So, I just got my copy of The God Delusion. I'm loving it so far. I'm curious to hear what other people think about the book (and about Dawkins in general).
When I was a believer, I never was very comfortable with the way God was depicted in the Old Testament. And this is precisely why. (From p 31)
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
That's why I didn't like him very much. I didn't mind the Jesus in the New Testament, or the God that's depicted in the Book of Mormon or in Sunday School class as much, but the one in the OT is a real prick.
That is one of my favourite quotes!
I liked The God Delusion quite a bit. It was the first time I had really thought about religious questions after my sneak deconversion (Yes, I am so ninja I deconverted myself behind my own back 8) ) and the book really laid out the arguments for and against in a surprisingly fresh and interesting way. There is no doubt that the man can write, and that he at times is very funny, even when the topic is serious.
And some here might remember the event with this particular book and the mormon missionary I recounted in an old post. ;D
The God Delusion definitely radicalised me into the militant atheist I am now ;)
Dawkins has publicised, promoted and popularised atheism in a manner previously impossible. Assisted by the great theist Osama Bin Laden Dawkins has finally help put theism where it should be, under the harsh light of rational debate. The availability of the Internet has helped this scrutiny become mainstream. Is he a good philosopher? Debatable. Is he a good scientist? On a good day, yes. Is he a great human being? There are better. Is he the right guy in the right place at the right time? You betcha!
I just found out that there's now a book called The Dawkins Delusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dawkins_Delusion%3F).
Quote from: OldGit on March 30, 2012, 10:11:44 AM
I just found out that there's now a book called The Dawkins Delusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dawkins_Delusion%3F).
He also appears to have another book dedicated to Dawkins as well: Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawkins%27_God:_Genes,_Memes,_and_the_Meaning_of_Life)
Funny thing is, I found those books while checking if the libraries around here had "The God Delusion"... :-\
Quote from: OldGit on March 30, 2012, 10:11:44 AM
I just found out that there's now a book called The Dawkins Delusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dawkins_Delusion%3F).
Another I've seen bandied about is: I don't have enough faith to be an atheist. (http://www.amazon.ca/Dont-Have-Enough-Faith-Atheist/dp/1581345615)
QuoteAll worldviews, including atheism, require faith. Believing anything requires some degree of faith, even if many adherents dont want to think so. I Dont Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist argues that Christianity requires the least faith of all because id is the most reasonable. In a logical, readable, non-technical, engaging style, Norman Geisler and Frank Turek lay out the evidence that the truth about reality is knowable, that God exists, and that the Bible is reliable. In this valuable aid for those interested in examining the reasonableness of the Christian faith, doubters of all sorts will find their abjections answered and Christians will find their confidence in the reasonableness of the faith strengthened.
If that doesn't make your head explode, I don't know what will. I've actually heard Christians use this as their argument; that Christianity is the default and it takes "faith" to become an atheist. Sure it might feel that way if you've been indoctrinated your whole life, but that's called fear of change. It doesn't mean that's how
reality works!
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on March 30, 2012, 05:38:23 PM
Quote from: OldGit on March 30, 2012, 10:11:44 AM
I just found out that there's now a book called The Dawkins Delusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dawkins_Delusion%3F).
Another I've seen bandied about is: I don't have enough faith to be an atheist. (http://www.amazon.ca/Dont-Have-Enough-Faith-Atheist/dp/1581345615)
QuoteAll worldviews, including atheism, require faith. Believing anything requires some degree of faith, even if many adherents dont want to think so. I Dont Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist argues that Christianity requires the least faith of all because id is the most reasonable. In a logical, readable, non-technical, engaging style, Norman Geisler and Frank Turek lay out the evidence that the truth about reality is knowable, that God exists, and that the Bible is reliable. In this valuable aid for those interested in examining the reasonableness of the Christian faith, doubters of all sorts will find their abjections answered and Christians will find their confidence in the reasonableness of the faith strengthened.
If that doesn't make your head explode, I don't know what will. I've actually heard Christians use this as their argument; that Christianity is the default and it takes "faith" to become an atheist. Sure it might feel that way if you've been indoctrinated your whole life, but that's called fear of change. It doesn't mean that's how reality works!
Abjections? Abjection: A low or downcast state
Abject: Of the most contemptible kind; Most unfortunate or miserable; Showing utter resignation or hopelessness; Showing humiliation or submissiveness.
My low and downcast state caused by the influence of the delusional is answered by that paragraph, answered and reinforced.
How the heck does it take faith to be an atheist? ;____; I am very puzzled.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on March 31, 2012, 07:42:05 PM
How the heck does it take faith to be an atheist? ;____; I am very puzzled.
Haven't you heard? Atheism is a religion according to religious loonies. :P
I usually say atheism is a religion the same way not smoking is a habit. ;)
Maybe I should give the book another chance. I tried reading it a few years ago and didn't make it through, as I found him to be too arrogant for my tastes. I was looking more for something that would convince the unconvinced, or at least something that would make a religious person think twice. That book seemed more like a dressing-down of all religious people, and played too much to the worst stereotypes of atheists.
Quote from: Tank on March 30, 2012, 07:12:57 AM
The God Delusion definitely radicalised me into the militant atheist I am now ;)
I got there all by meself...
God Delusion is a good book, but to me it seems kind of overrated.
Quote from: Guardian85 on March 31, 2012, 07:49:35 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on March 31, 2012, 07:42:05 PM
How the heck does it take faith to be an atheist? ;____; I am very puzzled.
Haven't you heard? Atheism is a religion according to religious loonies. :P
I usually say atheism is a religion the same way not smoking is a habit. ;)
My favorite was the way Bill Maher put it: atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position.
Atheism is a religion the same way bald is a hairdo.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on March 31, 2012, 01:27:50 AM
My low and downcast state caused by the influence of the delusional is answered by that paragraph, answered and reinforced.
I was thinking that I'd find it hard to be convinced of anything by someone who didn't know their abject from their object.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on March 31, 2012, 07:42:05 PM
How the heck does it take faith to be an atheist? ;____; I am very puzzled.
That's just more of the "you do it too!" defense. Pretty damn weak, but when it all they've got, it's what they use.
Quote from: Firebird on March 31, 2012, 08:11:39 PM
Maybe I should give the book another chance. I tried reading it a few years ago and didn't make it through, as I found him to be too arrogant for my tastes. I was looking more for something that would convince the unconvinced, or at least something that would make a religious person think twice. That book seemed more like a dressing-down of all religious people, and played too much to the worst stereotypes of atheists.
I got all the way thru the book and still share your opinion on it. I agree with most of what Dawkins says but not with how he says it -- if his goal is to convince the unconvinced (and I'm not certain that's either necessary or good) he should take himself out of the fight and leave it to someone with better people skills.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on April 01, 2012, 01:06:48 AM
I got all the way thru the book and still share your opinion on it. I agree with most of what Dawkins says but not with how he says it -- if his goal is to convince the unconvinced (and I'm not certain that's either necessary or good) he should take himself out of the fight and leave it to someone with better people skills.
Same, BCE. I agree with it, but not how he says it.
I recently read this: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/dawkins-calls-for-mockery-of-catholics-at-reason-rally/
Quote"For example, if they say they're Catholic: Do you really believe, that when a priest blesses a wafer, it turns into the body of Christ? Are you seriously telling me you believe that? Are you seriously saying that wine turns into blood?"
If the answer is yes, Dawkins suggested atheists should show contempt for believers instead of ignoring the issue or feigning respect.
"Mock them," he told the crowd. "Ridicule them! In public!"
Being that it's from CNA, I don't know how much of it is distortion or exaggeration, but if it's the truth at all, then there's a huge issue he's got with people skills. We don't promote understanding or calm discussion or anything positive by mocking people, showing contempt for them, etc. That's just counter productive.
