Has richard dawkins become the leader of the atheist movement

[mikhail]

I would recomend anyone to buy dawkins new book the god delusion it really puts blind faith in percepective.

Also nobody can deny damwkins intellect he would do intellectual bodily harm on any religious leader.

Also he shows a good example that atheist/agnostics should express what they mean through calm reasoning not through jumping up and down like religious types to.

Most of all the god delusion describe the key to stopping the religious belief fallacy stopping children being scared and forced into believing their parents religion.

 

[Apostle13]

Has richard dawkins become the leader of the atheist movement

Sure why not...
All religions have their leaders.

 

[Gibberish]

It's my next book after "Autobiography of a Spiritually Incorrect Mystic".

Should be an interesting read.

 

[Gunface]

Sure why not...
All religions have their leaders.

...

*spasm*
*headdesk*
You people never change, do you?

Uh, I don't know. He's certainly one of the foremost people in the Brights Movement, but I don't like putting labels on atheism, since it's far more inclusive than it sounds at first. It includes all kinds of apathetic people and people he really doesn't represent, or people he openly dislikes. So I wouldn't consider him the leader of atheism, no.

I do love him though.
A lot. I have a signed copy of A Devil's Chaplain.

 

[Ikari]

I actually don't like Dawkins. He just comes off as a condescending jerk at times. Also, I think his conclusions are too far reaching. While there are most certainly religious sects which would be described by Dawkins, it isn't accurate over the whole. So when he condemns the whole of religion based off some observations about the radicals, I think he goes too far and his conclusions don't logically follow his arguments. As an atheist scientist myself, I find that he does have interesting insights and notable conclusions, but his ultimate conclusions do not flow naturally from his arguments. Religion is fine, and some people like their particular religions. There is nothing inherent in the tenets of most religions which would require blind faith, or the non-questioning of dogma, or which would spur violence against others. There are sects which have twisted and used the religion to get a select few riled up and willing to go to war. But that has mostly to do with the twisting of faith and is often motivated by political or land issues.

As such, I don't regard Dawkins very highly. He is a smart guy, and has some things of interest. But in the end, he comes off as having a personal philosophy he wishes to push upon the people by belittling the theists and their beliefs by exaggerating or misrepresenting the whole of the theist community. In the end, it appears to me that he becomes that which he rallies against. People are free to practice and express their religious beliefs, and at no time should this ever be infringed upon. Theists are not inherently blind, or stupid, or illogical; they are whom they are. I personally know quite a few physicists whom are very religious, and they compose some of the most intelligent and forward thinking people I know.

 

[Edify_Always_In_All_Ways]

I personally would pick him to represent us, but like him or hate him, The God Delusion was quite well-written- we're probably stuck with him.

The problem with NOT belittling theists is that somewhere, in a dark church basement, there is a crazy fanatic searching through all their books to find a statement showing religious sympathy so they can post it on their website out of context.

Example: How many times have you heard Einstein misquoted as a theist?:spin:

 

[Thelost1]

Dawkins sucks so musch. He is a condescending *******. he defintely does not stand for me.

 

[rathi]

Their is no leader of the "atheist movement." Dawkins is simply a talented author who write books about the subject. I agree with some of his points and find many of arguments well crafted. However, I disagree with him on some points and base of all agreement/disagreement on evidence. Dawkins is the figurehead of those who are trying to combat faith in mainstream society. However, being an atheist is nothing more than lacking blind faith, just as all newborn babies do.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

...

*spasm*
*headdesk*
You people never change, do you?

Frankly, when atheists become strident, condescending, and intolerant, I think labelling their beliefs "religion" is entirely appropriate. The logic of atheism is based on unfounded cosmological assumptions and a weak appeal to Occam's Razor-- which makes it little more than a chosen belief system just like any other.

You can't even reliably link science to atheism, as there are plenty of theistic scientists-- and I mean legitimate theorists, not theologians in labcoats-- and plenty of irrational, magic-thinking atheists.

 

[rathi]

As a disclaimer, I'd like to point out that I define god as supernatural and sentient, and that is basis for my lack of belief.

Frankly, when atheists become strident, condescending, and intolerant, I think labelling their beliefs "religion" is entirely appropriate.

Even then, a newborn baby is an atheist who follows no religion. I agree that its possible for atheists to have religious organization or blind faith however.

The logic of atheism is based on unfounded cosmological assumptions and a weak appeal to Occam's Razor

Atheism comes from many different sources. For many it comes from the fact that almost all ideas of god come from being taught by other people. Most people who are not taught about gods do not believe in them. For me it is based on the fact that I see no evidence whatsoever of gods existing. All I see are cultural traditions that reflect their culture, not the world at large.
Thinking that their is some sentient being out their controlling everything seems to be more likely the comfort we take in our own intelligence. With our lack of knowledge of the brain, the idea that beings with similar thoughts to our own exist is very comforting.

You can't even reliably link science to atheism, as there are plenty of theistic scientists-- and I mean legitimate theorists, not theologians in labcoats-- and plenty of irrational, magic-thinking atheists.

