True. Dawkins and his type are great at trying to destroy things, but what does ever offer to go in religion's place? What can he teach me about compassion, charity, kindness?
In my opinion none of this debate, not only here but in the wider cultural sense, would not be taking place without the publication of "The God Delusion". It is, again just my opinion, arguably the most significant single book of the early 21st century not only in it's writing style which is humourus, clear-sighted and informative by turns - but at least in the effect it has had in energising the debate worldwide.
Richard is often accused as being "preachy" or "strident" and so forth. These are interesting accusations when you consider that they are based on the written word, when there normal usage is to describe oral style?
Whenever I have seen him on his TV programmes (last night is a fine example) or his Youtube appearances, the only time I have seen him move from his normal stance of reasoned and polite debate is when he has to respond to some idiot asking him half-baked questions such as: "What if you're wrong?" whilst ignoring everything he's been speaking about for the previous 20 minutes.
The criticisms say more about the critics, I feel.
C S Lewis was a barely-functioning minnow, by comparison.
True. Dawkins and his type are great at trying to destroy things, but what does ever offer to go in religion's place?
Why do you need something to fill religions 'place'?
Are you saying that without religion my life is missing something? Kind of arrogant that.
What can he teach me about compassion, charity, kindness?
Are religions/the religious solely the source of compassion, charity and kindness?
True. Dawkins and his type are great at trying to destroy things, but what does ever offer to go in religion's place? What can he teach me about compassion, charity, kindness?
Suprised it took so long to get to this.
Not aware Dawkins tries to destroy anyhting, he only argues against irrational beliefs. and as the quote goes "if you dont want your beliefs laughed at then dont have such funny beliefs!"
The attributes you refer to to are not the property of religion and for every religiously motivated individual committing a kind act I am sure there is an atheist doing the same. The difference being the atheist does it from a sense of humanity and not for reward!
I know whos motivation I respect more.
"They might be an Atheist Quaker or an Atheist Christian "
they might well be, but the beliefs and ethos of both gel quite well with our ethos, so we may well let them play:)
anyway I'm off to work to proselytize my day away 🙂
[i]What can he teach me about compassion, charity, kindness?[/i]
You need teaching about them?
Junkyard:
"I am fairly sure you started the insulting thread by suggesting her child needed paliative (for dying people FFS) care. Insensitive and crass in the extreme. It is the only point with which I agree with her you are being a c0ck."
Thankyou.
You will note that 1: My subsequent response to the original critiques was to expand my (arguably, badly-put) point with an expanded explanation, followed by a correction from a helpful "threadee" with regard to the word "palliative". "Respite" being more appropriate and indeed, what I was actually getting at.
It is interesting that Loulabella subsequently went on to say that she has already taken these steps for herself so in essence, seems to agree with me.
Have a nice day.
You need teaching about them?
Ian you are right. Mine are instilled by my parents and the non religious environment I was brought up in.
I treat others as i would like to be treated, the Golden rule which was hijacked but actually predates Jesus!
I think its called being a "paid up member of the human race"
Dawkins and his type are great at trying to destroy things
why do we have to resort to demagogues or prophets - can't we work it out for ourselves ? Whatever Dawkins may or may not say (and I can't say I've ever listened to him) only describes his ideas, not necessarily any other non believers'
In my opinion none of this debate, not only here but in the wider cultural sense, would not be taking place without the publication of "The God Delusion"
I find this far fetched. I don't need anyone else to tell me how to think
In my opinion none of this debate, not only here but in the wider cultural sense, would not be taking place without the publication of "The God Delusion".
Disagree.
I've never read Dawkins and have been a (part-time) evangelical atheist (or anti-christian) [b]long[/b] before its publication.
I get drawn into the debate simply because many christians feel an obligation to proselytise. I thought the 'decade of evengelism' came to an end in y2000. Some of them don't know that. Personally I'd recommend a decade of quiet introspection for the christian church starting tomorrow.
I treat others as i would like to be treated
this is flawed, as not everyone wants the same things you want. Ideally one might treat people as they want to be treated - but that isn't necessarily easy to determine or might conflict with one's own preferences
I think its called being a "paid up member of the human race"
which before the privatisation/capitalisation of thought would have been free
I've come >< this close to running up and ticking the No box on the poster outside the church here, just to make me chuckle when I walk past it.
