1. Comment #50702 by Devolution on June 19, 2007 at 2:24 pm

Great Preface, and I like the shorts too!

Other Comments by Devolution

2. Comment #50709 by Zaphod on June 19, 2007 at 2:56 pm

Great stuff Richard. I want to see the Q&A. Does anyone think that will be posted?

Other Comments by Zaphod

3. Comment #50735 by _J_ on June 19, 2007 at 6:23 pm

I'm in the middle of trying to respond to the latest response from David Robertson at the Free Church of Scotland website. It's late and I've called a halt for today, tired and now just a little bit woozy from red wine.

I would like to put forward the observation that I love Richard Dawkins. I still think he sells the 'religion gives consolation' argument a little short (I think Douglas Adams' Biota 2 speech gives a very good instance of how religions, themselves factually ridiculous, can nevertheless be vessels for genuinely useful and interesting intuitions about ourselves, and are thus worth our study and attention, even if we rightly withhold our credence) . But, that little quibble aside, I think that Professor Dawkins, his arguments and the way he makes them are all really quite wonderful.

After all, he played a massive role in deconverting me. He has utterly earned his place at my fantasy Dinner Party Full Of People From Across All Time Whom You'd Really Like To Meet.

And The Extended Phenotype was great - even for an arts grad like me - as are all his books.

I am an ocean of respect for Richard Dawkins. I literally (well, figuratively) am.

Slosh.

Other Comments by _J_

4. Comment #50749 by simon009988 on June 19, 2007 at 7:28 pm

great preface, it's worth buying the paperback version

Other Comments by simon009988

5. Comment #50750 by heathen2 on June 19, 2007 at 7:33 pm

I agree _J_, RD is wonderful and so charming, I don't get the "angry atheist" or "militant" charge from anyone who has seen video of him or heard him speak.

Other Comments by heathen2

6. Comment #50756 by iamaelephant on June 19, 2007 at 8:25 pm

Excellent preface, thanks for sharing Richard.

Other Comments by iamaelephant

7. Comment #50769 by Wonko the Sane on June 19, 2007 at 11:38 pm

I am going to have that quote read at my funeral as well. Excellent preface.

Other Comments by Wonko the Sane

8. Comment #50791 by melisande on June 20, 2007 at 2:22 am

I enjoyed listening to the point by point refutations of the critiques. They are by now familiar to those who have been following along, but it's always wonderful to see Dawkins speak and in such a novel setting.
That last part made me cry! Not only because of the circumstances both of the tragedy and the generosity resultant from it, but through Richard's voice as he relayed the information, such a subtle catch in the throat and suddenly tears sprang to my eyes...

ach, can't explain...just made me realize again the gift of being human....

Other Comments by melisande

9. Comment #50854 by chbg21808 on June 20, 2007 at 7:57 am

I agree with Richard Dawkins on the comments about the 'but' word... There was a real idiot in the questions an answers section at the Hitchins vs Sharpton debate... He said something like:

"I'm an atheist, but I'm writing a book about why religion works".

I have the hard back edition and the ITunes Audio, I might get the softback so I have the full set :) ...Excellent preface.

Cool pair of shorts... :)

Other Comments by chbg21808

10. Comment #50860 by Philip1978 on June 20, 2007 at 8:26 am

I really enjoyed that, good video.

Professor Dawkins well done on your book, it has raised my conciousness and it, among the other books I read from reading yours, has encouraged me to look at things differently. I have far to go still but I am learning even at 28 hehe! This site is also a great knowledge raiser, I have communicated with some amazing people and they have taught me many wonderful things. Thanks to you all!

J, your comments on David's site are brilliant, I am enjoying following it a lot! What wine are you drinking, I could do with some!!
cheers,

Philip Priestley

Other Comments by Philip1978

11. Comment #50868 by flyingscot on June 20, 2007 at 8:53 am

Excellent video.
Thank you Richard, very much appreciated.

Other Comments by flyingscot

12. Comment #50894 by fallenone on June 20, 2007 at 10:40 am

Thank you for the video.

Other Comments by fallenone

13. Comment #50895 by Rtambree on June 20, 2007 at 10:44 am

I wholeheartedly endorse Dawkins' comments against the elitists who declare "religion is for the unwashed".

All humans are more than 99% similar with a recent common ancestor. There's no genetical reason that explains why Iran and USA are >90% religious and Sweden and Norway are <50% religious.

All through history, the unwashed weren't good enough to be educated, or to vote, or to be free. Blind them and blame them for being blind.

Other Comments by Rtambree

14. Comment #50899 by rodart on June 20, 2007 at 11:17 am

Good to know the God Delusion is now in spanish!
I´m from Chile and here in South America religion is rooted deep down into people. It would be great to see Mr. Dawkins appear here in the near future.

Other Comments by rodart

15. Comment #50902 by Johnny O on June 20, 2007 at 11:27 am

Brilliant. You can see the how truly touched he was by Dr Ashton's comments about his son's funeral and the fact that a passage from Un-weaving The Rainbow was read as part of the eulogy. His voice actually breaks as he reads it. I almost started crying myself…

Other Comments by Johnny O

16. Comment #50905 by Johnny O on June 20, 2007 at 11:37 am

On the opposite end of the emotional spectrum I was in tears of laughter at the opening view of him... baggy shorts that are a little too high... a dinosaur t-shirt... hands on his hips.

