Richard Dawkins--trying to persuade the history-deniers?

[Marylou]

I've heard similar, and worse, from creationists.

 

 

 

I've heard as much nastiness, if not more, from the other side as well.

He is one person with an opinion. You don't have to listen/read.

 

 

Evidently so do the creationists. All that name-calling and yelling is sure adding up to a respectful and constructive dialogue, isn't it?

 

 

If you ladies could cite specific written "nastiness" from the "other side" I would be very interested in reading it for myself (especially if it was written by a Christian author).

 

 

Wendy K--of course no one has to read/listen, but I think people who want to relate intelligently and graciously to others with different world views should read about those opposing views and try to see where others are coming from.

 

It can never be the same to have a system which explains itself from the "inside" (if we're going to simplify, "It's true because it's written in a book which claims it's true.") and declares itself immune to any kind of criticism from the "outside"; and to have a system which suggests a model of the world (! notice the BIG difference here!), coming to the a posteriori conclusions and theory after empirical observations, actively OFFERS it to peer review and criticism and declares itself well disputable and disprovable.

The two "teapots" are two very, very different stories.

 

Ester Maria, you might enjoy reading what Dr.Jason Lisle says about this (ultimate standards) in his book, The Ultimate Proof of Creation.

[creekland]

Yeah, I can't manage to get through a Dawkins book to save my life. The perverse egotism makes me throw the book across the room every five minutes or so......

 

This is why I feel that he (and Coulter, and others who use similar tactics with various issues/topics/beliefs) are all about the money. By being abrasive they sell more to people who agree with them - their cheerleaders - but alienate pretty much everyone else. It's a style or something to that effect. If they were truly interested in just getting their point across they'd do things differently as many other people do. But then, there'd be nothing to 'distinguish' themselves above the others who believe as they do (and write or speak about it) and their sales would suffer.

 

For these types of people (style, not specific topic), it's all about the money. I don't care for any of them - nor will I ever support any of them.

[Marylou]

Yeah, I can't manage to get through a Dawkins book to save my life. The perverse egotism makes me throw the book across the room every five minutes or so......

 

 

You might want to get this one from the library. There are lots of pictures in it and most of them are wonderful.

[OhM]

These terms might seem disturbing at first.

 

But, having listened to numerous interviews with Dawkins, he is excellent at explaining his POV. The terms don't seem that bad after becoming familiar with his arguments.

 

Who knew Dawkins and Rush Limbaugh were so much alike?

[Ester Maria]

Ester Maria, you might enjoy reading what Dr.Jason Lisle says about this (ultimate standards) in his book, The Ultimate Proof of Creation.

Thank you, I will try to find it. :)

[tdeveson]

I love Dawkins. Like the pp above, he says all the things I want to say.

 

I agree that calling someone names, then trying to convince him to come around your way is kind of futile. On the other hand, he's not really losing any readers. He knows you can't approach creationists with logic and science.

 

I think he probably uses the colorful language to sell books.

 

And here is a nice article about a 5,000-year-old t-rex.

 

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27604

[creekland]

Who knew Dawkins and Rush Limbaugh were so much alike?

 

Yep, he's another one I can't stand. But to each our own I suppose. It takes all types to make the world go around (supposedly). They each keep their own section of the economy going.

[Marylou]

I love Dawkins. Like the pp above, he says all the things I want to say.

 

I agree that calling someone names, then trying to convince him to come around your way is kind of futile. On the other hand, he's not really losing any readers. He knows you can't approach creationists with logic and science.

 

I think he probably uses the colorful language to sell books.

 

And here is a nice article about a 5,000-year-old t-rex.

 

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27604

 

God is the Author of logic and science.

[Joy at Home]

God is the Author of logic and science.

 

 

:thumbup:

[hornblower]

God is the Author of logic and science.

 

I have not found this to be true. There are many illogical things in many religious teachings. When you try to peel them apart, it always falls back to

 

-it's a mystery

-you have to have faith

-that's what faith is

 

and variations on the theme.

[Marylou]

I have not found this to be true. There are many illogical things in many religious teachings. When you try to peel them apart, it always falls back to

 

-it's a mystery

-you have to have faith

-that's what faith is

 

and variations on the theme.

 

 

Thanks for your thoughts. I didn't say "religious teachings" are the author of logic and science. I said God is. Faith is not a mystery, but that will have to be another thread!

 

And since we're sharing links . . . .

