Man, I'm VERY glad there are people like Dawkins and Hitchens in the world! ;) Even if I was a theist/deist, I would no longer be, after listening to them for 5 minutes.
I agree! If someone at my childs school heard me tell my kids one of you will be sacraficed when we get home, people would go nuts. Even if I said god told me to, they would still stop me. What makes these people right & not us?
During our general election in 2008 we had two contenders for the post of Prime Minister. In a head to head debate,on the topic of religion,both declared their lack of a belief in a life after death.Quickly establishing that voters need not be concerned either harboured a compartmentalised delusion. It seems such frankness would be akin to "political suicide" in the USA. Which is pretty scary for the rest of the world.
Sorry, I couldn't find the link for that particular interview. Just search 'Root of all evil?' in UA-cam and you'll find the series, then you can locate the interview.
The fact that Stalin was an atheist proves that there would exist evil even without religion, so Dawkins should have answered since an atheistic world obviously isn't by definition a good world.
this is just for Australia.... but just recently the government approved state paid ministers to all the state schools. I like the fact that the laws and science is more realistic, but for an individual living here, its hard to even get to 'free thought'. I guess when i hear the same of Sweden and other countries, I am a little skeptical of the claim. Just recently Richard Dawkins pointed out the same thing.
@clipsryan Contrary to what religious people think about the impact of atheism, I happen to believe that it's a net gain for humanity. When you aren't constantly looking for outside assistance--when you stop believing that someone or something is going to "save" you--then you tend to become a more mature, responsible person. Religion is, in essence, a refusal to grow up.
if atheism is a religion (which it isnt) then dawkins is our messiah, getting our voices heard at last! and making sure atheism has a futue rather than continuing to live in the shadows! we've hd enough with religious views making all our decisions rather than rational thought!
it debatable whether or not hitler was christian. he said he was and there is some evidence for it in his writing, but the opposite arguement could be made as well. one thing not under debate is the his followers were unambiguously christian
I completely understand what you're talking about, Canada claims to not be the bible thumping country the USA is, while we have an evangelical prime minister and god in our national anthem. From what I've read and heard Sweden is bordering on anti-religious, so I hope its true.
@clipsryan My point is, there's no real analogy there. A moustache is a physical characteristic, nothing more; atheism, on the other hand, is a belief, and beliefs CAN have implications for behavior. Don't get me wrong, I think people who equate atheism with immorality are dead wrong. I'm just saying that Dawkins' analogy doesn't really help to undermine that idea.
The guy at 9:06 annoyed me with his nonsense when he implied that hitler was atheistict. He wasn't an atheist, he was christian and abused christianity in order to assasinate random jews and spout hate about non-aryans. So when the guy at 9:06 acted like nazism had something at all to do with atheism, I felt like writing something to let people if they think that way, they're all messed up. Letting people know when they're wrong can help them, so productive? yup.
By way of analogy, we already impinge on 'freedom of speech' when we make it illegal to speak sexually with children. I mean not in a factual educational way, but in a suggestive erotic way. Speaking to a child as you would speak to a lover would see you imprisoned. Yet could that not be considered a violation of free speech? Free speech does not mean we are free to say any and every thing we like.
Chapter 9, pg 349 in 'The God Delusion' speaks at large about the idea that indoctrinating child into religion can be abuse and psychologically traumatising. Also, you can see an interview that Dawkins does with Jill Mytton in his documentary 'The Root of all Evil?' I'll try and locate a UA-cam link for you to this video. I think there is one floating around.
There is much evidence that preaching hellfire and damnation can harm children. Richard Dawkins covers this very idea in his book 'The God Delusion'. I'm afraid I cannot go into much detail in the limited space of the comments section, but I have given you two examples that you can follow up for yourself.
@xJediHowieX I just wanted to point out that Dawkins agreed with user "salladsdressing" if you listen to him again. He is simply pointting out what the article in the newspaper said. Thanks for the upload voted up!
