Is "Call to Prayer" sample offensive?

[Meef Chaloin]

Dawkins should have stuck with writing science books, his views on this are as intolerant as the people he criticizes.

+1

Dawkins makes me feel ashamed to call myself an "athiest".

Except he's right; he's just not afraid to tell it like it is. We have developed this attitude that we must never offend, and we must always be tolerant; people who deny that the Earth is round are not taken seriously, but we make a special case for people who believe the Earth is six-thousand years old? The latter group is above critique? Give me a break.

Dawkins and Harris are what atheists should be; we simply cannot go on this way.

He is just yet another person of one faith telling people of another faith how to live. Evolution is still a theory, yes it does have evidence but there are still problems with it that get swept under the table. People of different faiths can often get along in the same society, its extremists that are the problem and they hardly represent the average religious person. The thing that he chose to ignore is that most extremist religious violence is state sponsored and largely involves politics rather than religion. Its funny that he cannot appreciate the irony that he is an extremist himself telling people what they should be believing in.

Also he doesnt stop with religion, he attacks any faith in god at all, which evolution does not and will never be able to disprove (for instance the creation of the universe, ie before the big bang, and how life actually got started which is still a very shaky part of evolution). The funny thing is that there is a lot of room for belief in both god and evolution, it just depends which god you choose to believe in.

[robbmasters]

Dawkins' atheism is as intolerant as the religions he despises, and shares many of the attributes he criticises. Despite considering himself a philosopher, he has apparently never read Nietsche ("he who fights with monsters should see that he does not become a monster himself in the process").

The flaws in Dawkins' argument were partly addressed in "The Trouble With Atheism" on Channel 4 (UK) last month (I remember thinking they'd missed something, but can't remember what it was now...) Looks like it's on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSM7BUmx6hY - although it was added by Dawkins fans, hence so many negative comments (which invariably miss any of the points made.)

Dawkins claims that any problem "crumbles" at the scientific method that he so dearly worships. So how come it hasn't been able to address the existence or non-existence of God? It can't even address the make-up of the atom. (We don't really know if quarks, neutrinos, etc. exist - they're just good models; and once upon a time the idea that the atom was indivisible was a good model!) Or what gravity actually is (Is it a wave? Is it an exchange of particles called "gravitons"?)

I have no problem with atheists (or Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc.) in general. Just those who, like Dawkins and religious extremists, have such certainty in their beliefs that they allow no room for anyone else's.

I have a number of beliefs. But I also entertain the possibility that I may be wrong. Neither Dawkins nor religious extremists seem able to do so.

There may be a God. There may not. Dawkins doesn't know. Nor do religious extremists. (Well, they might do... if He's talked to them! )

Now... back to making music.

[edge100]

He is just yet another person of one faith telling people of another faith how to live. Evolution is still a theory, yes it does have evidence but there are still problems with it that get swept under the table.

Oh boy! A 'theory' is not a 'guess.' It is based on data, which does not change. Scientific theories have one thing in common: they are ALL falsifiable. Evolution is falsifiable. But in order to show that evolution is false, you must first show why is APPEARS to be true. Why is it that so many lines of converging evidence suggest that life on Earth has evolved over millions of years? The theory of evolution may be wrong. The data that supports it does not change.

I'll give you another example: for 200 years, people believed that Newtonian kinetics could describe all motion, and that time, as Newton believed, was constant. In 1905, Einstein showed that both of these assertions were wrong. In 1914, he showed that Newtonian gravitational theory was wrong. But in both cases, he showed why the Newtonian way of thinking APPEARED to be right (you don't see the relativistic nature of motion and time until you are moving far faster than speeds normally encountered). Put another way, Newton had a theory of gravity, and so did Einstein, but the apple falling from the tree didn't linger in mid-air until they sorted it out. Data speaks for itself; our theories describe systems, and they are falsifiable.

Is religion falsifiable?

People of different faiths can often get along in the same society, its extremists that are the problem and they hardly represent the average religious person. The thing that he chose to ignore is that most extremist religious violence is state sponsored and largely involves politics rather than religion. Its funny that he cannot appreciate the irony that he is an extremist himself telling people what they should be believing in.

They don't get along, and extremists are NOT the problem; moderates are. Moderates create an environment where people cannot criticize religion; where religion is immune from all critique, no matter how illogical and plain stupid its tenets are. Yes, moderates don't typically fly planes into buildings or burn heretics, but they create a culture where the underlying problem isn't a viable topic of discussion.

Also he doesnt stop with religion, he attacks any faith in god at all, which evolution does not and will never be able to disprove (for instance the creation of the universe, ie before the big bang, and how life actually got started which is still a very shaky part of evolution). The funny thing is that there is a lot of room for belief in both god and evolution, it just depends which god you choose to believe in.

