Why does Richard Dawkins sing Christmas carols?

Ahhhhhh... line by line. I'm going to try and lump my response.Atheists for Jesus:Dawkins's commentary was Xian apologetics in that it was using the same errant claims that Xian apologists use for their faith. I'm not claiming he invented it, he is using it. Its common. I've heard it before in church. Its dead flat out factually errant.To claim his philosophy was "radical" is like saying calling a monk that secretly whispers to himself as "radical". It has lost all contemporary meaning. To claim his philosophy was original is even worse. If he, as traveled and wise as he claimed to be, had not heard of Epicurus then how traveled and wise was he? But that is besides the point, Dawkins claimed he'd see through modern supernaturalism, people 300 years before Jesus were able to do so and their teachings become known. If Jesus was as portrayed, why didn't he see through it like those guys? I can't buy him being that credible or science minded a person, then or now, based on the facts.If the purpose was memegeneering, effective memegeneering, why did he have to engage in further spreading the false meme that Jesus was some nice guy with original and radical ideas for his time? Or recreating him with some vision of being nontheist?Moderates:
I hadn't heard Hitchens on OT v NT. Why does he think the NT is worse? Not a debate point, just interested.I can use the word evangelism any way I want, thank you! I was referring to their methods. If you want me to call it evangelistic tactics, I'll do so. My point stands on that matter. I find that methodology offensive and unnecessary. And my guess his use of it will be as effective on evangelical Xians, as their tactics are on atheists and nonXians. What is culture based reasoning other than faith-based reasoning? And when I ask that I am using faith in the broad sense as Dawkins (based on something other than evidence). Members of our culture pick and choose just as much as religious people pick and choose. Indeed isn't our culture shaped by religious people and what they have been picking and choosing for a while?On Beyond Belief '07, I am liking it so far, with what I consider very proper challenges to the "horsemen", and the concept that science delivers any sort of morality. That there is anything but faith-based morality. Atheists kid themselves to think otherwise. My counterpoint was missed. While you are correct, it is not the religious belief itself which drives certain people to be seen as "really believing", but rather a subset of that population seek such status based on some other characteristic which separates them from moderates.And I would argue this drive exists, regardless of religious belief. I can see this within atheists and scientists. Some people want to be seen as truly X, and so go to extremes to prove it.I'll drop the "kids" issue, as his treatment of them, and mental abuse garbage claims is an unrelated can of worms. Funny, but that sounds like many of my criticisms of Dawkins. I addressed the use of "evangelism" above, let's just say evangelist tactics. But your point above mirrors my points. If this is a secular issue, aren't religious words unnecessary? You just defended his use of The four horsemen, and discussing Jesus, not me. Science =/= atheism. While I think atheists will enjoy science, and that was what I was discussing, not all will. I'm glad that Dawkins can find pleasure and be happy in science.My argument was if atheism is to be championed, if reveling in things that could be exciting to atheists, would be better (more inspiring) than dogging on theists. There is no comparing the beauty of science with the ugliness of religion as some way to move atheism forward. What you'd have to compare is the beauty of disbelief with religion, otherwise the comparison is false. Many theists believe in science too. While he is incredulous on that topic, yet it is so.But I guess I agree, that is how he would likely see it. He is wrong. Yes Xians were hypocrites, and now so is Dawkins. If that is the future of atheism, count me out. That existed years ago, decades. I totally agree that we are still an oppressed minority in some parts (like the US where we cannot get elected as President), and might be laughed at in some quarters if we openly say Hi I'm an Atheist, but the fact that we can say such a thing was accomplished long long ago.Maybe that's why I'm mystified by Dawkins and Co. They are tilting at windmills to me.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

I'm not sure I completely agree. Let me run my thoughts by you. To me, a child could very well become a theist all by their lonesome. It doesn't take much to move an imaginary friend beyond time and space.If you mean specific theism, doctrines and such, then I'd agree they must be given that.Of course the same goes for science. The marvel that is science has been built up over the ages, and requires that it be introduced and taught to a new generation. There is no a priori science knowledge.Fascination with either will be born in encounters where impressions are made. I really do believe theistic art (including song) can light a flame of interest, upon which a specific theist can then work... or the child takes it upon them self to continue its study.Which means my point still stands, the meme is helped along in the real world by such simple things as having them engage in pious songs. By the way I'm not arguing people shouldn't, just given a belief in Dawkins' theories and professed intentions, that seems counterproductive. I don't believe him so I don't care. I'm sorry about that, I was attacking Dawkins's position, assuming you were defending it completely. My mistake.You are right that people will not kill others or themselves in the name of God without believing in such. But that does not mean that if religion is taken away, these same people could not get wrapped up in some other belief for which they will kill. Faith-based reasoning is an inherent part of all moral choice. Killing is wholly a moral choice.The same person could very well do the same thing in the name of "the environment", "the nation", or even "science". That's why it is irrelevant if they believe it is God they are dying for. Depending on how specific it can be tested. A vague notion of God, while perhaps an objective statement may never truly be tested, and why it would remain a state of faith. In fact true atheism, a believe there is truly no God, is equally an act of faith.I agree that as far as objective claims about the natural world, faith-based reasoning is shoddy. Especially if it is something important and we are about to shovel money into it. I agree, though am equally worried by people that don't engage in the evidence and think CC is happening for all the wrong reasons, not to mention what it's going to do. That sets the stage for some very bad policy, and when it doesn't work creates more disillusionment with environmentalism overall.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Or her mother might just be trying to condition the girl to use her right hand for some everyday things, in the belief that this will make life easier for her in the long run. For the rest of her life your niece is going to find forks placed on her right.That's not at all the approach I would take as a parent. But I wouldn't, from that scene alone, jump to the conclusion that her mother views left-handedness as doing 'wrong' in some way--especially with the moral baggage that word carries in our present context. Other possibilities exist._____Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.

Well you can keep saying that you think Dawkins is using apologetics, but I don't think one can meaningfully say that, Nor do I think that 'evangelical' is the right word. There is a difference in using religious imagery in a metaphorical sense and when trying to make an actual point. The way you are trying to use the terms is just obfuscatory. The basic argument is that the worst punishment the Old Testament offered ended in being dead. Eternal hellfire and suffering and torture and gnashing of teeth was devised in the NT. It used to be 'comply or die' and that became 'comply or be tortured for all eternity with no release'.The NT raised the stakes considerably. Cultural moral reasoning is not a real thing incidentally, its just a phrase that seemed to express succinctly the phenomenon I was thinking of.Faith-based moral reasoning is more resistant to changing moral standards. Cultural morality sees abortion as a necessary evil. With the basis of faith that the soul conjoins at conception abortion is murder in faith-based reasoning. It won't be until the faith basis of soul conjunctions changes that the moral reasoning will change.For instance, cultural moral reasoning would happily suggest that lying about sexual health issues is very very bad. Faith based reasoning might consider lying about sexual health issues is for the greater good based on nothing but something they take purely on faith. They can't really explain why, they can't give evidence that it is so - just that it is.'Cultural moral reasoning' can be questioned, and people can then examine the reasonings and evidences for each position and try and come to some kind of moral consensus over time. Certainly not perfect, but better than the alternative at least. That may well be the case. I'm not sure what a world with a core of extreme humanists with a majority of moderate humanists would be like. Still, when it comes to religion the stakes are often much much higher than non-theistic philosophy, and 'for the greater good' can justify a hell of a lot more. After all, what is the lives of a few thousand innocent people when the fate of billions of eternal souls are at stake? If I had to make a blind choice, I'd throw my lot in with the world of humanists. Erm. Obviously. Why not champion evidenced-based reasoning or the power and beauty of science? Atheism isn't really anything, it only has any meaning in a world filled with theists. We might champion materialism for example, which Dawkins does do. If you think the future of atheism is one where we wipe our cultural slate entirely clean and don't have any rituals or metaphors that have religious ties before going any further...then atheism doesn't have a future.Maybe the extreme future of atheism will have a culture completely independent of our religious history - but I'm willing to bet that billions of humans won't get there without going through a period of appreciating formerly religious rituals and icons in a secular context.Consider how many people will enjoy formerly religious rituals this year with no feeling of reverence or worship - or even a vague enmity towards the religions from whence the practice evolved. That's the way it is going to happen, if it happens at all.Maybe it is paradoxical. Hypocritical. Absurd. Wrongheaded. Stupid. Delusional. Backwards. Welcome to humanity, Holmes, the first rule is that you are no exception. I was trying to get across the general idea that the conversational climate has changed. This past 18 months or so I've had more people talk to me about atheism in an unsolicited fashion. Some of them call themselves secular humanists, agnostics or atheists. Pub talk has turned to talk of it, some people talk about it around the water cooler - it gets chatted about on late night discussion shows.These are things which were less common 5 years ago. I was just saying that this comparably comfortable position of having people willing to talk about it more openly is a perfect place to launch 'phase 2' as it were. I felt that way at first. I was a bit disappointed that Dawkins latest book was going to be entirely about religion. It seemed so bloody obvious what else was to say on the matter? What struck me however, was how upset everybody got about it and how much people blatantly lied about what was in the book. He's just repeating what Lucretius said 2,000 years ago:

