Richard Dawkins sums up religion

[Hellsmk2]

The problem is that you don't seem to understand evolution:

It doesn't necessarily even conflict with mainstream religious beliefs...

Yes it does.

Those who believe otherwise are generally apologists looking for common ground when there is none.

There is not one sentence in any of the gospels that you could infer the confirmation of evolution - in fact, by page 3 it's absolutely done the opposite, as well as thrown in some good old fashioned god styled sexism to boot.

 

[Jack Bauer]

Thing is, if your faith is 100% strong then nothing will take you away from God!

I don't think anyone is trying to take your faith away from you. But you are entering a discussion forum on the topic and rather than debate the subject, you side step/ignore questions or simply attacking other members positions. In contrast most others in this thread have given a logical response to your questions and then posed a following question. Put simply if you don't want to answer these questions then don't join the discussion.

 

[Raz]

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

I haven't seen the clip, and I'm not much of a fan of Richard Dawkins. However because I'm a 'believer' you could expect me to automatically dismiss his views but that's not the case here. I agree to a certain extent that many people simply have blind faith, and believe whatever has been told to them, usually by family or society at large.

oh, and all of us are indoctrinated to some extent.

 

[Raz]

It's not hard for me to comprehend, my faith meant a lot to me for many years. I know that feeling you describe well.

Personally, I went in search of answers to the questions non-believers came at me with to reaffirm my faith. The more I looked, the more I realized that the arguments, cosmological, teleological and ontological were poorly represented by the religious. I found the arguments I had been raised to use suddenly seemed hollow and often all too easily refuted, I felt I had been cheated and misled.

I remember seeing William Lane Craig debate the first time, he really impressed me until I slowly went through his argument, yet again, what at first seemed impressive suddenly seems like a cheap card trick full of holes and intended to mislead and misdirect.

In many ways, I miss my faith but for me the curtain has been pulled away and there is no way I can go back and submit to suspend my credulity. My daughter is a bright young lass and when she asks me my opinion, I answer as honestly as I can but always remind her I could be wrong and she must weigh up all the evidence for herself, I could not imaging my parents or most religious parents doing the same.

Very similar to my search, with the exception that I left the sect I was brought up in but am still a Muslim - although perhaps not one that fits in with mainstream Muslims.

 

[beamer]

For $deity's sake, stop trying to break their faith ... When the Islamic Fundamentalists properly up their game, I'm relying on them to act as cannon fodder while I retreat to safety ;0)

 

[spudbynight]

This is particularly interesting when you consider what he has said regarding confession and pastoral care by the clergy...for example, this virtually, if not literally gives Papal blessing to local Bishops and Priests to give blessing to the use of contraception in Africa, abortion in Ireland and so on..depending on the circumstances in which local ministries find themselves...he is putting the need of people above the dogma of the Church. Again this is a fundamental shift in attitude.

This is as you say, just your interpretation. My take on the same is that Pope Francis wants the Bishop's conferences to take responsibility for teaching the faith.

The Holy Father has been unequivocal of his repudiation of abortion for example. There is no way on earth there is going to be a situation where anyone in the Church is going to be allowed to give blessing to grave sin. While Pope Francis is pushing for a more pastoral approach to much of the Church's actions this is not at the expense of doctrine.

My own personal take is that Pope Francis is an iron fist in a velvet glove. Earlier this year he was responsible for excommunicating a priest in Australia. The priest in question had setup his own community and was an outspoken proponent on same sex marriage and female ordination.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/church-dumps-rebel-priest-20130920-2u5jp.html

 

[spudbynight]

I suspect that some of our more rational religious members would say that they question their faith quite regularly...it is how people inform and strengthen their faith by challenging it, if it cannot stand against the challenge and burden of questions, it is worthless.

I can also comprehend that kind of trust in something quite well thanks.

I was a rabid Atheist for many years. I worshipped at the "Church of Dawkins".

It was through reason that I arrived where I am at present.

 

[Stretch]

I was a rabid Atheist for many years. I worshipped at the "Church of Dawkins".

It was through reason that I arrived where I am at present.

What is the "Church of Dawkins", what "reason" have you listened too, and where have you arrived at?

 

[Castiel]

Earlier this year he was responsible for excommunicating a priest in Australia. The priest in question had setup his own community and was an outspoken proponent on same sex marriage and female ordination.

Do not believe everything that the Conservative lobby would have you believe...Fr Greg Reynolds was excommunicated for Violation of the Eucharist (an automatic validation of Excommunication under Canon law [1367] ) not specifically for his views on women ordination or gay marriage, although those were part of the original complaint. Pope Francis isn't going to throw away Canon Law on a whim, particularly relating to Eucharist, and no one suggested he would...this case was used (just as you gave done) and subsequently repudiated by conservative commentators against the very same views I expressed with regard the interview under discussion.

