4 ms·
I don't think he will break religion's special status by attacking the beliefs of people. The likely results from his offensive tactics is hatred and opposition
by amix 17y ago
I don't think he will break religion's special status by attacking the beliefs of people. The likely results from his offensive tactics is hatred and opposition against science and more religious fanatics - simply because most people are religious and attacking their beliefs won't make them less religious.
And really, even if he breaks religion and removes it, then we will still have skin colors, nationalities and different cultures - - things that will still split people up in tribes and things that will still cause wars. What we need is to respect each other, respect our differences and cherish our similarities - we will never be the same, so respect and understanding is the only way to go.
- gsk 17y agoYou may be wrong. I was at the Intelligence Squared debate on Atheism [ http://events.intelligencesquared.com/past-events.php?event=EVT0204 http://events.intelligencesquared.com/past-events.php?event=... ] yesterday in which Dawkins debated. The vote was overwhelmingly in support of Dawkins' position (which is not fundamentalist atheism but one of calling a spade a spade). More people voted in favor of Dawkins' stand after the debate than before. Things are more nuanced, of course. I personally favor the position advocated by E O Wilson (co-opt religion).
- berntb 17y ago>>I don't think he will break religion's special status by attacking the beliefs of people. The only data point I know well enough to talk about (Sweden) contradict your hypothesis. The "Swedish Dawkins/Russel" was the philosophy professor Ingemar Hedenius in the 1950s. He almost made Dawkins look like a bible thumper. It did work well... and Sweden 60 years ago was probably about as religious as the Midwest is today. I see no reason to give old magical ideas like Xianity, Judaism, the Asa religion or Islam more respect than new ones like Scientology.