Richard Dawkins sums up religion

Well, that's the thing, if you think about it, the whole bible is one big collection of short stories basically. I mean who was there that wrote about god and adam and eve? Clearly god didn't write about himself, nor did Adam and Eve write about each other...unless the snake (Devil) wrote it all down?

The devil wrote the bible?!?!?!?!?!?!?

And then who wrote about everything that happened since? Who was alive through it all? Did someone sit down one day and write it all down? Clearly someone did and someone put it all together, and from what sources?

These days, if someone did that, that book would be put in the fiction section in the library.

It's all about faith, that's what faith is. I say that and I don't believe in Jesus. I mean there may be a guy of that description around that time, he may have some followers, but do I think he was born from a woman who is a virgin? No. Do I think he can turn water into wine? No.

But some people do, they are happy to and who am I to argue with them?
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
Well, that's the thing, if you think about it, the whole bible is one big collection of short stories basically. I mean who was there that wrote about god and adam and eve? Clearly god didn't write about himself, nor did Adam and Eve write about each other...unless the snake (Devil) wrote it all down?

The devil wrote the bible?!?!?!?!?!?!?

It's all about faith, that's what faith is.
Click to expand...

That's the crux though. People have blind faith in a bunch of fiction because they've been indoctrinated that it's actually all fact.
 
Merlin5 said:
If you believe in miracles, such as, Jesus turning water into wine, you're fairly unintelligent. That's what he says. In other words, you're thinking is undeveloped, unquestioning, unevolved, archaic, based on superstitious claptrap and blind faith. I agree.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DW4Y2fEVFrQ
Click to expand...

Yeah...

As for an actual response to what you've said, I find it amusing that you think you aren't taking what scientists say on blind faith.

This is the biggest issue both religious bigots and Atheist bigots struggle to get their heads around, you are both taking it on faith that your position is true.

Atheists are the worst for it though, because of the lengths they will go to to try and demonstrate that *they* know what they're talking about because "science teaches us" (which again is taken on faith).

You, as well as Richard Dawkins are no better than the religious folk you seek so readily to condemn.
 
As a person completely free of any religion I have to say I don't see a difference between Dawkins preaching his non-belief and anyone else preaching their beliefs. Both are highly irritating.

Believe what you want, but do it quietly.
 
Merlin5 said:
Oops, I simply typed too fast, I never get 'you're and 'your' wrong normally. :p
Click to expand...
The point was to highlight your preconceptions of what makes a person intelligent, I could claim that you are a troglodyte because you got them mixed up, and I'd be coming from the exact same position of logical thought you have with the whole premise of this thread.

Caged said:
As a person completely free of any religion I have to say I don't see a difference between Dawkins preaching his non-belief and anyone else preaching their beliefs. Both are highly irritating.
Click to expand...

This a million times. I don't understand why so many atheists feel the need to go about their lives like this "I hate religious fundamentalists, they're all idiots, I'll be an Atheist fundamentalist, that'll learn them!"
 
spoffle said:
Yeah...

As for an actual response to what you've said, I find it amusing that you think you aren't taking what scientists say on blind faith.

This is the biggest issue both religious bigots and Atheist bigots struggle to get their heads around, you are both taking it on faith that your position is true.

Atheists are the worst for it though, because of the lengths they will go to to try and demonstrate that *they* know what they're talking about because "science teaches us" (which again is taken on faith).

You, as well as Richard Dawkins are no better than the religious folk you seek so readily to condemn.
Click to expand...

But science is based in reality, research, a certain amount of proof and a certain amount of knowledge of what humans are capable of. Religious miracles however are based on no proof they ever happened whatsoever, rather just stories handed down that many people can and do choose to believe actually occurred. So I wouldn't quite say it's blind faith when coming from scientific thinking, compared to religious followers thinking.
 
Merlin5 said:
But science is based in reality, research, a certain amount of proof and a certain amount of knowledge of what humans are capable of. Religious miracles however are based on no proof they ever happened whatsoever, rather just stories handed down that many people can and do choose to believe actually occurred. So I wouldn't quite say it's blind faith when coming from scientific thinking, compared to religious followers thinking.
Click to expand...

I know you wouldn't say it's blind faith, but it is. If you want to talk about things based in reality, then you have to accept that your assumptions that science is correct is based on faith that they're getting everything correct.

That's completely beside the premise of the thread which is nothing more than "people who don't believe what I believe are idiots, right?".

As I said, you're no better than the religious "fools" you're so readily mocking.
 
spoffle said:
I know you wouldn't say it's blind faith, but it is. If you want to talk about things based in reality, then you have to accept that your assumptions that science is correct is based on faith that they're getting everything correct.

That's completely beside the premise of the thread which is nothing more than "people who don't believe what I believe are idiots, right?".

As I said, you're no better than the religious "fools" you're so readily mocking.
Click to expand...

The premise of the thread isn't so much about people not believing in what I believe, but about me not believing in what they believe. Based on the way you're replying (see, you're :D) that it's foolish to mock religious believers, would I be correct to assume you personally think it's possible that these miracles might well have happened? You think it's conceivable that Moses parted the red sea with nothing more than his staff and the faith of god? That Jesus turned water in wine? That Jesus healed blind people with nothing more than faith? And whatever other miracles we read about? If not, why not? And if so, why?
 
