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

← Dawkins’s Theory of God

Dawkins’s Theory of God - Comments

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 1 by Steve Zara

I have been deeply offended by things that are a part of Christmas — Baby Jesus and Rudolf, the reindeer — but if I like to act on these prejudices, then I will be held accountable.

I have to say, I'm intrigued.

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:41:20 UTC | #911369

GBile's Avatar Comment 2 by GBile

From the article:

Dawkins is known for his strong views on evolution and the origin of the universe.

Huh ... ?

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:58:32 UTC | #911373

Metamag's Avatar Comment 3 by Metamag

Comment 2 by GBile :

From the article:

Dawkins is known for his strong views on evolution and the origin of the universe.

Huh ... ?

Yeah, I guess it's his pet theory or something...

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:48:54 UTC | #911390

Big Gus's Avatar Comment 4 by Big Gus

Comment 1 by Steve Zara :

I have been deeply offended by things that are a part of Christmas — Baby Jesus and Rudolf, the reindeer — but if I like to act on these prejudices, then I will be held accountable.

I have to say, I'm intrigued.

I can hear the quote miners now! "Richard Dawkins who has stated that he hates babies and reindeer."

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:00:05 UTC | #911398

aquilacane's Avatar Comment 5 by aquilacane

When asked if he would like to be immortal, Dawkins said, “The idea of eternity is frightening; would never want it.”

I approach this question differently: An eternity of fear is something to consider, overcome, change and better than nothing; even if for an eternity.

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:24:38 UTC | #911410

microphage's Avatar Comment 6 by microphage

@Comment 4 by Big Gus: 'I can hear the quote miners now! "Richard Dawkins who has stated that he hates babies and reindeer."`

"Richard Dawkins hates the poor" :)

Atheists Strangely Quiet on Bishops in Welfare Debate

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:33:16 UTC | #911415

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 7 by Alan4discussion

Comment 2 by GBile

From the article:

Dawkins is known for his strong views on evolution and the origin of the universe.

Huh ... ?

Well!! - I suppose in contrast, the weak-minded ignorant have other ideas!

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:36:34 UTC | #911417

Gnu Atheist's Avatar Comment 8 by Gnu Atheist

OK, at the risk of being crucified for disagreeing with Richard, I happen to have no problem with Rudolf. In fact my wife & I watch the old 60's rendition just about every year at Christmas time. (Along with The Grinch and a few others.) Call us silly or maybe kids at heart.

Neither am I offended by the Baby Jeebuses and other traditional Christmas trappings, religious or not, around the holidays. Let them have their silly displays; some of them are pretty. I don't put things up in my yard, but I don't want anyone telling me that I can't, either.

But I digress. Everyone is offended by something. We should choose our battles wisely when deciding to be vocal about it.

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:42:02 UTC | #911420

Arki's Avatar Comment 9 by Arki

I read the article and I fail to find the connection between the title and the content. There's no proper structure to the way it's written, besides just quoting some things from RD. Is this for criticism, mock, education, exposition or just to get some gasps from fundamentalists who read an opinion different from theirs about religion? It even fails as a summary of the speech.

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:21:32 UTC | #911435

drumdaddy's Avatar Comment 10 by drumdaddy

I'm offended by the sight of children forced to kneel down before a hanging tortured corpse and told to love it more than they love themselves. "Look at those nails through the hands and feet, kids. Oh how that crown of thorns must be torture. And that fearful gash in his abdomen is just ghastly, kids, isn't it? He did this for you, kids, you owe him big. Let us pray, kids. Repeat after me . . ." In my eyes this is child abuse on massive scales.

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:36:32 UTC | #911439

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 11 by Alan4discussion

Comment 9 by Arki

I read the article and I fail to find the connection between the title and the content.

I think it would a clearer explanation of the title, if it specifically said that "gods" are a neurological feature of the brain, (but then the title was added afterwards.) but the following quote makes that point fairly clearly.

Dawkin’s Theory of God

Religious faith is a state of mind, that leads people to believe in something, without a whisper of doubt. It is so strong in some cases that they are prepared to kill and die for it.

... You are right though! - The title does not really cover the scope of the content.

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:39:20 UTC | #911440

Richard Dawkins's Avatar Comment 12 by Richard Dawkins

What really offends me is the position of the apostrophe in the title! I'm hoping a moderator will correct it soon.

Richard

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:58:42 UTC | #911445

Richard Dawkins's Avatar Comment 13 by Richard Dawkins

Comment 12 by Richard Dawkins :

What really offends me is the position of the apostrophe in the title! I'm hoping a moderator will correct it soon.

Richard

Apostrophe now corrected, thank you Moderator.

I don't know why they call me vociferous. Several Indian writers deserve that credit much more than I do.

Richard.

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 20:36:53 UTC | #911457

ridelo's Avatar Comment 14 by ridelo

Comment 12 by Richard Dawkins :

What really offends me is the position of the apostrophe in the title! I'm hoping a moderator will correct it soon.

Richard

OK. As long as you're not going berserk.

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 20:39:18 UTC | #911458

Peter Grant's Avatar Comment 15 by Peter Grant

But aren't they both wrong now? Surely it shouldn't be Dawkins's or Dawkin's, but rather Dawkins'.

Comment 13 by Richard Dawkins

Apostrophe now corrected, thank you Moderator.

I don't know why they call me vociferous. Several Indian writers deserve that credit much more than I do.

Richard.

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 21:03:17 UTC | #911464

Premiseless's Avatar Comment 16 by Premiseless

"This is the terrifying thing about faith; wherein those taken over by it, are not open to reason, argument or persuasion."

But then so too whatever long sanctimonious twaddle spout is recorded as cloud rider rain gets a free pass straight into cutting up genitals or stoning non bin liner loving females et al. Plus you need to start to feel the heat of an afterlife if you ever let your head doubt this stuff.

Religion surely is the most unmagical thing about reality humans have invented. Few are the words of any merit I can even imagine for the inventor of religious faith and most especially for the claimants any words are from such a place as a god. This is sheer pollution of everything the human mind represents. A carnivore of one persons mind upon others. A hunger for the neurons of as many as can be stuffed into the mouth of an imagined cannibal!

And to pray to this is a putrid ritual display of what has been abused in the person you have become!

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 22:16:12 UTC | #911506

Dixiedog's Avatar Comment 17 by Dixiedog

Dawkins's is ok - but does look a little clumsy. Much prefer the neater Dawkins'. Yes, I'm a pendant,

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 22:30:22 UTC | #911512

Philoctetes                                        's Avatar Comment 18 by Philoctetes

Interesting concept: "lashing out with precision"

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 22:45:34 UTC | #911516

mmurray's Avatar Comment 19 by mmurray

Comment 17 by Dixiedog :

Dawkins's is ok - but does look a little clumsy. Much prefer the neater Dawkins'. Yes, I'm a pendant,

???

Michael

Thu, 26 Jan 2012 00:16:01 UTC | #911543

Starcrash's Avatar Comment 20 by Starcrash

Okay. It all appears to be factual, which is nice, but it doesn't appear to be a news report, which makes me wonder why it's just factual. Unlike the average essay, there's no thesis or assertions. It's nice to read a Dawkins article that doesn't offend, but how could it offend? The author doesn't appear to have an opinion.

Thu, 26 Jan 2012 03:53:39 UTC | #911612

QuestioningKat's Avatar Comment 21 by QuestioningKat

Rudolph really is a secular idea for children and has nothing to do with the birth of Christ. If it is offensive perhaps it is the watering down of a holiday? The same with Easter and the Easter bunny. They make the holiday child friendly and more saleable. Whether or not this is a good thing seems to be questionable.

(Actually all usages of the apostrophe are correct, but I think Dawkins' is less awkward.)

Thu, 26 Jan 2012 13:02:56 UTC | #911691

Serena's Avatar Comment 22 by Serena

Comment 9 by Arki : Is this for criticism, mock, education, exposition or just to get some gasps from fundamentalists who read an opinion different from theirs about religion?

My guess? None of the above. In my experience, most Indians don't get offended if you don't single-out their religion or their country. As for Hindus, Evolution by Natural Selection does not go against anything they believe or maintain as sacred. I think I can say this about Hindu fundies too. If Muslim fundies or Christian fundies had protested, Hindu fundies would have been busy attacking them. I think this is how it works in India. But I am a bit surprised the Hindu fundies did not come out supporting Rushdie -- maybe it's because Rushdie is a bit too blatant about his criticism, or maybe it's because Rushdie writes in English, a language Hindu fundies do not care for.

Comment 20 by Starcrash : Okay. It all appears to be factual, which is nice, but it doesn't appear to be a news report, which makes me wonder why it's just factual. Unlike the average essay, there's no thesis or assertions. It's nice to read a Dawkins article that doesn't offend, but how could it offend? The author doesn't appear to have an opinion.

I sense the attitude is more like "Richard Dawkins was here and he said some things just for us! How cool is that?!" I guess the paper sent out a few journalists to cover the event. Richard is famous enough and likable enough ('charming style', 'Dawkins moments') to... umm... cover.

I think it is a news report, so I prefer it opinionless. But I must admit, "[Dawkin's] strong views on origin of the universe" offends me. He has no right! ;-)

Thu, 26 Jan 2012 15:26:27 UTC | #911720

Serena's Avatar Comment 23 by Serena

But I am a bit surprised the Hindu fundies did not come out supporting Rushdie...

I guess the most likely reason is this: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/rushdie-satire-infuriates-hindu-extremists-1598477.html

Thu, 26 Jan 2012 16:08:02 UTC | #911730

ChadSmith1452's Avatar Comment 24 by ChadSmith1452

@ Steve Zara I'd bet what Dawkins meant is that he finds those things unspeakably kitschy. (I'd be willing to bet real money he'd confirm this with gusto on the off chance were he to pop into thread again).

I know I detest the holiday season for no other reason than that It becomes nigh impossible to avoid exposure to saccharine Christmas specials (not insuperably difficult, I don't watch TV) and excruciatingly insipid music (flatly impossible; I do shop for my own groceries).

Come to think of it, I'm almost certain I once heard Dawkins employ the phrase, "...the appalling 'Jingle Bells'...".

Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:04:46 UTC | #911977

sudhakar's Avatar Comment 25 by sudhakar

I felt elated meeting you Professor Dawkins at the airport lounge and having the privilege of chatting with you for few minutes.Like you, I felt very sad about the way Salman Rushdie affair was handled and the entire secular group got bullied by fringe fundamental elements.It has become a routine affair in India.

I live in a country where a major percentage of the population including the most educated like Doctors,Engineers and Professors ,leave alone the general public, fail to appreciate evolution and the worldview it can offer.In spite of your hectic schedule,it will be wonderful if you can spend more time in a country like India.Your Jaipur visit and the press coverage of that had the right impact on the public. Looking forward to meet you soon at Madras ( Chennai ) too.

I had a chance to share my opinion on the Salman Rushdie episode in NDTV.I am attaching the link to the video.I could do that only because of encouragement from people like you.

http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/news/chennai-reacts-to-rushdie-controversy/221742

I wish you a very happy and healthy life in the years ahead.

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:24:02 UTC | #913001