I wish I was as eloquent as Richard Dawkins

[CrazyHelloDeli]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CrazyHelloDeli

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: CrazyHelloDeli
His affect, the sing-songy flaccid British accent, seems to enamor many lowly Americans. It comes across as more bittter and angry than eloquent. He is a trained public speaker, nothing more.

As far as the question (which was stupid in it's own right) he didn't answer it. I think it would have been far more effective if he had simply said, "Then I guess I'm wrong" and gone onto the next question. Instead, his rampaging ego and hairline trigger got the best of him. It's akin to using an 88mm AA gun to take down a fly. Sure it works, but you end up looking like an idiot.

Ok, so I'll continue to play the apologist in this thread....

As I and others have already said, Dawkins has a very reductionistic approach to his arguments. He'll elaborate on something until he finds its core arguments, refute them, and provide a conclusion based on premises that are otherwise accepted or highly probable; the probability is something he acknowledges as not being irrefutable, and this is the heart of his argument in The God Delusion.

In his book, he very clearly explains that someone has to increase awareness. He's playing this role for now, and he's doing it in somewhat of a bombastic way. Arguing logically doesn't work for the masses; most will listen more to his diatribes than they will his reasoning, so his dismissal of theists will likely "convert" (I really, really hate saying that, but even he uses this word) more that are on the fence.

Well since the post was about his "eloquence" as a public speaker, I didn't address his books and/or arguments. The logical validity of his assertions aside, he comes across as more of an ass than anything else. Unbeknownst to him and many of his supporters, you and I agree that his tactless delivery is probably doing more harm than good.

I'm a cynic and a skeptic, so I disagree. Listen to the applause. Check out the lecture circuit. Look at the book sales. I think he knows exactly what he's doing.

Are you saying you think his method is effective? Or that he knows he is coming across as an ass purposefully and trying to be off putting to the masses? If the former, I would say he is effective with the people who are already of the belief that the religious are stupid and evil. If the latter, then I would just say he is effing nuts and as illogical as he claims the religious are.

The only point I'm making is, if I may be obliged to use one of his own beloved terms, that he is probably doing a better job of replicating the meme "Atheists are arrogant pricks" than his intended meme of "The religious are stupid; Religion should be abolished".

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski
4) Atheism is Religion: No, it is not. It is the opposite of Religion, instead of Faith as the Assumption, it assumes Reason. I will concede that Dawkins wants to make Atheism mimmick Religion in many respects, but other than that Atheism does not Assume what Religion Assumes. Atheism accepts what Reason finds, Religion Assumes what some Unproven Supreme Being "tells" it. As we have ample evidence of, Religion rejects what Reason finds, until Its' Followers are no longer able to ignore it, but Religion will kick and scream about "God", "Faith", and other non-Reasonable concepts the whole way.

Reason, as a part of logic, is based on proof. Therefore, I will accept your proof now. Prove to me that a universal God does NOT exist. I await your proof.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: sandorski

3) Prove there isn't a God! : The height of stupidity. God/gods have been followed since the dawn of Time, yet not once has their been any Proof of their existance, it has merely been assumed because someone made the claim. Show Proof of any god before demanding others to prove the negative(an impossibility) that there isn't.

4) Atheism is Religion: No, it is not. It is the opposite of Religion, instead of Faith as the Assumption, it assumes Reason. I will concede that Dawkins wants to make Atheism mimmick Religion in many respects, but other than that Atheism does not Assume what Religion Assumes. Atheism accepts what Reason finds, Religion Assumes what some Unproven Supreme Being "tells" it. As we have ample evidence of, Religion rejects what Reason finds, until Its' Followers are no longer able to ignore it, but Religion will kick and scream about "God", "Faith", and other non-Reasonable concepts the whole way.

reason can't lead you to whether there is a god or not. reason makes no statement about it. you can't reason your way to god just like you can't reason your way to love. it's something outside of reason's realm. to make a statement either way is to make an assumption.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: sandorski
hehe, some of the points being made in this thread and being debated are mindboggling:

1) Oh my gosh, he assumed Christian "God"! : Considering the fact that a very large part of the audience was from the Christian Liberty University, considering the fact that halfish or more people from that University were asking the questions, considering the fact that the predominant Religion of the area was Christian, considering the fact that the predominant Religion of the Nation he was in was Christianity, considering the fact that the predominant Religion of Creationists/ID proponents are Christian, considering the fact that he himself was raised as a Christian, what do you expect him to assume?

2) Dawkins as Saviour to Atheists: He is definitely a predominant proponent of Atheism, but so what? Since when has it become a ridiculous thing for a person to be a Leader of a movement? Is Jesus ridiculous because he was a prominent proponent of Christianity? Is Mohammed ridiculous because he was a prominent proponent of Islam? Is GW Bush ridiculous because he is a prominent proponent of the Republican Party? How abbout Martin Luther King(Race Card ), was he ridiculous as well?

I don't think that's an accurate analogy, but mainly because most of the figures you cited largely preceded the faiths (in the case of Christianity and Islam) that followed. They weren't merely proponents.

3) Prove there isn't a God! : The height of stupidity. God/gods have been followed since the dawn of Time, yet not once has their been any Proof of their existance, it has merely been assumed because someone made the claim. Show Proof of any god before demanding others to prove the negative(an impossibility) that there isn't.

That's the problem. What you accept as evidence is not what others accept. For some, simply being is enough to conjure up notions of the divine. What any non-theistic explanation requires is thus something for being, and this is what Dawkins and his contemporaries espouse. At the heart of it is of course evolution, and the reality is that the overwhelming majority of the public is ignorant of evolution, the proposed methods and the actual research behind it. How many have actually read Darwin before criticizing his ideas? Most of the theistic attacks to Darwin are his quotes taken entirely out of context; in fact, most Dawkins attackers do the exact same. Then again, atheists do the same thing. Ahh, forget it Many people see what they want to see, and if they find their answers they'll use it and blind themselves to all else.

4) Atheism is Religion: No, it is not. It is the opposite of Religion, instead of Faith as the Assumption, it assumes Reason. I will concede that Dawkins wants to make Atheism mimmick Religion in many respects, but other than that Atheism does not Assume what Religion Assumes. Atheism accepts what Reason finds, Religion Assumes what some Unproven Supreme Being "tells" it. As we have ample evidence of, Religion rejects what Reason finds, until Its' Followers are no longer able to ignore it, but Religion will kick and scream about "God", "Faith", and other non-Reasonable concepts the whole way.

No, Dawkins does not want atheism to mimic religion. He provides probably a dozen different quotes and explanations as to what many consider religion, and atheism certainly is not that, nor will it ever be. To put it succinctly, religion in most definitions requires a supernatural component. This by definition excludes atheism.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: sandorski

3) Prove there isn't a God! : The height of stupidity. God/gods have been followed since the dawn of Time, yet not once has their been any Proof of their existance, it has merely been assumed because someone made the claim. Show Proof of any god before demanding others to prove the negative(an impossibility) that there isn't.

4) Atheism is Religion: No, it is not. It is the opposite of Religion, instead of Faith as the Assumption, it assumes Reason. I will concede that Dawkins wants to make Atheism mimmick Religion in many respects, but other than that Atheism does not Assume what Religion Assumes. Atheism accepts what Reason finds, Religion Assumes what some Unproven Supreme Being "tells" it. As we have ample evidence of, Religion rejects what Reason finds, until Its' Followers are no longer able to ignore it, but Religion will kick and scream about "God", "Faith", and other non-Reasonable concepts the whole way.

reason can't lead you to whether there is a god or not. reason makes no statement about it. you can't reason your way to god just like you can't reason your way to love. it's something outside of reason's realm. to make a statement either way is to make an assumption.

<brokenRecord>
He makes no claims as to whether or not reason can lead you to an answer of absolute certainty; rather, he acknowledges that positions can be assumed based on probability. His famous example from Bertrand Russell is that one could assume a giant teapot is in the sky, but the probability isn't sufficient to warrant any actual position.
</brokenRecord>

This is in stark contrast to the likes of Gould, because Gould often espoused NOMA (Nonoverlapping magisteria; from his book Rock of Ages, a good book in my view, but Dawkins didn't seem to care for it). Dawkins is of the opinion that Gould has too quiescent a position on theism, and simply separating the magisteria isn't sufficient given how frequently one (theism) tends to overlap the other (science).

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski
4) Atheism is Religion: No, it is not. It is the opposite of Religion, instead of Faith as the Assumption, it assumes Reason. I will concede that Dawkins wants to make Atheism mimmick Religion in many respects, but other than that Atheism does not Assume what Religion Assumes. Atheism accepts what Reason finds, Religion Assumes what some Unproven Supreme Being "tells" it. As we have ample evidence of, Religion rejects what Reason finds, until Its' Followers are no longer able to ignore it, but Religion will kick and scream about "God", "Faith", and other non-Reasonable concepts the whole way.

Reason, as a part of logic, is based on proof. Therefore, I will accept your proof now. Prove to me that a universal God does NOT exist. I await your proof.

Await away, because that demand is ridiculous.

 

[Vic]

Atheism has a supernatural component, it just exercises a belief in the negative to it as opposed to a belief in the positive.

Is that really Dawkins' logic? Wow, I am disappointed. I'd advise you read some Joseph Campbell if you want to understand the nature and history of religions, myths, faiths, etc.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski
4) Atheism is Religion: No, it is not. It is the opposite of Religion, instead of Faith as the Assumption, it assumes Reason. I will concede that Dawkins wants to make Atheism mimmick Religion in many respects, but other than that Atheism does not Assume what Religion Assumes. Atheism accepts what Reason finds, Religion Assumes what some Unproven Supreme Being "tells" it. As we have ample evidence of, Religion rejects what Reason finds, until Its' Followers are no longer able to ignore it, but Religion will kick and scream about "God", "Faith", and other non-Reasonable concepts the whole way.

Reason, as a part of logic, is based on proof. Therefore, I will accept your proof now. Prove to me that a universal God does NOT exist. I await your proof.

Await away, because that demand is ridiculous.

Not nearly so ridiculous as the prejudicial moronic illogic of your "reason." Text

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: sandorski

3) Prove there isn't a God! : The height of stupidity. God/gods have been followed since the dawn of Time, yet not once has their been any Proof of their existance, it has merely been assumed because someone made the claim. Show Proof of any god before demanding others to prove the negative(an impossibility) that there isn't.

4) Atheism is Religion: No, it is not. It is the opposite of Religion, instead of Faith as the Assumption, it assumes Reason. I will concede that Dawkins wants to make Atheism mimmick Religion in many respects, but other than that Atheism does not Assume what Religion Assumes. Atheism accepts what Reason finds, Religion Assumes what some Unproven Supreme Being "tells" it. As we have ample evidence of, Religion rejects what Reason finds, until Its' Followers are no longer able to ignore it, but Religion will kick and scream about "God", "Faith", and other non-Reasonable concepts the whole way.

reason can't lead you to whether there is a god or not. reason makes no statement about it. you can't reason your way to god just like you can't reason your way to love. it's something outside of reason's realm. to make a statement either way is to make an assumption.

Negative. To claim there is a "God" is an assumption, because no evidence of a "God" has ever been found/given. It is Reasonable to accept there is no "God" for that very reason alone.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: Vic
"Awareness" is a buzzword, Descartes.

Hmm? Seems to be rather common, but I won't argue that as it hasn't much merit.

And yes, he is looking to convert. And going about it just like any high-profile preacher would. Pounding the pulpit, spewing hate, raking in the dollars. That's as far removed from science as anything could be.

Perhaps, but instead of raking in dollars he's raking in people. I personally feel as though he's trying to usher in some form of secular rennaissance, and he's obliged to be at the head of it. He was quiet for some time, but perhaps he feels his level of popularity now allows him to have the proper level of impact.

At any rate, I largely agree with your feelings on his delivery; however, he does provide the proper science behind it, provided of course that you're willing to look past. If I were to suggest someone new to Dawkins to immerse themselves in his books, I certainly would not first suggest The God Delusion. The Extended Phenotype, Blind Watchmerk and The Selfish Genes are more honest treatments that provide enough inspiration to allow people to draw their own opinions...

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Dumac
Is he some 'messiah' or athiesm, as some fools tried to stupidly claim earlier?

at the moment, he is acting as a bit of a figure head for atheists. which is a great thing, imo. most movements can benefit from a figure head. someone to inspire, energise, provoke. Dawkins is I guess making an effort to deprogram theists, save them from their own stupidity or lack of intellect or morality, and save those of us who are not crazy from the insanity of christian, muslim and jewish theists. But more importantly his efforts are having a positive effect on the moral of atheists, particularly in the USA, where the godless are discriminated against and subject to significant hatred and violence from christians.

