The God Delusion discussion

I agree Daniel, but I'm not sure how many atheist parents out there would not allow their children to interrogate them regarding god, and not say something like yes there may be a god but we don't think so. I think kids growing up in religious homes are far less likely to be allowed to question their parents beliefs. Atheists on the whole seem far more open to altering their own beliefs than most religious folk I meet. Perhaps it has something to do with the notion of truth and the search for truth. In the Christian Right in America, for example, a kind of logocide has taken place where words like truth mean nothing like what they do to you or I, but instead mean "biblical truth" and "obedience to gods word."

Which brings me to my next thought: obedience is central to the Christian doctrine, whichever denomination you are. Even liberal Catholics have to ultimately be obedient to the Church hierarchy in Rome. And the Christian right? There's a whole lotta obedience going on there. Always to men, funnily enough...

Somehow I don't hear atheists tossing this word around quite so much.

Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "If I agree with you about children being brainwashed by parents then this has to apply to everything a child is taught. Including an atheist telling their child that there is no God.

Bu..."

Encourage a child to question things

If a child of yours asked you who god is, what would you say?

Hazel wrote: "its The Big Questions, a religious discussion show thats on every sunday. The episode being linked is asking if there is a difference between a cult and a religion. The part that cs said to watch w..."

In my experience, the difference between a cult and a religion comes down to popularity and membership. For some, a cult is any religion except your own and for others, you get to count as a religion once you reach some unknown size, but other than that, you're considered a cult.

It's basically a way for religious people to crap on other religions by not counting them as religions.

And yes, I'm anti- cult of personality, which is essentially another type of religion that may or may not use the word "god".

Tim wrote: "I agree Daniel, but I'm not sure how many atheist parents out there would not allow their children to interrogate them regarding god, and not say something like yes there may be a god but we don't think so. I think kids growing up in religious homes are far less likely to be allowed to question their parents beliefs. Atheists on the whole seem far more open to altering their own beliefs than most religious folk I meet. Perhaps it has something to do with the notion of truth and the search for truth. In the Christian Right in America, for example, a kind of logocide has taken place where words like truth mean nothing like what they do to you or I, but instead mean "biblical truth" and "obedience to gods word."

Which brings me to my next thought: obedience is central to the Christian doctrine, whichever denomination you are. Even liberal Catholics have to ultimately be obedient to the Church hierarchy in Rome. And the Christian right? There's a whole lotta obedience going on there. Always to men, funnily enough...

Somehow I don't hear atheists tossing this word around quite so much. "

Good points all, though I would add that most people still don't pay any attention to their religion whenever it's inconvenient. Studies show that something like 85% of catholic women use birth control, which the church is quite vocally opposed to. That's just one example and most religions have examples like that.

A lot of religion is about convenience and conscience soothing. I can be a jackass all week if I go to church on Sundays and ask forgiveness and so on.

Hazel wrote: "only have relationships with people who you've chosen."

Isn't this how it always is once you're an adult? Some people choose to stay close with their parents, some choose to not talk to them at all and everyone else falls somewhere in the middle, but it's always the person's choice at that point. I guess I don't understand why you need a magic podcast guy to grasp that.

It probably speaks more to a teenager who feels he or she is hard done by, and what teenager doesn't feel hard done by?

Can we all say "Crusades"? I knew we could.

When my son comes home all muddy from playing in the garden, I send him to the shower. When he comes home believing rubbish I wash it out of his brains just as well. My child's hygiene is my responsibility, be it physical or mental. Negative connotations of "brainwashing" is a rhetorical fallacy.

Артём wrote: "When my son comes home all muddy from playing in the garden, I send him to the shower. When he comes home believing rubbish I wash it out of his brains just as well. My child's hygiene is my responsibility, be it physical or mental. Negative connotations of "brainwashing" is a rhetorical fallacy. "

So your argument, despite your attempt to make it sound impressive and noble, is "brainwashing is good".

