Complete and utter rubbish comes to mind.
I read the book in the hopes of understanding atheist better, instead of explaining why atheist believe what they do he spent the majority of the book bashing religion. Any and all religions. The stated goal of the book in the preface is to turn you into an atheist by the end of the book, all he achieved was my realizing the fundamentalist Christians who have been whining about atheist being "out to get them" aren't paranoid they are right. And while the annoying fundamentalist Christians at least have some excuse for their beliefs and a noble goal in trying to keep you from burning in hell, Dawkins has no excuse. From his writing he seems like a reasonably well educated man and his only goal is to keep you from "wrongly believing in religion". I find his rantings deplorably, especially when he equates passing on ones religious beliefs to ones children with child abuse. Dawkins' stated goal is to have a world with "NO RELIGION" and he intends to impose his atheist beliefs on everyone in order to achieve it. Frankly I don't see any difference between him and fundamentalist Christians who want to impose their religious beliefs on everyone in order to have a world with "ONE RELIGION", theirs.
I am completely baffled by his attitude. My personal beliefs are none of his business and his arrogance in assuming his atheist religion (because for him atheism has all the earmarks of a religion) should dominate the world and be forced on me is INFURIATING. Why can't these people fundies and atheist alike leave everyone alone to believe whatever they wish without trying to impose their beliefs on others? I want a world where people respect one another and allow each other to follow whatever belief they wish. He makes a big deal about America being founded as a secular nation, he misses the point the founding fathers gave us FREEDOM OF RELIGION, not freedom from religion. We have the right to believe whatever we wish and I'll be ________________ if Dawkins and his atheist cronies are going to impose their atheist beliefs on me or prevent me from teaching MY children MY religious beliefs.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
For what it’s worth it’s impossible to be “fundamentalist” without a core doctrine to which one is dedicated. I think many people confuse strident and confident with fundamentalist.
Also, I disagree with a lot of Dawkins as well, but I hope you’ll let me disagree with your review just as strongly as you disagreed with the book itself.
Of course the main points of the book would be about bashing religion. The entire premise is to explain why religion is silly and dangerous. His reason for writing was to point out the absurdity of religion. How in the world would one do this without “bashing” religion?
If the Christian has an excuse for hoping more people were Christian because of a sincere concern for their eternal wellbeing, why is it unreasonable to extend the same consideration to atheists? In other words, if one does in fact believe that we, as a society, would be much better off without superstitions retarding our advancement, why are we not allowed to say so? And you say he intends, or wishes to “impose” atheism on everyone. This is blatantly false. It’s a far stretch from hoping everyone would abandon silly ideas and even saying we would all be better off if they did to “imposing” this.
Claiming atheism is a religion is like claiming not collecting stamps is a hobby. I see what you’re saying, but I disagree 100%. The hallmarks of religion are faith, and belief in the supernatural. Saying there is no proof for the supernatural and it’s silly to believe in things without proof is not religious by any stretch.
Alasandra, I genuinely enjoy reading just about everything you write, even the things I disagree with, but I swear I may puke the next time I hear someone say “the founding fathers gave us FREEDOM OF RELIGION, not freedom from religion.” You are far too intelligent a person to really think that makes the least bit of sense. We absolutely do have freedom FROM religion. To say otherwise is the same as saying you have the freedom to choose any religion but you must choose one. Our nation is a secular nation, founded by Christians to be religion neutral. In other words: secular. To say the government should make no claims or bias in favor of any religion is not suppressing any individual’s freedom of religion.
Dawkins is advocating a world exactly like the one you are describing; one where “people respect one another and allow each other to follow whatever belief they wish.” There is absolutely no case where Dawkins, or any other atheist that I’m aware of, has ever tried to impose their lack of belief on society at large. I’ll say again, pointing out that some beliefs are silly and dangerous is not the same thing as removing your right to believe them.
Teach your children your beliefs. Good for you. But don’t get offended if someone uses their freedom of speech to say they think it’s a silly belief.
Butch have you read the book?
I didn't get offend because Dawkins thinks religion is silly. I actually agree with that to a limited extent. I don't think a belief in God is silly, but I do think you have a few screws loose if you send Oral Roberts all your money, because he said God wanted you to. And I do agree that a LOT of really horrible things were done in the name of religion. But what I took offense to was his equating parents teaching their children their beliefs with child abuse.
I don't think I made myself as clear as I wanted when I said the founding fathers gave us freedom of religion. I meant of course they they intended everyone to follow their own path without the government putting one religion over another and of course that would include choosing not to be religious.
In the book Dawkins made it clear that he has no room for tolerance of any sort. He even went after moderate atheist who didn't have a problem with other people being religious. He stated very clearly that he wanted to stamp out religion. Frankly this book was scary because of it's lack of tolerance on anyone who choose a path other then atheism.
Frankly I was surprised because I listened to one of his lectures on U-tube about evolution v creationism and I really enjoyed it and found him extremely witty. I really thought I would enjoy the book, but his wit was sadly lacking throughout the pages of the book.
These were the two chapters I found the most fault with
Chapter 8 What's Wrong With Religion? Why be so Hostile?
& Chapter 9 Childhood, Abuse and the Escape From Religion
He made a lot of valid points in the book, I am not disputing that what I do take exception to is his lack of tolerance for those who choose a path other then atheism.
I haven't read the book so I might have to but I've read a bit of Dawkins and hang out on an atheist message board where he posts occasionally and he's always struck me as someone who I completely disagree with on many points but who came to his arguments by honest research and reasoning. The man knows his stuff.
Does he lack tolerance? Probably but why should he have tolerance for something he finds so harmful?
As a practicing christian, I disagree with him but I do respect him.
Stay away from any Sam Harris books though. Dwkins has nothing on him. :)
Heh. I find Harris more palatable than Dawkins in that area. They’re both pretty hostile to religion, and perhaps religious persons, but as Dawn says, if they sincerely believe it’s harmful and destructive they have a right and a duty to speak out and say so. For what it’s worth, my disagreement with them is in terms of strategy rather than objective. I do think religion is destructive and that we will one day abandon it and be much better off. I just think they do more harm than good, as evidenced by Alasandra’s reaction. She pretty much typifies the type of person that is most apt to give atheism an honest look, and when what they write turns them completely off from it, well, that’s counter-productive.
That was very well said Butch. I have a lot of atheist friends and "religion" has never been an issue in our friendship. We ask questions occasionally, but we have never tried to convert the other to our viewpoint/religion. And I have found my atheist friends to be very tolerant, so I was surprised by Dawkins intolerance and as a strategy for winning converts you are right Butch, it had me identifying with fundies (which was a very scary feeling for me).
Post a Comment