Ableton Forum

Your opinions please... I agree with mr Dawkins

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWL1ZMH3-54

I think Dave Starkey got it right when he said...

"God didn't create man... Man created God."

Religion is a man-made construct.

i thought it was a very interesting, provocative and surprisingly contraversial read. I say surprisingly cos i didnt think an argument such as the one Dawkins puts forward would bother me, but it did, albeit on a very low level. One of the books key arguments concenrs (in the smallest of nutshells) why religion should get a 'get out of jail free' card re. politics, social decisions, respect levles amongst peers, etc, just because it's religion. Fair point. But such is my cultural indoctrination I involuntarily found myself wincing slightly at the suggestion, despite agreeing with it whole heartedly!

Anyway, you might find this thread interesting:

http://www.ableton.com/forum/viewtopic. ... 75&start=0

i have no respect for religion, NONE.

it's the only thing i have no respect for.

it's a very dangerous creation of man's mind, heapily abused by the smarter to inflict pain on millions, and as a mean to gain power.

if the astounding complexity of nature from micro organisation at molecular level, to complex patterns in ecology, even culture would be the result of some (stupid) god: that would be the biggest disapointment of my life.

of course i know that won't happen

so yeah i laugh at religious people, and no i do not pay them any respect if the matter should come at hand.

i will tell them in their face they are DUMB, if they give me reason to do so.

Picked it up a few weeks ago, still haven't had time to finish it...

I have to say, ( and I'm an atheist ), I really have never seen anybody confront Dawkins with the little problem of Stalin. Stalin killed millions and his religion was politics. Basically people will use anything to torture and kill each other, they will clan up in countless ways to separate themselves etc. I'm not at all against the idea of mankind eventually outgrowing religion, but I just don't see it happening any time soon. At this point in time, I just don't see mankind as emotionally evolved enough to abandon concepts like religion.

I'm not saying we shouldn't talk about it, but I'm not convinced that Dawkin's approach is helping anything. The very title of the book makes sure that a good portion of the people he supposedly wants to drop their superstitions etc. are going to be immediately turned off, and will only read it with a confrontational attitude in order to tear it apart. First rule of debating someone whom you hope to win to your side is to gently attack their opinions, if you walk up to somebody and tell them, "you're a fool for believing what you do!" then all you're doing IMO is showing off for your kin.
You simply can't convert anybody to your way of thinking when you open the debate by calling them delusional.

The main problem I see with Dawkins, and most every other proponent of atheism, is that he doesn't really understand that which he is criticizing, so his arguments are really only effective against people who don't understand why they believe what they believe. I think that's great, but it doesn't really constitute a serious attack on theological concepts. Atheists have been regurgitating the same arguments for quite awhile, and Dawkins is no exception, from what I've read/heard. If he wasn't so caught up in his hatred for it, he would stand a better chance of being convincing.

At least he seems to be really interested in the truth.

ethios4 wrote:The main problem I see with Dawkins, and most every other proponent of atheism, is that he doesn't really understand that which he is criticizing, so his arguments are really only effective against people who don't understand why they believe what they believe. I think that's great, but it doesn't really constitute a serious attack on theological concepts. Atheists have been regurgitating the same arguments for quite awhile, and Dawkins is no exception, from what I've read/heard. If he wasn't so caught up in his hatred for it, he would stand a better chance of being convincing.

At least he seems to be really interested in the truth.

You contradict yourself here, as a scientist and Oxford professor I would gather that he probably has a better understanding of the nature of truth than we do, simply because he's studied the concept of truth, and his job allows him the time to do so. Basically, you're saying he hasn't studied the bible? I seriously doubt you can argue that?
Now if you think the truth is found in religion, then we have a profound difference of opinion, and maybe I should clarify that. Religion by it's very nature has to be based on faith, we cannot apply the word truth to something that we cannot prove to be true. Every religion out there relies on a 'gut feeling' or faith. Call it whatever you want to, but you simply cannot prove there is a god, but in a way, the scales are balanced towards the possibility that there is no creator. Case in point, miracles on the scale of the bible simply do not happen now, and there is little evidence as to why that might be, only conjecture. There is plenty of evidence that the world is more than ten thousand years old, yet the bible says otherwise. I could go on, dinasours for instance....

