Dawkins TV Programme. "The Root of All Evil"

Whereas ignorance is invicible, it is no excuse for foolish statements. Oxygen can be detected by its flammable property. Oxygen can be detected by its reactions to know, solid elements or chemical compounds which can be seen, smelt, tasted and touched. It is shown to be present by rust, which is iron oxide. It can be detected by its spectral signature.

You are certainly correct that such behavior is not limited to religious communities. It cannot be denied, however, that there is an exclusivity of alleged sanctity in all religious credos which leads to bigotry, and bigotry inevitably leads to prejudice, from which it is a short step to violence and crime of all sorts. The problem is not with the character of individual believers, but rather with the credo which lends itself to such exploitation.

This is an unfounded assumption. It is entirely possible to authorize all sorts of dangerous thinking on the basis of a flawed premise. It is simply necessary to demonize the "other," something to which religion easily lends itself. Once again, it is not the character of the individual believer which is at issue, it is the character of the credo. This is also true of ideologies, such as the Fascisti, the Falange, the National Socialists and the Communists. That Dawkins confines his observations to religion does not lessen the truth that dogmatic beliefs are dangerous. Were Dawkins to contend that only religious dogma is dangerous, you'd have a point. Which leads me to ask if you are reacting to Dawkin's program (Americans do not commonly misspell this word as the English do--for the irony challenged, that was humour), or if you are reacting to the post. Neither you nor i should condemn Dawkins himself without having seen the program.

I am uncertain what you are trying to say here, but i would note that religion, and specifically christianity, has been used to justify all sorts of criminal enormities. Slavery in the United States is one glaring example. Once again, if Dawkins is criticizing the potential flaws of dogmatic creeds, as opposed to suggesting that all individual believers are flawed, you really have no argument. But in the final analysis, neither you nor i are qualified to judge without having seen the program. I think that your post has very much the character of someone getting angry because they feel they have been insulted. It may be that Dawkins has treated the believer unfairly, but we can't know if we haven't seen the program. Your actual beef might be with those here who describe it, as opposed to Mr. Dawkins himself.

Allow me to congratulate posters on the quality of the debate.

Hephzibah, the difference between "a scientific concept" such as oxygen and a "non-scientific one" such as God, is that the existence of oxygen is refutable in principle, the existence of God is not. (i.e. unlike for oxygen there is no critical test for God's presence or absence).

Dawkins ended the second programme with a riposte to those theists who say "this can't be all there is"......Dawkins asks "How much more do you want ?" Any comments ?

fresco-
He made no case at all to me.I couldn't actually figure out what he was on about.To think rabbis and evangelicals and a tried and tested method with history when you want to become a snow machine constitutes an attack on "religion" is preposterous.It was absurd.
quote]

You've lost me there Spendius ! Was that before or after the pint

... Were Dawkins to contend that only religious dogma is dangerous, you'd have a point. Which leads me to ask if you are reacting to Dawkin's program (Americans do not commonly misspell this word as the English do--for the irony challenged, that was humour), or if you are reacting to the post...

Do those two clunkers serve to discredit religion for you?