I think that the atheism that dawkins practices is not only fundamentalist but also counter-productive, if his goal is to encourage the search for truth…militant atheism is no better than militant monotheism…

Looks too poisonous to even read.

Interesting…

Strong title. I watched an interview with him.. seems like a nice guy. I find it hard believing in what I have not seen with my own eyes also. Luckily I’ve seen a UFO so I have no problem believing in aliens. ;)

Being a Christian I would have to agree with Elias… militant anyting is bad. Peace is a far better cause topersue then the dismantling of one anothers belief systems.

I really don’t see why ppl are still shocked by this book. There are books for other religions.. behind their disguise in what people see as morality-extremely fundamentalist books… now here is a book which backs up atheism. How is that militant to express his perspective through freedom of speech? And how is it counter-productive to produce an argument to show people how religions have caused segregation amongst them? and to demonstrate how ridiculous it is for anyone to think that they are lucky being born to their parents’ religion- assumed hierarchy from day 1. This isn’t militant atheism, this is a book, a wake up call.

Atheism is a religion, as is science. Hawkins expresses his viewpoints on both religious topics.

While religion can be divisive, there is an equal potential for religious statements to be unifying.

Which should be emphasized?

Aethism is the faith that there is no god. How can an aethist prove that there is no creator? And what principles can prevent any rational aethist from becoming a nihilist as well? These are questions that every self-professed aethist should be ready to answer and discuss. I am sure that Dawkins has answers, but I do not see the benefit in abandoning religion, as though it were the source of all human struggles. This is a fallacy, in my opinion.

athiesm is not a religion, it’s a lack of religion. and science isn’t a religion either, it’s a method for testing and refining hypothesis. anyone who would seriously argue that science IS a religion obviously either wasn’t paying attention in their high school science classes or had an incompetent teacher or both. religions are based on faith, science take NOTHING on faith, ergo it is not a religion. this is a simple logical syllogism and can even be broken down to an equation as follows:

a requires b, c does not have b, therefore b is not a.

as for Dawkins being angry or extremist, give me a break already people. Christians – ALL Christians, even so-called “moderates” – believe that anyone who doesn’t share their particular delusion is going to burn in a lake of fire (hell) for all of eternity. how is that not extremist, bigoted, and hateful? All Dawkins does is point out the bloodthirsty psychosis that lies at the root of the Christian religion. He doesn’t make anythign up or add anything that’s not already there, just shows it for what it is.

If you can’t handle that you should find yourself a different god, or better yet abandon you imaginary friend entirely and act like a grownup and take responsibility for yourself and your own actions instead of expecting Jesus to pay for your sins.

Lynx- Man I don’t know why you hate religion so much but if I were you I would start taking the log out of my own eye before helping someone with the splinter in their own. I was under the impression, hopefully not a misguided one that this site was for people to make a positive change in the world rather then yet another site to knock everyone else’s beliefs for the sake of making ourselves feel smart, justified, or whatever else it is people seek when they insult one another. Surely despite our differences of belief we can agree on world issues that we both may be able to effect. What do you think?

Alex told me that he believed that “debates” would be such an amazingly viral approach to getting the Rethos.com name out there. My Heart of Hearts felt nah, how about “solutions”. To be wrong- even if only temporarily- what a let down.

Let us not debate in anger, particular on matters of religion. Progress can only be achieved when we lower our shields and listen. I don’t want to sound patronizing, but too often religious debate becomes heated to the point where substance is diluted.

Let us step back for a moment and channel this discussion in a meaningful direction. Perhaps by debating whether or not atheism is faith.

I am of the opinion that atheism is not a religion but it is the faith that there is no god and that religion is of little to no value.

eh, you’re right folks, my reply was unnecessarily hostile. I’ve got my own reasons to feel so strongly about Christianity, but those reasons don’t justify being mean to strangers. my apologies. I’ll try to be a bit friendlier in future discussions.

still, I can’t help thinking it’s odd that no one thinks it’s hate speech for christians to say that I’m going to burn in hell for eternity because I don’t share their imaginary friend, but when I call them delusional all of a sudden I’m the big nasty angry athiest.

