Dawkins and Determinism

[naimless]

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 can not be serious in thinking this. why would people not be able to comprehend what he refers to as atheism and evolution? he didn`t make up some special definitions for it and it is complex concept to understand as a matter of fact it is probably the easiest concept to understand. same thing with evolution except it is actually more complex but what is wrong with teaching evidence based theories?

The same way how you can't comprehend how to use quote tags, or basic spelling and grammar such as the difference between "their", "there", and "they're". I didn't judge you for it and still took on board what you were saying as another human being because you have clearly had a different experience to me.

if someone is a theist and goes to school is the teachers efforts pointless to teach evolution?

No, and I said Dawkins' focus should solely be on teaching evolution as opposed to teaching "atheism", if he wants more people to appreciate atheism. He came to his atheistic conclusions from evolution, so it makes sense to always teach the former experience to his audience before the latter.

If his audience do not understand evolution, he is talking to a brick wall with regards to his views on atheism. In the same way I doubt that you could understand everyone's religious experience. There are 7 billion different perceptions on this and many misconceptions. We need to define the variables each time before we delve into the arguments.

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.

theists are not for the most part mentally ill or drug addicts. your analogy sucks. you just saying he is being mean. he isn`t taunting any one. he is holding them accountable for their beliefs and choices and saying that it is destructive to truth to accept these huge claims on faith and then make the choices that are influenced from THEIR faith. choices that affect other people.

Someone believing in an imaginary friend is, for the most part, cognitive dissidence. A lot of people either have more faith, or have more drugs in order to satisfy that part of the brain and cope with daily functions. Some of the people he encounters he unnecessarily distresses.

Why would he hold them accountable for their beliefs if they evolved to have those beliefs? Challenging someone on this very rarely results in the opposing person suddenly obtaining the beliefs of the challenging person. In many cases both parties walk away with stronger convictions in their own ideas because neither has empathised with each-other's experience.

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.

i`m starting to think you think theists are the same as mentally retarted. theists CAN do long multiplication questions among other amazing things. just the religion is the irrational beliefs that influnces them. it doesn`t make them actually handicap just distorts the truth which leads to distorted actions.

I would start to think you are mentally retarded if I didn't understand you don't like my analogies. The point is you teach people to count and add first. You need to teach a religious person your definitions of key terms first before you use them.

If I wrote a book, I would not expect everyone to read it and get it no matter how good it was, and neither should Dawkins.

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.

do you have no hope for humanity?

Hope is a synonym for faith my friend. I do not have faith that over 7 billion people will understand my experience of atheism, no. But please think about that next time you debate someone with faith.

Indeed, when one truly considers the vastness of the universe, the insignificance of humanity is overwhelming.

But again, not everyone is oppressed by religion,

name one thing that religion doesn`t put it`s dirty little hand into?

Religion is a part of our evolution as a species. There are varying degrees of it. Jainism is possibly the most harmless practice I have ever heard about. A lot of people see theism as a personal thing, beyond organised religion, but still have faith in that which they cannot comprehend. Very often when one disrespects a personal "god", it could be a synonym for "nature" or the "universe".

Organised religions are corrupt, there is no doubt about that. But so is any governmental organisation, even if it is secular. People and systems do not mix well. It is individualism and exploring space that unites us. Not trying to spread one belief or disbelief for all.

The USA is a highly oppressive establishment but it could be a less oppressive place for a woman to live than Saudi Arabia. Protestantism could be less oppressive to a choir boy than Catholicism, Buddhism could be less oppressive to a scientist than Islam.

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.

what has he done that is so uncompassionate?

Not accepted that numinous experiences are powerful enough to make superstition seem wiser than logical thought. I honestly believe some people can obtain more euphoria through faith in a higher power than a Class A drug.

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.

so when people ridiculed slavery and the fundamentalist who supported it di that not help in any significant way?

So in America people ridiculed slavery. Slavery ended by a civil war. People in America still thank the war for ending slavery. But it did not need a war. Slavery ended the U.K. without civil war and it was just as prominent in the slave triangle.

There are many ways of approaching things and ridicule more often than not leads to more separations and ultimately bloodshed. Anyone who has studied human history and evolution for a significant period of time should recognise this.