The Enemies of Reason
The Enemies of Reason is a two-part television documentary, written and presented by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins. Is it rational that the dead can communicate with the living and give sound advice on how they should live their lives? What about sticking pins into your body to free the flow of Chi energy and cure your illness?
Or the bending of spoons using your mind alone? Is that rational? Richard Dawkins doesn’t think so, and feels it is his duty to expose those areas of belief that exist without scientific proof, yet manage to hold the nation under their spell. He will take on the world’s leading proponents in their field of expertise, meet the victims who have used them and expose the history of the movements – from the charlatans who have milked these practices to the experiments and testing that have failed to produce conclusive results.
Dawkins points to some of science’s achievements and describes it as freeing most people from superstition and dogma. Picking up from his superstition-reason distinction in The Root of All Evil? (while recycling some footage from it), he then says reason is facing an "epidemic of superstition" that "impoverishes our culture" and introduces gurus that persuade us "to run away from reality". He calls the present day dangerous times. He returns to science’s achievements, including the fact that, by extending peoples lifespan, it helps them to take more advantage of live. He turns his attention to astrology, which he criticizes for stereotyping without evidence.
Richard Dawkins examines the growing suspicion the public has for science based medicine, despite its track record of successes like the germ theory of disease, vaccines, antibiotics and increased lifespan. He notes a fifth of British children are currently not immunized against measles, mumps and rubella, attributing it to fears arising from a highly controversial report linking the vaccine with autism. Dawkins criticizes the growing field of alternative medicine which does not pass the same objective and statistical rigor as scientifically derived treatments using controlled double-blind studies.
Directed by: Russell Barnes
First of all, it is probably not a good idea to go around labeling people as your enemy if you want them to join your side. Secondly his arguments are more about English class snobbery than anything. He will attack the lower classes and those that are not as fortunate as to be admitted into Universities such as his. If he really wanted people on his side, he would have labeled the film something like why we need reason instead of pitting people against one another like David Attenborough's ants.
Just what the science community needs is another condescending elite displaying snobbery at the less fortunate.
O.K. it lost me within the first minute with the reductive limiting premise that there are two ways to look at the world. HOw limiting is that? It is not how you convince me. There are so many ways to look at the world.
um, i think i lost quite a few IQ points read these post. sigh
What you like to believe including your toilet or your god does not cost more than a piece of sh*t for others.
Epicurus. So grow up try to go
Science is just as ignorant and arrogant as well as those who practice religion. Science is just better at bull sh*tting everyone. I am a scientist and physician and find that there are things in this life that can not be explained by our understanding of science or medicine. For this id*ot to suggest that science alone explain everything is obviously a Darwinist and yet the THEORY of evolution is still a THEORY and not a scientific law. Its okay that this guy believe his ancestor is a monkey or a one cell bug in my toilet water but I prefer to believe that MY ancestors were human and created by GOD, not the result of chance that a toilet dweller later become human.
Dark side of the moon.
The scientific method is truly the only way t o go BUT modern science does no always stay true to it. it is corrupted by powerfull institutions and interests. So whatever method (like the placebo effect) works will be ignored aslong there is no way of making money out of it. Other example, Dawkins adresses the falsly spread rumor that 4000 jews have been tipped of before 9/11, BUT he fails to adress that the oficially stated cause of the collapse of the 3 WTC building due to a fire is absolutely NOT scientific. Also the dissapearance of the "plane" at the penntagon. Where are those sceptics when it comes to that????
Dawkins is a frequent practitioner of the "ridicule" school of public outreach on popular science education and secular skepticism. I'm not sure why he's like this but it may be attributable to being a Baliol College Brit or maybe his former exposure to being the Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science (i.e; he may be getting old & impatient with "stupid human tricks") I especially enjoy it when he suddenly springs a debunking attack on some unsuspecting mushy-minded lunacy.
Whatever the reason, I love the Dawkins Canon---from media to books, all of which I've devoured with gusto. BTW: My personal preferences lie with the Penn Juliette "Bullsh*t Light" school of skeptical rebuke
This man has one of the most outrageously massive egos I have ever seen.
In the second part to this pair of videos, Dawkins comes off as apathetic, arrogant, and completely close-minded to the fact that science DOES NOT and WILL NOT have an answer for everything. In fact, all current science is generally based on old science which was commonplace for many years but has since been proven inaccurate or in some cases completely wrong.