There is plenty of room for god and evolution. The common discussion goes like this: the big bang was the beginning of time and space, which, as Einstein showed in 1914, are two parts of the same thing. There is no sense in discussing what came before the big bang, because there was no 'before'; time began with the big bang. What came before cannot be known.

Similarly, all things must arise from more complicated things; the natural progression of this argument is that the universe must have come from something more complex than itself (i.e. god). Of course, this just begs the question: what created god? If you believe the first tenet (that all things arise from something more complicated), then the rest logically follows.

There may very well be a god; no one will ever know. But if there is, there are a few things we know about it:

1) god has chosen to use natural selection as the mechanism of change
2) god has created a universe that, because natural selection is at play, is prone to errors
3) god has a fascination with insects, and especially with beetles, given the sheer number of different types of them.
4) there is absolutely no reason to think that, even if there is a god, that god takes a personal interest in my day-to-day life.

There is a huge difference between thinking that there is something out there beyond our comprehension (and it would be incredibly arrogant of us to think otherwise). But it is far, far more arrogant to think that god cares if we use certain words, or wear certain things, or sleep with certain people.

We have to permit an open dialogue on this; and make no mistake, it is the moderates of this world who prevent this. Once we shed the light of reason on religious belief, we may be able to stop this madness.

[rasputin]

I'll retract my post since I see others have made my point more cogently than I in other posts in this thread.

[robbmasters]

They don't get along, and extremists are NOT the problem; moderates are. Moderates create an environment where people cannot criticize religion; where religion is immune from all critique, no matter how illogical and plain stupid its tenets are. Yes, moderates don't typically fly planes into buildings or burn heretics, but they create a culture where the underlying problem isn't a viable topic of discussion.

Nonsense. I regularly debate religion with moderates of various faiths. I wouldn't try that with extremists! I count moderate Christians, Muslims and atheists among my best friends.

Outside my personal life, various issues regarding the Muslim veil have been extensively discussed in the UK media. Moderates, on both sides of any arguments, discussed this openly.

[edge100]

There may be a God. There may not. Dawkins doesn't know. Nor do religious extremists.

Right you are. He doesn't know; and in fact, my take on 'The God Delusion' is that Dawkins is fine with this. He is blunt, yes, but fair.

Scientific theories are made to be falsified. Religious ones are not. We are allowed to criticize science; we are not allowed to criticize religion, which is ridiculous, considering the pillars of thought, reason, and common sense on which both fields stand.

Religious moderates don't generally murder for their beliefs, but they do foster an environment in which the core beliefs of those who DO cannot be challenged.

Let us also remember that moderates should not be let off the hook so easily; millions of people die in Africa every year because religious 'moderates' tell them that condom use is a sin. Millions of women live in poverty because they do not have access to good family planning, thereby increasing the number of children they have. This is how 'moderates' kill; they just don't get the headlines. Mother Teresa called abortion "the biggest threat to world peace". This is a moderate!

[edge100]

They don't get along, and extremists are NOT the problem; moderates are. Moderates create an environment where people cannot criticize religion; where religion is immune from all critique, no matter how illogical and plain stupid its tenets are. Yes, moderates don't typically fly planes into buildings or burn heretics, but they create a culture where the underlying problem isn't a viable topic of discussion.

Nonsense. I regularly debate religion with moderates of various faiths. I wouldn't try that with extremists! I count moderate Christians, Muslims and atheists among my best friends.

Good for you. Personal analogy aside, let's look at the major theocracy still in operation: the United States (my apologizes to Iran, the other major theocracy, but for whom most of what I'm about to say still holds true).

Can you get elected President of the United States if you believe the Earth is flat, or that the Sun revolves around the Earth? Nope. Can you get elected President of the United States without believing that Jesus was born of a virgin and ascended to heaven on the third day? Nope.

The fact is, a significant percentage of Americans believe that Jesus Christ will return to Earth in our lifetime. You cannot hold any real power in a country like that unless you are at least willing to protect those people from critique. If you can get together with some mates on a Saturday night and openly discuss religion, more power to you. You are unique, and that conversation is insignificant. We need institutional change; we need people like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins fighting to get more people doing the same, and getting powerful people doing the same.

Outside my personal life, various issues regarding the Muslim veil have been extensively discussed in the UK media. Moderates, on both sides of any arguments, discussed this openly.

Admittedly, this issue is less of a problem in other parts of the world, where religion isn't so taboo. But in a lot of places, it is.

[robbmasters]

He doesn't know; and in fact, my take on 'The God Delusion' is that Dawkins is fine with this. He is blunt, yes, but fair.

I haven't read it, to be honest. But my personal exposure to Dawkins has been that he allows no room for the possibility there may be a God (and his book isn't called "The God Improbability" or "The God That We Can't Prove The Existence Or Non Existence Of" - though admittedly neither of those are as catchy. )

millions of people die in Africa every year because religious 'moderates' tell them that condom use is a sin.

OK, that's a fair point. But I don't think that it demonstrates that moderates prevent discussion or criticism, just that they too can make some very bad decisions.

