did you know that Richard Dawkins does not believe in personal responsibility?

Dangerous, Atheist Morals are not absolute They do not have a set of moral laws from an absolute God by which right and wrong are judged. But, they do live in societies that have legal systems with a codified set of laws. This would be the closest thing to moral absolutes for atheists. However, since the legal system changes the morals in a society can still change and their morals along with it. At best, these codified morals are "temporary absolutes." In one century abortion is wrong. In another, it is right. So, if we ask if it is or isn't it right, the atheist can only tell us his opinion.

If there is a God, killing the unborn is wrong. If there is no God, then who cares? If it serves the best interest of society and the individual, then kill. This can be likened to something I call, "experimental ethics." In other words, whatever works best is right. Society experiments with ethical behavior to determine which set of rules works best for it. Hopefully, these experiments lead to better and better moral behavior. But, as we see by looking into society, this isn't the case: crime is on the rise.

There are potential dangers in this kind of self-established/experimental ethical system. If a totalitarian political system is instituted and a mandate is issued to kill all dissenters, or Christians, or mentally ill, what is to prevent the atheist from joining forces with the majority system and support the killings? It serves his self-interests, so why not? Morality becomes a standard of convenience, not absolutes.

But, to be fair, just because someone has an absolute ethical system based on the Bible, there is no guarantee that he will not also join forces in doing what is wrong. People are often very inconsistent. But the issue here is the basis of moral beliefs and how they affect behavior. That is why belief systems are so important and absolutes are so necessary. If morals are relative, then behavior will be too. That can be dangerous if everyone starts doing right in his own eyes. A boat adrift without an anchor will eventual crash into the rocks.

The Bible teaches love, patience, and seeking the welfare of others even when it might harm the Christian. In contrast, the atheists' presuppositions must be constantly changing, and subjective and does not demand love, patience, and the welfare of others. Instead, since the great majority of atheists are evolutionists, their morality, like evolution is the product of purely natural and random processes that become self serving.

Basically, the atheist cannot claim any moral absolutes at all. To an atheist, ethics must be variable and evolving. This could be good or bad. But, given human nature being what it is, I'll opt for the moral absolutes -- based on God's word -- and not on the subjective and changing morals that atheism offers.

I think *your reasoning* is dangerous for society; and your argument has nothing to do with Dawkins' logic.

Religion gives people justification (and encouragement) to do bad things -- if they're done to people of other beliefs.

All choices made by an individual are based on the worldview of that individual, and therefore outside factors that affect a person's worldview will affect that person's decisionmaking. An individual is still responsible for his or her own actions, though. This is obvious and intuitive. Your argument is absurd.

You're talking nonsense. Dawkins does not argue it is outside factors at all, it is the human's free choice to believe in the religion and to to be encouraged, deluded and brainwashed to do bad things. Dawkins does not argue that religion is an 'outside force', why have you made the connection between religion and 'outside factors' (whatever they are). Your question doesn't make sense.

i don't think religion makes people do bad things as such - i think the do things for other ends and justify the reason for their actions as 'religion'.

Richard Dawkins is an atheist - he does not believe people do things because of an external force (faith or a god) but from a compulsion that does not come from within. He argues that people use religion as an excuse to absolve them from personal responsibility - read him more closely.

Mankind has always tried to shed their personal responsibilities. Blame someone else, say it's a matter beyond their control.

This began when sin entered the world...the woman blamed the snake, the man blamed the woman...AND God.

This is a basic lie in psychiatry. The so called disordered person "cannot help it...it's an imbalance" and then they push their high priced pills that don't really do much except make the person worse.

Richard Dawkins is a Fundamentalist Scientist and is just as dangerous as any Religious Fundamentalist - He does not believe in a God, yet he offers no definitive proof to back his claim - just theories!

I am from a Science background, and do not follow any of Man's Religions, however I am not an Atheist.

Unlike Mr Dawkins, as a Scientist I would require evidence to believe in the non-existence of a Higher Universal Intelligence - After all, who programmed our DNA???

The Big Bang - WHY???

It is extremely unlikely that MAN is the most intelligent life-form in the Universe!

None of his stuff is properly worth examining. I study egocentric gene and blind watch maker and there is not any longer an oz.. of technology in any of it. only the belief, opinion and conjecture of a guy who thinks he's the "prophet of technology" His books make good kindling however. the place we are going as a species is the place each and every species has long previous before us - pass up or die attempting. you're delusional in case you think of something is wisely understood. Our awareness of what we call technology is in line with causality and relativity. those are actually being puzzled as there have been shown circumstances of debris vacationing swifter than gentle. this potential we could be seeing only what we would want to be certain and not what's there meaning technology could desire to be completely incorrect. it could additionally be we only want to have self belief technology works and that "training" is why all of us see the comparable element. style of like alien abduction "sufferers" describing the comparable sequence of activities. because of the fact this is become quite hardship-free place and marketed that whether you have been to ask somebody interior the line at random they could describe one that suits somebody else. Religions loose human beings from such nonsense and convey approximately rules and adjustments - technology hands the individuals and empowers them to make those adjustments. the difficulty is atheists who want their little markets to apply so unfold quite some incorrect information and delusions using their mythomania.

why doesn't he?

religion does make people do bad things. read just about any history book, and it'll be full of the holier than thou brigade commiting murder, rape and genocide.

surely religious people are the ones to be feared, since they seem to NEED concept of judgement and hell in order NOT to commit heinous crimes. what sort of people only don't commit rape and murder because they fear that they will be judged for it by the big bogeyman in the sky?

atheism is the only way forward. religions have constantly hindered humanity, from human sarifice to the punishment of galileo to religious hatred all over the world.

forget these works of fiction, and stop wasting this life waiting for the next one, which quite simply doesn't exist. if 'god' is so great, why does he seem to need the strange and the unhinged to do his dirty work? and how come leaders are so quick to play the religion card? because they know that the not properly educated, the hungry and the scared will do whatever they tell them to.

Do you know that being Egyptian is enough to get you smited?

Apparently, God does bad things. Therefore religion, according to logic, is bad. Is this dangerous to society, or perfectly legitimate?

You make an incorrect conclusion of what he says.

You state yourself that "Therefore ALL bad things could.."

If A is true, does not mean A+whatever else is also true.

So in this case I simply think you misunderstood what he means.

Here's an interesting discussion on the matter: http://sleijon.blogspot.com/2008/01/reflection-sun...

That does not follow. Your logic is faulty.

Just because something plays a factor in why people do bad things does not mean that the person has no personal responsibility. For example, most Christians (and most everybody) are decent people. However, religion can influence people to do really bad things because of their religious beliefs. On the other hand, people who are atheists don't have that religious influence. Some atheists also do bad things, but that's not because of any religious influence. That's why suicide bombers tend to be religious people and not atheists, for example.

"Good people tend to do good things. Bad people tend to do bad things. But to get good people to do bad things takes religion."