Seeker 4 I agree totally with you. As I have said so many times on this forum I believe evolution because it has be proven to me by my personal study of it. But both sides have the exsact same thing to over come, the singularity. Until evolution can explain this or creationism can exsplain the beginning of God as Dawkins so admitly said in his book is a much bigger problem explaining how God came to be. Then I will keep an open mind.
Further incite on Dawkin's The God Delusion
by Abandoned 104 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Seeker4
Skyking,
I wrote my last comment before I saw yours just before it, but it seems to fit what you were writing there to a degree.
Lily,
There are a lot of people who find Sam Harris' and Dawkins' approach off-putting, even in the world of atheists and naturalists. They see it as too confrontational.
But one thing that you have to understand is that they see the world's religions as dangerous, and feel that the quicker we can get rid of these supernatural belief systems and replace them with rational, logical thinking, the better the world will be.
Part of this is that hundreds of millions of people believe they have a personal relationship with an invisible, powerful friend - Jehovah, Jesus, Allah, JuJu, Satan, whoever - and that their particular invisible friend is the ONLY TRUE invisible friend. All the rest aren't real, or at least not as powerful as their particular invisible friend.
Most of these folks also feel that their powerful invisible friend is going to kill off all the rest of those who don't see them as the one and only true invisible friend. And, because NONE of these invisible folks NEVER actually DO anything to reveal themselves or to actually kill off these non-believers, those folks who believe in them feel it's up to them to do it for the deity.
So, we have an American President and a British Prime Minister who shared the idea that they had been chosen by their particular invisible friend, in this case Jesus, to spread democracy and christianity into the Middle East. Some folks in Moslem countries feel that to speak against Allah is deserving of death, and since Allah is another invisible friend who also doesn't seem to have any power, some Moslems see it as their responsibility to kill the blasphemer.
And so it goes. Sunni kills Shiite, Catholic kills Protestant, Moslem kills Jew, all for their invisible friends. When they get their hands on an atomic bomb and carry out the killing that way, it'll threaten all life on earth.
Harris and Dawkins are just saying it's time to stop respecting religion and giving it an honored place at the table. Most of society no longer gives such respect to voodoo say, and they just see all religions and belief in the supernatural as voodoo with a suit and tie.
They see this belief in a supernatural, invisible friend as dangerous thinking that threatens humanity, and that needs to be revealed for what it is - therefore the lack of respect.
S4 -
lovelylil
Seeker,
I understand what you are saying and why people like Dawkins feel the way they do about religion, but let me ask you this: Since people of faith will not willingly give up their belief systems that they have built their lives upon, how do Dawkins and others think we should "rid the world of "superstitious" religious belief?". By force, or by death? Think about it, it would have to come down to this level wouldn't it? And if so then those who believe they will be doing society a favor by getting rid of believers, will be no better morally than the believers who killed in the name of the church.
I believe it is not having a religious belief that is causing the problem but the fact that each believes only their system is the right one and their God the right one. And on top of this, think they must prove this "fact" to everyone around them. It is the religious institutions that have fueled this fire. And if they (the institutions) were done away with tomarrow, it would not bother me one bit. But you cannot change how a person feels inside and cannot force them to do away with a deeply ingrained belief.
That being said, we believers should stop pushing our views down other people's throats. Most Christians do not even properly understand the Bible so they feel it is thier job to "save" everyone. It is not! According to thier own book, it is Jesus job to save everyone from this wicked world. Christians are only told to "give a witness or testimony" to this fact. And we are supposed to be Ambassadors for peace. We are not doing a very good job. For those who claim to believe in God, should understand then that he created all of mankind and is the Father to every man in every nation. For this reason alone, we should treat others with the utmost respect and dignity. Regardless of religious affilitation or non relgious affiliation.
We all belong to the human race and should treat each other accordingly. Trouble is this is easy to say but very hard to get people to do. That is why some like myself feel we would need a "divine" intervention because it seems like people's hearts must be changed to that of love, and unselfishness towards all of mankind. True Love is putting the other persons feelings ahead of yourself and in humbling yourself to them, regardless whether you share their view or not. And being a loving person, we would not be arrogant or judgemental because of the differences we have with others. And never would we want to "do away" with them nor harm them in any way. Rather, we would seek to do good to them.
Even if you don't believe in Jesus as a real person. Think about the moral of the crucifiction story: He died a horrible death for All of mankind. Even unbelievers and people who wished him dead. How many people in this world today would actually do something like that? Give up their lives for thier enemies? The basic message about the death of Christ story is very beautiful when you think about it. And if all of mankind adopted the moral taught by this story, the world truly would be a better place.
Can you tell I have thought a lot about this very topic? I plan on writing about it and hope to help people see beyond themselves and their belief systems to what is really good for the whole of mankind. Peace, Lilly
-
tetrapod.sapien
tetrapod.sapien, You forget to look into the mirror and see your own reflection.
huh? okaydokee then.
tetra
-
Seeker4
Lil wrote:"I understand what you are saying and why people like Dawkins feel the way they do about religion, but let me ask you this: Since people of faith will not willingly give up their belief systems that they have built their lives upon, how do Dawkins and others think we should "rid the world of "superstitious" religious belief?". By force, or by death?"
Education, I think, otherwise it's just as you said. Thus, their books, websites, lectures and films.
S4 -
lovelylil
Seeker,
Good point and I agree. And that education should be in the form of learning more tolerance for all people. Peace, Lilly
-
tetrapod.sapien
you see, for a long time, non-believing academic types remained pretty quiet about religion and god. it was mostly due to the fact that it was politically incorrect to be too critical of religions and the god concept that so many believe in. but it seems like now they are putting their foot down in the face of religious extremism on both sides of the pond, and saying "no. your god doesn't exist. please stop ruining the world because you think he does."
and it may be right on time. it may be too late. but i don't think it's the academic types that need education on how to be more tolerant. they were for a long time already, and it didn't help the situation much in terms of fundamentalism.
education is a good idea, but somehow i can't see fundamentalists going to school because some secular people asked them to. and that's why there is a war for air time raging right now. secular people believe that if they can sway the moderate over to their side, then air time will naturally become more educational, and peer pressure might cool the hot heads down a bit. i remain skeptical though.
tetra
-
Abaddon
The problem is tetra (as you know) when fundies try to subvert curricula to try and make sure kids are not taught the theory of evolution in a competent or objective manner.
I love this 'closed minded' knee-jerk you have skyking, it is really funny. You get challenged about your beliefs and the poor standards of evidence you are happy to accept, and you start calling other people closed minded. Most droll.
Do you rebutt the crticisms of your arguments or claims in any meaningful way? Nope, it's 'bwah! you're closed minded'.
-
-
skyking
By the way the only thing that I have been challenged on was my statement the Dawkins in closed minded. Yes you are right there is not one chance in hell you could convenience me that Dawkins is not closed minded. As I have stated I think almost exactly as Dawkins the only difference I am not so damn arrogant to admit I could be wrong. That is the person I use to be in the BORG no-longer will I be so arrogant as to believe I am right. Even when theory says I am right. My Websters says and I quote it word for word!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Theory is sometimes derived as a speculation of ideas, assumptions, conjecture"