Some years ago I took an evening course in Astrology, taught by a professional astrologer. I was never sure how much he believed in the metaphysical elements of it, but what I took away from it was something very similar to what you say here. An astrological profile ("horoscope") is simply an aid to self-analysis, by raising questions about yourself that you might otherwise not have examined. The equivalent of a psychologist sitting you down and saying "how do you feel about that?" -- but considerably cheaper  .

"When people have heard his views?"  Are you kidding?  Do you really think there's anybody left on this planet who hasn't heard his views?  He is incredibly high profile and to say that "they will be better educated about their implications" is an insult quite frankly.  I don't think anyone is any doubt at all about the message that he so publicly and arrogantly shouts in all our faces.  He is the atheist equivalent of Rev. Ian Paisley (30 years ago) as far as I'm concerned.

There you see!  And after I promised as well! 
(sorryemoticon)

Well, until last week when I read his book The God Delusion, I hadn't heard his views. All I knew was that he was a passionate advocate for Darwinian evolution but I didn't know any of the details or other views. How should everyone on the planet know his views? I know he had a mini TV series once but you imply that he's on television and in newspapers every week. And I have never heard him shout.

And another person who doesn't know his views is that person who wrote the Daily Mail article you gave a link to. He claims to have read his book but then he says that Dawkins overlooks the fact that many great scientists in the past have been religious. Actually, Dawkins deals with that point in the book.


His upbringing was public school (in which there would have been plenty of religious instruction) and Church of England. Call that narrow and feel sorry for him for that if you like, Simon. I would also like to know what famous atheists hindered progress before Darwin came along. Before the 19th century, hardly anyone dared admit to being an atheist.

Of course I had heard of him. As I said, I knew him to be keen on Darwin. But I didn't know the details. Perhaps I don't watch the right television programmes. Are they chat shows or religious ones or something?

And as for the youtube clip, he isn't shouting. And of the things he says on that clip, which are wrong? The racism, homophobia or what?

Well if you don't know what's wrong, then there's absolutely no point my trying to explain it.

Here for your delectation and delight is a selection. 

http://www.reitstoen.com/dawkins.php

If anyone finds Dawkins confrontational or in poor taste, I can recommend Against All Gods by A C Grayling. He says basically that if people want to pursue religion, that's their business and they should be free to do so. But they should not have special favours and neither should their beliefs be beyond questioning just because they hold them to be sacred.

But fair enough, Milly. I know that many people, far from stupid, have looked at both sides of the argument and decided in favour of religion. I'll give this a rest and stick to the music!

As it happens; it's also beside my bedside! But I have yet to open it.  Any Day Now....


And what about the vindictive psalms?  I can't resist a quote, alas:

"Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand.
When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin.
Let his days be few; and let another take his office.
Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.
Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places."
&c. (http://www.htmlbible.com/kjv20/B19C109.htm), for one instance.

Is this a song of praise, thanksgiving, or lament?


I have to admit that me memory of the gospels is a bit fuzzy, except a lot of people get pissed off at Paul from what I recall.

Maybe I was just a little familiar with the rhetoric; I tend rather to phase such things out when I hear them.


Yay. Borges.  (I have nothing to add, though).


Except to my mind it's intellectually dishonest.  For one, the astronomical data they use is rather a bit out of date (there are currently, and have been for some time, 13 zodiac signs; I think Orfucious)   But that's not important.  Some people (not myself, though), would say that religions often serve the same function.