Why does Richard Dawkins sing Christmas carols?

No, the question was Does anyone else find this a wee bit hypocritical? , which answered No, I could care less if Dawkins sings carols, puts up a tree and decorates it, gives out presents, or even tries kissing under the mistletoe.

​

If it bothers you then deal with it .See, does anyone else find this a wee bit hypocritical

It's not hypocritical, but it is "a tad askew"?On ugly sticks: Dawkins mainly criticizes the Abrahamic God and His three religions and numerous sects. This God is very definitely a one and only true God, and a jealous God, which is why those three religions have a tendency to beat heretics and infidels (often each other) with a very ugly stick.However, he is far from simple and narrow minded in his attack, can appreciate the art done in the name of religion (hence the carols) and frequently praises individual theists, past and present, for their personal achievements and qualities.I don't think there's anything ugly about his attitude towards religion at all. In a world dominated by aggressive superstitious fools like Osama Bin Laden and G. W. Bush, who both go to war with the Abrahamic God on their respective sides (someone must be suffering from God delusions there), I think religion needs more critics like Dawkins.

What on god's green earth are you talking about Jar?

Your 8-Step program.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

It's a parody, Jar.Jesus H. Christ on a crutch!

I think she was being ironic, jar, don't you? As I was when I suggested that Christians shouldn't use pagan names for the days of the week. We all have complex cultural histories, whatever our beliefs, as I'm sure you know.

I hate when I'm writing a post, click submit, and find someone's said effectively the same thing 3 minutes earlier!

Okay, I don't want to make this into some big thing. But I was trying to point out her question was about the existence of hypocrisy, not whether anyone cares about the hypocrisy.Your answer seems to combine the two, and insinuates she shouldn't care. That is if she does she should deal with it.I didn't see her "caring" about what he does, just pointing out the potential hypocrisy to raise a question about atheism v enjoying Xian holidays.If my distinction isn't clear, we can just drop the matter. It isn't that important.

---

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

First of all you have to admit to yourself that the ability of the human mind to perceive is limited. (To five senses and four dimensions).Then (this is the hard bit for you) you have to admit that it’s methods of discernment are limited.Then you’ve got a start.

---

Mutate and become a burden on society

To set the record straight, I'm not bothered at all. I just had a bit of a chuckle from the story, as presumably did others, hence its appearance on the BBC website. I thought it might provoke some interesting comments here -- about Christmas, Dawkins, atheism, whatever. Seems to be working OK.

No, it's just that the idea that there could possibly be anything about existence or the universe that is not measurable by science, is not itself explainable through the empirical answer you want. Your demand in itself is an impossibility: "Tell me empirically how there's anything empiricism can't measure." When anyone makes an attempt at explaining, you put their suggestions into the same fanciful made-up categories as Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. Never mind that intelligent, grown-up human beings have held these kinds of beliefs for millennia. They're all deluded, right? Maybe you ought to honestly ask yourself who is really in denial, and why."The best truths cannot be spoken. The second best are misunderstood." -- Heinrich Zimmer

Certainly, that's easy and obvious. No, it isn't hard. It's also easy and obvious. Really?None of which, of course, answers my question, does it?

Why should someone make an attempt at explaining if it's impossible? Remember, my question was about how people can look beyond science, and was a response to this: Lucy is suggesting to you that you can find enlightenment by looking beyond science, and I can assure you that I'm genuinely curious as to how this is supposed to be done. A nice argumentum ad populum. Do we all have to believe in all the world's contradicting religions on the basis of that? Or only the ones that have lasted for millennia? In a post above, I mentioned G. W. Bush and Osama Bin Laden both going to war with versions of the Abrahamic God on their side as an example of a situation in which either one or the other or both must be suffering from superstitious delusions. Such examples (and there are many) illustrate that superstition based delusions do exist and are widespread. Whether or not all people who believe in magic are deluded depends on whether or not some have hit on a true magic. What on earth makes you think I haven't?There are certainly things that are not known to science, and there are almost certainly things that can never be known to science. However, Homo Sapiens certainly has a fertile imagination, and I think it's important to try and distinguish the world (or universe) of the imagination from possible things that are perhaps on the edge of our present knowledge, or way beyond it.It looks like I'm never going to find out how we can look beyond science.As you've suggested a question that you think I should ask myself, I'll suggest one for you.Have you considered the possibility that a desire for some kind of direct or indirect evidence that you might have an immortal soul sometimes overrides your reason and common sense?

Try some meditation or tai chi. Look into the religions of the world, not for empirical evidence (or lack thereof) for the credibility of their concrete claims, but for the spiritual truths that their stories and ideologies express. Joseph Campbell was a pivotal figure in my life, and his research in comparative mythology blew my little Catholic world right open. What I'm saying is that if many people have said for millennia that they have experienced or believed something, it might well be worthy of study. It's possible that they are all "deluded" of course, but it's also possible that they are not. You have not produced any evidence that they are, nor can you, because God and religion can neither be verified nor "debunked" by science, however much some people like to try. There are a few fallacies in this statement. First of all, you have chosen two representatives of fundamentalist branches of different faiths. They believe in the literal truth of their holy texts, which is a fallacy in itself as the greater and deeper meanings are lost this way. Mythology is not something that is meant to be taken literally, that is not where its wisdom truly lies. These two people are also hate-filled bigots. This is not an accurate description of many of the peaceful and loving followers of religion in the world.You therefore misrepresent the majority of religious people in the world by choosing these two examples. What's more, you do not seem to have made a distinction between religion and spirituality. Apparently it is all delusional to you.Finally, you misrepresent religion and spirituality by calling them "magic," which is the equivalent of claiming these beliefs to be on a par with Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. As I said in my previous post, it is insulting and, I believe, mistaken, to deride serious beliefs about life and the universe, common in intelligent and mature people for millennia, by equating such beliefs with made-up childish fallacies.Thank you for this enlightening conversation. I'm learning a lot here. It's never what people here want me to learn, either, which is always the fascinating twist.

I don't find it hypocritical at all, no.Christimas, no matter its pagan and Christian roots, is a Western cultural tradition and can easily be celebrated in an entirely secular manner. I have done so for many years. I even put little cherub and angel ornaments on my tree.Most adult Christians don't believe in Santa Claus, yet they still give gifts at this time of year. Most adult people in the west are not pagans celebrating Solstice, yet they bring an evergreen into the house in the middle of winter.Hmmm, I wonder if the very anti-Catholic fundies allow the concept of a Catholic saint to be spoken of?And yes, it can have deep meaning, even to the non-believer, atheist-types."Peace on Earth, good will to men" is not a religious statement. Edited by nator, : No reason given.