Photo by Tristan Russell

A resounding "YES" to your new avatar, Tristan.

More legible, more poignant.

Imagine ...

Oooh-- Richard Dawkins would be so proud of you.

"Dawkins."

Say the magic word and my ears tingle.

I'm not sure how I feel about Richard Dawkins anymore. He has disappointed me.

I worshipped him as a brilliant biologist after I read The Selfish Gene, but once he embarked on his "enforced atheism" rhetoric (The God Delusion), I began to think that he is guilty of the same thing as the Religious Right-- that it, telling people what their spiritual beliefs should or shouldn't be.

To be fair to Dawkins, he has acknowleged publicly that this is a valid criticism. I'd like to hear Tristan's views on this, though.

I think Dawkins is absolutely correct. If people insist on saying that water isn't wet, we would be in the right to call them idiots on it. But telling people what they should think is miles away from actually forcing them to.

Telling people what they should think only invites resistance. That's human nature. And how can you force someone to think a certain way?

I guess I can see the wisdom of Dawkins establishing an ideological left to counter the Religious Right. But that doesn't mean that I agree with his tactics.

Ann, perhaps you misunderstood me, but I said that it's clearly NOT a matter of force. Nobody's forcing anything. You can't legislate thought (something religion begs for).

Isn't telling someone what they should think a use of of force?

That's how I experience it whenever someone tries to convert me to Christianity. I assume that a Christian whom I attempted to convert to Buddhism would have the same feeling (except for the happy fact that there is no such thing as "conversion" in Buddhism).

I suspect anyone who adheres to one of the Judeo-Christian religions would also experiences Dawkins' statements as an attempt to force a certain type of thinking, because Dawkins is brilliant and tends to make the rest of us feel stupid.

So your saying that he (and others like him) should just shut up, and let people be? Your pacifism may work for those who think water isn't wet, but should we not at least try to raise the consciousness of those who are, say, abusive to women? Or racist? Or those who think that indoctrination of children is a good thing?

Richard Dawkins isn't holding a gun to anyone's head. If you don't like what he says, don't get his books. The fact that religion is invading nearly every...single...facet of our lives should be enough to at least warrant a "Cut it the fuck out", doncha think?

Also, there's a difference in telling someone "you shouldn't think that, because it angers God" and "you shouldn't think that because it has been demonstrated to be incorrect".

I love the icon.

I keep meaning to go back and read all your articles and haven't gotten to it yet. I often catch a comment you make going by on my feed and am so glad that someone has the nerve to say the things I want to say.

Tristan,

"Also, there's a difference in telling someone "you shouldn't think that, because it angers God" and "you shouldn't think that because it has been demonstrated to be incorrect"".

Well-said; I agree with you completely.

As far your other comment, I said:

I guess I can see the wisdom of Dawkins establishing an ideological left to counter the Religious Right. But that doesn't mean that I agree with his tactics.

I've stated that I don't like Dawkins' tactics, not that I wish he would shut up. I have also pointed out that I can see him as a counterbalance to the Religious Right, with whose tactics I also disagree.

As far as not reading Dawkins' books because I disagree with him-- Do you really mean that, Tristan? You are obviously intelligent and well-read, and I doubt that you agree completely with every author whom you've read.

No, I don't mean it in that way. I misunderstood you, Ann, and I apologists. I thought your stance was stronger and more misinterpreting than it is. Wouldn't it be great if all the fundies got Dawkins books too?

Ann M...Any public mention of one's beliefs opens the door for discussion of those beliefs and these discussions will invariably lead to opposing points... In short, those who proselytize religion....attempt to sell religion, cannot expect to do so without challenge.

You said "I began to think that he (Richard Dawkins) is guilty of the same thing as the Religious Right-- that it, telling people what their spiritual beliefs should or shouldn't be."

If you equivocate the proselytizing of religion with the counter argument that there is no supreme being, then you must consider that there would be no such person as an atheist without the "invention" of a supreme being. No theism...no atheism. The former necessitates the latter.

