1. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146190 by Wrought on March 18, 2008 at 6:12 pm

They're wrong, we're right. So why do these articles still annoy me sooooo much? :/

I remember the day my agnosticism became outright atheism. There was no dramatic event, just my reasoning finally reaching a conclusion. Something just hit home. That day, it felt like the world changed colour. I felt depressed, but I realised I was seeing everything exactly as it was for the first time. Then I suddenly relaxed. I quit my job, I stopped biting my nails, I stopped smoking, I moved home, I went on holiday and I started to live. I've never been happier, more focused or more certain.

2. Lords Approve Abolition Of Blasphemy

Comment #139895 by Wrought on March 6, 2008 at 4:15 pm

To non-UK readers:

There was a sort of "test" vote in March 2007 where the Commons decided the Upper House should be fully elected, and so it looks like the Lords are on the way out.

It's a shame in a way; they're the most fun part of Parliament.

There's 26 Lords Spiritual in the House of Lords, and they have to go.

The Law Lords are being moved in 2009 to a Supreme Court anyway, so they're disappearing.

By the way, it's just the UK with apppointed Lords, the rest of Europe doesn't have such a thing. They're more democratic, but we're getting there.

Most of Europe also has secularism written into their constitution, although there's a few noticeable exceptions (Ireland etc).

The UK is the only European country without a codified written constitution though... so give us a break, we're getting there! We have to do everything piecemeal, changing one thing at a time. We've not had any major calamities to make us start from scratch like most places in the world! (Eg. After Franco in Spain, after WW2 in Germany, after Revolution in France, etc, when constitutions get written.)

3. Hebrew University researcher: Moses was tripping at Mount Sinai

Comment #139663 by Wrought on March 6, 2008 at 11:27 am

I read in a book called "1000" that in the year of the title people in England ate hay until the food harvest came in, it had a mould (or somesuch, I ain't a biologist) on it and it had properties like LSD, so most of the population was on acid for a month or two. The result... witch-burnings? I dunno, drugs and religion go hand in hand. God knows what they put in those communion cups (not literally, of course).

4. Dispatches: Holy Offensive

Comment #135174 by Wrought on February 28, 2008 at 4:31 pm

Free speech... maybe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqNY7VNRp7M&feature=related

5. My Argument With God

Comment #131881 by Wrought on February 23, 2008 at 2:11 pm

Ricky Gervais is very anti-religious. If you've seen his stand up "Animals" you'll see him read from Genesis and rip it apart hillariously...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_sfSDCV9Jo

He was on Radio One a few months back, on Jo Whiley's show, and kept butting in saying that God didn't exist. At the end of the section he left with the final words "And just remember... God doesn't exist!" and left. Jo was left going, "Er, what an odd thing to say". I guess she knew there'd be complaints.

6. Council pays psychic for exorcism

Comment #127522 by Wrought on February 15, 2008 at 11:19 am

Hahahahahahah! This is sooo funny.

The (cynical) council clearly decided it was cheaper to pay £60 for an exorcism to silence the idiots than to pay for temporary accomodation and then rehouse them. Someone in the council is earning their keep for once ... hillarious.

Damn, that had me in knotts.

7. The God Delusion: Now Available in US Paperback

Comment #113002 by Wrought on January 18, 2008 at 12:27 pm

I don't understand... it's been paperback in the UK for ages. Was it released here first?

8. Richard Dawkins on The Late Edition with Marcus Brigstocke

Comment #110121 by Wrought on January 10, 2008 at 2:10 pm

Have you ever seen an old, old children's cartoon called Flight of Dragons where a man destroys the evil magician/dragon by shouting scientific words?

That's what would happen if you took a Jesus doll and a Dawkins doll and made them fight it out!

9. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #98815 by Wrought on December 14, 2007 at 1:04 pm

Dear Father Johnathan,

Atheists killed how many people? And your God did nothing to stop it?

Please apologise to me for your God's inexcusable inaction.

Yours unbrainwashed,

Wrought.

10. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #92895 by Wrought on December 1, 2007 at 5:18 pm

It's always good when the thread of the conversation veers toward biology, because it lets the prof riff on the stuff he's best at. Great to hear again.

11. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68950 by Wrought on September 9, 2007 at 8:33 am

I've read Dawkins' God by McGrath. Utter pile of tripe. I even read The Dawkins Delusion, and although there might have been a few good arguments where he tempered what R. Dawkins was saying, there was nothing new or convincing to add to the theism/atheism debate.

To The Fleas, in the words of a internet response I once noticed:

"That embarrassment you feel is just religion leaving your body." - Marcus Ranum, USA

12. God's Still Dead

Comment #64699 by Wrought on August 21, 2007 at 11:20 am

One day... one day he won't need to write anymore. People will just know. Until then... Hitchens: build up that wall! :)

13. God Bless Me, It's a Best-Seller!

Comment #64158 by Wrought on August 18, 2007 at 6:35 am

Eamonn Holmes is a rather naff British television host. Honestly, FB, I wouldn't stand for that!! :)

14. The Gullible Age: Review of 'The Enemies of Reason'

Comment #62393 by Wrought on August 9, 2007 at 2:58 pm

What sign are you?

"I am a Do Not Distrurrrb Sign."

It's worth reading the chapter in Unweaving the Rainbow on this subject, for the humour if nothing else.

15. CNN Debate on Koran in Toilet

Comment #60597 by Wrought on August 2, 2007 at 11:33 am

Surely we atheists are missing an opportunity here?

Put a Qu'ran down the toilet and create massive press attention about the evils of religion....

What if a 1000 Qu'rans were found flushed down the loo on the same day throughout the Western world?

Forget the "come out" scarlet A campaign!

Let the flushing begin!

16. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60595 by Wrought on August 2, 2007 at 11:19 am

On the morality note... Christians don't really have a sense of morality. Jesus taught that the Pharisee at the temple (who had comitted no sin) was not as holy as the Publican who repented (after a sin). The Pharisee was actually denounced as having pride. Hence, it doesn't matter what you do, so long as you repent and have faith in God.

17. The Flea Circus Invites a Newcomer!

Comment #60592 by Wrought on August 2, 2007 at 11:11 am

I've read The Dawkins Delusion. It's a lot better than McGrath's "Dawkins' God" which was drivel. The reason it is better is that it makes some fairly good arguments for places where Dawkins' should "tone it down". No one really wants to argue with someone saying, "oh, let's just be nice, shall we?" Oddly, it doesn't actually make the case FOR God, which is probably one of its strongest points. However, the fact that it contains next to no counter-argument and is just a quick stab at some of Dawkins' more emphatic points, shows that the best an Oxford theologian can produce is just some flea-waffle. On that basis, I'm fairly confident there's no real need for me to read any of these other books. Plus, if there's a good case for religion I'm pretty sure I'd be arguing FOR it right now.

18. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59456 by Wrought on July 29, 2007 at 5:56 am

I still think I'd rather wear something without the site advertising, and I think the A is a bit rubbish. I'd rather go on eBay and get a comedy atheist t-shirt or perhaps just stick to my little Darwin-fish badge. Perhaps if they come up with something less in-your-face and tacky looking I might go for it. Just my opinion. I live in the UK, so I'd rather start a polite conversation about athiesm over a jokey t-shirt than start explaining what my A stood for like some bible-basher going door to door.

19. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59245 by Wrought on July 28, 2007 at 2:06 pm

Just enough of a campaign to sell merchandise advertising the website. Disappointing, but then I guess we are materialists, eh?

20. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #59194 by Wrought on July 28, 2007 at 4:19 am

fides_et_ratio

I'd like to propose an answer to some of your questions. I apologise for being yet another individual "having a go".

RD claims religion is "childish". One person argues he means "silly" and you wish to argue he means something like "child-like". You also state that an educated man like RD would not use the term without knowing what it means. Well, the Oxford English Dictionary I have here states this term means "1. of, like, or proper to a child" or "2. immature, silly". I think it is clear, therefore, that we can interpret this in more than just the way you wish to interpret it. However, playing with semantics won't resolve this issue satisfactorily. For example, I would want to argue he means a multitude of things with the one statement, a concept you might accept if you've experienced the numinous whilst reading a poem, proverb, or perhaps a koan.

The important point is that RD is not saying "that faith is childish whilst at the same time saying children can't have faith". He is saying that faith is childish and that faith is detrimental to the child, so let the child take on board faith later in life when he can chose, if he wishes, to incorporate something detrimental into his existence. This can only be understood if you accept that faith is detrimental.

The argument for faith being detrimental assumes we are talking about a faith based on a) the supernatural and b) religious doctrine. It is possible to have a faith not based on the supernatural, as your example of a doctor shows. This is not the issue and mutually exclusive. Secondly, it is possible to declare a personal faith not based on religious doctrine which is so evasive as to not be detrimental to the self or others. Christopher Hitchens, for example, has no problem with such a personal faith. It's their own private matter. RD may wish to go further saying such faith paves the way for belief in a) other unsupported and possibly detrimental ideas, and b) prepares the ground and excuses extremists.

However, "labelling" comes into play when we call our child by a name which secludes them from great swathes of society, inculcates them in beliefs which cannot be proven or are even useful or safe, and involves them in the history of a group for which they have no responsibility.

Calling a child polite doesn't fall into this category. First of all, it isn't supernatural. It's helpful behavioural instruction based on evidence presented by experience in the natural world. (Incidentally, the numinous and/or consolement is not proof of God or the supernatural and can be experienced in a range of contexts.) Furthermore, it is designed to allow the child to communicate effectively and be acceptable socially.

Teaching a child religious doctrine insists that they take on beliefs which are not readily accessible to those who are not in their in-group and also segregates them from those who are partisan to other religions. For example, in teaching your child to pray to Jesus and, ultimately, to call himself a Christian, are you also warning him that much of society (people of other religions and atheists) will, in later life, consider him to be either a) likely to end up eternally damned or b) foolish (respectively)? No sensible person would call him damned or foolish for being poilte.

It's a double-edged sword, because if he fully accepts Christian views he must consider others damned and foolish, which compounds the problem.

RD makes the point that children accept parental instruction without question so that they can learn about the world quickly and safely. It is important to teach them constructively, and wicked to teach them things that are detrimental to their ability to function in the world.

There is also the matter of what he is accepting himself to be a part of. The least troublesome of which is that he must accept that a man has died for his sins (whether or not he wanted to be forgiven his sins by another taking responsiblity anyway). This is the least troublesome, as I say. He also has to believe his God has accepted child sacrifices, has killed a nation of first-borns and so on and so on.

Clearly divisive labelling may occur in some unavoidable instances anyway. Labelling a child with a religious tag is similar to labelling him with any other divisive tag with which he's not fully familiar. It doesn't matter if he enjoys praying, he doesn't know the implications of what he's being taught and it's unlikely he will for a long time.

RD is right in saying labelling a child in this way is "wicked" because it's socially divisive, implicates the child in ideas and actions of which he has no knowledge, and teaches the child to believe in the supernatural, with all that that may imply.

21. Ditching God: Emboldened Atheists Are Finding Purpose In Coming Out Of The Closet

Comment #57863 by Wrought on July 21, 2007 at 5:27 pm

Sounds fun, which I lived nearby. Perhaps one day the local church where I live will take down the board which states who is preaching and start putting up "Free Inquiry Meeting" and "Science Fair" signs... probably too much to hope for.

22. Town Hall Seattle: God Is Not Great

Comment #57861 by Wrought on July 21, 2007 at 5:22 pm

So, Bonzai - congratulations on:

a) attacking nearly everyone here
b) turning them into strawmen who you imagine don't hold all levels of conversations with all kinds of religous folk each with their own nuanced interpretations of their faiths
c) criticising Hitchens "worship" but setting up a fiction as to how we interpret him and his views ourselves
d) avoid making any clear criticism of any of Hitchen's actual views
e) defending irrationality in all its forms, with no consideration of the differing effects of different levels of irrationality on other people's lives
f)waving around "ockham's superglue", plugging nonsense on to fabrication with no justification
g) failing to know or notice that Hitchens doesn't have anything derisive to say about people who have an allegorical style of personal religion anyway

My hat is off to you. You should visit the axis of evil countries, debate publically, write hard hitting journalism, study intensively, devise something positive and intelligent to say, become a best selling author and then maybe we could sit on these forums and defend you to arrogant bigots who lash out when they see something that doesn't reconcile with their own views.

23. Town Hall Seattle: God Is Not Great

Comment #57707 by Wrought on July 20, 2007 at 4:31 pm

dgr8test97 said:

no one to my knowledge has ever said that modern science can tell us how an individual can lite himself on fire without as much as blinking. This is a trick I would love to learn, even if it took me my whole life to figure it out.

24. Town Hall Seattle: God Is Not Great

Comment #57648 by Wrought on July 20, 2007 at 12:16 pm

Graeme - the National Geographic episode I referred to in an earlier post (and the reason I think dgr8test97 claims to have evidence from this source) was called Kung Fu Dragons of Wudang. It's occasionally shown on the N.G. channel.

A section of it can be seen on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f89uwL3dxRY

If you watch between the 4.50 and 5 min mark you'll see the person I speak of (Master Wang) who spent 10 years in isolation studying Kung Fu and meditating. In his own words he ended up "worse off physically and mentally".

25. Town Hall Seattle: God Is Not Great

Comment #57642 by Wrought on July 20, 2007 at 11:52 am

dgr8test97, I think you simply want to have it both ways. You believe hook, line and sinker in Eastern martial arts, philosophy and showmanship and want to endow them with something "above and beyond", even if you're canny enough not to call it something supernatural.

I'm not going to try to come up with rational explanations for such instances as you describe, again, since you've shown once that your response will simply be to repeat your description of these "miracles" as if you've made some kind of point. I submit that these examples you recommend are actually quite mundane and, to the right person, easily explainable. I suggest you look at the things scientists have investigated and you'll soon realise that they're far more interesting. After all, psychopathy, religious fervour and physical conditioning take all kinds of manifestations but don't need especial attention from scientists at the expense of, for example, medical care, environmental conservation and the development of progressive new technologies.

I have to agree with Shatite and Yorker that your dislike of Hitchens appears to stem from the fact that his views on such matters don't reconcile with your own.

26. Town Hall Seattle: God Is Not Great

Comment #57524 by Wrought on July 19, 2007 at 3:50 pm

Yeah, the MP3 file link doesn't work, disappointingly.

Anyway, "unquestioning adoration" of Hitchens aside, I can't wait to read his next book:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Portable-Atheist-Essential-Non-Believer-Non-believer/dp/0306816083/ref=sr_1_1/026-2588664-1840456

:)

27. Town Hall Seattle: God Is Not Great

Comment #57506 by Wrought on July 19, 2007 at 3:02 pm

I really enjoyed this talk by Hitchens; he was on top form.

#59 Zaphod#... I expect it made sense to the questioner within whatever warped mental schema he's erected in order to believe whatever convoluted delusion he buys into. Probably best not to give it too much thought, he'll probably grow out of it if he ever grows up and gets laid.

##58 dgr8test97#... I point you to Hitchens' challenge. An atheist or anti-theist can do these things with training. These aren't supernatural abilities and they aren't secrets either. Grow up!

Have you never seen a stage magician, a person under hypnosis, Derren Brown, or even that recent British Lawyer Lewis Gordon Pugh who swam in sub-zero arctic waters recently utilising his ability to alter his body temperature at will?

More specifically, monks who spend 10 years in isolation, if you've ever seen one interviewed properly, tend to say they've suffered mental problems and their bodies are damaged. There's a National Geographic documentary on this.

I believe there are ways to set alight to yourself without pain. Stunt men do it all the time. It's all about the fuel you use and the temperature it burns at.

Throwing needles that can shatter glass, eh? I've seen the Chinese State Circus perform and yes, it's amazing what humans and circus performers can achieve with years and years of training. But you can look to the Olympics to see less "mystical" versions of similar human achievements, or to great musicians even. Do anything for 8 hours a day, year in year out and you'll develop amazing "powers".

"We need to know what's going on"? We do! It just seems you read martial arts magazines instead of books on sports science, and believe martial arts documentaries instead of investigative documentaries on martial arts.

Bascially, you need to stop buying things off newsagent shelves and use a library!

28. Beyond Belief: Atheism (with AC Grayling)

Comment #56872 by Wrought on July 17, 2007 at 3:22 pm

I caught it at the time and thought it could have been a lot better. I guess it was fairly well balanced, to be fair, but I've reached the point where it makes me turn red when I hear the words "and then I found God". Not anger, you understand, but embarrassment. What's wrong with these people? How has this crap existed for millenia?

To borrow from Scrubs: If you ever do wanna know my opinion, rest assured it will always be that you're an incredible pain and that every time I see your kew-pie-doll face, it just makes me wanna pick you up and shake you until all the hours of my life that you've wasted... fall out. Now laugh

29. A force for good?

Comment #55270 by Wrought on July 10, 2007 at 12:05 pm

To: troyreynolds86

How exactly does "the power of Being itself" impregnate a virgin?

30. Inferior Design: Richard Dawkins reviews Behe's lastest book

Comment #53293 by Wrought on June 30, 2007 at 3:29 pm

Truly at his best when it comes to evolution and dispelling myths for the benefit of public understanding. My hat is off to him.

And I just want to say: "memosphere" is a great word.

31. Look Forward to Anger

Comment #52172 by Wrought on June 26, 2007 at 12:17 pm

Yes, indeed.

32. Christopher Hitchens on The Hour

Comment #49637 by Wrought on June 12, 2007 at 4:46 pm

in response to pewkatchoo:

Hitchens mentions the case of Terri Schiavo.

Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo

President's Statement:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/03/20050317-7.html

Hope this points you in the right direction if you're interested.

33. Man to die over insult

Comment #47175 by Wrought on June 3, 2007 at 10:27 am

How to kill a Christian.

Step 1: Find him worshipping.
Step 2: Interrupt him and argue with him.
Step 3: Call the law.

The lawyer of the accused said that Christians had arranged a spiritual gathering at Chungi Ammarsidhu in September 9, 2005, at which a neighbour, Abdul Aziz, also a complainant in the case, had objected and demanded that they perform Islamic rituals instead of Christian rites. The argument turned hot during which, the complainant alleged that the accused had used the derogatory remarks.

from here.

Totally, totally wrong.

34. Beggars belief: Robin McKie on The God Delusion

Comment #47144 by Wrought on June 3, 2007 at 6:10 am

Just some thoughts:

If the spread of atheism can be considered an evolutionary step, are we at the primordial soup stage or the extinction of the dinosaurs stage? What are the chances that 50 years from now religion will be a minority past-time? Can we expect a future like in Arthur C Clarke's 3001 where people don't even use the word "God"? I'm just wondering if there's a model out there that can show us where we are in terms of progress?

Can we expect the religious to follow the stages of mourning, and will they be apparent in the media?

1) Denial and Isolation
2) Anger
3) Bargaining
4) Depression
5) Acceptance

35. Man to die over insult

Comment #47139 by Wrought on June 3, 2007 at 5:52 am

Similarly, emails now sent.

36. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #46751 by Wrought on June 1, 2007 at 11:52 am

I think McGrath's arguments come over as more convincing in person than they do in his Dawkins' God book (the one Dawkins is holding in the interview). I was thoroughly unimpressed by the book, but in person his arguments seem a tad more sensible and probably better expressed, strangely.

I think Dawkins nails im on every point, of course, especially with the references to 9/11 and tsunamis. McGraths convoluted and evasive answers boil down to "God works in mysterious ways", which is wholly unconvincing.

I like McGrath's point that it's about salvation not explanation. I think that's an interesting way of looking at it. If someone (like a parent) mentions to you that you have a soul that needs saving, and you believe them, then why not believe the words of someone and his followers who are talking about just that. If you believe you need saved, then I guess science and rational thought needn't really come into it. That's what he seems to be saying, and it's a fair point.

I guess you have to decide if you "feel" it or not, and if rational thought "feels" more convincing than the idea you have a soul, then I guess it won't take much to convince you to be an athiest. If it doesn't, then, well, what will convince you? Nothing.

I guess it all proves that secular, athiest, ethical education needs to get to kids early.

37. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #45862 by Wrought on May 29, 2007 at 12:23 pm

steve99
But not in the UK (where this debate was held). Here we have a soft and very moderate Chritianity, where most people would think that any mention of Hell would be in bad taste.

38. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Robert Winston

Comment #45622 by Wrought on May 28, 2007 at 1:58 pm

I believe a valid reply to "your stance is insulting and offensive" is "You believe I will burn in hell forever - whats more offensive than that?"

39. I'm Sure God is Scared

Comment #45616 by Wrought on May 28, 2007 at 1:39 pm

I found this on the http://www.hogonice.com/ site - I don't know if it directly relates to this site or another, but it would seem to be relevant.

