Richard Dawkins and Christianity

[Clockwork_Spirit 1,619]

Quote

Atheist Richard Dawkins Warns Against Celebrating Demise of 'Relatively Benign' Christianity in Europe

Atheist author and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins has warned against celebrating the demise of Christianity, calling it a "relatively benign" faith compared to others, amid reports the religion is "dying" in Europe.

"Before we rejoice at the death throes of the relatively benign Christian religion, let's not forget Hilaire Belloc's menacing rhyme: 'Always keep a-hold of nurse For fear of finding something worse,'" The God Delusion author tweeted to his 2.74 million followers earlier this week.

Source

 

Seems like Dawkins doesn't mind too much the religion of love, after all.

Edited March 23 by Clockwork_Spirit

[Not A Rockstar 2,338]

Nature abhors a vacuum. Atheists sometimes believe it is obvious that if there is no faith left everyone will just be faithless. 

They will make up something. The slew of weird beliefs out there are bewildering and if there is nothing else, seekers will shop there.

[DieChecker 18,175]

That is interesting. I hope to see more such come from Dawkins. He's held up here at UM by so many and enshrined by them as flawless, that I wonder if they will turn on him?

I've "preached" this a long time. What religion would people rather have here on Earth? A religion that is supposed to love thy neighbor, or one that take the neighbor and required forced conversion, death, or enslavement? Christianity is a religion that is supposed to  be about Love, Hope, Peace. Taught correctly that would be better even then atheism.

[ChrLzs 12,762]

12 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

That is interesting. I hope to see more such come from Dawkins. He's held up here at UM by so many and enshrined by them as flawless, that I wonder if they will turn on him?

Sorry?  Who thinks he is flawless?  This sounds rather like a UFO=Alienz person saying that us skeptics deny aliens exist anywhere in the Universe.  None of us think that, afaics.  Dawkins is interesting, and I probably agree with much of what he says, but I don't like the way he presents it..

12 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I've "preached" this a long time. What religion would people rather have here on Earth? A religion that is supposed to love thy neighbor

and/or stone them etc in certain circumstances...

12 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

 or one that take the neighbor and required forced conversion, death, or enslavement?  Christianity is a religion that is supposed to  be about Love, Hope, Peace. Taught correctly that would be better even then atheism.

Probably would have been best if you explained which religion/s it was that required forced conversion, death etc.  Because those 3 sentences read in sequence reads as if us atheists are those doing the 'requiring'...  I'm guessing that's not quite what you were implying..

Me, I think my ATHEIST version / message of Love, Hope and Peace is much stronger/fairer than that from Christianity as it has no provisos...(I guess we could cross out large parts of the bible as "no longer applies"... )

Ah well, one day we may grow out of all of this..

[psyche101 23,093]

Richard Dawkins has always said he values the bible as a literary work and that he admires the ceremonial traditions of the church. He has gone so far as to describe himself as a 'secular Christian'. He enjoys holidays like Christmas as a celebratory social event. He does not however entertain religious doctrine as valid. 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/hay-festival/10853648/Richard-Dawkins-I-am-a-secular-Christian.html

You just never understood this quote did you

This is Dawkins speaking on religion and what he thinks of it. 

 

 

[DieChecker 18,175]

37 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Sorry?  Who thinks he is flawless?  This sounds rather like a UFO=Alienz person saying that us skeptics deny aliens exist anywhere in the Universe.  None of us think that, afaics.  Dawkins is interesting, and I probably agree with much of what he says, but I don't like the way he presents it..

That was a bit of theater, but many do hold him up as their champion. Who with (flawless?) logic tears down the institution of religion. He is considered by many to put forward one of the best arguments. And if it is the best argument, then it is the one with the least flaws? Yes?

Quote

and/or stone them etc in certain circumstances...

True. Though there is the famous scene with Jesus and "he who is without sin throw the first stone", right? I did say, "Taught correctly that would be better even then atheism.". Can you argue with that? The only argument I've heard that really holds weight is concerning extreme teachings regarding "sexual immorality". Oh, and possibly the ignoring of slavery....

Atheism doesn't teach anything. Not hope, not love, not peace. Only that there is no higher power.

Quote

Probably would have been best if you explained which religion/s it was that required forced conversion, death etc.  Because those 3 sentences read in sequence reads as if us atheists are those doing the 'requiring'...  I'm guessing that's not quite what you were implying..

I thought it more politic not to name specific religions and their specific negative practices. After all, we do have a wide variety of religions represented here on UM. 

I wasn't even thinking of atheists in those sentences, but as to what the other religion choices are. All religions have violence in their history, which I think is a human issue. Comparing not history, but teachings, I think is what should be considered in this point of discussion. 

