What's wrong with Richard Dawkins?

[Tallguy88]

I was in Books-a-Million today and while browsing, I happened upon Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion. I browsed through it, read a few excerpts, and put it back on the shelf. Now, I know that he is a militant atheist, as I've seen him on TV a few times. I also know that he opposed the Pope's visit to the UK back in 2010.

My question is, why is he so anti-religion? I mean, I can understand why he is an atheist, but why the hostility to those who have faith? I suppose the question can be asked about militant atheists in general, but he's the one who got me wondering about it.

 

[Elysium]

isnt it obvious from reading his ridiculous book?

he thinks theists are stupid, naive, immature little children. he has no respect for them because to him, they believe in a fairy tale, and he is a lofty scientist whose intellectual prowess far exceeds those sad little nuts

because he sees religion as an hilarious joke, he doesnt bother to address it seriously or philosophically
he says idiocy needs to be met with ridicule
so the god delusion is just a book full of drivel and ridicule without significant undercurrents of philosophical proof

 

[Tigger45]

He has to vent his vile bitterness somewhere, otherwise he would be forced to examine his own heart.

 

[Tallguy88]

isnt it obvious from reading his ridiculous book?

I haven't read the book, just saw it in the book store.

he thinks theists are stupid, naive, immature little children. he has no respect for them because to him, they believe in a fairy tale, and he is a lofty scientist whose intellectual prowess far exceeds those sad little nuts

because he sees religion as an hilarious joke, he doesnt bother to address it seriously or philosophically
he says idiocy needs to be met with ridicule
so the god delusion is just a book full of drivel and ridicule without significant undercurrents of philosophical proof

That's a very sad viewpoint if true.

 

[simonpeter]

Religion has done a great deal of harm to humanity over the years, and there is no getting around that. Intellectuals like Dawkins are simply trying to examine the reasons for such colossal failure of religion which, while professing to heal people, has consistently hurt them in inconceivable ways.

 

[Needing_Grace]

Religion has done a great deal of harm to humanity over the years, and there is no getting around that. Intellectuals like Dawkins are simply trying to examine the reasons for such colossal failure of religion which, while professing to heal people, has consistently hurt them in inconceivable ways.

This

 

[catholicbybirth]

Religion has done a great deal of harm to humanity over the years, and there is no getting around that. Intellectuals like Dawkins are simply trying to examine the reasons for such colossal failure of religion which, while professing to heal people, has consistently hurt them in inconceivable ways.

People hurt people. People are kind to people. Different philosophies, different religions, still people do all kinds of harm to other people.

Janice

 

[Brooklyn Knight]

Religion has done a great deal of harm to humanity over the years, and there is no getting around that. Intellectuals like Dawkins are simply trying to examine the reasons for such colossal failure of religion which, while professing to heal people, has consistently hurt them in inconceivable ways.

You front a cross icon; myself a Catholic cross.

That's enough for him (As well as other militant atheists) to assume that we lack basic intellect, lack rational thinking, and that we may be suffering from something psychological.

 

[TozerBGood]

IMO

Atheists and Spirit Filled Christians have one thing in common. They are both obsessed with Jesus.

Why? Because while Atheists say they believe in no God (regardless of religion) it is almost without fail, that when they bash any god, it is the Christian God. They are obsessed with Christ because they know they are going to go to hell if they die without repenting...not because Bhudda or Allah told them so...but because the Christian bible told them so.

Richard Dawkins doesn't focus his books against any faith besides the one that preaches Christ resurrected. It's an obsession which proves He doubts the validity of his own claimed belief in no God.

It is the doctrine of demons.

 

[Chrystal-J]

Coming from a family of (mostly) atheists, I can say that the atheists I know resent the "rules" they feel are put upon them by "religion". They want to be free to do as they please and answer to no-one. But, at the same time, there is a empty void in their lives that leaves them bitter and depressed. It's as if they feel that life itself has let them down (because they feel depressed). They need someone to blame for this bitterness and depression. So they blame "religion" because if the Church wasn't making them feel bad, then they would be fine. But, (in my opinion) their empty void of depression is coming from not having God in their lives. It's the lack of God in their lives that makes their lives feel meaningless. You're only gonna live a few years--so what's the point of anything? There is no eternal life, so just live out your days until you die. Then toss the ashes into the wind and it's all over. I see a lot of that kind of desperation with my relatives. But, when I try to introduce God to them, they automatically resent anyone telling them what to do. (Because that is how they see any form of religion.) So, I just pray for them now and I try to avoid the topic of religion.

 

[Tallguy88]

Religion has done a great deal of harm to humanity over the years, and there is no getting around that. Intellectuals like Dawkins are simply trying to examine the reasons for such colossal failure of religion which, while professing to heal people, has consistently hurt them in inconceivable ways.

I would venture that militantly atheistic regimes have killed at least as many people as religion over the centuries. Think about Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. They killed hundreds of millions of people, many of them just for being religious.

 

[simonpeter]

I would venture that militantly atheistic regimes have killed at least as many people as religion over the centuries. Think about Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. They killed hundreds of millions of people, many of them just for being religious.

Hitler was a Christian. So was Stalin who studied at the seminary. Besides, did atheists ever commit murder in the name of atheism? I don't think so. Religous ppl commit atrocities in the name of religion, though.

 

[Brooklyn Knight]

Hitler was a Christian. So was Stalin who studied at the seminary.

Hitler said he was inspired by his Christian (Catholic) upbringings...but that dwindled as the years went along; he even assumed the papacy meant nothing as he believed two popes were of Jewish blood.

Stalin did want to become a monk growing-up, but that fell to the wayside when he was inspired by Lenin, which brings up the other half of your post:

Besides, did atheists ever commit murder in the name of atheism? I don't think so. Religous ppl commit atrocities in the name of religion, though.

Lenin definitely comes to mind as he found religion to be a threat, something carried on by his protege, Stalin.

You also have the French Revolution which tried to do away with the religion (True story: The French tried to replace Mary with Lady Liberty). You also have Calles in Mexico who was anti-clerical.

Also, it's true: a lot of things were said and done under the religion banner. However, saying it was done for religion - in some cases - was not the true motive for doing certain things.

 

[simonpeter]

Let's say a religion says, 'kill unbelievers.' A person following that religion kills unbelievers. In this case, this person's actions are motivated by religion. Let's say an atheist kills ppl. Atheism is simply a lack of belief, it doesn't specify any actions that an atheist must resort to. Hence blaming atheism for an atheist's actions is silly.

 

[Tallguy88]

Hitler was a Christian. So was Stalin who studied at the seminary.

To my knowledge, Hitler never showed any interest in religion after his youth. Just because he never officially renounced Catholicism, doesn't negate the fact that the Nazi state was basically anti-religious.

Also, just because Stalin was forced to go to seminary by his mother, doesn't make him a Christian. Especially considering that thousands of Orthodox (and Catholic) priests, bishops, monks, nuns, and laity were martyred for their faith under his leadership.

Besides, did atheists ever commit murder in the name of atheism?

As someone else pointed out, the French Revolution was very anti religious/pro-athiest.

Also, look at the total repression of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Soviets. Between 1927 and 1940 the number of churches in Russia declined from 29,584 to less than 500. In this same time period, more than 95,000 priests were executed.(source, Wikipedia)

Even if not explicitly committed in the name of atheism, the causal relationship should be evident.

 

[Brooklyn Knight]

Let's say a religion says, 'kill unbelievers.' A person following that religion kills unbelievers. In this case, this person's actions are motivated by religion. Let's say an atheist kills ppl. Atheism is simply a lack of belief, it doesn't specify any actions that an atheist must resort to. Hence blaming atheism for an atheist's actions is silly.

I'll give you one example: Germany vs. Poland during the Middle Ages. Both used their religion as a basis for invading one another.

Just one problem: both were Roman Catholic.

Those little spats get lumped under religious squabbles. However, the real ulterior motive?

Land, something really fought over during that time by a plethora of kingdoms.

Sure, these men, regimes, tyrants, what have you, didn't wipe out people of faith in the name of atheism...but - let's be real - what was their prime motivation?

 

[simonpeter]

Moreover, religious people are the ones who wax eloquent about the morality, goodness, and purity of their religion. Hence, if bad things happen in the name of religion, ppl are going to accuse them of hypocrisy, of not practicing what they preach. Atheists have no such obligations, they aren't going around playing moral cop condemning people. So their 'sins' are easily forgiven and forgotten.

 

[Brooklyn Knight]

Moreover, religious people are the ones who wax eloquent about the morality, goodness, and purity of their religion. Hence, if bad things happen in the name of religion, ppl are going to accuse them of hypocrisy, of not practicing what they preach.

Of course.

Atheists have no such obligations, they aren't going around playing moral cop condemning people. So their 'sins' are easily forgiven and forgotten.

They aren't condemning people? Again, take a close look at some of these militant atheists, head on over to YouTube, Reddit, or some militant athiest blog.

Like my first post in this thread, you and I are seen by some as delusional and stupid.

Also, are you implying that atheists have a blank check to do whatever?

 

[simonpeter]

I'll give you one example: Germany vs. Poland during the Middle Ages. Both used their religion as a basis for invading one another.

Just one problem: both were Roman Catholic.

Those little spats get lumped under religious squabbles. However, the real ulterior motive?

Land, something really fought over during that time by a plethora of kingdoms.

Sure, these men, regimes, tyrants, what have you, didn't wipe out people of faith in the name of atheism...but - let's be real - what was their prime motivation?

In other words, you're saying that self-proclaimed Christians waged war for land, thus exposing themselves as greedy, ruthless. What would an atheist think of this, then? That Christians are worse than the worldly ppl they accuse all the while claiming moral superiority?

 

[OliverC]

isnt it obvious from reading his ridiculous book?

he thinks theists are stupid, naive, immature little children. he has no respect for them because to him, they believe in a fairy tale, and he is a lofty scientist whose intellectual prowess far exceeds those sad little nuts

because he sees religion as an hilarious joke, he doesnt bother to address it seriously or philosophically
he says idiocy needs to be met with ridicule
so the god delusion is just a book full of drivel and ridicule without significant undercurrents of philosophical proof

Well said Elysium, I agree.

He hasn't done a proper investigation. I watched him talk on TV and he attacked peoples' belief. Belief is always subject to change and is individual, so it is like attacking people for not liking the taste of vegetables. It is a futile almost media style debate for the sake of debate. He gains publicity and makes a living.