The thing that irks me so much about this hard-nosed science mindset is that people who swear only by science are often just as hard-headed as people who are obsessed with religion. Once someone feels they have all the answers, they refuse to allow anyone else to even offer their opinion unless it is specifically backed by whatever stringent scientific testing protocol they have contrived as what is required in order for someone else's ideals or beliefs to become valid for listening to.
Science is amazing; but it's sad when I see people who completely dismiss what we do not know and only give credit to what we do know to be "correct". To live your live strictly based on proven science is to live your life by a set of rules which will eventually be proven to be as incorrect or "off the mark" as Dawkins suggests "alternative medicine" is.
I feel like society and pop culture as a whole are losing sight of the fact that these "alternative" or "new age" healing methods are in fact not new at all. Ancient healing and spiritual cleansing techniques have been put to use since the dawn of human consciousness; and there will never be enough science to change that. Modern medicine is actually more "new age" than much of the holistic medicine that Dawkins sarcastically dismisses as hokey in this documentary.
Science has served us well, as far as we can see. Im not religious by any means but to suggest that everything in the observable world must have scientific empirical evidence for human understanding is a little premature. To take what we currently think we know of the world as a ceiling is a fallacy. Science is the best way we approximate to and interpret nature, it is by no means exact. The advent of Quantum physics too has threatened the many 'beliefs' we had from Classic Physics!! has science explained the 'observer effect'? (for those that havent see the 'double slit experiment' ) how can we be so sure of what is and what isn't when it is claimed that we use less than 10% of our brains? we use more than 10% you say? rubbish conspiracy theory? what about the pineal gland is that a rubbish conspiracy too? Richard Dawkins is utterly and stupidly narrow minded and is just part of the agenda to dumb us all down.
Official government documents are not 'evidence' Richard, it is faith
This documentary was impeccable. We need to quit being superstitious and just plain stupid and realize all of humanity's achievements are a result of science.
DID YOU "eastern medicine" QUACKS WATCH THE DOCUMENTARY
if "eastern medicine" worked it would just become medicine.
what your saying is that mind body duality belief somehow forms a magic barrier that "prevents" germs and bacteria from getting in your body go ahead and wipe monkey shit on your body, eat rhino horn and stick needles in non-existent meridians and see how well that works for you.
alternative,s.c.a.m/c.a.m and "eastern medicine" are PLACEBOS, placebos don't prevent anything they just make you feel better
GOOD DAY TO YOU SIR
i hope you keep your mind open to reality instead of closing it to evidence
maybe you would learn something
also @ nazi medicine guy
people dont experiment on thier kids with medicine because THEY ALREADY TESTED THAT SHIT ON ANIMALS AND IN LABS A RIDICULOUS AMOUNT OF TIMES TO MAKE SURE ITS SAFE.
thats what science does, not alternative med where a shitty trial with no control counts as evidence and most of those products arent even tested for safety much less if they FREAKING WORK
if anyone likes rationalist evidence based rants or if you want to hear an opposing view point to your "faith" based medicine instead of Science Based Medicine please friend me on facebook
Xerxes said to lash the sea 300 times as a punishment? Was it a tantrum-throwing thing, or did he really think it would hurt?!?
My mind is blown. I don't know the truth about the supernatural--maybe it exists, maybe not--but this is the crap that atheists have to put up with?
Atheists, you are all owed a big apology. I'm truly sorry for contributing to the religion problem. I wish I was as sure as you. I sat back a few years ago and imagined all of you watching and being subjected to violent religious conflict over the course of human history. It has to be ridiculously laughable and horrifying at the same time. If you want to find an island to populate with only non-religious people, you have my most heartfelt support.
Religion has not be the sole source of war amoung mankind. More people have been killed due to pursuit of other ideologies, vs religion. Most of our 20th century wars have not been about religion, more people died in ww 1 & 2 than most other wars combined.
Religion can accept responsibility for atrocities it has committed, and yet the world just wants to heap blame at the feet of a single source. Easier that way isn't it? It boils down to this. Religion without the evidence science can help, well eventually become no more than mere superstition and dogma. Science, however, without religion will eventually break down into mere materialism.
If you could reason with religious people, there wouldnt be any religious people. - Dr Gregory House.
It is a waste of valuable time to try and cure ignorance. let the sheep of the church live and die in stupidity.
violence in the name of god around the world, thoughout time is the the only true evil I have ever known. learn from history that is what history is there for. The truly good people in this world are free thinking, with love for all unconditionaly.
no religion, know peace.
people who bash science have no right to use modern technology.
over 5000 year old alternative Aruvedic medicine s still known to be the best provider for preventative disease. Modern medicine is really only useful in emergencies, like surgery. This movie is probably paid for by big pharma lobbyists.
