The Energon Pub

I really would like to see Dawkins interview some moderate theists. Especially if he would come at them from a less attacking standpoint. Some people just casually believe in the God that their parents believed in. They have not read the bible from cover to cover and probably don't know about all of the horrific stuff it says. They do not use their religion to oppress gays, women, and people of other religions. They might not even go to church. These are the people that I would like to see Dawkins appeal to. People who are not steeped in fundamentalism are those who he would have the greatest shot having see reason.

Professor Smooth wrote:I really would like to see Dawkins interview some moderate theists. Especially if he would come at them from a less attacking standpoint. Some people just casually believe in the God that their parents believed in. They have not read the bible from cover to cover and probably don't know about all of the horrific stuff it says. They do not use their religion to oppress gays, women, and people of other religions. They might not even go to church. These are the people that I would like to see Dawkins appeal to. People who are not steeped in fundamentalism are those who he would have the greatest shot having see reason.

To be fair I recall that a number of more moderate theists were invited to be interviewed for the programme but they declined.
The Bishop of Oxford interviewed in the second programme would certainly count as a moderate theist. So would some of the people spoken to in Lourdes I'd say.
Certainly the first programme had more of the crazies then the second.

Armorwind wrote:From what I have seen, read, and heard of this documentary, I notice that, for the most part, Dawkins would bea terrible journalist. Clearly his interivews are slanted. He asks religious extremists, notorious for their lack of reason.

Unless he were working for Fox that is. But then again he'd have to be interviewing the religious extremists as credible sources towards something entirely secular.

Professor Smooth wrote: People who are not steeped in fundamentalism are those who he would have the greatest shot having see reason.

That would depend rather strongly on your definition of "reason". Maybe they would be able to get Dawkins' to see reason.

Ironhidensh wrote:

Professor Smooth wrote: People who are not steeped in fundamentalism are those who he would have the greatest shot having see reason.

That would depend rather strongly on your definition of "reason". Maybe they would be able to get Dawkins' to see reason.

Not likely. Dawkins' is a fundamentalist himself, just on the other end of the spectrum. If your main goal is to push your agenda on others in the hopes of conversion or to seek situations to combat the beliefs of others in, then you're probably not comfortable enough with your own beliefs to warrant being taken seriously.

Joking Saint wrote:

Ironhidensh wrote:

Professor Smooth wrote: People who are not steeped in fundamentalism are those who he would have the greatest shot having see reason.

That would depend rather strongly on your definition of "reason". Maybe they would be able to get Dawkins' to see reason.

Not likely. Dawkins' is a fundamentalist himself, just on the other end of the spectrum. If your main goal is to push your agenda on others in the hopes of conversion or to seek situations to combat the beliefs of others in, then you're probably not comfortable enough with your own beliefs to warrant being taken seriously.

I'd like to know what he is a 'fundamentalist' of. Being a scientist, he doesn't hold on to many assumptions concretely, a requirement of such.

To clarify-- he sees the ideas propagated by religions as a scientist does-- as hypotheses to be refuted or accepted. What you seem to be looking at, something that is earning him angst, is his attempting to break the wall of "well, you can't ridicule religion," by saying religious belief is like any other statement ever given by mankind, something to be criticized or affirmed accordingly.

Thus, if a preacher can ridicule statements made by science, science should be able to criticize the statements of the preacher. That is something which I cannot disagree with.

EDIT: As well, could we please resume the purpose of this thread and state our world views as we post?

DesalationReborn wrote:
I'd like to know what he is a 'fundamentalist' of. Being a scientist, he doesn't hold on to many assumptions concretely, a requirement of such.

To clarify-- he sees the ideas propagated by religions as a scientist does-- as hypotheses to be refuted or accepted. What you seem to be looking at, something that is earning him angst, is his attempting to break the wall of "well, you can't ridicule religion," by saying religious belief is like any other statement ever given by mankind, something to be criticized or affirmed accordingly.

Thus, if a preacher can ridicule statements made by science, science should be able to criticize the statements of the preacher. That is something which I cannot disagree with.

EDIT: As well, could we please resume the purpose of this thread and state our world views as we post?

DR, I totally agree with you. And right sorry. I'm Catholic.

DesalationReborn wrote:
I'd like to know what he is a 'fundamentalist' of. Being a scientist, he doesn't hold on to many assumptions concretely, a requirement of such.

To clarify-- he sees the ideas propagated by religions as a scientist does-- as hypotheses to be refuted or accepted. What you seem to be looking at, something that is earning him angst, is his attempting to break the wall of "well, you can't ridicule religion," by saying religious belief is like any other statement ever given by mankind, something to be criticized or affirmed accordingly.

Thus, if a preacher can ridicule statements made by science, science should be able to criticize the statements of the preacher. That is something which I cannot disagree with.

EDIT: As well, could we please resume the purpose of this thread and state our world views as we post?

Ah, right, forgot to add that. No specified mainstream religion absolutely categorizes my beliefs, but I claim to be Muslim when pressed as Sufism is the closest.

Sorry, let me clarify the definition of fundamental(ist)/(ism) I am going by here. I think we're on the same page, but pointing at different paragraphs.

"A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism."

While he is coming from a standpoint of scientific principles, he is still rigidly adhering to the principles he believes are right and practicing what seems to me to be blatant intolerance of other views in his books and speeches. I have no problem with the discussion, dissection, ridicule or refutation of religion. But he doesn't do it respectfully, and he utilizes the same histrionic techniques as those he refutes. It smacks of proselytizing to me, and people who can't discuss their beliefs without being driven to attempt conversions at every turn aren't to be taken very seriously. But this is just my opinion, taken for whatever an opinion on the internet is worth in any case. Hope this helps clear it up?

(And if not...."Dawkins - good theory, sound points, but prickish delivery with ulterior motives")

Joking Saint wrote:While he is coming from a standpoint of scientific principles, he is still rigidly adhering to the principles he believes are right and practicing what seems to me to be blatant intolerance of other views in his books and speeches. I have no problem with the discussion, dissection, ridicule or refutation of religion. But he doesn't do it respectfully, and he utilizes the same histrionic techniques as those he refutes. It smacks of proselytizing to me, and people who can't discuss their beliefs without being driven to attempt conversions at every turn aren't to be taken very seriously. But this is just my opinion, taken for whatever an opinion on the internet is worth in any case. Hope this helps clear it up?

Now that, I can see, though I'm not sure 'fundamentalist' would be the best label. He certainly believes in the good he's doing, and can at times appear naive, utopian, which is a feeling achieved by nearly every movement. What I'm questioning, though, is whether he only appears disrespectful because he is criticizing subjects that are taboo to do so in modern society, or, if not, whether he's being harsher on it to open it up as a way to shock people into realizing religion can be discussed like anything else. It's hard to actually figure out what someone's all about unless you can talk to them face to face.

As another defense, he's also stated "The Root of All Evil?", the title of his video documentary, was chosen by the television network specifically to get controversy, and he actually wanted something a bit less inflammatory, like the title of his current book.

Raised Presbyterian.

i dont believe in one. religion just damages people. it makes you hate and not respect other religions because everyone believes in something different.

Mr.RobotAutoMan wrote:i dont believe in one. religion just damages people. it makes you hate and not respect other religions because everyone believes in something different.

But it's not religion that does that. People do that, and religion is just one of the ways. Why do you think there are school rivalries? Gang wars? Prejudice? Wars period?

How could a bunch of love thy neighbor and do unto others rules make you hate other people? People hate other people.

Agnostic. I don't know if anyone explained what that is, but for those who don't know, it's essentially a "Pick-and-choose" religion. I believe whatever I want to believe, and I reserve the right to see Life, the Universe, and Everything the way I want to, not the way anyone else tells me to.

(Yes, that's Hitchhiker's Guide reference. It always seems to fit in with topics on religion.)

Shadowman wrote:Agnostic. I don't know if anyone explained what that is, but for those who don't know, it's essentially a "Pick-and-choose" religion. I believe whatever I want to believe, and I reserve the right to see Life, the Universe, and Everything the way I want to, not the way anyone else tells me to.