Though I do not believe in God, I would not call myself an Athiest by any means. I do tend to lean towards the idea that religion was an institution created for the control of the weak minded, the lower tiers of society by those who sit at the top of social and economic ladders. More people have been murdered in the name of God than any other cause in history. The church even sent Children on a crusade of their own- a horrendously unsuccessful military campaign that hid the upper echelon of the church from having to possibly face death at the hand of their own beliefs. Even today, the church throws around some of the most bigoted ideals, inciting homophobia, religious intolerance, and others just to name a few. I’m not against the idea of religion, on paper it is a good thing, it provides a good set of morals with a good story to demonstrate these morals in action, and the good that others do for one another. I find, however, that it is much easier to be kind, loving, and tolerant of others because it makes ME feel good, not an invisible “God” that I have never seen, touched, or felt the presence of. I believe in spirituality, and love, and as far as I’m concerned that’s the best sort of “religion” there can be.

When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace!

Religion has its place in the world, as does everything else. If it didn’t, it would’nt be here. I think that if we respect other people’s passions and beliefs, and take the time to learn about them, we can all be better off.

Hello guys! I guess I need to catch up! haha
First of all, I’d like to address Ian’s statement- that “religion has its place in the world as does everything else”… Ian, this is a very strong statement. Not everything in this world should have its place….if we allow ourselves to think this way, we might as well justify the existence of violence, war etc… This is exactly why we are having this discussion.. not to decided whether religion should exist- it did and it does, but let us try and think where it is taking us from here…. how we are using this experience of religion from history and our present to exist and evolve?
Anthony, I can relate to some of what you are saying. I’d like to point out though that Dawkins argues that even on paper, a lot of the stories that people see as examples of ‘good’ really are not! He draws on stories and demonstrates that people have been convinced that they (the stories) are representing ‘good’ but how if we really ‘read’ – deeply read and think about their meanings and what they really represent, we could be horrified. I am not saying that all these stories are like that of course, but I agree with Dawkins on this one.
I love that quote in the end Anthony.. “When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace!” WORD!
Haha Lynx! I think you are my best friend here! haha coz I agree with what you are saying!
Eli is right though, “too often religious debate becomes heated to the point where substance is diluted.” And yes, Atheism is not a religion, and Dawkins tries to talk about that in the very first few chapters.
Let me bring up another argument here…
A friend of mine, who identifies herself as an atheist, was telling me that she thought that to be religious – the type of religious where you believe in heaven and hell – is to be extremely selfish! She argues that such religious belief makes people live their whole lives trying to ‘score points’ for themselves to go to heaven rather than hell. That through religions, even when humans have learnt to be good to others – is this really enough? In the long run, is that the right way to go? As an atheist, she thinks she sees the bigger picture, where she is a very small part of something bigger. She learnt to be good and does good to others on the basis of being a part of a population that is living, growing or dying together… and then this links up with what Dawkins mentions.. does there need to be a God and fear of hell for us to love and be do good for one another?
His answer is No.

Nour’s response sums up a lot of good points, and the final idea – that we don’t need a god for us to be good – is paramount. I am an atheist, and I can say without doubt that this isn’t a faith. Dawkins explains this; it isn’t necessary to prove something doesn’t exist, in fact that’s practically impossible, rather proof has to be presented in favour of a theory – otherwise absolutely any suggestion must be accepted until disproved.

I do not agree in dismantling people’s beliefs (unless those beliefs lead them to harm others) nor do I think religion is the root of all evil. The evil things done in the name of religion were done by misguided people, just as the good things done in religion’s name were not due to the religion but the goodness within those responsible.

Atheism doesn’t equal nihilism. The world is such a beautiful place no matter how it came to be, and although I sometimes despair at people’s disagreements, I find great pleasure in their kindnesses. Evolution suggests we are moving forward, learning and growing, and this is an incredibly positive feeling.

“I can say without doubt that this isn’t a faith.”

There is a difference between the words “faith” and “religion”. Both theism and atheism are positions on “theos”.

Atheism is a position that theos does not exist The position is a belief or faith in that, as a philosophical proposition, there is no proof of the non-existence of theos.

Theism is a position that theos does exist The position is a belief or faith in that, as a philosophical proposition, there is no proof of the existence of theos.

Thanks Mary for questioning my statement – it certainly does sound a little arrogant, and maybe I’ve chosen my words poorly. However, I would argue that there’s a difference between ‘belief’ and ‘faith’.