Raymond Lin said:
It's all about faith, that's what faith is. I say that and I don't believe in Jesus. I mean there may be a guy of that description around that time, he may have some followers, but do I think he was born from a woman who is a virgin? No. Do I think he can turn water into wine? No.
Click to expand...

Actually the whole Mary being a 'virgin' was basically an error when the passage was being translated into Greek from the original Hebrew!

The original word used in Hebrew was 'ha-almah' which actually means "young woman" however it was translated into 'parthenos' which is Greek for virgin!!

"As early as the second century B.C. the Jews perceived the error and pointed it out to the Greeks; but the Church knowingly persisted in the false reading, and for over fifteen centuries she has clung to her error."
Click to expand...
Salomon Reinach (Hebrew Scholar)



lol religion
 
Last edited:
Merlin5 said:
The premise of the thread isn't so much about people not believing in what I believe, but about me not believing in what they believe. Based on the way you're replying (see, you're :D) that it's foolish to mock religious believers, would I be correct to assume you personally think it's possible that these miracles might well have happened? You think it's conceivable that Moses parted the red sea with nothing more than his staff and the faith of god? That Jesus turned water in wine? That Jesus healed blind people with nothing more than faith? And whatever other miracles we read about? If not, why not? And if so, why?
Click to expand...

I'm not religious, I simply oppose the viewpoints of a typical millitant atheist in that everyone must conform to their beliefs that they are taking on faith, else be mocked and ridiculed for have a belief system that they are taking on faith as being correct.
 
Merlin5 said:
You think it's conceivable that Moses parted the red sea with nothing more than his staff and the faith of god? That Jesus turned water in wine? That Jesus healed blind people with nothing more than faith? And whatever other miracles we read about? If not, why not? And if so, why?
Click to expand...

All those people could have been an alien race using advanced technology and pretending to be gods or have powers imbued by a god....

On a serious note, religion is only an issue when we have extremists who commit dangerous and harmful acts in the name of their religion. On the whole, despite not believing in any religious teachings myself I can see they are aimed to give people rules to live their life by, rules that are for the most part, beneficial to society which is why they were written in the first place..laws to live by.

I don't care if people want to believe, and I don't care if you don't believe. I do care when others judge people on their beliefs or force them upon others.

As for Dawkins, he's boring as so far up his own ass with his blind crusade to prove to everyone that god isn't real that is getting silly. Believers don't care what he says and the only people that listen are those that already have the same view point.
 
Utter nonsense, Dawkins and his fantastic books have helped hundreds if not thousands of people to leave these silly bronze age myths behind and get on with their life free from religious fear and worry.
Dawkins, Hitchins, Krauss, Dennet ....etc have achieved more for the human race then anyone here is likely too!!
 
Last edited:
There will be nothing of interest posted in this thread which has not been said time after time in every one of the other identical threads.

Isn't it about time we had the [cyclists are stupid], [cats are rubbish], and [immigrants stole my husband] threads? I mean it's already Tuesday and we haven't talked about them for at least 3 days.
 
spoffle said:
I know you wouldn't say it's blind faith, but it is. If you want to talk about things based in reality, then you have to accept that your assumptions that science is correct is based on faith that they're getting everything correct.

That's completely beside the premise of the thread which is nothing more than "people who don't believe what I believe are idiots, right?".

As I said, you're no better than the religious "fools" you're so readily mocking.
Click to expand...
Religion is a matter of faith, people who hold belief are happy with that & personally assuming nobody is claiming knowledge they don't possess or causing objective human suffering as a result of that faith then its not a problem.

Science proposes theories & hypothesis which are tested & validated via experimentation - airplanes, computers, nuclear reactors & modern space flight are all real world examples as to the validity of its methods - the very computer or phone you are using to post off is evidence of the effectiveness of the methods.

These are not two concepts based on faith.

Now, if you trying to equate a lack of belief in something as a positive belief should something doesn't exist then you are simply misrepresenting the position of many atheists hold (who are technically agnostic/atheists) but don't use the term agnostics in isolation as it infers nothing on if somebody actually believes in a god or not.
 
Find yourself a method and you find yourself a science. However, the view of science you have presented when you talk of its effectiveness is very much a limited and idealistic one as all theories and testable world examples are based on or related to faith (to some extent).I also remind you of the point you made previously in which you similarly argued that knowledge for its own sake wasn't worthwhile. The particular branch of science Dawkins ascribes to does claim access to knowledge it doesn't possess and it is this knowledge that is likewise based on faith when he/it becomes so judgemental and critical to others.
 
Last edited:
Merlin5 said:
If you believe in miracles, such as, Jesus turning water into wine, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DW4Y2fEVFrQ
Click to expand...

I'll just throw this in here.
When the Dead Sea Scrolls were read they found that the Essenes used lots of analogies like turning a cows ear into a silk purse and other such sayings.
This meant that turning water into wine actually meant turning unbelievers into believers or raising Lazarus from the dead actually meant he was dead (unbeliever) and then he was alive (believer).
I thought it was an interesting translation and obviously makes more sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom