Who do you blame for the rape and genocide?
Human beings for believing the stories as literal truth? Or the stories themselves and the person that wrote them? Who has more to answer for?
Or are we blameless and were just led up the garden path?
If you have [s]allowed yourself to be manipulated[/s] learned in the intervening years
Lol! 🙂 very paranoid and slightly odd interpretation there. I now have much greater experience than I did then, and I understand MORE points of view. That's called learning. Ironically, saying stuff like 'allowed yourself to be manipulated' is just the kind of thing religious nutjobs say.
There are at least three different issues:
Organised Christianity and its teachings
The Bible and its accuracy
The existence of God
I am not religious, and I am very much against indoctrination and other evils. However, I am also against thinking that other people are stupid just because they don't see things your way.
religion is a set of haphazard stories that have advocated mass rape and genocide right to the present day
See above. [i]Some religious people[/i] have advocated that, using religion as an excuse; the bible doesn't.
Religion is a complete bunch of ar5e. The only positive is a number of pretty buildings dedicated to it.
End of.
See above. Some religious people have advocated that, using religion as an excuse; the bible doesn't
I think you will find amongst its "parables" that it did indeed advocate such things.
The "parables" of Exodus and Deuteronomy to name but two should provide you with sufficient reading.
I understand MORE points of view. That's called learning
I suppose in the same way that believing any claptrap is also called "learning".
Atheism is way too dogmatic. I'm cool was as many gods as there are
I suppose in the same way that believing any claptrap is also called "learning".
Eh? You're not mistaking me for a religious person are you?
My sister was christian from about 11 till she went to university(i should add that this was completley her own choice and made through no parental or school indoctrination) She went on to study a masters in Marine Biology. After talking to her recently i find out that she has changed her view point and still believes in a creator of everything but is also very keen to back the evolution of the universe as the more prominent theory. So in other words she changed her mind after seeing the evidence for herself but still holds a strong view towards being faithfull to the God her creator. But she'll never peached that to anybody Religion is very much a personal thing for her, a path of self discovery. I respect that.
I couldn't be bothered reading the whole thread but I'll chuck in a few (non-scientific) observations from the point of view of a teacher (not RE) and an active atheist/agnostic/ theist (depending on the side of the bed I got out of).
1. RE is schools is subject to Ofsted inspection, we just had one, RE got done...
2. Teaching in an inner city comp RE is often the only access to a sense of global conscience or human driven empathy that many students get. Dawkins offers very sensible ideas about the evolution of morality but fails to offer a suitable answer to those who exempt themselves from it and take Materialism to its conclusion - think horrible 'spiritually' bereft 15 yr olds laughing at a starving child or an animal being mutilated - I'm not suggesting religion is the answer to their issues but Materialism has led them to it.
3. Scientific method is all about observation and conclusion but the nature of the observed and its ability to inform 'reality' is not a wholly scientific realm, philosophy and theology have their place.
4. Suggesting 'religion' is one, fundamental, looney, suicide bombing, kid indoctrinating uber force for evil is like suggesting all science and all scientists are swivel eyed crazies with a 'embiggernator' in their cellar and a corpse tied to the slab waiting for a swift bolt of lightning to the neck.
5. Religion in my school has about as much power to indoctrinate as a 'cut your own testicles' off after-school club. However blind self obsession and utter contempt for anyone or anything that does not immediately reward you is a prevalent ethos - for which I blame Dawkins and his lot (this may not be true...)
Here endeth the sermon...go in pieces...
I respect that.
is it sensible to respect belief ? Does more belief entail more respect ? I suggest one ignore belief as largely irrelevant and respect positive behaviour!
I don't see any point in ridiculing people for their beliefs unless they use them as an excuse for bad behaviour. I mean "Thou shalt not kill" seems happily unequivocal, yet many faiths nominally respecting that injunction seem to endorse no end of bloodshed 🙁
God made pretty girls.
Satan made uglies.
Conclusion god is good.
God made pretty girls.
Satan made uglies.
so, as I'm ugly I should worship the Devil ?
Love the way Atheists always have to quote Dawkins in any argument like this. Can't you think for yourselves? Or do you need a whiny self-publicist (very rich from selling his acolytes lots of books) to do it for you? FFS.
'Ooh, Dawkins said this; Dawkins said that, Dawkins said the other'. Boring.
Dawkins would love to be seen as the Prophet of Atheism. That's his whole raison d'etre. Seems to be doing quite well at it too.
I'll do you a little pamphlet if you like. The 'Elfinsafety Manifesto'. £1.99 inc P+P.
Rich, I'll be RICH!
and conclusion but the nature of the observed and its ability to inform 'reality' is not a wholly scientific realm
Truly excellently put.