 

[sao123]

are you talking about the guy from family fued?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski
4) Atheism is Religion: No, it is not. It is the opposite of Religion, instead of Faith as the Assumption, it assumes Reason. I will concede that Dawkins wants to make Atheism mimmick Religion in many respects, but other than that Atheism does not Assume what Religion Assumes. Atheism accepts what Reason finds, Religion Assumes what some Unproven Supreme Being "tells" it. As we have ample evidence of, Religion rejects what Reason finds, until Its' Followers are no longer able to ignore it, but Religion will kick and scream about "God", "Faith", and other non-Reasonable concepts the whole way.

Reason, as a part of logic, is based on proof. Therefore, I will accept your proof now. Prove to me that a universal God does NOT exist. I await your proof.

Await away, because that demand is ridiculous.

Not nearly so ridiculous as the prejudicial moronic illogic of your "reason." Text

Unless you are offering up Advanced Alien Species as part of the definition of "God", there is no False Dilemna. "God" as defined by Religion is simply a Black/White and not a Gray.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: Vic
Atheism has a supernatural component, it just exercises a belief in the negative to it as opposed to a belief in the positive.

Is that really Dawkins' logic? Wow, I am disappointed. I'd advise you read some Joseph Campbell if you want to understand the nature and history of religions, myths, faiths, etc.

I said definitions, as in definition. I'm not going to attempt to paraphrase Dawkins anymore than I already have.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: sandorski


Negative. To claim there is a "God" is an assumption, because no evidence of a "God" has ever been found/given. It is Reasonable to accept there is no "God" for that very reason alone.

lack of evidence for one thing can never be evidence of another, even with diametrical opposite.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: sandorski

3) Prove there isn't a God! : The height of stupidity. God/gods have been followed since the dawn of Time, yet not once has their been any Proof of their existance, it has merely been assumed because someone made the claim. Show Proof of any god before demanding others to prove the negative(an impossibility) that there isn't.

4) Atheism is Religion: No, it is not. It is the opposite of Religion, instead of Faith as the Assumption, it assumes Reason. I will concede that Dawkins wants to make Atheism mimmick Religion in many respects, but other than that Atheism does not Assume what Religion Assumes. Atheism accepts what Reason finds, Religion Assumes what some Unproven Supreme Being "tells" it. As we have ample evidence of, Religion rejects what Reason finds, until Its' Followers are no longer able to ignore it, but Religion will kick and scream about "God", "Faith", and other non-Reasonable concepts the whole way.

reason can't lead you to whether there is a god or not. reason makes no statement about it. you can't reason your way to god just like you can't reason your way to love. it's something outside of reason's realm. to make a statement either way is to make an assumption.

Negative. To claim there is a "God" is an assumption, because no evidence of a "God" has ever been found/given. It is Reasonable to accept there is no "God" for that very reason alone.

No, that's not reasonable. That's a basic logical fallacy. You're saying, "If it's not this, then it must be that." Or, "If you're not with us then you're against us." Etc.
You could just as easily say that, because there is no evidence that there is not a God, therefore it is reasonable to accept God for that very reason alone.

edited for emphasis

 

[Jeff7]

You've got to love him just for his mentioning of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who is the one true deity.


And I still love how the Greek gods are now referred to as "mythology". In a few thousand years, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, will all likely share the same place.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Dumac
Is he some 'messiah' or athiesm, as some fools tried to stupidly claim earlier?

at the moment, he is acting as a bit of a figure head for atheists. which is a great thing, imo. most movements can benefit from a figure head. someone to inspire, energise, provoke. Dawkins is I guess making an effort to deprogram theists, save them from their own stupidity or lack of intellect or morality, and save those of us who are not crazy from the insanity of christian, muslim and jewish theists.

The problem is when they're called stupid, lacking in intellect or crazy. All it really does is incite anger and in fact increase their devotion. The proper platform for argument is that of understanding and equality, in my opinion. If I were to expect someone to truly consider any information I might present, then I first have to suggest that they can consider it in the first place; saying they lacked the intellect to do so simply defeats that purpose. Many people simply have not exposed to intellectual alternatives to what they grew up "understanding" (I say that simply because so many theists assume their family's faith and don't really contemplate it).

But more importantly his efforts are having a positive effect on the moral of atheists, particularly in the USA, where the godless are discriminated against and subject to significant hatred and violence from christians.

I agree there. I don't know about the significant hatred and violence though.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski
4) Atheism is Religion: No, it is not. It is the opposite of Religion, instead of Faith as the Assumption, it assumes Reason. I will concede that Dawkins wants to make Atheism mimmick Religion in many respects, but other than that Atheism does not Assume what Religion Assumes. Atheism accepts what Reason finds, Religion Assumes what some Unproven Supreme Being "tells" it. As we have ample evidence of, Religion rejects what Reason finds, until Its' Followers are no longer able to ignore it, but Religion will kick and scream about "God", "Faith", and other non-Reasonable concepts the whole way.

Reason, as a part of logic, is based on proof. Therefore, I will accept your proof now. Prove to me that a universal God does NOT exist. I await your proof.

Await away, because that demand is ridiculous.

Not nearly so ridiculous as the prejudicial moronic illogic of your "reason." Text

Unless you are offering up Advanced Alien Species as part of the definition of "God", there is no False Dilemna. "God" as defined by Religion is simply a Black/White and not a Gray.

I have frequently made the argument here that belief in Advanced Alien Species is the pseudoscientific equivalent of believing in God. That's certainly another thread though.
Your 2nd sentence makes no sense. "God" as defined by religion is by no means simply a Black/White, not even by the Christian faith. "Alpha and Omega," "the Word (Logos)," etc. You start getting to other religions and it gets even more out there. The Hindu concept of Brahman ("the Supreme Reality") is quite fascinating, for example.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: sandorski


Negative. To claim there is a "God" is an assumption, because no evidence of a "God" has ever been found/given. It is Reasonable to accept there is no "God" for that very reason alone.

lack of evidence for one thing can never be evidence of another, even with diametrical opposite.

Then we are at an impasse. The Agnostic is Right, evryone else is equally Wrong.

So whose position, is more Reasonable between the Religious and the Atheist?

1) Religious: Insists there is a "God(s)", with no Evidence

2) Atheists : Insists there is no "God(s)", with no Evidence

Let's examine deeper. Not only do the Religious insist there is a "God(s)"(without Evidence), but they go further and and make claims what "God(s)" is/are and what "God(s)" wants/demands. Is that Reasonable?

Atheism insists there is/are no "God(s)" because there is no Evidence of one. They make no Claims about what the non-"God(s)" is/are or what non-"God(s)" wants/demands. Is that Reasonable?

Put another way, Religion has built a Structure around a Concept with absolutely no Evidence confirming the Concept. Atheism rejects the Concept because there is no Proof of its' existance. Are the 2, Religion and Atheism, really the same and equally False?

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski
4) Atheism is Religion: No, it is not. It is the opposite of Religion, instead of Faith as the Assumption, it assumes Reason. I will concede that Dawkins wants to make Atheism mimmick Religion in many respects, but other than that Atheism does not Assume what Religion Assumes. Atheism accepts what Reason finds, Religion Assumes what some Unproven Supreme Being "tells" it. As we have ample evidence of, Religion rejects what Reason finds, until Its' Followers are no longer able to ignore it, but Religion will kick and scream about "God", "Faith", and other non-Reasonable concepts the whole way.

Reason, as a part of logic, is based on proof. Therefore, I will accept your proof now. Prove to me that a universal God does NOT exist. I await your proof.

Await away, because that demand is ridiculous.

Not nearly so ridiculous as the prejudicial moronic illogic of your "reason." Text

Unless you are offering up Advanced Alien Species as part of the definition of "God", there is no False Dilemna. "God" as defined by Religion is simply a Black/White and not a Gray.

I have frequently made the argument here that belief in Advanced Alien Species is the pseudoscientific equivalent of believing in God. That's certainly another thread though.
Your 2nd sentence makes no sense. "God" as defined by religion is by no means simply a Black/White, not even by the Christian faith. "Alpha and Omega," "the Word (Logos)," etc. You start getting to other religions and it gets even more out there. The Hindu concept of Brahman ("the Supreme Reality") is quite fascinating, for example.

I don't really agree. I'm not just trying to play the antagonist either...

I see them as black/white. The idea of Brahman isn't that different from that of a Christian God. You have trinitarianistic beliefs in areas of Christianity (beliefs which started wars), but ultimately they're both monotheistic in the abstract sense. Whether the religion is Abrahamic or anything else really doesn't matter; you either accept the idea of God in the abstract sense and the various manifestations of your faith or you don't.

