Login |
New User
Books
Read the 1st Chapter!
The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution
The God Delusion
Over 1.5 million copies sold
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
Full house captivated by atheist Dawkins' take on religion
by Madison
Thanks to Lyzandra Daria for the link.
http://www.madison.com/tct/mad/topstories/276768
Full house captivated by atheist Dawkins' take on religion
Samara Kalk Derby
People feel strongly about their religious faith and are deeply offended if you insult it, Oxford University scientist Richard Dawkins told a full house Tuesday night at the Wisconsin Union Theater.
Dawkins asked: Why is it that people are so offended when you insult their religion but don't get as upset if you insult the music, art or books they like?
"What is so special about religion?" he asked, noting that it's respected even by the nonreligious among us.
The British biologist and atheist wrote the best-selling book "The God Delusion" in 2006 and is on a university tour speaking out against organized religion.
Dawkins, 66, made a name for himself with his 1976 book "The Selfish Gene," which popularized the gene-centered view of evolution. "The God Delusion" has sold more than 1 million copies in English alone and has been translated into more than 30 languages. It was ranked No. 2 on the Amazon.com best-seller list in November 2006.
And it explains why some Dawkins fans were turned away from the 1,300-seat theater after it filled up and why some opportunists were trying to sell the free tickets for $50 apiece on Craigslist.
Sean Carroll, the University of Wisconsin-Madison professor of molecular biology and genetics who introduced Dawkins, listed a number of Dawkins' books and asked audience members to raise their hands if they had read one or more of them. Almost every hand went up.
Carroll quoted comedian-magicians Penn and Teller on "The God Delusion": "If this book doesn't change the world, we're all screwed."
Dawkins joked that he's not absolutely positive there is no God. "Only in the sense that I'm not absolutely positive there is no large china teapot in orbit in the solar system."
No one can actually disprove the existence of a celestial teapot, he said, "which means we all technically have to be agnostic about the teapot. But in practice we are all 'ateapotists,' " he said to laughter.
Dawkins spoke about childhood indoctrination into religion. "Isn't it a remarkable coincidence, almost everyone has the same religion as their parents?"
Religions run in families, Dawkins said. If we had been brought up in ancient Greece, we would all be worshiping Zeus and Apollo. If we had been born Viking, we would be worshipping Thor, he said.
"If your God is a being who designs universes, listens to prayers, forgives sins, performs miracles, reads your thoughts, cares about your welfare, worries about your sex life, raises you from the dead," you are unlikely to be satisfied with "The God Delusion," Dawkins said.
Feminists helped raise consciousness for equal rights for women, Dawkins said, adding that he is trying to do the same thing with the unconscious assumptions everyone makes about religion.
At Christmas time, his daily paper, The Independent, took a photo of a school Nativity play, in which the three biblical wise men were played by 4-year-olds -- a Sikh, a Muslim and a Christian. The photo looked kind of sweet, Dawkins said. The assumption for most readers was how nice it was for three 4-year-olds of different religions to come together for a Nativity play.
The three children would never be labeled "a socialist, a conservative and a liberal." Nor would they be labeled "an atheist, an agnostic and a secular humanist," Dawkins said.
Nobody would even think about labeling a child at age 4 with the political or economic opinions of their parents, he said.
"You've never heard of a Keynesian child a post-modernist child," he said to laughter. "But the one exception we all buy into, whether we are religious or not, is religion."
There is no such thing as a Catholic child, there are only children of Catholic parents, Dawkins said. "I think it is a form of child abuse to speak of a 4-year-old child as a Catholic child or a Protestant child or a Muslim child. There is no such thing as a Protestant child. There is no such thing as a Muslim child."
Annie Laurie Gaylor of Madison's Freedom from Religion Foundation, which was one of the sponsors of the lecture, said she is indebted to Dawkins for speaking out against religion in a country where 50 percent of the people claim to reject Darwinism and support creationism.
"It's wonderful to have this eminent biologist care so much about the truth of religion to be willing to question it publicly using his scientific credibility. He is in a unique position to influence people," she said.
http://www.madison.com/tct/mad/topstories/276768
Full house captivated by atheist Dawkins' take on religion
Samara Kalk Derby
People feel strongly about their religious faith and are deeply offended if you insult it, Oxford University scientist Richard Dawkins told a full house Tuesday night at the Wisconsin Union Theater.
Dawkins asked: Why is it that people are so offended when you insult their religion but don't get as upset if you insult the music, art or books they like?
"What is so special about religion?" he asked, noting that it's respected even by the nonreligious among us.
The British biologist and atheist wrote the best-selling book "The God Delusion" in 2006 and is on a university tour speaking out against organized religion.
Dawkins, 66, made a name for himself with his 1976 book "The Selfish Gene," which popularized the gene-centered view of evolution. "The God Delusion" has sold more than 1 million copies in English alone and has been translated into more than 30 languages. It was ranked No. 2 on the Amazon.com best-seller list in November 2006.
And it explains why some Dawkins fans were turned away from the 1,300-seat theater after it filled up and why some opportunists were trying to sell the free tickets for $50 apiece on Craigslist.
Sean Carroll, the University of Wisconsin-Madison professor of molecular biology and genetics who introduced Dawkins, listed a number of Dawkins' books and asked audience members to raise their hands if they had read one or more of them. Almost every hand went up.
Carroll quoted comedian-magicians Penn and Teller on "The God Delusion": "If this book doesn't change the world, we're all screwed."
Dawkins joked that he's not absolutely positive there is no God. "Only in the sense that I'm not absolutely positive there is no large china teapot in orbit in the solar system."
No one can actually disprove the existence of a celestial teapot, he said, "which means we all technically have to be agnostic about the teapot. But in practice we are all 'ateapotists,' " he said to laughter.
Dawkins spoke about childhood indoctrination into religion. "Isn't it a remarkable coincidence, almost everyone has the same religion as their parents?"
Religions run in families, Dawkins said. If we had been brought up in ancient Greece, we would all be worshiping Zeus and Apollo. If we had been born Viking, we would be worshipping Thor, he said.
"If your God is a being who designs universes, listens to prayers, forgives sins, performs miracles, reads your thoughts, cares about your welfare, worries about your sex life, raises you from the dead," you are unlikely to be satisfied with "The God Delusion," Dawkins said.
Feminists helped raise consciousness for equal rights for women, Dawkins said, adding that he is trying to do the same thing with the unconscious assumptions everyone makes about religion.
At Christmas time, his daily paper, The Independent, took a photo of a school Nativity play, in which the three biblical wise men were played by 4-year-olds -- a Sikh, a Muslim and a Christian. The photo looked kind of sweet, Dawkins said. The assumption for most readers was how nice it was for three 4-year-olds of different religions to come together for a Nativity play.
The three children would never be labeled "a socialist, a conservative and a liberal." Nor would they be labeled "an atheist, an agnostic and a secular humanist," Dawkins said.
Nobody would even think about labeling a child at age 4 with the political or economic opinions of their parents, he said.
"You've never heard of a Keynesian child a post-modernist child," he said to laughter. "But the one exception we all buy into, whether we are religious or not, is religion."
There is no such thing as a Catholic child, there are only children of Catholic parents, Dawkins said. "I think it is a form of child abuse to speak of a 4-year-old child as a Catholic child or a Protestant child or a Muslim child. There is no such thing as a Protestant child. There is no such thing as a Muslim child."
Annie Laurie Gaylor of Madison's Freedom from Religion Foundation, which was one of the sponsors of the lecture, said she is indebted to Dawkins for speaking out against religion in a country where 50 percent of the people claim to reject Darwinism and support creationism.
"It's wonderful to have this eminent biologist care so much about the truth of religion to be willing to question it publicly using his scientific credibility. He is in a unique position to influence people," she said.
Comments 1 - 50 of 84 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #142430 by Inferno on March 12, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Maybe from now on when people ask "What religion are you?", I'll respond with "I'm a teapotist." And maybe add "And a fundamentalist one at that!" Other Comments by Inferno
3. Comment #142432 by Bertybob on March 12, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Keep up the good work RD. Other Comments by Bertybob
4. Comment #142438 by David Lee on March 12, 2008 at 1:41 pm
I covered the Dawkins news conference in Madison last night and 3D Science News will posting that soon (part 1 is rendering now).I also spoke with Dr. Dawkins today. 3D Science News had also shot the lecture but it turns out neither Dr. Dawkins or the folks at RDF want it posted. So we won't be posting it. Probably because they will post their own version and would like some control over the craziness that is the internet.
Plenty crazy out there.
Great lecture, BTW.
www.3dsciencenews.com
Other Comments by David Lee
5. Comment #142445 by Eventhorizon on March 12, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Josh
Are there any plans to post these talks on RD.net?
Go on, go on, go on, go on, go on...but you know, whatever, no pressure.
Other Comments by Eventhorizon
6. Comment #142449 by Teratornis on March 12, 2008 at 1:57 pm
In reply to comment #142406 by Matt7895:
(...) although it was good that there was laughter at the 'ateapotist', (...)
I found that rather odd. Most jokes are funniest when they are fresh. I was thinking, haven't these people in the audience discovered YouTube? The Four Horsemen have made this joke or similar jokes in numerous videos with high view counts.
It's like Hitchens' trademark line: "Mr. Jefferson, build up that wall!" I was blown away the first time I heard it. After watching a dozen variations, now I can tell when Hitchens is winding up for the delivery, and while it's still a great line, I could just as well skip forward.
Other Comments by Teratornis
7. Comment #142456 by Shaden on March 12, 2008 at 2:14 pm
I agree with you about the title Matt7895, I was thinking I would read about Bob Saget and the crew when I clicked on it. Other Comments by Shaden
8. Comment #142474 by Paula Kirby on March 12, 2008 at 2:37 pm
3D Science News had also shot the lecture but it turns out neither Dr. Dawkins or the folks at RDF want it posted. So we won't be posting it. Probably because they will post their own version and would like some control over the craziness that is the internet.I've been looking out for these videos on this site too, but I guess they're holding back for now since they won't want to spoil the fun for anyone planning to attend one of the later lectures in the tour. So I suspect we're going to have to be patient for a little bit longer ...
