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

← If only more people took this approach.

If only more people took this approach. - Comments

Anonymous's Avatar Comment 1 by Anonymous

Comment Removed by Moderator

Sun, 27 Nov 2011 14:56:50 UTC | #893583

Peter Grant's Avatar Comment 2 by Peter Grant

I always liked that kid.

Sun, 27 Nov 2011 14:58:04 UTC | #893584

Jay G's Avatar Comment 3 by Jay G

"If only more people took this approach"

OK, then what?

Sun, 27 Nov 2011 14:58:31 UTC | #893585

mysticjbyrd's Avatar Comment 4 by mysticjbyrd

Comment 3 by Jay G :

"If only more people took this approach"

OK, then what?

I agree... as if staying quiet and doing nothing will somehow solve problems.

Sun, 27 Nov 2011 15:06:25 UTC | #893589

-TheCodeCrack-'s Avatar Comment 5 by -TheCodeCrack-

I almost said I'm a fan of 'Harry', I mean Daniel!

Smart guy!

Sun, 27 Nov 2011 15:12:31 UTC | #893591

jfm2301's Avatar Comment 6 by jfm2301

Then we'd have less of this bullshit.

Sun, 27 Nov 2011 15:13:45 UTC | #893592

Metamag's Avatar Comment 7 by Metamag

Sigh, another case of false equivalency, in actuality "preaching" means opening your mouth and exposing superstitious bullshit as bullshit. Would you call correcting illiteracy as preaching??

Basically this "not preaching" approach means that atheists should just STFU and let the toxic influence of superstition slide.

You got that Radcliffe? "I don't preach my atheism" is fucking idiotic, either you stand for rationality or you don't.

Sun, 27 Nov 2011 15:15:02 UTC | #893593

gordon's Avatar Comment 8 by gordon

Chill out Metamag, the more the better.

Sun, 27 Nov 2011 15:21:11 UTC | #893597

DLJ's Avatar Comment 9 by DLJ

Ok, let's not argue the nuances of the words used.
Think "target audience": Millions of young readers of the books may not have been exposed to the concept of Atheism previously. Can we research the google hits for "Atheism definition" since this pic came out (pun intended)? Maybe it will have a positive impact; maybe Mr Radcliffe will be a new target for our less-than-tolerant friends. I'm sure he is aware it might be a risky career move to be associated with us crazy, godless types.

Sun, 27 Nov 2011 15:44:45 UTC | #893604

JuJu's Avatar Comment 10 by JuJu

Isn't releasing this photo and showing enthusiasm for Dawkins a form of "preaching", knowing that millions will see it and possibly be influenced by it.

Sun, 27 Nov 2011 15:58:24 UTC | #893607

BenS's Avatar Comment 11 by BenS

Comment 7 by Metamag :

Basically this "not preaching" approach means that atheists should just STFU and let the toxic influence of superstition slide.

You got that Radcliffe? "I don't preach my atheism" is fucking idiotic, either you stand for rationality or you don't.

How did you get from the personal choice not to 'preach' to somehow inferring that atheists should just shut up? Did you not read the bit underneath where he says he has respect for those who do 'preach' their atheism?

Someone's being fucking idiotic, yes, but it isn't Mr Radcliffe.

Sun, 27 Nov 2011 16:00:50 UTC | #893608

Moderator's Avatar Comment 12 by Moderator

Moderators' message

The Terms of Use for this site make it quite clear that abusive language towards other users is not acceptable.

While not specifically mentioning abusive comments towards NON-users, they also make it clear that this website is intended for sensible, rational, intelligent discussion - which pretty much precludes abusive remarks, full stop.

We don't have the slightest doubt that users of this site are intelligent and articulate enough to express whatever they wish to express without resorting to language that risks bringing the whole site into disrepute.

The Mods

Sun, 27 Nov 2011 16:22:04 UTC | #893613

mgjinich's Avatar Comment 13 by mgjinich

Beautiful!

Sun, 27 Nov 2011 16:40:24 UTC | #893619

Anonymous's Avatar Comment 14 by Anonymous

Comment Removed by Moderator - sockpuppet of banned user

Sun, 27 Nov 2011 16:50:31 UTC | #893623

ernest s's Avatar Comment 15 by ernest s

I've never ever been a fan, but why do some people overreact to harmless comments, especially if it's uttered by someone who just happens to be famous? Less virulent would be the reaction if Radcliffe were a complete nobody. Fan-made art (imagine teenager) and book chapters and videos (e.g. Carl Sagan) and posters need not always be over-analyzed. For example, Brad Pitt happens to be an atheist, even made some passing remarks about it in the media once or twice, but why care so much? Unless you're a longtime admirer, or hater of the actor. Although I do understand that there are people who just enjoy overreacting -- it fuels their otherwise boring day... who knows.

Sun, 27 Nov 2011 16:53:09 UTC | #893624

Teknical's Avatar Comment 16 by Teknical

I used to think that shutting up was an option but not anymore. I discussed religion being taught in her school my 12 year old daughter, we both agreed that a knowledge of peoples religious beliefs even if unprovable would enhance her knowledge in other areas of life. However on Friday she informed me of the R.E. teachers opinion which is that growing up without religion makes you ignorant and arrogant.

Pot, kettle, Black.

I would add stupid if I were doing the replying but I don't have to suffer a lower grade for having a sensible opinion based upon facts.

Sun, 27 Nov 2011 16:57:58 UTC | #893626

GermanHumanist's Avatar Comment 17 by GermanHumanist

Brilliant. I have never cared much for the Harry Potter franchise or Daniel Radcliffe himself, but kudos to him for being so frank.

As for me, I don't "preach" my atheism to others either, I respect other people's religious beliefs, even if I may think they are all a bunch of hokum, as long as they also respect that I am an atheist, and that they shouldn't try to "convert" me if they care about our respective friendship.

To illustrate - I had an interesting conversation once with an acquaintance who is a devout Catholic.

He said to me, "Don't you think it's cruel of you that you don't wish people that they will go to heaven when they die?"

To which I said, "I would like to see everybody go to heaven when they die; but just because I may wish for them to get to heaven, doesn't mean there is actually such a thing as a heaven, or even a god. On the other hand, whether or not anybody will have a heavenly afterlife surely will not depend on me insisting that there isn't one. And don't you think it is in fact cruel of you that you believe that everybody who doesn't share your particular faith is invariably destined for hell?"

Sun, 27 Nov 2011 16:58:18 UTC | #893628

Philoctetes                                        's Avatar Comment 18 by Philoctetes

Chill out, this is just a marketing ploy using a popular celebrity to reach an audience not big on the meaning of life the universe and everything. It would not surprise me if it influenced more people than an RD lecture or a dozen Hitchslaps, such is the nature of the modern world.

Sun, 27 Nov 2011 17:01:30 UTC | #893629

pekkaa's Avatar Comment 19 by pekkaa

Comment 4 by mysticjbyrd :

Comment 3 by Jay G :

"If only more people took this approach"

OK, then what?

I agree... as if staying quiet and doing nothing will somehow solve problems.

Yeah, he only came publicly of the closet as an atheist, made a poster and gave atheism a face that millions of people know and love. Certainly nothing compared of what you guys have accomplished by preaching here in this forum.

Sun, 27 Nov 2011 17:01:55 UTC | #893630

Dhamma's Avatar Comment 20 by Dhamma

If only religious people took this approach I wouldn't need to be an active atheist. I wish I eventually could tone down my criticism of religion, but so long as they want to spew out hatred towards homosexuality, halt scientific processes and wage wars in the name of their god, I'm obligated to keep criticizing them.

I'm tired, so very tired of religion. In my view, religion is a road bump to every serious issue humanity needs to deal with, and we can't afford to waste precious energy to a field where there are no answers, when beyond that road bump science at least tries to tackle them.

Sun, 27 Nov 2011 17:11:43 UTC | #893634

Anonymous's Avatar Comment 21 by Anonymous

Comment Removed by Moderator - sockpuppet of banned user

Sun, 27 Nov 2011 17:13:42 UTC | #893635

Phil65's Avatar Comment 22 by Phil65

Comment 19 by pekkaa :

Yeah, he only came publicly of the closet as an atheist, made a poster and gave atheism a face that millions of people know and love. Certainly nothing compared of what you guys have accomplished by preaching here in this forum.

No kidding. This kid still has a long career ahead of him, and the easy thing would have been to just babble the usual platitudes, or say he's "spiritual" or some such nonsense. He must have known he'd lose some fans over this (which, by the way, seldom works the same in reverse).

Sun, 27 Nov 2011 17:20:34 UTC | #893638

Phil65's Avatar Comment 23 by Phil65

Comment 21 by T4 :

He's not just a celebrity in the UK.

Sun, 27 Nov 2011 17:21:55 UTC | #893639

pekkaa's Avatar Comment 24 by pekkaa

@T4: I believe that Daniel Radcliffe is well known outside of the UK as well. I don't know if it was especially bold of him, but simply coming out as an atheist and endorsing RD will promote atheism more that most of us can ever do no matter how much we preach.

Sun, 27 Nov 2011 17:24:27 UTC | #893640

Victor9098's Avatar Comment 25 by Victor9098

I think his attitude best reflects the majority of atheists, we do just quietly get on with our lives without the need to stand on a soap box. Its only when people ask about my belief's does the issue get raised and discussed, in a sense it is a 'soft power' form of preaching or influencing peoples views. And I think Daniels attitude should be commended, he seems relatively level headed for a celeb, but is not living a life of shocking excess while having bling cross's around his neck or tattooed on his body. Its a good healthy attitude to have and I see nothing wrong with it, and hopefully his attitude might influence some of his millions of global fans.

Sun, 27 Nov 2011 17:26:28 UTC | #893642

rjohn19's Avatar Comment 26 by rjohn19

I'd say it was a big deal, since he is making his living on Broadway right now. I certain the producers of "How to Succeed..." would not relish the notion of being picketed by the wingnuts.

Daniel preached without actually preaching and if there is an age group that will be able to show religion the door, it's his and not ours.

Sun, 27 Nov 2011 18:04:17 UTC | #893654

Corylus's Avatar Comment 27 by Corylus

There's one the Scientologists will have trouble recruiting.

You stay away from that Tom Cruise, lad. Oh, and no making films with John Travolta either. That would be a bad plan. For several reasons.

Sun, 27 Nov 2011 18:09:02 UTC | #893655

Free2011's Avatar Comment 28 by Free2011

I respect him for his bravery in coming out. Most people in the public eye are so afraid to offend that they wouldn't dare make this statement. Those that are atheist often say they are "spiritual" as a buffer. Sadly the youth in the entertainment industry are the most influential segment of our population.

Sun, 27 Nov 2011 18:15:28 UTC | #893656

RomeStu's Avatar Comment 29 by RomeStu

He probably does yoga too.

It all leads to Satan according to this week's loony message from the RCC bigwigs

Sun, 27 Nov 2011 18:15:47 UTC | #893657

Mr DArcy's Avatar Comment 30 by Mr DArcy

I wonder how many US Christians wouldn't buy pc computers if they realised that Bill Gates was a non-believer? Now Steve Jobs, what were his religious beliefs? Veering towards Buddhism it seems! No Mac, no pc, the Christians would be up the creek without a paddle.

We already know the crazy US Christians hate Harry Potter. It's the competition they hate!

Sun, 27 Nov 2011 18:16:30 UTC | #893658