You have to respect a man who can still have you hanging on his every word whilst not taking himself too seriously.

Other Comments by Johnny O

17. Comment #50951 by Zaphod on June 20, 2007 at 4:06 pm

Thanks for putting up the Q&A Josh.

Other Comments by Zaphod

18. Comment #50953 by Shuggy on June 20, 2007 at 4:30 pm

I like "Blasphemy is a Victimless Crime" too, so it's available as a bumpersticker, on mugs and T-shirts etc at http://www.cafepress.com/wero/3168086

Other Comments by Shuggy

19. Comment #50961 by bouwe on June 20, 2007 at 5:38 pm

Comment #50735 by _J_
I'm in the middle of trying to respond to the latest response from David Robertson at the Free Church of Scotland website.

I commend you on your posts on the Freechurch website. Noting your polite manner, what a contrast to the swaggering rants we have come to expect from David Robinson when he trudges onto this forum to spray bullets!!

Do they actually moderate every post before it goes online? No wonder you have to be so "nice". How long can you maintain a plastic smile?

Any effort made on a forum like that is very much a better use of one's time than posting here. Having said that, this place is still invaluable as an outlet for atheists to talk without having to worry about looking over our shoulder.

Other Comments by bouwe

20. Comment #50976 by ImagineAZ on June 20, 2007 at 7:24 pm

Professor Dawkins,

On the many Christian people who complain that many of your arguments seem to have been pointed at certain tenets and/or beliefs of Christianity that are not necessarily held by ALL Christians:

Perhaps you could, as a sequel of sorts, write 2 billion separate books - one for each individual Christian. That would be much more fair :)

Other Comments by ImagineAZ

21. Comment #50978 by steve99 on June 20, 2007 at 8:10 pm

In response to the Q&A session. In contrast to Richard Dawkins, I think there is a very good reason why so many religious people in the USA (and elsewhere) would rather support anyone with religious faith, whatever that faith is, rather than atheists. Atheism is not just any other philosophy - it rejects any kind of supernatural creator and protector. Religious people hunger for the supernatural. Having been religious in the past, I know that that feels like. I had a vague feeling that believing in any god was better than none, and would help me in the afterlife. Even if I got the details wrong, and the true God was the God of Muslims, He would at least appreciate that I had made an effort!

Other Comments by steve99

22. Comment #50979 by Russell Blackford on June 20, 2007 at 8:15 pm

I never "get" the characterisations of his work as angry or strident. Dawkins follows in the footsteps of Voltaire and Bertrand Russell, skewering opponents in the most engaging way. He writes with freshness, wit, and an enjoyably cheeky quality. When he does become passionate, it's always over some undeniable outrage.

The people who complain about the tone of his writing must be tone deaf.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

23. Comment #50983 by heathen2 on June 20, 2007 at 9:18 pm

And yet I remember that someone, I think from the Beyond Belief lectures, compared RD (and Harris) with Bertrand Russell, and stated that RD is strident and shrill, etc., while Russell was gentle in his argument. That just seemed dumb to me. It made me wonder whether he had read both authors.

Other Comments by heathen2

24. Comment #50992 by Roy_H on June 20, 2007 at 11:19 pm

"Blasphemy is a victimless crime" I love that!

Other Comments by Roy_H

25. Comment #51039 by tieInterceptor on June 21, 2007 at 8:37 am

steve99 wrote " ... I had a vague feeling that believing in any god was better than none, and would help me in the afterlife. Even if I got the details wrong, and the true God was the God of Muslims, He would at least appreciate that I had made an effort!"

Never having believed in anything more that the fleeing sense that sometimes there is karma (as in bad people get bad luck etc) and 'the touching wood' reassuring feeling, (and I'm 100% aware that is nonsense, but as Hitchens puts it, I'm a poorly evolve mammalian spicies... so I let myself pass that indulgence)
anyway, I can understand a bit where you're coming from, the only thing is that religions are dead serious about the consequences of choosing the wrong god...
so it must be stressfully to believe that you could be born into the wrong part of the planet and everyday you are closer to death and a possible damnation.

south park illustrated this very well,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ISNoNuIX0Y



and if you don't take it seriously to that level, then it's just intellectual laziness I guess,
so yesterday I was walking on the street and there where some workers on the walkway, with stairs against the wall,
usually I would almost without thinking try to avoid to go underneath, (it's bad luck) ...but yesterday charged by the fact that I'm half way reading through 'God is not great' I forced myself to stop being ridiculous and went under it, and I noticed I was the only one who did.

And no one was working on the stairs at the time, so it wasn't a hazard in any way.

ok, not an amazing feat I know ;)


.

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

26. Comment #51073 by chbg21808 on June 21, 2007 at 11:08 am

When you have been an atheist your entire life, as I have... well, at least from the age that I grasped its meaning. It is then difficult to understand how individuals can get so upset over mere words from a book.

As an atheist, why do I like reading books like "The God Delusion" - "The End of Faith" - "God is not Great"? ...It's obviously not because I need convincing ...I guess the reason I do, is because as an atheist, they simply help to concretize my view on life and give me a clearer and more rounded understanding of myself... In fact, I have found that I am getting quite addicted to these kind of books and the more I read on the subject, the more I want to read.

Anyway, after that little self-indulgence, I just want to comment on the point Richard Dawkins made about the accusations of being too strident.

From the many audio, video and radio interviews I have now heard and watched... There seems to be a pattern. Those that are the most critical of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris et al, are almost always the religious liberals, I find this really annoying. What they will do is criticize some aspect of religion... But then they seem to have an overwhelming urge to back-track and almost apologise for their own criticisms... praising another aspect of the same religion, and particularly why we need it and can't be without it.

I personally think that religion in its extreme form, is going to be around for a lot longer than it need be, because of these "liberal minded" apologists.

I think Hitchens is the most strident of the "musketeers" - but as an atheist myself, I find nothing to criticize in his comments on religion... Indeed, I think I may have had a "conversion" and become an anti-theist.

I think Ayaan Hersi Ali got it absolutely right... We not only need books that criticize religion. We also need art that appeals to the emotions.

We need to start plugging into the right hemisphere of the brain and collapse religious beliefs on an emotional level. I just don't think books that intellectualise are enough to collapse someone's deeply held beliefs.

When someone has a religious belief it is part of a complete world-view... It is like Sam Harris has said: "software running on the brain". This I think is why intellectualising on its own is not enough.

A world-view is not only intellectually held, it is emotionally held too. To wipe that faulty mind programming, requires an appeal to the intellectual and emotional sides of the brain at once and the same time. An example of that would be Stanley Kubrick's 'Clockwork Orange' (although not a religious example but more generally about morality) that manages to not only appeal to logic through language, but is deeply affecting on an emotional level too.. using extraordinary colours, music and imagery... Indeed, this film effected me deeply, so deeply, that I couldn't get it out of my head for days.


Other Comments by chbg21808

27. Comment #51104 by phasmagigas on June 21, 2007 at 1:31 pm

im suprised RD stumbled a bit (just a bit) on what would be evidence against evo (which may not necessarily be evidence FOR creation and then again, why would anyone start thinking what would falsify evo for long, there are 100's of things, none of which have been found and would be a waste of time thinking about it)Evidence against evo (and this is akin to what RD did actually come up with)would be something like the human genome being no more similar to say a chimps than to a buttercups.

If creation were true one would expect that human DNA might have some truly remarkable differences unseen in all the other species on the plant (ie and all the rest have common traits). The genome isnt like that of course and the similarities could be rationalised freely by believers, I too can play that easy game:'the genome could have been made similar to test our faith' through to more intelligent rationalising like 'well if we share say livers and bones like other, er, animals (cough) then surely god had to use the same instructions'. That of course could be taken to say that we are therefore animals, therefore mammal, therefore primates and therefore apes too as we have those fingernails and no tails!!

Another bit of evidence that would persuade me that there was a god and we were special would be that upon death we'd beautifully fizzle away like the urRu (i think thats the spelling) in 'the dark crystal' movie, instead we decompose as unceremoniously and grotesquely as any road kill!

Infact I have this general 'feeling' that the reason people believe in god is because we find ourselves in a rather terriyfying place where there quite obviously isnt one, esp with regard to justice as we tend to see it, yes, sometimes we all wish there WAS a hell!!If there was a god the world could well be perfect (animals would have blood openings and offer it to us akin to Douglas adams cow) we wouldnt age and we'd fizzle away upon death, in that case we would not need the crutch of god. oh the irony!

Other Comments by phasmagigas

28. Comment #51111 by mingy on June 21, 2007 at 2:00 pm

I'm an atheist but ...

First, I jsut want to say thank you thank you for writing such a great book. It made be feel a lot less alone.

I thought the preface reading was great! I am a little anxious about including Sam Harris in the same group as RD. Harris is, IMHO, a bit of an atheist loon - I couldn't finish 'End of Faith' because he clearly thinks through an American fundamentalist mindset, albeit an atheist one.

Anyhow, Dr. Dawkins, sir, if you are reading, thanks for everything!

Other Comments by mingy

29. Comment #51120 by chbg21808 on June 21, 2007 at 2:35 pm

Qote... 28. Comment #51111 by mingy on June 21, 2007 at 2:00 pm Harris is, IMHO, a bit of an atheist loon - I couldn't finish 'End of Faith' because he clearly thinks through an American fundamentalist mindset, albeit an atheist one.End ...Quote

I feel the need to defend Sam Harris here.

You call him an atheist loon... But you give no explanation. I think you should elaborate... Otherwise it just sounds like a personal character assassination.

And what do you mean by fundamentalist mindset... Do you just mean he is very strident in attacking religion? ...So, you don't like Hitchens much either then?


Other Comments by chbg21808

30. Comment #51174 by 5537P06 on June 21, 2007 at 8:41 pm

I think the last person to comment messed up on his math. The formula should be ignorance/intelligence=god.

Other Comments by 5537P06

31. Comment #51702 by gaijin51 on June 24, 2007 at 7:27 am

I just picked up The God Delusion paperback edition (I'm poor and I also like to read on the train).

