Publishing or saying this could be illegal in Ireland if the new blasphemy law is passed:
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthristy ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, 2006
Whilst your statement is true that this would becme illegal, remember also that Dawkins himself is a bigger evangelist than any religious person. Surely a true atheist wouldn’t harp on and on about there being no gods, because that is a lot of hot air. Dawkins does actually have a religion. Science is his religion. Please don’t argue with the semantics of that statement because if you look into it, he has set up a church (foundation for science and reason) has defined his enemies (enemies of reason) and also places a lot of faith (for want of a better word) in theories that have not yet been fully proven or are not fully understood.
Comment by spannerotoole — May 26, 2009 @ 7:08 am
Perhaps criticising Dawkin’s is irrelevant to this argument?
Nonetheless, seems that you have started, as an atheist do you not think that Dawkin’s has done much to enlighten people as to the accessibility and reality of atheism? Describing his bestselling book as “harping on” also seems a little unfair as he needed to articulate his point of view forcefully to convey his message fully. Atheism is not in the slightest pervasive of any cultures and Dawkin’s, at least, gave it widespread coverage.
As for his “faith” in science one only has to look at the history of science to see that although some mysteries remain aloof and perhaps always will, it does not mean that we should stop searching for the answers to them.
As for setting up a “church”! Setting up a foundation is hardly the same as setting up a church. Science had billions upon billions of advocates, but I cant imagine many having irrationally worshipped at it. Sure we can marvel at the beauty of evolution or the mystery of quantum mechanics, but worshipping or investing unreasonable faith in it is not Dawkins’ goal. I would be inclined to trust a scientist on matters of science.
As for having enemies, as Sam Harris outlined, reason and morality do have enemies- in extremeists. However, it is they who irrationally oppose us not the other way around. If all religous people were to sit quietly by and engage with religion privately then there would be no issue, we would not have enemies. However, the world is not that simple. Dogmatic religion promotes violence in certain sects and this is a real threat. Dawkins is not attempting to create an alternative church, he is trying to open out eyes to the reality of our situation. Religion, opposedly, attempts to draw us towards ignorance. Ignorance is no good anymore, becasue we have very real enemies.
Comment by sirstingray — June 21, 2009 @ 12:45 am
It’s not even necessary to discuss Dawkins’ points and views here. This is about free speech.
If statements like the above are outlawed, you can kiss goodbye to democracy, critizism of power, and the most basic freedoms of poinion.
The name of “God” has been used and abused as a power lever to degrees that can only be called ridiculous and malicious.
DEFEND your freedoms!
Comment by Raze — June 25, 2009 @ 7:16 am
(using blockquote tags for the first time, so apologies if this post ends up being horribly malformed)
Indeed. Dawkins is often knocking on my door or putting leaflets through the letterbox. Just the other day I saw him in town with a megaphone telling me that I’ll not burn in hell. He’s very direct in his criticism of religion, but I struggle to equate that to someone the likes of Jerry Falwell.
‘No true Scotsman’ argument – look it up. The reason why atheists speak out is because other peoples’ religious choices are foisted upon us.
We could also consider regular pub goers to be involved in some kind of beer religion. Are you referring to the theory of evolution? Proofs are used in mathematics, but not in scientific theories. I don’t think you really understand how science works, since it sounds like you’re unclear as the scientific meaning of the word “theory”.
Evolutionary theory is better understood than gravity and has a lot more evidence for it because it’s one of the best tested theories in any of the sciences. Science does not claim to provide a full understanding of anything, and Dawkins himself says that he can’t say for definite that God doesn’t exist.
Raze made a very good point. A blasphemy law is a wonderful tool for governments wishing to stifle criticism. Compiling the Ryan Report was like pulling teeth, mainly due to the stalling tactics of the orders, but imagine how much more difficult that would be if they could use the blasphemy card?
Comment by Sean — July 25, 2009 @ 2:44 pm
WTF spannertoole do you know english maybe you should look up the dictionary which defines religion as believing in a supernatural power. And about a true atheist an atheist is defined as a non-believer in god/s so he is a true atheist. Maybe the next time you take an oath or drive past a church board you will see it is infact christians who are strangling atheists with their views
Comment by Jack — September 5, 2009 @ 12:39 pm
Dawkins has it pretty well spot on – where was he inaccurate in his assessment of the Old Testament?
I’m bemused that whenever Prof Dawkins is mentioned the religious complain that he is a fundamentalist atheist. If I say something about Prof Dawkins I’m pretty sure he won’t encourage others to burn me at the stake, behead me, blow me up or kneecap me. He appears to be civilised, bright and thoughtful – contrasting strongly with several religions where it is clearly normal practice to leave your higher brain functions at the door.
Comment by Grant Privett — January 3, 2010 @ 11:12 pm
It’s not information and it’s not fact. It is an opinion along with any other religious or scientific statement. Everything you red, hear, or think is constructed, nothing is fact, absolutly nothing. So before you “thank” him for the terrific information, Or turn to thank a religious believer for their prayers- Just stop and think about how pathetic the extremity of the reliance on peoples OPINIONS has become.
Comment by Jasmine — July 11, 2011 @ 9:54 am
shit i meant read
my bad.
Comment by Jasmine — July 11, 2011 @ 9:55 am