If Dawkins is "vitriolic" merely because he states his honest, well thought through ideas without pulling punches or pandering to existing powers, then the churches are well overdue a shake-up.
The fact that churches systematically protect child molesterers and lie about drugs and porn (thus making these problems much worse), removes all "rights" to push the truth.
Are religious folks not aware that all large crimminal organisations use charity to offset visible crimes, so the charity argument really doesn't wash?
It was obvious to me as a child that one could have "faith", or one could seek truth: Both can not exist in one brain without insanity. Thank God :-) my parents gave me a few years to think clearly! I was NOT rased as athiest: "make up your own mind" and "respect others" was all they had to say. It soon became clear that "make up your own mind" is the enemy of all faiths. I got sick of being attacked by the ignorant (Yes, they actively "ignore" truth!) and was so glad Dawkins had the courage to stand up and say what had to be said. To the religious folk who question the athiest "backlash", it is pent up frustration with kiddie fiddlers lecturing us about morality, sheer stupidity trying to overrule expertise (ID vs Science), etc.
It is clear that religion has purpose in a society with strong authority and little knowledge, such as ancient europe and modern trailer parks. It is also clear that we cannot allow the devolution of the intellect to have the power and confidence to destroy that it currently does.
If the athiests are getting scary, consider it self-defence from the next witch-hunt. Want to make your version of a 2000 year old legend look less ridiculous to the outsiders? Be nice to people (try listening to your own prophets!), don't try to use power to counter knowledge. Evil people use power to spite truth. Evil done in the name of religion is getting kind of common, so it is time the religious folk justified the special treatment that they expect.

Hi Bushbasher. I don’t think Dawkins’ rudeness is the end of the world either - just that it’s out of order and counterproductive. And hypocritical as he loves to accuse religious people of behaving badly. Still, I agree there are more important things to discuss.

My main objection is that empiricism is assumed, rather than established.

Generally speaking, the religious people I know are just as rational as the non-religious (agnostic etc) people I know. We start from a different premise – God existing – and proceed just as rationally as anyone else.

It’s that premise that we disagree about. I think the premise is only “irrational” if it is accepted that sense/evidence-based knowledge is the only legitimate form of knowledge. I don’t accept this limitation. I have no reason to believe in the flying spaghetti monster, so I see it as a flying red herring.

The alternative to empiricism is something broader, that includes empiricism. I call faith being open to everything that is true. It’s riskier than empiricism, but it gives one access to everything. And it gives one’s right hemisphere something to do.

Your point is so interesting that my position gets more difficult as it becomes more detailed and prescriptive. I have to give this some thought. For what it’s worth, I’m often at pains with other Christians to urge them to be less “certain”, ie less inclined to impose their specific notions/interpretations on others. I see it as the height of presumption for, say, a Christian to say they know God’s will for certain.

The Bible helps, despite its notorious trouble spots (which I see as challenges to the believer, not blockages to belief). Mind you, I take your point that actual collision with proved facts is fatal.

Hi Stickman. I understand the rage, but it doesn’t justify the vitriol – esp as the vitriol is so lucrative! The aggressive atheistic ideology I have in mind is communism. Not that they killed because they’re atheists: the point is, God was removed from the equation, and slaughter still occurred.

Pax,

Dear Stickman,

As an athiest, I have read Dawkins and was unimpressed. I have edited an academic journal and contributed to texts. He seems to write to the convinced and "indewells" [Polanyi] in the topic as having a prior conclusions, without citing sound argument. Relionists do ths too, citing scripture and indwelling in mass/religious services.

Two easy examples: Dawkins does explain how henothesis [doesn't evem use the word] becomes monothesism through evolution. Churches and even TV perpetuate the claim Pilate was a "Proconsul". He wasn't he was a "Prefect". There was no "Proconsul" in the Holy Lands area until the Jewish opposition to Roman occupation increased c. 60 CE.

A few errors suggest he his off his familiar topic: i.e, genetics. He would havebetter had chapter experts write an anthrology, and he act as the guiding editor. His now knowledge of history and theocracia seem very basic to me.

Again, one Liberace probably made more money than ten Rubensteins.

hi goodthief. you write "i have no reason to believe in the flying spaghetti monster". this seems to me to be the critical point: religious belief is still subject to rational critique. if you claim that your beliefs in a christian god are more reasonable than beliefs in flying spaghetti, then it's fair enough to ask you why. i'm not demanding you answer here in this forum, but the reasonableness of religious belief can never simply be a given.

Oliver mate; just quietly, for a bloke who claims to have "edited an academic journal," do you reckon you could maybe edit what you post here?!? It is jam packed with spelling errors and non-sequiturs.

What's an "indewell"? Who is Polanyi? Do you mean "a priori" conclusions? Or just "a prior conclusion?" What does "indwelling in mass/religious services" mean?

What do you mean he does explain the evolution of henotheism to monotheism? Did you mean he doesn't? What does the fact that churches and TV programs get Pilate's title incorrect have to do with Dawkins?

Seriously mate I am interested in what you have to say, but reading your posts is incredibly frustrating as I just can't follow them - edit them! I would love to know what you, as a fellow non-subscriber to religious belief (I am no longer calling myself "atheist" as I refuse to be defined in terms of someone else's delusion), think, but for the life of me your posts are too difficult! If you are going to throw stones at Dawkins for writing errors, you had best get your own house in order.

I mean the above in good faith as you appear to have something interesting to say, so please take the above in the spirit in which it was intended

HarryG

Thank you for your lovely compliment ...

“Someone who is not atheist must be someone who can suspend rational belief, and can come to conclusions based on a faith rather than a fact. Can we really have any confidence in a decision that that person might make?”

I completely agree. Your comment brings to mind Abrose Bierce’s definition of: “Pray, v. To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled on behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy.”

We have all witnessed the collective dottiness of people on their knees praying to a fence post on which an “apparition” of the Virgin Mary appears at a certain time of day (unless there is heavy cloud cover); also people praying to a salt-damp mark on a church wall. An added bonus - someone in the same town found an “apparition” of Princess Di on her front verandah. Thus, two “sightings” providing satisfaction to two different beliefs.

The question is - would such people be less dotty if they were atheists?

I know an atheist who believes in theories surrounding crop circles. As he is a member of a club; it appears these adherents are multiplying like rabbits. This person carries around tomes of “evidence” and is as passionate about converting people as any door-knocking Christians. Whenever I see him, I necessarily move into an ever increasing trot - I suspect this is the main form of exercise I do.

cont ...