So all that argue the points of religion do so at the invitation of those who preach religion. It is NOT the same...no matter the fervor or manner or tactics of the atheist.

Thanks, Tristan.

When I am with scientists, I am taken at my word. When I am on Gather, I have to add a zillion disclaimers-- although not to you, I see.

Michael,

"If you equivocate the proselytizing of religion with the counter argument that there is no supreme being, then you must consider that there would be no such person as an atheist without the "invention" of a supreme being. No theism...no atheism. The former necessitates the latter"

You have raised some good points. For the purposes of argument, I would like to consider proselytizing athesists such as Richard Dawkins, who not only lack belief in a God or gods, but who also tell others that they should do the same.

Also, do you mind if we shift the discussion a bit? Could we talk about belief in an afterlife, which seems to be a key components of many religions?

If you accept the two conditions I've mentioned above, then my argument becomes clearer.

No one knows whether there is a soul that survives the death of the physical body. Many claim to know, but there is no proof and little evidence either way. (Likewise no one knows whether a God or a supreme being exists, though many claim to know).

So, for these two topics at least, Richard Dawkins is no more correct (technically speaking) than a member of the religous right. Dawkins doesn't know the answers to these questions, either. But he seems to think he does, and he tells others that they should believe as he believes.

Being a proselytizing aetheist like Dawkins requires an act of faith, much the same as being a religious believer. (Caveat: I haven't read The God Delusion, so I hope someone will tell me if I am mis-representing Dawkins. I have followed his press, however).

I prefer labeling myself as an agnostic, as that seems to be require no faith whatsoever.

I'd have to disagree again, Ann. (Sorry AC, for steppin in :OP)

No one know whether or not a clan of ancient dung beetles that shoot lightening out of there asses actually lives in the core of the HD 209458b planet. We have no way of knowing, but it seems HIGHLY unlikely. Am I wrong for telling people not to believe it? Am I "proselytizing" against the beetles?

It's not a matter of knowledge. You're right; nobody knows. All most atheists are saying is stop acting like you know.

Tristan,

C'mon, you know we're on the same page!

First comment: bad analogy. Fortunately, extra-terrestrial beetles are not a part of any cosmogyny that I've heard of.

Second comment: I agree completely; that's why I love most athesists! (That includes you, Tristan.)

Yes, Ann, I know we're on the same page, and I'm not trying to fight with you. I'm simply trying to understand how you can equate Dawkins or anyone who says not to believe stupid shit with the people who tell others to please their god.

I've probably said this before, but it's a Buddhist thing. In Buddhism, there is no right or wrong, no good or evil. There is simply skillful behavior-- doing the most good for the most people, or its opposite, unskillful behavior.

I believe that Dawkins is being unskillful (particularly considering how smart he is) because his stance reveals a basic misunderstanding of human nature.

There are people out there (my mother being one of them) who need to believe in order to remain sane. Dawkins, on the other hand, may need to believe that God is a delusion in order to remain sane. Both are mindsets fine with me, as long as those holding them don't impose their views on others.

And "imposing view on others" was what we were talking about. That would equate Dawkins with Christian proselytizers and make your point valid. But he isn't doing that.

It may be so that some people need to believe. Some people might just need to believe in the lightening shooting beetles. But showing them that it's not the case and offering helpful alternatives is a good thing. I understand you don't like the terms "good" and "evil". They are just terms we use to describe things that are helpful or harmful to society. That's it. There's nothing magical about it. And explaining to people that they are misinformed, incorrect, or inappropriate is helpful, is it not?

Tristan,

As I haven't read The God Delusion, and have only followed Dawkins' media coverage, I will grant you point number one. (But I'll be back if I find evidence that it's not true!).

As far as your second point, I agree. The more education, the better. But just keep in mind that the learning won't happen unless the student is open to it.

Indeed. I'm open to the idea of lightening shooting dung beetles from distant galaxies.

Thanks for the sparing, Ann. XD

I bet you play a really good video game, Tristan.

Ann M...you said "For the purposes of argument, I would like to consider proselytizing athesists such as Richard Dawkins, who not only lack belief in a God or gods, but who also tell others that they should do the same.

