Richard Dawkins sums up religion

Zethor said:
That's an interesting claim, can you provide a historical example?
Click to expand...

A cursory knowledge of history would provide plenty of examples of this. Are you seriously disputing the racialist world view of the early 20th century?

So if I mock you for your crack pot religious ideas, as well as those of your fellow believers, I'm some kind of elite Intelligentsia dictator? Do I also go by the name of Xenu, Galactic Ruler, by any chance?
Click to expand...

I don't have any religious views, so that would be difficult. I'd also strain to attribute the word 'elite' to someone who has to ask for evidence of early 20th century racialism :D

That said, I don't disapprove of questioning someone's views and beliefs. I do disapprove when they are doing so because they think they have some social duty to promulgate the ideology of a narrow elite, yes.
 
semi-pro waster said:
I'm not sure if you're trying to be humorous but you don't have to be married in a religious ceremony - someone may want to correct me on the timeframes but civil marriage predates the religious variant by millenia.

The analogy has probably already been noted but I sometimes think there's a comparison to be drawn between atheists and vegans - as the sarcastic observation goes
Q: "How can you tell if someone is a vegan?"
A: "Don't worry, they'll tell you."
Click to expand...

You are correct as usual, and the vegan comment made me laugh :D
 
Thompson_NCL said:
A cursory knowledge of history would provide plenty of examples of this. Are you seriously disputing the racialist world view of the early 20th century?
Click to expand...

No, I asked for an example of an idea that started as the prevailing view of the world (racism), became unacceptable as society progressed and then became acceptable again.

"100 years ago, all of these things were not only acceptable, they were the prevailing view of the world. In 100 years, they might be the prevailing world view again."


That said, I don't disapprove of questioning someone's views and beliefs. I do disapprove when they are doing so because they think they have some social duty to promulgate the ideology of a narrow elite, yes.
Click to expand...

So you approve of questioning someone's views and beliefs but only when it's done by certain people. In other words, if a Buddhist considers the virgin birth a crackpot idea, that's ok but if an atheist like Dawkings does it, you suddenly dissaprove because you think he has an agenda?
 
mmmmmmmm

Joseph raises a boy who is his not his son. That boy turns out to be earths greatest saviour.

I can't believe I have been so slow in putting two and two together.
 
thep02 said:
Ceaser, all roads lead to Rome.

Just joking I don't think the Jesus of the bible existed.
Click to expand...

I was out on a night out a couple of months back with a friend of a friend. He spent the whole night drunkenly trying to tell me (and here I quote), "I can PROVE, absolutely prove without a shadow of a doubt, that Jesus was in fact [dramatic pause] Julius Caesar". Having had a few beers myself I challenged him to prove this wonderful idea. His 'evidence' was frankly laughable and seemed to mainly consist of pictures of heavily worn coins that 'clearly' showed that Jesus and Caesar looked exactly the same. To be honest, it really made my night. :D
 
SPG said:
WRONG just plain wrong also a lie, which is even worse.

Choice is not there, for the simple reason of parents indoctrinating (harsh word but true) there young into there way of thinking. Religion becomes a choice when the person in question is capable of making there own informed decision on the subject, not being dragged to a place of worship from a baby till there old enough to stay at home and looked after themselves.

Its about time we had faithless schools.
Click to expand...

Totally wrong as many go years having never been brought up in any faith to suddenly have strong desire to love God etc. Millions have gone through childhood in a faithless family to then, when older have the urge to become a catholic, Christian etc.
 
koolpc said:
Totally wrong as many go years having never been brought up in any faith to suddenly have strong desire to love God etc. Millions have gone through childhood in a faithless family to then, when older have the urge to become a catholic, Christian etc.
Click to expand...
What percentage of religious people would this group make up?
 
semi-pro waster said:
The analogy has probably already been noted but I sometimes think there's a comparison to be drawn between atheists and vegans - as the sarcastic observation goes
Q: "How can you tell if someone is a vegan?"
A: "Don't worry, they'll tell you."

Most of the time I don't much care about what someone believes or disbelieves - it's when people start trying to tell others that their beliefs are wrong that I find it irritating. Preaching about any subject is rarely welcomed and even more rarely does it actually affect change for the better - it's usually just a pretext for an intrusion into another persons way of life. Beliefs matter to many people, you may not understand them or even like them but if the belief isn't harming you or others directly then perhaps the best option is to just let it slide.
Click to expand...

haha that is funny..
 
Last edited:
koolpc said:
Totally wrong as many go years having never been brought up in any faith to suddenly have strong desire to love God etc. Millions have gone through childhood in a faithless family to then, when older have the urge to become a catholic, Christian etc.
Click to expand...

That doesn't prove that indoctrination doesn't exist though, as many people will follow their parents religious beliefs.

Furthermore, just because some non-believers suddenly turn to religion later in life is meaningless. Some people go from not believing in aliens to suddenly thinking they were abducted, or believing the world is run by lizards, etc. And it is not like these people were completely isolated from any evidence of religion and spontaneously had a vision from God, they were constantly surrounded by the existence of religion from childhood.

And lastly, even if people in complete isolation, lets say the Truman show where Truman existed in a virtual world where they never muttered a word about God or religion, suddenly believed in a God, this merely indicates an innate psychological phenomena which is well known. It is no different to people seeing faces in clouds, or that we enjoy listening to music, or loud bangs make us alert, it is just a side-effect of various neural processes, certainly not evidence for God and just further shows that people don't have a choice.
 
I await further evidence that you understand the scientific method ;0)

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...
 
The first line on that page has me confused. Why not put:

Animals and Humans like to make up ****, especially in situations we feel alone, need to pass on the blame or cannot explain something.
Click to expand...

Then the rest of the article is unnecessary. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom