This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← The Return of Religion

The Return of Religion - Comments

black wolf's Avatar Comment 1 by black wolf

Roger,
I agree. Gapgod feelz gud, therefor iz tru.

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 08:31:00 UTC | #200834

Funnyguts's Avatar Comment 2 by Funnyguts

The first part appears to be the "they're not talking about MY god" thing.

Yes, actually, we are talking about your god and every god.

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 08:33:00 UTC | #200835

The Schuermannator's Avatar Comment 3 by The Schuermannator

The Return of Religion???

That's funny. I didn't think religion ever left!

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 08:36:00 UTC | #200839

b0ltzm0n's Avatar Comment 5 by b0ltzm0n

God has fled, but he is not dead. He is biding his time, waiting for us to make room for him.


So much for omnipotence. This guy's god sounds like someone my kid sister could beat up.

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 08:40:00 UTC | #200846

mark8's Avatar Comment 4 by mark8

"These characters have a violent and untidy air:"

Look out for the Atheist jihad lead by Richard & co.

"it is very obvious that something is missing from their lives, something which would bring order and completeness in the place of random disgust. And yet we are uncertain how to answer them."

You have not been able to answer the average Atheist for quite some years now.

"Nowhere in our world is the door that we might open, so as to stand again in the breath of God."

That's because he doesn't exist you numpty.

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 08:40:00 UTC | #200844

jimbob's Avatar Comment 6 by jimbob

Strident? Keep telling the same porky pie and hope it will stick!

As for "satisfying the need." Yes, when life is confusing, an imaginary friend can be so comforting.

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 08:41:00 UTC | #200848

Shaden's Avatar Comment 7 by Shaden

There are two reasons why people start shouting at their opponents: one is that they think the opponent is so strong that every weapon must be used against him; the other is that they think their own case so weak that it has to be fortified by noise.

Correct

Both these motives can be observed in the evangelical atheists.

Incorrect. Whenever I listen to a debate it's always the faithful that resort to shouting and interrupting.

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 08:42:00 UTC | #200850

rod-the-farmer's Avatar Comment 8 by rod-the-farmer


Yet I do not know a religious person among my friends and acquaintances who does deny that picture.....(The mystery that confronts us as we gaze upwards at the Milky Way) or who regards it as posing the remotest difficulty for his faith.

If this is really true, he needs to get out more. Or at least, read up on the subject on the internet.

The evangelical atheists are subliminally aware that their abdication in the face of science does not make the universe more intelligible, nor does it provide an alternative answer to our metaphysical enquiries. It simply brings enquiry to a stop.

Aaarrgghh. Atheists bring inquiry to a stop ? Does the man have his head on backasswards, or is he truly this deluded ? It is the goddidit brigade who bring rational inquiry to a halt. Atheists continue to ask questions, and explore, and test predictions. Let me think now. What sort of inquiry would atheists "bring to a stop" ?? How about "Why are thoughts ?" "Who is yellow ?" Clearmind, we need your input here.

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 08:55:00 UTC | #200876

F_A_F's Avatar Comment 9 by F_A_F

Hmm, the second paragraph is very misleading. I dislike it when a religious "opponent" believes that dogma and unprovable assertions are the answer to my question, and blankly refuse to even consider that their beliefs are incorrect. But please don't mistake that anger for 'shouting'.

We only 'shout' when policies and decisions are made which affect ALL groups of people, both religious and non-religious alike, based upon unprovable dogma and assertions. If you want to believe in fairies, crack on...I won't stop you. But if you try to force me to abide by fairy-protecting laws then I will fight you tooth, nail, claw, finger and eyelash to protect my rights as a human being and as a fellow being of everything on this planet...

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 08:56:00 UTC | #200880

robotaholic's Avatar Comment 10 by robotaholic

The violence of the diatribes uttered by these evangelical atheists is indeed remarkable.

they think their own case so weak that it has to be fortified by noise


wow, this article sucks- The last thing Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, and Dawkins are is violent. And to call their argument weak or white noise is so backwards that it irritating. It's like speaking about the 'clairity of the trinity'...