Well, that is certainly a perspective.

no, my argument is "brainwashing" is a meaningless emotional term that everybody uses about their opponents.

Артём wrote: "no, my argument is "brainwashing" is a meaningless emotional term that everybody uses about their opponents."

That's a distinction without a difference in this case. Your argument still boils down to "what people call brainwashing is good."

Perhaps there's an unspoken caveat to your position which states that it's good as long as you are the one doing it or at least that you agree with what is being brainwashed into someone. Feel free to clarify if that is indeed there in your position or whether you are just generally in favor of brainwashing.

I'm in favor of education, I teach my child what I believe and inform him about beliefs of others clearly stating that I think they are/were mistaken. People who disagree with me may call my educating him "brainwashing".

I know you're really caught up on this thing about people only calling people they disagree with brainwashers, but I'm not sure why. It's actually not the relevant distinction in any meaningful way in this context.

In terms of things that make a difference, you used a key phrase that changes everything. When you clearly state that this is your opinion/the conclusion you've reached, you are implicitly encouraging someone to also reach their own conclusion. It's not as good as directly encouraging it perhaps, but it's still better than nothing. This changes the entire picture because you aren't force-feeding your views without room for questioning, you are sharing what you think based on the information you have. The difference is in the "clearly stating that I THINK they are/were mistaken" (emphasis mine). That's not a definitive statement force fed to someone who can't fight back, that's an assessment based on the information you have. Do you see the difference?

What a person is trying to brainwash or teach someone is not relevant to whether it is brainwashing or whether it's just teaching.

Of course, I could be misunderstanding and you may forbid your child to have opinions different from yours on anything, but that's how it comes across to me.

It the ones who don't have children that think they know how best to raise children.

Yes, now I see the difference: when I tell him "I DON'T THINK lightnings are caused by the wrath of Jupiter", I'm teaching him. When I say "I KNOW FOR SURE you can't become a superhero by letting yourself be bit by a radioactive spider and I WON'T LET you try" I'm brainwashing him.

But in my experience as a father the difference is purely theoretical until certain age. To my eight year old what I THINK is HOW THE WORLD IS. I'm sure it's going to change really soon, but I'm doing my best to lay the foundation I FIND the best.

However I think the real brain forming that I'am performing on him isn't in what I tell him, but in what I myself take for granted: which documentaries we watch (and which we don't), which non-fiction books are laying around (and which aren't), which studies I quote to my wife and he overhears, which sources of information I turn to when he asks a question I don't know the answer to, etc. All these form the background of his worldview that he doesn't even think to question.

I think this form of children indoctrination is responsible for more of the perceived "brainwashing" effect in devout believer / atheist households than active "force-feeding without room for questioning".

Hhhm I just went on a hurry on the previous posts earlier on Dec 2011, so in any way I don't feel ready yet to embark on this agenda yet,so I'll simply put on top some thoughts/quotes from the current book I am reading.

"I Accept God and I accept his wisdom, his purpose, which are unknowable to us; I believe in the underlying order and meaning of life; I believe in the eternal harmony... I believe in the Word to which the Universe in striving... I seem to be on the right path, don't I? Yet--in the final result, I don't accept God's world.'

Later on Ivan returns an answer to Alyosha with his well-known statement: "It's not God I don't accept, Alyosha--only that I most respectifully return him the entrance ticket.'
For Ivan the suffering of one tortured child are enough to blast any foundation apart ( by that I bring on child abuse introduced in a rigid state-school system).. Later he goes to argue that according to Lawrence bodily sufferings have no power over the Will. The child's syffering just are; they cannot be resolved into a universal harmony, a System.

>>In any way I strongly believe that if one needs to build a foundation from where to start arguing about Religion. One should step away, or simply shatter all his thesis in advance, then try to build from scrap. Others may think I am biased, but building on this premise, one can disingage from our habitual chains, instead of being out of place one can observe his starting point without the clingings attached to him.

PS:to Artem, no matter how hard U try U simply cannot "shape" yr sons background. It simply cannot be done. But heads up for trying.
And fc I strongly agree on yr assumption on how children indoctrination simply "works",but what is to be done for those that have suffered from it, and in what way does it bind ones brain, that is the place that lies the key to our salvation to my humble opinion

Артём wrote: "Yes, now I see the difference: when I tell him "I DON'T THINK lightnings are caused by the wrath of Jupiter", I'm teaching him. When I say "I KNOW FOR SURE you can't become a superhero by letting y..."

Check out my reply it's 2 parts Dostoyevsky's lines and 1 part Lawrence stirred by C. Wilson's existentialist view.
if U don't mind telling me are u descended from the Urals, somewhere in the vast Russian landscape, aham nv mind I checked yr profile, to be frank Ishould expect that, yr craftmanship in En is quite excellent.

Артём wrote: "But in my experience as a father the difference is purely theoretical until certain age. To my eight year old what I THINK is HOW THE WORLD IS."

A good point and worth making. There's not much way around this and there are so many basic things to learn that it pretty much has to be this way from an evolutionary perspective.

Артём wrote: "However I think the real brain forming that I'am performing on him isn't in what I tell him, but in what I myself take for granted: which documentaries we watch (and which we don't), which non-fiction books are laying around (and which aren't), which studies I quote to my wife and he overhears, which sources of information I turn to when he asks a question I don't know the answer to, etc. All these form the background of his worldview that he doesn't even think to question.

I think this form of children indoctrination is responsible for more of the perceived "brainwashing" effect in devout believer / atheist households than active "force-feeding without room for questioning".

I think you're probably right here, but there's not much to be done about this. It's the classic "lead by example" in it's most potent manifestation.

A good example of this are the studies which find a child is more likely to grow up with an appreciation for reading if she sees her parents reading a lot when growing up.

At some point, children develop the ability to do a little thinking and from there, it's good if they know how.

In general, I think we'd be in a better state as a people if we focused a little more on how to think than what to think. If you get the first part right, the latter part will largely take care of itself.

time in the bible is a finite linear function. daniel chapter 2 makes it clear that human existence is virtually at the end of curve. the metaphorical rock at the chapter's end also makes it clears there is a complete and utter end to human existence as we now know it.

the God of the bible makes no attempt to prove His existence nor does He allow himself double jeopardy. God only cries 'wolf' once. humans cease to exist when they die and after that the judgment.

those who are recalled in the second resurrection to an accounting, face God who for them is a consuming fire, then they cease to exist and be as they have never been.

two years ago, i laid my 90's plus parents, life long devout christians, to rest. they were among the most fair, honorable, loving, and happy persons i have ever known. on their headrest, are the words, "Together in Jesus."

they have nothing to loose if there is no first resurrection of the just. but maybe the utterly fantastic chapters of revelation 21 and 22 may just be worth their choice to believe.

after all the bible is not science but a revelation and a voluntary offer to choose faith. pretty simple.

someone needs to tell dawkins, atheists, and all so called agnostics, not to get their 'tails in a knot'. biblically, there is no eternal hell nor do humans have eternal souls. just the inconvenience of a final judgment if the biblical story is true.

either way, they correctly cease to exist.

george manzuk [email protected]

I'm agnostic rather than atheist because it's impossible to prove a negative. But there still is much in Prof. Dawkins book to nourish the suspended judgment of the agnostic. He certainly does present sufficient justification for a religious person to throw faith over board without fear of going to hell.

But I do suspect that the majority of readers have already been atheists or agnostics. As wonderful as this book is to read, it probably doesn't reach or persuade the religious person who has some doubt.

That's where the book I have published comes in to fill the gap. "The Last Lunch" presents many of Dawkins' arguments in story format. Coworkers having a lunch conversation deal with religious doubt in real-life haggling. Let's face it, the Bible is replete with stories. Christ tells stories. And now, religious fantasy is exposed by way of a story.

