Your daily source of news & videos on science & religion since 2007
wow, hopefully this doesn't get quote mined to suggest RD is inciting violence against the pope
Thanks for posting this... and thanks to the person for recording this... We must spread this news... Big it up fot Richard Dawkins... :)
I am a Canadian. I just wanted to tell you Brits that you should be proud of youreslves for standing up to the pope and the rest of his evil organization.Why doesn't Richard go into politics? He is an amazing speaker and intellect. I can't tell you how much I have appreciated Richard Dawkins as a scientist, humanist, and a spokesperson for atheism and secularism.Bravo Richard!!!
Richard being strident again........ and good for him! There's times when anything less than blunt strident criticism is unethical - when ethics not only allows one to be direct enough to cause offense, but in fact actually demands it. This is such a time.
This was fantastic!
Long live SCIENCE!
Three cheers to Dawkins and the protesters, for speaking the truth and for sanity and clearity.
Stirring stuff!Anyone know how I can get excommunicated?
I was at this rally, Dawkins spoke well. But I cringed at the level of 'Dawkins-worshipping' that was happening. People holding aloft copies of The God Delusion like it was their bible.The new atheist surge is dangerously close to becoming its own religion. I hope that doesnt happen.
Hitch vs Berlinski:http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/id/232872
Wasn't there but I agree. There should never ever be an atheist bible which were all supposed to own..
We should certainly not have a dogma, that would be a disaster.But there's nothing you can do about celebrity, and there are times when groups need charismatic leaders. Think of politics and companies, not just religious organizations. Problem occurs only when a movement becomes about the leaders and not about the principles (possibly diverse) represented by it. Unfortunately that happens quite often. However, there's nothing wrong at this stage with having an eloquent voice (Dawkins) as (one of the) leader(s) of a ragtag movement.
Dawkins seems to be claiming atheism as some kind anti-Papist movement here, and setting himself up as the leader of this new group. I certainly do not consider him to be my leader or as the leader of anything I believe (or choose not to believe). Also, I don't understand his purpose; is he positioning this 'New Atheism' as an intellectual group to pose searching questions about the existence of God or, as seems more likely, a soapbox for him to air his deep and personal hatred of the Catholic church. He also seems to be arguing somehow that because Hitler was Catholic, all Catholocs are Nazis. At least two minutes of this rant were given over to Hitler as Catholic arguments. Utterly redundant as a discussion. I'm also very disturbed by his sycophantic followers cheering his every word. For a science that claims to promote the need for people to think for themselves this all seems a bit reminiscent of the Life of Brian sketch: Brian: 'You're ALL individuals,' Whole crowd 'Yes, we're ALL individuals!'My main problem with Dawkins, however, is his inability to argue effectively without resorting to sarcasm and invective. His solipsism and disdain for people who would be foolish enough to believe that science doesn't understand everything in the universe is distasteful in the least.
At least two minutes of this rant were given over to Hitler as Catholic arguments. Utterly redundant as a discussion. Not really, as he was responding to Joey Ratz' claim that Hitler was a product of secularism. And I think you have used the word 'rant' unreflectively.
I agree.That's a good way of looking at it, and knowing when it's getting too far - when people start ignoring the message and concentrate too much on the messenger.
I think you're mistaking celebrity and admiration for dogma.
That last paragraph contains your real complaint. You're one of those people who thinks that just because science doesn't understand something that means there's something else that DOES understand it. You don't seem to get that when science doesn't understand something, that faith doesn't understand it EITHER - it just lies about understanding it. Those things that are not understood by science are also not understood by anything else either.The rest of your tripe is just mudslinging in the service of that point. There is no arrogance in recognizing that science is the only way to be sure of anything, because science, at it's heart, it the recognition y humans of the failings of their own thought processes, and it's the attempt to put checks and balances in place to double check these places where human thinking goes astray. It's a step away from the "logic" of "I think it, therefore it's true" that humanity has muddled through with for so long.
Wow this speech was fantastic, Dawkins is a real leader and a great example of clear thinking for those who may not be so acute at such things.
It's the nature of the beast sadly. I'm an Objectivist, but man Objectivism was definitely a cult while Ayn Rand was alive. Dawkins is doing a lot to galvanize Secular Humanism and he (more than anyone else) has written texts that are like "holy books" to this movement. I understand the fear about becoming a religion, but diversity of opinion will return (when Dawkins dies) as a matter of nessesity. But right now he's here, he's visible and he's saying things that need to be said.Don't worry about Dawkins starting a cult (he's got enough humility to avoid that, thankfully) but do be concerned if the Richard Dawkins Foundation starts claiming to represent all atheists after he dies. With regards to all cults / religions and the like, we have much less to fear from their leaders than the organizations that empower their successors (who are usually weak minded people who have more of a talent for parroting views than developing them).
<span>"He also seems to be arguing somehow that because Hitler was Catholic, all Catholocs are Nazis. At least two minutes of this rant were given over to Hitler as Catholic arguments. Utterly redundant as a discussion."</span>He was replying to the Popes claims that atheism is the cause of Nazism. He did not once imply that all Catholics are Nazis.
Richard, whether he wants to be or not, is the most prominent spokesman for atheism. He needed to hit back really hard. He did so and I'm proud of what he said. The idea that atheism is the root of totalitarianism and its murderous rampages is very dangerous for us: just as in the past, the pious will eventually start asking "If atheism is so evil, what should we do about it? How can we protect the salvation of our kids?" They're pulling out all the stops to attack atheism; this will have consequences.
To add to what you said Andrew:When the organization loses it's purpose (or leader), it will likely go into survival mode, trying to forge legitimacy even when none longer exists.This is an unfortunate side-effect of organizations not having a natural life cycle that includes death...