I had lunch with Richard Dawkins today.

[immoderate]

I sat right across the table from him.

Background: My atheist group, FLASH, hosted Dawkins, and toured the Everglades with him, a couple of years ago. (I couldn't make the 'glades trip. He's now on a book tour, and did a major event in Miami. He suggested we have a luncheon with some FLASH members. About thirty people attended.

He was with us about two hours. Lunched and small talked for 45 minutes, and then started a discussion. He had no prepared remarks, but addressed the issue he termed "tokenism." That is, that fighting over slogans, mottoes, and pledges is a distraction. (And he also cited, and acknowledged the opposing views.) He feels the major issue is the notion that children automatically inherit the religion of their parents. As in "these are Jewish children," rather than "these are children of Jewish parents." He pointed out that we don't address republican children, or humanist children, or logical positivist children, so why only religious indoctrination?

Our local group, and some allied groups, have been battling some installations of religious monuments around the state. One of the allied groups is the Satanic Church (an ironic name) and Dawkins expressed some curiosity. He wondered at the PR of calling themselves that, since they are atheists. He suggested we should be after religious tax exemption. And there was consensus on that. Basically, there were two main topics: questions on evolution and genetics, and on ways to improve atheist public relations.

He also reiterated the notion that he can't be absolutely sure there is no creator -- just as he cannot be absolutely sure there are no unicorns and leprechauns.

Bonus! The luncheon was held at a golf club that is literally around the corner from where I live. The food was good. Italian buffet. Weather 70F. and sunny.

--imm

[cbayer]

1. How very cool for you.

Sounds like it was interesting. Glad you got to attend.

[immoderate]

2. Thanks. 'Cool' pretty much sums it up.

--imm

[PassingFair]

11. Did he look like this?

Cause that would be amusing.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. What? The DAKWISNS!!@11! didn't abuse all the women and roast a baby?

Obviously this was an imposter. Demand your money back.

[edhopper]

4. Great for you

I have heard him talk, I found him charming, funny, restrained and always clear and logical.

[immoderate]

5. My impressions are in line with yours.

Especially in such a sympathetic group.

--imm

[rug]

6. Can you elaborate?

"He . . . . addressed the issue he termed 'tokenism." That is, that fighting over slogans, mottoes, and pledges is a distraction."

[immoderate]

7. He meant things like, "In God We Trust," on money...

and "under God" in the pledge, as well as religiously inspired symbols in courts, and religious monuments on public ground. He doesn't believe that's the best target for social activity. They are the "tokens." He conceded though, that there are those who say that some will point to those aspects and claim it proves that this is a Christian country. And he said they could be right.

Again, he recommended we turn our actions toward the legacy, and tax issues. He made it clear that these were his opinions, and not necessarily right.

--imm

[rug]

8. Thanks.

[malokvale77]

9. I'm not normally a jealous person...

when it comes to others good fortune. But I am jealous of this.

[bvf]

10. Good for you!

Sounds like a very enjoyable afternoon.

Put me down as jealous, too!

[edhopper]

12. I meant to ask

Did he eat live babies for lunch?

[immoderate]

13. He had to eat what we ate.

Did I mention that catering was provided by our local atheist group?

--imm

[edhopper]

14. So the babies

Were cooked?

[immoderate]

15. Pickled.

Opinions differ on whether that qualifies as being "cooked."

--imm

[edhopper]

16. Mmmm

Sounds relish.

But seriously, great you had this opportunity.