"Thou shalt not kill" seems happily unequivocal, yet many faiths nominally respecting that injunction seem to endorse no end of bloodshed
You're making the BIG mistake again Barnes. Some being claiming to belong to certain faiths may have endorsed violence, and some of them may have been in high positions within those religions, but that does not mean that the faith endorses it.
You might as well come right out and say Islam bombed the twin towers.
Can't you think for yourselves?
I'm trying mate. I've not read Dawkins either 🙂
I cannot be bothered to read the whole thread I'd had enough halfway down the first page, but has someone pointed out hs argument isnt about teaching creationism (as we have a national curriculum for science) but about the teaching of religion as fact and without consideration of other religions as occurs in many religious schools of all types. The number of faith based schools will also likely sky rocket under the condems plans for academies and so called "free schools". The lack of consideration of other religions in many faith schools it is argued is divisive to the community as a whole.
You're making the BIG mistake again Barnes. Some being claiming to belong to certain faiths may have endorsed violence, and some of them may have been in high positions within those religions, but that does not mean that the faith endorses it.
OK, when I say "faith" I mean exclusively the people espousing it, not the abstract concept.
You might as well come right out and say Islam bombed the twin towers.
am I not specifically saying that I'm only interested in how people behave, not whatever their claimed justifications ? Only people do things, not ideas.
simonfbarnes - Just to clear up the 'I respect that' comment was clearly made after the scentence
. So i feel your quotation is out of context. BUT saying that i agree with you. 🙂But she'll never preach that to anybody
I mean exclusively the people espousing it
SOME of the people espousing it mate.
So i feel your quotation is out of context.
it wasn't possible to tell that your respect only applied to your last sentence 🙂
Love the way Atheists always have to quote Dawkins in any argument like this.
I'm an atheist, and I've never quoted the man in my life.
How do I know someone didn't make up Richard Dawkins? I've never seen him, or read anything he is alleged to have written - however I am prepared to believe in any number of him...
SOME of the people espousing it mate.
agreed 🙂
Actually, I'll expand on that a little.
I don't need a book or a self-publicising spokesman to tell me what's blatently obvious. I applaud what Dawkins is doing, but I have no need of him personally.
I hate the term 'atheist' because it implies a faith; I don't need faith. The stamp collecting comment sums it up beautifully for me. There isn't a need to disprove god any more than there's a need to disprove the tooth fairy. You might as well argue "yes, but how do you [i]know [/i]there's no Santa Claus?"
How do I know someone didn't make up Richard Dawkins?
You're veering from religion to philosophy now. How do you know [i]you [/i]exist?
Love the way Atheists always have to quote Dawkins in any argument like this.
The guy is a prominant figure in many fields most notably Athism right? Having written so many books and having been in the public eye so much it's unlikley you can have one of these debates without a quote from him popping up. His work is extensive.
I would also point out that the OP tagline has the Name Richard Dawkins in it. soooo......Probably going to pop up here.
You're veering from religion to philosophy now
can they be separated ? Without a philosophical underpining a religion would just be a habit.
How do you know you exist?
Irrelevant. The experience I'm having continues, whatever its "real" nature may be. To suggest that I don't exist may make sense to you but to me, my existence is all that I [b]do[/b] know for sure, while it lasts
http://www.karoo.co.uk/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=N0077081282231590726A&category=World
Justice and Religion now there's a conbination 😯
You're making the BIG mistake again Barnes. Some being claiming to belong to certain faiths may have endorsed violence, and some of them may have been in high positions within those religions, but that does not mean that the faith endorses it.
Interesting. Are you saying the Pope, who is head of the catholic church and where the buck stops when interpreting catholicism, was having a bit of and off day when he endorsed the crusades?
jesus christ!
Are you saying the Pope, who is head of the catholic church and where the buck stops when interpreting catholicism, was having a bit of and off day when he endorsed the crusades?
well, it goes without saying that, to get to the top of any organisation takes political intrigue, and things like principles are likely to go by the board. However, when it comes to killing, a useful criterion might be "Who would Jesus shoot/bomb?", but for some reason he seemed to dwell on forgiveness - "Forgive us our sins as we forgive those that sin against us" which leaves little scope for retribution...
Each to their own etc
However I deffo think segregation of children based on the belief of their parents is a bad thing. I guess some people fear they may not follow the path unless forced onto it early...
There is little point arguing though, you cant reason people out of situations they havent reasoned themselves into. Id guess very very few people sit and assess religions before selecting one.
I mean "Thou shalt not kill" seems happily unequivocal, yet many faiths nominally respecting that injunction seem to endorse no end of bloodshed
and just for info., as far as I know that isn't actually what is said. This is often translated as thou shalt not commit murder and there is also stuff on when killing is allowed.