Keep fighting the good fight Dr Dawkins!

Other Comments by gaijin51

32. Comment #54378 by _J_ on July 6, 2007 at 4:53 pm

30. Comment #51174 by 5537P06

I think the last person to comment messed up on his math. The formula should be ignorance/intelligence=god.

Not entirely. If you're either sufficiently ignorant, or sufficiently disposed to interpret facts in favour of your theism, you can justify god, irrespective of your actual intelligence. But, the more intelligent (and dedicated to supporting the god hypothesis) you are, the more thoroughly you will rationalise your god. So, a very intelligent theist will rationalise a god who can 'survive' the arguments of atheists conversant in quantum theory, neorology - you name it. A less intelligent one will just stick to 'God diddit'.

So, in a sense: 'ignorance x intelligence=god'. Although, perhaps what is really meant is:

ignorance or desire to believe = belief in god

and

intelligence (and selectively decreased ignorance) = sophistication of god-supporting rationalisation.

(For any theists reading: you may regard me as very arrogant for suggesting this. I may be wrong, but this is nevertheless a simplified approximation of the sort of attitudes I have largely experienced so far among theists.)

Of course, as maths goes, the statement is sheer bollocks. I probably agree, largely, with the speaker's worldview, but I still wanted to slap him when I heard him say this, for debasing scientific thinking just to voice a punchy soundbite. Science is about truth, not soundbites, and there was no need for this in a Q&A with Richard Dawkins amid a sympathetic audience. Perhaps, with the cameras and nerves and whatnot, his ego and desire to sound clever got the better of him. (That would almost certainly happen to me.)

Other Comments by _J_

33. Comment #54704 by HelloLOL on July 8, 2007 at 3:20 pm

It's the indoctrination of our nation. FSM FTW! Richard Dawkins, he's right!
This is a straw man argument. You can't prove God! You can't disprove God! May his noodly appendages touch us all. Ramen! Some of us just go one God further.

Other Comments by HelloLOL

34. Comment #57782 by Ash Roskell on July 21, 2007 at 2:09 am

Well, Mr. Dawkins, What an embarrassment of riches you have in your acolytes. Such praise! "I cried", says one, when s/he read your words. Another says s/he will have your words enscribed on his/her gravestone! (Which, by the way, I can guarantee s/he won't.) Most of them claim to "love" you! Not just what you say; but YOU! These empiricists, these rationalists, these higher-level thinkers have fallen in love with a man they have never met. Forgive me if my response to your work, though I like it very much, is slightly more level-headed than that to which you must by now be becomming accustomed. I suspect that this phenomenon is largely the result of the passions of the young. But BEWARE, Stephen - if I can call you by that name without blaspheming? - as such flushes of effusive feelings are often short lived. And then, when the first pangs of embarrassment at such emotional spillage begin to niggle within the reflective breasts of men (& women), there could be a banding together of back-sliders (as happened 2000 years ago). And even then, in order to assuage the shame of their youthful enthusiasms, your former followers may decide to nail you to something; possibly the doors of your own temple (which, I feel sure, will have been erected by this time) Just a thought. Have you ever done anything to discourage such sycophancy? It's not healthy, surely? Discuss.

Other Comments by Ash Roskell

35. Comment #57784 by Nails on July 21, 2007 at 2:22 am

Ash Roskell - I'm sorry but i didn't understand what you were trying to put across.
Have you been drinking?
You may also find that your comments are easier to read if you talk to one sex and include them all - 'he' is a perfectly legitimate way to include all of mankind.
Have you never seen followers of idols displaying signs of devotion?
Have you never been to a gig and seen the mass hysteria that a message, often without meaning but put to a drum and bass rhythm causes? Of course some people here display an almost fanatical devotion to the truth (to quote Monty Python) but is that not a human characteristic?
Most people here are united under one theme - our belief that there is no god and hence religion is a waste of time and energy and should not dominate our society. We are a clan if you like, a world-wide joining of ideas and minds free from biblical teachings and rules.
And who the heck is Stephen?

Other Comments by Nails

36. Comment #57786 by Bonzai on July 21, 2007 at 2:44 am

nails wrote:

We are a clan if you like, a world-wide joining of ideas and minds free from biblical teachings and rules.

Speak for yourself. I am an atheist and I hate clandishness. Atheist "churches" are just as bad as churches of any organized religion.

Have you never seen followers of idols displaying signs of devotion?
Have you never been to a gig and seen the mass hysteria that a message, often without meaning but put to a drum and bass rhythm causes? Of course some people here display an almost fanatical devotion to the truth (to quote Monty Python) but is that not a human characteristic?

How is such behaviour more "rational" than Christians flogging themselves in ecstasy? If that is ok with you what's wrong with religion if seen only as a metaphor, an arch narrative and an excuse to get high occasionally?

If you go by the view often expressed here that all things "irrational" are bad and must be fought rock and roll is just as unhealthy and crazy as any religious display and therefore must be eliminated.

Devoting to "truth" is a very religious mindset in case you don't notice. The Church says the same thing.