Rodger wrote: "I'm agnostic rather than atheist because it's impossible to prove a negative."

There is no reason to prove a negative. I doubt you are agnostic when it comes to tiny green bridge trolls that eat the children who cross the bridge. If you're like most people, you simply don't think they exist because there is no good reason to think they do. There is no real difference between that and atheism.

There's also no reason to fence-sit on the issue. I assume you would be perfectly capable of changing your mind about little green bridge trolls were evidence of their existence to become available. You'd simply change your mind and agree that little green bridge trolls exist or at least (depending on the evidence) are likely to exist.

In the meantime, the most reasonable stance is to treat it like every other form of knowledge, which is to move forward on the information we have. Right now, there is no reason to think there are little green bridge trolls, so when asked if they exist, you would simply say "no".

I think perhaps that the reason many atheists dislike agnostics (assuming that they do, of course) is the smug belief by many agnostics that, by sitting up there on that fence, they can see further than either the religious or the atheist when, in fact, they are really just hedging their bets. Personally, there are many things I don't believe in besides gods: fairies, trolls, the efficacy of prayer or deregulation. I fail to see how my lack of belief is proof of belief as so many agnostics and religious seem to infer.

Maxine wrote: "the smug belief by many agnostics that, by sitting up there on that fence, they can see further than either the religious or the atheist when, in fact, they are really just hedging their bets."

I wouldn't say I dislike anyone really, but my issue with the position comes from the intellectual dishonesty inherent in the position. There is no substantive reason for treating this one issue differently from every other issue in a person's life. To do so is intellectually dishonest.

Of course, if a person were to say that they treat everything that way then it would be different. If, for instance, a person did not take the position that gravity exists or that the earth revolves around the sun or that a person can walk on their legs (provided their legs are generally healthy) or that you can see better with your eyes open, then at least it would be intellectually consistent. Of course, such a person would be incapable of navigating the world. One must move forward with the information available in order to function. We move forward under the assumption that we see better with our eyes open because all the evidence available indicates that. It would be absurd to say one should remain agnostic about the question of eyes and sight just in case some evidence one day appears that shows that some people see better with their eyes closed.

There is no reason that this one issue should be treated differently than literally every other issue of knowledge in one's life.

I think most atheists are agnostics, because if they died and met God, they would say "Finally, here is the proof I was looking for. Now, sir, I have some questions."
Then there are people, and I don't think it's fair to say they are "true atheists" or anything like that, because that means something different for every individual who calls themselves athiest, there are people who, even upon meeting God, would spit in his face and tell him he was a fraud.
These people are not agnostic.

Agnosticism is not "the way to go." Agnosticism is just lazy atheism.

Or atheism is overly dogmatic agnosticism.

I have yet to see a remotely convincing "proof" that god either exists or does not exist.

What I have seen is a mass of people on both sides of the argument claiming to "know" something that is frankly unknowable.

Dawkin's paper-thin arguments are certainly no proof, but then again neither are the proofs put forward by the anti-Dawkins.

Will wrote: "I have yet to see a remotely convincing "proof" that god either exists or does not exist.

What I have seen is a mass of people on both sides of the argument claiming to "know" something that is frankly unknowable.

Dawkin's paper-thin arguments are certainly no proof, but then again neither are the proofs put forward by the anti-Dawkins. "

Clearly you haven't read the book, since you think he was claiming to "know" anything absolutely or that he was attempting to offer "proof" that god doesn't exist.

Why dismiss arguments without having read them? Does that really strike you as an intellectually honest approach to the question?

Why assume that I haven't read the book? You'll notice that I've given it two stars, which ought to be a bit of a clue.

I found it to be muddled and unconvincing ... and as an atheist/ agnostic I was disposed to agree with its basic premise.

But here's an interesting thing. I didn't say that he claimed to know anything. I said I have seen people on both sides of the argument who claim to know, but I didn't say that Dawkins was one of them.