These countries are just more secular, which is good. It is still against the constitution in Sweden for the leader of the royal family to be anything other than a christian. here in Australia.... 'secular' also is still run by conservative christianity. Its just that these moderate christians have opened themselves more so to reality. there is still a MAJOR religous influence. just less is based DIRECTLY on religous dogma
I live in Sweden and it's NOT going towards religon =) Rather the opposite! The political party "Christian Democrats" are getting smaller each year! They only hold 4% of the votes in Sweden today. The statistic show that 85% of Sweden is outspoken NON RELIGOUS but i whould however say that 10% more are as Dawkins whould put it "Closet Atheists" =)
I hear often people say how secular australia is, where i live. And yet most people here are religous. 70% christian. Sure it is more secular when it comes to law and acceptance of science, but its ripe with a 'believe what you want mentality', which is even just as ridiculous...be it christianity, Islam or special alien contacts its not leading people to free thought.
The royal family in Sweden doesn't really matter though, they're respected, sure, but Sweden is the least religious nation in the world by populace and practice, so thats all that matters.
@clipsryan Of course atheism is a belief; let's not get distracted by this "no, it's a lack of belief" silliness. My point still stands: a person's beliefs--the way they look at the world--has implications. You don't think that the 9/11 hijackers' actions had something to do with the fact they they were Muslims? Beliefs impact actions, for good or ill. If you don't believe in God, it's going to affect your choices in life. Race, like having a moustache, is simply a superficial physical trait.
well someone who believes there is a creating God, just not one that has delivered any set morals or guidance for life. Of course there definition of God would no doubt be the same as the monotheist, just without the 'moral principles'. I dont really care too much about words, just the definitions. so if a someone who calls them self a deist but believes differently, its no big deal to me somewhat.
A deist is just an amoral theist. that doesn't really come out right does it. Makes me sound like I have it in for deist. oh well 2 points...... oh wait this is youtube not yahoo answers. :)
You are morally and intellectually bankrupt, I just figured you should know that. Hopefully you will reflect and seek professional help in the future! Peace, love and an open mind.
you are right, dawkins shouldnt be equated with those gods. after all, dawkins exists, while those gods dont ^^ but its more like dawkins pushing away the ridiculous ideas that those names of gods stand for.
I think the point is that he didn't believe in the supernatural and that a pantheist is just a sexed up atheist. Pantheist is certainly a million miles away from theism.
I don't believe morality is based on pure reasoning. We reason that what feels wrong also is, but the feelings do not always come from reasoning. Humans are both emotional and logical and both are tools in a combination for our actions and beliefs. Morality cannot be purely subtracted to one of these two alone I think.
I have uni first thing in the morning else I'd search some more. Suffice to say, that if one can accept that it's possible to traumatise a child with religious dogma and hellfire preaching in the home, you have to make the choice that it's either okay it let parents continue to do so, in favour of the rights of individuals, or it's okay to limit such behaviour to protect a child from such abuse.
So it should be permissible to tell children that there is a being called Grover who watches everything you do, and if you're good he'll give you chocolate, and if you're bad he'll come to you at night and cut your feet and hands off? Freedom of speech is very important in free cultures, I agree, but there comes responsibility with it. What HarryandNad was suggesting was not to limit free speech, but to limit psychological abuse of child from zealous religious parents and preachers.
Jesus? The only record of a Jesus is in the bible. Jesus is most likely summary of old myths coming together in an artificial person. Look at the egyptian god Horus, at the indian Krishna, at Buddha (all b.c.) and see the parallels. Especialy Horus is assumed to be the raw model for the Jesus figure in the bible which makes complete sense, while Judaism is a movement most likely originating in egyptian monotheism of the period of pharaoh echnaton. His followers were driven out of the country ...
We swedes like to think of ourselves as tolerant but we do have some racists and problems with integration and so on. So don't expect paradise. :P With regards to religion, I don't see it growing, but I guess it would be hard to tell since religion overall is very very quiet here. But I think that it is telling that our Prime Minister has left the church and said that he couldn't run in America because of religion (hint: Atheist) and that our opposition leader is an outspoken atheist.
