Richard Dawkins

Think you's might be interested in this lads. Let me know your opinions!

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2293483151556804649

All,

Read the "God Delusion", if you haven't already. I previously disliked Dawkins books (constant repetition) but this is an exceptional account of the ridiculous reasons that people still hold on to for a belief in a Deity, and how inactivity on the part of Atheists (in a bid to conform), can damage society and science.

If you want ammo to dispute logically the reasons for "belief in GOD" then read it now. However, just remember that fundamental believers cannot be turned from their course, whereas, show an atheist undeniable proof of a deity and he will be the first to convert.

Hi. Would be interested bout peoples opinion's on this. Religion especially in this country has rained supreme and blocked progress in science for years. My question is this: (Can religion fill the gaps that are missing or can we do that with science)?

Read the "God Delusion", if you haven't already. I previously disliked Dawkins books (constant repetition) but this is an exceptional account of the ridiculous reasons that people still hold on to for a belief in a Deity, and how inactivity on the part of Atheists (in a bid to conform), can damage society and science.

If you want ammo to dispute logically the reasons for atheism then read it now.

I'm the opposite, I like his early books, back in the days when he used to write about biology. He seems to have lost the plot a bit after the Blind Watchmaker.

Now he is just a fundamentalist atheist. On a par with fundamentalists of other religions who try to force their views onto others. Some have a holy book that they use to justify their religious claims. Dawkins tries to use science to advance his religion, which just happens not to have a god. In my opinion he is not doing science any favours by his fanaticism. Personally I think he is damaging science by using it as a weapon in his war on god.

However, just remember that fundamental believers cannot be turned from their course, whereas, show an atheist undeniable proof of a deity and he will be the first to convert.

Sounds a bit like 'my religion is better than your religion because...'

The whole god question is down to personal belief. Just like some people feel the need to evangelise their particular religion and seek to convert people to it. Dawkins seems to try the same with atheism. To borrow a phrase from another religion, he seems to have declared a jihad on believers and agnostics alike. Can we not have a bit of 'live and let live' regarding religion on this day and age without the need to attack others beliefs? That goes as much for the creationists giving about about science teaching as it does for scientists giving out about religion teaching.

I picked up John Humphrys 'In God We Doubt: Confessions of a Failed Atheist'. Anyone read it yet? I foud his radio interviews on the subject interesting www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/misc/insearchofgod.shtml

Cheers,
~Al

Mikey,

Religion can of couse fill the gaps. As Dawkins reiterates that is all religion does is fill the gaps. But filling gaps is what science is really about, it's easy to say that religion or Deity will fill a gap in scientific knowledge until science has gotten 'round to providing truth. Religion therefore is an adversary of truth. Gap filling does not equal truth.

Albert,

Previously I would have agreed with you about Dawkins - he's a bit like Moore in that he has to make a living from what he spouts, and my does he spout! However his arguments are convincing. Religion is the enemy of truth, however I personally would never seek to convert anyone to atheism, it is something that you grow into as you question the world around you.

I would also agree with you on live and let live - that is a basic tenet. As for my religion being better than your religion - sod that! Believe what you will, thats your right, but don't foist it on me. I am not looking to "convert" anybody to a non-belief. I used to be quite religious in my early years but I also have a brain, and logical and scientific technique lead me to believe in science not any religious sect.

However I do support Dawkins defence of Science against mindless citicism and physical attacks by the believers. And atheism being my religion you have to respect my beliefs (or non-beliefs) also.