49 replies to this topic

[ali smack]

Why does Richard Dawkins dislike religion so much?

[Ryu]

Mostly because people use religion as a shield to hide their ignorance behind.
Religion had its superficial uses when people were largely ignorant and felt that monsters, demons and gods caused all of the worlds problems but now that we have various tools at our disposal and we understand our world without resorting to fantasy to explain that which we don't understand.

But therein lies the problem, thinking can be hard work so it is easier for many to just say "god did it" and then go about their day watching Wheel of Fortune and football.
Quite frankly many people like to feel that there is some sky monster in control of everything that is ready to kill you for the mere act of thinking for yourself and asking questions that challenge the religious status quo.

[Mr. Smith]

Religion is mind control. Mind control is evil. Its used by the highest powers that be to get their way. They are so intoxicated with power, power 1000 X's more addicting than the most pure heroin, that they believe they are the only real gods.

[Hasina]

Dawkins sees more bad in religion then good.

[Golly Buster]

ali smack, on 14 October 2012 - 05:59 PM, said:

Why does Richard Dawkins dislike religion so much?

He's figured out that it sells books. It's sorta become his 'thing' now.

[Habitat]

Golly Buster, on 14 October 2012 - 10:19 PM, said:

He's figured out that it sells books. It's sorta become his 'thing' now.

This is at least partly the reason he bangs on about it. There is a substantial sector of the population that resents being pushed into religious settings, they are typically young, and not unreasonably, are more interested in life before death, than life after death ! People will come to religion when they are good and ready, like an animal will drink when it is thirsty, not because someone tells them to "hydrate" because it is good for them. These people are attracted to anti-religionist propaganda, but only if they still feel "pressure" from others to participate in organized religion. Otherwise they couldn't care less what some "authority" like Dawkins has to say about religious belief.

Edited by Habitat, 14 October 2012 - 10:56 PM.

[Hasina]

Please, religion is by no means something someone comes to when they're 'good and ready', they come to it when they feel like they're missing something. Not a bad thing, but it's not something everyone needs or even wants.

Edited by Hasina, 14 October 2012 - 11:03 PM.

[Habitat]

Hasina, on 14 October 2012 - 11:02 PM, said:

Please, religion is by no means something someone comes to when they're 'good and ready', they come to it when they feel like they're missing something. Not a bad thing, but it's not something everyone needs or even wants.

Feeling the need for, or the lack of religion is being "good and ready" for it in my lexicon, if not yours.

(From "The Free Dictionary"

when one is good and ready
"when one is completely ready. I'll be there when I'm good and ready. Ann will finish the job when she's good and ready and not a minute sooner."

[Hasina]

Semantic argument is semantic argument.

[Habitat]

Hasina says:  "they (Wildebeest) only come to it ( the waterhole) when they feel like they're missing something( a nice long drink of water) !  "

I say: " Wildebeest will come to the waterhole when they are good and ready, and like any animal, will  only drink when it is thirsty"

Seems to me you are just agreeing with me ! If you want a silly argument, I am not playing !

[Hasina]

You're comparing a bodily need to a 'need' that is only existent in some people. Everyone dies if they don't drink water, everyone lives if they have religion or not.

[Habitat]

Religion is inextricably bound up with the need for meaning in life. Everyone needs a "why", there are no exceptions to that rule, just the same as we all need water, it becomes a matter of how with more experience in life people find it more difficult to see meaning in trivialities and ephemeralities, and reach for the eternal. This is a natural progression that is not inevitable, some people fuss over petty concerns all their lives.

[Hasina]

Once again, you die if you don't drink water, you don't die if you don't have a meaning to life. I personally don't need a 'why' in life, I'm alive and that's good enough for me, I find enjoyment in everything. And your own comparison of needing water and needing religion falls flat in your own post when you said 'This is a natural progression that is not inevitable', you have to drink water, you by no means need a meaning in life, or a purpose, or anything in life but to live. Enjoyment, pain, etc are all concepts humans have, the majority of animals just live, pass on their genes, then die. Humans are animals, we just have complex emotions because of our social tendencies and our intelligence.

[Professor Buzzkill]

I find the Dawkin's book that i am currently reading (the god delusion) very interesting, being a firm Deist myself. However, most of his (very sound) arguments are directed towards a "religious" god, not a Deist god. The main argument against using god as an answer to any question is that the answer is more complicated than the question, which i agree with entirely.

However, when he gets to the key points where god may be hiding (i.e, the origin of life and the start of the universe) he has no answers. In this case i believe that a deist god is a much more satisfactory answer then the non-answers he provides (i.e that complex proteins "evolved" without being alive, or an infinitely regressing universe).

I recommend the book to anyone who is religious as a "test of faith" as it comprehensively shows a religious/personal god to be a superstition.

Edited by Professor Buzzkill, 15 October 2012 - 12:51 AM.

[Habitat]

Hasina, on 15 October 2012 - 12:26 AM, said:

you don't die if you don't have a meaning to life. I personally don't need a 'why' in life,

So you may think, erroneously.