Jill Mytton is a psychologist who councils adults who grew up in deeply religious families, and were traumatised by their own family. She herself was brought up in an Exclusive Brethren family, were she was psychologically traumatised. She now works to help people in and from situations like herself. This is an example of the harm that religion can do to children.
prophesy from a non-believer: in the year 20,008 ad there will be no christian religion because god will not have returned to earth by then, and the general ppoulatio will have given up on it.
Hitler was catholic and was praised by the church until his death. Stalin thought of himself as a god. Pol pot was very religious. He wanted to rebuild the ancient buddhist ankor empire.
Free speech does not give a person the right to threaten another person, especially a child, with eternal torture and hellfire because they don't believe in a particular god.
Man, I'm VERY glad there are people like Dawkins and Hitchens in the world! ;) Even if I was a theist/deist, I would no longer be, after listening to them for 5 minutes.
Dawkins speaking sense yet again. I wonder when more people will listen, especially in America
I agree! If someone at my childs school heard me tell my kids one of you will be sacraficed when we get home, people would go nuts. Even if I said god told me to, they would still stop me. What makes these people right & not us?
Excellent. 5/5.
Come back tomorrow I will upload the other 2 parts. :) You're most welcome.
I agree with you. It's a complicated issue. Religion is certainly not an answer.
During our general election in 2008 we had two contenders for the post of Prime Minister. In a head to head debate,on the topic of religion,both declared their lack of a belief in a life after death.Quickly establishing that voters need not be concerned either harboured a compartmentalised delusion.
It seems such frankness would be akin to "political suicide" in the USA. Which is pretty scary for the rest of the world.
Sorry, I couldn't find the link for that particular interview. Just search 'Root of all evil?' in UA-cam and you'll find the series, then you can locate the interview.
The fact that Stalin was an atheist proves that there would exist evil even without religion, so Dawkins should have answered since an atheistic world obviously isn't by definition a good world.
this is just for Australia.... but just recently the government approved state paid ministers to all the state schools. I like the fact that the laws and science is more realistic, but for an individual living here, its hard to even get to 'free thought'. I guess when i hear the same of Sweden and other countries, I am a little skeptical of the claim. Just recently Richard Dawkins pointed out the same thing.
@clipsryan
Contrary to what religious people think about the impact of atheism, I happen to believe that it's a net gain for humanity. When you aren't constantly looking for outside assistance--when you stop believing that someone or something is going to "save" you--then you tend to become a more mature, responsible person. Religion is, in essence, a refusal to grow up.
if atheism is a religion (which it isnt) then dawkins is our messiah, getting our voices heard at last! and making sure atheism has a futue rather than continuing to live in the shadows! we've hd enough with religious views making all our decisions rather than rational thought!
it debatable whether or not hitler was christian. he said he was and there is some evidence for it in his writing, but the opposite arguement could be made as well. one thing not under debate is the his followers were unambiguously christian
The black, hispanics, gays and lefties on one side and the proper humans on the other. bring on the apocalypse.
I completely understand what you're talking about, Canada claims to not be the bible thumping country the USA is, while we have an evangelical prime minister and god in our national anthem. From what I've read and heard Sweden is bordering on anti-religious, so I hope its true.
@clipsryan
My point is, there's no real analogy there. A moustache is a physical characteristic, nothing more; atheism, on the other hand, is a belief, and beliefs CAN have implications for behavior.
Don't get me wrong, I think people who equate atheism with immorality are dead wrong. I'm just saying that Dawkins' analogy doesn't really help to undermine that idea.
The guy at 9:06 annoyed me with his nonsense when he implied that hitler was atheistict. He wasn't an atheist, he was christian and abused christianity in order to assasinate random jews and spout hate about non-aryans. So when the guy at 9:06 acted like nazism had something at all to do with atheism, I felt like writing something to let people if they think that way, they're all messed up. Letting people know when they're wrong can help them, so productive? yup.
