Dawkins hits 'em hard - again.

[Sibling DavidH]

Once again the good professor tells them what's what:   
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7007065.ece
Personally I agree with the argument, but he could be a bit more subtle.  For example, he could assault the Archbish of C with a baseball bat or dump a trailer-load of pig manure on the steps of Westminster Abbey.   

[Opsa]

What an hilarious read, DavidH! When I imagine it as some guy sitting next to me at a bar ranting and raving with tongue in cheek,  I can see myself slamming my glass into his every now and then and shouting "Damn straight!" several times before asking someone to call a cab to take me home.

[Aggie]

Bah, I have a perpetual snit on against Dawkins.   

The article kind of reinforces my opinion that he is only interested in challenging religion in the form(s) where it meets his premise that it is an inherently negative force. If the New Testament had been, y'know, actually written by Jesus and never edited or modified for sociopolitical reasons, then he might have a point.  The origins of Christianity (and many other faiths) are IMHO cloudy enough to allow personal interpretation.  I'm not saying he is necessarily wrong in his argument, but I do feel it's wrong-headed to encourage 'milder-mannered faith-heads' to take up the negative aspects of certain segments of Christianity, simply to reinforce his own personal views and give him a solid windmill to tilt at.

Besides this, from here it genuinely looks like he is rallying against the evolution of a meme over a couple of millennia. Really?  I mean, freakin' really, Dawkins? 

[Sibling DavidH]

He's doing a great job ... very, very badly.

[Aggie]

I tend to agree.  At least Mr. Henderson, when confronting odious extremism, presented a completely ridiculous idea in an apparently seriously manner (with a wink), effectively de-legitimizing and disempowering his opponents.  Mr. Dawkins, OTOH (and IMHO), is presenting a serious argument in a completely ridiculous manner, empowering and legitimizing his opponents; at the same time, he's alienating many of his potential or presumed allies (myself included, scientifical background and whatnot). 

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Once again the good professor tells them what's what:   
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7007065.ece
Personally I agree with the argument, but he could be a bit more subtle.  For example, he could assault the Archbish of C with a baseball bat or dump a trailer-load of pig manure on the steps of Westminster Abbey.   

Thanks for that!

I thoroughly enjoyed reading it:  I think it's spot-on, dealing with some of the fundamental and basic problems with the religion.   Until those most basic of concepts are dealt with, there's always going to be a 'pat robertson' type exploiting the weakness of the belief-system.

Back when the best form of government humans had invented, was king-peasant, these concepts made a certain sort of sense.   Oaths of fealty, and all that.

Now?  When humans have come so far in the arena of self-governance?  It's time for religions to put away this silly concept of 'god-king', that is so fundamental to the basics of modern christianity.

If the conservatives can rewrite the bible, why not the moderates and liberals?   To eliminate the 'juice' that people like Dawkins has, in critical analysis of it.

[Griffin NoName]

He doesn't mince his words, even if he minces everything else

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Well, as said before he isn't precisely toadfish material, but I have to admit that I agree with a good percentage of his argument.

It also goes about what we talked in the civility thread, which reminds me of these words from the mouth of Sting:

  "you said the meek shall inherit the earth, how long will they keep it?"

Perhaps is because I'm tired of watching in despair how the fundies are winning in the US despite loosing badly a year ago, but there is something to his argument about the regular coyness in the progressive speech, tolerance and understanding cannot become indifference and aloofness. Someone has to say that the whole thing is wrong, that the words of love and hope don't absolve the words of guilt and -in many cases- outright hate, found in the scripture. When someone comes to my door convinced with absolute certainty of his/her "truth", why is it wrong to spell mine? If I have a deeply felt conviction why is it wrong to held such conviction publicly? And in that aspect I do respect the guy, his convictions are deeply held and he isn't coy about them, like saying: "if you feel no respect for my beliefs I wont have any for yours. If my beliefs offend you, know that yours offend me too."

It may be confrontational and perhaps Aggie is right in that it will alienate potential allies and be counterproductive, but I can't shake the feeling of respect for his guts saying something that I want to say too but don't have the balls to say myself.

[Aggie]

It may be confrontational and perhaps Aggie is right in that it will alienate potential allies and be counterproductive, but I can't shake the feeling of respect for his guts saying something that I want to say too but don't have the balls to say myself.