The truth will be self evident as time progresses, I think we are looking at a more liberal interpretation of Doctrine, you clearly do not....time will tell.

 

[glenimp617]

who created god?

who created the person who created god?

 

[Frightful Boar]

who created god?

who created the person who created god?

Mind = blown!

 

[elmarko]

Slightly off the line to the recent posts, but some really interesting reading once you branch out from theological noncognitivism.

Popper's falsificationism & Alder's Newton's flaming laser sword are most certainly worth reading up on , cheers for touching on the subject earlier Castiel - has provided some interesting reading.

"What cannot be settled by experiment is not worth debating" - is as interesting take, but obviously only relates to debating specifically the existence of a given entity, not religion as a social issue or from a human behavioural aspect.

 

[Columbo]

I was a rabid Atheist for many years. I worshipped at the "Church of Dawkins".

It was through reason that I arrived where I am at present.

Please elborate because as I see Dawkins has no more of church than Stephen Fry or Christopher Hitchins.

He is simply a published writer who many atheists choose to agree with what he has to say, I find myself having the same relationship with political journalists, sports journalists etc etc.

 

[Castiel]

Please elborate because as I see Dawkins has no more of church than Stephen Fry or Christopher Hitchins.

He is simply a published writer who many atheists choose to agree with what he has to say, I find myself having the same relationship with political journalists, sports journalists etc etc.

He does have a Foundation Institute which due to its mission statement could be compared to an equivalent or the antithesis of a Church depending on your perspective. Unlike Hitchens and Fry who are indeed simply published authors on Atheism and related topics.

"The mission of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science is to support scientific education, critical thinking and evidence-based understanding of the natural world in the quest to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and suffering."

Ironically given his stance on Religious Institutions not being given Charitable Status (despite all the actual Charity they do with regard homelessness, poverty etc) his own Institute is a registered Charity (although I have no idea of what actual charitable things they do regards such people in real need). I used to be a member and contributor until it became more about preaching atheism and anti-religion than promoting reason, humanism and science.

 

[spudbynight]

What is the "Church of Dawkins", what "reason" have you listened too, and where have you arrived at?

The "Church of Dawkins" is the cult that has formed around Dawkins.

The reason I have listened to is my own.

I have arrived at a belief in God.

Hope that helps.

 

[dirtychinchilla]

Dawkins is just a figurehead for the many hidden voices in the world who support what he stands for. The only reason why you compare him to a religious figure is that he opposes religion.

If a religious organisation can receive charitable status, whether it actually does charity work or not, then so, I think, should Dawkin's.

As far as I'm concerned, what he does is very much needed when religious beliefs are clearly contradicting science. I refer here to things like creationism, not to the actual belief in God. Things which are provable.

 

[Skunkworks]

The "Church of Dawkins" is the cult that has formed around Dawkins.

The reason I have listened to is my own.

I have arrived at a belief in God.

Hope that helps.

Which god, and what was the reasoning process that led you there?

 

[Castiel]

If a religious organisation can receive charitable status, whether it actually does charity work or not, then so, I think, should Dawkin's.

Indeed he can, and does...however I spoke about the irony in his argument that a religious organisation such as the CoE (which does do extensive charitable work) should not have charitable status, when his organisation takes advantage of those very same rules.

I'm not saying he shouldn't....but the irony inherent in the fact that he does.

No one said Dawkins was a religious figure anyway.

 

[koolpc]

I don't think anyone is trying to take your faith away from you. But you are entering a discussion forum on the topic and rather than debate the subject, you side step/ignore questions or simply attacking other members positions. In contrast most others in this thread have given a logical response to your questions and then posed a following question. Put simply if you don't want to answer these questions then don't join the discussion.

Where have I attacked another members position?

 

[spudbynight]

Do not believe everything that the Conservative lobby would have you believe...Fr Greg Reynolds was excommunicated for Violation of the Eucharist (an automatic validation of Excommunication under Canon law [1367] ) not specifically for his views on women ordination or gay marriage, although those were part of the original complaint. Pope Francis isn't going to throw away Canon Law on a whim, particularly relating to Eucharist, and no one suggested he would...this case was used (just as you gave done) and subsequently repudiated by conservative commentators against the very same views I expressed with regard the interview under discussion.

The truth will be self evident as time progresses, I think we are looking at a more liberal interpretation of Doctrine, you clearly do not....time will tell.

I am familiar with the letter in question that refers to Canon 1367. This carries a automatic excommunication (latae sententiae). This refers to abuse of the host. There is a linked incident at a Mass where the host was allegedly given to a dog.

Also in the same letter are two other canonical offences. Reynolds is accused of heresy (Canon 751) and speaking publicly against church teaching (Canon 1369)

This excommunication jars with the idea of a Pope ignoring doctrine as has been suggested by the secular media.