Maybe I misunderstood what you meant...

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: sandorski


Negative. To claim there is a "God" is an assumption, because no evidence of a "God" has ever been found/given. It is Reasonable to accept there is no "God" for that very reason alone.

lack of evidence for one thing can never be evidence of another, even with diametrical opposite.

Then we are at an impasse. The Agnostic is Right, evryone else is equally Wrong.

So whose position, is more Reasonable between the Religious and the Atheist?

1) Religious: Insists there is a "God(s)", with no Evidence

2) Atheists : Insists there is no "God(s)", with no Evidence

Let's examine deeper. Not only do the Religious insist there is a "God(s)"(without Evidence), but they go further and and make claims what "God(s)" is/are and what "God(s)" wants/demands. Is that Reasonable?

Atheism insists there is/are no "God(s)" because there is no Evidence of one. They make no Claims about what the non-"God(s)" is/are or what non-"God(s)" wants/demands. Is that Reasonable?

Put another way, Religion has built a Structure around a Concept with absolutely no Evidence confirming the Concept. Atheism rejects the Concept because there is no Proof of its' existance. Are the 2, Religion and Atheism, really the same and equally False?

This is again not a fair assessment. Atheists of Dawkins' ilk don't assume such a position for lack of evidence for the existence; rather, they do so for evidence to the contrary.

I need to exit this thread. I'm repeating myself, I know

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Descartes
Perhaps, but instead of raking in dollars he's raking in people. I personally feel as though he's trying to usher in some form of secular rennaissance, and he's obliged to be at the head of it.

A secular "renaissance"? Maybe, but why does every atheist assume a secular world would be a better one? Dawkins even goes so far as to suggest religion is the root of all evil? That's just silly. Hatred, jealousy, wrath, envy, lust, etc., all pre-date religion and will no doubt exist in a post-religious world, yet I've yet to meet a single atheist who will admit the possibility that a post-religious world may not be much different than the one in which we live today. When religion ceases to be a motivation, another 'cause' will fill the void. Evil comes from within, and once 'God' is dead, evil will still be with us.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Descartes
Perhaps, but instead of raking in dollars he's raking in people. I personally feel as though he's trying to usher in some form of secular rennaissance, and he's obliged to be at the head of it.

A secular "renaissance"? Maybe, but why does every atheist assume a secular world would be a better one? Dawkins even goes so far as to suggest religion is the root of all evil? That's just silly. Hatred, jealousy, wrath, envy, lust, etc., all pre-date religion and will no doubt exist in a post-religious world, yet I've yet to meet a single atheist who will admit the possibility that a post-religious world may not be much different than the one in which we live today. When religion ceases to be a motivation, another 'cause' will fill the void. Evil comes from within, and once 'God' is dead, evil will still be with us.

I personally don't agree with Dawkins in that area, and I have ideas on the validity and necessity of religion; granted, the necessity of which tends to ebb and flow over millenia. One of my favorite quotes from Andre Gide:

Man's responsibility increases as that of the gods decreases

And that it has.

That said, Dawkins really attacks Christianity and Islam, not Hinduism, Buddhism, or any other more personal religion. Personal in the sense that it's derived more from philisophical tenets than hard doctrine. In a few paragraphs he actually almost seems to give credit to Hinduism.

People will no more cease leaning toward religion than they will being curious about the universe; the only real difference is how one looks for an explanation. As to why some seem to be predisposed to one form of thinking or another, well, I have a lot of thoughts on that matter, but probably not something anyone would really want to hear. Dr. Vilayanur Ramachandran actually did a lot of neurological research into the lymbic system and temporal lobes, largely to find out why there was increased religiosity in those with temporal seizures. It sheds some light on why some are predisposed to a level of thinking advanced from more reality (as is the case with those patients in his research).

 

[Vic]

My concern is replacing religion with religion. The faults in religion are the faults of people. Without a fundamental change in people, there will always be religion, whether we choose use that label or another (as a thing is what it is and does, not its label). That primary fault of people BTW is the way that people tend to nice and friendly individually, but mean and cruel collectively. As atheism tends to be just as collective (and thus, nasty) in nature as any religion it attacks, I place no trust in its solution.