Other Comments by Paula Kirby
9. Comment #142481 by David Lee on March 12, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Well, if you've some 3D glasses or are willing to cross your eyes, you should soon be able to seen Richard Dawkins in all his stereoscopic glory. The news conference is also different from his prepared lecture.Might be worth a look;-)
www.3dsciencenews.com
Other Comments by David Lee
10. Comment #142512 by Lucas on March 12, 2008 at 3:24 pm
-- Dawkins asked: Why is it that people are so offended when you insult their religion but don't get as upset if you insult the music, art or books they like? "What is so special about religion?" he asked, noting that it's respected even by the nonreligious among us. --
When is the good Doc going to stop asking this inane question? I expect he knows the real answer, so is it just a rhetorical device? It takes about five seconds thought to discern the palpable emotional difference between entertainment tastes and ontological notions on which one bases their entire life. C'mon, right?
That said, I'll hopefully see the man this weekend, if I can get in, and I just hope he says something I haven't heard a million times already (though I will have called this upon myself by listening to or reading everything posted on this site.) If I get to ask my above question, I will.
Oh, and seeing as how there is not enough space to accommodate everyone who wants to hear him speak, might I suggest using... um... megachurches? Or meganotchurches? Some of those might be hard up for money enough to rent themselves out for a night.
Other Comments by Lucas
11. Comment #142513 by Steve Zara on March 12, 2008 at 3:36 pm
When is the good Doc going to stop asking this inane question? I expect he knows the real answer, so is it just a rhetorical device? It takes about five seconds thought to discern the palpable emotional difference between entertainment tastes and ontological notions on which one bases their entire life. C'mon, right?
There seems to be a scale of offense. At one end is insulting your mother or sister. At the other is insulting your choice of TV watching. In between, somewhere in between is insulting your choice of car, the football club you support, your shoes...
It can be hard for those who have never had religion, or who lost it years ago, to realise that for some believers, criticising their beliefs feels like insulting a relative.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
12. Comment #142515 by LordSummerisle on March 12, 2008 at 3:36 pm
It seems the lecture is the same everywhere and has changed little from the book's original promotional tour. By now, we here on the site, and those who have read the book, pretty much know all the discussion points by heart, all the lines and the jokes. We have to take into account that the majority of those who come to see the Professor have not seen the earlier lectures and there is little sense changing the contents for each stop of tour.What interests me, personally, are the crowd reactions, the debates and the audience questions after the lecture.
Other Comments by LordSummerisle
13. Comment #142517 by drive1 on March 12, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Dawkins spoke about childhood indoctrination into religion. "Isn't it a remarkable coincidence, almost everyone has the same religion as their parents?"I think Richard needs to update this part of his talk, in the light of the recent Pew Forum Survey. Here's an extract:
"More than one-quarter of American adults (28%) have left the faith in which they were raised in favor of another religion - or no religion at all. If change in affiliation from one type of Protestantism to another is included, 44% of adults have either switched religious affiliation, moved from being unaffiliated with any religion to being affiliated with a particular faith, or dropped any connection to a specific religious tradition altogether."
Other Comments by drive1
14. Comment #142528 by justdust on March 12, 2008 at 4:01 pm
What interests me, personally, are the crowd reactions, the debates and the audience questions after the lecture.
and
And it explains why some Dawkins fans were turned away from the 1,300-seat theater after it filled up and why some opportunists were trying to sell the free tickets for $50 apiece on Craigslist.
I suspect it is all going to be a bit one-sided. Is there another way to say "preaching to the converted"?
Other Comments by justdust
15. Comment #142563 by bentleyd on March 12, 2008 at 6:24 pm
I'd be interested to read what the local mainstream media has to say about the lecture. This article is from "The Capital Times-Your Progressive News Source". I would expect them to have a positive response.I agree that RD and the rest of the Four Horsemen are preaching to the converted, and that we've all heard the arguments before. I think it's like cheering for your favorite sports team. We know what our team is going to do (run, pass, kick, hit, etc) We just enjoy watching the opponent being defeated.
Other Comments by bentleyd
16. Comment #142569 by mesomodel on March 12, 2008 at 6:52 pm
drive1: I think Richard needs to update this part of his talk, in the light of the recent Pew Forum Survey.
Yeah. He could update it with something that has more punch. Like discussing this kid. His reason couldn't override his parents' indoctrination. Solution? Kill.
Edit: in-line link doesn't seem to want to work. Try http://tinyurl.com/3depq6
Other Comments by mesomodel
17. Comment #142575 by mejdrich on March 12, 2008 at 7:25 pm
I can't wait to see this posted on video. I hope Josh was there, recording!Other Comments by mejdrich
18. Comment #142579 by discipline on March 12, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Comments #15, 16:Indeed. Unfortunately, Richard chose to speak at the most secular/progressive cities in the US, Madison included.
Like his first tour, I wish Richard had chosen a smattering of cities in redneck states like Oklahoma, Florida, Texas, Idaho, etc etc. In those places, the majority has never heard or seen a real atheist/agnostic, except in caricature from the pulpit.
Watching cracks form in their arrogant world view is so very fun...
