Richard Dawkins interview with Bill O'Reilly

[Stark Evade]

Re: Richard Dawkins interview with Bill O'Reilly

True, but so can any belief system or ideology. I don't agree with Dawkins in the respect that religion can be rooted out or eliminated by logic and reason, that is simply impossible. Religion will always be here in one form or another, whether due to stupidity, arrogance or dislike of scientific thought and reasoning.

But in the end it is best to have a secular system that doesn't discriminate against religions or science. Religious teaching should always be optional, and so should scientific teaching. The best way to do this is for the public system to teach science, if people desire to give their children a religious education it seems far better to send their children to a private school. This is how it works in New Zealand, and I see no problems with it, because there have been no complaints.

People like Richard Dawkins do not promote discrimination against religion. That is a common misconception people have about those individuals who merely actively seek to change peoples minds or dispell myths. Changing peoples minds is not the same as taking away peoples' freedom to opine and force secularism. I have never read anything that suggested Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, or the like would support the criminalizing of religion or any similar action. Even if -- and I know it is the case with someone like Hitchens -- someone thinks religion is overall a bad thing, that still does not imply that they would take away peoples freedom of choice. And since such a belief hasn't been expressly stated by any of the prominent advocates of non-theism, there's really no reason to believe it. As a matter of fact Dawkins stated in a televised interview in Ireland that he felt religion should be taught to preserve peoples ability to understand and appreciate the countless religious allusions in art and literature. I would go so far as saying such a belief would be in strong dischord with the character of these individuals.

To address your earlier point, I think logic and reason can do much to decrease the presence of extreme religious thought over time. Providing lasting resources of information such as books, interviews, webpages, etc. will expose people to certain information more frequently and at younger ages allowing for critical thinking to take hold at an increased rate. Human beings are naturally skeptical. They apply the principles of the scientific method constantly in their daily lives to make sense of everyday occurences and things. It is a natural position to be agnostic and questioning and curious. And being in an age where science has accomplished so much, that skepticism can be nurtured.

[Haykakan]

Re: Richard Dawkins interview with Bill O'Reilly

Fed makes good points. Hitler was religious and the murders in question were not fueled by atheism. It is undeniable, on the other hand, that murders, wars... have been and still are fueled by religion. Since religion does not function on rational thought, it makes itself very vulnerable to manipulation and many have taken advantage of this vulnerability to further their own agendas through religion. Religion itself contributes to racism and wars and many other things because it is based on a us vs them mentality and it discourages variations from the theme, add to this its vulnerability to manipulation and it is easy to see why people like me oppose any kind of organised religion. I do not consider myself a atheist but this is only because i cannot prove god does not exist not because i think he/she/it does exist. It can be easily proven however that if there is a god he/she/it is nothing like what the major religions describe-not even close.

[Siggie]

Re: Richard Dawkins interview with Bill O'Reilly

True, but so can any belief system or ideology. I don't agree with Dawkins in the respect that religion can be rooted out or eliminated by logic and reason, that is simply impossible. Religion will always be here in one form or another, whether due to stupidity, arrogance or dislike of scientific thought and reasoning.

But in the end it is best to have a secular system that doesn't discriminate against religions or science. Religious teaching should always be optional, and so should scientific teaching. The best way to do this is for the public system to teach science, if people desire to give their children a religious education it seems far better to send their children to a private school. This is how it works in New Zealand, and I see no problems with it, because there have been no complaints.

You think science education should be optional?! That's crazy. Should history be optional? How about math? Science is how we acquire information about the world and how it works. It cannot be optional.

[hipeter924]

Re: Richard Dawkins interview with Bill O'Reilly

The religious also start wars, torture, murder, rape, lie steal, commit genocide, ethnic cleansing, engage in drug trafficing, destroy education and progress and justify it all cause they claim it is done in the name of god.

True, but so can any belief system or ideology. I don't agree with Dawkins in the respect that religion can be rooted out or eliminated by logic and reason, that is simply impossible. Religion will always be here in one form or another, whether due to stupidity, arrogance or dislike of scientific thought and reasoning.

But in the end it is best to have a secular system that doesn't discriminate against religions or science. Religious teaching should always be optional, and so should scientific teaching. The best way to do this is for the public system to teach science, if people desire to give their children a religious education it seems far better to send their children to a private school. This is how it works in New Zealand, and I see no problems with it, because there have been no complaints.

[Stark Evade]

Re: Richard Dawkins interview with Bill O'Reilly

No I haven't read the book but I find his views narrow minded. I've read many reviews and comments and discussions on the internet. Has he read the Bible? The Koran? The Torah? What are his reasons for preaching his beliefs?

He had a religious upbringing; he is very familiar with the old and new testaments. He has also read at least some of the koran. However, it is not necessary to have read any of those books because they do not offer knowledge about the nature of the universe. The nature of the universe is discovered through the scientific method. Religious books are useless in that regard.

[Stark Evade]

Re: Richard Dawkins interview with Bill O'Reilly

The Soviet and Chinese communists' murders were not fueled by their atheism but by politics. It has no relation. It is the same argument O'Reilly used in the clip when he told Dawkins that Hitler and Stalin killed a lot of people and they happened to be atheists (Hitler was in fact not but that is beyond the point). These two also have mustaches, does this mean there is a correlation between having a mustache and being a mass murderer?

There is also the aspect that both had religious supporters whether or not they were religious themselves.

[Federate]

Re: Richard Dawkins interview with Bill O'Reilly

The Soviet and Chinese Communist atheists killed just as many (if not more) people than any single religious movement. These and other communist regimes were not peaceful, did not respect human rights, and were just as guilty of spreading terrorism as any religion.

The Soviet and Chinese communists' murders were not fueled by their atheism but by politics. It has no relation. It is the same argument O'Reilly used in the clip when he told Dawkins that Hitler and Stalin killed a lot of people and they happened to be atheists (Hitler was in fact not but that is beyond the point). These two also have mustaches, does this mean there is a correlation between having a mustache and being a mass murderer?

[HyeClown]

Re: Richard Dawkins interview with Bill O'Reilly

Atheists do the same things minus church.

Dawkins preaches in front of an audience all the time. He also writes books to convince his followers. There really isn't any difference between the two sides.

Even the most outspoken of all, like Dawkins, what does he do? Give talks? Write books? Ooooh noes!!!!!
[sarcasm ] That's exactly like a suicide bomber. [/ sarcasm]

The Soviet and Chinese Communist atheists killed just as many (if not more) people than any single religious movement. These and other communist regimes were not peaceful, did not respect human rights, and were just as guilty of spreading terrorism as any religion.

The issue then is not that atheism or religion causes violence. As both atheistic and religious views can inspire murder and war, it is reasonable to argue that neither religious belief or lack of it causes the problems. It must be either then a part of human nature that God created or an aspect of human behavior that has evolved with the human species.

[Siggie]

Re: Richard Dawkins interview with Bill O'Reilly

The religious go to church, raise families, work hard, donate to foundations and are active in the community. They also do volunteer work. They aren't going to change what makes them happy because atheists feel they are foolish for believing in fairy tales.

Atheists do the same things minus church.

[HyeClown]

Re: Richard Dawkins interview with Bill O'Reilly

The religious also start wars, torture, murder, rape, lie steal, commit genocide, ethnic cleansing, engage in drug trafficing, destroy education and progress and justify it all cause they claim it is done in the name of god.

I think that's what they call hi-jacking.