Richard Dawkins

I wouldn't be surprised if they invent a deathbed conversion for him when he eventually pops his clogs. Wouldn't be the first time. Hope he lives for a long time yet and wish him well.
His legacy is in his books and will live on for ever.

I agree jack and brendanuk1 and I hope not Foinavon

I hope Richard Dawkins gets well...he has a fine mind

they would pray for hitler and stalin too

I see they have Dawkins in with those two

yes Brendanuk1 they should stop digging

I wish him well too ebulGery, as I said in my post. A fine mind who articulated what many of us were thinking but were unable to express as lucidly as he.
It seems that the stroke wasn't too serious so he should make a good recovery regardless of whether people pray for him or not.

Dawkins a fine mind

He is far from the intellectual heavyweight he claims he is. All he can does is insult people who disagree with him. He cannot have proper debates as he has turned down numerous intellectuals who have proposed live debates with him. Deep down he knows he isn't up to it im afraid.

That said I don't wish ill health on anyone. So hope he is ok.

He insults no-one. Some people take offence at his views, they are the intellectual pygmies.

he has been harassed by pious folk his whole career making quacking noises and the likes but have nothing of substance to add.
Im not surprised he chooses not to bother.
He makes his point in his books.

I know what he opposes.

What he does he stand for?

For example, in September of 2010, Richard Dawkins became nasty towards a woman in an audience he spoke before.[3] Richard Dawkins' arrogance and poor social skills sparked his Elevatorgate scandal. so yes he does throw a lot of insults around, esp on his twitter account.

Didn't he also say mild pedophilia was ok such as touching up, in fact claimed it happened to him at boarding school and it was all ok.

secularism

Secularism is the opposition to something.

What he does he stand for?

For example, do secularists regret and denounce the works of Shaftesbury, Wilberforce and more recently Saunders?

The right not to be manipulated perhaps?

his fans leaving his views on paedophilia alone

always back to paedophila now it seems, like a fooking stale trump card when all else is gone.
sells papers, creates conspiracy, and yes highlights horrors but ffs there loads, such as myself who appreciate his work who have no knowledge of such things

Many are influenced and indeed dramatically changed by their faith and relationship with who they perceive to being a genuine Person..God.

Cecily Saunders was one. She founded what we take for granted. The hospice movement.

Today we all benefit from the reforms the likes of Shaftesbury and Wilberforce achieved. They were both influenced by their faith to a dramatic level.

Dawkins has spoken in the past of his respect for the Christian heritage of the UK. He's certainly no God hater and is wise enough to realise the positive affect Christianity has had on our lives today.

I had two old women JWs arrive on my door a few years ago.
The seemed fair enough.
They handed my a booklet that their group had made up with a self centred slant on life.
One tried to suggest the flowers were the work of god.
I asked if they were then surely so was infanticide, you cant cherry pick the bits to suit your cause.
The other went on to ask why I thought we were the only ones here....I suggested bubble theory, that when a civilisation splits the atom then become their own harbinger of doom.
It pretty much killed the conversation....the point being that although they crossed me off the list forever I wished them well in helping vulnerable folk...but I left them with a sting which was ' only if of course your intentions are true'

You can be secular and appreciate the goodwill of all others////including the religious.

One can be good without believing in a God Injera

Dawkins is an Evolutionary Biologist, as such he believes in Evolution theory...as traces back to Charles Darwin

All life must conform to the rules of Evolution that is what drives all life.....there is no maker no God, there is no need.

He has written some interesting books on the subject, I have not read them.


I do not actually agree with Dawkins attacks on Religion, because to me it is a natural product of the Human Mind, and should be

seen as such.....Man made God, God did not make Man .

I think religion belief can help human beings(although I also see it can harm us), so I would never take it away from anyone,

I could not be so cruel, but neither would I inflict it on anyone either, I believe in choice

I like some Religious values in some things, not all.

I am an Atheist but when I need Religion. I like the 'John Betjeman' C of E, it seems so lovely and poetic, and totally harmless.

Betjeman writes some lovely poetry about English Churches.

Injera

If religion makes you happy and makes you do good things like helping others, givig to cgarity, etc.....believe

If Religion makes you unhappy and makes you do bad things such as harming other people......do not believe


I have always loved the Evolution idea, as I admire Charles Darwin and my favourite of all

Gregor Johann Mendel the German-speaking Moravian scientist and Augustinian friar who gained posthumous fame as the founder of the modern

science of genetics. A brilliant mathematician who did impressive work with his peas...but died unrecognised in his own lifetime, so sad.

Be interesting to know if Mendel believed in God , he was an Augustinian friar?????????????????

He became a friar to further his education as he could not afford to do it himself.

