Dawkins nails the pope

[Sahasranama]

http://richarddawkins.net/videos/520...ndon-sept-2010

[sanjaya]

Ah yes, good old Dr. Dawkins again. I'm no more a fan of Christianity than the next guy, but I have to say that Richard Dawkins is a very unkind and uncharitable fellow. I admit I haven't read anything about this, but I have to ask what one is trying to "protest" about the Pope. There are a lot of Christian denominations worse than the Catholics (e.g. the evangelicals by far). I feel like all this will do is further cause people to confuse anti-Christianity with anti-religion. In the West, many people talk about the evils of religion, but what they are really referring to is Christianity. Hindus never launched any crusades, and yet we're often lumped in with the "religious zealots" by people like Dawkins.

Really I don't think any good can come from supporting a militant atheist.

[Sahasranama]

Yes, you are right. I would not support Dawkins. I thought he made some interesting points on Chrisianity though.

[sanjaya]

True, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Perhaps I should read what he has to say before I comment any further.

[Jetavan]

When it comes to understanding Christianity, or any religion period, Dawkins is a rank amateur. He should stick to the Greatest Show on Earth.

[Ao]

Ah yes, good old Dr. Dawkins again. I'm no more a fan of Christianity than the next guy, but I have to say that Richard Dawkins is a very unkind and uncharitable fellow. I admit I haven't read anything about this, but I have to ask what one is trying to "protest" about the Pope. There are a lot of Christian denominations worse than the Catholics (e.g. the evangelicals by far). I feel like all this will do is further cause people to confuse anti-Christianity with anti-religion. In the West, many people talk about the evils of religion, but what they are really referring to is Christianity. Hindus never launched any crusades, and yet we're often lumped in with the "religious zealots" by people like Dawkins.

Really I don't think any good can come from supporting a militant atheist.

I fully agree with you, Sanjaya, but in fairness to Dawkins and his arguments (I've read his "The God Delusion") one of his main points is that mainstream religions provide 'cover' for the fringe elements. Thus Catholicism is bad because it allows nutty Evangelicals to be protected by the same Christian umbrella that shields them. The argument finds its greatest strength against religions like Islam which in modern times harbor very dangerous elements indeed.

[sanjaya]

I fully agree with you, Sanjaya, but in fairness to Dawkins and his arguments (I've read his "The God Delusion") one of his main points is that mainstream religions provide 'cover' for the fringe elements. Thus Catholicism is bad because it allows nutty Evangelicals to be protected by the same Christian umbrella that shields them. The argument finds its greatest strength against religions like Islam which in modern times harbor very dangerous elements indeed.

Interesting, thank you for explaining.

My first response to Dawkins would of course be that the same arguments can be made for organized atheism. Indeed, Dawkins has done much work to make atheism sound reasonable and mainstream. And could this not inadvertently act as a cover for atheistic communist regimes (the regimes I refer to are not incidentally atheistic, rather atheism is one of their core tenets). Also, liberal Christians often love to ally with atheists and bash the evangelicals. So if Western religions provide cover for the fringe elements, it isn't deliberate. It concerns me that he might also judge Hindus according to our own fringe groups.

Anyway, perhaps I should direct these arguments at people who actually espouse them. Sorry for shooting the messenger.

[Ao]

Interesting, thank you for explaining.

My first response to Dawkins would of course be that the same arguments can be made for organized atheism. Indeed, Dawkins has done much work to make atheism sound reasonable and mainstream. And could this not inadvertently act as a cover for atheistic communist regimes (the regimes I refer to are not incidentally atheistic, rather atheism is one of their core tenets). Also, liberal Christians often love to ally with atheists and bash the evangelicals. So if Western religions provide cover for the fringe elements, it isn't deliberate. It concerns me that he might also judge Hindus according to our own fringe groups.

Anyway, perhaps I should direct these arguments at people who actually espouse them. Sorry for shooting the messenger.

No worries.

Your points are quite valid, and given human diversity it's likely impossible for any group to avoid having a fringe element, really. However, the argument could be made that certain thought systems are more likely to give rise to dangerous elements than others, and I think a public debate along these lines would be of better service than the atheism versus all religions debate currently being played out.

[sanjaya]

No worries.

Your points are quite valid, and given human diversity it's likely impossible for any group to avoid having a fringe element, really. However, the argument could be made that certain thought systems are more likely to give rise to dangerous elements than others, and I think a public debate along these lines would be of better service than the atheism versus all religions debate currently being played out.

I couldn't agree more. I think it's fairly easy to show that Eastern religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and the various other religions of India, are less likely to breed hatred than Christianity and Islam.

Although I must say that as far as the Abrahamic faiths go, Judaism is really the odd man out. Jewish scriptures are full of stories about holy wars and small scale genocides, but for whatever reason Jews have always been fairly peaceful. So I'm not entirely how to correlate religious teachings with fringe behavior.

[Ao]

I couldn't agree more. I think it's fairly easy to show that Eastern religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and the various other religions of India, are less likely to breed hatred than Christianity and Islam.

Although I must say that as far as the Abrahamic faiths go, Judaism is really the odd man out. Jewish scriptures are full of stories about holy wars and small scale genocides, but for whatever reason Jews have always been fairly peaceful. So I'm not entirely how to correlate religious teachings with fringe behavior.

Interesting. We're veering off-topic here, but I think with Judaism you have a number of elements all oddly co-existing. For one, the religion (and culture) has a very, very tightly knit sense of identity. I think this is a big reason that Jewish communities tend to be so well-run. Also there is their high regard for education and prioritizing of success during this life (which goes hand in hand with Judaism's lack of emphasis on the afterlife--the very opposite of the other two Abrahamic faiths). Finally, from an individual point of view, there is the strong sense of social responsibility and commitments to the group that help give members a sense of duty and meaning.

On the other hand, we have the state of Israel, and its well documented history of violence and the use of force to maintain, and even expand, its lands, influence, and access to exploitable resources.