(Yes, that's Hitchhiker's Guide reference. It always seems to fit in with topics on religion.)

Agnostic means you believe in a "higher power" of sorts, but not in established and organized religion.

Me too.

I just got a steady, nine-to-five job. Therefore I believe in Weekends.

Lutheran (Evangelical Lutheran Church of Vehmersalmi)
Thats my home place..

I dont know about "believe or not to believe", I have open mind for cultures and their religious.

Its basicly the bottom of morality.
Sometimes its hard to believe cos' so many close people have died..
Word are so empty when those come from book what is used so many times..
Thought or poem is more beautifull and reliefing than heavens gate/hell.

My little "nutcase" (niece) asked: "Are Grandfather and neighbour on the edge of a cloud?"

I believe they are..

Dark Zarak wrote:

Mr.RobotAutoMan wrote:i dont believe in one. religion just damages people. it makes you hate and not respect other religions because everyone believes in something different.

But it's not religion that does that. People do that, and religion is just one of the ways. Why do you think there are school rivalries? Gang wars? Prejudice? Wars period?

How could a bunch of love thy neighbor and do unto others rules make you hate other people? People hate other people.

Religion as an organisation is part of culture, and culture is the method people use to distinguish Us from THEM-a very important tool in early development as it divided the world into the real people and the unbeliever savages, who is was ok to kill and go to war with.

It served as a series of tests to prove anothers worth, a real human would know not to eat meat on a certain day, or not to pick a certain scared flower, or not to work on a certain day.

This can still be seen in modern contexts, but i shall refrane from discussing them now.

The major fault i see with modern religion is that it is totally outdated and does not deal adiquitly with individual belief. A religion is ment for the masses, as a diluted version of believe, defined by rules-which doesnt cut it for me.

I always compare it to masturbation and really good sex-the former is Religion, and the later Belief.

Hence; i have no Religion, though i have a LOT of personal Belief.

I'm a christian at heart,..

Strong atheist here.

It's funny, Jesus preached forgiveness, and turning the other cheek, yet more people have died in his name than any other religious figure.

And yet Ares, who himself is an actual War God, and probably had his hand in the Battle of Thermopylae, (And thusly, the Wachowski Brothers' Pockets) gets his own game, and goes completely unnoticed.

Myself, being a student of the ancient arts, I prefer the pre GreekoRoman versions of the Roman Gods.

Jar Axel wrote:Myself, being a student of the ancient arts, I prefer the pre GreekoRoman versions of the Roman Gods.

I much prefer Greek mythological terms over Roman.

...Student of the Ancient Arts?

Shadowman wrote:

Jar Axel wrote:Myself, being a student of the ancient arts, I prefer the pre GreekoRoman versions of the Roman Gods.

I much prefer Greek mythological terms over Roman.

...Student of the Ancient Arts?

Celtic ledgends and mythos beat most others around the world hands down....our version of the devil shot fireballs from his nostrils!

Shadowman wrote:

Jar Axel wrote:Myself, being a student of the ancient arts, I prefer the pre GreekoRoman versions of the Roman Gods.

I much prefer Greek mythological terms over Roman.

...Student of the Ancient Arts?

True magick. Litteraly the stuff of legends. Ufortunatly so little survived the falls of Rome and Carthage

Jar Axel wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

Jar Axel wrote:Myself, being a student of the ancient arts, I prefer the pre GreekoRoman versions of the Roman Gods.

I much prefer Greek mythological terms over Roman.

...Student of the Ancient Arts?

True magick. Litteraly the stuff of legends. Ufortunatly so little survived the falls of Rome and Carthage

True magick? The more I hear, the more the term "Mage" comes to mind.

GrimSqueaker wrote:Celtic ledgends and mythos beat most others around the world hands down....our version of the devil shot fireballs from his nostrils!

You know how, in some anime, the women will pull a hammer out of nowhere (Hammerspace) and hit someone with it?

Thor was the one that made it cool, but he killed people in doing so.