Dawkins and Determinism

[naimless]

Pointless? So only some people are worth his time? Who exactly are you talking about and why? Was there ever a criteria someone must meet to be good enough to discuss religion with? If not why would anyone he talks or debates with be pointless?
nd cruel? Oh boo freaking hoo. Some people got their feelings hurt. Their adults they should be able to deal with a dialogue with disagreements. But exactly how would he be being cruel? What has he done to someone that's so cruel?

No, it is pointless approaching everyone with the view that religion has oppressed them and that they are capable of comprehending what he refers to as atheism and evolution.

You wouldn't taunt a mentally ill person or a drug addict in the same way, which is what I would equate some aspects of theism to. Quite frankly, approaching any other human being with a lack of empathy to their condition isn't the best place to start.

It ends up in an argument of "I prefer red, I prefer blue" similar to watching two politicians lock horns. The opposing person clearly hasn't had the same experience that he had as a teenager researching into metaphysical naturalism and being able to ask "why?" to his parents.

So what? It's called rational thought and anyone can start using it at anytime. Shouldn't that be even more reason to discuss these things so as to educate the people who haven't grown up in a
Free inquiry environment? So as they can break free from the oppression that their religion have inflicted on their mind?

Not everyone has the same capabilities of rational thought. You do not give someone that cannot even add or subtract a long multiplication question.

Yes, education is important, and ideally people would be educated objectively from birth. However, we do not live in an ideal world. A lot of parents need the devil as a babysitting technique, etc., and it can have long lasting effects.

But again, not everyone is oppressed by religion, and there are people who have significant numinous experiences that Dawkins has not had. So while it is true they may be uneducated in approaching logical thought, Dawkins also appears uneducated in approaching some of their thoughts with compassion.

Furthermore, there are quite a few scientists who are not atheists. I think science focuses on agnosticism, if not then it remains unbiased on the issue of theism. I agree with him on a lot of things, especially regarding the harm organised religion causes. But there is also a harm in taking people out of theist beliefs, or blaming people for having them.

No one said there wasn't. Not all scientist are atheist. And no science focuses on science not theology until t!hey are forced into courts usually by the religious nut jobs trying to stir up trouble due to their wacky beliefs. And glad to know you realise the harm that organised religion causes. But now who is TAKING people out of theists beliefs? Discussing the flaw in logical sense that religion has isn't forcing people out of their theist beliefs. That is up to them if they want to hold on to stone age mentality but they can keep it to their selfs. Blaming them for having them? He is blaming them for making irrational decisions in politics, morals, laws, oppression on others etc. Based off of them. Think all you want the crazy crap that religion teachs but it's history has destroyed so much in human history based from those irrational beliefs. It should ridiculed because it is ridiculous.

I don't feel the ridicule actually helps the world in any significant way. In fact it can make many people more fundamentalist.