By way of analogy, we already impinge on 'freedom of speech' when we make it illegal to speak sexually with children. I mean not in a factual educational way, but in a suggestive erotic way. Speaking to a child as you would speak to a lover would see you imprisoned. Yet could that not be considered a violation of free speech? Free speech does not mean we are free to say any and every thing we like.
Chapter 9, pg 349 in 'The God Delusion' speaks at large about the idea that indoctrinating child into religion can be abuse and psychologically traumatising. Also, you can see an interview that Dawkins does with Jill Mytton in his documentary 'The Root of all Evil?' I'll try and locate a UA-cam link for you to this video. I think there is one floating around.
also the crusades, the stoning of 'sinners' were done by christians
There is much evidence that preaching hellfire and damnation can harm children. Richard Dawkins covers this very idea in his book 'The God Delusion'. I'm afraid I cannot go into much detail in the limited space of the comments section, but I have given you two examples that you can follow up for yourself.
oh, right. i kinda used the two terms interchangeably.
@xJediHowieX I just wanted to point out that Dawkins agreed with user "salladsdressing" if you listen to him again. He is simply pointting out what the article in the newspaper said.
Thanks for the upload voted up!
These countries are just more secular, which is good. It is still against the constitution in Sweden for the leader of the royal family to be anything other than a christian. here in Australia.... 'secular' also is still run by conservative christianity. Its just that these moderate christians have opened themselves more so to reality. there is still a MAJOR religous influence. just less is based DIRECTLY on religous dogma
dawkins lives in the US?
Guilty, your honor.
He must have some evidence for what he said....I wonder if you can find out for us?
You guys get all the chicks. ;)
I live in Sweden and it's NOT going towards religon =)
Rather the opposite! The political party "Christian Democrats" are getting smaller each year! They only hold 4% of the votes in Sweden today.
The statistic show that 85% of Sweden is outspoken NON RELIGOUS but i whould however say that 10% more are as Dawkins whould put it "Closet Atheists" =)
i just ment its debateable whether he believed it or just used it as a tool
@intecrisis Roman Catholic to be more precise, but yes.
I hear often people say how secular australia is, where i live. And yet most people here are religous. 70% christian. Sure it is more secular when it comes to law and acceptance of science, but its ripe with a 'believe what you want mentality', which is even just as ridiculous...be it christianity, Islam or special alien contacts its not leading people to free thought.
The royal family in Sweden doesn't really matter though, they're respected, sure, but Sweden is the least religious nation in the world by populace and practice, so thats all that matters.
Amen ,bro! LOL And Stalin wasn't technically Atheist. Then why he wanted his ppl to 'worship' him?
@clipsryan
Of course atheism is a belief; let's not get distracted by this "no, it's a lack of belief" silliness.
My point still stands: a person's beliefs--the way they look at the world--has implications. You don't think that the 9/11 hijackers' actions had something to do with the fact they they were Muslims? Beliefs impact actions, for good or ill. If you don't believe in God, it's going to affect your choices in life.
Race, like having a moustache, is simply a superficial physical trait.
well someone who believes there is a creating God, just not one that has delivered any set morals or guidance for life. Of course there definition of God would no doubt be the same as the monotheist, just without the 'moral principles'. I dont really care too much about words, just the definitions. so if a someone who calls them self a deist but believes differently, its no big deal to me somewhat.
I would not call Einstein an atheist. Pandeist or deist perhaps.
But of course, we would still have problems in the world. But Religion is the source of much evil.
hahahahha
A deist is just an amoral theist.
that doesn't really come out right does it. Makes me sound like I have it in for deist. oh well 2 points...... oh wait this is youtube not yahoo answers. :)
lol...
Chill. It's obviously a joke.
good christ dude, learn how to hold a camera
You are morally and intellectually bankrupt, I just figured you should know that. Hopefully you will reflect and seek professional help in the future! Peace, love and an open mind.
