C... (page 5)

AGuest

And so, if I say that YOU are a... whatever I say you are... to ME... does that make it so, Still? Take care now: think before you respond to that one. Think hard...

A slave of Christ,

SA

still thinking

If Dawkins develops a scale for atheism and many people adopt that scale as valid... does that mean that they are his disciples and worshippers?

Well, I suppose if I called him my Guru it would mean that I worshipped him as a spiritual leader of some sort.

But I don't call him my Guru. He is an author and I respect his ideas and scientific knowledge which is available for anyone to test and check out for themselves and show others the evidence of what he says.

cofty

If Dawkins ever claimed that he saw Seraphs washing his feet and gazing adoringly into his eyes I would be sure he had lost the plot however informative his writings about science may be.

tec

Well, like i said Still, you go ahead and take that up with Sab. I also don't think he said that he thought of me as his guru. Sab disagrees with me openly besides all that, on whatever he thinks I might state that is wrong. But again, Sab can clear that up or not as he chooses, or sees.

Cofty, you sidestepped.

Peace,

tammy

Qcmbr

If Dawkins ever claimed his knowledge was whispered to him by the supernatural I'd kick him into touch in a moment. Until that time I find his explanations of why , how, where and when based upon objective facts, devoid of religious faith, amenable to correction, open about missing information and above all - useful in my life in a way that leprous JHat and his revelations regarding bones just isn't. Dawkins knowledge is rooted in information used by medical practitioners, food scientists, blood donors and biologists who between them have saved billions of lives. Dragons just aren't quite on the same scale for me and that about sums up all faith based religion to me. Pretty inadequate. Stories about magical transfusions of blood just isn't worth a jot - knowing why certain blood types can't mix and why blood works the way it does - that's awesome.

still thinking

Spiritual leaders are all worshipped to an extent...on the basis that they know things others don't.

So when someone is being called a guru they are being worshipped because they are sharing 'spiritual insights' and correcting/clarifying others understandings. Whether they claim to or not. Even when they deny this is what they are doing, their denial means nothing when their actions spell out that they are correcting/guiding others towards their own spiritual understanding.

When someone claims to 'share what they have been given' they put themselves in the guru position simply because they have 'special' knowlegde that others don't have or can't get on their own. If they could get it on their own the guru would not need to share it in the first place.

tec

or can't get on their own

And that right there disqualifies me from your definition.

And Q, that is all well and good for you. No one is arguing with you over what you choose to do; and what you think is best. Do whatever it is you want to. But perhaps you might deign to understand that others have come to their own conclusions. In fact, some others embrace both... the science... and the spirit. I'm sure that this is a big no no in your book too. But it is all still you (in general) coming in to tell someone else that their way is wrong. I think yours is limited. But I understand, and i really don't care, and i have no reproach for you or your path.

Peace,

tammy