Roger Scruton has some serious bags under his eyes too.

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:03:00 UTC | #200889

Apathy personified's Avatar Comment 11 by Apathy personified

First Order of business:
An almighty backhand to the face of Roger Scruton for his condescending tone - arrogant dickpole.

Now onto his article,
A woefull ignorance of science but knowing a few sciency sounding words is not enough, neither is having read 'A Very Short Introduction to Kant', to form an article, let alone an argument.

His whole 'not my god or religion' piece at the beginning showed him for what he is - moronic - he surely can't believe that all religious people accept the findings of science (HAS HE NOT HEARD OF FUCKING CREATIONISM FOR QUETZ SAKE!)

And the continually implied 'atheism is a belief' current throughout his article shows either a deceitful nature or a lack of understanding of what he seems to affiliate with (his pseudo spiritual christian viewpoint doesn't hold much truck with atheists or other religites) and those who are out of the whole sky mum business.

All in all, a very misinformed and inaccurate piece.

Edit: Spelling

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:05:00 UTC | #200891

Chris.Holden's Avatar Comment 13 by Chris.Holden

I tend to disagree with just about everything Scruton says. But this makes him a vital philosopher. Contrary opinions must be encouraged and engaged with. Scruton performs this function admirably (fox hunting anyone?). J.S. Mill described the importance of allowing 'unorthodox' views. It is as vital to heed Scruton's words as it is vital to point out that most of them are bullshit.

Do you remember the Four Horsemen discussion? Hitchens shocked Dawkins by asserting that he had no wish for the religious dialogue to disapear. I laughed out loud at Richard's astonishment. But thinking about, Hitchens was completely right. I would never have understood the strength of atheistic arguments if those that hold religious views were suddenly to evaporate. Similarly, I would never understand the theory of natural selection as well as I do now (albeit I remain no expert) if dissenting voices did not exist.

Long live Scruton and religious apologist bullshit!

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:06:00 UTC | #200895

the way's Avatar Comment 12 by the way

Just like any adult "hobby" (nod to PhilRimmer)...It should be practised by consenting adults behind closed doors and not involve the corruption of minors or imposed on those who have better things to do with their time.

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:06:00 UTC | #200892

designsoda's Avatar Comment 14 by designsoda

The violence of the diatribes uttered by these evangelical atheists is indeed remarkable


"Violence?"

"Evangelical?"

Projection.

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:13:00 UTC | #200899

info_dump's Avatar Comment 16 by info_dump

His descriptions of the "new atheist" writings makes it seem like he hasn't read any of them. It also sounds like his familiarity with science is limited to what he's seen on TV shows.

I stopped reading closely as soon as he said "according to quantum theory..."

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:16:00 UTC | #200903

AdrianB's Avatar Comment 15 by AdrianB

23.2: And low the theists spoke angrily and stridently against the infidel for being strident.

23.3: And so it came to pass that their arguments were ridiculed and dismissed with much sniggering.

.

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:16:00 UTC | #200902

David J's Avatar Comment 17 by David J

Modern people are drawn to religion by their consciousness of consciousness, by their awareness of a light shining in the centre of their being.

WTF? I think most people are drawn to it because religion captures them when they're children, then, while in these delicate years, scares the shit out of them for even thinking - let alone attempting - to leave it for something else, even telling them that they're happier and better off for living with it to the point of self-deception.

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:18:00 UTC | #200907

alexmzk's Avatar Comment 18 by alexmzk

didn't read past the first couple of paragraphs. for the record, in all the debates i've watched, all the tv programs i've seen, all the talks i've been to, i have never once heard Dennett or Dawkins raise their voices. i don't know enough about Harris or Hitchens to say the same for them, but i suspect they too are less than violent.

