Does Richard Dawkins represent the majority of atheists?

[M]

Atheist.

How very dare you!!!!!

[Robert_S]

I think they should let Dawkins into Parliament so he can truly represent.

[hadespussercats]

I think they should let Dawkins into Parliament so he can truly represent.

That's one group where being a posh white man doesn't really help getting him into the club...

[DaveDodo007]

All hail Richard Dawkins the one true God please o mighty one smite chuck jones. Then let us have a go of your wife if it's not too much to ask.

[Trolldor]

I think they should let Dawkins into Parliament so he can truly represent.

That's one group where being a posh white man doesn't really help getting him into the club...

Lies. The whole scene is built for white people. They're cool as Ice. Ice, Baby.

[hadespussercats]

I think they should let Dawkins into Parliament so he can truly represent.

That's one group where being a posh white man doesn't really help getting him into the club...

Lies. The whole scene is built for white people. They're cool as Ice. Ice, Baby.

Huh.

[jcmmanuel]

"Does Richard Dawkins represent the majority of atheists?"

I doubt it. I've met many atheists on myspace for instance who don't. That's not even speaking of a growing number of well known atheists and also top-scientists who rejected Dawkins' views.

In the case of scientists, this is extremely comprehensible - but in fact, as atheists are so often willing to more or less 'associate' their state of mind with a 'scientific' one, atheists should have been among the first to understand the problem here. Dawkins is widely perceived as someone who 'betrays' the sciences, by mixing it with atheism. Dawkins has the opinion that evolution theory can only be fully accepted if you are atheist (his own statement). Similar statements were made by the other 'new atheists'. This is unfair and untrue. It is not because many religious people (especially evangelicals) come from a tough religious-dogmatic tradition of bible literalism, that this is what all believers or Christians think. Not at all. But what we do not want is, to accept evolution theory with the special appendix of atheism attached to it, conform the radial ideas of mister Dawkins.

I do think many atheists understand this issue, and are for that reason not inclined to follow Dawkins' conflict-based philosophy. In essense, what Dawkins does is some sort of binary thinking.

[Santa_Claus]

Dawkins has the opinion that evolution theory can only be fully accepted if you are atheist (his own statement). Similar statements were made by the other 'new atheists'. This is unfair and untrue. It is not because many religious people (especially evangelicals) come from a tough religious-dogmatic tradition of bible literalism, that this is what all believers or Christians think. Not at all. But what we do not want is, to accept evolution theory with the special appendix of atheism attached to it, conform the radial ideas of mister Dawkins.

The problem with Christianity is that most folks who claim to be Christians are simply no such thing. For the very good reason that if you beleived the teachings / contents of the original Christian religion (you know, the one that came from God ) you would be stark raving mad. and if you acted upon them you would be locked up. But that's the same with many ideas from the bronze age.

Making up your own brand of Woo doesn't make you a Christian, even if based on the imaginations / inventions of others. just makes you a self deluding fuckwit.

BTW I am a firm beleiver that Dawkins is a knob - way too nice about stick based organised kiddy fiddling.

[jcmmanuel]

The problem with Christianity is that most folks who claim to be Christians are simply no such thing. For the very good reason that if you beleived the teachings / contents of the original Christian religion... you would be stark raving mad. and if you acted upon them you would be locked up.

This is the opinion usually vented by people who only want to understand religion from an external point of view. These views usually take the simplistic beliefs of bible literalists as a definition of Christian faith and then denounce it as such. There is nothing new about this approach, but it rarely adds some real value in discussions. Of course there are a number of stories in the Bible that we find appalling - that's what the Jews thought too - or don't you ever read the Jewish comments on their own Torah? It's called the the Talmud and it really doesn't tell us that when King David murdered someone in order to have his wife, it was a great thing to do. Neither do latter comments tell us that slavery was a good thing - but historians tell us that slavery was a commonplace everywhere at that time, and the Jews had some protective measures in place long before the Greeks. There's badass stuff in there and there's also good stuff - exactly as one expects from human beings, up to these days (or would you be proud today that 2 children are being sold in the sex trade every minute? Or maybe you'll think that's because of religion - if you never saw the statistics on that one, that is).

But there's no doubt that everyone is always right in his own mind. We are somehow used to live with closed minds when it comes to all 'other' opinion.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This is the opinion usually vented by people who only want to understand religion from an external point of view.

Yep, they're called "rational people".

[Cunt]

jcmanuel, your assertion that 'this is the opinion usually vented by people who only want to understand religion from an external point of view' is quite far from correct. I have known many who worked hard through most of their lives to understand it from the believer position, only to arrive at rationality and atheism anyway.

You should really try to describe your 'rational belief in a god'. I think it deserves it's own thread, and I hope you invite me to participate.

[Santa_Claus]

This is the opinion usually vented by people who only want to understand religion from an external point of view. These views usually take the simplistic beliefs of bible literalists as a definition of Christian faith and then denounce it as such. There is nothing new about this approach, but it rarely adds some real value in discussions. Of course there are a number of stories in the Bible that we find appalling - that's what the Jews thought too - or don't you ever read the Jewish comments on their own Torah? It's called the the Talmud and it really doesn't tell us that when King David murdered someone in order to have his wife, it was a great thing to do. Neither do latter comments tell us that slavery was a good thing - but historians tell us that slavery was a commonplace everywhere at that time, and the Jews had some protective measures in place long before the Greeks. There's badass stuff in there and there's also good stuff - exactly as one expects from human beings, up to these days (or would you be proud today that 2 children are being sold in the sex trade every minute? Or maybe you'll think that's because of religion - if you never saw the statistics on that one, that is).

Slavery is now "bad". but God never banned it before because humans were doing it and he didn't want to upset them?

Would seem far more likely that the humans who created the original religion(s) simply regarded slavery as acceptable and therefore wrote the religions accordingly. either that or god simply forgot

2000 odd years of making shit up doesn't make a god real.

But there's no doubt that everyone is always right in his own mind. We are somehow used to live with closed minds when it comes to all 'other' opinion.

I duuno if you have ever heard the saying: "Open your mind, but not so far your brain falls out"

[jcmmanuel]

This is the opinion usually vented by people who only want to understand religion from an external point of view.

Yep, they're called "rational people".

My statement on the position "external" was clearly meant to indicate the Dawkins approach - which means: deciding that something is worthless or dangerous without getting to 'know' your subject from the inside out - which is what people do when they really analyze something: they can't just study the outside of the box. So I think your statement does not qualify as supplying any clarification whatsoever here.

Understanding religion is the thing that Dawkins doesn't - not even the basics. But this is also true in terms of other domains of science: Dawkins is not a neurologist for instance. There's a reason why neurologists like Andrew Newberg and Mark Robert Waldman wrote that the main thesis of the new atheists, that religious beliefs are personally and societally dangerous, are strongly opposed by research results in the domain of neuroscience. There's a reason why Lyn Margulis now there you have a top scientist - former wife of Carl Sagan too) finds Dawkins' approach to evolution not conform to the best scientific insights today. There's a reason why a guy like Stuart A. Kauffman (strong atheist, top-scientist) rejects Dawkins' approach. There's a reason why a plethora of other guys Daniel Fairbanks, etc) things the new atheist approach is not good for science.

Rationality does not spring into existence all of a sudden when someone starts to agitate against religion.

[jcmmanuel]

jcmanuel, your assertion that 'this is the opinion usually vented by people who only want to understand religion from an external point of view' is quite far from correct. I have known many who worked hard through most of their lives to understand it from the believer position, only to arrive at rationality and atheism anyway.

You should really try to describe your 'rational belief in a god'. I think it deserves it's own thread, and I hope you invite me to participate.

Thanks, I'll think of the invite. Let's suffice or now, to posit that to believe in things is a human faculty (without beliefs of some sort even science is not possible, there's no logic without premises, there's no physics without axioms etc). Beliefs exist in flavors of course, you have ridiculous beliefs but also rational beliefs, as I just said. And just think of human intuition: we know it works, even while intuition may have it wrong many times - but not always completely wrong. And sometimes intuition leads someone to a conclusion in minutes, the evidence of which takes years to formulate. Those are beliefs, or reasonable conjectures. Beliefs are not necessarily static or dogmatic (as in dogmatic religion, dogmatic atheism and so on). They can be adapted according to new insights. This is a very basic understanding of how one may look at faith or beliefs, if he wants to understand the difference between a religious literalist / fundamentalist and the many others who don't think that is how faith works. Stigmatizing people on the basis of simplistic assumptions about 'religion' is very common these days but it is not conform to the reality out there.

About your statement "I have known many who worked hard through most of their lives to understand it from the believer position, only to arrive at rationality and atheism anyway", I can only say that I am well aware that this happens, but it is certainly not how it works for even most people. It seems that many people have built their perception on the ideas promoted by the so-called Four Horsemen but these are not the representatives of rational thinking - there's an awful lot of rational people who strongly disagree with their views as having more to do with promoting the atheist agenda and less with promoting science.

[jcmmanuel]

...Neither do latter comments tell us that slavery was a good thing - but historians tell us that slavery was a commonplace everywhere at that time, and the Jews had some protective measures in place long before the Greeks.

Slavery is now "bad". but God never banned it before because humans were doing it and he didn't want to upset them?

No. You are using God as a straw man if you put it this way. It's clear enough that the Jewish view of God isn't a piece of cake. They saw God as the 'Wholly Other' (what we would probably call a Deist God today) and at the same time God must somehow have been knowable - which explains the anthropomorphic presentation of God - having a mouth to speak, etc. (which didn''t mean God would look like a man, they were rather just saying by means of metaphor that if god is the creator behind the scenes, He must somehow be knowable).

Another way to put this is as follows: god, seen through the eyes of the Jews, really wasn't there to do our homework. History and its stories start with signs, messages (sometimes shaped as a miracle - but they are always a message saying 'things can change', e.g. Exodus from Egypt: slavery may come to an end. These stories inspired them to do something about slavery, obviously so - yet that doesn't mean they sort of became supernatural and skip the rules of life itself. Life is a quest, it goes slowly. Today we sell woman in the sex trade, even children. With or without God, I would feel ashamed, you don't have to be an atheist to be ashamed about it, or a theist to play innocent - we are in the same boat. It has always been that way. God plays a role in my thoughts on such themes, but God doesn't affect my humanism negatively - nor does He automatically improve my humanism - that is not how it works. God plays a role in my motivation, and apparently not so with other people. And Christians are not here to make bold statements that contradict freedom of thought - nor are atheists here to make bold statements against the freedom of religion. There are ways to be honest with each other.

2000 odd years of making shit up doesn't make a god real.

But those 2000 years of odd shit aren't going to get any better without this God. (Yes I know, that's what 'radical atheists' like Dawkins want to make us believe - but I've replied to this a few times also in another thread here - let me now skip that one). Let me keep it simple: God is a reasonable conjecture about origins - especially the origin of meaning, of purpose, of grandeur of life etc. I won't argue that now, neither does anyone *have* to see it the theistic way, this is just what theists think explains the world the better way. But this presupposition imposes no requirement on us to attack rational thought all of a sudden, or not to understand and appreciate the sciences as the best way we have to do gather very precise and reliable information about all sorts of data.