quote:

---

But 'tis that same religion oftener far
Hath bred the foul impieties of men
...
Making his child a sacrificial beast
To give the ships auspicious winds for Troy:
Such are the crimes to which Religion leads.

---

So I was amused by the amount of backlash it received, and pleasantly surprised to learn that it had gotten people talking about it all and that a variety of atheists were able to sell millions of copies of books about the topic - that different voices were piping up.You know, it made me think that maybe one of the biggest problems with contemporary atheistic thought was that a lot of people hadn't really been exposed to it. I'm glad that is cleared up now, and I'm gladdened by some of the things I've heard about atheists living in religious communities who have felt it was now possible to 'come out' without getting completely ostracized. May that trend continue, I say.

no. a fork is appropriately placed on the left-hand side. in europe, it is used by the left hand with the knife in the right. in the us, it is used by the right unless there is need of a knife and then they are switched.except in waffle house, she will find forks on her left side.

What does that have to do with which handedness one is. Having spent over 5 years in Germany, I started eating as Europeans do, with the fork in the left hand and still do. If the fork is on the right I just move the fork to the left side & knife to the right. No problem.

I think I answered this already in this thread, and the answer was yes. The problem with people who have an outlook like you is you are limiting yourself to purely black and white decisions. Can you prove Zeus did/does not exist? If you can't then you are making a leap to a conclusion about his existence. Does not matter the actual size of the leap.

You are wrong. I prefer him to have beliefs. I just want them stated as just that, a belief. Somehow you missed that thought.Having a belief should not mean you are set in stone about it, if you list yourself as having a scientific mind.Too many atheists say "there is no God, period" but cannot prove that. Then when confronted, say, it is not up to us to prove there is no God, it is up to you to prove there is one. But that is clearly not how God works. Just because something is subjective, does not mean it doesn't exist.With that line of thinking, then they also should be saying "there is no E.T. life". we can't prove it, so it does not exist. But you probably wouldn't hear that one coming from an atheist. Only when talking about God, will you hear that kind of mindset.

Hi H, sorry for delay in reply, but here goes... That is true, but we were discussing Christmas carols, which by their nature are tied to a specific theology. I'm not worried about kids creating personal superstitious systems, because without outside reinforcement, the internal inconsistencies in such systems would cause them to fall apart when the kid reaches adulthood (unless the poor mite was completely loopy). Besides, a child could create a personal superstition around anything, from God, to Barney the purple dinosaur. To prevent this, you would have to keep the child free from all outside influence, clearly not an option. True again, but I'm not arguing that the meme is not being passed on, but rather, that the spread through art is unavoidable without ditching most of human culture. Spreading the meme is a necessary evil if we are unwilling to do this. Besides, there is an underlying assumption here, that memes hold power over us. I'm not convinced that this is true. I see the concept of memes as being a descriptive device, of dubious objective reality. If memes are real, we must simply be strong enough to resist their influence, where necessary.
An inspiring hymn might be a causal factor in religious conversions, but it can never be the whole story. Fair enough, but I'm not entirely sure that Dawkins has ever said the faith based reason turns moderates into extremists either. I took a look at the appropriate chapter of "The God Delusion", and I couldn't find any such claim. He says that faith is a driving force behind the unpleasantness of extremists, and that moderates promote faith, thus bolstering those extremists, but as far as I can tell, he is silent on what moves moderates to extremism. If I'm wrong, feel free to show me a quote. And I would criticise anyone who did so. It is important to note that faith is not exclusive to religion. You mention nationalism, and I agree that this is an excellent example of a dangerous faith-based idea. I oppose it every bit as much as I do religion. Communism is another useful example, especially with regards to the "inevitability of Marxism". Pure faith, and once again, dangerous rubbish.

---

Mutate and Survive

Hi Rat, Well fine, I apologise if I was misrepresenting your position, but it still seems as though, whilst you are happy enough for people to have beliefs, you seem to desire to tell them what labels they should use to describe those beliefs. I have already said why I think that Dawkins' self-application of the term "atheist" is a reasonable and useful way to describe his beliefs. If you recall, I have already proved to you that Dawkins is not set in stone, he is simply convinced enough to take a position on the subject. He does not say that he is 100% guaranteed correct. In my opinion, any atheist who believes that they possess absolute proof of god's non-existence is a berk. Clear to you perhaps, but without being able to prove that god even exists, I am at a loss to explain how you might be able to know how he works. It pretty much does rat. If you want to claim that god is subjective (i.e. only existing in the imagination) then you'll find no argument here. If you want to claim any objective (i.e. existing independently of the imagination) existence for god, then you need to point out the evidence. Seems fair to me. Not a fair comparison. The idea of ET life is consistent with what we observe here on Earth, thus it is a plausible hypothesis. We have plenty of evidence that life can exist on a suitable planet (in this case, the Earth). It is not a big stretch to imagine that it happened more than once. God is not consistent with observed evidence. There is no evidential precedent for God. Thus, the God hypothesis is inherently less convincing.
Anyway, only a person stupid enough to believe that they have absolute knowledge that there is no god, should then go on to believe that there absolutely are no alien life forms, but as I have said, those people are berks.

---

Mutate and Survive

I've watched it now. I didn't see much of interest about all the things he appreciates that you don't have time for. I saw that under a very specific set of circumstances he has said grace. I saw that he prefers the language and poetry of older translations of the Bible as an aesthetic point of view and that he likes Bach. What else were you thinking of?

Well the bible is a good start. As we read the bible, and debate about it here in these forums, at least we can say that believing in God is subjective, just like believing in atheism. It does not mean that it doesn't exist. There are plenty of things in the past, and now in the present, for which we have no objective proof, or evidences for, that do exist. I.E., ET, other planets like earth, etc. I mean at one time there was no evidence, or even a thought of neutrinos, but they existed all along.
The bible is full of stories of how people want proof of God's existence, and even when they got it, they still didn't believe. Jesus. said it is by faith, so then it is possible that the creator of everything, could make it so we could not be able to prove He exist, but only to ourselves, through belief. I understand this is not a scientific view, but it is my current understanding of God has a relationship with us. Still, it doesn't mean He does not exist, just because we can't prove it. People have always believed in some kind of god, and we seem to be able to wonder about these things, and just where we came from. Life in general needs to have some sort of explanation, and where this whole universe came from. Even evolution itself, does not explain why evolution happens. It could very well be God. God is a reason for the unexplainable. The only problem I have is if God made everything in our universe, then who made God? as you can see I believe in God, but I still have plenty of questions, and doubts.

Aiya. I misstated it. You are correct, Brenna, of course.The other utensils are placed on the right. The assumption is that this is most convenient placing for the majority of the population, which is right-handed. Spoons and knives, not forks, illustrate the point.Forks can be placed on the left because, as the most frequently used utensils, they will spend most of the meal time in the user's hand regardless of the initial placing. As you point out, even by right-handed people the usage varies.

My point was merely that our colleague did well to bite his tongue. Parents have many choices to make and, whether we would do things the same way or not (I wouldn't), the mother in this case could have had any number of reasons for acting as she did. The post asked us to assume one motive to the exclusion of others.

You seem to be having a little trouble with objectivity/subjectivity. Yes, that's because they are objective; they exist whether we believe in them or not. It would be strange to have believed in neutrinos before any evidence of their existence was found. Like it or not, if you want to say that god is real then you are saying that he is an objective reality. If he is subjective, then he is just a figment. People have always believed that the sun is a living being or that it is vital to sacrifice animals to one's ancestors; do you think that makes it more true?

---

Mutate and Survive