By VINEET GILL - THE TIMES OF INDIA
Added: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 03:32:09 UTC
JAIPUR: Richard Dawkins - scientist, bestselling author and the world's foremost atheist- comes across as mild-mannered and genial but doesn't believe in pulling his punches. He certainly didn't on Monday at the Jaipur Lit Fest as he blasted the "lamentable disgrace" of Salman Rushdie's enforced absence. He also launched a broadside against the "virus of faith", and said he looked forward to the "complete death of organized religion" in his lifetime.
"Far too much sympathy is shown to people who claim to be motivated by religion - sympathy that would not be shown to people acting from mere prejudice. I have a problem with Santa Claus, baby Jesus and Rudolph the red-nosed reindeer, but I can't act on this without being held accountable. I may, on grounds of taste, want to murder a TV personality, but I can hardly do so. And yet, it seems it is somehow acceptable for someone to act without accountability simply because his religious sentiments have been hurt," said Dawkins.
Reading from a modified statement that he had originally written after the fatwa was first pronounced against Rushdie, Dawkins pointed out that in the 16th century, some Catholics in England had written to a senior figure in the Vatican asking if it was acceptable to murder Elizabeth I. The answer was that since the Queen had led millions away from Catholicism, her murder would be a commendable act. Dawkins didn't spell it out, but two points were clear- he wasn't targeting a faith but all of them, and nothing much has changed in almost 500 years. "Religion is deadly because it makes people willing to die and kill for it without a shred of evidence to back up their beliefs," he said.
Read more
I agree with you Brian, that faith based statements are not pflheul. I am a believer though, and i would really like to hear what are some of the most prominent arguments against the existence of God to have a good-natured discussion. If atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities (wiki), do you suppose that atheists have a valid and true (sound) argument to say God does not exist? you may have to agree with me that you will reach a point where you fold your arms and say ok, i'll believe if you can show me.' or i don't believe because i don't think God is necessary' (necessity isn't an indicator of truth). and of course, i will have to slip my hands in my pockets too, and say i can't do anything for you. but God will, someday, or somehow if you let Him.'in defending my faith, i'm not trying to prove myself right. i believe in my God, Jesus Christ, because ____. (here will be another faith based statement, so i left it blank) many arguments against God talks about it being the cause for violence, or believers reacting badly to criticism, and more. but can we say because of this, hence religion brings more harm than good, which contradicts itself, and hence is nonsensical? i think it is an ad hominem fallacy, poisoning the well', and this is why: an ex-convict marries a prostitute and gives birth to a thug who marries a drug peddler, who's parents are ex-convicts, will you say their child will necessarily be innately bad? are you right to say every mistake he makes, being late for class, or viewing pornography, is due to his innately bad character for the fact of his lineage, even if there is nothing wrong with his upbringing? my religion has had its share of disgraceful, even immoral pasts. but if you are really interested in the truth, you can't simply refute the fact that many Christians believe in a loving God, who did not come to frighten His people into submission, but to save them from sin and its penalty by His sacrifice on the cross. my purpose in this comment is really just to point out that any atheists should discern arguments of such type more carefully. i don't find it within my duty to defend other faiths which i know little about, but i believe they are victims of the same fallacy. still, i believe in my God only.
3/29/2012 6:24:18 AM