[edge100]

I haven't read it, to be honest. But my personal exposure to Dawkins has been that he allows no room for the possibility there may be a God (and his book isn't called "The God Improbability" or "The God That We Can't Prove The Existence Or Non Existence Of" - though admittedly neither of those are as catchy. )

He's blunt, that's for sure. I think the title is unfortunate, I'll give you that. I think it refers to those who suffer under the "delusion" of a personal god, which is his target. He does, at least in my reading, offer room for the existence of things beyond our comprehension, which you may choose to call 'god', if you like.

[sqook]

Dawkins should have stuck with writing science books, his views on this are as intolerant as the people he criticizes.

+1

Dawkins makes me feel ashamed to call myself an "athiest".

Except he's right; he's just not afraid to tell it like it is. We have developed this attitude that we must never offend, and we must always be tolerant; people who deny that the Earth is round are not taken seriously, but we make a special case for people who believe the Earth is six-thousand years old? The latter group is above critique? Give me a break.

Dawkins and Harris are what atheists should be; we simply cannot go on this way.

It's possible to be right and not be a dick at the same time...

I feel that religious people are very tolerant of my beliefs, so why should I be intolerant towards them? Simply because they are indirectly challenging my beliefs through their media relations? I welcome them to question my beliefs, though, and I certainly have no problem challenging theirs. The difference is, I won't go down mano-a-mano and belittle people on the street like Dawkins, as I think that does more to detract from the atheist "cause" than it does to help.

And I've posted in too many OT threads for the day, so I reckon it's time to have a beer or two and go offline.

[robbmasters]

Can you get elected President of the United States without believing that Jesus was born of a virgin and ascended to heaven on the third day?

I can't claim complete familiarity with US politics. But isn't there a credible Jewish candidate for the presidency? Clearly (s)he doesn't believe that!

But maybe Dawkins does have a useful role in opening the door to more rational debate...

[hambone1]

Religion? Who gives a fuck? I certainly don't. That's my opinion, and I have every right to my opinion, and the right to express it. Religion is simply a belief, an opinion, with no scientifically valid proof of a superior being. I don't know why everyone makes such a big deal about it. Can't we just all get along, and live life to the max?

I do, however, respect the right for individuals to have their own beliefs, as long as those individuals don't adversely affect the rights of others with their different beliefs and opinions.

And everyone's entitled to their opinion, and their freedom of speech. Words don't hurt. Retarded reactions do.

[edge100]

It's possible to be right and not be a dick at the same time...

I feel that religious people are very tolerant of my beliefs, so why should I be intolerant towards them? Simply because they are indirectly challenging my beliefs through their media relations? I welcome them to question my beliefs, though, and I certainly have no problem challenging theirs. The difference is, I won't go down mano-a-mano and belittle people on the street like Dawkins, as I think that does more to detract from the atheist "cause" than it does to help.

And I've posted in too many OT threads for the day, so I reckon it's time to have a beer or two and go offline.

Yes, it is possible to be both right and nice about it. The issue, I think, is that you've been so indoctrinated to think any legitimate criticism of religion is unwarranted, that you see it as "being a dick". What would you say if I told you that the Earth is flat, or that Internet doesn't exist, or any other blatently ridiculous statement? You would call me an idiot, and move on. Would you 'respect my views'? Yes, we are all entitled to our opinions, but we are not all entitled to be right. And if you want to debate opinions, you must be prepared to have your opinions openly challenged.

Questioning beliefs that have absolutely no basis in reality (and often contradict what is rationally known or deduced) is not "being a dick". It is providing honest criticism. Believers are free to do likewise, which they have, with generally laughable results.

[edge100]

Religion? Who gives a fuck? I certainly don't. That's my opinion, and I have every right to my opinion, and the right to express it. Religion is simply a belief. I don't know why everyone makes such a big deal about it. Can't we just all get along?

I do, however, respect the rights to others to have their own beliefs, as long as they don't adversely affect the rights of others.

And everyone's entitled to their opinion, and their freedom of speech. Words don't hurt. Retarded reactions do.

Yup, we're all entitled to our opinions. But when those opinions start influencing the lives of others (which religious belief clearly does), they MUST be made open for rational discussion. Religion is (generally) not.

You can claim the right to have an opinion, but unless you are willing to defend that opinion, you are clearly not interested in real progress; you are interested in dogma.

[andydes]

Dawkins has gone down that road to get people talking (and buying his book, no doubt). And it worked. Would anyone have noticed if he pussy footed around the issues trying not to tread on anyone's toes. I say fair play to the man, I couldn't have done it.

I watched the root of all evil, and while he came across as a little arrogant, he seemed like he was trying to engage his interviewees in a reasoned discussion. Withour much luck I might add.

By the way Atheism makes no attempt to tell you how to live your life. There are no moderates or extremists. Only quiet ones and loud ones.