Other Comments by discipline
19. Comment #142588 by Lucas on March 12, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Steve Zara - You're right, there is a scale of offense, absolutely. And way at the most offensive end is, essentially, "You're a rube." I hesitate, but I'll put this in caps: NOBODY WANTS TO BE A RUBE. This basic ego-based psychological reality should be kept in mind at all times when telling believers that their beliefs are wrong. This is why they get so pissed off. Dennett put it nicely in The Four Horsemen when he said, "Well, and too, there's no polite way to say to somebody, do you realise you've wasted your life? Do you realise that you've just devoted all your efforts and all your goods to the glorification of something which is just a myth? Or have you ever considered - even if you say have you even considered the possibility that maybe you've wasted your life on this? There's no inoffensive way of saying that." And also, earlier, he says, "I think our criticism is more barbed than that. We are telling people they are wrong but we are also telling them that they are wrong to be offended."
Of course, he follows up with saying that we must, and he's right. But we have to realize it's like saying, "Ha! Fool! You fell for the biggest con in history! Dumbass!" That kind of thing never goes over well. But they'll get over it. Or rather, they'll die, and their children hopefully won't be such rubes.
But then this also gets to the meat of the education question: are we just elitist, educated assholes making fun of people who are uneducated, or *gasp* genetically just stupid? There is a high correlation between educational opportunities and believing stupid things, y'know.
Other Comments by Lucas
20. Comment #142600 by LeeC on March 12, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Hi mesomodel,Yeah. He could update it with something that has more punch. Like discussing this kid. His reason couldn't override his parents' indoctrination. Solution? Kill.
Edit: in-line link doesn't seem to want to work. Try http://tinyurl.com/3depq6
WOW... thanks for the news story - scared the crap out of me, but thanks.
Of course, we cannot "blame" religion can we for one nutter can we? He was only human after all.
Lee
Other Comments by LeeC
21. Comment #142609 by AtheistAspy on March 12, 2008 at 8:39 pm
I think we should downplay any uncertainty about God's existence like the following:Dawkins joked that he's not absolutely positive there is no God. "Only in the sense that I'm not absolutely positive there is no large china teapot in orbit in the solar system."
In my experience, theists claim that we don't know at all whether God exists and then chide us for being uncertain, no matter how one-sided the evidence is. The theist rebuttal isn't a valid argument, but any explicit claim of weak as opposed to strong atheism may not work as a debate tactic.
Other Comments by AtheistAspy
22. Comment #142616 by Ed-words on March 12, 2008 at 9:31 pm
To Discipline:RD will visit the Bible Belt
next week in Texas. Is Austin,Texas really Texas?
Other Comments by Ed-words
23. Comment #142625 by sarah95 on March 12, 2008 at 10:30 pm
But then this also gets to the meat of the education question: are we just elitist, educated assholes making fun of people who are uneducated...?
No. Telling the truth and criticizing dogma is not "elitist", at least not in the negative context in which you choose to use the word. And please don't play the "class card". Being educated doesn't make you an asshole. Wealth/education and religion are not mutually exclusive. If they were, religion would have no power in the world.
Other Comments by sarah95
24. Comment #142627 by AtheistAspy on March 12, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Wealth/education and religion are not mutually exclusive. If they were, religion would have no power in the world.
No, but there's definitely a negative correlation between the two.
Other Comments by AtheistAspy
25. Comment #142647 by Teratornis on March 13, 2008 at 12:00 am
In reply to comment #142588 by Lucas:
"Well, and too, there's no polite way to say to somebody, do you realise you've wasted your life? Do you realise that you've just devoted all your efforts and all your goods to the glorification of something which is just a myth? Or have you ever considered - even if you say have you even considered the possibility that maybe you've wasted your life on this? There's no inoffensive way of saying that."
One way is: don't say it yourself, get the religious person to say it. I.e., ask leading questions that get the religious person to think, and come to his/her own conclusions. People don't get as angry over things they think they made up.
A question such as "Why won't God heal amputees?" can work. You don't have to spell it all out. If someone believes the Bible, quote all the verses in which Jesus promises to give us anything we ask for, and then ask the religious person if he can think of one instance where God answered a truly impossible prayer (such as: healing a victim of a genetic disease such as Down Syndrome, or regrowing an amputated limb).
I remember the question that planted a big seed of doubt in me, and that wasn't even the intent of the questioner. The questioner was a preacher who was trying to persuade people to become more pious. The question was, "If the Holy Spirit withdrew from the church today, how many church programs would continue just as before?" I remember being struck by the question. I thought about it for a long time. The more I thought about, the more trouble I had coming up with any church program that would suffer if the Holy Spirit went away.
Another possibility is to attack a rival religion, but use it as a proxy for attacking faith in general. Since most if not all religions use similar arguments in defense of their wildly contradictory claims (such as the argument from ignorance, etc.), you can pick a religion that a religious person happens to disagree with, and rip it to shreds. But rip it to shreds in a way that creates a lot of collateral damage against faith in general. For example, show exactly what logical fallacies infest the other religion's apologetics. Then let your religious person independently realize "Hey, my own religion makes these same kinds of arguments." That realization may occur sometime later when you aren't even around.
The other trick is to let the religious person do your work for you. Ask the religious person if he or she has any doubts or misgivings about his or her religion, or about the conduct of religious authority figures. An outwardly pious person may be close to having a crisis of faith already, and all they need is a little push.