Top Ten Myths About Creation

[Daisy]

I've never read Dawkins.

 

I may have to buy the book and save it for a day when I feel too happy. LOL.

 

Actually, it makes it easier to read him if he inserts name-calling every now and then. You can start to get lulled to sleep by just about anyone's argument when they are nice. But when they stop to call you an idiot every few pages, it tends to keep you more alert. :lol:

[Cricket]

Who knew Dawkins and Rush Limbaugh were so much alike?

 

See, I like Rush. It's Coulter and Hannity I don't like. :D

[hornblower]

Thanks for your thoughts. I didn't say "religious teachings" are the author of logic and science. I said God is. Faith is not a mystery, but that will have to be another thread!

 

 

Well, this is where we're veering off the topic altogether......

 

Which god? Whose god? How do you know your god is right? etc etc etc

How do you know your god is the author of logic and science? etc etc etc

It all comes down to faith in the end, doesn't it?

[astrid]

Well, this is where we're veering off the topic altogether......

 

Which god? Whose god? How do you know your god is right? etc etc etc

How do you know your god is the author of logic and science? etc etc etc

It all comes down to faith in the end, doesn't it?

 

good points.

 

astrid

[WishboneDawn]

God is the Author of logic and science.

 

That would be the point at which Dawkins would get frustrated. What does that mean for him for instance? He's an athiest. Your statement would be nonsensical. It's neither logic nor science, it's an assertion of belief.

[Greta]

Perhaps you can provide the scientific evidence that Dawkins is not able to produce? IMO, this is the KEY question that any evolutionist MUST be able to support with concrete scientific evidence if they want to have any credibility for their religious belief about origins:

 

"Can you give a single example of a genetic mutation that results in an INCREASE in information to the genetic evolutionary process?"

 

There is a reason that Dawkins cannot answer this simple question: The answer would require a scientist to observe something that simply does not occur. The simple fact is that all known mutations that occur in nature either delete or damage portions of the existing genome or make copies of the existing genome. In cases where a functional advantage is the result of a mutation, most (all?) of them are the result of a *reduction* in information in the genome and therefore the function of the organism.

 

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102_1.html

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

[tdeveson]

Call me a cynic, but I'm in the school that believes it's all about the money.

 

:iagree:

[Tea Time]

Frankly I think evolution within the whole religion vs. science debate is very small potatoes. A staunch supporter of evolution can be very religious. Those two things are not incompatible in my mind. My issue with religion has absolutely nothing to do with believing stories in an old book. Absolutely not. I don't care if one worships the invisible pink unicorn. What bugs me is that people can't just leave it at that. They have to force others to believe the same. Someone once told me they believe there would be more peace in the world if there were more atheists. That just might be true if you consider that many wars are about religion (and I believe the war in Iraq is among those religious wars).

 

I think Dawkins is a radical within Atheism. I appreciate his cause in a way though because it is difficult to be an atheist in a world filled with people who are mostly religious (although frankly I think there are plenty of atheists they just don't want to admit it, which is fine too).

 

He is interesting and amusing, but doesn't feel dangerous to me. I can totally see where he would be offensive to people who believe in religion.

 

If we are going to be scientific and honest, we should be very careful. Religion (which for the atheist should at least be considered an important aspect of evolutionary adaptation) has probably controlled the human impulse toward destructive behavior more so than it has unleashed it throughout history. And atheist regimes have caused as much or more death and destruction to the extent that they have flourished. Consider the fact that very rational (often atheist) scientists created nuclear weapons and are continuing the work of perfecting all manner of weapons even now.

 

Atheist belief systems (and they vary widely just as do theistic belief systems) are not necessarily benign, and proliferation of that belief system does not necessarily amount to the creation of a utopian civilization. On the contrary, atheism and the evolutionary viewpoint, taken to extreme positions, could easily lend themselves to horrific philosophical implications. You can't say simplistically religion = bad, atheism = good when you are talking about the survival of civilization. It appears to be far more complex than that.

 

One other thing. Dawkins is just as interested in converting others to his beliefs as any evangelical I have ever met, so that is clearly not just a religious tendency. It seems to be human nature to want others to share our belief system, to want others to do what we want them to do, and to otherwise control one another. No doubt it has adaptive advantages. :tongue_smilie:

[justamouse]

LOL. I love Dawkins.

He says what I want to say. :D

 

I do see your point though - will people stop reading this book because of this. I wonder if he's hoping to reach more the 'waffling & confused' people rather than the segment which is just reading it to say "yes, I have read it and I still don't agree."

