The God Delusion - ongoing review

Case and point.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

they are called unnatural because they are made by beings with free will. we aren't controlled by laws of nature because we have free will, we are supernatural, and yet we are a part of nature...

death (change, transformation) is not a bad thing. all physical things wear out and must die some day. it's their fate. these physical bodies are just an advanced form of clothing. don't worry about the death of the clothes/species, we can always make new ones.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ah yes, why did I not realise this? You are a marvel indeed!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

First off, could you share the link to what it is you're watching?

Secondly, you're not the first to say that, but on the other hand, there are those who don't get the same impression, some opposite.

Do you view him the same way in all of his videos?

Do you get the same impression when you read his books?

 

So attributing those attitudes and levels of sophistication to "atheism" itself is a mistake - similar to attributing the same of streetcorner preachers to "theism".

I have no idea why you do not seem to realize this. Rhetorical tactic ?

 

I think it is just as dangerous to take all mysticism away from life - or to generally stive towards debunking all mysteries which still exist. Dawkins is an extremist, and I dislike his approach. He is, of course, entitled to his educated opinion, but he is seriously generalizing the religious community. For many people, religion is only a frame-work - a save haven, so to speak, which gives them stability and certainty in life. Faith doesn't kill creativity or deep thinking, since if it does, then the person has no capability to be creative and / or a deep thinker to begin with as far as my opinion is concerned.

Comparing God to a tooth-fairy is just as superficial, to be honest. The concept of God has roots in our various mythologies, and has been recorded ever since we were able to write. Tooth-fairy, on the other hand, doesn't. Tooth-fairy doesn't represent the entity that God does, for God - whatever it may be - is generally associated with either life or warmth. The concept might not be tangible, but the effects which it is often related to are.

Dawkins might be rational, but I doubt that he has a deep understanding of human emotions. Plus, he would be just as ready to fight and die for science as some people are for religion, so his point regarding this matter becomes somewhat obsolete. Religion isn't dangerous - the human mind, in general, is. If one studies christian ethics, for example, and takes them to heart ( as many religious people do ), then he or she will actually make an effort to live better.

The whole claim that religion is with-helding our growth as intelligent beings is bogus as well. Human kind has been religious ever since the stone-age, yet progress has still happened - constantly. The christian church might have tried to prevent it in the middle-ages, but it doesn't do so anymore. Like somebody said, even the catholic church approves the idea of evolution - even if the approach is a bit cautious.

 

For the price of a couple of burgers...

 

I will agree here. Even adult converts to theism can be hard to take.

 

Oh, we do, my friend. We are all weak enough to search the comfort and safe haven from around us - for some it is God, for some it is sports, video-games, or a combination of the above... Actually, we are so weak at facing life that we rather escape it than move towards it - 'thus our tendency to consume alcohol and watch excessive amounts of television; anything that can aid us in our escape. My point wasn't about religious people being more creative and intelligent, but that faith doesn't make a person *less* capable at being creative and intelligent.

Why should it matter to you what the motivation is behind a good deed, ( or the idea of 'being good' ) by the way? According to basic psychology, a 'good deed' is always commenced in the hopes of a reward - perhaps one unconciously believes that if he is nice to a person, people will also be nice to him. Or perhaps it will make him feel better about himself in general. Or perhaps he wants to satisfy God, who he believes is watching his every step, by fulfilling the law "love your neighbour as you love yourself". Why should it matter to you? We are never capable of doing a good deed without any selfish purposes anyhow, and the fact remains that both parties - the maker of the deed and the receiver of the deed - win something from the situation. Why is it better if a person's motivation doesn't involve God, since we are incapable of performing a completely selfless act of good regardless?

I never said that atheists don't have a sense of morality. This defensive thought-pattern is seemingly rooted in your own head - it is you who constantly looks for 'dividing factors' between faithful and faithless people. You need to realize that there is nothing different in you versus a religious person. You probably find comfort and balance from some thoughts / things, while a religious person has his Bible. Different paths, same conclusion.

My point was, if you look carefully, that having faith doesn't necessarily harm a person - it might even give the person the frame-work he / she needs for self-improvement. It is only in fundamentalism where I can sense danger and blindness, too, and very few of the christians I know personally are fundamental.

Actually, you are wrong here. Christian doctrine doesn't blanket a person in the way the idea of Santa Claus does. It isn't about being 'good' or being 'bad' - it is about being humble in front of God. It's all about being able to admit that one has faults and needs a companion - be it God, or another human being - in this life to help him out. I find nothing wrong with this thought-pattern. You see why it might even be important to one's self-improvement? It actually encourages you to face yourself just as you are - a fragile individual in search of solace. Modern society is pushing people towards cynicism - why is that any better? We can never shake our inner child away completely, nor should we.

This paragraph unfortunately shows that you know nothing about Christian ethics. First of all, ruling out gay people is part of the old testament - which, by christian doctrine, represents the previous relationship between humanity and God. The new relationship came with Jesus Christ, who never encouraged people to condemn each other. In fact, Jesus encouraged us to love each other, forgive each other and respect each other. He saved a whore, which - by your definitions of Christian ethics - should have been stoned and sent to hell. Replace the whore with a gay person and He would have done the same. You are seemingly clinging on to the extremist ideals and views of christianity, which - I agree - are harmful. But you are seriously narrowing your view on christianity in general if you think that every religious person thinks like you think they do.

We haven't. We might have advanced technologically, but we are still homo sapiens. Our mathematical and practical thinking might have evolved, but we still share the exact same needs and desires as our stone-age counterparts. This includes the desire to worship a 'greater entity' - be it God, money or a car, for example. What makes you think that we are superior, in that sense, than our ancestors?

 

Where's that "degrading passion" bit Bells?

 

wrong!, how could you come to this conclusion.
Surely you know what atheist means.
It comes from the greek "Atheos" "A" = without and "Theos" = god, the same as Asymetry means without symetry, It's that simple.
So to say that "there are no athiest children either", is clearly wrong, children can be nothing other than atheist.

How so, agnosticism requires knowledge of the subject, children until they aquire said knowledge and wish to accept or use this said knowledge, cannot be deemed agnostic.

what he means in this instances is that the religious mind, can be altered by it's religion, (sometimes to the detriment of others) however this can never be the case with the atheist, He is either already unhealthy minded (as you say), or not, (but this is very unlikely, to be unhealthy minded requires a trauma of some kind. Thus an atheist would not be an atheist, if he wasn't thinking clearly.)

 

Embryonic stem cells come to mind. Efforts to teach ID instead of science in public schools come to mind. You must not be in the USA.

 

Bells: then there Paul and I diverge. Nor, moreover, will I simply permit him to go his own way, either.

audible: atheist in the conventional definition defines a choice. Children haven't made any such choice. One might be atheistic in the strict sense of the definition, but children could not said to be athiest. As for the healthy mind bit, you again make the assumption that atheism requires a healthy mind. Can a theist be a theist whilst still thinking clearly?

More later on; or not, possibly. Busy, busy week this week. Many grant info requires much analysis and bullshit.

Best,

Geoff

 

I don't get your argument to be honest. Because god was written about by imaginative stupid ancient people and the tooth fairy was written about by modern imaginative stupid people that the two cannot be compared?

Is there something about a text being written by people that thought the world was flat as a pancake that has merit where modern day text does not?

 

There's assumed to be eyewitnesses in the period; ergo, the Gospels etc.

 

exactly assumed(fabricated), no factual stuff.
take a look at Iasions threads you'll find there are no eyewitness accounts.