That man Dawkins

Thanks for that, Bags. I understand and like all his answers, especially the one in response to Why do people cling to these beliefs of creationism and intelligent design?

Bags Even I can understand where this man is coming from - and going to. Thanks.

'There are many very educated people who are religious but they are not creationists. There's a world of difference between a serious religious person and a creationist' that's a very interesting point apart from the fact that Dawky is excluding from his argument the category of people who don't fit his rebuttal. If it's creationists he takes issue with, shouldn't he concentrate on them, rather than on all believers in all religions? He speaks, for example, of wanting to liberate people from religion, the people who 'didn't know they could' free themselves. He refers to the grateful letters he gets from people who have finally seen the light of atheism through his lectures and writing. He shifts his ground and plays other rhetorical tricks which is unseemly, to say the least, in someone who places such emphasis on logic!

Why should he limit himself to one group, lily? I don't see anything illogical about wanting to reach a wide audience, especially as people who do realise they are atheists after a childhood of religious indoctrination (whether extreme or not) feel an enormous sense of relief. I speak from personal experience as well as hearing other people say the same thing.

Creationism may be the worst, but it's not the only problem he's tackling.

c/f the article in the Irish Independent that I linked to on another thread. There's damage there too that needs to be addressed – the damage being the overinfluence religious groups have on parliament.

"You cannot say you are certain about something if you cannot prove it in science, and without evidence (there is none to prove or disprove the existence of god(s)), one cannot be certain, so you leave open the remote but unlikely option, number seven. This is a simple idea to a scientific and logical mind."

Except that science never proves anything - that's not how it works. The scientist tries to disprove, and only when nobody succeeds in falsifying an hypothesis does it become a theory. Attempting to prove a negative is rarely a successful exercise.

I think the term agnostic implies that someone doesn't know, and doesn't care, which is not how Richard Dawkins goes about things - he does care. And besides, he is very mild when you compare him with, say, another favourite of mine, Prof. Paul Zachary Myers (another biologist) of the University of Minnesota, Morris. He's great fun!

freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ is his blog.

"Attempting to prove a negative is rarely a successful exercise."

Which must be why Dawky (thanks, lily, ) says he's only nearly as good as certain but not certain enough to be seven on the scale. He doesn't need to prove that god doesn't exist to make what he says very useful to many people.

I know a few people who call themselves agnostics who do care. They just haven't made a career (well, part of a career) out of it. Not everyone has his energy, nor his writing and speaking ability. Why shouldn't Dawky though? People do far stranger things with their lives.

Technically, I'm an agnostic too, like Dawky, but that's the same as what he calls a De facto atheist. Did you know, just by the way, that I couldn't be a 'proper' scout if I called myself an atheist or agnostic, but if I call myself a humanist, which I also am so it's honest, I can be a 'proper' scout? This just goes to show how silly these labels are and for what daft, prejudicial purposes they are used.

Do scouts still promise to do their best for God and the Queen?

I believe they do lilygran , which is a good motto , in my book .

It is not a motto. Is the scout motto still Be Prepared?
And why should a child who did not believe in any god have to take such an oath.

Yeah right , whatever !! The scout movement is a wonderful thing , for young boys !!

Yes, but the scout association is so desperate for adult leaders that they have begun to allow humanists with no religious affiliation, like me, to be full members without making that promise. There has been no deception on my part; they know I'm an atheist but I'm accepted as a full member for the following reasons:
- I stood in to help out when there was no cub leader four years ago
- there are still no new volunteers
- I've said I am a humanist (an atheist humanist, yes, but still a humanist)
- they've decided that in desperate circumstances (the movement will die out without leaders) needs must so they can include 'humanist' in the exclusive list of acceptable labels
- I'm good at the job

The bigwigs blether on about "scouting for all" while excluding certain sections of society. The grass roots adult scouts are great and generally have no nonsense about them.

When Baden Powell started the scout movement it was assumed that everyone had a god of some sort. Nowadays you can't assume that. The movement needs to catch up. It will, or it will fade out.

It's starting already. (Well, they've accepted me for a start, and there are others like me). A scouting friend in Vancouver recently told me about the "Inclusive Scouting Movement" that has started over there whose 'cause' is stated thus: "Active and former Scouts and Scouters working to enhance the scouting program by embracing diversity." I've sent them a donation.

The ironic thing (well one of the ironic things) is that one of the training modules for scouters is called "Valuing Diversity" and yet, in reality, the Association would still like to exclude certain types of people, in particular atheists and gay people.

Meanwhile, in the real world of scouting, local districts fudge things so that they can hang onto good scouts like me. Scouting doesn't make people good; good people make good scouts.

nonu it's for girls too now. Change happens.

i know that bags , times have to change , we can"t be stuck in a time warp as maybe some are !

But boys can't join the Guides. Even if they wanted to.

Correct.

Good call Lilygran , I had forgotten that .

@LILYGRAN "Do scouts still promise to do their best for God and the Queen?"

I remember it as "...to do my duty to god and the king" (dates me, doesn't it!)

It was the Wolf Cubs that did their best - Akela saying "Dyb dyb dyb" and the pack responding "We'll dob, dob, dob" - Do Your Best and Do Our Best respectively.

For the more militarist there was the Boys' Brigade, of course.

Feetlebaum
Sixer of the Whites, Patrol Leader of the Otters, retired...

My son was in the boys brigade , didn"t know it was particulary military !

One of Baden Powell's great grandsons was charged recently for the murder of his wife. He was an active member of the local scouting group.

www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/from-role-model-to-accused-murderer-20120615-20fa5.html

I was in the Girls' Guildry, a sister organisation to the Boys' Brigade. That was not militaristic, but we did do marching,with neat quarter turns on command and so on. I can still do the 90 degree turn on the heel of one foot and toe of the other and then straight into leftright without breaking step. Much like line dancing and I enjoyed it.

I joined the girl guides while at junior school. I got my nice navy blue uniform and was put in cornflower group.

BUT - it turned out I'm a clockwork orange - I can't march. My military husband and sons tell me that there is one in every platoon, but back then I was spoiling it for the other girl guides - they subtly made that clear, so I stopped going. I would look at my uniform in my drawer and feel guilty about the waste of Mum's money, but I never told her why I couldn't go. Ridiculous as it sounds today, I was deeply ashamed.

I asked my menfolk how they handled the clockwork oranges of their military experiences, and they all said fellow trainees helped them, without giving them a hard time. Terry remembers going outside after hours and drilling the lad between two of them till the penny dropped and he could march in step.

Anyway, just as well I left as I very unexpectedly passed my 11+ and ended up with loads of homework and no spare time. Poor old Mum missed out again; she'd already knitted me a cardigan in the secondary modern colours! ( She had 4 kids: the practical boy, the bright boy, the bright girl and the one who was good with her hands - me!!!) (but clearly not good with my feet)

BBC 1 tonight at 11.15
Science versus religion.
Jonathan Sachs, Richard Dawkins, Susan Greenfield, Jim Al-Khahili.

I saw that was on, but don't want to stay up to watch. Must record it.

Thanks, I've just turned over to watch it. I was about to go to bed