There are different kinds of "truth", not all truths are amendable to the scientific method and rationalism. Art and literature often are more helpful in uncovering "truth" about the human condition than science. The human condition is often ambiguous, nuanced and subjective and cannot be,--and should not be,--captured in the form of testable hypothesis. There are religious people who view their beliefs more along the line of literature in the sense that it is a way to construct meanings than along the line of science, in the sense of building an explanatory model of the world. Dawkins' formulation " religion is bad science" does not capture the essence of religion for many practising religious people.

Other Comments by Bonzai

37. Comment #57787 by LeeC on July 21, 2007 at 2:47 am

And who the heck is Stephen?

Was he one of the 12 Disciples of Jesus but got kicked out of the group because he couldn't sing and then was replaced by Ringo Star?

Something like that…

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

38. Comment #57796 by Ash Roskell on July 21, 2007 at 4:47 am

Hello Nails, Don't worry it is OK not to understand, I didn't expect every body to grasp what I was saying. Perhaps you should take up drinking?
Hello Bozai, Glad to see that you atheists are not all a bunch of automatons. I think that the "clan" mentality is not something that Richard Dawkins would, himself, subscribe to; but I won't criticise someone who feels that there is safety in numbers. Though we Christians put much store in the notion of us all belonging to a "family", we are also aware that each man or woman (I will use what ever syntax I choose thank you, Nails,- it's always the "gang up" ones that like to dictate) is on their own particular journey in life. In both camps there are people who have un-thought-out views & those who are wise.
Hello LeeC, & for the benefit of Nails (if S/HE is really interested) my gag may have been oblique, but my referrence to Stephen was a comparrison between R. D. & Stephen the first Christian martyr in history; it's in the book of Acts. He was stoned to death. Saul (Paul) held the coats of the stoners. Give it a read sometime. You may become aware of the things that you claim to be rationally rejecting?
Regards to you all

Other Comments by Ash Roskell

39. Comment #57855 by Nails on July 21, 2007 at 4:22 pm

Hmm, seems like i have to defend myself.
Bonzai, I referred to a clan of the internet gaming type. Meeting up virtually and blowing up computer-generated versions of others for fun - think halo/quake/unreal. Good fun, and certainly not rational. But humans are not rational, not in the slightest.
Atheists and theists differ only in that area which considers supernatural deities. We are still human, even if we are more rational than others.
My quote from Monty Python was from the Spanish Inquisistion sketch, which i would imagine you can now see the irony of.
Ash - maybe i should drink more. That is sound advice, and i shall pour myself a small (ha ha) medicinal whisky as soon as I finish this post.
Again you have misinterpreted my idea of a clan, maybe i was being a little naive. After all, we all know that religion teaches a 'sheep mentality' to keep its order in check, without a shephard you would all be lost.
My point on syntax was only to make your posts easier to read, but maybe I'm the only one woth the problem so please feel free to ignore me, I wan't be offended.
Stephen, first Christian martyr eh.
Killed by Jews, was he?
for blashemy?
one of which was to become a saint on his death?
Bizarre.
I have read the bible, every chapter and verse from Genesis to Revelations. Lost interest in the end, Revelations doesn't seem to make any sense whatsoever. There is an awful lot of it I don't remember, so i wouldn't consider myself a biblical scholar. After all, there are many stephens in history, not just scripture so I'm not suprised i didn't get that. Mind you, there are that many violent and unnessassary deaths that they all sort of merge into one bad horror story for me....

Other Comments by Nails

40. Comment #57886 by Ash Roskell on July 22, 2007 at 1:05 am

Go on then, Nails, I'll give it one more shot. Really though, don't you think that sweeping generalisms and sarcasm are some sort of fig leaf for flimsey arguments? When you are placed in the context of all the other posts it is clear that your earlier "clan" comments were fixed squarely in the sea of love surrounding Dawkins. It is a sign of character not to back-peddle, but to own your views or admit a mistake.
As to growing bored with a book, or failing to understand its content; this is not a valid argument for invalidating the truth therein. It is, however, the most compelling argument for suggesting that the reader does not have any valid grounds for dismissing it, if he confesses that he does not understand it and has forgotten most of it.
But if you want to read some bad horror stories about atheistic ragimes, try Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Poll Pot and many more in all good stockists near you now. I mean, really! We could stack up all of the bodies in history into two piles; those killed in the name of religion and those killed in secular wars, and guess what you will find? Nearly all of those which were killed in the name of religion were actually killed for secular reasons, religion being very rarely the cause of war, though often the excuse. But you can't seriously believe that, in a world where there was no religion, there would be no war, or people lying about their reasons for going to war? As you say, perhaps you are naive, so what I suggest (in all good part) is that you study the practice of allowing your head & not your heart rule you in rational thought & debate, & take up a study of history. I recommend, Cicero, Plato & Socrates for the former & Barry Cunliffe & Simon Schama for the latter. Most of all, avoid aggression or sarcasm in debate; it demeans both the argument and the man. Forgive me, if I sound patronising, but I am very, very old & feel I have earned the right to lecture a little :)

Other Comments by Ash Roskell

41. Comment #57895 by LeeC on July 22, 2007 at 3:49 am

Hi Ash,

Sorry the Stephen reference was so far over my head it was into the carpark.

Also, what is this truth you refer to in the bible? Any evidence for this god chap? I keep asking every theist, but they have never given me any.

See you around.

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

42. Comment #57918 by Nails on July 22, 2007 at 9:47 am

40. Comment #57886 by Ash Roskell on July 22, 2007 at 1:05 am

Go on then, Nails, I'll give it one more shot. Really though, don't you think that sweeping generalisms and sarcasm are some sort of fig leaf for flimsey arguments? When you are placed in the context of all the other posts it is clear that your earlier "clan" comments were fixed squarely in the sea of love surrounding Dawkins. It is a sign of character not to back-peddle, but to own your views or admit a mistake.

Hardly a fig leaf, and certainly not a back-track. Maybe some of us of a younger generation interpret words differently sometimes, I wouldn't imagine many people use decimate to litteraly mean reduce by a tenth.
But, by posting on here I will accept that I will be shot down sometimes whether you expect an explaination or not. But if all you can do is pick up on interpretation of words, then really, shouldn't you be at dictionary corner instead?

As to growing bored with a book, or failing to understand its content; this is not a valid argument for invalidating the truth therein. It is, however, the most compelling argument for suggesting that the reader does not have any valid grounds for dismissing it, if he confesses that he does not understand it and has forgotten most of it.

On the contrary, I turned to the bible in my hour of need and spent around two years reading and trying to fixate myself in it. i prayed every nght for my sick mother, and I cried myself to sleep some nights begging god for forgiveness at being so lax in my church attendance as a teenager. I felt i was being punished for being a bad christian. But I rarely lie, I don't cheat or steal and I have lived a good christian life in my opinion, so there must be another reason for my faith to be tested. And the more I read and studied, the more I understood. Now that I have rejected my religious upbringing and seen the biblical stories for all that they are - stories - then I am free to live my life without guilt or shame but with pride.
I am proud that I have made my own mind up; I have looked through as much evidence as I can and arrived at my own conclusion.
And I defy anyone to understand revelations, it is blatently misleading in order to inspire and abuse those who fear hell and judgement.

But if you want to read some bad horror stories about atheistic ragimes, try Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Poll Pot and many more in all good stockists near you now.

i think you need to look again at this, you might be suprised about how much religion influenced Hitler and Stalin in particular.

I mean, really! We could stack up all of the bodies in history into two piles; those killed in the name of religion and those killed in secular wars, and guess what you will find? Nearly all of those which were killed in the name of religion were actually killed for secular reasons, religion being very rarely the cause of war, though often the excuse. But you can't seriously believe that, in a world where there was no religion, there would be no war, or people lying about their reasons for going to war?

The big difference is how religion allows the persecution of homosexuals for no other reason, the stoning of those who work on the sabbath and the repression of women. just look at the recent news, a young, unmarried muslim couple were stoned to death for walking hand in hand together in public.
There will always be justification for persecution, but religious justification is fanal and unchallangeable - that needs to end.
I don't think that the world will be such a different place without religion, there will still be wars and murder but no-one will be able to say that their imaginary friend told them to or allowed them to do it, and so escape punishment. (Catholic child abusers are a massive example here)

As you say, perhaps you are naive, so what I suggest (in all good part) is that you study the practice of allowing your head & not your heart rule you in rational thought & debate, & take up a study of history. I recommend, Cicero, Plato & Socrates for the former & Barry Cunliffe & Simon Schama for the latter. Most of all, avoid aggression or sarcasm in debate; it demeans both the argument and the man. Forgive me, if I sound patronising, but I am very, very old & feel I have earned the right to lecture a little :)

I have no problem being patronised and age is no barrier to debate.
Reading? may I recommend Dawkins, Sam Harris, Steve Jones and Christopher Hitchens to name but four that I have read.
Even Charles Darwin or Gregor Mendel might be helpful.
But something tells me that you won't.... as I am just as unlikely to follow your recommendations.

Other Comments by Nails

43. Comment #58078 by Ash Roskell on July 23, 2007 at 10:08 am

Hi LeeC, I'm honestly not hedging but, in order to answer your question, I need to know what you would regard as evidence. If you ask me has anyone seen Jesus do a miracle, I would have to answer, "yes, look at the witness statements of the apostles, most of who'm did not change their statements in the face of torture & execution." On the other hand you may want a discussion about physics or metaphysics, history or politics? If you would expand on you question I would be happy to do my best to give a clear answer.
Well, Nails, yours is a familiar argument. I see you begin by raising the red herring of semantics once again. Forgive me if I don't play. As to your final recommendations; I'm not sure I would soberly recommend Christopher Hitchens to anybody (though I have read him), you forget that I have already said that I have read Dawkins (quite a fan actually), Steve Jones is a man with whom I often agree with regard to his evolution studies & have used his evidence amongst my own parishoners, &, having read Darwin, I ask you; are you honestly telling me you have read the whole of "Origin of Species"? You have made two incorrect assumptions about me and thereby rather clumsily revealed your hand. 1) You assume that I do not read literature with which I do not agree 2) You assume that I have not read the same books as you. Wrong both times. But now I know, by your own admission that you have not read a broad cross-section of literature which, no doubt, the head of your atheist church will have (that is not sarcasm by the way) & I also know, by your own admission, that you are not willing to look outside of the world in which you are comfortable. For my own part, I will give Mendel & Harris a look.
With regard to history, there is a huge difference between Hitler taking an interest in crackpot theories which made good propaganda and his believing in any religion (Recommend Mine Kampf, if you can cope with the tedium), or for that matter, the National Socialist Party having ANY religious doctrine whatever.
As for persecution, I simply think that blaming persecution on religious people alone shows a total lack of understanding of history. It is a popular and increasingly discredited argument; that's all. Read history or leave that side of the debate to those in the know.
As you bring up the death of your mother & feel it appropriate for discussion on such a site, I can say only this. You were not punished for anything; God does not work that way. You cannot say that she was not prevented from more suffering perhaps, but such speculations are mawkish at the best of times. I am sorry for your loss, but I could just as easily use the examples of the many deaths I have witnessed, as well as the others which have caused me suffering, in my arguments for faith. I do not think it wise or right to do so.
Regards, Ash

Other Comments by Ash Roskell

44. Comment #58107 by Ash Roskell on July 23, 2007 at 2:05 pm

P.S. to LeeC
Please forgive my rather selfindulgent referrence to Stephen. I shall endeavour to be clearer in the event of any further dialogue. See you around, Ash

Other Comments by Ash Roskell

45. Comment #58118 by Bonzai on July 23, 2007 at 2:49 pm

Hi, Ash,

"yes, look at the witness statements of the apostles, most of who'm did not change their statements in the face of torture & execution."

"Eye witness statements" are worth squat if they are reported only in secondary sources by scribes who have a vested interest(say the writers of the gospels). Moreover these "eye witnesses" cannot be cross examined and in many cases even their existence cannot be established.

Even if the accounts are authentic they should not be taken at face value. It could just mean that for some people their delusions appeared very real to them. The mind has a way to play tricks on us, any psychologist would know that. We will never know what happened without subjecting these "eye witnesses" to proper cross examinations.

Conviction only proves the intensity of beliefs, not the truth of them. Muslimn terrorists believe in their God enough to blow themselves up, this doesn't establish Allah is the one true God.

As for persecution, I simply think that blaming persecution on religious people alone shows a total lack of understanding of history. It is a popular and increasingly discredited argument; that's all. Read history or leave that side of the debate to those in the know.

No, of course the blame is not on religious people alone, it would be silly to claim otherwise. But what good is religion if religious people behave just as badly if not worse?

I agree that religion often is just a cover rather than the true cause,--at least not the only cause,-- for strifes and bloodshed. But as someone else on this site,--can't remember who,-- pointed out, even if religion is not the root cause of certain conflicts, it is a very potent way to inflame them by providing moral justifications for deeds that are otherwise inexcusable. Men can question the sanity of fellow men but they can't argue against divine judgement. Even when the impulse to violence and hate comes from secular sources, religion often enshrines and sanctifies it.

If the Biblical God exists and he is omnipotent as advertised why didn't he anticipate that his words would be liable to abuse and distortion? Is God so lacking in forsight that he couldn't at least be clear about his instructions so that it wouldn't be misinterpreted and misused?

Even if you are right that men abuse religion for their purposes, "God" is not off the hook ,--if he exists. One would expect an omnipotent God to understand human nature better to have given us the excuse. But then he might have deliberately set a trap out of malice, this is a possibility if you believe in the God of the bible, it is not out of character.

Cheers.

Other Comments by Bonzai

46. Comment #58138 by Bonzai on July 23, 2007 at 4:07 pm

Ash wrote:

God does not work that way.

How does he work? Please explain.

Cheers.

Other Comments by Bonzai

47. Comment #58147 by Nails on July 23, 2007 at 5:02 pm

I ask you; are you honestly telling me you have read the whole of "Origin of Species"?

Yes i have, cover to cover. Not easy, I must admit. It is now available online in its entirety, but I guess you don't need me to provide you with a link.

You have made two incorrect assumptions about me and thereby rather clumsily revealed your hand. 1) You assume that I do not read literature with which I do not agree 2) You assume that I have not read the same books as you. Wrong both times.

dito.

But now I know, by your own admission that you have not read a broad cross-section of literature which, no doubt, the head of your atheist church will have (that is not sarcasm by the way) & I also know, by your own admission, that you are not willing to look outside of the world in which you are comfortable. For my own part, I will give Mendel & Harris a look.

On the contrary, by rejecting the bible i have looked outside the world I lived the first twenty years of my life in. I stepped out of the comfort zone and decided to face my own demons. And i won..
And if you had read much Dawkins or Jones you would have no need to read the only notable work by Mendel.
You are however correct that my literarary knowledge is limited, hopefully I can correct this when my little ones have flown the nest.

As for persecution, I simply think that blaming persecution on religious people alone shows a total lack of understanding of history. It is a popular and increasingly discredited argument; that's all. Read history or leave that side of the debate to those in the know.

