 sj |
||
|
||
BS: The God Delusion 2010
|
|
|
Subject: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Richard Bridge Date: 25 Aug 10 - 06:23 PM Dawkins was on More 4 TV tonight (25th Aug 2010). I'm inclined to go with him that religions are all dangerous. In his programme the scariest were the extreme Muslims - but it's all in the editing and indeed who is selected for interview. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 Aug 10 - 06:45 PM Everything is dangerous. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Little Hawk Date: 25 Aug 10 - 06:47 PM All political regimes and political parties are dangerous too! ;-) And then there are the bankers, industrialists, drug cartels, and lawyers!!! Where will it all end? Nothing but danger on every hand. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Bill D Date: 25 Aug 10 - 06:48 PM It is? Where do I hide? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Little Hawk Date: 25 Aug 10 - 06:58 PM Try under the bed, Bill. If that fails, barricade yourself in the closet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 Aug 10 - 07:08 PM Closets can be prety dangerous. As for beds - don't most people die in beds? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Slag Date: 25 Aug 10 - 07:32 PM Anywhere someone can garner power over another person or a group of folks there is the potential for great danger. When people surrender the responsiblity to think for themselves there is great danger. Symbols, parties, ideologies, differences, any toehold for the greedy and grasping, there! There is the danger! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Smokey. Date: 25 Aug 10 - 07:40 PM The biggest danger is people. The only ones who aren't are the very young and the nearly dead. I just thought I'd cheer everyone up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Rob Naylor Date: 25 Aug 10 - 07:43 PM Don't follow leaders (watch the parking meters). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Don Firth Date: 25 Aug 10 - 08:02 PM My Daddy usta say, "The most unreliable part of an automobile is the nut the holds the wheel. . . ." Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Joe Offer Date: 25 Aug 10 - 08:56 PM Richard Bridge says: I'm inclined to go with him that religions are all dangerous. I would say that the danger lies in all those who seek to suppress the thinking of others. Many religious people do this, it's true - but Mr. Bridge and Mr. Dawkins seek the very same thing. The "born-again atheists" are every bit as obnoxious as the "born-again Christians." Strange bedfellows - bigots on both ends of the spectrum. Both have the same hateful, rigid, know-nothing kind of thinking. No wonder so many rigid atheists convert to born-again Christianity - and vice-versa. In other words, Mr. Bridge, your words are offensive - as usual. Ever notice how almost all the religion threads at Mudcat are started by people who hate religion? We religious Mudcatters rarely start one - we'd be quite happy just being left alone, but we also aren't about to remain silent when the bigots spew their crap. If you were a religious person, how would you feel about the things Mudcatters post about religion? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Leadfingers Date: 25 Aug 10 - 09:06 PM The danger is from ANY of the Extremists , wether the are classed as Religious , Political , Nationalist or even MUSICAL ! Beware the Folk Police !! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Bobert Date: 25 Aug 10 - 09:10 PM I've been involved with some fine Christain churches over the years where folks genuinely tolerate others and are filled with love and caring... I'm sure it is the same with all religions... Martin Luther King III said as much in an op-ed in this moring's Washington Post... What hppens, however, is that politics can get into the church and when that happen's there's a problem... I recall my favorite minister being booted out of the chucrh O came up in for speakin' out against the Vietnam War... Was he right to do that??? I donno??? Wished he hadn't, at least from the pulpit, 'cause there were no winners in that deal... It split the church in half... Maybe I was niave and there may have been other problems, I donno... But it semed like a very tolerant church for 1965 standards... Yeah, there is a tendency for some bad folks to use religion as an excuse to to bad stuff... I don't belive we can balme the religion... I mean, people can get into a car and drive it into a crowd and we don't blame the car??? Tell ya' what, ya'll... If bad people would just step up to the plate and say "Hey, I'm a bad person" and leave all religions outta their way we'd all be one heck of alot better off... B~` |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Slag Date: 25 Aug 10 - 09:23 PM Right on Joe. Aside from that main point, however, is the vast number of people who do not want to think for themselves. Ignorant and proud of it! There are vast armies of people ready, willing and able to follow someone, anyone to whatever hell they have devised. power-mongers know this and are always scheming ways to exploit the same. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Ron Davies Date: 25 Aug 10 - 09:30 PM Joe has it right. The "God-Delusion" people are brothers and sisters under the skin to those who lump all Moslems together as being responsible for the 11 Sept attacks. Don't look for tolerance from either--or in fact anything but cherrypicking "facts" which fit their arguments--and ignoring anything that doesn't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Ron Davies Date: 25 Aug 10 - 09:35 PM And somebody who mentions "in the editing" and "selected for interview" should know this. Therefore it seems a reasonable conclusion that, rather than thinking, he is letting his own prejudices speak. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: jacqui.c Date: 25 Aug 10 - 09:42 PM I started reading Dawkins' book - wasn't impressed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Richard Bridge Date: 25 Aug 10 - 10:00 PM Funny, I just made a post here and it vanished. It seems to me that Dawkins is right that science is based on evidence, whereas religions is based on belief and authority, regardless of evidence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: ranger1 Date: 25 Aug 10 - 10:06 PM Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. Personally, I'm not religious, but I respect the right of other people to believe in what gives them comfort, as long as it doesn't impact my beliefs. So maybe a little less belief-bashing on Mudcat wouldn't be a bad thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: GUEST,number 6 Date: 25 Aug 10 - 10:21 PM I think we have been through all of this before ... many times. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Smokey. Date: 25 Aug 10 - 10:25 PM I don't think Dawkins himself is actually trying to suppress anyone's thinking but he's certainly attracted adherents who might. There is some danger in all beliefs that have not been freely arrived at through informed choice. I have to say I agree with Joe, even though I'm not a believer. And someone should write a song called "When the Bigots Spew Their Crap", it's a great title.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Bill D Date: 25 Aug 10 - 11:39 PM Here is the dilemma: I also feel as ranger 1 does, that people's right to have & practice their religion needs to to be protected & respected.... but this leads to a very awkward contradiction about **rights**. I understand tens of thousands of years of religion being embedded in human's attempts to make sense of the world...and now, of the Universe. Different cultures have interpreted religion and the idea of the Infinite differently. In the last 2-3 centuries, science and philosophy have studied facts and ways of thinking which has led many to skeptical attitudes about the 'factual' basis of religion. Not 'disproved' it... just shown that it IS possible to disagree and still be sane, decent folks. Now the dilemma.... in some religions, it is a built in doctrine that it is not permissible to doubt or to make assertions which undermine the accepted doctrine. Moreover, some parts of some general religions...(yes...especially Christianity), also have as a doctrine that members should actively recruit NON-believers, or seek to convert members of other religions. The basic thought pattern is: 'We are right. Therefore almost anything done to promote what is 'right' is also right. Therefore, the very idea of 'Separation of Church & State' is flawed. We see 'state religions' in other countries, but *our* religion is even better and **SHOULD** be adopted and approved here!" Now...in the USA, even with a specific line in the Constitution saying "You get freedom to practice your religion, but not to impose it on the country as a whole", many of these folks either refuse to accept it, or re-interpret it. They insist that "this country was 'founded on Christian principles'"...etc. Or they say: 'whatever that flawed document says, **IF** I am allowed to practice my religion freely, this means I can do it anywhere, anytime and in any way, and if I can round up enough votes, I can force YOU, no matter what you believe...or don't believe... to submit to my set of rules' This is not some paranoid fantasy Bill D invented to attack religion(s), ..[read back at my first sentences]...people ARE doing this everyday with 'public prayer' being used in inappropriate places, with religion being used directly to elect or defeat political candidates, with TV evangelists "Oh", you say.."but those are just extremist minorities...we don't take them seriously!" The problem is, THEY take themselves seriously, and there are enough of them to put certain health care providers in jeopardy. They feel that they have not only the RIGHT, but also the OBLIGATION to "practice their religion" as they understand it. There is a verse in the Bible, *Mark 1:17* "And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men." This is taken VERY seriously by some demominations: http://www.fishersofmen.net/ http://www.fishersofmen.org/ Thus...a restatement of the dilemma... how are those of us who are not religious to protest being proselytized, condemned and kept from political office by those who hold extreme views, without making remarks which, inevitably, refer to the concepts of religious belief in general? *IF* most religions were like the Quakers, or the Amish, to mention a couple of pretty devout but non-confrontational groups, there would be little problem. But, in order to get at the basic inconsistencies of radical, fundamentalist religious attitudes, we end up pointing at the basic inconsistencies of religion in general...and then we hear about 'religion bashing' and other complaints. Ranger 1 said: "Religion and science are not mutually exclusive" It is better to say, they NEED not be. Unfortunately, as practiced and understood by some, religion and science are directly in conflict. Those who deny evolution on religious grounds are not only working hard, they are growing in number and in Texas it is now law that textbooks have to treat evolution as only 'one opinion'...as a theory....and the point they are trying to make is that 'theories are no BETTER than opinion'...which distorts the very idea of what scientific theories are about. So... the dilemma remains, because there IS this assumption among many religious folk that they MUST, by virtue OF their belief, press for its universal adoption..... and 'moderate' religious folks who would be willing to practice their religion quietly, and not seek to impose it on others, get the overflow as those who don't wish their lives to be affected by stuff they don't accept...and who eventually say so in a grumpy manner. It's like many are pleading with moderate Muslim clerics these days to HELP change the tenor of the hate-rhetoric by speaking out and calming things. ...........and that's the best I can do for one night. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Dave MacKenzie Date: 26 Aug 10 - 04:08 AM I'm still trying to work out what, if anything, religion has to do with God. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Stu Date: 26 Aug 10 - 05:41 AM I'm not much of a fan of Dawkins, who is as bad as anyone who tries to shove religion down your throat; in fact you have to wonder what the reaction would be if you allowed an equally vocal proponent of any religion on primetime TV. But . . . We have a real, long running and lethal problem here in our Islands with sectarianism and the alienation felt by religions whose followers are demonised by certain sections the press. To add fuel to the fire our government is allowing the establishment of faith schools; when we should be encouraging integration and understanding we are instead dividing them up along religious grounds and instilling the idea that we are different to each other because of our religion. You could argue that these schools will teach tolerance and understanding, but in reality that's a cop out; without integration there is NO true understanding. Unless you go and meet, mix and talk to people then you're not going to get any real insight into what they're about. By denying our children that ability to mix, we're encouraging the sort of prejudices and ignorance that have cost, and are costing now so many people their lives. Faith schools should be banned - not because of some desire to persecute or oppress people's religious beliefs (one assumes you have churches/synagogues/temples/mosques etc for that very purpose), but because we should revel in our diversity and realise the followers of other religions are just people. We should free ourselves as a society from the ignorance and divisiveness that has plagued us for centuries, and indeed been responsible for the worst atrocities in human history. "Unfortunately, as practiced and understood by some, religion and science are directly in conflict." That is because the most basic aims of each are fundamentally irreconcilable. Both are the search for truths, but they're not comparable in any real sense. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Aug 10 - 06:04 AM "In other words, Mr. Bridge, your words are offensive - as usual. Ever notice how almost all the religion threads at Mudcat are started by people who hate religion? We religious Mudcatters rarely start one - we'd be quite happy just being left alone, but we also aren't about to remain silent when the bigots spew their crap." Well thank goodness you don't have the right not to be offended! We non-religious mudcatters (and how I hate the way religion obliges me to define myself in the negative - even "a-theist" suggests that I'm without something) would also be very happy to be left alone, but alas organised religion doesn't allow this. All schools in England and Wales, for example, are obliged to include a daily act of collective worship. I can't go into my town without being regaled with large crosses, clanging church bells and wayside pulpits everywhere I go (we don't have a mosque in Bude otherwise I could have added those tedious calls to prayer). The archbishops and pope have no difficulty getting their pronouncements aired on all the public media (and my atheistic BBC licence fee helps to facilitate this). Religion is in our faces all the time and it's not a matter of choice. Even in secular nations such as ours religion is the public default position. So please don't ask to be left alone. That request is legitimate only for private, inner reflection, not for public religion, which needs all the opposition, for a change, that we atheists can muster. Anything else would be seriously unhealthy. "The 'God-Delusion' people are brothers and sisters under the skin to those who lump all Moslems together as being responsible for the 11 Sept attacks." Well excuse me but I'm a "God-Delusion" person and I abhor the way in which all Muslims are sometimes lumped together in the way you describe. Why, in my experience it's people of religions other than Islam who commonly do this lumping. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: MGM·Lion Date: 26 Aug 10 - 06:37 AM Right on, Steve. As you say to the deluded, "Well thank goodness you don't have the right not to be offended!" ~~ But even that is quite a recent development. How long since the anti-blasphemy laws were repealed? Anyone know? Two years! That's all! "The common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel were abolished by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008"{Wikipedia}. Until then, the deluded had the legal right not to be offended. And they are still squealing because now we are allowed to point out to them the absurdity of their persistent,[in-your-face, as you rightly say, Steve] fatuities. ~Michael~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Richard Bridge Date: 26 Aug 10 - 06:49 AM Well I don't definitely say that I know or can prove that there is no God, and I don't really care if people want to believe that there is a God - whatever God it is - but I do object to the common religious assumption that the beliefs and rules of their religions are not to be rationally questioned, and that they justify acts (or omissions) that are prohibited by secular law. I particularly object to the idiocies that prohibit statements derived from solid evidence - like the age of the earth, and how it was formed - and that in the name of "faith" require children to be indoctrinated - or effectively disentitle a gender. I further object to the assumption that your God can tell me what to do (or not to do) - or that a set of people who believe in that God can tell me what to do on the basis of their "divine revelation". Dawkin's example of the assumption of Mary was quite telling (although I notice he held back from a similar criticism of Islam's belief in the uplifting (sorry if I have the wrong term) of Mohammed. These religions are irrational beliefs. Believe in them if you wish: thought is not a crime. But using those beliefs to oppress others, now that can well be a crime. It is very troubling that it is such a widespread crime. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Ron Davies Date: 26 Aug 10 - 07:15 AM As I recall, the thread originator was the one who told us awhile back that Obama was an "oreo". As far as I know--perhaps I'm incorrect-- we've never heard that he has revised his opinion. I note with interest that his diplomatic skills are as sterling as ever. It's also interesting that one can get a law degree and still be so ignorant. If I had to guess I'd say it's willful ignorance. Sure seems to be Exhibit A for one of the main reasons lawyers are beloved the world over. Good thing we know there are lawyers who are decent human beings, not bitter old men. But bigotry---yes even genteel bigotry-- by atheists is no more acceptable than bigotry by religious fundamentalists. And, as already pointed out, is remarkably similar. By the way, atheists do not want to get into a debate as to whether atheists or religious people have done more good--or more harm-- in the world. In that debate, atheists have no chance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Ron Davies Date: 26 Aug 10 - 07:23 AM Thanks so much to him for stating that he had no proof there is no God. Agnosticism is an eminently reasonable stance for a thinking individual. Now all he has do is brush up on his diplomatic skills a bit more, stop setting up straw men, and he'd be well on the way to being a likable person. Congratulations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Aug 10 - 07:46 AM Agnosticism is not defined by the fact that God cannot be disproved. Were that to be the case there would be no atheists. Even Dawkins accepts that there cannot be certainty about the non-existence of God. As for who does more good in the world, this one never fails to amuse me. It's like saying that this great country of ours was founded "on Christian principles," as if that somehow confers an extra layer of goodness. There are huge numbers people on this planet whose lives are not based on Christian principles but who are just as saintly as the most saintly Christian. Christianity has usurped (as with Christmas) that which is good about people and pretends that somehow these values are its own invention. Well, the good news is that the world would manage quite well without Christianity but the "Christian values" would live happily on, just as they did before Christianity was so much as a twinkle in Joseph's eye. It's worth remembering that a world full of Christian values has just delivered the most brutal, inhuman century the planet has ever experienced, and I don't recall Christianity exactly standing by whilst it happened. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: bobad Date: 26 Aug 10 - 08:05 AM There's nothing that divides people more than religion - but that was it's original purpose, wasn't it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: olddude Date: 26 Aug 10 - 09:06 AM 1) math formula This DE has order 2 (the highest derivative appearing is the second derivative) and degree 1 (the power of the highest derivative is 1.) 2) math formula This DE has order 1 (the highest derivative appearing is the first derivative) and degree 5 (the power of the highest derivative is 5.) 3) (y")4 + 2(y')7 − 5y = 3 This DE has order 2 (the highest derivative appearing is the second derivative) and degree 4 (the power of the highest derivative is 4.) General and Particular Solutions When we first performed integrations, we obtained a general solution (involving a constant, K). We obtained a particular solution by substituting known values for x and y. These known conditions are called boundary conditions (or initial conditions). It is the same concept when solving differential equations - find general solution first, then substitute given numbers to find particular solutions. Let's see some examples of finding solutions of first order, first degree DEs. Example 1 a. Find the general solution for the differential equation dy + 7x dx = 0. b. Find the particular solution given that y(0) = 3. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Aug 10 - 09:34 AM Is this part of the search for the God particle by any chance? :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Richard Bridge Date: 26 Aug 10 - 09:46 AM Your recollections are as faulty as your reasoning and manners, Mr Badger. I would have been unlikely to use the word "oreo". I did however I think at one stage report that I had heard criticism (not that it was my opinion) of Obama that he was a white man in a a black skin. I thought I made it clear that it was a criticism of which I disapproved. If I had used a metaphor, it would probably have been "Bounty Bar" which I think is the vernacular in the UK, or "Coconut" which I think is the vernacular in the West Indies. I am not clear of your point old dude. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: olddude Date: 26 Aug 10 - 10:00 AM God is in the equasion someplace .. now ya made me lose my train of thought and I gotta start over again , now where is my chalk :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: olddude Date: 26 Aug 10 - 10:00 AM can't type today either |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: olddude Date: 26 Aug 10 - 10:07 AM Godel was an athiest .. his math proof came up with the existence of God. I thought it was cool logic actually no matter how one looks at it. It was some good logic Godels proof |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Georgiansilver Date: 26 Aug 10 - 10:33 AM As a born again, bible believing Christian... I have no trouble at all with believing that scientific study is a great thing and that evolution is happening even now. What I can't get my head round in that context is the way things are.... The intricate make up of the human body... the make up of a tree from its roots to the tiny veins in every leaf.... to the diversity of different flora and fauna.. the aqua dwelling life... the make up of the air... and most of all 'The Balance' .... I can believe in a supernatural beginning... made by a great designer... but I can't get to feeling that mere chance caused the multiplicity of existing things on this earth. The thought that a cell (where did it come from in the first instance) decided to split into two and so everything living begun does not compute within my brain. I didn't become Christian until 43 yrs of age and was definitely not indoctrinated. I became aware of something more in my life than just me.... Even before then when I had been feeling at my lowest.. I had prayed to God..... to ask Him to get me out of whatever bad situation I was in or to help someone in my family or a friend in distress... I now believe that to be an instinct to pray to my maker in times of difficulty. How many people will admit to having prayed when their lives have been at an extremely low ebb or for a member of the family or a friend..... how many have actually tried to make a pact with God... "God if you do X for me I will do Y for you".... I was not a Christian when I did those things.... and certainly not a believer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 26 Aug 10 - 10:39 AM "Faith: not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Mrrzy Date: 26 Aug 10 - 10:51 AM Yes, power corrupts, and yes, the corrupt seek power. But: The pertinent issue with people who want to have power over others is that when they say an invisible power is behind them, and people *believe* that, the powermongers are quantum LEAPS more dangerous than when they say Here are my rational reasons, and those can be examined. That's why religious power (the priest/worshipper one) is so much harder to repel - it's *faith* that morphs an invisible power into such a strong, real one, for good or evil. Another problem is that there are *rational* reasons for good, so you don't need faith or religion for it. Yet another problem (which is restricted to the Middle East and the US, I think) is the govermental placing the right of adults to beliefs in supernatural explanations of natural phenomena before the rights of their children to learning the actual, known, accepted-throughout-the-world knowledge about those phenomena. And that one chaps my ass bigtime! Doctrine and dogma (Lore) should yeild the right of way in public schools to actual knowledge (Data). Live long and prosper. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: olddude Date: 26 Aug 10 - 10:57 AM Georgiansilver That is why God exists to me also.. And I don't spend my time talking to God when I get into trouble. You are so right. I spend most of my time thanking God for things I see everyday .. One only has to take a look at anything in nature and then get it. As I said many times before, I don't care who believes in what ... just don't want anyone telling me what I should or how I should believe ... that includes other Christians, non Christians and atheists also. Nor do I wish to tolerate ridicule for my beliefs. I don't do that to others, I do not allow others to do that to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Mrrzy Date: 26 Aug 10 - 11:11 AM But if some beliefs are silly, why *can't* they be ridiculed in this day and age? I'm talking about people who believe humans somehow didn't evolve, or that it's a cat eating the moon that made the eclipse, or other known-to-be-old superstitions things? And what about requiring respect to the point of preventing their children from simple everyday knowledge about how life works? That isn't even funny, it should be a crime, don't you think? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 26 Aug 10 - 11:27 AM Richard Dawkins has probably done more to undermine the Faith of Atheism than just about anyone else. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: GUEST,Wesley S Date: 26 Aug 10 - 11:36 AM "But if some beliefs are silly, why *can't* they be ridiculed in this day and age?" Perhaps because it's not polite? And - silly to you doesn't mean silly to everyone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Bill D Date: 26 Aug 10 - 11:38 AM "...but I can't get to feeling that mere chance caused the multiplicity of existing things on this earth." And that's not really what is claimed by those scientists who are not religious. They show how, once anything at all existed (in the 'beginning'), all combinations of atoms followed strict, but complex, laws of physics. To them...and to me... it is even harder to imagine some form of 'ultimate intelligence' setting out to design everything. Once certain elements existed, it was inevitable that some would combine in ways that produced stars, planets, water, plants...and yes, even banjo players. ☺ Now...since we can barely imagine when & how that first 'creation' happened..(the "Big Bang" of science).. it is simply a matter of personal feeling whether to say about the original moment..."God did it" or "I have no idea"...or something else even stranger. To those who 'feel' oriented toward a scientific explanation, saying "God did it" just pushes the question back one step to "why was there a god?" To those science folks, adding 'God' into the calculation makes the study over-complicated, since we don't have any standard measures or math symbols to represent such a concept. We KNOW we have atoms and forces and such which we have mostly learned to measure and count, but no one can agree on how a 'god' might be factored in. Of course, this doesn't deal with the emotional/moral/psychological/aesthetic/social/practical...etc.. values of having a vision of a "supreme Being" to turn to in times of crisis and for comfort and solice. Once humans could even imagine the idea of a 'God'...(50,000 years ago? 1,000,000 years ago?), it helped them deal with all the scary aspects of life...and death.... and I'd frankly NOT like to see all the leaders of churches and countries suddenly declare "We hereby renounce religion and assert NO belief in a god". Whether there is, or is not one, the idea is too deeply embedded in humanity to just suddenly discard. *IF* humans decide to move away from religion, (and I doubt that this will ever really happen), it would have to be very slowly and because they really developed in such a way as to no longer 'need' religion to sustain themselves as they cope with confusion and problems. All we can hope for is that those who DO choose religion and those who do not can learn to either discuss the issue quietly, or ignore each other....and I kinda doubt the 'ignoring' part will happen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: mousethief Date: 26 Aug 10 - 11:43 AM If you think Dawkins is all about free thinking, look up what happened on the chat board on his website richarddawkins.net. He is a shrill little hatemonger who can't stand to have people disagree with him. People who lash out at religion are no more "rational" than the people they apparently despise. And the idea that there is ANYBODY in the WORLD who only believes things based on reason, logic, science, and math is a moron. Complete, total, utter, mouth-breathing, knee-walking, nanocephalic wanker. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Bill D Date: 26 Aug 10 - 11:53 AM Dawkins...and Christopher Hitchens ...and before them, Madeline Murrey O'Hair... used a kind of 'hit 'em in the head with a 2X4' approach to their anti-religion campaigns. No one is likely to get dedicated Christians..or Muslims..etc.. to give up religion by using ridicule and sarcasm. They just look as silly going out and giving "there ain't no god" interviews and writing books on it as some religious groups do knocking on doors to proclaim "there IS a god". (It's sort of "preaching to the choir" in reverse!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Aug 10 - 12:04 PM "Random" and "mere chance" are expressions frequently used by believers to dismiss the possibility of a world that got here without a God. They are concepts that most evolutionary biologists wouldn't recognise as characterisations of events. The trouble with shoving a God into those perceived gaps in our understanding is that it stops us for looking for the real truth. In other words, God is mere intellectual stunting. There is the further illogicality of trying to explain a world of apparent great complexity with something which must be far more complex still and which is even more impossible to explain to boot. Charles Darwin was equal to the task of confronting the difficulties his theory threw up, including such a matter, a favourite of the detractors, as the evolution of the mammalian eye. He writes clearly and elegantly. I suggest that all doubters of the theory should get a copy of the Origin Of Species and read it. While you're still allowed. The real thing, not some twisted interpretation of it by a demented evangelical. Go on. After all, we non-believers were forced to study the Bible, y'know! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Aug 10 - 12:06 PM stops us from looking |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Aug 10 - 12:17 PM I hear this constant backlash from some believers that Dawkins and his ilk are hate-mongers, militantly anti-religion, intolerant, shrill, given to ridiculing religion, sarcastic, etc. Well, I've read the book and am watching the series on the telly. Richard Dawkins comes across as a mild-mannered articulate fellow who speaks, and writes, in pretty measured tones. He commonly lets the evangelists have the last word and allows them to talk him down. Where does this vile, hate-spitting image come from? Can anyone illustrate this alleged Dawkins trait with a quote or any other example? I'm frankly puzzled. As I understand it, his website, of which I was a member, was hijacked. All was fine, then one day it went read-only and then it just went. I suppose you had to be there really. |