Atheist Morality & my Contempt for Gates
(My Work is Wrong, but Apparently Better Than What You Can Write)

Items of interest, or which only seem interesting to me because I am on powerful drugs:

An atheist stole my half-baked entry on Christopher Hitchens and put it on his site without permission. Life is nice when you have no commandments to obey, isn't it?

Putting other people's work on your site is a sincere way of saying "I myself have nothing to say and can't write for shit, so I stole from this other person who can do what I can't." It's even worse than running a site containing nothing but links.

If you want to put my work on the web, why don't you just pay my hosting bills?

I wish I had never written that piece. Its another example of something very ordinary and sloppy which got a lot of attention, while people ignored better things I've written.

Also, someone offered me a copy of WordPerfect because I complained about Word sucking.

Here's the funny thing. I used Wordperfect for years because it was the processor of choice for lawyers. If I wanted to view anything written by any other lawyer, I needed Wordperfect. I still have Wordperfect 11.

I went to Word because other lawyers started using it and the world at large was already on the Word wagon.

People are talking about writing in Wordperfect and converting to Word later. Have you tried that? I find that both of these programs respond to "convert" commands by shitting all over themselves. Word 2000 has never HEARD of Wordperfect.

Someone should beat Bill Gates with an iron bar for about nine hours a day. He is possibly the most annoying person alive.

Atheist Tolerance

Here's a tip on getting your clever, tolerant atheist observations published in my comments. You're better off leaving out warm, loving terms like "godbag

40. Observer Diary 27th May 2007

Comment #45313 by Wrought on May 27, 2007 at 6:41 am

American atheists today walk with a spring in their step, a new confidence that they have not known since the lights went out on their Enlightened secular foundation. They are coming out of the closet in droves, and I like to credit the series of recent bestselling books, by Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and others.

41. The Art of Handling Thetans

Comment #45298 by Wrought on May 27, 2007 at 5:59 am

I read Dianetics after seeing it advertised in The Times (uk) by John Travolta many years ago. I was young and looking for answers and was utterly convinced by it. I went on to read a few more of the Scientology books, but fortunately as I was becoming hooked on it I managed to find out about the darker side of the cult on CiX (a sort of bulletin board, when the internet was just becoming popular). Of course, I dismissed the whole thing immediately when reading about the Sea Org (Scientology ship) being banned from German ports and accused of docking and raping children in the Netherlands. And I read online about the alien Xenu and all that nonsense too.

Worryingly, having ordered a couple of the books via mail order from them at the time, I still, 12 years later, get hand written letters from them on various subjects. I daren't write back to get them to take me off the mailing list for fear of just confirming my address hasn't changed to them.

I suppose some of you might have seen the recent Panorama episode where John Sweeney lost his rag after being followed and terrorised by Scientologists while investigating them? Terrifying stuff.

42. I Don't Believe in Atheists

Comment #44404 by Wrought on May 24, 2007 at 2:33 pm

There's been about 36 posts since I started writing this, but I thought I'd post it anyway, even though a lot of it has been covered.

This individualism — the belief that we can exist as distinct beings from the tribe, or the crowd, and that we are called on as individuals to make moral decisions that at times defy the clamor of the tribe or the nation — is a gift of the Abrahamic faiths.

This sense of individual responsibility is coupled with the constant injunctions in Islam, Judaism and Christianity for a deep altruism.

This individualism is the central doctrine and most important contribution of monotheism. We are enjoined, after all, to love our neighbor, not our tribe.

God is a human concept.

God is not an asserted existence but a process accomplishing itself.

It is the life force that sustains, transforms and defines all existence.

Thanks to our religious institutions and the numerous tyrants, charlatans and demagogues these institutions produced, with so much baggage and imagery that it is hard for us to see the intent behind the concept.

All societies and cultures have struggled to give words to describe these forces. It is why Freud avoided writing about the phenomenon of love.

This god—if you want it named—is the god of death, or as Freud stated, Thanatos, the death instinct, the impulse that works toward the annihilation of all living things, including ourselves.

The name of God is laden

Faith allows us to trust, rather, in human compassion

Only by placing our faith in the tiny, insignificant acts of compassion and kindness, that we survive as a community and as a human being.

dumb, blind love is man's meaning.

Human history is not the battle of good struggling to overcome evil. It is a battle fought by a great evil struggling to crush a small kernel of human kindness.

But if what is human in human beings has not been destroyed even now, then evil will never conquer.

Faith is the sister of justice.

we can never know or understand the will of God.

Most moral thinkers—from Socrates to Christ to Francis of Assisi—eschewed the written word because they knew, I suspect, that once things were written down they became, in the wrong hands, codified and used not to promote morality but conformity, subservience and repression. Writing freezes speech.

The moment the writers of the Gospels set down the words of Jesus they began to kill the message.

Beckett, like the author of Ecclesiastes, was a realist. He saw the pathetic, empty monuments we spend a lifetime building to ourselves.

Those who deform faith into creeds, who use it as a litmus test for institutional fidelity, root religion in a profane rather than a sacred context.

The problem is not religion but religious orthodoxy.

All human institutions, including the church, are inherently demonic.

The more vast our delusions about our own grandeur and importance, the more intolerant, aggressive and dangerous we become.

Faith allows us to transcend what Flaubert said was our "mania for conclusions".

He writes that "Islam, more than any other religion human beings have devised, has all the makings of a thoroughgoing cult of death" (P. 123).
[...] I do know the Koran is emphatic about the rights of other religions to practice their own beliefs and unequivocally condemns attacks on civilians as a violation of Islam. The Koran states that suicide, of any type, is an abomination.

I also know from my time in the Muslim world that the vast majority of the some 1 billion Muslims on this planet—most of whom are not Arab—are moderate, detest the violence done in the name of their religion.

Sam's argument that atheists have a higher moral code is as specious as his attacks on Islam. Does he forget Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot?

The danger is not Islam or Christianity or any other religion. It is the human heart—the capacity we all have for evil.

Religion is often a convenient vehicle for this blood lust.

Religious institutions often sanctify genocide, but this says more about us, about the nature of human institutions and the darkest human yearnings, than it does about religion.

It is not the evil of religion, but the inherent capacity for evil of humankind.

The danger of Sam's simplistic worldview [...] of the forces of light battling the forces of darkness.

The point of religion, authentic religion, is that it is not, in the end, about us. It is about the other, about the stranger lying beaten and robbed on the side of the road.

We have forgotten who we were meant to be, who we were created to be, because we have forgotten that we find God not in ourselves, finally, but in our care for our neighbor.

The religious life is not designed to make you happy [...] It is designed to save you from yourself, to make possible human community, to lead you to understand that the greatest force in life is not power or reason but love.

43. World's most prominent atheist takes on the Biblical God (and other topics)

Comment #39372 by Wrought on May 10, 2007 at 12:34 pm

What an appalling way to flog poorly-made DVDs.

44. God . . . in other words

Comment #39205 by Wrought on May 10, 2007 at 7:00 am

Ruth Gledhill is The Times newspaper's Religion Correspondent. In her blog she writes that she was at a debate where the motion was: 'We'd be better off without religion" at which Dawkins spoke.

http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2007/03/wed_be_better_o.html

She writes:

"By the end, the voting was 1,205 for the motion, 778 against and 100 don't knows. And would you know, so thrown into confusion was I by being almost convinced of the case by Dawkins that I actually voted for the motion at the end. Is God - I have no doubt that such a being exists at least - trying to tell me something I wonder?"

She also writes:

"...soon it became clear that the pro-religionists did not have a hope, given the calibre of Dawkins..."

45. God . . . in other words

Comment #39198 by Wrought on May 10, 2007 at 6:49 am

It seems to me that Ruth Gledhill, especially at the start of the article, is trying to present Dawkins as religious in every way but in name. The initial summary is a gross misinterpretation of what he is actually saying in the artcle, although is presumably just there to hook the reader.

Fortunately Dawkins is allowed to elaborate and it can be seen that his "surprising confessions" are nothing of the sort.

I agree that despite the tone of the article at the outset, the overall effect is one that positions Dawkins very favourably.

Please leave comments on The Times website (link at top of page), it would be a shame if only theist opinions on the article were present.

46. Richard Dawkins on Canada AM

Comment #38341 by Wrought on May 7, 2007 at 5:02 pm

Interviewer: "...but you're saying it's not true based on scientific fact, but isn't that what faith is: believing even though you don't see?"

Dawkins: "Yes, that is exactly what faith is, and that's what wrong with it."

Nice soundbite.

Shame it's such a short interview.