Richard Dawkins - The Root of All Evil?

[Jawawithagun]

Next week on Channel4

The Root of All Evil?
[subtitles]
The God Delusion
Professor Richard Dawkins, Chair of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford and world-renowned evolutionary biologist, is no stranger to controversy. In this contentious two-part series, Dawkins decribes God as the most unpleasant fictional character of all and launches a wholehearted attack on religion as the cause for much of the pain and suffering in the world.

Thought some of our british members might be interested in watching this.

[Adrian Laguna]

I think Dawkin's assaults on religion are too overzealus and over the top. It's one thing to attack fundamentalists, but quite another to attack people's private beliefs. Some times he reminds me of fundamentalists attacking the "Evil Atheist Conspiracy", exept that unlike the fundamentalists, he does have a point about religion being a source of human suffering.

[OmegaGuy]

This is just going to give fundies material for appeal to motive fallacies and ad hominem attacks.

[mr friendly guy]

I think Dawkin's assaults on religion are too overzealus and over the top. It's one thing to attack fundamentalists, but quite another to attack people's private beliefs.

Why?

[Qwerty 42]

I think Dawkin's assaults on religion are too overzealus and over the top. It's one thing to attack fundamentalists, but quite another to attack people's private beliefs.

Why?

Not everyone's religious beliefs are detrimental. A lot of people actually do good because of their religion.

[Adrian Laguna]

Why?

Come to think of it I expressed myself incorrectly. Let me put it another way: "I disagree with Dawkin's attacks against religion in general. Many people use religion as a way of finding peace with themselves. While clearly religion has been used as an excuse to cause many atrocities in history, it does not mean that religion in general is inherently bad, only the extremist forms. Fundamentalists are another matter, and perfectly fair game, the difference is simple, they try to make other people conform to their beliefs."

[mr friendly guy]

I think Dawkin's assaults on religion are too overzealus and over the top. It's one thing to attack fundamentalists, but quite another to attack people's private beliefs.

Why?

Not everyone's religious beliefs are detrimental. A lot of people actually do good because of their religion.

I take it in this case, detrimental isn't refering to irrational but immoral or harmful. A more accurate statement should be that a lot of people actually do good despite their religion.

Even non-fundies can cause harm. Observe the RCC's homophobic attitude, non-fundies bitching about stem-cell research, the anti-science attitudes of say some Chrisitans who aren't necessarily fundies trying to promote anti evolutionary BS in Australia, those who insult people because they are presumably humanist instead of Christian etc

Why?

Come to think of it I expressed myself incorrectly. Let me put it another way: "I disagree with Dawkin's attacks against religion in general. Many people use religion as a way of finding peace with themselves. While clearly religion has been used as an excuse to cause many atrocities in history, it does not mean that religion in general is inherently bad, only the extremist forms. Fundamentalists are another matter, and perfectly fair game, the difference is simple, they try to make other people conform to their beliefs."

emphasis mine.

That would depend on the nature of the religion itself. If I made up a religion which moral code is essentially a rip off of secular humanism, then yes, this religion is not inherently bad.

Unfortunately the major religions are inherently bad. Now if my made up religion was the major one, and the current major religions were only small cults, then pointing out Dawkins is mistaking the trees for the forest would be valid. Since the inherently bad religions are the major ones I don't see a problem as long as Dawkins usings correct facts and reasoning.

[Qwerty 42]

If you don't mind, I'll lump everything into one section since me and Adrian are arguing such similar points.

Why?

Come to think of it I expressed myself incorrectly. Let me put it another way: "I disagree with Dawkin's attacks against religion in general. Many people use religion as a way of finding peace with themselves. While clearly religion has been used as an excuse to cause many atrocities in history, it does not mean that religion in general is inherently bad, only the extremist forms. Fundamentalists are another matter, and perfectly fair game, the difference is simple, they try to make other people conform to their beliefs."

emphasis mine.

That would depend on the nature of the religion itself. If I made up a religion which moral code is essentially a rip off of secular humanism, then yes, this religion is not inherently bad.

Precisely. Many people, myself included, use humanism or similar sets of values as the groundwork for their religion. We shouldn't be lumped under Dawnkins's lecture. Think of it as a rip off if you'd like, but it's still a religion.

Unfortunately the major religions are inherently bad.

Of course. But that's not what me and Adrian are arguing.

Now if my made up religion was the major one, and the current major religions were only small cults, then pointing out Dawkins is mistaking the trees for the forest would be valid. Since the inherently bad religions are the major ones I don't see a problem as long as Dawkins usings correct facts and reasoning.

Well, the OP didn't include specific religions. I'm operating under the assumption that this will be an attack on religion in general, although that might be a baseless assumption.

[mr friendly guy]

Well, the OP didn't include specific religions. I'm operating under the assumption that this will be an attack on religion in general, although that might be a baseless assumption.

It mentions God as the most unpleasant fictional character of all. Presumably this covers the Abrahamic religions. Then in the same sentence its mentioned he will "attack on religion as the cause for much of the pain and suffering in the world".

He can't cover all religions in a two part series, and it seems in this context he will stick to religions which deal with God (presumably the Judeo Christian God).

Nowhere in the advert posted in the OP could I interpret it as an attack on all religions. It seems Dawkins is only going to vent his spleen against certain religions, and they seem to deserve it.