Why should they apologise Ebul. That's what they believe and RD wouldn't deny them that.

I`m sure that Dawkins like Makybe Diva would be quite chuffed to think that people cared and were praying for him, regardless what he believes.

Hope you are well now Diva.

A fine mind who articulated what many of us were thinking but were unable to express as lucidly as he

a celebrity pop book writer at the simplistic and low level of bill nye 'the science guy' or neil degrasse tyson, this explains his appeal to the simple masses,

I am glad to hear akabula

Evolution is very good at explain how life works, it can get us from the first single cell organisms

to where we are now, we have found nothing to contradict this theory, it holds...so far.

It cannot explain how life started...as yet, and neither can it answer the question WHY....the motive for life.

Evolutionists say it just is, but is that really enough for our human brains.


Human beings are born problem solvers because of our complex communication skills...which in themselves are quite amazing

no other animal has it to our level.

We will do anything to solve a problem including making up a solution....it is not far from that to religion, magic,

and even aliens from outer space.

Without realising it we are all religious...we pray for good weather on our holiday, some of us pray the dog we have just backed wins

we have done all the study we can...we still need luck. In our earlier history we needed rain, sun, etc...we tried to placate

the weather, we invented a solution. We all need to believe in something whether we admit it or not.

He was not a 21c or even 20century man. He was more like someone from the 19c. He was English and of that time, and that was his charm and strength and beauty.

Human beings are problem creators. Not worthy of being custodians of this wonderful planet.

Whales can communicate with other whales that are thousands of miles away and they don`t have mobile phones.

the church should of been more upfront


an ugly guy dribbling nonsense from his wheelchair

polybot 16 Feb 16 00:30 Joined: 20 Oct 03 | Topic/replies: 5,413 | Blogger: polybot's blog
A fine mind who articulated what many of us were thinking but were unable to express as lucidly as he

a celebrity pop book writer at the simplistic and low level of bill nye 'the science guy' or neil degrasse tyson, this explains his appeal to the simple masses,

it's outrageous that the "simple masses" are being manipulated in this way. Thank goodness the brighter ones still believe in the truth of a book written by bronze age nomads, manipulated by selection and in translation by people with a vested interest in maintaining their position of power.

I'm very well now, thank you, mightymac

ebulGery,

I think Gregor Mendel was a Roman Catholic.

ebulGery
15 Feb 16 22:52

One can be good without believing in a God Injera


I didn't say otherwise.

Would you agree the world and especially the UK has benefitted massively from the Christian tradition/teachings/thousands of charities etc?

Not sure many realise what affect the The Bible has had on these islands and the West in general.

Where do you get your morals from Ebul? You say you believe in doing good but where does that come from? Treating others the way we like to be treated is a good idea isn't it.

Evolutionary thinking is based on survival of the fittest. Where does caring for the dying/weak and disabled come into that ? I'm genuinely interested.

The biblical message of Jesus is a good template for society in general but organised religion does far more harm than good.
Regarding where we get our morals from? inherited in the main from our parents and/or instinct is my guess.

Where did our parents get them from? And their parents etc?

The Jewish/Christian tradition has underpinned much of the good we take for granted today.

I agree, organised religion, whilst helpful to many can be harmful.

It has certainly helped but I still think we have something within that tells us good from bad.

Tends to be the Christian nations that people want to emigrate to.

On another tack, there is a distinct lack of hospices and animal charities in non christian nations. Value on life is much lower. Welfare is often absent.

One of my all time heroes is the great christian reformer Lord Shaftesbury. I dare anyone to read a biography of that man and not be moved to tears.

From Wiki, his legacy:

Legacy

Although he was offered a burial at Westminster Abbey, Shaftesbury wished to be buried at St. Giles.

A funeral service was held in Westminster Abbey during early morning of 8 October and the streets along the route from Grosvenor Square and Westminster Abbey were thronged with poor people, costermongers, flower-girls, boot-blacks, crossing-sweepers, factory-hands and similar workers who waited for hours to see Shaftesbury's coffin as it passed by.

Due to his constant advocacy for the better treatment of the working classes, Shaftesbury became known as the "Poor Man's Earl".[3]

One of his biographers, Georgina Battiscombe, has claimed that "No man has in fact ever done more to lessen the extent of human misery or to add to the sum total of human happiness".[56]

Not bad for a Tory!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

aasbff  • February 16, 2016 3:39 PM GMT
ebulGery,
I think Gregor Mendel was a Roman Catholic.

erm?..I suppose as an Augustinian friar he must have been

But he joined St Thomas Abbey which did push education very much at the time. He joined for that education.

He was also allowed to work on Evolutionary theory which in a way is contradicting God

Darwin thought he had killed God when he published his On the Origin of Species, etc.....he need not of worried


But a problem remained with Darwin, he had showed species mutate, but how were the mutations held, surely they would disappear again

like a drop of red pain in a bucket of white paint.

Mendel showed mutations are always held in what is now called our genetic structure by a system of dominant and recessive genes.

He showed the theoretical basis of DNA..he pointed the way...all we had to do was find it, which we did.


Darwin and Mendel are considered the twin fathers of Evolutionary Biology

Richard Dawkins has added clever Evolutionary ideas, I cannot judge the worth of them, time will tell.

it's outrageous that the "simple masses" are being manipulated in this way. Thank goodness the brighter ones still believe in the truth of a book written by bronze age nomads, manipulated by selection and in translation by people with a vested interest in maintaining their position of power.


a logical fallacy to prove my point.

Can't ignore the Christian charities, they were some of the first, but they are relatively few these days and there are many, many more non-religious charities.

I think it was more a fact that the Church used to be a big player in peoples lives in previous centuries.

Two atheists - John Gray and Alain de Botton - and two agnostics - Nassim Nicholas Taleb and I - meet for dinner at a Greek restaurant in Bayswater, London. The talk is genial, friendly and then, suddenly, intense when neo-atheism comes up. Three of us, including both atheists, have suffered abuse at the hands of this cult. Only Taleb seems to have escaped unscathed and this, we conclude, must be because he can do maths and people are afraid of maths.



dawkins can't do mathematics, can't do statistics, hasn't done any meaningful research science and basically none at all for 30 years, famous for stealing a concept in the 70s, has since focussed on writing pop books which often display his lack of talent with numbers and facts and logic.
often fairly simple, conventional and politically corrected views which keeps his followers happily nodding and content, at least up until recently where certain opinions got him into trouble with the guardian reading faction of his following.
i respect his bravery at times and agree with him on islam and some other opinions, but a great mind he is not, and certainly no great scientist.

Maybe people are getting it wrong and Dawkins is more religious than 99% of those who think they are.
That statistic may be wrong also.

Religious  in an English sense.

i respect his bravery at times and agree with him on islam and some other opinions, but a great mind he is not, and certainly no great scientist.

Unsurprising since Islam is,in your view, not the true religion but yours is. I see plenty of opinion in your posts polybot but little logic.
Carry on doing god's work, you will find your reward in heaven while the rest of us roast in hell with Professor Dawkins. I know whose company I would prefer.

I don't want to roast in Hell Foinavon

I wonder polybot how Richard Dawkins is regarded by fellow scientists. Do they regard him as serious or someone

who has sold out to pop science?

I agree with you about maths polybot , it frightens me. I think to embrace maths one needs to love numbers and what we can do with them,

and like many I do not have that. I wish I had. I think calculators are not helping here although they are certainly easier than the

old slide rules and logarithm tables, they separate us from the numbers themselves.

Also maths is very unforgiving, if we are not right then we are wrong. We cannot say 2 + 2 = 5, I know it is not right

but it is pretty near, maths does not work like that.

I think maths is more interesting at the higher level, but some of us never managed to climb the foothills

I knew someone in IT who said she read maths books for fun(she had a Masters), I thought I would rather sit in a dentist chair

and have my teeth pulled for fun

nsurprising since Islam is,in your view, not the true religion but yours is

so even after clearly having it pointed out, you mindlessly repeat the exact same logical fallacy
heres your second problem with this, dawkins himself also holds the same view (recently at least) that islam is the material problem, therefore holding to your logical fallacy, what should you also conclude from this?
third problem is you fail to provide specifics in your statement, which makes it problematic to answer, with specifics, the second problem. please fill in your blanks.

I see plenty of opinion in your posts polybot but little logic

you seem confused either in that the two are not mutually exclusive, or you write with redundancy or tautology. even making those allowances though, your attempted point is still wrong
both posts are factual and logical,to take the earlier example for simplicity's sake:
"a logical fallacy to prove my point" would be easily disproven here if either you could use data, facts or references, or you weren't completely wrong.
but note that you don't even attempt to disprove this, or even dispute the logic or facts, you simply continue to blunder down the well worn sheep track carved out by your simplistic dawkinsian false dichotomy.

