Let us be agressive in a gentlemanly or womanly way. (?)

I like your forsight.

Religion has been around ever since Man began to question his place in the world.

You are confusing this with Christianity which has been practiced for around 2,000 years.

Nothing wrong with religion. It’s the hijacking of religion, or any other ideology for that matter, for political control which creates the problem.

@Geoffrey51 Religion destroys the "ask for evidence " backbone of science. It is a crime against Humanity. Christian or Harri Crisnan or what ever lie factory.

@Mcflewster Indigenous religion is important for social structure. Most don’t need scientific input at this time.

I just think that Dawkins should have moved on several years ago. He comes across, to me anyway, as an atheistic evangelist. Most off putting.

@Geoffrey51
Any religion including indigenous religion can be of various types:

1. A set of ridiculous, often atrocious customs and traditions
2. A set of superstitions
3. A set of rules for good behaviors
4. A mix of any two or all of the above

What is right for the social structure depends of the definition of religion. No mix of the above is good for any society. That is what Dawkins is pointing out although his focus is the organized religions and its basic tenet of believing something you do not understand and do not know if it is true.

@St-Sinner Apart from point one, which is not pertinent to the argument as it is not an observation from within the structure of the culture, I agree with you.

With Dawkins my comment refers to the fact that he has been treading over the same ground now for some time. Nothing new. Whenever I hear the name Dawkins with a new book or whatever I am sure before I hear any review it won’t be genetics or evolution or heredity it will be “what a crap idea religion is” as it has been for some time now.

@Geoffrey51
Dawkins is saying don't believe in the mumbo jumbo of religions that have perpetrated untruths for 2 millennia.. What anything new do you want him say?

@St-Sinner He’s a scientist! He’s been rattling on about the same non scientific subject for years along with thousands of others.

I am sure his intellect is not so restricted he can’t discuss more ground breaking fields within his expertise of genetics, heredity, evolution and so forth.

Seems like a waste of a fine mind, unless his publisher tells him otherwise, of course!

@Geoffrey51

Is it not ok to repeat the truth? Especially if that is your passion and your believe that truth will do a larger good to the man-kind?

@St-Sinner Yes of course but i can’t be bothered to read or listen to him anymore because it will be the same words in a slightly different order about a pretty tired subject.

The Blind Watchmaker and God Delusion are superb texts. Just nothing new has been presented by him to make me think “that’s a point, hadn’t thought of that”.

And I am sure there are a lot of “what the fuck is that” discoveries going on in science which could help mankind understand the universe better with Dawkins expert commentary.

@Geoffrey51 The Bible is the same shit that is repeated every day around the world for 2,000 years in churches and homes. When a lie is repeated, the truth must be repeated. Dawkins is telling his truth. But you are bored with his style there are others who have other arguments. There are super fans of Dawkins and critics of Dawkins, but that does not make Dawkins less effective. Does it?

@St-Sinner No, just makes his discourse repetitive which any atheistic/agnostic writer can do. A waste of talent.

And religion isn’t just Christianity.

@Geoffrey51 but isn't that true about everybody?

Singers, actors, politicians, comedians and all of us have a unique style. Every singer I have heard has a similar style in songs, artists have a unique style. Dawkins is not even an entertainer. The truth is the same every time. Maybe you are reading him too much.

He was born Christian, he is well read and researched in that faith but his message is true and thought provoking for all religions.

@St-Sinner I agree on that point.

@Geoffrey51 He was Oxford Professor of the undersatnding of science and very much an academic, so perhaps wants to retain his integrity. I believe the delay in saying something new is because ther are too many secualrists about who follow him as a figurehead. If he concentrated on the application of innovative science to religious affairs ( e.9 The psychology of Mass decption) we could use his brain better but he has his own field of pure science in which he has done pretty well.