It's not enough to read something. You have to be precise in how you interpret what you read. Otherwise you end up making assumptions based on zero evidence, such as you assuming I hadn't read the book or that I had said something when I clearly hadn't.

CrossProduct wrote: "There is no proof that god does not exist. There is also no proof that Thor doesn't exist. The party that makes a claim that something exists should be the one responsible for providing proof."

Why?

Where is it written down that the responsibility lies with the person making the claim? Or did you just make that up?

Surely the responsibility lies with you to prove that that burden of proof exists?

It's your reasoning. You claim that this burden of proof exists.

Prove it.

Nope. Not even close.

It isn't anyone's job to prove anything here. You have just made that up.

I'm not claiming that you have to live in a certain way. I am not claiming that there is a god.

All I am saying is that people on both sides of the argument use silly made-up arguments to try to prove that god does or doesn't exist.

Like saying that it is someone's "job" or "responsibility" to prove one side of the argument.

So you don't have to prove anything - the other side has to do all the proving, eh?

As you said, that is crazy reasoning.

Will wrote: "Nope. Not even close.

It isn't anyone's job to prove anything here. You have just made that up.

I'm not claiming that you have to live in a certain way. I am not claiming that there is a god.

A..."

I'm happy to explain why the person making the claim must prove their position. I know it makes it harder for you strut like you found some great argument that everyone else missed, but I'm sure you'll have no trouble coming up with some other equally condescending reply.

The reasons is pretty straight forward and not at all difficult to grasp. It would simply be impractical to waste time ruling out every silly little thing. Why spend time understanding the universe when you could be trying to disprove the existence of invisible kitchen trolls that hide your spoons when you're not looking? I mean, wouldn't the best use of time be to spend time trying to disprove the existence of Horse Fairies that ride in an arc across the sky forming a rainbow rather than studying things for which there is actual evidence?

When determining how to best use one's time, the correct approach is to work on things that there is some reason to think might be true. If there is absolutely no evidence for something, then we move on to things for which there is evidence because that's the most reasonable use of time. There is literally an endless list of things that someone can make up and expect to be disproven, so, quite reasonably, the burden of proof lays on the person making the claim. That way, if time is wasted, it is only the time of the person making the claim. On the other hand, if they prove out whatever it is, they get all the credit. Doing it this way simply makes the most sense for everyone since there should be no problem finding even a little bit of evidence if you want a view to be taken seriously.

But then, I don't think this is really how you operate. I could be wrong, but I'm guessing if someone asked you if demon-leprechauns were real, you would say "no". Now, of course, if evidence arose and it turned out that they did, you would just change your mind, but in the meantime, since there is no good reason to think demon-leprechauns exist, you would just say "no".

Perhaps I'm wrong about that and your answer would be "no one can prove they don't, so anyone who takes a position on either side is overly dogmatic." Perhaps you say that to literally everything. Perhaps you mock people who say there isn't a giant orange grove on the far side of the moon which can't be seen or detected by humans for reasons of it's evolutionary prowess. Perhaps you laugh at people who suggest that there is no such thing as the tooth fairy or elves who make all the presents at christmas. Maybe you laugh at people who say there is no such thing as Bridge Wizards who cause car wrecks for each other's amusements. But I doubt it.

All of those things have the same argument in their favor: "you can't prove they don't exist". So, are you saying that Bridge Wizards are as likely as god to exist and that taking a position on the Bridge Wizard question is a sign of being overly dogmatic?

And, are you really saying that an absolute and total lack of evidence is a "silly made-up argument" that one should lean away from assuming something is real? Further, are you suggesting that everything that cannot be dis-proven is equally as likely to exist as not?

Let me explain.

There are a group of people who believe that god exists. They sometimes advance what they consider to be proof of this.

There are a group of people who believe that god does not exist. And - guess what? - they also come up with their proofs.

Which one do we believe?

