Tophat
Yes, they do. Hindu mythology goes back much farther than does jewish mythology (the bible).
S
The God Delusion
by Peppermint 103 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
TopHat
Satanus, you are just being silly....so show me where the hindus believe in the evolution of the Physical body. All I can find in the Hindu belief is an evolving of the spiritual mind.
-
TopHat
Hindu belief has been around before the stories in the Bible were written...but the belief in the creation has been around before Hindus ever existed.
-
Abaddon
TopHat
Are you deliberately ignoring my questions to you because you are rude, or because you can't answer them even to your low levels of satisfaction, or a combination of the two?
- Why aren't you following Biblical example by STUDYING something you don;t know about before deciding you know everything?
- Why do you trust the Bible when the Bible contains myths that are presented as fact?
- Why do you lie about what I have said?
- Why do you claim human bodies are perfect when they are not?
- Why do yopu believe something you don;t understand is by definiton impossible?
- What is the difference between your god and Santa, or your god and another person's god?
See my previous post for expanded versions of these questions. Of course, you don't HAVE to answer, but not answering will show how reliable and trustworthy your beliefs are.
-
TopHat
Because Abaddon: Your questions are NOTHING more than an accusation upon my Character. YOU know NOTHING about me and I REFUSE to argue with YOU.
END of discussion
-
funkyderek
Qcmbr:
I was fascinated by the little I saw of his TV show but he didn't seem to have the patience to finish the job when faced with faith(however misplaced) not logic.
It's very difficult to be patient with someone who is arguing using something other than logic. I think Dawkins was remarkably patient considering the sort of fanatical idiocy he was up against.
He seems like many on this board who very quickly descend to exasperation (and rudeness) rather than let the weight of the argument carry.
No argument has any weight to those who have faith. Reason cannot penetrate it's forcefield.
On a personal note funkyDerek said he liked his intelectual integrity of not allowing respect for other's opinions to weaken his words. I think that shows arrogance which is quite a blocker to new ideas.
It's not about rejecting new ideas. It's about not giving (mostly old) ideas more weight than they deserve simply because people have an emotional attachment to them.
Having a firmly held belief is fine as long as you can let it go when its time to move on.
How would you know when it's time to move on? Especially if you have faith that your beliefs are correct.
If you give my daughter a piece of bread she'll chew on it but if you then show her a sweet she spits the bread out and takes the sweet. Mostly we don't have that approach to our beliefs and facts - I wonder how Dawkins would react to some alternate proof (if it ever turned up) or whether he'd keep chewing his loaf.
Not really sure what the point of your analogy is, but Dawkins has repeatedly declared himself open to new evidence. Indeed his beliefs are based on the available evidence, not on faith, revelation or tradition but hard data. It seems unlikely he wouldn't change his position if new evidence appeared.
A lot of the problem is what do you define God as and then how do you replace that notion with a better one, unfortunately Dawkins identifies an absolutely valid target (fundamentalism causing irrational and socially bad behaviour - such as suicide bombing) and easily beats it using rational logic and the war on goatherd gods but, he doesn't realise that for most believers their God doesn't require irrational action but highly civilised and socially good behaviour.
Yes he does. His book specifically deals with moderate believers and their vaguer, less angry god. He also argues that religious belief is not only unnecessary for morality, but is not the source of most believers' morality.
dawkins doesn't seem to make the distinction between the mass of intelligent, critical thinking believers and the fundamentalist.
Yes he does, repeatedly and at length. However, in The God Delusion his arguments encompass all believers, not just fundamentalists.
Science alone cannot answer all of our questions - not yet anyway:)
What questions can science not answer that religion can? (Made-up answers don't count.)
Attacking goatherder gods is genius until you realise most christians moved beyond that centuaries ago.
But why? Why did they stop believing the Bible is literally true? Because of further revelation? Not at all. Because an educated person cannot possibly believe the biblical myths to be literally true, so they are interpreted as symbolic. And an ethical person cannot possibly believe the god of the bible to be just, so his horrific actions (especially in the Old Testament) are glossed over or ignored completely.
My belief accomodates the facts as its root aim is truth however, it doesn't need to agree with every clever man with a good argument that crosses its path.
You're a Mormon. Your beliefs are based on nonsense, in direct opposition to demonstrable facts. (Assuming you actually believe LDS teachings, of course.)
-
Dansk
Not really sure what the point of your analogy is, but Dawkins has repeatedly declared himself open to new evidence. Indeed his beliefs are based on the available evidence, not on faith, revelation or tradition but hard data. It seems unlikely he wouldn't change his position if new evidence appeared.
Absolutely right! Listen for yourselves, here:
-
BlackSwan of Memphis
I have to say I am interested in checking out his book or was.
The thing is this, something I noticed about him, is that he really has a contempt for the belief in god.
True or not, it shouldn't leave us treating others like they are delusional or that if we prefer the comforting value of god we might as well be using drugs.
Some very great men and women throughout history have held a deep belief in god.
From what I have read online about Dawkins, he sounds like he has some fascinating things to say. I suppose I'm just growing tired of anyone, atheist or theist that treats others as less then intelligent because they don't share the same view. And that's what I got out of the interview with Dawkins.
I'm beginning to think it's better to just not take either position and live a life that I am proud to live based on what I know is good and bad, right and wrong. Be it that I am this way by evolution or god is not so important for me to know.
Thanks for the link Ian, it was quite interesting.
-
done4good
The thing is this, something I noticed about him, is that he really has a contempt for the belief in god.
I wouldn't call it contempt. What he does have is a very enthusiastic take on what he does believe. I read The Blind Watchmaker a short time ago, and liked his approach very much. He has a way of "selling" evolution that most dry science text books just don't have. I just received my copy of The God Delusion today. So far, it's a good read.
j
-
TopHat
Now I can understand the anamosity towards evangelicals that Dawkins has in his book. So his followers have the same anamosity as shown on this thread. Look at this video. BTW I don't believe in organized religion for the same reason as Dawkins. However I DO believe in an Intelligent creator.