Also, do you mind if we shift the discussion a bit? Could we talk about belief in an afterlife, which seems to be a key components of many religions?"

Yes, yes...proselytizing atheists such as Dawkins are, in effect, telling people that they should NOT believe in a supreme being. How can one oppose the beliefs of another and NOT convey the message or even simply insinuate or imply that "life is better my way"? My point is that the "proselytizing of atheism" would not be...it would not exist without the acceptance of religion and the belief in the existence of a supreme being by some.

If we move to the topic of an afterlife...then the topic has indeed changed. Life after death, it can successfully be argued, is not necessarily dependent upon the existence of a "supreme being". But...the essence of the topic is one of "faith"..The belief in a god and/or the possibility of an afterlife...or of neither... are the result of one proposing that his stance is more valid than that of those with whom he disagrees. The actual existence of a god or an afterlife ARE unprovable...but are ALSO not the point. The point here... for me... is one of logical deduction or the lack of logical deduction....not the existence or non existence of god. As Tristan has pointed out...we are looking at possibilities here...and assigning the likelihood of the existence of a god...(and an afterlife). Those likelihoods seem very, very remote to me.

As to the "need" to embrace the concept of a god for the purpose of "maintaining one's sanity"..this is a crutch of dependency. It could be argued that the crutch could be the dependency of alcohol or pills or compulsive spending or one hour sessions with a shrink every Wednesday... I don't buy the argument that the NON-BELIEF in a god is the same...a crutch of dependency. Atheists don't NEED for god to NOT exist...we just don't THINK he does.

You Ann...as an agnostic...have chosen keep your options open....the position of "no faith required". But I suspect you lean one way or the other and I think I know which way....!!!

Finally...I saw one of those dung beetles with lightening shootin' out of his ass. I didn't know the damn thing was from the HD 209458b planet!

"You Ann...as an agnostic...have chosen keep your options open....the position of "no faith required". But I suspect you lean one way or the other and I think I know which way....!!!"

Ain't gonna happen, Michael. More later, when I have time.

Love the image, Tristan. Absolutely beautiful. I agree with the implied message of the slogan too. What a much better place this world would be without organized religion.

Everest, I am confused. Under "Political Affiliation" on your home page you say:

"I believe that the establishment of the Kingdom of God on Earth is the only right & permanent political solution with Jesus Christ as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Until this becomes a reality I support any politician who agrees with this position and is living consistent with this philosophy".

That sounds like organized religion to me.

Michael,

"My point is that the "proselytizing of atheism" would not be...it would not exist without the acceptance of religion and the belief in the existence of a supreme being by some."

I agree, Michael, but now that we have organized religion, we have to deal with it.

"How can one oppose the beliefs of another and NOT convey the message or even simply insinuate or imply that "life is better my way"?

We live in a democracy. We are built on a plurality of ideas, and we do a pretty good job of tolerating each others' beliefs.

Michael,

"As to the "need" to embrace the concept of a god for the purpose of "maintaining one's sanity"..this is a crutch of dependency. It could be argued that the crutch could be the dependency of alcohol or pills or compulsive spending or one hour sessions with a shrink every Wednesday... I don't buy the argument that the NON-BELIEF in a god is the same...a crutch of dependency. Atheists don't NEED for god to NOT exist...we just don't THINK he does".

I understand that religion can function as an addiction, but this is not true for everyone who is religious.

I haven't accused athesists of being "addicted' to atheism. I've merely stated that it takes a leap of faith to feel certain that there is no God and no afterlife.

I have to call you on that, Ann. It most certainly does NOT take "faith" to think there is no god, souls, heaven, Lock Ness Monster, goblins, fairies, or electric dung beetles. Are you really saying that? That it takes FAITH?! I hope you can see how it takes no more faith to believe that those beetles of which I spoke about actually exist! I'm as certain of saying that they don't exist as I am of saying God doesn't exist.

Ann M...You and I are dancing around the details. You said "I've merely stated that it takes a leap of faith to feel certain that there is no God and no afterlife." The key word in your statement is "certain". I have stated more than once that for me...certainty has nothing to do with my lack of belief in a supreme being or in an afterlife. I'll quote myself..."The point here... for me... is one of logical deduction or the lack of logical deduction....not the existence or non existence of god. As Tristan has pointed out...we are looking at possibilities here...and assigning the likelihood of the existence of a god...(and an afterlife). Those likelihoods seem very, very remote to me."

Very, very remote.....certainty...not the same.

You also said,"I understand that religion can function as an addiction, but this is not true for everyone who is religious." I never mentioned the term "addiction". This may seem like a trite detail, but I am talking about dependency on religion...not addiction. If a person of faith uses that faith as a security blanket...or a way to "remain sane"...as you say, then I believe that person is "dependent" upon religion much the same as some persons "depend" upon certain medications for example. The consideration of "addiction" is a separate matter.

I would agree that for some...the matter of beliefs in the existence of a god or an afterlife are more accurately described as spiritual in nature rather than religious in nature. Spiritualness, I believe, is more persoanl and less overt than religiousness...without the need for the constant reassurance from other believers that one's convictions are valid. In other words...spirituality is a more secure and confident and introspective mindset. I believe those who proselytize religion are the least comfortable with themselves and their own sense of worth. As Eric Hoffer said..."What looks like giving a helping hand is often a holding on for dear life. Take away our holy duties and you leave our lives puny and meaningless."

The "duty" to spread "His" word is merely a replacement for one's lost confidence in one's own abilities and a bolstering of one's low self esteem....OR...and we haven't even addressed this...many times the "duty" to spread His word is not a sincere or an honest effort, but merely one of vane self promotion and the ego inflation of notoriety...the monetary rewards of celebrity status. Those who have founded a career of selling religion...and I really mean "selling religion" in the most literal and specific manner...are the most vile of the religious lot...

Ok, Tristan, let's try it this way. You have decided that God does not exist. Is your evidence any stronger than the evidence that God does exist?

I hope you won't answer by pointing out all of the evil and natural disasters in the world, as someone who believes in God (that's NOT me) could come up with an equally long list of good things that have happened.

Likewise, you might point out all of the bad things that have happened as a result of religion, whereas a believer could supply an equally long list of the values of religion.

I'd prefer that we stop sparring, Tristan. We understand each other well, and there are better ways for us to use our time and energy.

Michael,

1. OK, the likelihood that God exists is very remote, but you are not certain. I agree with that.

2. You used the term "the crutch could be the dependency of alcohol or pills." I equate this with addiction, and I think most people would.

Addict (verb)= "To give oneself up to some strong habit" (Webster's New World College Dictionary).

3. I agree with your last two paragraphs. I am working on a set of articles about that very topic.

As with Tristan, I feel that our beliefs line up pretty well, although you may not agree. I would like to move on to spending my time and energy on more productive things.

I don't bear the burden of proof, Ann. I don't claim a God exists. Those who do -- the one's who have the burden -- haven't met it; no one has proven their God. Am I wrong to say "Until you prove it, it ain't so"? The same thing goes for the beetles I described. Is it wrong to assume that they're not real?

I'll only continue to argue with you as long as I think you're wrong.

Oh, NICE comment Tristan! You are employing the scientific method to determine your beliefs. The null hypothesis is that God does not exist, and I couldn't agree more.

Ann and Tristan....I will move on to more productive things also. Ann...I am looking forward to your set of articles. Tristan...thanks for the opportunity to engage in this conversation and I like your image and icon. I believe the meaning will not be apparent to many of the self anointed...those who are blinded by the self righteousness of Christianity.

Thank you, Michael. I look forward to more conversation with you.

Well, thank you for not viewing discussions on my posts as "productive".

LOL

THIS discussion was/is a Maraschino cherry on the sundae of my Gather week.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.

Oh, cut it out Tristan, you ingrate. Just think of all the Gather points you've earned on my behalf. Now that's productive!

hehe