It all makes sense when you realise that Atheism a la Dawkins is a religion.The search for truth, wisdom, what is, which many people like to call God, is one of humanity's truly civilising traits. Only when people stop searching, and claim to have uniquely discovered the truth, does it becomes a religion. Fundamentalists of any religion, be it Christian, Hindu, Buddhists or Atheist are the problem, not God.

Dawkins rails against religion, not God. He makes that clear every time he opens his mouth - he doesn't realise that he's preaching to a mirror.

God Bless - or should I say The Force Be With You.

Poirot,
I'm not convinced by reductionist materialism's or culturalism and am inclined to agree with Charles taylor (also apropos Kagan) that:

"High standards need strong sources, This is because there is something morally corrupting, even dangerous,in sustaining the demand simply on the feeling of undischarged obligation, on guilt or its obverse, self-satisfaction. Hypocrisy is not the only negative consequence. Morality as benevolence on demand breeds self-condemnation for those who fall short and a depreciation of the impulses to self-fulfilment, seen as so many obstacles raised by egoism to our meeting of the standard. Nietzsche has explored this with sufficient force to make embroidery otiose. And indeed, Nietzsche's challenge is based on a deep insight. If morality can only be powered negatively, where there can be no such thing as beneficence powered by an affirmation of the recipient as a being of value, then pity is destructive to the giver and degrading to the deceiver, and the ethic of benevolence may indeed be indefensible. Nietzsche's challenge is on the deepest level, because he is looking precisely for what can release such an affirmation of being. His unsettling conclusion is that it is the ethic of benevolence which stands in the way of it. Only if their is such a thing as agape, or one of the secular claimants to its succession, is Nietzsche wrong".

This passage also highlights for me the complementary philosophical poverty of Dawkins's rationalism and his glib dismissal of theology.
What are Dawkins's ethics and what are their source?

Excuse my Freudian slip (?) in my transcription of Taylor above; in the middle of the passage it should read "...then pity is destructive to the giver and degrading to the receiver [not "deceiver"], and the ethic of benevolence may indeed be indefensible.

Anamele,

It would do you a great service to learn what a religion actually is.

<<It all makes sense when you realise that Atheism a la Dawkins is a religion.>>

Let me help http://tinyurl.com/3quobyg

<<The search for truth, wisdom, what is, which many people like to call God...>>

Well that's one I haven't heard before. I've heard of God being love, energy and the universe, but not a search. The problem is, however, that we already have words for these, so why create confusion by calling them "God"?

<<Only when people stop searching, and claim to have uniquely discovered the truth, does it becomes a religion.>>

Hang on, but you just said that "Atheism a la Dawkins" is a religion!

Oh, I get it. Like all theists who claim that Dawkins invents his own theology to attack stawmen, you're not even familiar with much of what Dawkins argues, are you? (It's easier to just assume some sort of dogmatic certainty.) Because the stifling effect of religion on discovery and growth is precisely what Dawkins et al abhor the most. The convenient answers that religions provide to those who just want them now, the gaps in our knowledge that a God can prematurely and unjustifiably fill and the comfort it provides to those who find 'not knowing' an unconscionable position, leave so many believers content to sit and fester in their own ignorance while the rest of progress.

You did get one thing right at least...

<<Dawkins rails against religion, not God.>>

But of course. How could one possibly rail against something that doesn't exist? Or more imortantly, something they don't believe exists?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12760#220494

runner, correct, sorry for not getting back to you sooner.

http://www.downloadweb.org/search.php?acode=2d6cfcc00b464c7ee4408add5d864738&q=The%2520naked%2520communist have you read this book? in the process of destroying all the fallacious dross of communazi international socialism, atheism/materialism it also explains the moral beauty of christianity & "capitalism with a heart" as Australia had before 1972 with some of the best plain simple english & scripture. fantastic book, i cannot recommend it too highly.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-287163572862203022#docid=7924466177269730495 if you want a really good laugh check this out, these fools believe in "creation" BUT believe it is not god, rather "lady gaia", this new religion is very commonly adopted among RED/greens & feMANazis after professional atheists like Dawkins turn them away from christianity, i have even met people among these circles who have coverted to Sufi Islam & the false prophet mo-hammered.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12760#220611

Squeers, i fully understand your bipartisan approach but that is the problem, luciferian equivocation, good is bad, bad is good, etc, regardless of whether you call it god or "the force", you either turn to the dark side, the emperor, Dawkins, the devil OR you turn towards the light, yoda, jesus & god.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12760#220605

Poirot, your ignoring what i said, we live in a "dumbocracy", all of us have the right to be wrong, let's pretend for the sake of argument that Dawkins et al are correct, there is no god, why would you bother trying to convince me that my faith is wrong?

Christianity is not only, NOT hurting anybody , it is a force for good, the salvos, lifeline/uniting, spiritus/anglican & st vinnies/catholic do almost all of the charity/social work with addicts, the poor, etc, around here, NOT dawkins OR you.

Answer, simple, they are closet communazi, corporate paedophiles from the PC, Thought Police destroying moral christian family democracy, "so they can walk through the destruction creators", Marx.

If you say so, Formersnag.