" In my opinion none of this debate, not only here but in the wider cultural sense, would not be taking place without the publication of "The God Delusion"
I find this far fetched. I don't need anyone else to tell me how to think "
Indeed you don't. Of course the debate existed before the book, but I would contend that the book's publication kicked it to a whole new level. I honestly don't remember this level of, media presence on the argument previously. I doubt Chris Hitchens, Sam Harris et al would now be so widely read where it not for "The God Delusion" being such a huge seller...
coffeeking - Member
I've come >< this close to running up and ticking the No box on the poster outside the church here, just to make me chuckle when I walk past it.
Me too. There's a massive advertising hoarding one near our house that went up a couple of weeks back. Had I a tin of black emulsion in the boot of the car when I first saw it I'd have done it. On reflection I'm too soft to do it, as one of the local PCSOs might have seen me setting up my ladders 🙂
Interestingly those bars on the Alpha course website opinion poll never seem to change [b]-and why is there no "probably not" option at the Alpha course?[/b]
Mr Woppit it may have been an awakening for you but you shouldn't assume the same for others.
Atheist discussion has a proud and long history, albeit not made up of bestsellers.
Mr Woppit it may have been an awakening for you but you shouldn't assume the same for others.
Atheist discussion has a proud and long history, albeit not made up of bestsellers.
What's this? "I'm considerably more atheist than you"?
Thanks SFB. I suspect you have no real issue with the "thrust" of my point?
I think you are doing what you do well, "dancing on the head of a pin"! I mean this in a metaphorical sense of course.
I agree. My point is the sudden ramping up of the argument into an almost daily media presence and on forums like this occurred after publication.
Me, I was born again!
;o)
What's this? "I'm considerably more atheist than you"?
No. But I am a better reader than YOU it appears!
😆Me, I was born again!
I can here the scraping sound of the Xtians pulling up chairs...
The simple truth of the matter is that no religious person can provide [u]empirical[/u] evidence of a creator.
For me that's a deal breaker and it should be for anyone.
It's all bunk, useful to some, a crutch for others, powerful in the wrong hands but still bunk.
I think you are doing what you do well, "dancing on the head of a pin"! I mean this in a metaphorical sense of course.
you don't see a substantive difference between treating someone as [b]you [/b]want to be treated or as [b]they [/b]want to be treated ?
I wouldn't want to obsess over details but real philosophical differences are significant.
There's a massive advertising hoarding one near our house that went up a couple of weeks back. Had I a tin of black emulsion in the boot of the car when I first saw it I'd have done it. On reflection I'm too soft to do it, as one of the local PCSOs might have seen me setting up my ladders
Put a hard hat and hi-vis vest on and nobody will question you.
"Best place to hide is in plain sight" and all that.
The simple truth of the matter is that no religious person can provide empirical evidence of a creator
I'm not sure why this would matter. For a fact, if the god(s) allow us free will then this more or less mandates their absence from our awareness, or we'd be forced into belief by circumstance. For my part even if gods regularly came to visit that wouldn't oblige me to conform with their intentions - which I would see as an abuse of power.
For me that's a deal breaker and it should be for anyone.
isn't it hubris to presume to make other people's minds up for them ?
you don't see a substantive difference between treating someone as you want to be treated or as they want to be treated ?I wouldn't want to obsess over details but real philosophical differences are significant.
Yes I do however debates such as this have a short shelf life so i think we need to use a "broader brush" obsessing with "relative" trivia and semantics (whilst technically correct and I would not argue with your point) adds little.
Must go and eat food.
At the risk of opening the can of worms even further - I would be interested to hear a defence of the idea that the "prophet" Mohammed actually flew to an actual heaven on the back of an actual flying horse...
Any Muslims on here?
And so to brunch.
Mr Woppit - Was it this flying horse?
[img] 
[/img]
True. Dawkins and his type are great at trying to destroy things, but what does ever offer to go in religion's place?Why do you need something to fill religions 'place'?
Are you saying that without religion my life is missing something? Kind of arrogant that.
What can he teach me about compassion, charity, kindness?
Are religions/the religious solely the source of compassion, charity and kindness?
No
&
No
All I mean is that just because the central belief of a religion cannot be proved, it doesn't follow that everything it says should be dismissed.
Christianity, Islam etc. have been putting forward ideas on how humans should treat each other for hundreds and thousands of years. They have a head start. I too would resent anyone saying only religion can provide on thses issues. But without it I think many societies would have descended into 'law of the jungle' behaviour.
But without it I think many societies would have descended into 'law of the jungle' behaviour.
void concept. Humans naturally construct belief systems and they cannot be removed. Unfortunately one of the new religions is a form of endemic capitalism which essentially [i][b]IS[/b][/i] the law of the jungle 🙁
Christianity, Islam etc. have been putting forward ideas on how humans should treat each other for hundreds and thousands of years. They have a head start. I too would resent anyone saying only religion can provide on thses issues. But without it I think many societies would have descended into 'law of the jungle' behaviour.
And these have been based on forerunners to its religions. They brought nothing new and it is arrogant in the extreme to indicate societies and people would not co-exist without religion. There is evidence for the opposite all around us!
If you want to stretch back thousands of years then the old testament has some interesting things to teach us on Infanticide, rape and genocide. Is this where we get out moral teachings?
Er, there have been one or two skirmishes as a result of people disagreeing over which is the correct [u]part[/u] of their own particular folklore that requires following to allow entry into paradise...some of which have been a little violent....
People used to worship the sun, they had a massive head-start over us.
As a modern country, it would be nice to think that we were a sophisticated society, buy have a patron saint who performed the miracle of slaying a dragon.
But without it I think many societies would have descended into 'law of the jungle' behaviour.
Do you honestly believe that? Seriously? I'm genuinely amazed and pretty saddened that anyone would have that little inherent faith in people that they'd think that.
I'm genuinely amazed and pretty saddened that anyone would have that little inherent faith in people that they'd think that
But, given the evidence, it's quite a rational stance 😉
I wonder where morals come from?
But, given the evidence, it's quite a rational stance
but it can't be tested so the question is moot
I wonder where morals come from?
people decide what they want to do. Then they make up some reasons
given the evidence, it's quite a rational stance
Eh? You can draw a pretty direct line of violence that was partly inspired or justified by religion, from witch trials to abortion clinic shootings. None of which are endorsed by "mainstream" religion of course, but it kind of gives the lie to the theory that if you're religious you automatically have a decent basic moral compass.
Such an inspiring outlook you have Simon.
it is arrogant in the extreme to indicate societies and people would not co-exist without religion.
The complete opposite is true.
In every single society without exception, throughout history, and throughout pre-history, however large or however small, and however isolated, people have co-existed with religion.
Indeed the existence of religion, is the one and only common thread which all the societies, that have ever existed, have. This indisputably, provides overwhelming evidence that religion is absolutely vital for the well-being of human society and for the success of the species. Furthermore, the area of the brain which deals with religious and spiritual matters has been identified, providing further evidence of the evolutionary advantages of religious beliefs.
If ever there has existed a society without religion, then it has ended in failure, as no evidence of it's existence exists.
Please apply Darwinian logic to your arguments ......
Such an inspiring outlook you have Simon
it was slightly tongue-in-cheek, but if you disagree you'll have to provide evidence. I've read that neurolgically, the muscle impulses preceed the decision...
In every single society without exception, throughout history, and throughout pre-history, however large or however small, and however isolated, people have co-existed with religion.
circular argument
provides overwhelming evidence that religion is absolutely vital for the well-being of human society
No, it proves that a significant proportion of the population feel the need for there to be a god (and I quite liked the earlier quote about our-self importance that we can't just accept that we are transient but rather have to believe that we're more important than that). It proves nothing about religion and how it influences the well-being of human society.
miketually - Member
But, given the evidence, it's quite a rational stance 🙂
So people are inherently bad and only religion makes them behave in a half decent way? OK, I'm hoping that your comment was tounge-in-cheek.
If ever there has existed a society without religion, then it has ended in failure, as no evidence of it's existence exists.
Opened the curtains recently mate? 🙂