This is in keeping with Sun Tzu's advice in The Art of War to attack the enemy where he is weakest, not where he is strongest. A full-frontal assault on the enemy's main defenses is less likely to succeed than a focused attack on the weakest point. So ask questions which will tell you where the religious person's faith is under the most challenge. What are they asking "Why, God, why?" about?
The way to avoid disagreements is to start with agreement. No two religious people believe exactly the same things. Probably they agree even with an atheist on some things. Find out what those are and build on them.
And also, earlier, he says, "I think our criticism is more barbed than that. We are telling people they are wrong but we are also telling them that they are wrong to be offended."
Well, one way is to show how silly it is when other people get hysterical over someone mocking their sacred cows. Such as, for example, Muslims who go into a violent rage when someone calls a teddy bear "Mohammed."
Yet another strategy is to ask a person if they have ever believed something strongly in the past, only to find their belief shattered by contradictory evidence. If you can just get them to realize that belief itself is worth absolutely nothing for determining the truth of any claim, later on they might connect a few more dots.
Almost everyone knows what it's like to be really wrong about something. This is extremely common in personal relationships and business relationships, for example. You can use those experiences to teach people the dangers of believing in belief, without necessarily bringing up the God thing. Not many people can absorb complex, challenging new ideas all at once. They have to grow into them.
For example, if a person is wrong about ten specific things, they may find it emotionally devastating to hear all ten of those things corrected at once. But they might manage one per month.
It's like getting in shape for a sport. An out of shape person will just get injured if he or she immediately tries to perform on an elite level. Instead, the trainee must start with easy exercises and gradually work up.
Of course, he follows up with saying that we must, and he's right. But we have to realize it's like saying, "Ha! Fool! You fell for the biggest con in history! Dumbass!" That kind of thing never goes over well. But they'll get over it. Or rather, they'll die, and their children hopefully won't be such rubes.
Well, this depends. As I mentioned, it may be instructive to find out if the person has actually been fooled before, and if he or she now has learned not to trust his or her hunches.
But then this also gets to the meat of the education question: are we just elitist, educated assholes making fun of people who are uneducated, or *gasp* genetically just stupid? There is a high correlation between educational opportunities and believing stupid things, y'know.
It's strange how "elitist" seems to be a pejorative in this context, but in any context where there are generally recognized standards of skill, nobody has a problem with elitism, in fact people generally desire it. If you need brain surgery, what sort of a surgeon do you want? Probably the most elite surgeon available. The same thing goes when we watch professional sports. We want the most elite athletes on our favorite team. And we like to watch them compete against other elite athletes. If either or both teams are not elite, the game is a laugher.
Other Comments by Teratornis
26. Comment #142648 by GBile on March 13, 2008 at 12:10 am
Lucas,Apparently I should be offended by being called a "rube". I am not, I don't even have the slightest idea what a "rube" is. Well, anglish is not my native language, that could be an explanation for my indifference to "rube".
On the other hand, at Richarddawkins.net I am characterized as a "lurker". I am annoyed about that, because in my English (american) dictionary a lurker is someone who hides in the bushes with the intention to commit evil deeds (or something like that). A complaint to Josh about the "lurker" status was dismissed by the remark that in the age of the internet this qualification might be quite appropriate (it is not).
The point I try to make is that offense is largely in the eye of the beholder. A quote to underscore this would be: "nobody has the right NOT to be offended". In cases that people hold extreme beliefs, and act on those beliefs, "strong" language might be warranted. Most religious beliefs are extreme.
Other Comments by GBile
27. Comment #142677 by AfraidToDie on March 13, 2008 at 2:19 am
14. Comment #142517 by drive1: Dawkins spoke about childhood indoctrination into religion. "Isn't it a remarkable coincidence, almost everyone has the same religion as their parents?" I think Richard needs to update this part of his talk, in the light of the recent Pew Forum Survey.
Beth's response (#18) answered this completely. Another twist on our US stats is that I'd venture to say a large percentage of those who "change" religions, are simply men marrying into the Catholic religion because "they have to". They know full well we'd do almost anything for "the prize"! I know a lot of men that married into the Catholic church, and really don't give a damn about it.
Although such a simple point, I think it is one of the most potentially thought provoking points a theist can hear. If you happened to be born in China, India, or Saudi Arabia, what are the chances that you would be Christian, and why? If there is any potential for change, this is a great seed to plant.
17. Comment #142569 by mesomodel .. drive1: Yeah. He could update it with something that has more punch. Like discussing this kid. His reason couldn't override his parents' indoctrination. Solution? Kill.
I'm afraid theists would only use this as a "see, that's what happens when you start to question God". They'd consider it a product of "doubt", brought on by all the secular movements.
27. Comment #142647 by Teratornis
As usual, Mr. T's posts are too long to put in block quotes. But I do want to say that post was very informative and well thought out. It was a great recipe for a casual debate and how to gently promote more free thought with a theist. When I first started frequenting RDF, I initially would cringe when I got to some of your posts because of the sheer quantity. However, I've learned that the quality is outstanding as well and I look forward to reading them. If I ever have to go to a theist gang fight, I want to take Mr T with me, along with Mr Z (Steve that is), Paula, Max D (it's the gloves), and more. There's a lot of RDF'ers that I really enjoy reading and I think it would be fun to rate our top 20 all-time favorite posters some day, because there really are some great thinkers here. Other interesting posters I enjoy off the top of my head is Sara95, Lucas, Robotaholic, Mitchell Gilks (maybe it's just his avatar :-) , Irate Atheist (sometimes you just need comedy), AtheistJon (where r u these days), Diacanu (should be toward the top of the list), Sturmundrang, and many more that I can't remember off the top of my head right now. I apologize in advance for missing some of you. Perhaps your name or avatar doesn't stick out. Is there anyone else in your top 10 that I haven't mentioned already?
