It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dawkins getting rich selling atheism

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Crusader Richard Dawkins is Anti-Christ, Anti-God, & Anti-Organized Religion

Richard Dawkins, a professor at Oxford University and perhaps the world’s most famous atheist, is working diligently to spread his message that faith in God is one of the world’s great evils. He often refers to the attacks on September 11th, 2001 as his justification, claiming that such evil acts are the direct result of a twisted faith in a non-existent fantasy called God.

When Dawkins was a teenager he believed in the concept of Intelligent Design due to the multitude of highly organized and complex examples of order, purpose, and design he observed all around him in nature. However, after observing so many injustices in organized religion, Dawkins decided to separate himself from these evil institutions and become an atheist.

Of course, Dawkins also realized that being an atheist and scientist in an academic environment like Oxford University simply go hand in hand. It is simply not cool to be a scientist and believe in God too. After all, Charles Darwin was an atheist, wasn’t he?
Dawkins claims that his enhanced understanding of biology naturally led him to atheism.

Dawkins’ most recent book, The God Delusion, has already sold more than 1.5 million copies making him a millionaire many times over. He has tapped into an ever growing contempt for organized religion, helping millions of people justify their own conversion to atheism. Dawkins is earning big money crusading for atheism.

Much like Gay Pride, Dawkins is asking people to be proud of their atheism, to stand up and speak out, announce their atheism to the world. Dawkins is successfully convincing millions of people to reject the tyranny of organized religion and think for themselves.

Dawkins rejects the idea of Intelligent Design because nobody can tell him where the Intelligent Designer originated. He prefers to say that Natural Selection is sufficient to explain all of the orderliness and complexities of nature. Dawkins believes that no intelligence was necessary in the process of establishing the complex order we observe in nature.

Dawkins wants to destroy organized religion so much he carelessly ignores both fact and reason when he claims that highly complex systems and extremely sophisticated examples of orderliness simply evolved through some mindless, non-intelligent process.
He refers to this mindless process as Natural Selection. He fails to realize that Natural Selection “is” Intelligent Design, or he may simply be intentionally ignoring this fact.

For example, when one examines the complexities and sophistication of a Dolphin’s Sonar, one realizes that such a system is far more intricate and involved than anything man can make right now. When all the components and variables are scientifically considered from the perspective of irreducible complexity, the mathematical probability of such a fantastic system evolving through some mindless process is absolutely impossible.

The example of a Dolphin’s Sonar is only one of millions of such examples of super sophisticated and irreducibly complex systems and processes we have observed in nature, all of which would have been impossible without the involvement of intelligence.

Dawkins’ idol is Charles Darwin whose Theory of Evolution has now been disproved by numerous scientists. The field of micro biology, alone, has revealed Darwin’s Theory to be laughably false. Dawkins has been avoiding debates with microbiologists because they know how wrong Darwin’s Theory really is and can prove it too.

Darwin actually believed that a bear that devoted enough time to swimming could actually evolve into a whale. Of course, this idea has been found to be both false and absurd. Modern microbiology thoroughly debunks Darwin’s Theory.

The primary reason Intelligent Design is not allowed to be taught as an alternative to the theory of Evolution is because nobody can scientifically explain the origination of the Intelligent Designer. The law, established in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, says that because we can not explain this Intelligent Designer, scientifically, the theory must be classified as a religion and not allowed to be taught in public schools.

Dawkins says Faith is one of the world’s great evils. Faith has been defined as “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Jesus taught in Matthew 9:29, “According to your Faith be it unto you.”

Jesus also taught in Matthew 21:22, “And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, Believing, ye shall receive.”

Jesus also taught in Mark 9:23, “If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that Believeth.”

Jesus also taught in Mark 11:24, “What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.”

Of course, the recent best selling book entitled The Secret was about this mental law of faith or belief as taught by Jesus, otherwise known as The Law of Attraction. This same mental law has been taught by many great philosophers, prophets, and seers throughout history. The bottom line is our experience is a direct reflection of our habitual thoughts and feelings.

