say a designer is the best explaination and the only one that fits the scientific data, and that it is the simplest for reasons I've given.

[wimvandenberghe]

You have to explain why you're a theist, because the only way your designer could be considered an explanation is that you give an exact definition of your position & an exact definition of this designer. Otherwise, as stated previously, your god is just an empty word and you haven't explained anything. Let's indulge your fantasy and assume there's a designer: Explain, as a theist, why your god is the best explanation instead of all the other superbeings that the world population believes in.

[Xaulted]

I don't agree that I have to define God for it to be considered as an explanation. I say that because I don't see an any other plausible explanation. Science doesn't have any explanation and most likely won't because of Planck's Wall. So how is having no explanation somehow BETTER then the explanation that the theist has always held and which seems to fit the scientific data? Seems like everything the naturalist pulls out to get around the theist explanation ends up in a dead end.

[wimvandenberghe]

Now you're just being silly. The most unscientific thing I've ever heard in fact. Oh wait..I'm getting a personal revelation. It's been revealed to me "Krawatzalbeep" is the explanation for everything and I don't need to define her because that makes her unassailable and unfalsifiable. How convenient for me. You say "the theist" as if that's some massive block all in agreement on which god or gods did what and in which way. What's wrong with "I don't know" until a real explanation comes along?

[Xaulted]

That's true that me declaring there must have been a 1st cause is just as speculative as you saying there is no 1st cause, but based on the evidence of the Big Bang, and law of causality etc... it comes down to choice which one you think is more plausible. I think God is the simplest and best explaination based on the evidence. You think otherwise, thats fine, but you got lots of explaining to do...

[deusexme]

Causality does not apply before Planck's Wall. And as Dawkins answers to a similar question, god is far from the simplest explanation. Of course, it depends on your scientific knowledge or education to decide what is indeed the simplest explanation. And I mean that with all respect, without implying in some ways that you personally lack that education.

[Xaulted]

I understand that at Planck's Wall all natural causality does not apply, but surely it does not follow that there was no cause for the big bang.  Which seems to be very telling that there is even a 'wall' at all, especially if the universe came from strictly natural causes. If there was a simple natural explanation, wouldn't we have found it or be somewhat close by now? But we can only get as far as Planck's Wall. If there was a creator, I think you would expect to find exactly what we do.

[deusexme]

It appears that however you make it seem as natural and consequential that god is the ultimate cause, you simply are plugging god in yet another gap in science. Other people have done it before, only to be debunked later on. Based on history and "personal experience" I would put my money on the fact that god is not that ultimate cause as people have made it to be since his inception thousands of years ago. I mean, the argument has been proven wrong before. Why trust it now?

[Xaulted]

Where you seem to think that God has been 'debunked' before, I say the arguments for the naturalist have gotten nowhere. Science has and is debunking itself all the time, which isn't a liability of science, this is the nature of science! Yet this is where you'd like to put your money on... well, be my guest. I haven't seen any convincing arguments from a naturalists explaining why or how the universe came to be, and I suspect there will never be any... based on history and personal experience.

[deusexme]

Indeed you are right on the nature of the scientific method. A scientific theory is accepted until something better comes along (in layman's term). Religion however does not work in the same way, particularly the Judeo/Christian/Islamic tradition. God cannot be wrong, ergo the prophets/disciples cannot be wrong, ergo the scriptures cannot be wrong. When for example Galileo and the others proved that the earth was not in the center of the universe, ...

[deusexme]

... they dealt a blow across the length of chain of command. That is why it was such a big deal that the catholic church burned people alive for suggesting such a notion. Of course, you can "save" god by severing one of the links, as in for example saying that although the scriptures might be not be truthful, the disciples were and god is. I hope I was clear enough, if not please leave another comment.

[Xaulted]

You agree Science has a way of 'self-correcting', but you say Religion 'particularly the Judeo/Christian tradition' does not have this same thing. I think your misunderstanding the nature of God. God doesn't change, we do. We can be wrong, and as you pointed out with Galileo, we have been wrong, but the fact that we have 'moved along' from those things is the same way science has moved along from things such as an egocentric solar system. It is the same process, just grounded differently.

[deusexme]

I'm afraid I'll have to disagree completely with you on this one. In the case of Galileo the Church did not "move along" but threaten him with death. This is not a self - correcting process. The reason behind the fact the Church has recanted part of its own interpretation of the scriptures is due to public consensus. That is one of the main reasons I do not affiliate with any religion any more, because I cannot absolutely trust them. By the way, I noticed how you followed my tactic of severing..