Whatever..... which is an answer I save for the few chosen ones.
And if you want to get a little angrier go see what I think about his documentary on religion, "the source of all evil".
No robertallen, I do not believe in a lot of things that you probably think small minded people like me believe, but I was thinking about it some more and here is where I think a big misconception of Western medicine is found. They see the body as isolated parts, and as a result, they experiment and try to cure accordingly. So if you go to the doctor for a stomach ache he or see usually sees you as a big stomach. Well the body is a unit and that should guide our philosophy when we try to cure it. The mind body connection is also important and it should be explored further. I agree that Eastern medicine (and I know your blood is boiling when I call it medicine) allows for a lot of BS but it is not all BS, and I think their basic premise that usually we can not cure body parts independently, and that we can not separate body and mind is correct.
I am not surprised.
I understand that you can not believe the stories that people say just because they say them but I find it kind of offensive if you are suggesting that i would lie. As for the connection between the medication my grandmother was taking and her cancer there is plenty of literature out there.
Now, I am NOT a polemic of science, not at all, and I am not religious. I find these documentaries one-sided because they dismiss any other possibility the same way a religion would. I find the examples he is using easy targets and a lot of information missing. For example, he is not addressing the fact that psychics have been used by the police to solve crimes, or the power of dreams. Then I was watching another of his documentaries called "the source of all evil" which I found more agreeable, but he is making the claim that it is only through religion that good people do evil. Fanatical scientists have done plenty of evil just to remind you of some think of the time of electric shock treatment. lobotomies, syphilis experiments, and the list I am afraid is much longer. Religions incorporate ancient archetypes of myth that for whatever reason help people spiritually. For the most part of course religions have become political institutions and have acted as such.
For anybody to doubt the use of traditional science is plain stupid but the issue is not that. First Alternative medicine has not really tried to invalidate main steam science it is the other way around. Second what we call placebo should give us an opportunity to think. Curing the body might involve the mind more than traditional science is willing to consider, and maybe alternative medicine techniques that take a more holistic approach activate that capacity more effectively. What is wrong with that? and why is that held against them? Third, maybe we should not ridicule so easily wisdom from the East especially since we have just begun to understand the power of the human mind.
On a personal note, my sister suffers from a skin disorder that hardens the skin at the joints and it hurts and cracks sometimes dab. She tried traditional medicine for years with no effect. She is fully aware that it is a condition also related to stress but the flare ups were uncontrolable. She has been helped a lot for years now by homeopathy. Yes the doctor stays and talks with her. he changed her diet and I do not know anything about water because the medicine she takes comes in pills and I always thought it was vitamin based. Is Dr. Dawkins suggesting that she should go back to suffering? On the other hand my grandmother died from ovarian cancer caused by a preventive medicine she was taking for a breast tumor that was actually removed on an early stage. Is Dr. Dawkins suggesting that accupuncture is also hocus pocus because I know many people who have been greatly helped?
just finished watching the first episode, and while it is very interesting and i agree that evidence should be taken over just chance and luck, he just gets more and more biased, inserting his own views which tends to make me discredit documentaries.
ex/ his comment about people saying NASA's moon landing was fake, he just ended the sentence off with "which is absurd because there's so much evidence" i feel he didnt need to add in the word absurd. should have presented the documentary with a more neutral tone.
as i said reason and evidence is very important, but no dawkins, it is not the only valid way of thinking. evidence now are just theories, where MORE evidence is required.
one scientist (can someone help me with the name?) found that white people were more intelligent than black people when he compared skull sizes. thats evidence to some people, some racist people actually. but he actually compared male skulls to women skulls (which are naturally smaller). example of where 'evidence' is not so right.
Am I the only Skeptic in Birkenstocks here? Am I then the 'sandal wearing green end' of the Skeptic movement. I resent the elicitation of trope at 35 - 40. Alas, oh well, back to the old O-chem text!!!
A trippel DNA Greating from Denmark!
You just have to love this....Finally a brilliant and intelligent WACK at the "Alternative"!
The only real sponsor possible for Dr.Richard Dawkins must be the Japaness brand "SuperDry"! he he!
they should rename atheists, and religion followers to assumptionists there now they can see the one quality in which they all exhibit.