You are trying to argue that only one side of the argument needs to make their case. If we follow your logic, it is the responsibility of those who believe to prove that god exists. The non-believers don't have to offer any proof that he doesn't.

And to illustrate this point of view, you have come up with a number of things which are so unlikely and clearly made up that it would be pointless trying to argue whether they exist or not. Giant orange groves on the far side of the moon. Bridge wizards.

What you have done is to pick your examples to suit your argument. And in your hand-picked examples, sure, it is easier and more logical to put the onus on the person making the claim that these things exist.

This logic falls down if we choose other examples. There are some people who claim that the holocaust never happened. That man didn't land on the moon. That Elvis didn't die in 1977.

I could claim that the Declaration of Independence doesn't exist. Or the Eiffel Tower. Or Norway. Or love. And by your logic, it would be your job to prove me wrong and not my job to prove that my claims are right. Which would be silly.

Generally, we expect people to provide evidence of anything that they claim, whether this is for something existing or for something not existing.

That is how a court of law works - the prosecution has to prove that the defendant is guilty. This might be by proving that something exists (a weapon, a motive, an MO) or it might be by proving that something doesn't exist (an alibi, an alternative suspect).

Or, put it another way, those who believe in a god are claiming that something exists. A god.

Those who don't believe in god are claiming that something else exists. A world without god. Evolution. The big bang. Chance.

Both sides are claiming that something exists.

I see absolutely nothing which says that one side needs to prove their case and the other doesn't.

So in terms of pure logic, your argument simply does not work. There is nothing to say that the existence of something has to be proved rather than the non-existence. This only "works" if you hand-pick the examples to suit your argument, which is the surest sign of flawed logic.

And even if your line of reasoning worked it would not help your argument. If god does not exist then other things need to exist in order to do the things that god isn't doing.

Which is around about the time that the argument that "you have to prove that something exists" disappears up its own a-hole.

Um ... let me see ...

Just about every human civilization has believed in some form of god or gods.

Right now, the majority of the earth's 7 billion people have some form of religious belief.

They might all be wrong, of course. But that's an awful lot of people believing in something for a long long time.

Comparing gods to bridge wizards? No, no, no.

The silly thing here is that I am actually on your side. I don't believe there is a god. But if we are going to prove that we will need to come up with a damn sight better arguments than these. Or the ones that Dawkins managed.

Not quite. An argumentum ad populum is when you argue that something should be true because lots of people believe in it.

It's the argument you just used when you said that you found the existence of god unlikely. Just because you believe it doesn't make it so.

What I am saying is that the weight of public opinion means that we can't dismiss the existence of god as being as unlikely as bridge wizards.

Notice the difference?

An argumentum ad populum = "God must exist because lots of people believe in him".

This is clearly not a valid argument. Lots of people used to believe that the world was flat.

Something is not true simply because lots of people believe in it - although that incidentally is one of the arguments used by the anti-Dawkins crowd.

But the fact that lots of people believe in god when they don't believe in bridge wizards is significant. It may not prove that god definitely exists (an argumentum ad populum), but it does suggest that there is some reason for the belief that needs to be investigated and explained.

And it does show the clear difference between a belief in god and arguments about bridge wizards.

For me any credible theory for the existence or non-existence of god must explain the faith phenomenon. It's the elephant in the room. If there are no gods, how come the vast majority of homo sapiens have believed in them?

Jason wrote: "Dan wrote: "Jason, I dont think you understand atheism very well at all. A theory or belief?

Atheism not believing in any gods. How is that intolerant? Does that now make you intolerant for not be..."

Atheists come in all different stripes. While some may be intolerant because that is their nature, others are not. I have a wonderful oak bench in my home that came from a (closed) Christian church. I liked the minister of that Church and the bench reminds me of him. One of the people I admire most in the world, Dalai Lama is a religious leader. I'm an atheist. I fully support the rights of others to believe, and don't expect everyone to agree with me.

Well said Rose!

Dan wrote;
"You cannot put faith in science. Science by definition is believing in something without evidence."