Theism is a belief in a god, based on faith or trust. Atheism is a belief that there is no god, based on reasonable doubt.

An analogy I considered is that of the British legal system, whereby the accused are innocent until proven guilty. Certainly to maintain their innocence at first is a position that requires a great deal of trust, however if as evidence is presented none supports the prosecution, then the position of innocence becomes more certain. The lack of evidence is not proof, but it raises reasonable doubt.

Perhaps I am arguing semantics, but I guess the point is that a position based on empiricial evidence cannot accurately be defined as a faith. But it does depends also on definition. I hope that all makes sense.

Interesting article out of the journal Nature.

http://dericbownds.net/uploaded_images/vmpfc.pdf

Basically, the researchers took a sample of people with lesions in the ventromedial pre-frontal cortex and asked them questions that required them to make moral judgements. “If your village is being occupied and you and some villagers are hiding in a basement but your baby starts crying loudly, do you smother the baby in order to avoid detection and the death of everyone in the basement?” People with damage (Very paraphrased) were far more likely to say yes in situations like that (to make utilitarian decisions- which is basically a decision that values the good of the many over the good of the individual). Another one was “You’re standing on a bridge and a runaway train car is approaching a group of people, do you push your colleague off the bridge- knowing that you could save the five train workers- or do you let them get hit by the train car?”

Very interesting study- anyway, my point in posting it here was to add evidence to the assertion made previously that the seat of moral standards in humans is there regardless of whether or not one is religious. And to combat the assertion that every atheist is going to become a nihilist lol. The fact is that the standards for the moral choices that we make from day to day are not obtained through religion. There is an evolutionary/cognitive basis for the vast majority of them and imminent advances in Neuroscience are beginning to prove this fact- soon there will be no need for religion (Amen).

Also, I disagree with Richard that the horrible things done in the name of religion were done by misguided zealots. The misguided zealots you are referring to were misguided by the Bible. The particular religions that I’m opposed to are Islam and Christianity- because they’re both incredibly barbaric. Islam in particular because Muslims still have the annoying habit of following the specific tenets of their religion rather than picking and choosing the tasty parts like Christians tend to do these days.

For example, Let’s say that I’m a Christian who wants to find a good verse to allow me to go into the neighboring town- destroy and rob it, then take some virgins home for my birthday party with my homies later.

Numbers
31:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
31:2 Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people.
31:7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.
31:9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.
31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

And please, no one try to argue with me that this is the old testament and that is therefore illegitimate to use it as evidence of god’s word. If God is perfect, then he has no reason to change his mind because he can’t make mistakes- so something that’s moral before Jesus is still moral after Jesus- if you want scriptural citations for me to prove that this assertion is true, then we can get into that but I’m too lazy to do it now.

If anything, religion pervades morality. It’s the fact that people choose to ignore some of the stickier parts of the Bible that allows it to retain even the most modest sense of morality in the modern moral zeitgeist.

Cruelty and Violence in the Old Testamenthttp://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/ot.html

Cruelty and Violence in the New Testament
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt.html

Cruelty and Violence in the Book of Mormon
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/BOM/cr/long.html

Cruelty and Violence in the Bible
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

Cruelty in the Quran
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html

Read it recently… phenomenal book… his documentary series “Root of All Evil?” is a need-to-see.

religion is just a way for people to organize themselves and create social boundaries that used to be necessary to ensure good economic behavior, “do unto ones neighbor as you would have them do”. However in the era of global capitalism we are discovering new and more efficient ways to organize ourselves to ensure positive sum outcomes, like rethos, and social awareness to issues such as global warming

The following is my opinion, and only my opinion.

Beliefs are widely regarded as a good idea.
Religion is widely regarded as a bad idea.
Religion causes wars, murder, oppression, racism, sexism, homophobia, overpopulation, and all manner of unsavory things.
None of the above has anything to do with the initial post lol

The initial post is about a book. This book uses strong words to efficiently describe the author’s viewpoint on (I’m assuming the Christian version of) God. Those are all words designed to affront, without a doubt. I’m beginning to get the impression that the author might not like God.

But that’s his business. What evidence does he have to support his claim that God is all of those harsh words? Well, technically, the bible says it. There is no lack of evidence in the good book that says that the Christian God is more or less not someone I’d want to get a pint with. I’m pretty sure that was all that he was trying to say with that section from the book. So where’s the debate?

