Do you think Richard Dawkins' idea to go on the offensive and confront religion head-on is worth it?

Answer 1

I think that it's more than okay for him to take religion head on for a couple of reasons.

For one, religion has become such a sacred subject that even those strains of it that have gone very wrong and are dangerous can't be criticized, nor can those moderates who feel they have to support some of these beliefs.

Also, there is nothing wrong at all with questioning the place religion has in the world. I don't understand why some people are so offended by this? Do they feel so insecure in their beliefs that they get defensive when someone rattles the cage?

In terms of religion being a form of child abuse, I do agree to an extent. Children being indoctrinated into dogmatic thinking is a bad thing, such as those children sent to suicide bombing "camps," or to Jesus camp. I don't understand this fear that many Christians have of questions.

Is Dawkins right? I don't know, though I do agree with him to some extent. But isn't it worthy of discussion? There are people in the world who agree with him and just saying "oh, they're hateful and don't deserve any time on the floor" is an awful attitude and will only serve to strengthen their resolve.

Answer 2

I believe in respecting other's beliefs is usually important and I have heard he is pretty harsh in denouncing religion. So normally I might agree with his thesis but think he should be more respectful of the diversity of belief. I think however, that what he is doing is very positive in that I think nonreligious people have been forced to be silent because its not politically correct to question religion. That meant that religious people could be out there constantly promoting their beliefs and dominating the conversations about policies and society. I mean think about it religious people have had no problem being vocal about opposing teaching evolution and trying to change school policies amongst other things. If there is not opposition to one extreme then there is no real middle ground either. I think that at the very least having voices of opposition out there gives a grounding in the fact there are other viewpoints and a sense of balance to the debate. I also think it has value to point out that religions can be harmful to society, religion is a tool that can be used for good and bad just like any human endeavor. Just for myself I think it is also good because it gives a voice in society to the many people who aren't who share society with believers.

Answer 3

Yes. There are a lot more agnostics & atheists in the U.S. than people are aware of because it is nearly taboo to admit you are an atheist. This isn't going to change if we all stay in the closet. We need to have a wide range of people speaking out for atheism and reason. Theists like Josh want to paint Dawkins as "spreading hate" but he is doing nothing of the sort. If you listen to any of his public appearances you will see he is artculate, rational, and never resorts to hate mongering.

Answer 4

Someone has to stand up to religion. It's worth spreading the truth about Big Brother: He is a figment of our imaginations.

Answer 5

It does seem like in the last few months there have been more atheists in the public eye. Maybe this is the beginning of the end of the marginalizing of the atheist in the United States.

Answer 6

I think fighting to preserve humanity and the freedom of humanity is worth it, yeah... but we're not talking about physical fighting or a violent "offensive" here. We're talking about becoming and organized political force in this nation, we're talking about gentle but firm persistance in dealing with theism - education, encouragement of rational thought, and so on.

Answer 7

If spreading hate is worth it then I'll meet him head on. Christ brings Love. Richard Dawkins is only full of hate.

Answer 8

I think so, someone should do it