Just watched the first part of this documentary ("Slaves to Superstition"). Dr. Dawkins is right on in this show. Especially interesting to me was the segment on the Tarot readers. I wish he would address Wicca and the ideas of the occult as well. I was involved in these pitiful wastes of time and money and feel that the public needs to hear an expert's opinion on these inane practices.
google this unified field of consciousness
Religion is just an outdated means of social control. In primitive times of lawlessness what better than to have an omnipotent policeman looking down on your population, who knows and sees everything you do or think, wagging his finger at you and saying 'DO THIS OR THAT AND I'LL SPANK YOU.' in his best Charlton Heston voice.
I am not saying faith is a bad thing but we still have faith in the wrong things. Why not have faith in man rather than some imagined divinity, faith that man can and will overcome adversity and do so in a way that benefits his fellow man will lead to mankind's further advancement and is far more beneficial to mankind as a whole than millions of murmured begging letters.
And if there does happen to be any truth in any of these divinities wouldn't it please them better to have created a race that can rise above primitive needs to explain away the inexplicable and join together in the bettering of their species.
You obviously didn't get the message and probably never will!
Not if those opinions are ill-founded and ignorant.
And yes, you do have a problem.
"...you've earned the right to be arrogant" (?????!!)
i don't like the arrogance of Richard even the title itself Enemies of reason.
beside all this years, thousand years, was mistaking then this for example professor find the truth. he look for what? to decompose the body then bring him to life in from of him? but soon he will know.
someone don't understand, some one don't want to understand. there is way way reason to prove there is something behind this world, but stile don't know why this for example professor trying to do.
less go backto the ancient days when thr strong conqured the weak ,befor any religion brought tolerence and universal morality,and your worh and ability to rule depended on what class you were born in and blood line,and rulers were not check by anyone, you can gear the ruling party or fear god your choice,the one who gave you life or the one who dint.. all things will rise anf fall because man is made of greed,and there
Irish anti-christ? (quae haec est fabula?) you mean the "Anglish" anti-christ, or are you referring to Nostradamus world war 3 prophecy?
The papacy in Rome is the seat of the true ant-christ. If a person believed in this religion stuff.
Tell me, do you believe in your so-called "Rapture"??
It is fairly easy to use some of the "tax free" money that religions have gotten from the sheeple to give the illusion of being benevolent organizations.
It is true what @Hesus said, the higher educated, or a least someone with the smarts, will discount all this religious mumbo-jumbo!
I rest my case.
I'd like to add to Hesus' comment;
In my opinion, those that exhibit behaviour as influenced by punishment/reward, judge and are judged in a black and white context. Wrong v Right, Good v Evil, kindergarten morality.
Any choice that has a moral pondering preceding it is context dependant, as such logically, there can be no ground rules, no absolutes. Either the ten commandments should not be, or they should be the innumerable commandments, i.e every rule should include every possible scenario that would negate said rule.
For me it just seems strange to adhere to secondhand morality when one can transcend its simplicity so easily in favour of different perspectives.
Either way, doing good things does not validate a belief anymore than the bad things invalidate it. Trying to justify/rationalize it just seems like there's a inherent need for validation which is all the more clear with the overly evident self-preservation mechanics woven into any organized religion's fabric.
I tend to think quite deeply about these things but in the end I'm just another agnostic (with a dash of nihilism)
Why do you insist on using the Bible to defend your faith? I have already stated that I'm not here to win converts,or convince you of a truth you clearly reject. Let me say it again I don't care if you and others of your kind don't believe.
I was just pointing out that the atheists here; who are defending and in agreement with Mr. Dawkins (hence the name Dawkites) are as capable of the closed minded fundamentalism that they accuse others of and exhibit the behavior of extremists when others disagree with their point of view.
I admit that their vitriol inspired my entering the fray but I have refrained from name calling, I have mocked and been caustic when I pointed out the flaws in Mr. Dakwins reasoning. Yes, it is Dawkite philosophy since it is his Documentary, his books and his point of view that I am critiquing.
Quoting what the Roman Catholic church believed or believes does nothing to me one way or the other since I'm not Catholic and don't consider them a source of authority.
As far as the Darwin quote, one letter does not an abolitionist make. You can like someone and still feel superior. I don't see anything but agreement with a societal change. There's no mention of setting up a fund and committee to decry the abuse of Africans in Brazil and set them free. In fact he states that they are cheerful and healthy.
This letter does nothing to change the fact that his theory is racist.
William Wilberforce and others of like faith stood against slavery and were the reason for the shift in thinking toward slavery in the UK.