I'm not saying it is justified any more that I am happy about wars being fought in my name as a British citizen. It's just not as glaring an inconsistency as it appears even if you don't agree with when various faiths say killing is allowed (or capital punishment for that matter)
and just for info., as far as I know that isn't actually what is said
this is carved in stone right ? With small print ?
laser printed I believe unless it was photoshopped
Nope, as with all this stuff (again as far as I know) what we have now is the best efforts at translation by folks that weren't actually around at the time so yes, some translations say kill, some say murder and the lolcats bible says ' U no maek peepz ded with teh malice! Srsly!'
What there seems to be agreement on is that neither 'kill' nor 'murder' are quite correct as we use them now. We say kill and then use it in the way that is used nowadays for causing death of any sort which doesn't look as how it was intended
and no, I'm not any sort of scholar on this. It's just a classic misinterpretation I know from a long time ago
EDIT: just looking at the lolcats translation again it's rather good being somewhat closer to murder
[img] 
[/img]
Chapeaux pogo, a well constructed, carefully worded argument. That'll learn 'em.
Love the way Atheists always have to quote Dawkins in any argument like this.
He's concerned about the way religion divides people and how it restricts/forbids free thinking. How is fails to accept the truth when it is staring them in the face. I share his exasperation.
I like his unantigonistic respectful approach and rational questioning of those who's beliefs we are accused of not respecting. He politely challenges these beliefs and invites intelligent debate.
There was one example inlast night's show, where one religious teacher had a disproportionately strong reaction to the questioning. Dawkins did not react. The indignation was because someone had dared to challenge him. My question is: why not? If you belive in something, surely you can present a rational argument without loosing your rag!? Is a respectful questioning really disrespect if another person's beliefs? I don't think so, but I think the repsonses by many religious figures is highly defensive, in some cases downright aggressive and disrespectful!
Did you see interview with the Arch Bishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams? [url=
inteview Video[/url]Why not watch it and note the bit where Reverend Williams belittles people who live on council estates; his surprise that some are actually quite intelligent. An interesting insight into the attitude of leader of the Church of England don't you think? Not to mention his previous ridiculous comments about how it is inevitable that we must accept the integration of elements of Sharia Law into British Law. Codswallop Wr Williams!!
I respect people believing in a religion. The thing that totally baffles me, with the benefit of several decades of life experience, is why people still actually believe any of that stuff! Each to their own, so long as their weird behaviour and attitudes don't impact on anyone else.
Interesting. Are you saying the Pope, who is head of the catholic church and where the buck stops when interpreting catholicism, was having a bit of and off day when he endorsed the crusades?
Things were very different back then. The Catholic church (which isn't all religions, and isn't even all Christianity and wasn't back then either) was a political organisation that governed half of Europe. I'm sure that there were theologians that opposed the crusades.
Still dunno what you are getting at. People didn't really venerate the Pope as God's messenger I don't think. Henry VIII certainly didn't.
The crusades were indeed a low point though. Probably due to macho men spoiling for a rumble. Hardly relevant to religious people today though is it?
He's concerned about the way religion divides people and how it restricts/forbids free thinking. How is fails to accept the truth when it is staring them in the face. I share his exasperation
Me too - of course that only applies to some religious people, equally to some non-religious people.
If you belive in something, surely you can present a rational argument without loosing your rag!?
Some religious folk do.
I don't think so, but I think the repsonses by many religious figures is highly defensive and in some cases downright disrespectful!
They probably feel quite threatened and persecuted. I can't say I blame them, after reading STW.
And WGAF what Rowan Williams says? He's just a bloke who got to the top of his organisation. As flawed as any other.
A fair bit of point missing on here, still.
Not to mention his previous ridiculous comments about how it is inevitable that we must accept the integration of elements of Sharia Law into British Law. Codswallop Wr Williams!!
Do you actually have any idea of what Sharia Law is, other than what you've read in the tabloids?
He's concerned about the way religion divides people and how it restricts/forbids free thinking.
He's far more concerned about his book sales I'd imagine...
How it fails to accept the truth when it is staring them in the face
surely that's a very naive statement given the fluidity of "truth" ?
And WGAF what Rowan Williams says?
a man whose own eyebrows are making an escape bid ?
[img] 
[/img]
even scarier, he's only 3 years older than me 🙁
[url= http://www.youtube.com/patcondell#p/a/u/1/dbJ4CPWi_pg ]This guy is disrespectful towards religious people[/url]
surely that's a very naive statement given the fluidity of "truth" ?
Simon has it! 🙂
Simon has it!
no I never, it's just a rash...
He's far more concerned about his book sales I'd imagine...
isn't that a very cheap shot ? I don't know much about the guy, but isn't he making a heart felt plea for rationality ?