And as for it being militant… well I don’t think he used the nicest words, but he was very concise in his description, wasn’t he? I’m not saying that he’s right or wrong, I’m just saying he pretty much just summed up the biblical God. End of story.

I’ll leave you with a quote that I love:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent; Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent; Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?; Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” -Epicurus

Power to the people,
BillTheDestroyer

I think that before one comments on atheism, particularly in relation to Dawkins, one should read the book.

I have read it and recommend it highly, in addition to Christopher Hitchens’ God is Not Great and Sam Harris’ The End of Faith (as well as Letter to a Christian Nation). All of the questions and issues posted in the comments are addressed in these books (less so in Hitchens’ book, which if you had a liberal arts education, this might be the one time it comes in handy. With all of my education, I still had a list of 30 references within the text that I had to research.)

I’m not as certain that there is no God as the above authors are, however in my life, God is irrelevant, which simply means that I do what I do because it is right, not to get into heaven or to increase the probability of a favorable rebirth.

Whatever your beliefs, check out these books (and Daniel Dennett’s, which are largely about the evolution of consciousness, and perhaps even the consciousness of evolution). Disagreeing and ridiculing when you haven’t educated yourself first is generally not a good idea.

Religion prevents critical thought and proper questioning. It favors complete submission to an all powerful authoritarian figure. The reason many people despise religion is probably because it is a fascist concept, one Jesus deliberately tried to oppose, but the powerful had the last word. Now he is the figure to which we submit, and give all our faith. Instead, Jesus argued, we must give all our faith to ourselves, for the kingdom of heaven is within you and around you. “If you bring forth what is within you, what you have will save you. If you do not bring it forth, what you do not have within you will kill you.” Read the Gospel of Thomas, it is a pure sayings gospel, similar to Confucius. Jesus, I am convinced, was an anarchist and despised market systems and tyrannic leaders. He promoted skepticism and self-salvation, not blindness and submission. I guess the powerful have been rewriting history as long as its been written.

This is a wonderful a book on the topic of whether God exists. It is well written. presents both sides of the argument clearly, and is enjoyable.

esqmsm

For those of you claiming that criticism of Christianity constitutes hate speech, you’re full of shit. We’re simply quoting your hateful scripture. How is that libel or hate speech in any way?

Religion, especially the Abrahamic religions have caused far more harm than good. The crusades? Manifest Destiny? The holocaust?

Of course, people will say that was all long ago. Well, how about the Vatican spreading lies about birth control in Africa, so that condoms aren’t used, thus accelerating the spread of AIDS?

If anyone else did these things, we’d call him an asshole. But if it’s done in the name of God, it makes it okay? Fuck that.

government is responsible for the deaths of 200, 000, 000+ people in the twentieth century. 200, 000, 000+ for the nineteenth century (native americans etc.). they use religion as a tool for blinding and manipulating the masses.

so for you people who are naive enough to believe that real servants of god are responsible for all this evil, why dont you do some research on your governments and governments throughout history. they have you wrapped around their finger while you blast believers, so continue serving the depraved evil that rules the economic, military, nutrtitional, educational, religious (corporate money making religious institutions), media, entertainment, political, and environmental institutions.

<pre><code>and i'll do my best to serve and worship god by being as true and compassionate as my unperfect self can manage. enjoy worshipping money and material things and the controling system that dominates your destiny and the destiny of everyone you love. last i check god didn't have me by the balls forcing me to prostitute my labour so i can eat, pay rent, pay tax, pay bills to governments and corporations that achieved their positions of power on the blood and sweat of the people. and this is all in my own country!!!!!!!!!!!!!@#$^x%x*$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$</code></pre>

and this is the best part, ascended to power with tax payers $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Guts,

Nationalism is definitely a contender in terms of bringers of death, and I’m sure religion is very often used as a tool. But the simple fact is that the violence and cruelty of the Abrahamic religions make them particularly useful for those ends. No government has ever used, say Buddhism, as a reason to start a war or to commit genocide. They can’t, because it truly is a religion of peace.

You could certainly make the “tool of nationalism” argument in the case of the crusades or Manifest Destiny, but what about things like witch burnings? Or stoning brides that aren’t virgins? That doesn’t profit the state in any way. Just some of those wonderful true believers following their beliefs.