What an incredibly false statement!!!!!! The definition of science is not even close to what you claim it to be above. This quote below is the definition of science.
"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

For epistemologically reasons we all must be agnostic, or those of us who are intellectually honest. But we can also be anti-theists but that is for the brave. But just as we are agnostic about Russell's teapot I assume all agnostics live their lives without the assumption, So just wear the label atheist, wear it like armour. You may be a 4, a 5, or like me a 6 on the Dawkins scale, but we all see the reprocutions of piety. Help fight for a secualr world, and to debunk the view of atheists being satan worshipers and all that nonsense, by being yourself a kind, rational, godless person; and when someone finds out you're an atheist it will change their view on atheists. I can't tell you how many times i've been asked, "but you're so nice how can you be an atheist?" pardon the pun but jesus christ, I don't need religion to be nice!

Jason wrote: "Maybe i just don't need organised religion and its community to believe? i don't know.

Most organised religions are incredibly oppressive if you look at the popular ones' history and looking at th..."

I give the a thumbs up.

The first time I tried reading this book, it infuriated me.

The second time it was liberating. In my case I think it was a sense of maturation on my part.

At the beginning, the first attempt, I read it with a need to believe that there is a Being and I am blessed enough to be a part of his one true religion.

A few years later, after some time to observe and process what I was seeing and thinking in regards to religion, I was ready to take The God Delusion on, and digest it.

When I finished, I had a whole new and (I believe) healthier outlook on life.

I think that Richard Dawkins got it just right by more-or-less stating that religion is a DELUSION! There is no evidence for the existence of a deity but because we cannot conclusively prove that God does not exist people cling on to their beliefs. There is no more evidence for the existence of God in today's religions as there is for Zeus!
I think that the problem is that many religious people find it hard to accept what the current evidence tells us. Thus when we die we are not going to meet are friends and family etc. When we die it's 'game over'.
There's no 'guy in the sky' watching over us to see 'who's naughty or nice'.
I can go on ad nauseam but the bottom line is that religion creates a mental block in humanity which stops believers from looking at facts objectively when they contradict their religious beliefs.

Dawkins take on religion is the fundamentalist one. And that's an easy one to refute. See his book. But it's a straw man argument. Only difference in this case is the straw men really exist.
But this is the problem with his book. It either infuriates fundamentalists or it liberates them, but it doesn't cut the mustard with everyone else. I read this book thinking, ok, yes, of course, religious wars, etc. and then skipping, trying to get to the main argument, and then, it never came....
This book is just propaganda for the 'new atheist' ideology, with its own materialist assumptions about reality, no genuine attempt to address our human questions.

I don't have too much respect on so called agnostic people. As the dumbest people burned the brightest people as they questioned their "god", the agnostic people were the silent watchers that didn't do anything to stop the madness. The stakes are still burning, at least metaphorically, and those people are still hiding in the shadows and feeding their own minds with irresponsible excuses and with intellectually dishonesty grabbing the same straws as the dumbsters.

All politicians inflict fear in society! One of the ways to inflict fear is by the religious dogmas that inflict fear in people. God will punish you for your sins! Since the creation of religions, thousands of years ago, fear has served politicians well. In the end, it makes no difference to me one way or the other. You are free to have your own believes in whatever you want. I personally don't fear religious dogmas or any religious related fears or dogmas. They were all created by evil men in the past and don't have any manifestation in my life. I wish the best to everyone and hope you live a happy life as I have.

Richard Dawkins is a great guy fighting against religious dogmas and injustices committed by fanatics of any religion. Religions were created by men; if you don't know that by now, you are too young or have not yet investigated enough and believe me it is easier to give up than to continue investigating because the maze created to cover up the lies is never ending. So, yes I support Richard Dawkins as I have supported and continue supporting Mr. Christopher Hitchens. Both these men deserve to be listened to in matters of religious indoctrination and about the false claims the monotheistic religions of western civilization have made throughout human history.