 

I am (almost) ready to give up on the hard-core segment. Logic doesn't work there & if you push too hard that group retreats behind their religious texts, and calls it all 'mystery'. There's no arguing with that.

 

cheers~~

 

 

This. Completely. But, I have to say, I always am for a soft touch instead of a frying pan so that's just his way.

 

If you want to read a wonderful book on evolution from a Christian standpoint read The Language of God by Francis Collins, head scientist of the Human Genome project.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744/ref=tmm_pap_title_0

Edited November 23, 2009 by justamouse

[secular_mom]

One other thing. Dawkins is just as interested in converting others to his beliefs as any evangelical I have ever met, so that is clearly not just a religious tendency. It seems to be human nature to want others to share our belief system, to want others to do what we want them to do, and to otherwise control one another. No doubt it has adaptive advantages. :tongue_smilie:

I agree that Dawkins would like to 'convert' others, but I do NOT think it's about 'control'. I think it is human nature to want to SHARE the GOOD things we learn with others, and it is natural to be concerned for others and want the 'best' for them- whether that means you want them to have a blissful afterlife instead of being tortured for eternity, or you want people to believe only true things (logically, scientifically speaking) and live their life based on reality instead of 'delusion'.

 

I really haven't heard of this 'atheist belief system'. An atheist does not actively believe that a god exists. The end. You do NOT have to believe that evolution is true, you do NOT have to believe ANYthing in order to be an atheist. Yes, many atheists do believe the evidence that points to the evolution of life on this planet. It's not a pre-requisite. There are many misguided people on this planet, whether they hold religious beliefs or not. Historically speaking, religion has been the cause of more death than atheism, even if you include the a-bomb and other such atrocities as being caused by an atheist/atheists.

[Daisy]

I'm curious whether Dawkins would say that those who embrace religion are somehow less evolved then those who embrace science & logic, alone?

 

Anyone know?

 

I am absolutely NOT picking a fight. I ask only because hubby & I were talking about it.

[nmoira]

 

I'm curious whether Dawkins would say that those who embrace religion are somehow less evolved then those who embrace science & logic, alone?

"Evolution" and "progression" (through a broad range of definitions) are not the same thing... so the phrase "less evolved" has no meaning in this context.

[Daisy]

"Evolution" and "progression" (through a broad range of definitions) are not the same thing... so the phrase "less evolved" has no meaning in this context.

 

Okay, can you explain it to me? Does evolution refer only to physical changes? I really don't have a clue. Maybe you can define those terms for me? You can pm me if you'd rather.

[nmoira]

Okay, can you explain it to me? Does evolution refer only to physical changes? I really don't have a clue. Maybe you can define those terms for me? You can pm me if you'd rather.

Well, "more evolved" makes sense in terms of a temporal progression, but only to a point because evolution doesn't take place as part of a single straight line of descendants. However, we get into trouble when we start talking about progression and "more evolved" in terms of value judgements. To say someone is "more evolved" because they don't have a genetic predisposition to belief in a spiritual sense doesn't make sense because it doesn't speak to survival of the species, but rather to the mind of the person making the judgement. Generally speaking, just because a trait is judged to be positive, doesn't mean it's better in an evolutionary sense.

Edited November 23, 2009 by nmoira
Edited to add "more evolved" in terms of value judgements

[Greta]

Historically speaking, religion has been the cause of more death than atheism, even if you include the a-bomb and other such atrocities as being caused by an atheist/atheists.

 

Is this really true? How does one measure or count such a thing? I admit that until recently, this was my perception. But that perception was based on a pretty limited understanding of history, and a distinctly Western one at that. Recently I have started to learn just a tiny bit about Eastern history, and it has made me question this. The coming together of government and atheism in the East has been a pretty horrid affair.

 

ETA: I'm saying this not in judgment of YOUR knowledge of history, just my own.

Edited November 23, 2009 by GretaLynne

[lionfamily1999]

There are a lot of atrocities perpetrated today in the name of athiesm.

[Daisy]

Well, "more evolved" makes sense in terms of a temporal progression, but only to a point because evolution doesn't take place as part of a single straight line of descendants. However, we get into trouble when we start talking about progression and "more evolved" in terms of value judgements. To say someone is "more evolved" because they don't have a genetic predisposition to belief in a spiritual sense doesn't make sense because it doesn't speak to survival of the species, but rather to the mind of the person making the judgement. Generally speaking, just because a trait is judged to be positive, doesn't mean it's better in an evolutionary sense.

 

Okay, I think I understand that. LOL. :D

[Greta]

I'm curious whether Dawkins would say that those who embrace religion are somehow less evolved then those who embrace science & logic, alone?

 

Anyone know?

 

I don't know, but I think he would be hard-pressed to make such an argument. Well, as Moira explained (better than I would have), more or less evolved isn't really something that biologists talk about. But that aside, I see what you're getting at. And given that religious belief is so very prevalent in all human cultures across the board, I think it's probably more logical to argue that if there is a genetic basis for faith, it must have incurred some advantage to our ancestors. Perhaps it fostered more close-knit communities wherein people took better care of each other, and had higher survival rates compared to those communities where faith was absent. Of course, this is just conjecture on my part. I'm just thinking out loud here.

[Marylou]

Yes, of course he has a missionary agenda. Here are his talking points.

 

ETA: Available in at least 9 languages!

Edited November 23, 2009 by dmmosher

[Anne in CA]

I mean, the crusaders only had sword and arrows, certainly the deaths during the crusades must have been in the low hundred thousands. Even with the religious conflicts in Europe between Protestants and Catholics must have been in the low hundred thousands. I bet the populations were low in Europe already due to the plague and immigration.

 

Chairman Mao alone killed an estimated 50 to 70 million people. Even if you are one of the historically illiterate who believes Hitler was a practicing Christian you could still include the holocaust with every other religious death including the Islamic ones, and still not touch just Mao. Forget Stalin and his 10 million Jews he killed or the modern Maoists in Nepal who are killing people in the name of atheism today.

 

But that is just an educated guess, if I'm wrong someone will be happy to rub my nose in it, LOL.

[WishboneDawn]

There are a lot of atrocities perpetrated today in the name of athiesm.

 

I think this whole line of who-killed-more-people or who commited more atrocities arguments is rather useless. People do bad things to people. It's what we do and if we can find some means of justifying we're happy to do so whether it's religion or nationalism or whatever.

[WishboneDawn]

Forget Stalin and his 10 million Jews he killed or the modern Maoists in Nepal who are killing people in the name of atheism today.

 

 

There's a difference between an atheist or atheist state being responsible for deaths and people being killed in the name of atheism.

 

By your reasoning the horrendous number of Native Americans killed in the western hemisphere by European nations were killed in the name of Christianity because the states supported religion.

 

This kind of thing gets silly.

[Tea Time]

I agree that Dawkins would like to 'convert' others, but I do NOT think it's about 'control'. I think it is human nature to want to SHARE the GOOD things we learn with others, and it is natural to be concerned for others and want the 'best' for them- whether that means you want them to have a blissful afterlife instead of being tortured for eternity, or you want people to believe only true things (logically, scientifically speaking) and live their life based on reality instead of 'delusion'.

The post that I was responding to lamented the fact that people want to push their beliefs on other people, but they made the error of insinuating that this was what "religious" people do. I was simply pointing out that it was not limited to religious people but rather a human tendency. I do think it is about control. But I am not putting a value judgment on that. I was not being sarcastic when I said it was adaptive. It no doubt is adaptive. It is often done for benevolent reasons, and it is often a good thing. But we should be very conscious of it and keep it in check because people can do terrible things for good reasons.

 

I really haven't heard of this 'atheist belief system'. An atheist does not actively believe that a god exists. The end. You do NOT have to believe that evolution is true, you do NOT have to believe ANYthing in order to be an atheist. Yes, many atheists do believe the evidence that points to the evolution of life on this planet. It's not a pre-requisite. There are many misguided people on this planet, whether they hold religious beliefs or not. Historically speaking, religion has been the cause of more death than atheism, even if you include the a-bomb and other such atrocities as being caused by an atheist/atheists.

 

To the first bold part. Not the end. No matter how many times this is said, it will never be true. People have belief systems just like they have opinions and digestive tracts. And they influence behavior and can be taught and indoctrinated.

 

As to the second bolded part, that was my whole point.

[secular_mom]

 

to a youtube video of a talk given at the American Atheist Convention that talks a bit about 'why we believe in gods'. I realize that this may be a bit offensive to some, and I apologize if you are offended but watch at your own risk. :) Also, I realize as a former Christian that some of the statements in this video will only further cement some Christian's beliefs. That's just the way things work.