Other Comments by AfraidToDie
28. Comment #142695 by Duff on March 13, 2008 at 3:14 am
Those of you who complain about the four horsemen saying the same things over and over should imagine yourselves giving a speech every day for just a year and try to say something original and evocative every single time. It's called a stump speech and it works. Lighten up!Other Comments by Duff
29. Comment #142708 by sornord on March 13, 2008 at 3:25 am
I do hope security wherever Richard appears is VERY tight. There are a lot of fundie nutjobs in the US who think he is evil incarnate and might want to take a shot at him.Other Comments by sornord
30. Comment #142745 by somersetsimon on March 13, 2008 at 4:25 am
Let's think about statistics and the world's population - the US accounts for only 4.55% of it - and the Pew report suggests that around 28% of that 4.55% are changing religions. But what do we MEAN by changing religions? Are we talking about Jews becoming Muslims? Muslims becoming Jews? Christians becoming Hindu? Or are we talking about Catholics becoming Protestants, Orthodox Jews becoming Reformed Jews, and Evangelicals becoming Fundamentalists? Let's be careful how we interpret statistical data and also how we can view data gathered in the US as having any relevance across other countries in the world.
If we are talking about people really changing their position, i.e. Muslim to Christian, Atheist to Jew, apart those who hypocritically change for reasons of marriage, then I've always suspected that Religion -> Atheist would be the most popular. It would interesting if there was a survey of religious beliefs (or lack of) for those who have made a genuine free choice of all the options available.
Other Comments by somersetsimon
31. Comment #142748 by Geoff on March 13, 2008 at 4:37 am
29. Comment #142677 by AfraidToDie
Is there anyone else in your top 10 that I haven't mentioned already?
Dr. Benway
MPhil
Cartomancer
epeeist
wooter
Other Comments by Geoff
32. Comment #142782 by Zaphod on March 13, 2008 at 5:14 am
I have read The God Delusion cover to cover twice now and that doesn't count the number of times I have skimmed it checking quotes and the like. On top of this I have probably watch or listened to every available piece of media of Dawkins God Delusion book tour. I feel like I could give his answers for him at this point. This makes me less interested when I hear there is another tour. I wonder how Richard feels. Does the repetitiveness of it ever get him down or does he get suprised by new questions everywhere he goes?
I should note that when I hear Richard is taking about other stuff I am more excited and interested. For instance when he was taking at a recent event with Craig Venter. Very interesting stuff.
Other Comments by Zaphod
33. Comment #142826 by Lucas on March 13, 2008 at 6:03 am
I just spent an hour thoughtfully responding to Teratornis and Sarah95. Then it just kinda didn't post, even though it said it did, and then it was gone, and I was inexplicably logged out, and now all that was a total waste. Sometimes I hate this page. I need a cigarette.Anyway, I'll boil it down.
Teratornis - You are absolutely right.
Sarah95 - Chill out.
Other Comments by Lucas
34. Comment #142832 by Steve Zara on March 13, 2008 at 6:08 am
I just spent an hour thoughtfully responding to Teratornis and Sarah95. Then it just kinda didn't post, even though it said it did, and then it was gone, and I was inexplicably logged out, and now all that was a total waste. Sometimes I hate this page. I need a cigarette.
It isn't normal for a website to hang around for an hour waiting for a page to be submitted. If they did, servers could get swamped. Times of between 15-30 minutes are typical. The answer is to type into a text editor first, then paste into the page when you are ready.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
35. Comment #142846 by Thor'Ungal on March 13, 2008 at 6:23 am
Lucas: That happens to me allot, so much so I now copy the test to clipboard before posting. I think it has to do with posting a comment too close to the time someone else does, or posting it after too many others have posted while you were writing. This is sheer speculation though. Oh and my sympathies.Thor
Other Comments by Thor'Ungal
36. Comment #142904 by mesomodel on March 13, 2008 at 7:27 am
comment #22 LeeC
Of course, we cannot "blame" religion can we for one nutter can we? He was only human after all.
In this case, I think we can. It's pretty clear in his letter to Jesus that he's figured out that religion (and Christianity in particular) is a sham. He's just unable to take the final step to recognizing he's an atheist. Instead, his mind has meltdown trying to reconcile his indoctrination (aka parental child abuse) and reality.
If you read some of the additional links, you'll notice various clergy stating that this is how the devil works. It's the devil's fault. And, when you realize that this kid was brought up in this environment, it's pretty clear to me that if he accepts the reality of atheism, he's basically evil. The emotional baggage was too much and he went postal.
Other Comments by mesomodel
37. Comment #142925 by Riley on March 13, 2008 at 7:55 am
Comment #142449 by Teratornis:I found that rather odd. Most jokes are funniest when they are fresh. I was thinking, haven't these people in the audience discovered YouTube? The Four Horsemen have made this joke or similar jokes in numerous videos with high view counts.
I was there in the audience Teratornis and I wondered about the same thing.
There was a large constituent of fans there in the crowd and they laughed, in my opinion, just a little too vociferously to be natural. I noticed that in many cases people were laughing before the punchline, like they were trying to express an opinion with their laughter or, like groupies at a pop concert, they were erupting in response to hearing the first few chords of their favorite song.
Don't get me wrong, it was fun just the same, and the questions asked during Q&A were pretty good.
As for the sell-out: The University of Wisconsin students and faculty had advance access to the tickets and they bought every seat available within a day - I was one of them.
When I showed-up at the event itself, there were over a hundred people waiting in line outside the entrance without tickets hoping to replace any no-shows. In the end, every one of the 1300 closely packed seats in that auditorium were not just paid-for, but actually seated. A lot of interest here, despite the fact that the event didn't get much publicity and Madison is not a large town.
Other Comments by Riley
38. Comment #142932 by steveroot on March 13, 2008 at 8:19 am
33. Comment #142748 by Geoff on March 13, 2008 at 4:37 am
Dr. Benway
MPhil
Cartomancer
epeeist
wooter
Good one, Geoff!
STe5e
Other Comments by steveroot
39. Comment #143091 by bendigeidfran on March 13, 2008 at 12:38 pm
I can watch Hitchens say the same thing all day. My favourite is the 'prefrontal lobes too small...adrenaline glands too big....afraid of the dark...afraid to die' etc best version in his free speech debate in Canada. Elvis went on tour with over 500 orchestrations scored but ended up singing you know which ones. I think a throw away 'medley' of punchlines wouldn't work. Also hope Hitch has a better doctor...he's getting bigger... Other Comments by bendigeidfran
40. Comment #143102 by D'Arcy on March 13, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Can I add revcort to the best posters list. I have only seen him on one thread, but he stuck with it. He was a Christian creationist minister somewhere in the mid west of USA and had 4 kids and a wife. The guy stuck to his guns and shot a few infidels himself, but he was obviously good humoured and a nice person. Sorry, I forget the thread, but I seem to remember it being something about a creation museum, some time in the autumn of 2007.
On the question of Dawkins (or anyone else) saying the same thing over and over, I can only point out that I have seen the sun set thousands of times but each time it's different. The same goes for music, art, literature etc. etc.
Compared with the monolithlic mantras that Christian preachers endlessly spout about Jesus, Dawkins is a veritable oasis in the desert.
Other Comments by D'Arcy
41. Comment #143133 by 4horsefins on March 13, 2008 at 1:59 pm
D Arcy,That was a great response to the repetitive nature of RD's speeches. Every speech RD gives is like hearing my favorite song for the second time.
It is also like watching a movie like the matrix. You realize a slight difference in the author's intention, each time you watch the film.
Other Comments by 4horsefins
42. Comment #143149 by DalaiDrivel on March 13, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Richard is tenacious. He has been espousing the merits of science in explaining the splendour of the universe for a very long time now, as it struck me watching the "Break the Science Barrier" series (no offense to his age or looks... :) ) It is no real stretch and not very tiresome for him to narrow the focus of his passion and lectures to attacking religion.I suspect every tour is like new to him, because the audience is bigger and he has the opportunity to reach new people who haven't heard the elementary arguments and questions before. The more nuanced arguments and material are for us... :P
Actually- it is probably very tiresome for him. But he knows it's worth it. A culture of critical thinking will rouse doubts on its own. To have a public speaker repeat the questions many are hopefully asking themselves (if not courageously others) will make it very difficult indeed for religion to conceal its "lowly origins" as Hitchens timelessly put it.
As for us- we're seasoned readers and seasoned atheists mostly (and yes, I even call myself an atheist now out of expediency). This article is not directed at us, and thus we must be patient with our fellow doubters. It's fun following Richard's exploits and the patient, substantive impact he's sure to have on the culture of belief. In fact, I enjoyed reading this article knowing what it would spark in terms of curiosity and questions in novice unbelievers. :P It's literally reason to hope.
EDIT: That last line is incredibly cheesy. Sorry if someone had the misfortune to read or worse, think of it before me (probably). It doesn't stop me, however, from liking it. We all have faults... Mine is rational however in that I'm fond of puns.
Other Comments by DalaiDrivel
43. Comment #143155 by ridelo on March 13, 2008 at 2:36 pm
TGD is translated in 30 languages. Where can I find the list of those languages? Is Arabic among them? Other Comments by ridelo
44. Comment #143233 by LeeC on March 13, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Hi mesomodel,RE: 38. Comment #142904 by mesomodel
comment #22 LeeC
Of course, we cannot "blame" religion can we for one nutter can we? He was only human after all.
In this case, I think we can. It's pretty clear in his letter to Jesus that he's figured out that religion (and Christianity in particular) is a sham. He's just unable to take the final step to recognizing he's an atheist. Instead, his mind has meltdown trying to reconcile his indoctrination (aka parental child abuse) and reality.
I actually agree with you mesomodel - my sarcasm was just set "way high", sorry I wasn't clear ? - I was merely mocking the religious (or "neutral") response.
This kid thought there was something wrong with him, and this was brought on by his religious upbringing.