Carry on doing god's work, you will find your reward in heaven while the rest of us roast in hell with Professor Dawkins. I know whose company I would prefer.

ending with the obligatory infantile and purile attempt at humour (knowing any attempt at actual argument would fail, the space where the argument should be needs to be displaced with a tedious jumble of childish ramblings
and for good measure triple down on the exact same fallacy, as if repeating it often enough will make it real)

polybot is missing the point about Dawkins when he says he is not a great scientist or mathematician. This may or may not be true but is not really the reason most people admire him.
Many of the greatest mathematicians and scientists are surprisingly irrational. Newton, perhaps the greatest, believed in all sorts of fables and fantasies.
Many have deeply flawed minds and can be outright dangerous.
No what Dawkins represents is a certain way of looking at the world in a rational, kind, and beautiful way. He harks back really to an age of reason and mankind today is slipping into an age of unreason and madness. His is a very tradional, English way of looking at the world.
This is what is being lost, and why he is so important.

briefly,
line 1. he's not a great scientist, but it's the qualifier most of his followers use
line 2. dawkins is clearly no newton, newton's spiritual values or beliefs in no way makes his science bad, and by the same token dawkins' lack of spiritual beliefs does not make him either logical or a good scientist, this appears to be something that confuses dawkinsians greatly.
line 3. dawkins may not have what you define to be "a flawed mind" but this does not provide an immunity from being dangerous
line 4. not sure what imaginary world you are harking back to, g the time of newton was significantly more religious, while today the non practice of religion and atheism is at its peak.
line 5. he's a pleasant old white man from a country whose religious culture destroyed the world and is now being lost, or at least that's the story i'm told, i dunno who to believe.

Well, I am glad Dawkins has been around.

Without him and similar thinkers, there would not be as much, very necessary, debate about the dangers of religion.

polybot briefly,

l.he may or may not be a great scientist, as I said that is not the point.
2.Dawkins is clear no Newton, agreed and again not the point as Newton may have been the most intelligent man who ever lived there is no disgrace in this.
3.you may not accept that some minds are "flawed" I suggest you look at the world and what people, including "religious" people are capable of
4.the time I am harking back to is England in the 19c, a time when people tried to understand the world around them through science and great curiosity.rather than superstition. This happens in different times and places through history...but only briefly.
5.I like pleasant people, that is always a good starting point.

Don't worry ebulgery, nobody roasts in hell.

I agree with Dawkins on Islam and every other religion including Christianity.

I realise that opinion and logic are not mutually exclusive polybot, but you give opinion with out supporting reference.
For example you cast doubt on the abilities of a senior academic. To reach this conclusion you would either have to read his published papers and be sufficiently qualified scientifically in order to give valid criticism of his methods and conclusions or have read a report from someone suitably qualified who has. Perhaps you could enlighten us.

lfc1971, all your points seem to confirm my original point, that he is a mediocre pop scientist, pop being: popular, pleasant, fashionable, crowd pleasing.
not sure harking back to the 19th century helps your case as it was peak british protestant colonialism, and while some would argue that protestantism and british colonisation are the two leading indicators for eventual societal prosperity, dawkins clearly doesn't.

I realise that opinion and logic are not mutually exclusive polybot, but you give opinion with out supporting reference.

there isn't a giant pink hippo in my garage, other than saying i see no hippo, not sure what reference is required that it is not there, similarly with the significant scientific research of dawkins.

For example you cast doubt on the abilities of a senior academic. To reach this conclusion you would either have to read his published papers and be sufficiently qualified scientifically in order to give valid criticism of his methods and conclusions or have read a report from someone suitably qualified who has. Perhaps you could enlighten us.

no, you have this completely backward, the burden of proof lies with the proponent of dawkins as a great scientist, not with those who question it, you're refusing to produce the evidence and demanding proof that it doesn't exist, ironic really.
and you definitely don't need to have a particular qualification, authority or badge, or be a grand mullah or a great poobah or higher to read the "sacred works" in fact if you did, then how would anyone outside of this imagined cloistered elite academy ever assess dawkins, other than on "faith" and belief in the assurances of these high priests and prophets. you'll be disappointed to know that most of the many senior academics i know are fairly mediocre within their field, and like dawkins, often woeful when they wander out of their field, on the positive side they are, like dawkins, pleasant, genial and popular with their acolytes and students.

Many theists can't stand Dawkins. I get that. It probably sticks in their throat that the God Delusion outsold the bible after it was published

I said he had a "fine mind" polybot and I think that is consistent with his position and published work which can be found in many places, here is an example.
http://www.fontem.com/archivos/usuarios/cv_521.pdf
Published papers where he is the sole or joint author can be found from page 7 onwards.
You are casting doubts on his abilities and I wondered how you came to that conclusion which you now admit to be just personal opinion.
You will probably agree that the abilities or otherwise of academics of your acquaintance is a non sequitur.
We don't agree on much but I do accept that the scarcity of pink hippos is to be deplored as are  the dwindling numbers of hippos of any colour.

Polybot it is Dawkins appeal to common sense and clear thinking based on observation that gains a large following.
I don`t suppose he is a great scientist, he would not think of himself as being one, but the problem is we live in a world in which there are no longer (any?) great scientists.
Britain no longer invents anything or has any new scientific or artistic ideas.
People are drawn to Dawkin because of his way of looking at the world,
especially when they see increasing chaos in the world and want to retreat from the irrational madness of man.

imagine if you will the emotional 12 year old schoolboy who hates dad and mum, is angry at society, can't go 5 minutes without juvenile rhetoric, thinks the teachers are all against him, who has picked up his first eminem album and finally found the first person in history who "gets it"
[warning: the above is what is known as a metaphor, should be handled with care and supervision by any dawkinsians who may not understand this literary device, any attempts at disproving it with literal examples such "but i don't hate my mum so your factual statement is like totally false you ****!" may be met with ridicule or disparagement.]

you see it's not that eminem gets anything, it's simply that the number of deviations between eminem philosophy and 12 year old philosophy is low enough to make contact.

here's stephen fry (3rd paragraph especially)
http://www.stephenfry.com/2016/02/15/peedinthepool/

as for no more great scientists, the detection of gravitational waves just recently would suggest they exist, many hard working, dedicated, and collaborative people who are more interested in the science that appearing as the smug talking head in the brochure, or using their PhDs to push weakly thought out pamphlets on philosophy.

as for britain, historically it always had a low proportion of scientists or artists and their consequent ideas, the ratio today is probably higher than ever.
britains problems stem from elsewhere, you could argue one being old white cosseted academics irrationally blaming all the problems of the world on british culture, thus insuring it's destruction, then complaining about it?

polybot I think you making the mistake in thinking that because something or someone has mass appeal then it should be dismissed.

The two new art forms of the 20c were (both American) Cinema and Rock music. Add Jazz and make it 3 and produced some of the greatest art spreading throughout the world.

If a young person at the age of 12 first hears the opening chords to t say Sweet Home Alabama, or John lee Hooker, or the guitar breaks by Robbie Robertson on `It makes no Difference`...and understands it and its beauty then this is both popular and good.

Likewise if a young person of 12 was to read Dawkins, and understands it and its beauty then this also would be popular and good.

you should have read the warning.

Its interesting the apple falls from the tree twice in history. First in eden and Adam and Eve were expelled from paradise, and then in England the other apple moment came and Newton observed one fall from the tree and asked why?
This seems a simple question, but why did so many not think to ask it before and since.

This is all Dawkins is doing.

also, you're suggesting the most capitalist religious western culture in the world produced the greatest art in the world at the exact same time that glorious socialist atheism was flourishing in europe?
hand in your dawkins card son, you need to see a psychiatrist

oh dear, bible reference, looks like a lifetime asylum booking

but why did so many not think to ask it before and since.

before most people had a heuristic approach, hence using feet to walk upright and not attempting to leap buildings in a single bound, after, as newton had already expressed it, it seemed futile to express it again.

You`re missing the point polybot, the thing is most people then, and now, it would not have occurred to them to ask such a question.

Of course it took a genius like Newton to go on to explain why.
But it the ability to think of the question in the first place that I find impressive....most people it would not even cross their minds to ask

wow, so completely dismissing hooke et al (and every preceding generation). no matter, where would we be without the five known prophets of galileo, newton, darwin, einstein and dawkins (and maybe those two who had movies made about them,the enigma guy and the beautiful mind one)
i guess science is sort of like harry potter, where some special chosen one with magical powers comes along occasionally to stick it to the oppressive religious establishment, but against all odds goodness triumphs, also sort of like indiana jones or luke skywalker and whatnot.

most people it would not even cross their minds to ask

most people, but not the brave truth seekers that paid for a copy of "the god delusion", heroically risking persecution by the lutherans and episcopalians and whatnot...

whoo, you`re missing a few religious types out there... is` whatnot` maybe code for something else let me suggest Islam or the 4 different Christian inquisitions lasting hundreds of years..nothing to fear from religious oppression then or now, somewhere everywhere?
nobody has to read Dawkins, or even agree with it, that is a good thing.

I think it is all right to read Dawkins, but we do not have to believe him, and I would encourage 12 year olds to do this.

I believe any knowledge is good.

There is a danger in accepting religion without question.

There is also a danger in accepting what the MEDIA says without question. Because we are told what we are supposed to believe

not necessarily the truth.

I would like people to question everything we are told, there are no boundaries, unless we make them our selves.

lfc 1971 I think in the  17th century it would have been incredibly difficult for anybody to grasp the concept of gravity.

It took a mind like Isaac Newton to do that. We progress by the cleverest of us.