I see absolutely no valid reason you could give for saying Dawkins doesn't understand what he is criticizing. This basic argument is simple really, an atheist doesn't believe that the universe has a creator or intelligence in the sense that we can give it a cohesive personality etc. and a religious person does.
What Dawkins argues against mainly is the religious stories that are told as truths, codes of behavior and stories with supernatural occurrences, biblical based reasoning for irrational behavior and so on. Regrettably he uses confrontational language that allows people the opportunity to be offended instead of really think about what they believe.
Though I think it's very short sighted to say that Dawkins doesn't understand religion. He probably has studied it more than you have. But this goes back to the faith concept, because Dawkins doesn't "know god he can't understand god", which leaves anybody who is an atheist thinking you're argument is a bit one sided isn't it?

ow the man knows his oponents all too well.

he read the bible multiple times

his book is full of citations too.

what was actually a bit of a surprise to me is that this book is intended to attack the 'bible' god, the personal god he calls it. the fairytale god in the bible...

like i said, were i grew up nobody believes in the biblical god... they will laugh at you. and thus many of ous laugh with rather 'fundamentalist' catholics and muslims.

BUT, have you seen the reaction when mocking some nonsense cartoons. in europe such a reaction is just alien. when immigrants suddenly protest in the streets about mohammed etc ... that's just . 'we' don't want to go 100 years back in time... so muslim hate etc even racism begins to pop up here and there...sometimes i can't blame the people because the motivations and arguments these people put forward are just 200 years behind.

what i'm waiting for is a book that attacks deism: 'there must be something that created it all' a book that attacks creationism etc...

so in america it seems they have not even reached that step yet. it's quite sad and disturbing.

living the big lie

BoimB son of BoB wrote:
so in america it seems they have not even reached that step yet. it's quite sad and disturbing.

of course i must correct myself. because i know there are a lot and i mean A LOT of atheist in america. but the picture that flies via the media too ous looks like america is turning into a rather radical almost fundamentalistic catholic front against a fundamentalistic islam front.

and it's not a pretty site.

The thing I have not heard Dawkins address is the question of morality (although I have not read his book).

I have heard him sidestep the question, saying "I know it doesn't come from the bible" (citing the horrors found in the Old Testament), but does he believe that morality comes from evolutionary processes?

If so, then whatever evolution predisposes me to think is right, must be right. If, because evolution 'tells' me to think its okay to sell crack to school children, or to rape someone, then that is perfectly acceptable from a moral point of view.

Dawkins strikes me as a moral person - but one who is entirely at a loss to say where that morality comes from. Until this question is addressed his arguments for atheism are of little value, it seems to me.

religion itself is not a problem, dogma is.
and dogma is something that is found in every aspect of human life, scientific in particular.
even Dawkins who did great scientific paradigma shift with his "Selfish gene" during seventies is influenced by his own genecentric dogma. today this dogma is being heavily challenged with epigenetic description of life.
Dawkins sometimes remindes me of Voltaire, who was the most hardcore atheist of his time until his dying moments when he invited the priest for the last rites.

so you think morality has anything to do with religion?

YES how earth shocking it must be for you that moral is a product of evolution too?

Dan dennett will be able to give you much more on that...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dennett


if morality questions are your only argument for religion then there's still hope

so do the Dawkinists believe that its wrong to have any kind of faith at all of a higher power, or is it just religion? Is it god altogether or just organised religion?

err didn't he just shoot that priest? or am i confusing it with another story.

and as being a biotechnologist i can tell you the 'selfish gene' is still spot on and undisputed.
epigenetics my friend does in no way clashes with the selfish gene.
it does complement to the complexity of cellular regulation and the way cells or whole organisms can transfer information from one generation to the other. or even more cool how Histons, protiens that are tightly bound with DNA possibly contain 'information' that add another layer of control about what parts of DNA get transcribed when and were etc etc.
epigenetics also describes physical or i should say mathematical rules that aid in the development (especially cell division patterns) from one cell to a whole organism which are actually NOT encoded explicitly in DNA itself

but that has nothing to do with the philosophy of the book itself.

although i do understand your point about dogma's.

but this discussion is about religion. the consequences of religion are mostly BAD. but that's not the point. it's about people devoting there lives to something that DOES NOT exist. granted they don't see it that way.

but it is sad in my eyes.