Examinator,

I realise you are “decidedly secular” in your personal views, which makes your zealous willingness to misinterpret and misrepresent Dawkins all the more puzzling.

<<If it wasn't religion, it would be some other substitute, spiritualism etc.>>

Yes, but no other substitute, spiritualism etc seems to incite people to do insane things quite the way religion can. Nobody kills on the name of Zodiac or any other sort of mumbo jumbo, so religion is rightly singled out.

<<Not everyone in the world has the capacity to survive without it.>>

And not everyone in the world has the capacity to survive with it either.

Whether it be the horrific conditions of the Middle-Eastern countries run by religious dictatorships, or people who commit suicide because their entire families ostracize them for their sexuality or what have you.

The only reason some need religion to survive, is because religion exists in the first place.

Religion spreads like a virus.

It starts by tearing a person down - telling them that they’re an unworthy wretch (like that dreadful and emotionally abusive song, “Amazing Grace”) - then it builds them back up again, but with itself at the center of what makes the person feel good; creating a dependence.

So what’s the harm in someone believing if it makes them happy?

If I walk around believing that I’ve won the lottery, that might make me feel really good inside, but if I were to start living as such and spend-up big, when in fact I hadn’t won the lottery, then that’s going to have negative effects.

<<I have dealt with enough murderers to know that the gun was the means not the cause.>>

A gun is an inanimate object - a tool. Religion is mindset - a mindset that has shown to have the potential to use such tools in dangerous ways.

<<You are very wrong about my knowledge of Dawkins I have most of his books and in Biology he's brilliant.>>

Then why did you misrepresent his position? You’ve done it again in your post to TBC...

Continued...

...Continued

<<Dawkins and ilk assume that if you're Christian one MUST see Christianity/religion in extreme fundamentalist perspective therefore you need re-education to his views.>>

Sounds like you’ve read all his books except the one where he discusses the very topic you’re attacking him on.

Can you point me to where Dawkins has said anything of the sort?

<<However as someone who understands the human condition he sucks. He epitomizes the difference between hard science and the humanities. A variation on a theme of nature V nurture.>>

Dawkins’ primary focus is reason and rational thinking. What do you want him to do? Ask everyone to hold hands in a big heart shape and sing Coombaya?

If you’re implying that Dawkins has no spiritual side to him then, again, you haven’t really read or seen much of him that’s relevant to this topic.

From what I know, Dawkins gets his “spirituality” (for lack of a better word) from the shear amazement that we are actually here to begin with:

“We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place, but who will in fact never see the light of day out-number the sand grains of Sahara.” (Prof. Richard Dawkins, US Berkley, March 2008)

Similar to Carl Sagans “Pale blue dot” speech. Both of which I think are infinitely more meaningful than the shallow Bronze-Age myths of ignorant sheep herders.

For starters, the Sagan/Dawkins view acknowledges just how unbelievably lucky we are to be here, unlike the Abrahamic-religious view that we were always going to exist as a part of a mystical being’s grand plan.

The fact that our time is so temporary makes each and every moment infinitely more valuable when compared to the Theistic view that we will live on for an eternity.

So please tell me how you think Dawkins wants to stamp out the “Human element”, and why we need religion to retain it?

AJP... where you write to Examinator thus: "So please tell me how you think Dawkins wants to stamp out the “Human element”, and why we need religion to retain it?", perhaps Examinator is referring to the stamping out of the human element that IS religion...that is... perhaps Examinator really does understand that religion is entirely a human construction, and that to expose that would be to destroy it.

The Q&A religious observers started to act very threatened when Dawkins reiterated a basic fact from Paul, and they all accused him of not being 'tolerant of their views'... the gold standard response when faced with something that cannot be explained.

A very moody moment, and Dawkins looked a bit like when that ape Ted Haggard was giving him a talking-to in the car park, as his Adams apple (does Dawkins have one, or would it be called a Nigel Apple?) before the entire world learned that he was just yet another liar and sinning (rich) clergyman with absolutely nothing of value to offer anyone, least of all his 'fambly'...thank and praise the Lord he is now cured and living a wholesome life delivering Gideons to Salt Lake motels... but very soon to become a Morals Advisor to Sarah Palin.

You could be right TBC. Examinator was using many different ways to say what I interpreted to be “spirituality”, so I guess I just assumed that’s what he meant by “Human element”.

Funny you should mention the Q&A episode though. I just finished watching it on YouTube.

I was absolutely disgusted with the way Dawkins was treated when he reiterated that basic bit from Paul. They were straight on the defensive and throwing accusations.

What annoyed me too was when Tony Kevin played Christian’s advocate by saying, “Is that [the crucifixion] not a story of sacrifice?”

Well... no, it’s not.

If I had the choice of being tortured, crucified, suffering Hell for three days, then rising and getting to be God for an eternity, I’m gonna choose that.

Hardly a sacrifice.

Soldiers have died for our freedom and will never return. Now THAT'S a sacrifice!

But it was shocking to be reminded of what our politicians - people who are supposed to be running the country - actually believe.

They may as well have sat there and said they believed in the Tooth Fairy and I would have been just as shocked.

Where Burke and Bishop get the idea that their fantastical beliefs should have any special consideration, exemption from criticism is beyond me.

I guess - like Dawkins said earlier in the program - it comes down to that fact that so many believe it.

Ideed AJP, indeed squilions do.

I'm wading through Dawkins new book, which is readable but very longwinded at times. But it is a shock to see the 'beliefs' we are supposed to be 'tolerant' of, none of which have anything at all to do with living in a decent environment-social as well as actual.

I see, pp.429-437, the USA is almost on a par with Turkey in its belief that evolution is false, 27%. Turkey also has 42% of people who believe people and dinosaurs cohabited the world... and so on.

The Pew Surveys never cover Australia, and I can find no hint of 'us' in the book so far, as far as what we have to 'be tolerant of', but I suspect the pollies from Canberra might extend to one hand of fingers, including the thumb, of people ready and willing to say they are not even what examinator calls 'significant event' Christians, but real live non-believers.

Funny how very selective these people are on what then constitutes a 'conscience vote' isn't it? There they all are, heads bowed at prayers, still mumbling God save the queen, probably,and then passing legislation, or denying it, without a hint of 'conscience' on display anywhere, until... suddenly 'the poofs' want to get married, and they all spring into action, froth at the mouth, and smite those pink trousered *uggers hopes down as fast as possible, with not a skerrick of tolerance, or conscience, to be seen.

Jesus loves, indeed he does.

Then, back to getting pissed and an affair with the office typist, taking her out on the travel allowance/printing allowamce but always leaving time to purge their sins on Sunday in Mass or where ever they go to recover and redeem themselves, ready for the next bout of sinning.

I see from Foxy's ACL election question link, that the ALP was as keen as the Coalition to keep mumbling prayers. Only the Dems, Greens and Secular Party say no to this fairytale madness..oh dear, how intolerant of me!

Oh for a Qld optional first-past-the-post system in the Fed election.

>>without the passive support of the moderates, the real loonies would either be gone or wouldn’t have the power-base to influence politics<<
Yes, this is what I also thought about the “moderate” intellectual (Marxist) lefties in the West during the reign of the Communist “loonies” in Eastern Europe where I lived in the fifties and sixties. However, soon after arriving in Australia I realised that the solution was not to eliminate the political left (or right) as such but to encourage the moderates on both sides, since only they can peacefully coexist (in theory as well as in practice) while agreeing to disagree.

Does this not hold also for debates (or even politics) concerning religion? Moderates (like e.g. Foxy and examinator on this thread), rather than the “loonies” on both sides of the divide, will tolerate and respect each other, thus contributing to a peaceful coexistence of holders of different world-views. Therefore it should be in our interest - whatever our own world-view - to encourage these moderates on both sides; and not to further motivate the “loonies” by putting up what is actually just a mirror image of their own fanaticism and intolerance towards other world-views and life styles.

I cannot see any other realistic way out of the quandary of conflicting world-views, religious or not, characterising our century.