Richard Dawkins sums up religion

Thompson_NCL said:
I don't think it's weird at all, I think you're just failing to understand the implications of what I said. Let me try to restate it a different way:

I live within the material universe, which can be examined through scientific method. What is contained within this material universe can therefore be rationalised scientifically. I do not know what (if anything) lies beyond this material universe however. Others have (through logic, experience and so forth) deduced the existence of a God and I am therefore aware of this concept. I am not aware of what might exist beyond that however.
Click to expand...

First god lived at the top of the mountain. We climbed the mountain and found no god.

Then god lived in the clouds. We flew in the clouds and found no god.

Then god lived in the stars/heavens. We went to the heavens and found no god.

Now god is some interdimensional being who can only be contacted by some crackpot religious nutters via telepathy. Can you not see these goal posts changing every time religion is about to fall on its face?
 
I am not one who says that you have to believe. As I have said before, you do and believe what you like. Up to you. I have stated my belief just as a post to the thread. Dawkins to me is just a simple guy who hates those that believes and can't understand anyone who believes in a god etc.

I wouldn't s.l.a.g anyone off for not believing. God bless you all I say
 
koolpc said:
I am not one who says that you have to believe. As I have said before, you do and believe what you like. Up to you. I have stated my belief just as a post to the thread. Dawkins to me is just a simple guy who hates those that believes and can't understand anyone who believes in a god etc.

I wouldn't s.l.a.g anyone off for not believing. God bless you all I say
Click to expand...

That's because you live in the UK. The rest of the world is a bit different.
 
McGray said:
I wonder how the believers would explain quantum computing.....?

Maybe God on his abacus?
Click to expand...

Here's a small section from a Dawkins book I've been reading:

And atoms are far far smaller even than bacteria. The whole world is made of incredibly tiny things, much too small to be visible to the naked eye - and yet none of the myths or so-called holy books that some people, even now, think were given to us by an all-knowing god, mentions them at all!
Click to expand...

He then carries on talking about how science has patiently worked them out, along with size & age of the universe, germs, treatment of cancer, mavity, internal combustion engine, electricity, nuclear fusion or anaesthetics.

He then says:

In fact, unsurprisingly, the stories in holy books don't contain any more information about the world than was known to the primitive peoples who first started telling them!
Click to expand...

As far as i'm concerned, the holy books are no more a reality than some of the works of Shakespeare, just that they contain a morality (much like Shakespeare :p).

Maybe when we reach the next dimension, we'll find him/her/it?
 
Last edited:
koolpc said:
God created everything. Believe it or not. That's up to you. I believe and i feel good about that. If you feel good not believing then so be it. Love of God is awesome and until the feel that love then you will always be missing out on the real truth.
Click to expand...

Ah the bible. "Morality" for dummies, where you can find instructions to murder, steal, enslave people and rape without remorse. In the name of God!
 
More godless = more screwed up? I missed that gem!
Fortunately for atheists, agnostics, and secular humanists, there is no factual basis for Plante's claim that "research has consistently found" secular individuals to be more prone to such antisocial behavior. Consider, for example, a March 2009 academic article in Sociology Compass that extensively researched the subjects raised by Plante. The article, by Phil Zuckerman of Pitzer College, is entitled "Atheism, Secularity, and Well-Being: How the Findings of Social Science Counter Negative Stereotypes and Assumptions" and, unlike Plante's article, it cites detailed studies of the areas in question.

Zuckerman analyzed a wide array of data comparing religious nations to less religious nations and also, interestingly, religious states within the United States (i.e. "Bible-belt" states) to less religious states. While I encourage readers to examine the article directly through the link above, here are just a few of the highlights:
Criminal Behavior:

Citing four different studies, Zuckerman states: "Murder rates are actually lower in more secular nations and higher in more religious nations where belief in God is widespread." He also states: "Of the top 50 safest cities in the world, nearly all are in relatively non-religious countries."

Within the United States, we see the same pattern. Citing census data, he writes: "And within America, the states with the highest murder rates tend to be the highly religious, such as Louisiana and Alabama, but the states with the lowest murder rates tend to be the among the least religious in the country, such as Vermont and Oregon."

And these findings are not limited to murder rates, as rates of all violent crime tend to be higher in "religious" states. Zuckerman also points out that atheists are very much under-represented in the American prison population (only 0.2%).
Marriage and Family:

Zuckerman cites a 1999 Barna study that finds that atheists and agnostics actually have lower divorce rates than religious Americans.

He also cites another study, in Canada, that found conservative Christian women experienced higher rates of domestic violence than non-affiliated women.
Unprotected Sex:

As for Plante's claim that studies have "consistently " found that religious people are less likely to engage in unprotected sex, that claim is directly refuted by a 2009 study that found the reverse - teens who make religion-inspired "virginity pledges" are not only just as likely as their non-pledging peers to engage in premarital sex, but more likely to engage in unprotected sex.
Other Findings of Interest:

Happiness: The most secular nations in the world report the highest levels of happiness among their population.

Altruism: Secular nations such as those in Scandinavia donate the most money and supportive aid, per capita, to poorer nations. Zuckerman also reports that two studies show that, during the Holocaust, "the more secular people were, the more likely they were to rescue and help persecuted Jews."

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...ation-and-facts-about-secularism-and-religion

http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf
Click to expand...
 
I would imagine that the data on the prison population is skewed massively by people "finding Jesus" as it looks good in front of the parole board.
 
I'm willing to bet that in Skunkworks' mind, society becoming "screwed up" means gay people not having to hide their sexuality and not being persecuted and abortions being legal.
 
kedge said:
"evolution requires its believers to have a blind faith, since it is founded solely upon unproven theories and conjecture, and since traditionally scientific empirical evidence does not back this theory".
Click to expand...

I don't understand why the god squad keep clinging on to this obvious misconception. "Theory", in the scientific context means anything but unproven.
 
The way I see it, people who believe in religion have been taught it as fact from such a young age that it's a major part of how the think. There's no escaping something you've been told is definitely real from when you were first able to understand words. I think it defines their way of thinking and that they are unable to understand there couldn't not be a god. I don't think religious people are necessarily stupid, they have just been massively misled and realising that it's nonsense is an impossibility.
 
wickfut said:
First god lived at the top of the mountain. We climbed the mountain and found no god.

Then god lived in the clouds. We flew in the clouds and found no god.

Then god lived in the stars/heavens. We went to the heavens and found no god.

Now god is some interdimensional being who can only be contacted by some crackpot religious nutters via telepathy. Can you not see these goal posts changing every time religion is about to fall on its face?
Click to expand...

I don't see goal posts moving, I see human understanding growing.

An ancient Greek had little understanding of the solar system and space, his view of the universe was much more grounded. So when he had to explain where his gods were, he looked for the highest peak (or so we think, it may be the the mountain was named for the mythic home of the Gods, not vice versa) and said 'up there, beyond our reach'.

The point was and always is, that the God(s) exist beyond where we can see. That point has remained constant.
 
The difference between science people and spiritual people is that science people continually have to try to prove their point. Spiritual people just know.

Wait for the day when it's proven that science is spirituality and vice versa. All is one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom