Dear Dr. Dawkins,

[rug]

This is my story: I went to catholic school in South America, which i like to believe, pushed me into the atheist i now am, in part, thanks to your God Delusion. I started doubting the catholic teachings at age 11, when my religion teacher forced us to go to church on Sundays and write up a summary of the sermon; or else, our grades would suffer. At age 11, it did not make sense to me that i was being forced to love god and visit god's house for my grades. After that, it all went downhill.

During my adolescence i called myself an agnostic. Now in my mid 30s and after reading and taking some philosophy of religion classes, i find that for the most part, my beliefs haven't changed: the gods that all religions describe does not exist. Yet if there is a force or energy or life-giver who at some point had something to do with life and either died, left or is completely powerless or indifferent, why not? Maybe.

This is why i always called myself an agnostic because i cannot say with 100% certainty that there are no gods. Your book, however, helped me define this. You say that complete disbelief in gods takes faith. And that is the leap of faith that i cannot and have never taken. You, however, define or describe different levels of atheism and this helped me so much. I do not believe in the existence of gods as described by all religions. I live my life as if there are no gods. I do not care if other indifferent "gods/nature/forces" exist. I am an atheist.

I bought 3 copies of your God Delusion and gave them all away. I wanted to spread your knowledge because it helped me on what i think, was my last step towards finally declaring myself an atheist. Thank you Dr. Dawkins. I cannot wait to have the opportunity to see you speak in person. Please come to California again soon.

Hug,

http://richarddawkins.net/letters/converts

:cry:

[trotsky]

1. I've never met a single atheist...

who is as obsessed with atheism and especially Richard Dawkins as you.

How strange.

[rug]

3. That's funny, I've never met as many atheists obsesed with religion.

Must be a coincidence.

[trotsky]

10. You mean how it affects our lives here in the United States?

Yeah, I know. Atheists really have no right to have any opinion on religion or its influence on politics.

[rug]

12. No, not at all. It's your insistence on reducing it to unicorns.

Now why is that?

[trotsky]

13. Because there is the same evidence for each?

And because I'd be just as disturbed if the president said a unicorn told him to attack Iraq as I was when he said his god did.

[rug]

14. So you equate religious belief with invading Iraq?

Or are you just getting ahead of yourself?

[trotsky]

15. Didn't say that.

If you just want to play with your straw men on your thread, be my guest. You clearly can't get enough of atheism though.

[rug]

16. Don't duck now. I asked why you reduce religion to unicorns and you mentioned invading Iraq.

[trotsky]

25. Only one of us is doing a lot of quacking, and it ain't me.

You asked why people compare religion to unicorns. I told you there's as much evidence for each. As strange as you would find it if a president said a unicorn told him to attack Iraq, so I found it when George the Dumber said god told him to.

Now it's up to you to explain why they're different. Can you, or will you just slink away in defeat again with your lame one-liners?

[rug]

26. I have to give you credit.

You decided to mention Iraq instead of pedophilia for a change.

[trotsky]

27. And to no one's surprise, you choose Option B. n/t

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rug]

39. Actually, no.

"Now it's up to you to explain why they're different" is not an answer to why you need to equate religion with unicorns. I take it you have no answer.

[trotsky]

44. I told you why it's done.

Now it's your turn to explain why they're different.

However, I fully understand why you refuse to attempt. You'd prove me right.

[LeftishBrit]

37. To interrupt - I don't equate religious belief with invading Iraq...

but when politicians think that they have a right to impose their religious views by law and force on others, bad things often result. Such politicians may invade Iraq, or lead crusades or jihads against unbelievers and 'wrong' believers, or punish gays, or restrict women's reproductive rights, or even deny them the right to be educated or to travel freely, or take benefits away from the supposedly 'undeserving' poor, or put fatwas on 'blasphemous' writers, or justify barbarous methods of execution, or torture or kill people for being 'witches' (in some parts of the world that still happens), or simply justify every aspect of the status quo, however unjust, as being divinely ordained.

This is not an inevitable part of religious belief or believers. It is, however, what happens when governments attempt to impose their religion or religion-based 'morality' on everyone else.

[LAGC]

2. You have to give credit where credit is due...

The God Delusion helped me to embrace the atheist label as well, when I had previously shunned it before and steadfastly considered myself agnostic ever since I gave up on Christianity at age 15. Dawkins does a great job pointing out that being an atheist merely means to lack a belief in Gods, not necessarily believing that there is no God for sure. Just that with all the mounting scientific evidence, its just incredibly unlikely for there to be a God, especially the Abrahamic God.

[rug]

4. It's not a bad read but I think it misses the point.

It's not a matter of scientific evidence any more than evolutionary biology is a matter of theological evidence.

[LAGC]

5. Well, the interesting thing is, many religious claims are, in fact, scientific questions.

Any "Act of God" that is measurable and testable by scientific methods is open to scrutiny by us "lesser beings."

I mean, people used to believe natural disasters like volcanic eruptions and earthquakes were all acts of an angry god/goddess... but we now know the natural causes of such phenomena, we don't need to appeal to God's will to explain it.

Same goes with the development of life. People used to believe (and indeed, many still do believe) that God "designed" and created life on this planet in his image... turns out that, thanks to modern understanding of evolution, God wasn't necessary to explain it at all.

