Richard Dawkins sums up religion

spoffle said:
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.
Click to expand...

It is possible to criticise religious folks without being militant and without being an atheist though.

It is also possible to believe that which science teaches us without being in a position of faith.

Django x2 said:
As to who wrote the beginning of the Bible, it was Moses, breathed by the word of God through his (Moses) hand. Simple
Click to expand...

lol

Django x2 said:
Thing is, if a loads of short stories, even over the last hundred or even 200 years were written down, it wouldn't be fiction. So why is the bible, when some of the stories in it span far shorter periods than 200 years.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what it would be :confused:
 
If you're a believer then it's your choice, similarly if your a non believer.

My opinion is, I don't care about if you do or do not believe.

I get on with life the way I want to.
 
sbi5ar said:
Not sure what you're trying to prove with this? Most of those scientists lived a long time ago, in a time where religion was very common place.

As time has moved on, and basic principles in science are found, we have progressed our knowledge and no longer rely on religion.
Click to expand...

My point being that cleverer people than any of us have believed in God.

The notion that a belief in God is incompatible with intelligence is nonsense.
 
Django x2 said:
Oh Lord (< Pun), not this again.

To summarise

.....badly

As to who wrote the beginning of the Bible, it was Moses, breathed by the word of God through his (Moses) hand. Simple

Thing is, if a loads of short stories, even over the last hundred or even 200 years were written down, it wouldn't be fiction. So why is the bible, when some of the stories in it span far shorter periods than 200 years.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't they be fiction? Says who?

If i get 100 short stories from the last 200 years detailing water walking, seas parting, magical healing and all other sorts of nonsense, it will most DEFINITELY be considered fiction.
 
I just love the way the term 'militant' is used to describe a group of people who write books & give talks at universities.
 
IrishChr1s said:
If you're a believer then it's your choice, similarly if your a non believer.

My opinion is, I don't care about if you do or do not believe.

I get on with life the way I want to.
Click to expand...

Ditto, As long as people don't try and preach to me I'm fine. Atheists are just as bloody annoying at it too.

I do not care!
 
Egon said:
Ditto, As long as people don't try and preach to me I'm fine. Atheists are just as bloody annoying at it too.

I do not care!
Click to expand...
You do realise that most activism related to atheism is actually the promotion of secularism & the removal of religious privilege (or combating issues such as the oppression of homosexuals or say the mutilation of the genitals of children based on religious teachings or dogma/traditions).

The primary focus isn't on turning people against whatever faith they may have.
 
elmarko said:
A lack of a belief system isn't a belief system.

I'm sorry that you feel at a disadvantage that you have to misrepresent people who don't share your belief - but it doesn't make it a fact.

But hey, if you want to pretend people who don't ascribe to any belief system have a reverse negative belief because it's easier to argue against then go nuts, but don't expect people to take your arguments seriously.
Click to expand...

Well it is really - you presumably rely (believe) in science? Faith is of course trust or confidence in something. I doubt you worship science but it is the basis for you not to believe in religion, am I correct?

I don't feel disadvantaged in the slightest, I don't deny I would make a terrible scientist so I don't go and turn around and spout out a load of stuff I don't know what I'm talking about - my points earlier about the axis of the planet etc was not to point out how but to highlight that there are SO many variables to simply sustain life on earth, not to mention the life on this planet as well, that it is far easier for me to believe in a creator than not. If others choose to see these infinite variables/chances (call them what you will) as something easy to overcome by science, then good for them. It's all too well designed by my understanding.

All I know is that many people see Mr. Dawkins as some kind of genius, and I'm certain he is a highly intelligent man, but intelligence is no substitute for regularly misquoting or misinterpreting the bible which he clearly is saying is incorrect. The point is he is misrepresenting the very thing he is attacking; at least if he had his source material correct that would be a start to a valid argument. THAT is my point.

Well that's free will isn't it: freedom of speech. Surely that's the point of a forum like this - to share our views with others (without resorting to insults) which unfortunately tends not to be the case when religious subjects come up.
 
Last edited:
[FnG]magnolia;25420593 said:
What's the descriptor for the person who hears both sides of the crazy and wants nothing to do with either? Because I'd like that, please.
Click to expand...

'Normal'.

That's definitely not you :p
 
Anyone who claims that science is based on "reality" needs to get themselves some philosophy books out of the library and start to think a bit deeper about what "reality" is.

If you lived your entire life within the confines of an opaque glass jar, you might very well believe that the space inside the jar was "reality" and the jar were the physical limits of reality. But of course there is a whole world beyond that jar which you just cannot perceive.

It's all well and good making practical everyday decisions based on the assumption of reality, but to try and take on theology and philosophy and say "science proves..." is extremely foolish.

Most of what Dawkins argues for example, can be dismissed by returning to our glass jar analogy. Oh sure, he can pick out what HE as a layman considers to be errors in specific doctrine, which is extremely arrogant and foolish. But he can never prove that he's not in a jar and has admitted so himself.
 
I don't really care what people believe as long as they keep it to themselves and don't try to 'convert' others, imo Richard Dawkins is as bad as the very worst religious fanatics.

I know someone who is atheist and he's the same, I don't know if he just brings it up to sound intelligent but he can't resist expressing his atheist beliefs and how stupid all religious people are.
 
Last edited:
spudbynight said:
My point being that cleverer people than any of us have believed in God.

The notion that a belief in God is incompatible with intelligence is nonsense.
Click to expand...

But isn't it often the case that 'if you don't believe what I do then you're wrong?' ;)

mmj_uk said:
I know someone who is atheist and he's the same, I don't know if he just brings up to sound intelligent but he can't resist expressing his atheist beliefs and how stupid all religious people are.
Click to expand...

Goes with what I said above really - atheists (and of course religious people) can have the tendency to simply state others are wrong and stupid with nothing to actually support their claims; any claims they do make need to be at least substantiated.
 
Last edited:
boxman2000 said:
Well it is really - you presumably rely (believe) in science? Faith is of course trust or confidence in something. I doubt you worship science but it is the basis for you not to believe in religion, am I correct?
Click to expand...

Why would they be opposites. I remember being in school at the age of around 5 years old during morning assembly and they were telling bible stories. I was thinking to myself "do you expect me to believe this?"

I don't see any evidence of a god, I don't see anything good in religion and it saddens me that in 2013 a large portion of the planet still believe in , what I think is, superstitious nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom