Why does Richard Dawkins sing Christmas carols?

He's both agnostic and atheist. An atheist is someone who does not believe in any gods, and agnostics do not believe in any gods.If you actually read Dawkins on the subject, you'll find he's not 100% sure that there are no gods. Same with all atheists I know of. A popular misconception. It is by lack of faith.If a supernatural proposition for which there's no evidence is made, it is belief in it which requires faith, not lack of belief in it. Try this with the proposition "there are little green wood-elves" and you'll see what I mean.As for atheists singing carols, we can sing any religious music of any religion freely, if we want to, because it has no magical significance to us. I have an atheist aunt who used to go bell-ringing, which is easily understandable to anyone who's grown up hearing the bells peeling out over the English countryside.

Are you sure you're not confusing comforting self-delusion with enlightenment, Lucy?When you look beyond science, do you prefer crystal balls, mediums or tarot cards?

It was a serious question, and neither you nor the person I addressed it to will be able to explain how you can "look beyond science". So both of you have replied to my question with obvious evasion. I'm not a dogmatic skeptic. We might well be living in a multi-dimensional multiverse in which things way beyond our comprehension exist, for all I know. But some people have a tendency to latch on to magic or supernatural beliefs very easily, and are very gullible. If you're going to describe those who require evidence before actively believing in something as "dogmatic" you're really just describing sanity as dogmatic.Closer to the topic, it's interesting that you want to discuss Dawkins, his Xmas carols and his beliefs without really knowing exactly what they are.How, incidentally, do you look beyond science for enlightenment?(That's "enlightenment", not "personal content").

When Christians stop using words like Wednesday and Thursday (I'm sure they're all polytheistic pagans at heart) I'll agree to that.

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.

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!

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?

All very worth while things to do, and I've done some of them. None of them give me an enlightenment that is beyond science. Human mythologies are very much of this world, and certainly very interesting.Could you define exactly what you mean by spiritual, as you use the word so often, and it's a difficult one with several standard definitions? How do "spiritual truths" differ from just plain "truths"? Indeed. A sort of truism, really. It's easy to produce evidence that most of them are. If you identify 20 different Gods or religions which are believed in and are mutually exclusive, then the believers in either 19 or all twenty are labouring under a delusion. It's also easy to debunk some well described proposed Gods with evidence, like one who created this planet 6,300 years ago, for example.You seem to be talking about propositions like "the universe was created by a God (or Gods, or Goddesses, or a team of bungling wizards)" which cannot be dis-proven, but as such propositions are effectively infinite, any individual one is extremely unlikely on a probability basis alone. There's no point in anyone actively believing anything in this area apart from personal comfort, of course. Their texts contradict each other, and both certainly claim truths. Christianity and Islam are both intended to be "true" religions, and conflict is inevitable, and has been going on at various levels of intensity since the younger of the two was invented. Both have plenty of scriptures of violence to draw on when needed. The overwhelming majority of followers of those two religions do not regard their scriptures as "mythology" or their Gods as mythological. Are you sure you've got this right?I did not claim that these two were typical of the average religious person, but that they were illustrations of why religion should be criticized. They both require a considerable popular power base, though, or we'd never have heard of them. You mentioned Santa Claus and the tooth fairy, which aren't very good examples, because they're things that weren't invented to be seriously believed in by adults. I mentioned Tarot cards and crystal balls further up the thread. One form of magic for which there is no evidence is surely as good as another. What have you got against gypsies? If it's between a God who wants people stoned to death and Santa, I'll take Santa. Why do you describe intelligent criticism of superstition as deriding it. It often kills, and is doing so at this moment.I think your definition of intelligent and mature people is different from mine, and I doubt if we'll ever agree on that.Aren't you debating regularly with some intelligent and mature spiritual religious magic-loving people on another site?

Simply, no. Religious faith is probably more driven by things like desire. Lack of belief in propositions like Gods or wood elves is due to the natural interaction between complete lack of evidence and intelligence. Do you require a leap of faith to lack belief in elves? I find it easy, no leaping required. If, one day, evidence turns up for them, I'll be happy to believe. And to you, too.

People don't believe in atheism. Atheism isn't a faith, river, it is lack of faith. Atheists do not actively walk around disbelieving in something tangible. Humans have invented thousands of Gods, and everyone lacks faith in more than 99.9% of them, including you.I'm perfectly willing to believe in any Gods, Goddesses or other supernatural beings just as soon as there's evidence for one or more of them.Atheists are just people who do not make up a magical father figure in their heads, then believe in it.Perhaps we're not very good at lying to ourselves.

Yes. If there are 2 billion Christians, then there are 2 billion subjectively experienced Gods, to which we can add 1.5 billion Allahs, the 1 billion Gods or sets of Gods in the minds of Hindus, and many more from other religions.So, I have no choice but the objective, as it's impossible to walk around considering the possible existence of about 5 billion different Gods in different minds. Try it.As for the riverrat God, I'm sure he's very dear to you, but of little or no interest to anyone else. No person but you can meet the riverrat God. You seem to live in a world in which any supernatural proposition automatically becomes a fifty/fifty thing once it's been made.I, the prophet bluegenes, propose that the universe was created by nine Goddesses because they thought it would look pretty, and they were curious to see what would happen in black holes.To parrot: "See, you can't prove it either way".There's exactly as much evidence for my belief in the Holy Ninety as there is for any other religion (zero), and there's absolutely no conflict with science in my theology. I don't remember noticing any atheists in my life or on this board talking about chips on Christian shoulders. About how many is "many"?Anyway, I've just become a polytheist. Blessed be the Nine.