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:21:00 UTC | #200908

SASnSA's Avatar Comment 20 by SASnSA

I'm still waiting for religion to release it's strangle-hold on the US, so I can be considered a citizen and a patriot again. It hasn't gone anywhere, in fact it seems to be reaching new highs in low.

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:23:00 UTC | #200914

artificialhabitat's Avatar Comment 19 by artificialhabitat

3 lines in: "Richard Dawkins"
5 lines in: "strident"

Any point reading the rest?

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:23:00 UTC | #200912

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 21 by mordacious1

fucktard

Ooops! I forgot. I'm supposed to be strident:

F U C K T A R D !

That's more like an atheist.

{edit for spelling} Can't believe I spelled the first fucktard wrong.

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:26:00 UTC | #200916

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 22 by Steve Zara

Comment #211747 by black wolf

I was going to post something with some detail, but then I realise that your post summed up this entire article so well.

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:28:00 UTC | #200919

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 23 by mordacious1

"Axess is a magazine, based in Stockholm, devoted chiefly to the liberal arts and social sciences. The magazine strives, above all, for quality of thought and writing, but without being defined by a single political position. The hallmark of Axess is the essay; characterised by a probing, investigative approach. The magazine is open to differing arguments and standpoints, driven by reason rather than polemic."

Yeah, right. Especially the last clause.

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:30:00 UTC | #200924

bugaboo's Avatar Comment 24 by bugaboo

There are two reasons why people start shouting at their opponents: one is that they think the opponent is so strong that every weapon must be used against him; the other is that they think their own case so weak that it has to be fortified by noise.


I can think of another. The refusal of people like this to listen to reason.

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:35:00 UTC | #200929

hobofabby's Avatar Comment 25 by hobofabby

A friend of mine sent me this particular article because he found it to have good points about the human yearning for the transcendental. We have had a few arguments over the usefulness of religion and why he still values religion and Christian values even though he is largely secular. I would love to hear a point by point deconstruction of the basic premise of this article and if possible to try and ignore Mr. Scruton's ugly tone while focusing mainly on the argument and his distortions of atheism. I would like to keep a constructive conversation going with my friend. It would be very helpful to me thank you!

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:51:00 UTC | #200945

black wolf's Avatar Comment 26 by black wolf

Thanks Steve. Brought to you by the letter oneparagraphofdrivelaftertheother and the number blandinconclusivemeaninglesswordstring.

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:52:00 UTC | #200946

clodhopper's Avatar Comment 27 by clodhopper

Wall to Wall garbage from Mr Scrotum

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:13:00 UTC | #200965

clodhopper's Avatar Comment 28 by clodhopper

"......the places from which breezes from that other sphere waft over them..."

Ahh! You've met the wife then?

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:24:00 UTC | #200975

emmet's Avatar Comment 30 by emmet

Simply bizarre projection and fabrication from start to finish. Perhaps we should not be surprised at seeing a tissue of lies from the mouthpiece of Big Tobacco. Perhaps Scruton is still sore from the drubbing his side got from Richard's last year:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/tools_and_services/podcasts/article1583399.ece

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:25:00 UTC | #200979

comet tail's Avatar Comment 29 by comet tail

Religious apologists always site consciousness, and the awe that it produces, as a justification for a god. Why is consciousness denied to other life forms, why is it only given to humans? As more research emerges that religion is just another prescribed mental trait- possibly mammalian more than human-- of organizing the self in relationship to the other, in a simplistic, economic pattern, one that keeps it's organism insular and procreating, humans may have to face a lot of the biases that our consciousness have created that support religious beliefs and some scientific ones too. It is a self fulfillment strategy; "we humans are so special, there must be a god" that has kept us as top carnivore of the planet, and that is all. Science is always denounced for not creating awe or satisfying the needs of the inner consciousness in these apologies. These rebukes of atheism give religion more credit than it deserves.

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:25:00 UTC | #200977