[lionfamily1999]

There's a difference between an atheist or atheist state being responsible for deaths and people being killed in the name of atheism.

 

By your reasoning the horrendous number of Native Americans killed in the western hemisphere by European nations were killed in the name of Christianity because the states supported religion.

 

This kind of thing gets silly.

In my post I was refering directly to the religious people that are persecuted by athiest governments. When you talk about athiest governments attempting to wipe out religion through prison time, torture, and murder, then it seems pretty clear, imo, that those deaths can be attributed to athiesm or an atheistic movement.

 

I wasn't even trying to argue numbers, just pointing out that today, now, athiests are killing and persecuting people BECAUSE they have a religion.

[secular_mom]

 

To the first bold part. Not the end. No matter how many times this is said, it will never be true. People have belief systems just like they have opinions and digestive tracts. And they influence behavior and can be taught and indoctrinated.

 

As to the second bolded part, that was my whole point.

 

I don't have a belief system, I am just an atheist. I would not presume to tell someone else what their 'beliefs' are. IMO, a belief of any type requires a bit of 'faith'. I don't 'believe' things, I learn things and store that knowledge. But that's probably just semantics. There is no 'atheist belief system'. An atheist CAN have A belief system, but that does not mean that there is AN atheist belief system. You can't just say that all atheists have some set of beliefs. My non-belief in a god does not equal an active un-belief in a god. IDK if that will even make sense to you or not, I'm having a hard time putting this into words. *I* don't 'believe' in any 'beliefs'. :tongue_smilie:

[Marylou]

IDK if that will even make sense to you or not, I'm having a hard time putting this into words. *I* don't 'believe' in any 'beliefs'. :tongue_smilie:

 

No, it really doesn't make sense, but just one more question: do you believe your last sentence ;)

[Daisy]

I just don't understand why people try so hard to convince someone else of what they believe in regards to the evolution/creation debate.

 

I definitely have a position on the issue but I'm not going to degenerate to name-calling over it.

 

I just don't get it. Why not just say, "The other side disagrees with me," without resorting to saying someone is going to h$ll or is ignorant or stupid or history-denying?

 

Write all the books you want. Publish all the articles you want. Make movies, CD's, children's books, Evolutionopoly, and Creationolopoly. I don't care, but why can't we just show RESPECT for those who disagree with us?

 

People who call names are idiots. LOL. JUST KIDDING.

[Marylou]

I just don't understand why people try so hard to convince someone else of what they believe in regards to the evolution/creation debate.

 

I definitely have a position on the issue but I'm not going to degenerate to name-calling over it.

 

I just don't get it. Why not just say, "The other side disagrees with me," without resorting to saying someone is going to h$ll or is ignorant or stupid or history-denying?

 

Write all the books you want. Publish all the articles you want. Make movies, CD's, children's books, Evolutionopoly, and Creationolopoly. I don't care, but why can't we just show RESPECT for those who disagree with us?

 

People who call names are idiots. LOL. JUST KIDDING.

 

I think what you're longing for has commonly been known as the "live and let live" society. Unfortunately there is a growing number of people who aren't happy to merely disagree with you. They want you to stop "abusing" your kids and behaving as a "fanatic". As a pp said, it's sorta like shoving their religion down others' throats.

 

From Wiki--The God Delusion)

 

The God Delusion is not just a defence of atheism, but also goes on the offensive against religion. Dawkins sees religion as subverting science, fostering fanaticism, encouraging bigotry against homosexuals, and influencing society in other negative ways. He is most outraged about the indoctrination of children. He equates the religious indoctrination of children by parents and teachers in faith schools to a form of mental abuse. Dawkins considers the labels "Muslim child" or a "Catholic child" equally misapplied as the descriptions "Marxist child" or a "Tory child", as he wonders how a young child can be considered developed enough to have such independent views on the cosmos and humanity's place within it.

[Marylou]

"As far as subjective impressions allow and in the admitted absence of rigorous data, I am persuaded that the religiosity of America is greatly exaggerated. Our choir is a lot larger than many people realise. Religious people still outnumber atheists, but not by the margin they hoped and we feared."

 

This is from RD's Out Campaign. I wonder why he is so fearful.

[Critter]

My SIL who has a doctorate in biochemistry and teaches in her field at the university level is also a devout Catholic, attending Mass every Sunday. My point being that belief in God and evolution are not mutually exclusive. It seems to me that sometimes atheists try to put "creationists" in a box, one in which everyone who believes in God and a created universe must also subscribe to certain beliefs, such as a six day creation time table.

