Atheist Richard Dawkins admires Israel lobby

[solar]

Atheists arise: Dawkins spreads the A-word among America's unbelievers



· Author outlines campaign to give godless a voice

· New organisation appeals to 'downtrodden' millions

Ewen MacAskill in Washington [from this link]

Monday October 1, 2007, The Guardian

It is like Daniel going into the lions' den, though Professor Richard Dawkins might not appreciate the biblical comparison.

Britain's leading atheist is spearheading a campaign in America to challenge the dominance of religion in every day life and in politics, insisting that the millions of US godless deserve to be heard too.

Atheists in the US "have been downtrodden for a very long time. So I think some sort of political organisation is what they need", he said.

Maybe David and Goliath would be a better analogy.

Religion is palpable in US schools, places of work and public institutions. God is invoked by soldiers and politicians in a way that would seem inappropriate in Britain.

George Bush used God as one of the reasons for invading Iraq. In Congress, where godlessness can equate with being unelectable, only one representative, Pete Stark, is prepared to admit to being a non-believer.

According to a study published last year by the University of Minnesota, Americans distrust atheists more than any other minority group, including homosexuals, recent immigrants or Muslims.

Now the best-selling author of The God Delusion and chair of public understanding of science at Oxford has set up an organisation to help atheists round the world, including the US.

In an interview with the Guardian, he said: "When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told--religious Jews anyway--than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place."

His organisation, established two months ago, complete with T-shirts bearing a large red A, is the Out Campaign. "It does not mean outing, definitely not ... we want to encourage people to come out because there is a big closet population of atheists who need to come out."

His estimates, which square broadly with official data, show that atheists in the US account for about 10% of the population.

"I have had many letters from people saying 'I don't dare give my opinions. I am afraid of my family. I am afraid of my wife, I am afraid of my husband. I am afraid of my work people. I am afraid of being fired'."

Prof. Dawkins appeared as one of the stars of the Atheist Alliance convention in Crystal City, Virginia, at the weekend.

He admitted he was "a little bit hesitant" about being an Englishman talking to Americans and he showed "a certain amount of deference" when asked about US politics. "But I think that this country is so powerful and what goes on politically here is so enormously influential, the rest of the world is entitled to have a say. We don't get the vote here but I think people are entitled to express an opinion."

Although religious groups denounce him on websites and radio talkshows, he has not received abuse at public meetings; religious people tended not to turn up - "which in a way is a shame", he said.

What did he hope an atheist bloc in the US might achieve?

"I would free children from being indoctrinated with the religion of their parents or their community. I would like to free everyone from the assumption you have to be religious in order to be a decent person or to be moral. Obviously stem cell research and all the interference with scientific research that goes on [should stop]. Obviously the whole creationist interference with education [should stop] but I think, more positively, I would like to see people encouraged to rejoice in the world in which they find themselves, the universe in which they have been born, to take full advantage of the tiny slice of eternity they have been granted."

He had been encouraged by the apparent distancing of Republican candidates for the 2008 presidential race from the Christian right.

But he found "very depressing" the profession of faith from all the Democratic candidates. "I guess the Democrats have to pretend to be more pious than the Republicans because they are under suspicion of not being."

Darwin's Rottweiler--

Richard Dawkins' vocal insistence on the pre-eminence of science (he is nicknamed Darwin's Rottweiler) and his rigorous attempts to dismantle notions of faith and belief have earned him many critics, from those who complain about his evangelising tone to those who confidently predict he will spend eternity in hellfire.

His latest work, The God Delusion, incensed believers with its insistence on the hypocrisy and unreliability of scripture and its lampooning of creationists. It also annoyed some in the scientific community for suggesting that few top scientists believed in God and that separating the rational and the religious was intellectually impossible.

In particular, Dawkins is angry at the way children are indoctrinated into faiths and takes issue with the unimpeachable taboos that protect religions from rational scrutiny.

[Shinobi]

Albert Pikes dream come true....

[plasticfan]

messianic atheism

[ephilution]

Quote:messianic atheism

Indeed, Dawkins' willingness to advertise the mainstream evolutionary position that humans slowly but surely evolved out of amoeba gooey demonstrates that he possesses the same religious fervour as those who defend the religious doctrines he opposes.

Granted though, evolution theory does have the benefit of Occam's Razor in that it doesn't rely on postulating the existence of (First Cause) creator beings.

[plasticfan]

Quote:

Quote:messianic atheism

Indeed, Dawkins' willingness to advertise the mainstream evolutionary position that humans slowly but surely evolved out of amoeba gooey demonstrates that he possesses the same religious fervour as those who defend the religious doctrines he opposes.