You are correct that being a scientist does not mean being an atheist and vice versa. However, science itself is in direct conflict with the idea of a god. Its impossible for science to ever establish causal links if an unknown variable like god can skew results by an unknown amount. The keystone of eliminating variables is completely destroyed by the introduction of god. In addition, gods don't follow human rules, meaning that the scientific method does not apply.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Most people who are not taught about gods do not believe in them.

And yet, many people who have not been taught about gods quickly begin to believe in them as soon as they are exposed. There are also cases of spontaneous belief, such as the founders of many religions.

For me it is based on the fact that I see no evidence whatsoever of gods existing. All I see are cultural traditions that reflect their culture, not the world at large.

Certainly. That's what I meant by Occam's Razor-- the simplest possible explanation for religion and so forth. The reason I label it a "weak appeal" is the near-universality of belief in either gods or divine spirits of some sort, and the common threads that run through most religious cosmologies.

I do not think that population migration and prehistoric trade are sufficient to explain this; these myths, contradictory and confusing as they are, must be based on something.

Of course, in the absence of evidence, my own argument and my own appeal to logical principles are equally weak. I can think of a dozen theories that contradict my own... but noone can support them much better than we have here.

However, science itself is in direct conflict with the idea of a god. Its impossible for science to ever establish causal links if an unknown variable like god can skew results by an unknown amount.

It is only incompatible with certain notions of divinity.

It is not incompatible with my understanding of gods, that they are bound by the same physical laws as the rest of the universe-- only some of which we have discovered-- and function as agents within the physical universe.

It's also not incompatible with a "watchmaker" deity who has created the universe as it is, including the laws of physics themselves, and who either allows the physical universe to function as he designed it or how takes action only within the rules that he has established.

There are other models of divinity which are more or less compatible with the scientific method as we understand it.

 

[Intransigent Atheist]

I personally would pick him to represent us, but like him or hate him, The God Delusion was quite well-written- we're probably stuck with him.

The problem with NOT belittling theists is that somewhere, in a dark church basement, there is a crazy fanatic searching through all their books to find a statement showing religious sympathy so they can post it on their website out of context.

Example: How many times have you heard Einstein misquoted as a theist?:spin:

Thank you for that!

 

[shuamort]

And yet, many people who have not been taught about gods quickly begin to believe in them as soon as they are exposed. There are also cases of spontaneous belief, such as the founders of many religions.

Cite?

Certainly. That's what I meant by Occam's Razor-- the simplest possible explanation for religion and so forth. The reason I label it a "weak appeal" is the near-universality of belief in either gods or divine spirits of some sort, and the common threads that run through most religious cosmologies.

I do not think that population migration and prehistoric trade are sufficient to explain this; these myths, contradictory and confusing as they are, must be based on something.

et al

That doesn't make them true and is simply an argument ad populum.

The consensus was that the earth was flat based on observation. It didn't make it true but since the myth existed, it was based on something. This something was ignorant observation and a new for creating a semblance of order.

As the ol' Iris DeMent song goes, "Let the Mystery Be".

 

[mikhail]

The thing is the way religion teaches people not to look for answer real answers look at the banning of copernicanism.

Religion always has tried to hold science back dont forget we have science to thank for medicines vaccines cures fertilty for the infertile the list is endless.

We have religion to thank for wars intolerence and warped morality.

 

[rathi]

And yet, many people who have not been taught about gods quickly begin to believe in them as soon as they are exposed. There are also cases of spontaneous belief, such as the founders of many religions.

So? Religion has always been spread without any exceptions geographically and culturally. Nobody has ever independently discovered the same god. That makes it a very good probability that people only can learn about a religion if someone else teaches them.

Certainly. That's what I meant by Occam's Razor-- the simplest possible explanation for religion and so forth. The reason I label it a "weak appeal" is the near-universality of belief in either gods or divine spirits of some sort, and the common threads that run through most religious cosmologies.

So? Many really untrue ideas were really popular back in the day. Using the gods to explain weather was really popular, but today we know the real causes.

I do not think that population migration and prehistoric trade are sufficient to explain this; these myths, contradictory and confusing as they are, must be based on something.

Really? All religion have spread to nearby geographic locations. Migration and trade explains that perfectly.

It is not incompatible with my understanding of gods, that they are bound by the same physical laws as the rest of the universe-- only some of which we have discovered-- and function as agents within the physical universe.

Gods are pretty much supernatural by definition. And please specify the laws we have not discovered that control the gods we have no discovered.

It's also not incompatible with a "watchmaker" deity who has created the universe as it is, including the laws of physics themselves, and who either allows the physical universe to function as he designed it or how takes action only within the rules that he has established.

Intelligence is nothing more than series of electric impulses in a nervous system. Assuming such a complex system is needed to create simple things is against current observations. What you are proposing is nothing more than a large scale version of intelligent design. And occam's razor seriously nailsyou here. "An intelligent God created a careful system of rules we see today, then carefully erased every single bit of evidence that he ever existed" vs "the universe is governed by a set of rules we see today" There is no need for god in the system.

 

[faithful_servant]

Richard Dawkins? Isn't he the guy from the Family Feud?