 

Does Dawkins have children of his own? I would hope that he could content himself with indoctrinating his own children. Why does he feel that he needs to branch out in such an evangelical way in order to indoctrinate others' children? He's worried that religious people are teaching religion to their kids. That seems to me to be within their right. Or does he think that atheists are the only ones qualified to teach on the matter?

[tdeveson]

God is the Author of logic and science.

 

Prove it.

[Tea Time]

I don't have a belief system, I am just an atheist. I would not presume to tell someone else what their 'beliefs' are. IMO, a belief of any type requires a bit of 'faith'. I don't 'believe' things, I learn things and store that knowledge. But that's probably just semantics. There is no 'atheist belief system'. An atheist CAN have A belief system, but that does not mean that there is AN atheist belief system (There is not A religious belief system either, so that does nothing to prove that atheism is not a belief system). You can't just say that all atheists have some set of beliefs. (You can't just say all religions have some set of beliefs either, but they are still considered belief systems. Why does atheism get a pass? It may in fact be a more accurate belief system, so why not allow it to compete directly and honestly against other belief systems? This is not a rhetorical question. There IS a reason.) My non-belief in a god does not equal an active un-belief in a god. IDK if that will even make sense to you or not, I'm having a hard time putting this into words. *I* don't 'believe' in any 'beliefs'. :tongue_smilie:

 

You believe your un-belief so strongly that you have named yourself after it to announce it to everyone. Pretty active un-belief.

 

But I will stick to my point and try to clarify and restrict it so that we can try to reach some agreement if possible. If you are not willing to accept this after what you said in previous posts, then I have to question your motivation for holding this "disagreement" with me and refer to the question I asked in red above. Why can't you accept atheism as simply a different point of view from theism?

 

Radical atheism is not benign. It can be used as an excuse to extinguish the freedoms of other people just as any active, radical, religious belief can. We are, apparently, wired to these kinds of behaviors, and they will happen if are not cognizant of them. It is our responsibility to guard against destructive and dangerous impulses however and wherever they get their start (starting with ourselves).

 

I'm not going to visit your link. I have read various views of why people believe in god(s). Speculation on the matter is interesting as long as it is kept rational and understands its own limits, but that doesn't happen very often, and if you say it is offensive then it probably fails this test. Plus, it will trouble me all day if it smacks of religious oppression on the future front.

 

At the end of the day, I am less interested in some final answer to these cosmic questions than I am in the fact that we should be free to continue to ask them. I want people to be free to believe or to not believe. I resist radicalism (on either side) that threatens these freedoms. I will continue to point it out when I observe it.

 

Richard Dawkins tends toward radicalism, and while I have no desire to censor him, I do desire to be allowed to point that out; because yes, he does think only atheists are qualified to teach on the matter, and that is a threatening position to take.

[TXMary2]

You believe your un-belief so strongly that you have named yourself after it to announce it to everyone. Pretty active un-belief.

 

But I will stick to my point and try to clarify and restrict it so that we can try to reach some agreement if possible. If you are not willing to accept this after what you said in previous posts, then I have to question your motivation for holding this "disagreement" with me and refer to the question I asked in red above. Why can't you accept atheism as simply a different point of view from theism?

 

Radical atheism is not benign. It can be used as an excuse to extinguish the freedoms of other people just as any active, radical, religious belief can. We are, apparently, wired to these kinds of behaviors, and they will happen if are not cognizant of them. It is our responsibility to guard against destructive and dangerous impulses however and wherever they get their start (starting with ourselves).

 

I'm not going to visit your link. I have read various views of why people believe in god(s). Speculation on the matter is interesting as long as it is kept rational and understands its own limits, but that doesn't happen very often, and if you say it is offensive then it probably fails this test. Plus, it will trouble me all day if it smacks of religious oppression on the future front.

 

At the end of the day, I am less interested in some final answer to these cosmic questions than I am in the fact that we should be free to continue to ask them. I want people to be free to believe or to not believe. I resist radicalism (on either side) that threatens these freedoms. I will continue to point it out when I observe it.

 

Richard Dawkins tends toward radicalism, and while I have no desire to censor him, I do desire to be allowed to point that out; because yes, he does think only atheists are qualified to teach on the matter, and that is a threatening position to take.

 

APPLAUSE!!!!