Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
ali smack

Richard Dawkins and religion

54 posts in this topic

Why does Richard Dawkins dislike religion so much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dawkins sees more bad in religion then good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why does Richard Dawkins dislike religion so much?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Semantic argument is semantic argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you may think, erroneously.

You're quite full of yourself, aren't you?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you may think, erroneously.

My "why" in life is my family, whom i work hard for, love and protect and want to see them do the best in life.

Would you ever test your faith by reading Dawkins, The God Delusion? If not, why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

I find it somewhat funny and also a little sad that when people talk about Richard Dawkins they talk as if he only has one book,
The God Delusion.

The Selfish Gene

The Extended Phenotype

The Blind Watchmaker

River Out of Eden

Climbing Mount Improbable

Unweaving the Rainbow

A Devil's Chaplain

The Ancestor's Tale

The God Delusion

The Greatest Show on Earth

The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True

Out of 11 books, only 1 is about religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it somewhat funny and also a little sad that when people talk about Richard Dawkins they talk as if he only has one book,
The God Delusion.

The Selfish Gene

The Extended Phenotype

The Blind Watchmaker

River Out of Eden

Climbing Mount Improbable

Unweaving the Rainbow

A Devil's Chaplain

The Ancestor's Tale

The God Delusion

The Greatest Show on Earth

The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True

Out of 11 books, only 1 is about religion.

The blind watchmaker and climbing mount improbable are both referenced in the god delusion to make points against creationist arguments. I bet there are other books which he will reference in the last 100 pages that i haven't read yet.

Edit to add that some of those titles have biblical references in the titles as well

Edited by Professor Buzzkill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you may think, erroneously.

So you assume, and you know what they say about assume, don't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a perfectly healthy situation to not give a damn about religiosity in youth, it is really a matter that should only be attended to at later stages of life. Needless to say, the arrogance of youth insists they will know exactly what their attitude will be at any given age, no matter how many decades ahead that may be, and can forecast reliably that they won't be thinking any different than they do now ! But such conceits are forgiveable in the young, it is merely a reflection of how the human psyche has evolved over millions of years, to only move on to deeper matters when the more pressing concerns of becoming established in the world have been attended to. This truth is manifested in the commonplace 'resistance' among the young to the notion that there could be a kernel of deep truth in the religious traditions, a tendency that an old fraud like Dawkins is only too happy to cash in on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a perfectly healthy situation to not give a damn about religiosity in youth, it is really a matter that should only be attended to at later stages of life. Needless to say, the arrogance of youth insists they will know exactly what their attitude will be at any given age, no matter how many decades ahead that may be, and can forecast reliably that they won't be thinking any different than they do now ! But such conceits are forgiveable in the young, it is merely a reflection of how the human psyche has evolved over millions of years, to only move on to deeper matters when the more pressing concerns of becoming established in the world have been attended to. This truth is manifested in the commonplace 'resistance' among the young to the notion that there could be a kernel of deep truth in the religious traditions, a tendency that an old fraud like Dawkins is only too happy to cash in on.

So you may think, erroneously. ;D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The blind watchmaker and climbing mount improbable are both referenced in the god delusion to make points against creationist arguments. I bet there are other books which he will reference in the last 100 pages that i haven't read yet.

Edit to add that some of those titles have biblical references in the titles as well

Those books are about evolution not religion, he may briefly mention it but its not the purpose of the books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you may think, erroneously. ;D

It is amazing that millenia of wisdom literature of a distinctly religious flavour is superceded by the "wisdom" of twenty-somethings. So it has always been. The old joke about the young guy who noticed his parents getting smarter as he progressed through his twenties is apposite. Wise heads on young shoulders are a rare commodity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is amazing that millenia of wisdom literature of a distinctly religious flavour is superceded by the "wisdom" of twenty-somethings. So it has always been. The old joke about the young guy who noticed his parents getting smarter as he progressed through his twenties is apposite. Wise heads on young shoulders are a rare commodity.

I never said that the texts didn't have some wisdom in them. The 'treat your neighbor like yourself' is a great example, but holding to the belief that a god made himself into a man to die on the cross for the sins that his creations did when he gave them free will seems a bit over the top and silly to me. There's a modicum of wisdom in those books, it's much like a fairy tale, they have a moral lesson in them, but when you believe there's a evil witch living in a gingerbread house in the woods, you're taking it too seriously.

Edited by Hasina

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.