Regarding these questions of faith and God, many atheists may choose to believe Dawkins, but I am betting on Jesus and Intelligent Design, respectively.




posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   


Dawkins is successfully convincing millions of people to reject the tyranny of organized religion and think for themselves.


So where's the problem?


Edit to add:

He has stated many times over, that he would like religious people to read his book, that it's not some instant atheist converter tool.
If your faith is strong, you should have no problem in reading the book.




I am betting on Jesus and Intelligent Design, respectively.


Bible preaches against gambling, lol, and I would put it more as, I know The God Jesus Spoke of Yahweh is the one true God, Make it sound like you mean it!

If you have your own proof that you know God exists, the one in the Christian Bible, as opposed to the others, build off that. Not just...betting


[edit on 17-8-2009 by Republican08]

[edit on 17-8-2009 by Republican08]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   
I don't like Dawkins. To him, atheism is a religion, if that makes sense.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   
He writes interesting, engaging books, I suggest you buy one and ad to his millions, you might learn a thing or two in the process.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Donnie Darko
 


It does.. people who see atheism as absolute (or a religious atheism) Would easily fall to do the same things that they accused the religious of.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Republican08
 


Well the problem could be seen as one where he is profiting off the vulnerability of some people.

Kind of like what the atheists feel the vatican or one of those mega churches are doing.

You have to admit the man has made a ton of money preaching the atheists view. The same way the "smiling preacher" Joel Osteen has done preaching the religious view.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by Republican08
 


Well the problem could be seen as one where he is profiting off the vulnerability of some people.

Kind of like what the atheists feel the vatican or one of those mega churches are doing.

You have to admit the man has made a ton of money preaching the atheists view. The same way the "smiling preacher" Joel Osteen has done preaching the religious view.


Hold on, isn't it always organised religion bleating to its flock to contrbute money.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Personally I see Dawkins as exactly the same as any other fundamentalist in any other religion. He's got a set of strongly held beliefs, and he promotes them vociferously. He's the flip side of guys like Pat Robertson or James Dobson. And unfortunately, in human psychology strongly held belief seems to lead to an end of thought in whatever area that belief is held.

However, as annoying as fundamentalist atheism is, I for one am grateful to the atheists for balancing religion. Without atheism and materialism we might still be living under the rule of a theocracy, and that's no fun for anyone except maybe the priests of whatever religion is running things.

Edit to add:

I'm one of the people contributing to his wealth, since I bought and read "The God Delusion." In my opinion the only people who will really get much out of it are fundamentalist atheists who enjoy songs sung to the choir.

[edit on 17/8/2009 by BarryZuckercorn]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by Republican08
 


Well the problem could be seen as one where he is profiting off the vulnerability of some people.

Kind of like what the atheists feel the vatican or one of those mega churches are doing.

You have to admit the man has made a ton of money preaching the atheists view. The same way the "smiling preacher" Joel Osteen has done preaching the religious view.


I've read a few of his books though.

And he's not all that aggressive, he just is more of a thought provoker.

The man does stand for something, and the God Delusion, was a very enjoyable book for me to read. (although I illegally downloaded it shhhh...) I wish I would've supported him with buying the book.

He proposes an alternative view... He sells a good book, and makes money off of it.

It's a job.

Vulnerability or just Bookworms?

I've bought quite a few christian books, muslim books, and so on and so forth, I don't consider them really feeding off my vulnerability.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by bwinwright
 





Regarding these questions of faith and God, many atheists may choose to believe Dawkins, but I am betting on Jesus and Intelligent Design, respectively


Well you started off whinging about Dawkins earning money off the sales of his books. The implication seems to be you have a problem with this. Do you have the same issue with religious apologists, the likes of Lee Stroble for example, who also sells his books ?

Is this religious jealousy, people pay good money to read Dawkins' opinions, but xtians have trouble giving the bibles away ?

Have you actually read anything by Richard Dawkins ? because you can be damned sure he read the book that you didn't write.


Here's Dawkins discussing a few of your problematic questions




[edit on 17-8-2009 by moocowman]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by Republican08
 


Well the problem could be seen as one where he is profiting off the vulnerability of some people.

Kind of like what the atheists feel the vatican or one of those mega churches are doing.

You have to admit the man has made a ton of money preaching the atheists view. The same way the "smiling preacher" Joel Osteen has done preaching the religious view.


Hold on, isn't it always organised religion bleating to its flock to contrbute money.


Yes but JD is referring to the two wrongs of the situation.

Although one is saying no belief and the other saying belief.

I see the point.

Although, I would be hardened to see an atheist demand 8 million dollars for fear of a sudden death is going to kill him. lol

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Far as I'm concerned he can be the best known atheist in the world for all his life. Everyone has different views some more extreme than others. I would ask he doesn't stomp on my religion I won't stomp on his. Nuff said.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   
I've got no problem with Dawkings making money. There are any number of big-hair televangelists making money preaching intolerance, racism, and bigotry. So now we've got someone preaching against God, Jesus, and organized religion. He's got just as much right to preach that as the evangelists, and to make money while doing it.

It can even be argued that Dawkins is less of a hypocrite, since his beliefs don't purport to value poverty, as the Christian faith appears to.

While I disagree with Dawkins, I applaud his efforts to speak out against the various abuses of organized religion, religion that preys on the gullible and ignorant, fuels their hatred of others, and lines their pockets.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by chiron613
 





While I disagree with Dawkins, I applaud his efforts to speak out against the various abuses of organized religion, religion that preys on the gullible and ignorant, fuels their hatred of others, and lines their pockets.


What do you disagree with exactly?



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by chiron613
 


So, you are basically saying that it's ok "because they do it too".

Screw that. I'll not do anything to force him to shut or to believe anything other than what he wants to believe. If people pay for his books and such, they deserve what they get. Not my place to dictate what people believe and so forth.

But I will for sure be pointing out how ignorant and short sighted such beliefs are - and that goes for those stupid tv evangelists as well.

The fight between religion and science is stupid, and those who do so really don't actually understand either one of the two.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   
I'm an atheist and i don't follow everything Dawkins says and i don't conform to what he believes atheism to be.


I guess that makes me a rogue atheist?



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by mr-lizard
I'm an atheist and i don't follow everything Dawkins says and i don't conform to what he believes atheism to be.


I guess that makes me a rogue atheist?


C'mon boys, let's get em, it's a rogue fighter here!

Arrrgghhh sound the battle cry!

Dawkins' is one of many.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by LiveForever8
What do you disagree with exactly?


Wasn't asked to me, but I will answer it.

I find the entire notion that because something has no crossed the perspective of someone, that it is by default false to be completely ignorant and arrogant.

Atheism is a belief that no god exists. And that belief's entire basis is based on that it hasn't been "proven" to them. As if nothing exists unless it is proven.

Mostly, it's just people who disagree with what people say about god. In which case, is extra ignorant, because they are in effect saying they disagree with what people say about god, but then at the same time they are actually accepting what those people say as the authority on god. It's like oh I think you are wrong - but I'll be using what you say as evidence for my beliefs. Hello? They are still accepting those people as being the authority on god.

The only honest position is agnostic. And I got not problem with that. If you don't know, then it is IMO very honest and noble to just say so. But atheism takes it's own leap of faith and it does so in error - which should be pointed out for what it is.

If one is agnostic, it would be wise to identify themselves as agnostic rather than atheist. It shows you haven't made that leap of faith, or think things false. Agnostic is open minded, atheism/theism is close minded. From agnostic, one goes to gnostic eventually.

To be agnostic is to be like a child, which is required to one day find the truth. A child doesn't really have beliefs, it asks so many questions because it doesn't know. Because the child doesn't know and asks, the child seeks.



[edit on 8/17/2009 by badmedia]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 




Atheism is a belief that no god exists.


No, doesnt have to be that and only that. It CAN be that, Or the lack of belief in god\gods

And remember there is a difference in believing god does not exist and not believing in god. I hope you understand that.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Daniem
 


Ok, so what is the difference? Sure, you say there is a difference, but what is it? I'm assuming my explanation of agnostic vs atheism isn't acceptable, since you replied with that.

So what is the difference?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join