If we relied on the average person, I am not sure we would even have discovered fire yet

ebul we agree, for once

whoo, you`re missing a few religious types out there... is` whatnot` maybe code for something else let me suggest Islam or the 4 different Christian inquisitions lasting hundreds of years..nothing to fear from religious oppression then or now, somewhere everywhere?
nobody has to read Dawkins, or even agree with it, that is a good thing.

we've wandered off dawkins' mediocrity as a scientist and onto his mediocrity as a thinker. his grip on history is as weak as his grip on maths, and this is not harmless as he deliberately preaches his simplistic drivel to impressionable 12 year olds who are susceptible to revisionism, let alone ginned up hatred or derision.
let's put your bogus bogeyman inquisition in context, the spanish inquisition (comprising the majority of the inquisitions) was in fact a state or crown inquiry post the islamic occupation, it used catholic canon law which formed the legal system (courts, judges, legal code etc), which was largely derived from roman law, and leads ultimately to modern law.
Over the hundreds of years of the inquisition around 3000 were killed after a trial, about the same number of killings obama has ordered in drone strikes alone, in just 7 years, no trial, no habeus corpus, just instant death for anyone in the vicinity. yet dawkins thinks a post invasion spanish state killing around 8 per year is the height of barbarism, and somehow the atheist obama who is lying about being a christian (dawkins' view) is the greatest president ever.

also ignored in the equation is 100 million killed by atheist socialism in the last century, that's 3000 killed per 350 years versus 3000 killed per day for 365 days for 100 years. i know he is poor at maths but not sure how even couldn't do that sum.
scotland have just imprisoned someone for tweeting something negative about muslims, so even current british secular state heresy laws are not so flash.

but even ignoring all this and pretending that the inquisition was just as dawkins and the monty python sketch implies, it was hundreds of years ago, these spooky inquisitors aren't about to jump in a time machine and come after you for reading his crappy book and whatnot, so get a grip.

so his case (there are numerous other examples in his book) against buddists, anglicans, mormons and rastafarians etc is weak and poorly thought through, if not downright infantile.

islam is another where he fails, while others separate it out either as an outlier religion or perhaps not a religion at all but instead a political or other system, either way it is an exception. dawkins doesn't take this view in his book instead preferring to lump it in with all other religious or spiritual groups (the kind of stupid equivalence that says salafist equals amish), this got him off the hook of criticising islam proportionally, and saved him from any dangerous criticism. he has adjusted his stance slightly since, as the embarrassing stark reality has forced him to be more critical of islam.

With religion there has been the murder of the crusades, the torture of the inquisition. In Buddist Burma human sacrifices were still occurring in the 1850s until Britain stopped it.
Members of Indias Thuggee sect strangled people as sacrifices to appease the bloodthirsty goddess Kali. A practice starting in the 1500s and victims estimated as high as 2 million. Thugs were still sacrificing 20,000 lives a year in the 1800s until British rule stamped it out. Today Hindu priests still sacrifice goats to Kali.

When puritans settled in Massachusetts they created a religious police state were deviation from the doctrine could lead to flogging, pilloring, hanging, cutting off ears or boring through the tongue with  a hot iron. They had left England to escape religious persecution.

The Aztecs began their theocracy in the 1300s. About 20,000 people were killed annually to appease the gods-especially the sun god who needed daily nourishment of blood. Hearts were cut out and some bodies were eaten. Others were drowned, be-headed, burned, or dropped from great height.
Children were killed at various sites so that their tears might induce rain.

Islamic Jihads (mandated by the Koran) killed millions over 12 centuries. The Kharijis slaughter Sunni, Azariqis decree death to all sinners...and so it continues.

A brief summary of authors outlawed by the Church:

Galileo Galilei, Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Rene Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Rousseau, Locke, Voltaire, Diderot, Hume, Kant, Bergson, Sarte.

There is a danger that underlies all religion that it can end in fanaticism and superstition.
Knowledge and freedom go hand in hand.

I'm not sure why Christianity gets so much stick, does anyone really care about the crusades or a load of witches getting burned in america 500 years ago? It doesn't exactly keep me awake at night if i'm being honest.

For me the more Christian a place is the better, I can't think of a non traditionally christian place that i'd like to live, the decline in christianity since 9/11 hasn't exactly been great for europe

As for Dawkins, he's been mocking christians for years, he seems a bit over sensitive here, that's the sort of thing he would say if someone was whinging about something like this

Christianity gets stick for being hypocritical. 'Witches' were being burned a lot more recently than 500 years ago, and not just in America.

If Christianity has indeed declined since 9/11 (not sure why you state this but I'll go with it) then it can only be considered a good thing imvho.

I don't think anyones that bothered about witches mate, apart from atheists on the internet, christian countries are almost always better than the alternative

I promise to keep out of the lives of Christians - if they would be willing to treat me with the same respect.

Unfortunately, they aren't.

How are they not keeping out of your life?

Other than the odd old lady giving out some leaflet about Jesus near the tube station they never effect me

I agree with you there Jack, I have had too many Jehovahs Witnesses call

I think Dawkins is a bit out of date here. Organised religion may be a threat to knowledge, but we have a far bigger one

in the West , it is called the MEDIA.


I remember Enoch Powell was downed by the Media. when he warned us of excessive immigration.

The immigrants got hold of the Media, who then instructed the rest of us.

It is happening again, with Women, we are listening to them too much, especially the wrong type of women..but nobody believes me

on that one so I go down with Enoch.


By all means listen to religion, read Dawkins but be very careful of the Media?????, that is all I can say.

We think for ourselves, we have a right to our own choices, as long as they do not harm others.

Suppression of any knowledge is a crime against humanity, it is our only hope.

Polybot mentions that during the inquisition people were put to death after a trial. There is something interesting about these trials if you look at them.

There was something called Trial by Ordeal. Ordeal was sometimes by means of hot iron and was a strict ritual administered by the Church.
The accused had to grasp a red hot rod and carry it a fixed distance.
If burned the person was guilty and if not God had protected the innocent and so was not guilty.

If you look at the records remarkably few of the accused failed this test. So what was happening?

One answer would be that God was looking on and protecting the innocent. This was a time when almost everyone believed in God and religion.
The other answer might be that the priests had decided, in some way, to rig the test so that most people were not actually holding unto a burning hot bar. They did not know this and thought God was protecting them, and those watching did not know...only the priests.

If the 2nd answer is correct, and it is up to you which you believe, this means at a time when almost everyone believed in Gods power only the priests did not believe it...but found it useful to use this way to increase their power over the mass of people. It was a form of mass delusion and it was manipulated cynically by the religious priesthood.

This is the kind of thinking that Dawkins warns against. Of course you are free to believe that God did protect the innocent from the burning of the iron bar.

They are very crafty!

lfc 1971

Religion was the Media of its day.

Before the printed word the only thing people had to read was the Bible and that was in Latin.

Religion gave the people some values to live by....let us say the 10 commandments, which are not unreasonable.

You must also realise that church was controlled by Government, so they were telling the people what the government wanted

them to believe, which was why they insisted everybody believing in Religion and in the same religion, it was a means of controlling

the population, there were no books or newspapers for people to get other ideas.


Once the printed press arrived this was threatened, people could read books , early newspaper, the Bible was translated

into English and other languages. The Church did seek to retain its power admittedly by trying to suppress this.


It is totally different nowadays in most societies. Governments use the Media nowadays, there are few theocracies.

So I oppose enforced religion as Dawkins does, but I also oppose the mindless belief in the modern media we have now.

It is clearly affecting us, most people use the media at some time, that is my warning. We have no idea how much

we are being programmed all the time. I see 1984 approaching, it frightens me.

Well believable lfc. Devious b4st4rds. Look at the money generated and the power they have.

So so you think you can tell
Heaven from hell
Blue skies from pain
Can you tell a green field
from a cold steel rail
A smile from a veil
do you think you can tell.

also ignored in the equation is 100 million killed by atheist socialism in the last century, that's 3000 killed per 350 years versus 3000 killed per day for 365 days for 100 years. i know he is poor at maths but not sure how even couldn't do that sum.


no answer? maybe you are as retarded in maths and logic as dawkins.

The Aztecs began their theocracy in the 1300s. About 20,000 people were killed annually to appease the gods-especially the sun god who needed daily nourishment of blood. Hearts were cut out and some bodies were eaten. Others were drowned, be-headed, burned, or dropped from great height.

no , this is where you are supposed to step in and attack the spanish crown warranted conquistadors as catholic inquisitors, NOT defend them as leaders of the revolution that brought down the aztec cult. some useful idiot you turned out to be, no wonder they shot all their socialist backers after the iranian revolution

A brief summary of authors outlawed by the Church:

you forgot me, apparently living in sin with a women makes me an evil sinner (presumably condemned to hell), outlaw or whatever you stupidy determine to be so horrific (galileo remained a devout catholic until he died in comfortable old age). so as someone who has suffered the full fury of the catholic inquisition, as terrifying and horrific at it is, having to read your moronic and infantile ramblings, i find it far more inhumane, and i demand an apology.

don't worry, i've long since realised you will simply continue to recite the predictable talking points and recognition symbols of your religion's liturgy, but this is playtime.

using a combo of your, and obamas, idiotic logic, obama hates women because they are paid "over 20 percent less" under his reign. so why does obama hate black women, and why does he hate white women? his religion possibly? dawkins says atheist, some say muslim, we can all agree not christian?

So so you think you can tell
Heaven from hell
Blue skies from pain
Can you tell a green field
from a cold steel rail
A smile from a veil
do you think you can tell.

this tedious sh!te had a profound effect on me at age 12, it's fab that you are still extracting some value from it, you deserve an ecologically recycling friendliness medal. pop songs are AWESOME!!!!

here was something called Trial by Ordeal

ffs can you even read? (outside the accepted scriptures of your prophets, which may or may not be resd to you out loud at the nightly cult gathering?
seriously, it is not difficult to look this stuff up.

this practice which goes back to hammurabi (remember those discovery channel programs that deify this period for its civilisation and invention of batteries and whatnot ). it was banned by the catholics in 1215.
your belief is as stupid as claiming lincoln was a racist because, despite starting a war which killed almost a million to end slavery, what about the slavery stuff that happened before? or what about that dude who kept a slave in his basement a few year ago? does this prove lincoln as pro-slavery? no. does it prove you are an idiot? you decide.

When Jerusalem was conquered in 1099 there were more than 60,000 victims, men women and children. This was on one day.
In the words of one witness "there in front of Solomons temple was such carnage that our people were wading ankle deep in the blood of our foes, and after that happily and crying for joy our people marched to our saviors tomb to honor it and pay off our debt of gratitude.
another,
"it was not alone the spectacle of headless bodies and mutilated limbs strewn in all directions that roused the horror of all who looked upon them but the victors themselves dripping with blood from head to foot.
It is reported that within the temple enclosue itself 10,000 infidels perished.

associated press or reuters?

This is the danger , it is not 3000 killed per 350 years but millions killed in decades in religions name. But it is the mindset and unwavering belief in things like religion and communism that Dawkins argues leads to the to these acts.
Regarding your silly understanding of the phrase authors outlawed by the church I will try and simplify it
These were authors that the Church forbade its members to read.

Regarding the example of what may really have been happening in trial by ordeal it is a warning to look scientifically and rationally at what is taking place...do this also now when you see claims of miracles or people being healed.

In regard to pop music, the most difficult thing to do in music is to write a great pop tune.

still no answer on the 3000 per day, still no apology, and i know your liturgy by heart and you are almost out of ammo

but millions killed in decades


why not billions? or kajillions? sounds better, in for a penny, in for a pound eh?

polybot, it is not really good enough to pass off the torture and bloodshed caused in the name of religion to say that millions were killed in the name of communism and Nazism

remember that time pope ferdinand the nasty started the american civil war, then flew three times round the moon in his time machine and invented the NUCLEAR BOMB?!!
phew, i'll never forget the time i read that somewhere or something

polybot, it is not really good enough to pass off the torture and bloodshed caused in the name of religion to say that millions were killed in the name of communism and Nazism


you've just passed off the killing of 3000 people per day in the name of atheism in our time over the the killing of 0.02 people per day hundreds of years ago in a time before mass imprisonment, telecommunications, electricity, forensics and on and on.
but that's "good enough" for you?

polybot, it is not really good enough to pass off the torture and bloodshed caused in the name of religion to say that millions were killed in the name of communism and Nazism
i hadn't factored in nazism (the national socialist workers party) but yes it was another violently anti religious (definitely anti-catholic and jewish, but accommodating toward islam) cult, this adds around 50 million to the 100 million deaths of 20th century socialist atheism, i'd ask to to adjust your equations accordingly but that would be unfair, because maths is hard.

This is the very dangerous thing about a blind belief and why science and rational thought are so important. The point is not to believe in something uncritically, look as best we can in a scientific and rational way. This is the basis of freedom and progress.
We must always remember that many conflicts may be religious or racial or politically motivated but it is the mindless belief in these things that gives people the ability to justify the acts.
Do not believe in anything too much, step back and walk away.

Human Beings kill each other for all sorts of reasons....

Nationalism most of all, religion, ideologies, greed, revenge....if fact just about anything

The truth is Human Beings just like killing one another, we are an incredibly violent species


Do not believe in anything too much, step back and walk away.
A very good observation lfc1971

We kill people that are different from us.

The more differences we create between ourselves, the more room for killings.

Listen perhaps to Nancy Griffith "Speed of the sound of loneliness" or Willie Nelson singing "You were always on my mind".

Very beautiful yep.

We kill people that are different from us.

The more differences we create between ourselves, the more room for killings.

We invented "Class" to discriminate against those who are the same as us.

Excellent responses lfc1971, but be prepared for more abuse from the arrogant one.