[deusexme]

...one of the links I was talking about. The exact one I was talking about. You do realize that religion can be wrong at times, and that is of course commendable. There are a lot of people who still believe in Young Earth and discredit evolution. For goodness' sake, they even have a creationist museum! A MUSEUM! This is how the rest of the world perceive us. I know it is off topic, but what do you think about these people? You can answer in a different comment box.

[Xaulted]

Maybe I can clarify my point. For Galileo's case, the church has since then moved along. There aren't any legitament churchs these days putting anyone to death for what used to be, or is even now considered to be heretical.

As for the young earthers and the creationist museum... hopefully they're a fading breed ;)

[deusexme]

And so we come to an agreement on this particular matter. I would like you to note that there are still crusades in the world, and therefore I can argue that the process of "enlightenment" of religion seems to have a more or less direction correlation with civilization, or better yet, free thought progress. I do believe religion is useful in terms of providing a moral matrix to the population, but it has now become all but outdated with the introduction of free thought.

[manhattanwombat]

try judaism or islam: no clergy needed!!!

whatever u do believe in god or u will go to hell

[deusexme]

Which hell? Fairy tales don't scare me anymore. I'm more scared of other real things. Like religious fanatics, for example.

[manhattanwombat]

be very afraid of me then infidel muahahahaaa

[deusexme]

Trolls also do not scare me. Religious or otherwise lol.

[manhattanwombat]

be very afraid

[stevethul1]

It is time to get ride of Islam, Judaism, Christianity and any other Mythical belief and start looking to science for the answers that magic can't answer.

Man Made god, not, god Made Man, Send all religion and gods back to the Bronze Age Never to return - NEVER...

[manhattanwombat]

fine tell me whats the origin of the universe then

and dont give me the usual atheist shit like 'why did there have to be a beginning' and shit its just as stupid as even the most primitive of religions

[stevethul1]

manhat... Yesterday I wrote a message that never posted in regards to your crass question, but, seeing that the many reading your statements seem not to like them. So I will not try to reproduce what I wrote and leave you with this;

Do some research on the origins of the universe and the origins of life by the people that have dedicated their lives to this science. When/If you finish, come back, maybe you will see that god is nothing more than a figment of peoples imaginations and seen as such.

[manhattanwombat]

honestly I tried, but I dont know whose books I should read.

I heard of this imbecile called albert einstein or something. he talked about how science for him was to find out how God had built the universe. what a loser!

can you recommend me a few authors who actually achieved something instead of that idiot theist einstein?

[stevethul1]

manhatt... I would be willing to bet, your mother had one hell of a time with you and quite certain your siblings were always on their toes because of your "Button Pushing". When you get serious, I would be willing to further this conversation. But in light of the "Flip-Flop" personality you portray, I will bow out of a "Fruitless" endeavor.

Have a great day and always remember,

"Man Made god, not god Made Man..."

[manhattanwombat]

you are pathetic. I say one name of a great theistic scientist and all you can come up with are more personal attacks.

you are either a genius troll, or really 53 and the worst kind of total loser I can conceive.

[dianwei32]

One problem with that. Einstein was NOT theistic, at least not in the sense of a personal God like all organized religions belive in.

[manhattanwombat]

but he was a deist. I apologize, in my language theist/deist are used interchangeably.

[IvoryAgent]

he wasn't that, either. he was a pantheist.

[manhattanwombat]

no, you're wrong, he was a deist. he believed in an architect of the universe.

[IvoryAgent]

In a letter-response to a minister whose name escapes me ATM(who asked point blank "Are you an atheist?") he responded by saying that technically he was an atheist in that he did not believe ANY gods existed and went on to explain that his use of the word "God" was metaphorical(another word for "universe" basically).

That's pantheism.

[manhattanwombat]

in a blowjob response to niggers with huge cocks your mom enjoyed them ejaculating in her throat and after that they gang raped her about 50 times till her asshole was ripped apart by their enormous black dongs I made a video of it and put it on teh intarwebs

[IvoryAgent]

I love you too?

[manhattanwombat]

you love troll?

[todore00]

No manhattan.

ALBERT EINSTEIN:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious, then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it"

[Xaulted]

Funny how he DIDN'T answer the first question at all, just mocked it and cleverly avoided answering a question that he knows there is no naturalistic answer too.

You don't need an explanation of an explanation, this is not logical. When finding an ancient artifact, it doesn't need to be answered WHO or WHAT made that artifact to know it was made, or designed. It would create an infinite regress of explanations for everything we know.