Ayuh, I guess I just take a utilitarian perspective on it.  I just don't think he's doing the maximum good with his influence. If he was Joe Sixpack I'd not begrudge him his rant, but he is an influential scientist and this bent, IMHO, undermines his credibility. Or maybe it's just not my statement.  We have much less overt Evangelism here.  I recall on at least one occasion being told not to talk about Satan so much because it wigged out our Christian friends (reading LaVey ). I certainly wasn't persecuted for it.

[Sibling DavidH]

    What Aggie said.

[Opsa]

Yeah, but if he was more moderate, who would pay attention? I think there's a place for this sort of person, grating though they may sound.

I would never say such stuff either, because it seems unreasonably harsh and I don't believe "back atchya" rudeness is a good idea, it just continues what looks like unproductive confrontation. But when I first read it, I thought he was being funny, a la Steven Colbert.

[Aggie]

But when I first read it, I thought he was being funny, a la Steven Colbert.

Hmmm....  didn't consider that. I haven't heard him speak enough to judge, but the bits I've read suggest he doesn't approach the subject with humour, generally.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Yeah, but if he was more moderate, who would pay attention?

I guess that's the point, it reminds me of how weak and nondescript the hired voice from the left (Colmes, Juan Williams) in Faux news is. If the fundies yell nonsense, perhaps you have to raise your tone to be heard.

But when I first read it, I thought he was being funny, a la Steven Colbert.

Hmmm....  didn't consider that. I haven't heard him speak enough to judge, but the bits I've read suggest he doesn't approach the subject with humour, generally.

I've seen him in a video at TED which is tongue-in-cheek although he is death serious about the subject.

[The Meromorph]

Well, as said before he isn't precisely toadfish material, but I have to admit that I agree with a good percentage of his argument.

It also goes about what we talked in the civility thread, which reminds me of these words from the mouth of Sting:

  "you said the meek shall inherit the earth, how long will they keep it?"

Perhaps is because I'm tired of watching in despair how the fundies are winning in the US despite loosing badly a year ago, but there is something to his argument about the regular coyness in the progressive speech, tolerance and understanding cannot become indifference and aloofness. Someone has to say that the whole thing is wrong, that the words of love and hope don't absolve the words of guilt and -in many cases- outright hate, found in the scripture. When someone comes to my door convinced with absolute certainty of his/her "truth", why is it wrong to spell mine? If I have a deeply felt conviction why is it wrong to held such conviction publicly? And in that aspect I do respect the guy, his convictions are deeply held and he isn't coy about them, like saying: "if you feel no respect for my beliefs I wont have any for yours. If my beliefs offend you, know that yours offend me too."

It may be confrontational and perhaps Aggie is right in that it will alienate potential allies and be counterproductive, but I can't shake the feeling of respect for his guts saying something that I want to say too but don't have the balls to say myself.

I agree with Zono here. Indeed ,I agree with Dawkins.

I am intolerant of intolerance.  I do not believe that good people should remain silent in the face of evil. I respect the rght of people to believe what they wish. I do not therefore silence my own beliefs, my own opinions.
I do not seek confrontation for its own sake. I will confront evil whenever I can.
Dawkins did not set out to fight 'fundies'. He was repeatedly attacked, misquoted, and insulted. And in response he speaks truth and honesty.
It is difficult to believe the vileness of thr ;religious right' in America if you have not encountered it daily. The targets of Dawkins righteous wrath are not 'fringe groups, they are mainstream americans who hold sway over millions of peoples hearts and minds. They are often portrayed (particularly in European media) as 'off the wall' cranks and freaks, they are not, they are commonplace. loud, and influential in American life. They are utterly opposed to education, and science, they are sincere in their belief that it is fundamentally wrong to ask questions. I am convinced that they are potentially fatal to our civilisation, to 'the enlightenment', and to all the progress humanity has made in its name.
They gather in millions of dollars from their 'flock', they fund 'universities' dedicated to the maintenance of ignorance, they fund much of the political activity in the US, they have huge influence in the US government, and they have no shame, whatsoever.

Dawkin's analysis that it is the acceptance of 'revealed truth', over acquired and tested knowlledge, that enables them, is IMO correct. The unwillingness of 'ordinary decent people' to challenge other's beliefs allows these poisonous endevors to prosper and grow.

I do not know how to stop them. I fear for humanity.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

... I do not know how to stop them. I fear for humanity.

As do I.

The rest of your post?  I also agree with-- well said.