Why does Richard Dawkins sing Christmas carols?

quote:

---

To me, the entire months of November and December are really an extenstion of what we consider Thanksgiving to be here in the U.S. A time to slow down and relax (except that I am in the middle of finals, heh), a time to appreciate what we have and to remember those less unfortunate, to celebrate life with friends, and to have fun with dressing up and trick or treat at Halloween and putting up lights and holly at Christmas.

---

It must be nice to think of the holidays like that. I think I remember when I used to enjoy the holidays like most people, but it has been a long time.I have grown to think of the holidays with a certain amount of resentment and dread, as this is the time of year that specialty food sales skyrocket, so it means long, hard hours and the stress of dealing with impatient, abusive customers.I find I have less and less holiday spirit as the years go by, since it all just means a lot of work and being away from my family. It certainly doesn't help that customers constantly wish me "happy holidays" and "have a great weekend". Where do they think I'll be? Having a nice, relaxing couple of days or week off, enjoying the holiday like everybody else? No, I'll be working.People in retail don't get to celebrate holidays at all, really.

quote:

---

Thanks but I'm honestly not interested in the PoV of an evangelical atheist.

---

How would you know what his POV is if you haven't read his books?

quote:

---

LindaLou, if it is enlightenment you’re looking for you’ve come to the wrong place.
No science forum or science discipline is going to give you that, no, not even evolutianity. You have to look beyond science for that. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

​

Ps. Don't waste your post-it notes...or your time.

---

So, the period of European history called The Age of Enlightenment wasn't actually about breaking free from superstition and ignorance and enbracing reason and learning? It didn't see the birth of modern science and wasn't marked by the resuction in the authoritarian dictates of royalty and The Church and an increase in freedoms for individuals?

quote:

---

Try some meditation or tai chi.

---

How is this "looking beyond science"? Meditation and tai chi produce different brain states which therefore affect the rest of the body, one's perceptions, etc.

Yes, meditation affects the brain, particularly the limbic system. But this is only one thing it does. Meditation has been seen as one of the great paths to enlightenment by many people because of the insights it makes possible. Instead of me making feeble attempts at trying to explain, why don't you try it yourself and see what happens?You're also welcome in the Is Thought Transcendent thread I resurrected recently. I think there's evidence that there is more to consciousness than brain and neurons.

Because I've read about him and I've read conversations about him. He believes that religion is a toxic mental delusion and a pathology. Do you honestly think that reading his book is going to cause me to change my mind about his ideas? It would make me depressed and angry and I'm not sure I feel like doing that to myself. Believe me, I know I'm not going to find any kind of inspiration from Dawkins' opinions about religion, though I'm happy to read about what he's contributed to science.

quote:

---

Because I've read about him and I've read conversations about him.

---

But without reading his avtual books, you don't really know what his point of view is, completely. It is like rejecting Evolution based upon reading a few quotes from scientists.

quote:

---

He believes that religion is a toxic mental delusion and a pathology. Do you honestly think that reading his book is going to cause me to change my mind about his ideas?

---

I don't know, and neither do you, unless you read his book(s).

quote:

---

It would make me depressed and angry and I'm not sure I feel like doing that to myself.

---

Good books are supposed to do that sort of thing. Books that threaten our worldview or give us a new way to look at things are the ones that are the best to read.It wouldn't be like my reading books by people like Henry Morris, Deepak Chopra, or Rush Limbaugh; none of them are particularly good writers and their books are full of massive factual and logical errors.Dawkins is a brilliant man and a very good writer.

quote:

---

Believe me, I know I'm not going to find any kind of inspiration from Dawkins' opinions about religion, though I'm happy to read about what he's contributed to science.

---

No, you actually don't have any idea if you might find any inspiration unless you actually are brave enough to read the book.Surely, you aren't so afraid of mere ideas that you can't bear to expose yourself to them?

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?

Ah.Then I don't pity you for that.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

That is kind of what being agnostic is. When you are atheist, you are committing to something, a belief, since it is proven there is no God. By definistion, an atheist is "one who believes that there is no deity." Doesn't say anything about until better information comes along. And that is how most atheists come across. Of Course!!!

I agree, if that is his stance, but most atheists do not come across that way. That seems agnostic to me anyway, at least the door is open, and that to me is realistic. If an atheists belief's are set in stone, that can lead to so many other bad opinions. Saying you believe in something, as opposed to "there is no such thing" is different. A belief, is just that, a belief. We are entitled to it, or should be anyway. I can't prove God to anyone, so I just believe.

Faith is driven by evidence. Atheism is also driven by evidence, or evidence against the evidence, or even the lack there of. Either way it is not proven, and you must take a "leap of faith" to come to a conclusion about such a thing. It is not black and white, but gray. Sing away, my good man! Merry Christmas.

Can you prove to me they didn't exist? Can you prove there wasn't something else going on, a logical explanation that lead those people to that belief?

Firstly, that is Dawkins' stance. It is part of a chapter title from God Delusion.
Secondly, here is the Wiktionary definition of atheist;

quote:

---

atheism (plural atheisms)

​

1. Absence of belief in the existence of God or gods.
2. Disbelief in the existence of God or gods.

---

I think Dawkins' (and my own) position is definition one (strongly) and a near certainty of definition two. He argues that whilst we cannot absolutely prove that God does not exist, it is nonetheless almost certain that he does not exist; it's a racing certainty. You call this a belief, and you are quite right. Just because someone holds a belief, doesn't mean that they should have eliminated all doubt. As you point out, that would be bad. But you are still willing to entertain the possibility that you are wrong aren't you?
Merry Christmas.

---

Mutate and Survive

quote:

---

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.

---

Does that mean that you are "mistaken" to debate Creationists about their "serious beliefs about life in the universe"?Creationism has been extremely "common in intelligent and mature people for millennia".Don't you believe Creationism to be based upon "made-up childish fallacies"?Edited by nator, : No reason given.