Quote

Me, I think my ATHEIST version / message of Love, Hope and Peace is much stronger/fairer than that from Christianity as it has no provisos...(I guess we could cross out large parts of the bible as "no longer applies"... )

Ah well, one day we may grow out of all of this..

The problem with each individual having their own version of Peace/Love/Hope is that each individual varies. Having a religion standardizes such things. Having an organization that promotes something is always going to be more socially effective then each individual doing it on their own.

I do agree that religion is not necessary for the individual, however I believe that society as a whole does benefit still to a large degree from it. From Christianity in particular. 

Edited March 23 by DieChecker

[Clockwork_Spirit 1,619]

27 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

 He does not however entertain religious doctrine as valid. 

 

That is not in question. However, in saying that christianity is ''relatively benign'' he admits that religion can evolve and transform over time. It's about how it was interpreted. If christianity can be a positive force in modern-day society, that just shows that it's core message is still relevant.

Edited March 23 by Clockwork_Spirit

[XenoFish 54,438]

All this stuff bores me to no end. Religion will never die, atheism will never die, unless the whole of humanity dies. All we do is go round and round with these discussions. There are some good Christians and Atheist. Then there are fundamentist on both sides, as well as fanatics. It's human nature. The only thing that is important (subjectively) as we remember our humanity.

 

[simplybill 2,943]

Judeo/Christian ideology is a major component of the foundation of Western Civilization. Weakening the foundation will have consequences, though the consequences will only become clear in hindsight. The “something worse” Mr. Dawkins is referring to may be unprecedented in world history. I guess we’ll soon see.

[Podo 6,345]

I don't know that I could bring myself not to cheer the demise of Christianity. Just because something worse might happen isn't a reason to keep something bad hanging around. The end of Abrahamic theology would be one of the greatest wins for humanity.

[psyche101 23,093]

16 hours ago, DieChecker said:

That is interesting. I hope to see more such come from Dawkins. He's held up here at UM by so many and enshrined by them as flawless, that I wonder if they will turn on him?

His views have never changed, the headline is just cherry picked exaggeration worded to grab attention. 

16 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I've "preached" this a long time. What religion would people rather have here on Earth? A religion that is supposed to love thy neighbor, or one that take the neighbor and required forced conversion, death, or enslavement? Christianity is a religion that is supposed to  be about Love, Hope, Peace. Taught correctly that would be better even then atheism.

He's outright referring to radical Islam, and a bit of a fear of all Islam turning this into a holy war. Its more a 'choice'  thing than a resolution. A hypothetical, if anything and shows a weakness in that the terrorists have got the better of him. 

And I disagree. It's not a better way. I don't see how man would not be better adopting such values without having to make somthing up to give that credit to. 

[psyche101 23,093]

12 hours ago, simplybill said:

Judeo/Christian ideology is a major component of the foundation of Western Civilization. Weakening the foundation will have consequences, though the consequences will only become clear in hindsight. The “something worse” Mr. Dawkins is referring to may be unprecedented in world history. I guess we’ll soon see.

Like I say, he is directly referring to Islam, and I'm not sure it's in a good way. I find his wisdom immeasurable, his knowledge more than extensive and a lovely character. 

But I can't support this 

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/874985197976125440?lang=en

[psyche101 23,093]

15 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

That is not in question. However, in saying that christianity is ''relatively benign'' he admits that religion can evolve and transform over time. It's about how it was interpreted. If christianity can be a positive force in modern-day society, that just shows that it's core message is still relevant.

No, you didn't watch the TED talk I left you did you? 

[psyche101 23,093]

13 hours ago, XenoFish said:

All this stuff bores me to no end. Religion will never die, atheism will never die, unless the whole of humanity dies. All we do is go round and round with these discussions. There are some good Christians and Atheist. Then there are fundamentist on both sides, as well as fanatics. It's human nature. The only thing that is important (subjectively) as we remember our humanity.

 

However, the Greek Gods went, the Romans God's went, they had to give up in the light of knowledge, considering advances in knowledge, how long can this charade be held up? I can't see religion still being around in a century. 

[XenoFish 54,438]

25 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

However, the Greek Gods went, the Romans God's went, they had to give up in the light of knowledge, considering advances in knowledge, how long can this charade be held up? I can't see religion still being around in a century. 

Old God's die. New ones are born. Perhaps only as metaphors, but still. People tend to need something to anchor their hope onto. Its as if they are afraid to believe in themselves.....

[psyche101 23,093]

8 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Old God's die. New ones are born. Perhaps only as metaphors, but still. People tend to need something to anchor their hope onto. Its as if they are afraid to believe in themselves.....

Shame that. 

[MysticWolf 2,161]

1 hour ago, Podo said:

I don't know that I could bring myself not to cheer the demise of Christianity. Just because something worse might happen isn't a reason to keep something bad hanging around. The end of Abrahamic theology would be one of the greatest wins for humanity.

Including the Satanic/Luciferian schisms.

[khol 1,819]

14 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

New ones are born

I dont know...not anymore. 2000yrs ago yeah. Developments in science are pushing the boundries of our knowledge. Creating new gods to replace old ones are a thing of the past

[Piney 11,056]

13 hours ago, simplybill said:

Judeo/Christian ideology is a major component of the foundation of Western Civilization.

Yeah, Athanasius did a good job of burning all the books he could get his hands on and helping to create the Dark Ages.....

[Piney 11,056]

18 hours ago, Not A Rockstar said:

Nature abhors a vacuum. Atheists sometimes believe it is obvious that if there is no faith left everyone will just be faithless. 

They will make up something. The slew of weird beliefs out there are bewildering and if there is nothing else, seekers will shop there.

We have learned that from our respective traditions...

[simplybill 2,943]

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

Like I say, he is directly referring to Islam,

I personally wouldn’t disagree with the opinion that ‘Christianity-as-Theocracy’ has a bad history, though I do disagree that mere Christianity (as taught by Jesus Christ) is in any way harmful. Christianity is ‘benign’ in the sense of being ‘salt’ as a ‘preservative’ for society rather than the main ingredient. Your opinion may vary.

The situation today is the rise of an aggressive Theocratic Islam that isn’t recognized as a Theocracy, but is instead considered a mere religion, and its followers invited into secular societies that are unrealistically expecting a non-aggressive assimilation into the host countries. Modern-day Christians now understand the folly of Theocracy, whereas many modern-day followers of Islam see Theocracy as a duty. I believe that is the ‘something worse’ that Mr. Dawkins is warning us about.

 

[Illyrius 4,487]

23 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

Seems like Dawkins doesn't mind too much the religion of love, after all.

Well the demise of morals and sanity follows nicely the rise of atheism and demise of religion. Nothing new under the sun in historical terms. The civilization is dying and Dawkins is singing like the Nero was singing watching the Rome burning.

[Clockwork_Spirit 1,619]

4 hours ago, simplybill said:

I personally wouldn’t disagree with the opinion that ‘Christianity-as-Theocracy’ has a bad history, though I do disagree that mere Christianity (as taught by Jesus Christ) is in any way harmful. Christianity is ‘benign’ in the sense of being ‘salt’ as a ‘preservative’ for society rather than the main ingredient. Your opinion may vary.

 

 

I will go even further: Christianity - at it's core - is the very foundation of Western society.

Edited March 24 by Clockwork_Spirit

[DieChecker 18,175]

8 hours ago, psyche101 said:

His views have never changed, the headline is just cherry picked exaggeration worded to grab attention. 

That's too bad. Here I was thinking he was getting lenient and tolerant as he ages.

Quote

He's outright referring to radical Islam, and a bit of a fear of all Islam turning this into a holy war. Its more a 'choice'  thing than a resolution. A hypothetical, if anything and shows a weakness in that the terrorists have got the better of him. 

And I disagree. It's not a better way. I don't see how man would not be better adopting such values without having to make somthing up to give that credit to. 

I didn't want to assume Islam, though I agree to a point that Islam is a danger in the world.

A choice, as in one ignorant, but relatively tolerant, religion (Christianity), or one that is ignorant and also intolerant? 

7 hours ago, khol said:

I dont know...not anymore. 2000yrs ago yeah. Developments in science are pushing the boundries of our knowledge. Creating new gods to replace old ones are a thing of the past

I don't know, to hear some people talk about Tesla, or even some modern inventors/celebrities, you'd think they are the New Gods. The name Kardashian comes to mind. President Obama was another, who was practically worshiped by masses of people. Give it 50 to 100 years and you could see religion based on the "teachings" of some of these people. All it takes is a philosophy and a figurehead.

Edited March 24 by DieChecker

[Illyrius 4,487]

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

I don't know, to hear some people talk about Tesla, or even some modern inventors/celebrities, you'd think they are the New Gods. The name Kardashian comes to mind. President Obama was another, who was practically worshiped by masses of people. Give it 50 to 100 years and you could see religion based on the "teachings" of some of these people. All it takes is a philosophy and a figurehead.

Yeah, celebrities including politicians are new gods and godessess. We have gods of political correctness, gods of sillyness, gods of irresponsibility, godessess of feminism and "sexiness", gods and godessess of trans-whatever etc... altogether a nice modern polytheism.