by brotherdan 181 Replies latest watchtower bible
You think that it takes religion to get people to do bad things?
I went on the atheist board of craigs list the other day and the atheist were talking about having sex with their cats
and laughing about it.
See, as an atheist, this makes no sense to me. Why would there be atheist forums?? What exactly are you going to discuss???
Faith comes from god and at this point in time he didnt give Dawkins any.
So, JB, if god didn't give him faith, Dawkins shouldn't carry any fault, eh? See, it's comments like this that make me want to ensure kids all over the globe are taught critical thinking early so they don't grow up with shit like this taking permanent residence in their impressionable little minds. (EDIT: If you were being sarcastic, disregard.)
'Faith comes from god.. and the only way he will answer your prayers and bless you with his spirit to understand shit.... is if you have faith. But first you have to pray for faith, which in itself requires faith, and ask that he'll give you more faith and then he'll keep you in his love because he's so self-absorbed that he cannot stand the thought of one of his 7 billion suffering earthings questioning his existence, even though in the last couple thousand years he hasn't personally SHOWED HIS FACE OR SPOKEN OUT LOUD SO THAT MORE THAN ONE [edit] HOLY OF HOLIES CAN HEAR HIM AT A TIME.'
BTW, JB, do you also believe in speaking in tongues and rolling around on the floor for jesus?
Do you care if Dawkins wants to take a Muslim's faith away from him? If the only religions out there were Scientology, Islam, and JWs, you'd probably want to break down people's faith, too. Why? (I could be wrong.) Because you know that stuff is bullshit, don't you? Well, turn around and look at your own holy book with that same judgmental attitude. You were brave enough to do that as a JW, I presume. If you think the Judeo-Christian GOD designed your testicles then use em now.
I went on the atheist board of craigs list the other day and the atheist were talking about having sex with their cats
and laughing about it.
Yeah, cuz that's what atheists do: they have sex with cats.
I went on a priest board of craigslist the other day and the priests were talking about... well, nevermind. But let's say cats would far be the lesser evil.
You miss the point and key wording of the quote that 'it takes religion for GOOD people to do BAD things.' It's hyperbole, not generalization.
That quote means something to me because my beloved parents are good people yet will shun their dear son and his family because of their 'love for and faith in God.'
JB, I'm sorry, I probably spoke too soon. I don't exactly know what to make of your posts, though. Glancing back at past threads, you sound agnostic but you also seem to believe you exorcised a demon from one of your dogs? Are you just really sarcastic or what?
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/members/adult/191511/1/exorcising-demons
Fact is perception. Something viewed by science as "fact" today can be proven to NOT be fact tomorrow. Here's a definition of "fact:
Good good. Again, I weep for people that try to start arguing about science and don't even understand it. The closest idea to a "fact" in science is "proveable concept".
Seriously, BD, I like you, but you are starting to sound like Aguest and Zannahdoll. You beleive in God, not YOUR God, you were careful to say, just the THE God, which happens to be yours. You talk smack about Dawkins definitions but don't provide one of your own and when it gets questioned, it doesn't mean what your definition said. You talk about science and then get it wrong. If you are going to argue about something, state it clearly with definitions and supporting arguments and go from there.
An example of a law of science is the law of gravity. Using the law of gravity, we can predict how fast a heavier than air object will fall to the ground given all the factors for the equation. I also believe that there are absolute moral laws. Whereas some laws like those that govern science, and mathematics describe reality, and how things do behave, absolute moral laws 'prescribe' how humans ought to, or ought not to behave.
I'm not sure that "moral laws" can be put in the same group as "laws of science".
As an Atheist, I've always assumed that "moral laws" don't actually exist. Sure, I believe that certain behavior is wrong, but without a God does it really matter what Man does. Society has taught us that certain behavior is unacceptable, so from an Atheist perspective, it is only Man who cares about what Man does. I don't hold Man in such high regard to think that his opinion on human behavior (or morals) should be considered universal laws.
Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws are necessary for rational thinking to be possible. Universal, immaterial, unchanging laws cannot be accounted for if the universe was random or only material in nature.
Apart from "moral laws" (which I don't believe exist), I don't see a problem with "universal, immaterial, unchanging laws" in random or material universe.
pseudo
Brother Dan, what are these absolute moral laws and where did they come from? Earlier you said Christianity was the starting point for all things. Well, then where was the absolute morality provided to all the people who lived before Christ? Were they left without moral law for all those thousands of years? What about all the billions of Indians and Asians and Muslims who have never had the opportunity to read the Bible? Are they left not knowing absolute moral law? If absolute moral law is something that God provided within us, then what is the need of the Bible or Christ to point the way? In which case, your previous argument that Christianity is the starting point would not be true, would it?
Jaguar Bass, it's not that it takes a Christian do do bad things. Dawkins argument is that belief in God has not been a motivating force for good in this world. It does not make one a better person to be a theist. However, belief in stories about God and what he wants has been a motivating force in the death of millions over the years.
Brotherdan.
I enjoyd your post. I agree with you that Dawkins is often to confrontational. I think i agree with all he says, but he manage to say 10% of it in a way that i dont want to agree with him. I would recommend you to read some of his books on science, like other have recommended, those are the places where he is the best. But i have two questions: in your proof back on page 5, could i not substitute "God" with "The Flying Spaghetti Monster" (or any other God) and have an equally valid, strong proof of the FSM?
Secondly, I have been given it a lot of thought lately, and to me it seem that an universe governed by laws seem more likely than a universe not governed by laws. It seem that your argument somehow require it to be the other way around, in the absence of God?
:When Dawkins begins his examination of faith he defines faith in a way that I think is totally and utterly wrong. He states that "religious faith does not depend on rational justification" and that all religions "demand unquestioned faith".
Dawkins is correct, except perhaps generalizing about "all religions" demanding unquestioned faith. If "faith" was fact, there would be no need for the word "faith." "Fact" would work just fine. You certainly must understand that those two words are not interchangeable.
It was Thomas Paine who said in his late 18th Century book "The Age of Reason" that all religion is based upon "Faith, fable and mystery."
Those three categories are about as far away from fact as can be. I'm not knocking faith, by the way. It's just that I think people should be honest about what it really is. It is based on hope, and hope is also about as far away from fact as can be.
Personally, I have faith that someone was responsible for creating the stuff that made up the Big Bang and set it off. Why? Because science doesn't even dare try to address that issue. It can't, and scientists are smart enough to admit it.
Farkel
Because science doesn't even dare try to address that issue. It can't, and scientists are smart enough to admit it.
Sounds like "god of the gaps". Actually physicists are addressing it, its the theme of Hawkins new book. Most of the real work is not to be found in the popular press however. Be careful not to confuse what science doesn't know yet with what can't be known.