[Qwerty 42]

Well, the OP didn't include specific religions. I'm operating under the assumption that this will be an attack on religion in general, although that might be a baseless assumption.

It mentions God as the most unpleasant fictional character of all. Presumably this covers the Abrahamic religions. Then in the same sentence its mentioned he will "attack on religion as the cause for much of the pain and suffering in the world".

He can't cover all religions in a two part series, and it seems in this context he will stick to religions which deal with God (presumably the Judeo Christian God).

Nowhere in the advert posted in the OP could I interpret it as an attack on all religions. It seems Dawkins is only going to vent his spleen against certain religions, and they seem to deserve it.

Ah, okay. Our disagreement was over interpretations then. Carry on.

[Guardsman Bass]

It ought to be interesting.

Generally, I think Dawkins is right on most of his attacks against the God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, pointing out that much of the doctrine has led to incredible suffering.

[Zadius]

It ought to be interesting.

Generally, I think Dawkins is right on most of his attacks against the God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, pointing out that much of the doctrine has led to incredible suffering.

Frankly, it's sad that there are people who need that pointed out to them.

[Majin Gojira]

Likelyhood that it will air in the US?

[Darth Wong]

The argument that you can't attack A if A has done "some good" is absurd if you can show that A has done more harm than good.

[wolveraptor]

Dawkins is a pretty intelligent guy. I doubt he'll fail to address that not all religion is bad. I'm sure he'll mention, though, that it's largely irrational.

Of course. But that's not what me and Adrian are arguing.

Goddamnit, it's Adrian and I, not "me and Adrian". Sorry, that's just a pet peeve of mine.

[Metatwaddle]

I love Richard Dawkins's attacks on religion. I'll be sure to try and catch the interview. Sure, he says things I wouldn't say about religion, but most of the time I agree with him, even if I wouldn't have the balls to say it.

[Faram]

Damn good, I must buy his books!

I love it when someone goes on the offencive against the evil that religion is!

[Admiral Valdemar]

The argument that you can't attack A if A has done "some good" is absurd if you can show that A has done more harm than good.

That's what I try to mention before I'm cut off by the next Dawkins basher who hates having the fluffy view of their religion doing some good torn asunder by the fact that the dogma the thing is based on is inherently immoral by any modern standard. I don't doubt good people exist in religious environments, I know such people. But what they base their life on is a crock of shit and has only caused more harm than good from Sodom & Gomorrah to the Catholics vs. Protestants. Islam being no different. The only religion I could see myself ever following now is Buddhism.

[mr friendly guy]

Damn good, I must buy his books!

I love it when someone goes on the offencive against the evil that religion is!

I have a few of his books which seem a good read. I suggests "The Blind Watchmaker", "Climbing Mount Improbable" and if you are willing, the 600 + pages of "The Ancestor's Tale".

I like how Dawkins doesn't try like some biologists to appease the moderates. The fact is, even moderates who don't interpret religious text literally, can and are causing harm.

[kheegster]

When I saw the thread title, I thought there were some fundies trying to claim that Richard Dawkins IS the root of all evil.

[Rye]

Why?

Come to think of it I expressed myself incorrectly. Let me put it another way: "I disagree with Dawkin's attacks against religion in general. Many people use religion as a way of finding peace with themselves. While clearly religion has been used as an excuse to cause many atrocities in history, it does not mean that religion in general is inherently bad, only the extremist forms. Fundamentalists are another matter, and perfectly fair game, the difference is simple, they try to make other people conform to their beliefs."

Do you think nobody has mentioned this to Dawkins before and he'll happily overlook how it's not all bad in a documentary?

God is a stupid and dangerous idea; it is a black hole in reasoning that demands to be revered. It illicits extreme emotional responses in pretty much anyone that honestly believes it if you dare to start pulling down all of their thoughts that are connected to it. Historically, such a black hole in reasoning has been used to justify fucking silly and unpleasant governmental rules. The jewish/christian/islamic versions are hideous characters with hideous rules for living that are definately main contributors to suffering on Earth, hinduism has it's caste system, Japan worshipped it's emperor to the point of self mutilation and suicide.

I don't see judaism, christianity, islam, hinduism etc to be worth more than the dead babies from circumcision, the people getting AIDS due to anticondom propaganda, the oppressed gays, the oppressed women, the brutal treatment of one another and so on. It's a hideous mess due to the curse of a faith based mode of thinking, a reverence for irrationality and religiosity as well as tradition.

[Pezzoni]

Excellent: Does it say what day / time it's on at? (I couldn't see if it did )

[Guardsman Bass]

It ought to be interesting.

Generally, I think Dawkins is right on most of his attacks against the God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, pointing out that much of the doctrine has led to incredible suffering.

Frankly, it's sad that there are people who need that pointed out to them.

True, but religion is one of those things that gives many people a emotional blind spot, particularly if they were raised in a religion where these ideas were unquestioned.

[Max]

Can someone record this and post it for download? I'm pretty sure it won't air in the U.S.

[Qwerty 42]

The argument that you can't attack A if A has done "some good" is absurd if you can show that A has done more harm than good.

Of course, and you'll not hear me dispute that.

You don't like to be lumped in with Communist Atheists, I (and I'd imagine most liberal Christians) don't like to be lumped in with the subjects of Dawkins's lecture. I errantly jumped on Mr. friendly guy because I thought he was putting us all in one group, for which I extend my apology.