As we learn more about the universe through cosmology, we are finding out that God isn't necessary to explain the "big picture" either.

Indeed, God's domain, the so-called "god of the gaps", is shrinking with each new scientific discovery.

[rug]

7. You're right, of course, but I consider them incompetent claims.

Still, the "big questions" are worthy of contemplation and elude scientific methods.

[LAGC]

8. So far anyway...

Who knows how far science will bring us in the next 1000 years?

To say that such "big questions" are "unknowable" seems just as presumptuous considering how far we've already come, how much we've learned about nature already.

[skepticscott]

9. The same typical bankrupt claim

by god-of-the-gappers. The problem is that they can't point to a single "big question" that religious and theological methods have provided verifiable answers to.

[rug]

11. You miss the point. The point is science hasn't.

[skepticscott]

17. And did science ever claim

to be able to answer the questions you have in mind? And did religion presume to be able to answer them? If not, what exactly was your point?

[rug]

18. Which is precisely why the questions science can't answer should still be contemplated.

To accept your position, one can not validly contemplate questions not susceptible to scientific proof. Which is, come si dice, willful ignorance.

[Silent3]

28. Just because something isn't "susceptible" to scientific proof...

...doesn't mean it's accessible to any other supposed "method". Whenever someone tells you that you're simply invoking the God of the Gaps, your response seems to be to reemphasize that there are gaps and that science can't get rid of them all, no matter how many science manages to address.

To this I say, "So what?"

Why should I accept that gaps need gods to preside over them? Even if I'm willing to entertain the general possibility that there are gods to cover the gaps, that mere possibility does nothing to impress me of the value of the particular gods and beliefs people come up with and cling to to fill in those gaps.

[rug]

40. Reflexively Invoking "god of the gaps" as a response to the limitations of science

doesn't allow you to even "entertain the general possibility that there are gods". But I'll give you credit for saying something more than so what.

[skepticscott]

38. And again you ducked the central issue

Has religion ever answered any of these questions, and does religion even have any hope of answering these questions? No one has ever said such questions shouldn't be contemplated, but to imply that religion has a leg up on science in answering them is simply unsubstantiated BS.

[rug]

41. Some have. You avoid them because they can't be measured.

And I didn't say religion has a leg up on science in these areas. It doesn't have any legs at all.

[darkstar3]

43. Are they answers if they cannot be in any way verified or agreed upon?

[dimbear]

20. Full employment in Tibet before the invasion by the Chinese. n/t

[enki23]

22. i have to ask, did you write "theological evidence" with a straight face?

.

[rug]

24. No you don't.

[cleanhippie]

31. Bwahahahaha! +100000!

[Taverner]

6. The unrec monkeys are busy tonight

Great post :)

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

19. A more apropos emoticon:

:bounce:

For a story with a happy ending.

[rug]

21. The hug brought me tears of joy.

[struggle4progress]

23. I dunno. Everyone wants to be right, and we can all find for ourselves various

proofs of our own "rightness" -- but there is more to life than merely being right

In an ancient story, Abraham met G-d in the simple act of providing respite to several desert travelers. There is nothing in this story about being right: Wash your feet; rest yourselves under the tree; and I will bring bread to comfort your hearts

[Silent3]

30. Fuzzy and vague definitions are good ways to blur...

...what it means to be "right", or take "rightness" out of a discussion.

As far as I know, no one has ever built any temples totally dedicated to foot washing and resting under trees. No one has ever thanked clean feet and a nice nap under an elm for winning a football game or a war.

Abraham also met God in the context of strapping his own son to an altar, quite ready to slit his throat until an angel stopped him.

Good thing there's more to life than being right, I guess.

[struggle4progress]

34. As the story is a stumbling block to you, I will not continue to put it in your path

[Silent3]

36. The story was never in my way

Just an amusing sideshow I observed as I walked by, much like seeing someone parading about with hand-painted sign reading "The End is Nigh!", which, I imagine, perhaps strikes you as a very "authentic" way for a person to relate to the world.

[Silent3]

29. Other than the added emoticon for which there is no single clear interpretation...

...you've posted a lot of text written by someone else with no commentary of your own. This is generally considered bad form for an OP.

The quoted letter seems perfectly reasonable to me, although a bit cloying.

Are you truly saddened by the letter? Is your emoticon tears of joy, or possibly mock tears? If you don't intend to be willfully inscrutable about it, what exactly are you trying to convey with this OP?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

32. Well, I understood the emoticon just fine.

Being aware of a poster's history helps, though.

But yeah, I admit there could have been a bit more elaboration.

[Silent3]

35. I'm fairly sure how it was meant too...

...but I can refrain from jumping to conclusions, particularly when refraining means not allowing someone to slide by on unvoiced innuendo.

[Curmudgeoness]

42. Not one person can say with 100% certainty

that there is or is not a god or gods. Until we die, we cannot prove or disprove it. At that point, it is too late for one side or the other.

[trotsky]

45. True in general but...

when a god is defined in a self-contradictory way, or defined with an attribute that can be physically measured or detected and fails to be, it is possible to rule out the existence of that god.