Yes, there were those religionists who did support the African slave trade and twisted scripture to do so. Kidnapping and selling someone into slavery was punishable by death in the Law of Moses Exodus 21:16. Which is what the African slave trade was. Also in the Law of Moses, if a slave escaped from his master he was not to be returned to his master. Deuteronomy 23:15-16 the buying and keeping of a slave was purely on the individual who spent his money. No one was obligated to help the slave owner. They were obligated to help the escaped slave.
Epi, Isn't it odd that you set yourself up as a divine judge and jury.
How do you know the inner workings of the hearts and minds of your fellow man or what inspires them to build schools and hospitals and charities? Could it be the New Testament where they are told to care for the widow and orphan and to look out for the interest of others not just themselves. To love their neighbor. The Old Testament too, read Isaiah 58. Read James Chapter 2.
I only point out the Biblical stuff because you did. SETI doesn't count as a charity. It was a project to contact ET's. I still have never seen or heard of an atheist soup kitchen or job training program or homeless shelter. So don't be too mad if I don't find that credible. State run doesn't count. Doctors Without Borders, don't know much about them except a Christian doctor I know has done volunteer work for them. It wasn't started in the name of atheism or a stalwart of atheism. So no cookie.
Just a thought Your namesake didn't deny higher powers just that they weren't interested in anything but themselves. Yet he taught his followers to only believe in the observable, but also believed the world was made up of atoms which couldn't be observed.....I'll let that go.
He also allowed his followers to call him soter Greek for savior and had them agree to honor his birthday after his death. So: Humble, simple Epicurus, who believed that death was oblivion; still sought immortality. Something to ponder.
To Mr. Razor and the Irish anti-Christ,
I said nothing about the founding of the USA. I was pointing out that people inspired by their faith have done good.
But since you brought it up: Jefferson and Franklin wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
I'm not saying Jefferson was a Christian or Franklin but they did believe in a creator God who gave us our worth and value. They acknowledged the ideal even if they didn't live up to it. The ground and pillar of freedoms and rights according to them, was the fact that we were given them by our creator as our birthright.
Chew on that the next time you want to call people of faith (however minimal) unreasonable, irrational and deluded.
"The premise of Dawkite philosophy is that people of faith in a God are somehow unreasonable and deluded. That nothing but evil has ever come from said faith."
lol there is no such thing as a Dawkite philosophy. just because it is in your nature to worship or revere anything that you think speaks to you doesnt mean everyone else does. There is no Dawkite philosophy and no group of people who worship Dawkins. dont be a child. if you want to discuss big boy stuff then act like a big boy!
"Your definition of reason is that I must agree with you and your space brothers theory (or whatever theory you come up with) or I am delusional and unreasonable."
i dont think that is anyone definition of reason and i dont think people believe they can just make up their own definitions for things. once again you are projecting. and what do you mean by space brothers? thats really odd....doesnt make any sense. also theory isnt just something someone comes up with. you are using the colloquial use of theory if you actually meant what you just said.
"So show me the Carl Sagan Memorial hospital or Charles Darwin General. Name one Ivy league school founded by atheists. If your faith in space brothers is so wonderful where is your version of the Red Cross or Salvation Army or even the YMCA? Where is the atheist soup kitchen?"
well Carl Sagan helped start SETI which was discontinued against most scientists wishes, Richard Dawkins has a foundation which encourages children all over the world to gain an interest in science, Charles Darwin donated much of his time and money to many great causes back in Victorian days. There are a few atheist oriented charities such as doctors without borders and the bill and melinda gates foundation. Earthward Inc is an atheist charity, so is Foundation Beyond Belief, Fellowship of Freethought and, International Humanist and Ethical Union. There are many local secular soup kitchens. The difference between the religious ones and the ones that arent is the fact that the ones that arent religious dont announce that they are atheist and dont make a big deal out of it. it seems the religious groups do it to keep negative attention away from them and create positive public support.
However i dont think whether these organizations have started universities or charities has ANYTHING to do with whether their worldview is correct. it seems like you created a very useless red herring here.
as to your claim about Darwins racism and the churches hand in slavery lets take a look
"I have watched how steadily the general feeling, as shown at elections, has been rising against Slavery. What a proud thing for England if she is the first European nation which utterly abolishes it! I was told before leaving England that after living in slave countries all my opinions would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the negro character. It is impossible to see a negro and not feel kindly towards him; such cheerful, open, honest expressions and such fine muscular bodies. I never saw any of the diminutive Portuguese, with their murderous countenances, without almost wishing for Brazil to follow the example of Haiti; and, considering the enormous healthy-looking black population, it will be wonderful if, at some future day, it does not take place.
Letter to J. S. Henslow (March 1834); later published in The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (1887), Ch. 6 "The Voyage —1831-1836"
now what did the church have to say?
As late as June 20, 1866, the Holy Office (now called the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) issued a statement that said:
"Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons.... It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given.
but about your book....lets see what it had to say about slavery....
Exodus 21:2, Exodus 21:7, Exodus 21:20-21, Exodus 22:3, Leviticus 22:11, Leviticus 25:39, Leviticus 25:44-46, Ephesians 6:5, Colossians 3:22, 1 Timothy 6:1, Titus 2:9-10, and 1 Peter 2:18. All those will tell you how your god feel about slavery.
once again your claims seem to crumble under the weight of contrary evidence.
the arguments you are making show only that the church or religions seem to have a deep rooted need to create as much positive public relations as they can so as to influence people to approve of them through their deeds rather than through their actual claims or beliefs. its pretty sad that you cant see that and abhorrant that if you do see it you dont care.
Medicine men and fire starters, holy and
Even then manipulating ignorance to gain superiority and cotrol. When will the world stop lazily letting their mind be filled and do it themselves. Religion, how easy.
Ok first, america was not founded on any religious grounds. It was founded so ones beliefs could be kept to oneself and out of the lives of others. Read thomas paine, or jeffersons works, they repeativly state this, and quite firmly. Even jesux was said to have stated to keep it quiet and in fact, to "pray" in the " closet".(sermon on the mound)
And religion has and does still enslave masses. The conqured masses, in which they enslave through warfare, through mental manipulation of weak ignorant intolerant majorities/minorities, and imposing its will through governments on people that know bettr. Religion requiers and exists of nothng bu slaves..Slaves to crosss, stars , moons etc, unquestionable obedience and threatn bodily harm and,or codemnation if u do not flly submit to th masters demands and obligations wholely and w/o question.
Slavery was abolished on the race basis simply because it was moraly wrong. They kept the mind body and soul! ALL religion has and does this and thats how gov have and continue to cotrol and maniplate the herds.
Get real, man. Your blind. Just like thy wanted you be.
Mabe someone should tell him tht atheist cant do sh*7 with out having to defend a round earth and hear religion whine like baby of how its offending their delusion, self induced trip.
Aww they cant say this cuz my bronze age coimic says so...hypocrites.
Reigion is offensive to me but, hey, im just a godless heathen, that operates off fact so its not the same, right.
@VeritasVincet-Are you serious? You do realize that the slave trade was championed by religious folk who argued that the Bible was in favor of slavery, don't you? Your 'Good Book'
is full of instances of where immoral practices are encouraged.
Also, just because someone espouses an atheist viewpoint should not necessarily earn them the sobriquet of 'dawkite' that would be akin to one of us saying that all who believe in god are 'Catholics' or better yet, 'Delusionists'.
Will answer a portion for now. USA was not founded on christianity,
And yes, Ivy league colleges founded by religion sources, did they have any choice? the church had a strangle hold on people before what I call the age of reason (SCIENCE) Re: the dates as follows.
Harvard 1636...College of william and mary 1693...yale 1701...princeton 1747...columbia 1754...brown 1764...rutgers 1766...dartmouth 1769.
And before those times a lot of barbecues!
The premise of Dawkite philosophy is that people of faith in a God are somehow unreasonable and deluded. That nothing but evil has ever come from said faith.
Your definition of reason is that I must agree with you and your space brothers theory (or whatever theory you come up with) or I am delusional and unreasonable.
So show me the Carl Sagan Memorial hospital or Charles Darwin General. Name one Ivy league school founded by atheists. If your faith in space brothers is so wonderful where is your version of the Red Cross or Salvation Army or even the YMCA? Where is the atheist soup kitchen?
African slavery came to an end because men and women of faith took a principled stand against it. Charles Darwin in his book of errors said the Negroid is inferior and has not evolved to the level of the Caucasian and is therefore incapable of grasping and learning the knowledge or skills of a Caucasian. Also Darwin was used to say that the Irish were less than human because of supposed skeletal structure. Such drivel is not found in my fairy book (O.T. or N.T.) which I enjoyed reading this morning.
Also an African Pygmy was kept in the Washington zoo as an example of the missing link. The Australian Aborigine was also considered a missing link as well and was treated accordingly.