ROFL
You are sick. Get help pls.
you are right, dawkins shouldnt be equated with those gods. after all, dawkins exists, while those gods dont ^^
but its more like dawkins pushing away the ridiculous ideas that those names of gods stand for.
I think the point is that he didn't believe in the supernatural and that a pantheist is just a sexed up atheist. Pantheist is certainly a million miles away from theism.
It's not about being just an atheist. It's about being rational and reasonable. Stalin was none of those.
I don't believe morality is based on pure reasoning. We reason that what feels wrong also is, but the feelings do not always come from reasoning. Humans are both emotional and logical and both are tools in a combination for our actions and beliefs. Morality cannot be purely subtracted to one of these two alone I think.
I have uni first thing in the morning else I'd search some more. Suffice to say, that if one can accept that it's possible to traumatise a child with religious dogma and hellfire preaching in the home, you have to make the choice that it's either okay it let parents continue to do so, in favour of the rights of individuals, or it's okay to limit such behaviour to protect a child from such abuse.
So it should be permissible to tell children that there is a being called Grover who watches everything you do, and if you're good he'll give you chocolate, and if you're bad he'll come to you at night and cut your feet and hands off?
Freedom of speech is very important in free cultures, I agree, but there comes responsibility with it. What HarryandNad was suggesting was not to limit free speech, but to limit psychological abuse of child from zealous religious parents and preachers.
Jesus? The only record of a Jesus is in the bible. Jesus is most likely summary of old myths coming together in an artificial person. Look at the egyptian god Horus, at the indian Krishna, at Buddha (all b.c.) and see the parallels. Especialy Horus is assumed to be the raw model for the Jesus figure in the bible which makes complete sense, while Judaism is a movement most likely originating in egyptian monotheism of the period of pharaoh echnaton. His followers were driven out of the country ...
We swedes like to think of ourselves as tolerant but we do have some racists and problems with integration and so on. So don't expect paradise. :P
With regards to religion, I don't see it growing, but I guess it would be hard to tell since religion overall is very very quiet here. But I think that it is telling that our Prime Minister has left the church and said that he couldn't run in America because of religion (hint: Atheist) and that our opposition leader is an outspoken atheist.
Jill Mytton is a psychologist who councils adults who grew up in deeply religious families, and were traumatised by their own family. She herself was brought up in an Exclusive Brethren family, were she was psychologically traumatised. She now works to help people in and from situations like herself. This is an example of the harm that religion can do to children.
Sweden and Norway are leading the way in free thought and are sparkling examples of what a country or region can be without major religious influence.
prophesy from a non-believer:
in the year 20,008 ad
there will be no christian religion because god will not have returned to earth by then, and the general ppoulatio will have given up on it.
Hitler was catholic and was praised by the church until his death. Stalin thought of himself as a god. Pol pot was very religious. He wanted to rebuild the ancient buddhist ankor empire.
Free speech does not give a person the right to threaten another person, especially a child, with eternal torture and hellfire because they don't believe in a particular god.
dawkins rules..
oumph,only his own life ;)
not anything else.
What an awesome little Q & A! I keep missing Prof. D. when he comes to the States! Some day, I'll actually get to listen in person.
I agree. Maybe there was this guy Joshua, a rabbi, but that's it, all the myth around him is completely man made.
Awesome, more awesomeness from the Dawkmeister.
here here!!! =)
I have lived in norway so i know JUST what you are talking about ;)
damn..I'm an amoral theist.. well, good thing is I learned something today :D
Dawkins' "moustache" analogy is really bad. I wish he'd stop using it.
Is that intro meant to imply that Dawkins is some sort of deity? :-)
No, he's UK citizen and a professor at Oxford University in Britain.
Thanx for posting!
hhaah.obviously looking to get a rea ction
its truee....y are ppl thumbs downing u?
wait... you mean he's not? D=
Great video! :) Thanks
Ramen to that!
Thanks.