Richard Dawkin's remedy...

South Park seems to have been way ahead of the literary establishment in this conclusion. Check out the episode where future society is based upon Dawkin's book.

I'm actually reading the God Delusion right now and although i haven't finished it yet i dont find him concluding that all conflicts will cease to exist once religion is done away with.

Oh, don't get me wrong, it's a great book! It's invaluble reading! It's just that there are many new emerging fundamentalist atheists who seem to think that if ALL religion and philosophical schools apart from Atheism ceased to practice then ALL conflict would stop. That, to me just seems ridiculous. I do like the book, but he does "rant" a little - we all understand the issue of religion (at least in this board) and some people seem to overstate the case a little. In fact, the professor of Mathematics at his university (Oxford or Cambridge, I think...) did in fact say just that.

According to nature mammals seem to live and reproduce in clusters. The higher primates the higher degree of social complexity and accountability seems to be required, since their perpetuation depends on well organized families, flocks and communities.

Growing out of the reptilian cages the mammals evolved into the more sensitive and sensible beings - until some a$oles learned how to turn off their basic instincts and re-develop a more reptilian (i.e. scruple-less) behavior. Still it seems that the human being is the only primate that have developed the ability of warfare, murder, rape, torture, bestiality, brutality, pillage and plunder - towards its own kind.

Thus it should be rather obvious - the human being was hardly born this way, from the very start. In that case we wouldn't exist today since nature seem to have rid itself of all other self-destructive species. Thankfully we're still here - still surviving the fall we once made; from the grace of the full-grown specie of a primate today labelled as "early mankind".

Today's supersonic shells of stealth-hammered steel resembles just another issue of the pre-historic reptile-format. That still doesn't prove that the concept of a Stealth killer-machine was here already during Eocene - but were used first by the "modern" man of the "atomic age"...

Only the most advanced technical knowledge and the sharpest mechanical skills of modern man - are ever recorded to have produced such ideas, projects and productions as the high-tec industry of today. To bad these skills occurs as humankind still is in a hangover from the most insensitive and anti-social period in history, as a culture of strife and war grew into the world - from the start of the "iron age" to the end of the middle ages.

We may ponder when and where men - and finally mankind - started falling out of the natural order, as in the social instincts of higher mammals and primates. When and what made the ancient men and women suddenly abandon the primary characteristics of unselfishly feeding and fostering their young, guarding their elder and always supplying their own kin' - indiscriminately?!


Edited by Boreasi - 15-Jul-2007 at 21:34

AyKurt, I know what you mean, and I also know what fundamentalism is. It's just that I've met many Atheists who are close friends of the family but use Richard Dawkin's book as a rallying point for their ricuolously aggresive Atheism. One of them even insulted one of my close friends- a moderate christian- at the table for no reason. If people want to speak seriously about their beliefs in open debate, that's great! But many Atheists just seem to snipe and insult religious people in an un-constructive way which doesn't help anyone. Accusations like "Religious people are all inherantly stupid" and "I don't talk to people who believe in fairy-tales" are appalling. Perhaps my fustration is clouding my judgement, but I just hate that kind of behaviour. I've highlighted the Atheist extremists in this thread not because I view them as more dangerous than religious people- far from it- I've put in it because I feel that they are ignored because relgious fundamentalism is obviously more dangerous.

The use of the word "fundamentalism" and its derrivatives in the general population is starting to grate on me. Fundamentalism is actually something to be proud of, it means sticking to the basic truth of one's beliefs. Please do not use it as a synonym for "extremist" as many people seem to do, including the world media.

In other news I have read dawkins book, and find it generally drivel. It lacks significant evidencial back-up for many of its claims, the logic is extremely poor, assumptions are made which are fundamentally flawed and the general tone of the book is offensive and arrogant. By Dawkins own logic one can prove that he does not exist, and that none of you do either. He is damaging his own cause.

Originally posted by malizai_ Somebody once said that 'atheism is a pointless creed'. It seems that Dawkins has tried to disprove that by offering a 'conflict free world' as part and parcel of atheism. Thus becoming from 'Dawkins the scientist' to 'Dawkins the prophet'. Some before him had offered peace in heaven, he seems to promise it on earth. Hey!, ..i would love that MR. Dawkins, but is that not at odd with your own nature based models of 'survival of the fittest' and 'competition'.

Anyone that says a conflict free world could arise from atheism hasn't been to an atheist gathering! The internal politics as bad as any church and gets even worse when an old guard Marxist starts having a rant. I have nothing against Dawkins as a person, and like much of what he says, but his arguments keep repeating the same things over and over and that tendancy to rant does not endear him to me.

OK, fair enough the bible does too, but for someone who says they are opposed to dogma to yet continually uses dogma grates on the nerves. You would have to be a true believer of his point of view to listen for too long, He is an assassin "shock jock" in that he uses underdeveloped scientific arguments as a weapon, that is if he stuck to the subject rather in indulge in gratuitous comments that are designed get the obligatory round of applause or gasps of disapproval from his captive audience.

We need a third way, a way of showing respect for the world as a whole that goes beyond boundaries. A way where we can draw our social and moral lessons from the wonders, facts and observations of nature rather than be forever tied the false opinions of those who got it wrong. 

Originally posted by YohjiArmstrong Anyone who says a world based on atheism would be conflict free is nuts! Religion gave us the Crusades, Conquistadors and Islamic conquests. Atheism gave us Stalinist Russia and Hitler.

I agree that it's idiotic to expect that a world without religion would be conflict free (it would probably be a bit better though, one cause of misery less), but I fail to see how atheism caused Hitler, who was a Christian, banned atheist and freethought organization while SS uniforms had "for the will of god" written on them.

And Stalin was caused by communism, not atheism.


Edited by Mixcoatl - 28-Jul-2007 at 11:37