Persecution is a notably human feature, of that there is no doubt and you do not need to have deity to be good or evil - on that I think we both agree. However, religion adds another level to the equation, look at the inquisistion.
I have no doubt you are well aware of the courage shown by thousands of brave allied soldiers when storming the heavily defended beaches of Normandy on the morning of D-day, but what about the Iranian squads who ran at heavily armoured Iraqi bunkers with no helmets and no weapons?
And the single reason for this apparant suicide - yup, love of god.

As you bring up the death of your mother & feel it appropriate for discussion on such a site, I can say only this. You were not punished for anything; God does not work that way. You cannot say that she was not prevented from more suffering perhaps, but such speculations are mawkish at the best of times. I am sorry for your loss, but I could just as easily use the examples of the many deaths I have witnessed, as well as the others which have caused me suffering, in my arguments for faith. I do not think it wise or right to do so.

Thank you for your kind words, but my mother is still alive. She survived several operations and will live out her natural life a shadow of her former self but such is life. I ask not for anyones pity as death is the logical outcome of life; it wasn't the worst tragedy of the time but it was most certainly the catalyst. What it did was allow me to look outside the box, even though my mother severelly disapproves of my atheistic stance.
But with regards to the bible as evidence, its usefulness as a source were demeaned by its shameless editing.

Other Comments by Nails

48. Comment #58170 by Bonzai on July 23, 2007 at 8:41 pm

Nails and Ash,

I haven't read a single page of the origin of species. Most physcists active in research haven't read Newton's Principia. Science is not history, indeed it has a way of obliterating history if I can put in this somewhat strong language to emphasize the point.

Biology has "evolved" a long way since the days of Darwin, who knew nothing about genes and DNA. I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out some of Darwin's ideas have been shown to be wrong just like many of Newton's have been.

It is interesting to read Newton and Darwin to learn how ideas evolve and appreciate the insights and methods of these great scientists, but it is not necessary to read them to learn modern biology or physics.

Evolution theory is not a religion and The Origin of Species is not the evolutionist' bible. Darwin was not the evolutionists' "God". The truth or falsehood of evolution does not rest on Darwin's authority. This is a simple point but it is still worth bringing up because religious people often project their own mindset on science and mistaken it as just another "faith".

Evolutionists don't do "Darwin thumbing". One can be VERY well informed about modern evolutionary theory without reading Darwin. Having read "the whole of the Origin of Species" in and of itself only proves that one is informed about 19th century biology.

So Ash, your challenge to Nails isn't a real challenge at all. Nails, more power for you if you have read the Origin of Species from cover to cover, but it's no big deal if you haven't.

Other Comments by Bonzai

49. Comment #58171 by Goldy on July 23, 2007 at 9:05 pm

Had to go through all the posts to see what the hell was going on. Ash, you need a drink. Sound like me sometimes ;-)
"You were not punished for anything; God does not work that way" is correct, mind - there is no God or gods. What is not there cannot punish anything. You also mentioned brutal athiest regimes. We could mention brutal religious regimes. What does that prove except people are easily led to do bad things for causes they are made to believe in. Doesn't matter if things are done in the name of a god or in the name of ideology which, in a way, suggests, to me at least, that there is no god, just ideas.
I've not read any of the books mentioned (the big ones, at least). I've studied it, had Mendel sort of explained to me at Leicester Uni by the Rev Dr Semionov (can't remember how to spell his name properly - he spoke in a monotone and I generally fell asleep).
As Bonzai said, you don't have to read the books - it's the ideas that are important :-)

Other Comments by Goldy

50. Comment #58201 by Nails on July 24, 2007 at 2:24 am

Bonzai (and Ash), biology is my chosen field and I read Origin of Species one summer holiday when I was only working part-time. I must confess I found it hard to read, but as I was a biology student i gained a huge insight from it. With hindsight, i would have been better off reading the Selfish Gene as it was on my recommended reading list. For some reason I thumbed a few pages and came to the conclusion that we are altruistic because our genes are selfish. End of. I have since read the book and I found it very hard to put down. Loved it.
What is striking about Origin is the amount of detailed observations Darwin made, he really must have been a prolific note-taker. The huge sum of evidence he colllected was quite striking and the basis of his theory is still sound despite him having no knowledge of genes or DNA.i must confess I havn't read Mendel's work directly either, but his work is required learning for all biology students of any level - GSCE upwards (sorry, not sure what the American/worldwide equivelent is, age 16 exams).

I do agree with Bonzai that you do not have to read someones work to understand the theories, and to return to Ash's earlier point about me getting 'bored' with reading the bible that must be a character flaw because I found Blind Watchmaker quite boring as well. Having previously read Selfish Gene and Ancestor's Tale I found most of Blind Watchmaker had been repeated elsewhere - a similar sentiment I suppose to reading the bible.
God is not great is my next read, but I have only flicked the first couple of pages so far - school holidays are a real time-consumer but i hope to have more time after summer.

With regards to physics, I have read brief history of time by Prof. Hawking and loved it, but that's as far as that goes.

I am curious about one thing though Ash, if you have read Darwin, Dawkins et al then how come you still have faith?
Not that I suppose reading Dawkins is going to strip your faith away, I guess you have to have doubts of your own first. i considered myself a quiet atheist before reading Dawkins, now I know I don't have to feel like the odd one out and oppologise for it.

Other Comments by Nails