However, it is an extreme case, that was more my point.
If you read some of the additional links, you'll notice various clergy stating that this is how the devil works. It's the devil's fault. And, when you realize that this kid was brought up in this environment, it's pretty clear to me that if he accepts the reality of atheism, he's basically evil. The emotional baggage was too much and he went postal.
I didn't have time to read the additional links, but I'm not surprised with your summary.
This seems then to be the problem of allowing religious indoctrination - yet where do you stop (or even start?) Ban the right for parents to teach their child their religion? Force them to teach all religions? Ban churches? What about banning guns?
It is not a simple solution - my dollar is on teaching all religions and not allow the teaching of just one religion - yet kids going "crazy" will happen, maybe if they only had a sling-shot it will not be as messy?
So, is it right to solely blame religion? Probably not, but in this case it was more than likely the major cause.
Lee
Other Comments by LeeC
45. Comment #143247 by Lucas on March 13, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Steve - Thanks. Yep, I'm interweb retarded. But my excuse is good: bacon. It distracted me. Other Comments by Lucas
46. Comment #143250 by asman on March 13, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Teratornis wrote"A question such as "Why won't God heal amputees?" can work. You don't have to spell it all out. If someone believes the Bible, quote all the verses in which Jesus promises to give us anything we ask for, and then ask the religious person if he can think of one instance where God answered a truly impossible prayer (such as: healing a victim of a genetic disease such as Down Syndrome, or regrowing an amputated limb).
I remember the question that planted a big seed of doubt in me, and that wasn't even the intent of the questioner. The questioner was a preacher who was trying to persuade people to become more pious. The question was, "If the Holy Spirit withdrew from the church today, how many church programs would continue just as before?" I remember being struck by the question. I thought about it for a long time. The more I thought about, the more trouble I had coming up with any church program that would suffer if the Holy Spirit went away.
Another possibility is to attack a rival religion, but use it as a proxy for attacking faith in general. Since most if not all religions use similar arguments in defense of their wildly contradictory claims (such as the argument from ignorance, etc.), you can pick a religion that a religious person happens to disagree with, and rip it to shreds. But rip it to shreds in a way that creates a lot of collateral damage against faith in general. For example, show exactly what logical fallacies infest the other religion's apologetics. Then let your religious person independently realize "Hey, my own religion makes these same kinds of arguments." That realization may occur sometime later when you aren't even around.
The other trick is to let the religious person do your work for you. Ask the religious person if he or she has any doubts or misgivings about his or her religion, or about the conduct of religious authority figures. An outwardly pious person may be close to having a crisis of faith already, and all they need is a little push.
This is in keeping with Sun Tzu's advice in The Art of War to attack the enemy where he is weakest, not where he is strongest. A full-frontal assault on the enemy's main defenses is less likely to succeed than a focused attack on the weakest point. So ask questions which will tell you where the religious person's faith is under the most challenge. What are they asking "Why, God, why?" about?
The way to avoid disagreements is to start with agreement. No two religious people believe exactly the same things. Probably they agree even with an atheist on some things. Find out what those are and build on them."
I agree with you. You need different art, track, technique and trick to argue with believers. When you say you don't believe in god or there is no god you just closing the door and helping believer to run away never to come back. It's very easy to sow the seed of doubt pretending as a believer. Dawkin's way is elitist way it don't work with millions of dumbass church and mosque
goers. You need to invent people's way.
Other Comments by asman
47. Comment #143256 by Bonzai on March 13, 2008 at 6:57 pm
I noticed that in many cases people were laughing before the punchline, like they were trying to express an opinion with their laughter or, like groupies at a pop concert, they were erupting in response to hearing the first few chords of their favorite song.
Or going to see the Rockey Horror Picture movie.
Other Comments by Bonzai
48. Comment #143259 by Richard Morgan on March 13, 2008 at 7:00 pm
MUSICAL PORTRAITS - UPDATEBryan English : he is a lovely, unpretentious person, who humbly tries to avoid appearing perfect by composing songs.
Bryan of Oz
http://www.myspace.com/fleabytes
Other Comments by Richard Morgan
49. Comment #143308 by dad4justice on March 14, 2008 at 1:11 am
Did the demented audience all have wind up keys in their backs - so they could remain awake listening to a load of smelly old hogwash ?Other Comments by dad4justice
50. Comment #143311 by AllanW on March 14, 2008 at 1:27 am
Hehehe; a driveby trolling from dad4justice.
Unless you care to backup any of the words in your post? Demented? Smelly old hogwash?
Thought not.
There's a parallel here with various causes or ideologies; the members of a particular cause should be aware that they represent the cause to some small degree to the rest of the population who are not as au fait with the issues but can be persuaded.
Myself, I'm sympathetic to the cause of fathers4justice as my brother-in-law got shafted by the family justice system. Yet when I come across the noxious arse-gravy spouted by dad4justice on this forum it makes me think he may just have been unlucky and the system that prevents marginalised mind-sets such as those posted in the previous message from infecting children is not to be meddled with.
Other Comments by AllanW
Comment Entry: Please Login
Register a new account
Upcoming Events:
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #142406 by Matt H. on March 12, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Does anyone know if any of Richard's new talks are on the internet in video or audio? Thanks.
Other Comments by Matt H.