Granted though, evolution theory does have the benefit of Occam's Razor in that it doesn't rely on postulating the existence of (First Cause) creator beings.

just what we all need, more white eugenic elitists. Nature rewarding the most selfish genes.

What will the secular humanist lobby demand?

More culling of the useless eaters that don't fill some kind of genetic mandate. After all, our species
is under threat from less evolved theists that start all the wars and are a threat to our collective survival.

[LeveL]

Quote:Indeed, Dawkins' willingness to advertise the mainstream evolutionary position that humans slowly but surely evolved out of amoeba gooey demonstrates that he possesses the same religious fervour as those who defend the religious doctrines he opposes.

Amen to that. Or maybe not "Amen" actually, OK then "I agree". :LOL:

I read Dawkins "Selfish gene" book when I was 15 years old and up until that point I had always believed god put us all here. No, I never went to church, did all the stuff Christians arn't supposed to do etc but I still believed in god, sort of. Dawkins book changed my views completely about that. Then later in life I started to see flaws in Charles Darwins "Theory of Evolution" (which is all Dawkins theory is too) in that in the entire fossil record, there is no evidence of transgressional animals, for example, a reptile with feathered wings, a fish with limbs - if life gradually evolved over millions of years, there should be innumberable examples of animals that died in the fossil record like this, animals that wern't the strongest/fittest that did not survive, think about it, these animals didn't survive but we have no fossils of animals like this and according to Darwin and Dawkins theories, we should have records of those types of animals. Even Darwin himself calls it the "Theory" of Evolution okay! Even he himself said if in future, science (biologists etc) cannot find any evidence of any of these sub-species that died off, then his whole theory will collapse. For me, his whole theory has already collapsed. It is an incredibly convincing argument I agree, but theres no real life evidence or logic to it. Saying that, no I don't believe life was "put here" by some god either... and I am not an "Atheist". But then neither is Dawkins, he believes in evolution, which I just lump in with all the other religions to be honest.

So what do I believe? I don't know but what I do know is animal species are "locked in" to being the way they are. Like if you say "humans came from apes", I think thats bullshit - humans have always been humans, apes have always been apes! No one animal "came off of" another. Same with saying "fish came out of water and onto land" - bull, because a fish cannot even breathe out of water, oh but of course, it had limbs and the beginnings of lungs... right, well then where in the fossil record is that animal? it doesn't exist. Darwins theory cannot possibly hold any water when there is not one single fossil to back up the theory.

Like some researchers (Icke) have said - the whole of modern science is based solely on Darwins theory of evolution when there is in fact nada evidence to support the theory. It only passes as "fact" because of how convincing it is. Yep, it sure as hell is convincing, but for me, not logical.

[mothandrust]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:messianic atheism

Indeed, Dawkins' willingness to advertise the mainstream evolutionary position that humans slowly but surely evolved out of amoeba gooey demonstrates that he possesses the same religious fervour as those who defend the religious doctrines he opposes.

Granted though, evolution theory does have the benefit of Occam's Razor in that it doesn't rely on postulating the existence of (First Cause) creator beings.

just what we all need, more white eugenic elitists. Nature rewarding the most selfish genes.

What will the secular humanist lobby demand?

More culling of the useless eaters that don't fill some kind of genetic mandate. After all, our species
is under threat from less evolved theists that start all the wars and are a threat to our collective survival.

lots of interesting points (hardly 'Zionism' though).

i was a great fan of Dawkins after i read 'the selfish gene', although i was a little concerned how he used 'game theory'. i've read a few of his books since then and my opinion is, Dawkins is nowhere near as smart as he thinks he is. and, having studied 'international relations theory' and seen them use 'game theory' in a similar way, i've come to the conclusion it's more about justification than investigation. that is not to say there are not elements of truth in their arguments - elements of truth are vital to enable the propagation of the idea (Capitalism and Communism are prime examples) - however, this woeful oversimplification, whilst enabling self styled and self labeled 'realists' and 'rationalists', to slice away any data that does not fit with their arguments, completely ignores holistic perspectives to justify their modus operandi. so, from this perspective 'justificationist' would be a more honest term than rationalist or realist. Dawkins - and Pinker - both fall into this category. Personally, i'm not denying evolution as a possibility, even a strong possibility, but neither will i deny the impossible complexities and unthought of possibilities that may intertwine it with God.

this is part of Dawkins' problem, a simple basic error, from which anyone educated by 'enlightenment' thinking finds it hard to escape. he mistakes God for religion. God is God, religion is a group of power hungry people using the name of God to pursue personal wealth and power. 'the God delusion' is a classic example of this.

[solar]

Quote:[...] this is part of Dawkins' problem, a simple basic error, from which anyone educated by 'enlightenment' thinking finds it hard to escape. he mistakes God for religion. God is God, religion is a group of power hungry people using the name of God to pursue personal wealth and power. 'the God delusion' is a classic example of this.

Thanks to everyone who has responded on this thread: plasticfan, ephilution, LeveL, mothandrust ...

... and of course, MaDiZmS (thanks for the Albert Pike "prophecy" which I was not familiar with:)).

There's much to chew on ...

... and much "food for thought" in all of your posts (keep em comin' !;))

Speaking of "food" ...B)

... the excellent posts have reminded me of a Richard Dawkins joke::rolleyes:

Richard Dawkins was taking a walk through the woods.

"What majestic trees!"

"What powerful rivers!"

"What beautiful animals!" Richard said to himself.

As he was walking alongside the river he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him.

Dawkins turned to look.

He saw an eight foot grizzly bear charging towards him. :o

He ran as fast as he could up the path.

He looked over his shoulder and saw that the bear was closing in on him.

He looked over his shoulder again, and the bear was even closer.

He tripped and fell on the ground.

Dawkins rolled over to pick himself up but saw that the grizzly bear was right on top of him, reaching for him with his left paw and raising his right paw to strike him.

At that instant Richard Dawkins cried out: "Oh my God !!"

Time stopped.

The bear froze.

The forest was silent.

As a bright light shone upon Dawkins, a Voice came out of the sky: "You deny My existence for all of these years, teach others I don't exist, and even credit creation to a cosmic accident. Do you expect Me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer?"

Dawkins, looking directly into the light said, "It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask You to treat me as a believer now, but perhaps You could make the BEAR a believer?"

"Very well," said the Voice.

The light went out.

The sounds of the forest resumed.

And then ... the bear dropped his right paw, brought both paws together and bowed his head and spoke:

"Dear Lord, bless this food, which I am about to receive from thy bounty and through your grace ... amen.":D

[Shinobi]

Lol solar & thanks

[ephilution]

Quote:

Quote:Indeed, Dawkins' willingness to advertise the mainstream evolutionary position that humans slowly but surely evolved out of amoeba gooey demonstrates that he possesses the same religious fervour as those who defend the religious doctrines he opposes.

Amen to that. Or maybe not "Amen" actually, OK then "I agree". :LOL:

I read Dawkins "Selfish gene" book when I was 15 years old and up until that point I had always believed god put us all here. No, I never went to church, did all the stuff Christians arn't supposed to do etc but I still believed in god, sort of. Dawkins book changed my views completely about that. Then later in life I started to see flaws in Charles Darwins "Theory of Evolution" (which is all Dawkins theory is too) in that in the entire fossil record, there is no evidence of transgressional animals, for example, a reptile with feathered wings, a fish with limbs - if life gradually evolved over millions of years, there should be innumberable examples of animals that died in the fossil record like this, animals that wern't the strongest/fittest that did not survive, think about it, these animals didn't survive but we have no fossils of animals like this and according to Darwin and Dawkins theories, we should have records of those types of animals.

Darwin argued himself in his "ON the Origin of Species" as to why the fossil record indeed is so poorly instilled with transitional forms. You can read all about it in chapter 9 and the gist of his argument is basically that it the geological conditions that allow dead organisms to turn into fossils are extremely precarious and rare. When an organism dies it is subject to the forces of decay and thousands of years of corrosive chiseling can even break down and disperse bone-material "atom by atom". The remains of an organism even more quickly deteriorate if it is exposed to oxygen.

Quote:Like some researchers (Icke) have said - the whole of modern science is based solely on Darwins theory of evolution when there is in fact nada evidence to support the theory. It only passes as "fact" because of how convincing it is. Yep, it sure as hell is convincing, but for me, not logical.

But there is evidence for the process of biological evolution in action. In fact, evolution through artificial selection is very much based on its merit as any dog-breeder or tulip-grower can assert. As a means of evolutionary experiment they even managed to breed tame silver foxes out of a batch of wild foxes over a period of some 40 generations in the second part of the 20th century in Russia. Although this is artificial selection and not natural selection there is no fundamental difference, in the former case it is man that selects favorable specimens whereas in the latter case it is nature that's doing the choosing. This is called micro-evolution.

The mechanism of evolution is based on three pillars: selection, heredity (retention) and variation. When any complex system possesses these three criteria it automatically takes an evolutionary course steering towards an optimum state as determined by the selection criterion and with a rate that is allowed by the extent of variability. When the system has reached the optimum state it is said to have managed to adapt suitably to its environment.

The question of macro-evolution, in which one species evolves into another species, is still not confirmed with a convincing amount of scientific evidence though, at least not that I know of.