Posts
I just finished reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. This is a nice read. Dawkins writes in a clear and straightforward manner, and presents a calm argument for rejecting belief in a god. He also presents the problems of religion and responds to arguments about the problems of atheism.
After reading The God Delusion, I have to admit to being baffled by the notion that he comes off as an "angry atheist". His tone to me was not angry. Firm, yes. Decisive, yes. Even argumentative at times, yes. But angry? (Madalyn Murry O'Hair was angry. By comparison, Richard is a pussy cat.) The only time I see anything remotely like anger is when he talks about children and religion, and here is argument is more about child abuse. He argues that children are not Christian, Jewish or Muslim (or any other religion for that matter) but children. Children are not Democrats, Republicans or Communists, but the children of
Democrats, Republicans or Communists.
He argues that children should be protected from the religious views of parents when those views threaten to harm the child. That he sees religion as a harm in the education of children, and in their mental development is something that he argues rather well. What the answer to this problem is, would be a worthwhile discussion for anyone.
That children are harmed and killed every year because of the beliefs of their parents put into action is something that can not be denied. Children who suffer painful deaths because mom and dad would rather
believe that prayer should save them, when a simple shot or two would save them should not be in that position. If that rankles people of faith, then so be it. Let us make sure that no ones religion can interfere in children getting proper medical attention. Even the parents of the children. If that kid decides to become a practicing bible thumper at 18 and wants to believe that prayer will cure rather than avail him/her self of proven medical care, then let them reap the rewards of their beliefs, but not before that.
I would highly recommend this book to anyone out there. It is a good introduction to atheism.
After reading The God Delusion, I have to admit to being baffled by the notion that he comes off as an "angry atheist". His tone to me was not angry. Firm, yes. Decisive, yes. Even argumentative at times, yes. But angry? (Madalyn Murry O'Hair was angry. By comparison, Richard is a pussy cat.) The only time I see anything remotely like anger is when he talks about children and religion, and here is argument is more about child abuse. He argues that children are not Christian, Jewish or Muslim (or any other religion for that matter) but children. Children are not Democrats, Republicans or Communists, but the children of
Democrats, Republicans or Communists.
He argues that children should be protected from the religious views of parents when those views threaten to harm the child. That he sees religion as a harm in the education of children, and in their mental development is something that he argues rather well. What the answer to this problem is, would be a worthwhile discussion for anyone.
That children are harmed and killed every year because of the beliefs of their parents put into action is something that can not be denied. Children who suffer painful deaths because mom and dad would rather
believe that prayer should save them, when a simple shot or two would save them should not be in that position. If that rankles people of faith, then so be it. Let us make sure that no ones religion can interfere in children getting proper medical attention. Even the parents of the children. If that kid decides to become a practicing bible thumper at 18 and wants to believe that prayer will cure rather than avail him/her self of proven medical care, then let them reap the rewards of their beliefs, but not before that.
I would highly recommend this book to anyone out there. It is a good introduction to atheism.