Sigh. Despite my issues with Dawkins, I see my post count title on HAF is now 'The Dawkinator'. Oh joy. :D
I'll admit-I've never read The God Delusion. I also tried giving God is Not Great a shot, but couldn't get into it. My interest in atheist writing came mostly from philosophical essays by Sartre, Nietzsche and the other existentialists.
I do need to read it (The God Delusion), though. Finding that in a library around here though might be a task.
Quote from: philosoraptor on April 01, 2012, 04:22:43 AM
I'll admit-I've never read The God Delusion. I also tried giving God is Not Great a shot, but couldn't get into it.
Ah, Hitchens. A very bright man but no better with people than Dawkins.
Quote from: Amicale on April 01, 2012, 04:22:20 AM
We don't promote understanding or calm discussion or anything positive by mocking people, showing contempt for them, etc. That's just counter productive.
I wonder if that's actually his goal at all, maybe all he wants to do is preach to the choir? Because if that's so, then he's doing a great job.
QuoteSigh. Despite my issues with Dawkins, I see my post count title on HAF is now 'The Dawkinator'. Oh joy. :D
I think that's delicious.
Quote from: philosoraptor on April 01, 2012, 04:22:43 AM
I'll admit-I've never read The God Delusion. I also tried giving God is Not Great a shot, but couldn't get into it.
Quote from: Amicale on April 01, 2012, 04:22:20 AM
We don't promote understanding or calm discussion or anything positive by mocking people, showing contempt for them, etc. That's just counter productive.
I think the purpose of these books and the ensuing media attention was more of an awareness raising thing then a conversion effort. It was a way to say to the christians "We are here!" rather then "come with me, my friend...".
It's like the book version of a gay pride parade. It's the litterary version of marching down main street with a pink feather boa and ass-less Chaps.
You must admit that the topic of atheism got firmly placed in the national debates of several countries after the appeerance of "The Four Horsemen".
In Aus we had conflict between Catholics and protestants up until the 1960s. What form was the conflict? Discrimination for employment, mixed marriages were frowned upon, actively opposed, participants shunned. I wasn't a concious citizen for this phase of our history, it seems ridiculous and yet it happened. Contraceptives arrived and the keepers of truth told people not use them but they did.
Homosexuality would get you a stay in jail, if you're gay and a guy winks at you in a public toilet, you have to hope he's not a cop. Gay characters appeared on TV and my mother would laugh but she never accepted them. Actually she blamed them for all manner of societies ills. She rejected the church when it refused to bury her 24 old cancer victim sister because she'd married a protestant.
The church was loosing ground, they were fading away but we got some inflow of the evangelist Billy Graham type crap. I lost some friends to that, they were never any fun after they found the light and categorized me as wrong.
Few people attended church but they still sought to influence our behaviour and our thoughts. I'm not happy at all about that. Woman are unfit to hold office in the church yet their wombs are church property.
Ye so I'm angry about a lot of this stuff. Dawkins the great evolutionary biologist is pissed at creationist buffoonery being taken seriously, who could blame him?
I've seen atheist extremists at work and I want no part of it.
I think we're all more or less delusional, if your delusion can be classified Christian and it evokes goodwill for others in you, bravo. If you've joined a club that encourages you to embrace ancient ignorance and enforce your prejudices, I'm not going to be friendly when we meet.
Wow, that's powerful , Puddin.
I can't believe anyone would have an issue with mixed marriages.... (marriages of any human x human in general.)
The sheer ignorance and hatred these people spew are like a virus.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on April 01, 2012, 07:13:48 PM
I've seen atheist extremists at work and I want no part of it.
Just for clarification, what do you mean by "atheist extremists"? In your mind, what classifies an atheist as an "extremist"? Do you consider Dawkins to be an extremist? Hitchens?
Quote from: Sweetdeath on April 02, 2012, 03:36:32 AM
I can't believe anyone would have an issue with mixed marriages.... (marriages of any human x human in general.)
I have an issue with the whole ritual in the first place, but I wouldn't want to legislate my personal preference.
Quote from: Asmodean on April 03, 2012, 08:11:56 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on April 02, 2012, 03:36:32 AM
I can't believe anyone would have an issue with mixed marriages.... (marriages of any human x human in general.)
I have an issue with the whole ritual in the first place, but I wouldn't want to legislate my personal preference.
I do think there's evidence that 1. some people want to a have long-term, committed (either poly- or monogamous) relationships and 2. children raised in a stable environment are better adjusted to society and less likely to commit crime. For those two reasons, I think the concept of marriage is beneficial. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing marriage be completely discarded, as far as the civil aspect is concerned, and to make it a purely religious ritual. But, I'd also rather have all of the legal benefits that go along with being married, which is why I advocate legalization of gay marriage.
Quote from: keithpenrod on April 03, 2012, 02:43:29 AM
Just for clarification, what do you mean by "atheist extremists"? In your mind, what classifies an atheist as an "extremist"? Do you consider Dawkins to be an extremist? Hitchens?
I don't consider Dawkins or Hitchens extremist.
I've seen forum discussions where christians are accused of supporting child abuse if they remain in a church where it has occurred. I don't think they should silently accept it but the leave or your complicit in the crimes attitude is extreme I think. There are atheists who don't concede a place for anything but the rational, they practice a kind of zealotry. Charities with a link to religion, well they're only in it for the proselytising. I would like it if religion went away but meanwhile it's probably wise to find common ground where we can with moderate theists.
Quote from: Asmodean on April 03, 2012, 08:11:56 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on April 02, 2012, 03:36:32 AM
I can't believe anyone would have an issue with mixed marriages.... (marriages of any human x human in general.)
I have an issue with the whole ritual in the first place, but I wouldn't want to legislate my personal preference.
Trust me, i'm the first person for ebolishing marriage as a whole. It is annoying, but people do it mostly for green card reasons, money , or benefits ( I think tax break?)
Anyway, I think there is a society pressure for couples to marry because it's suppose to mean "love and commitment" but I don't believe it at all.
Marriage s just as out dated as jesus himself. :(
Quote from: Sweetdeath on April 04, 2012, 05:55:46 AM
Trust me, i'm the first person for ebolishing marriage as a whole. It is annoying, but people do it mostly for green card reasons, money , or benefits ( I think tax break?)
Anyway, I think there is a society pressure for couples to marry because it's suppose to mean "love and commitment" but I don't believe it at all.
Marriage s just as out dated as jesus himself. :(
Ebolishing? A new word I haven't heard about yet? Or did you possibly mean abolish? ;D
(Sorry. Bored and couldn't resist.)
Quote from: Guardian85 on April 04, 2012, 07:05:24 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on April 04, 2012, 05:55:46 AM
Trust me, i'm the first person for ebolishing marriage as a whole. It is annoying, but people do it mostly for green card reasons, money , or benefits ( I think tax break?)
Anyway, I think there is a society pressure for couples to marry because it's suppose to mean "love and commitment" but I don't believe it at all.
Marriage s just as out dated as jesus himself. :(
Ebolishing? A new word I haven't heard about yet? Or did you possibly mean abolish? ;D
(Sorry. Bored and couldn't resist.)
Yup. That's when you abolish ebonics. :D (Couldn't resist, either!)
To Ebolish
To delete any electronic media file such as an email of Jpg image etc.
Quote from: Tank on April 04, 2012, 08:08:19 AM
To Ebolish
To delete any electronic media file such as an email of Jpg image etc.
Ahahaha!!!
This is why I need more than 4 hours of sleep
I am on a roll this week. Man, I promise I am actually good at writing and English. XDD
Quote from: Guardian85 on March 31, 2012, 07:49:35 PM
I usually say atheism is a religion the same way not smoking is a habit. ;)
Can I put this in my signature?
Well, you don't have to be deluded about it, though. Personally I don't think religion is directly responsible for hate/bigotry/social prejudices. More likely, as human societies become more civil and open, so will religions adopt this attitude and "stay current" so to speak.
Quote from: The Semaestro on April 04, 2012, 07:45:03 PM
Well, you don't have to be deluded about it, though. Personally I don't think religion is directly responsible for hate/bigotry/social prejudices. More likely, as human societies become more civil and open, so will religions adopt this attitude and "stay current" so to speak.
Religion itself is benign.
As an atheist do I care if a person presses their hands together and makes a wish?
The dangerous part of religion is their morality.
With morality, the religious look to stone transgressors, or burn witches and heretics or oppress homosexuals, or subjugate women.
Plus, when you have a very specific ancient religious text that's supposed to be the basis of a religion, it doesn't exactly push the followers towards being "current" or even keeping in touch with modern society. Plenty of religious people do, but I don't think it's by virtue of their religion, I think it's in spite of their religion.
But morality isn't part of religion! Regardless of what any religious individual says, the vast majority of people in america do not stone their children, do not practice slavery, do not murder or rape, etc, and they still wouldn't do these things if god didn't exist! (By the way, the idea that they would if god let them off the hook is actually a religious low blow aimed at atheists. Christians can't understand why atheists are moral, because to them being a christian is part of morality. At the same time, this moral idea is NOT a product of religion, and would easily be washed away by the further developing morality of society.)
Morality is societal. It is based on cultural mores and concepts, as well as expectations over which religion simply adds window dressing, and no amount of religious posturing will ever change the fact that any society will develop it's morality based on secular and environmental factors!
In other words, even if you abolish religion, you won't abolish slavery. Ending slavery and the like comes from ending slavery and the like, and this just so happens to be easier if you have a point of reference like a religion with which to couch your ideas!
GRRRRR!!!! >:(
I agree that abolishing religion, isn't a magic fix for all of the world's woes (I, personally, have no interest in abolishing religion. I would just like it to stay in the private sphere).
But I think that, in some parts of the world, there is a very strong link between "morality" and religion. If you talk to a Christian or Muslim fundamentalist, for example, or go to a place where they have a lot of political power, there is definitely a religion/morality tie that's hard to ignore. Now, of course, their sense of morality won't be the same as ours, but that's how they conceive it and it's pretty politically relevant.
Quote from: Ali on April 04, 2012, 07:14:29 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on March 31, 2012, 07:49:35 PM
I usually say atheism is a religion the same way not smoking is a habit. ;)
Can I put this in my signature?
As long as yours truly is credited the quote, knock yourself out!
Morality is a vague word.
I think "morality" is derived from people's intent to make the "right" decision.
The "right" decision is derived from a perception of "good" and "bad". Religions rephrase this as "Good" and "Evil".
As you may know already, it is often difficult to tell good from bad. Life is complex and there are no absolutes. Secular people recognise that "morality" is subjective. In my opinion subjective morality isn't morality at all, instead it is personal values, something to guide the self but not to judge others by.
But a lot of people don't like this idea, that morality isn't absolute. They don't like the responsibility of working out right from wrong themselves. They don't trust themselves and don't want the guilt of making bad decisions. The inventors of religion are aware of this and came up with an answer. An all perfect, all knowing entity that can do no wrong. Now we have a perfect guide and the responsibility is now on the church to interpret the will of the all perfect entity rather than on the imperfect self.
However, the consequence of having an absolute morality is that all people ought to obey it. Those that don't obey are "Evil" and are corrupting and ruining the world for others. Believers now point to non believers and suggest that they are guilty of "Pride" by thinking that their own morality is better than god's.
In Christianity, it is immoral not to believe. No doubt this concept was added to that religion in order to convince people to believe. But the consequence is that the Christian believers think non believers are "Evil" and are corrupting and ruining the world for others. We are one of the least trusted groups in America even though we haven't done anything in the name of atheism, no suicide bombs, no exploding buildings, no violence in the name of atheism.
In days gone by, when Christianity based leaders ruled by tyranny, they were justified in slaughtering the "Evil" non believers, or believers of the "wrong" faith.
In today's times, Christianity based leaders sometimes rule by oppression, they are justified in oppressing the "Evil" homosexuals.
This is the undeniable consequence of morality, a belief in absolute right and absolute wrong.
We ought not further develop morality within society. Morality is a tool of oppression and hate. We ought to stop believing in morality. Cast it aside as we would the old torture devices of the past.
If atheists recognise their "morality" simply as personal values, and if religions teach their "morality" as religious values to be taken on by the faithful as personal values, then we will stop judging each other, stop oppressing each other. We will then be capable of accepting diversity and accepting each other despite our individual beliefs.
You say ridding society of religion will not change anything, but I disagree. There are whole cultures made with religion as its center, like many places in the middle East.
Try telling a muslim who prays five times a day that women and non muslims should be treated with equallity.
and I dont know if you've noticed, but religions love to isolate their followers from reality as much as possible. Look at extreme jewish cultures, where they cannot marry outside the religion.
People who follow religion do heinus acts, but mostly because they are preached hatred by their "holy" books and texts.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on April 04, 2012, 08:52:07 PM
I agree that abolishing religion, isn't a magic fix for all of the world's woes (I, personally, have no interest in abolishing religion. I would just like it to stay in the private sphere).
This is where I come from, too. I have no interest in abolishing religion; in fact, I really, REALLY don't want to.
Why? Well, how would we do it, exactly?
Tell churches, synagogues and mosques to close their doors? That doesn't abolish religion, that sends it underground to individual houses.
Educate the people until they're force-fed atheism and brainwashed into believing it? How does that make us any better than the most fundamentalist preacher, and how does that give people a free choice on how to live their lives?
Actively punish anyone secretly caught worshipping/believing in God? That turns us into a police/nanny state. I wouldn't want to live in it. I'd move.
I'm interested in people having the freedom to think their own thoughts, have their own ideas, and I want them to be able to disagree with me.
Like DJ said, though, I just want this in the private sphere. The government and religion need to not intersect officially.
Quote from: Amicale on April 05, 2012, 12:33:21 AM
Like DJ said, though, I just want this in the private sphere. The government and religion need to not intersect officially.
Well, as any organisation operating within a society, the organisation is due to obey the rules governing that society. No exemptions!
Quote from: Stevil on April 05, 2012, 12:42:00 AM
Quote from: Amicale on April 05, 2012, 12:33:21 AM
Like DJ said, though, I just want this in the private sphere. The government and religion need to not intersect officially.
Well, as any organisation operating within a society, the organisation is due to obey the rules governing that society. No exemptions!
Oh, sure. Of course. Sorry, I'll clarify. I didn't mean that members of a religion shouldn't follow their nation's laws (unless, of course, those laws are actively harmful/dangerous). I meant that religion shouldn't officially interfere with government rule, and the government shouldn't try to control the actions/beliefs of religious adherents, assuming that the religious adherents aren't doing anything harmful or dangerous, either.
Basically, if the religious folks just want to be peaceful, believe in their ideas, and not hurt anyone, I say go to it without official government opposition.
Should go without saying that in the private sphere, all bets are off and we criticize the heck out of each other. ;)
Quote from: Amicale on April 05, 2012, 12:46:37 AM
Quote from: Stevil on April 05, 2012, 12:42:00 AM
Quote from: Amicale on April 05, 2012, 12:33:21 AM
Like DJ said, though, I just want this in the private sphere. The government and religion need to not intersect officially.
Well, as any organisation operating within a society, the organisation is due to obey the rules governing that society. No exemptions!
Oh, sure. Of course. Sorry, I'll clarify. I didn't mean that members of a religion shouldn't follow their nation's laws (unless, of course, those laws are actively harmful/dangerous). I meant that religion shouldn't officially interfere with government rule, and the government shouldn't try to control the actions/beliefs of religious adherents, assuming that the religious adherents aren't doing anything harmful or dangerous, either.
Basically, if the religious folks just want to be peaceful, believe in their ideas, and not hurt anyone, I say go to it without official government opposition.
Should go without saying that in the private sphere, all bets are off and we criticize the heck out of each other. ;)
I know it seemed a bit silly of me to say that, but there are people that think separation of church and state means that church are exempt from laws and taxes.
Quote from: Stevil on April 05, 2012, 01:02:04 AM
Quote from: Amicale on April 05, 2012, 12:46:37 AM
Quote from: Stevil on April 05, 2012, 12:42:00 AM
Quote from: Amicale on April 05, 2012, 12:33:21 AM
Like DJ said, though, I just want this in the private sphere. The government and religion need to not intersect officially.
Well, as any organisation operating within a society, the organisation is due to obey the rules governing that society. No exemptions!
Oh, sure. Of course. Sorry, I'll clarify. I didn't mean that members of a religion shouldn't follow their nation's laws (unless, of course, those laws are actively harmful/dangerous). I meant that religion shouldn't officially interfere with government rule, and the government shouldn't try to control the actions/beliefs of religious adherents, assuming that the religious adherents aren't doing anything harmful or dangerous, either.
Basically, if the religious folks just want to be peaceful, believe in their ideas, and not hurt anyone, I say go to it without official government opposition.
Should go without saying that in the private sphere, all bets are off and we criticize the heck out of each other. ;)
I know it seemed a bit silly of me to say that, but there are people that think separation of church and state means that church are exempt from laws and taxes.
Oh, no, it was actually a good point to make, since it got me to clarify. :)
Quote from: Sweetdeath on April 04, 2012, 11:42:19 PM
You say ridding society of religion will not change anything, but I disagree. There are whole cultures made with religion as its center, like many places in the middle East.
Try telling a muslim who prays five times a day that women and non muslims should be treated with equallity.
and I dont know if you've noticed, but religions love to isolate their followers from reality as much as possible. Look at extreme jewish cultures, where they cannot marry outside the religion.
People who follow religion do heinus acts, but mostly because they are preached hatred by their "holy" books and texts.
ARRRGGGHHH!!!!!!! The muslim caliphate was the most forward looking empire in the world during medieval times! Human's have have over ten thousands years from their first appearance to develop morally, but that doesn't mean it'll happen overnight or only in one direction!!!!!!
*throws hands up in air*
I give up. Nothing ever changes in all the millions of years that lead to this moment. Now pass me that jar of leeches. I have a headache.
You seem easily frustrated.
Would it bother you if Christians claimed that religion makes the world a better place? Is it really so surprising that atheists tend to believe that it makes the world a poorer place?
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on April 05, 2012, 03:27:40 AM
You seem easily frustrated.
Would it bother you if Christians claimed that religion makes the world a better place? Is it really so surprising that atheists tend to believe that it makes the world a poorer place?
I'm seriously unsure if he is sarcastic or not. o_o;
he's posted a few "ARGGHH!!/GRRRR!!" posts in response to these sorts of things.
This is sort of an old thread, but I've been searching for "atheism as a religion", I've heard that term used a few times and it confounds me. This thread seems to touch on this. Are there any others which go into more depth?
Also:
QuoteIn Christianity, it is immoral not to believe.
Stevil posted this, where does this reference come from?
Quote from: technolud on May 25, 2012, 06:50:19 AM
Also:
QuoteIn Christianity, it is immoral not to believe.
Stevil posted this, where does this reference come from?
Kevin Crady, a very intelligent, Bible literate articulate atheist has posted some fantastic (but long) posts, which I adore.
Here is one relevant to my comment you quoted above.
Quote
Yes. "Law" depends on coercion. Without police, jails, etc. "law" would be nothing but impotent words. Morality would continue to exist. A moral person is someone who chooses the good and refrains from the evil even if they could "get away with" doing otherwise. Of course, law and the coercion it entails is necessary in any organized society. But notice what it is necessary for: to deter--or failing that, to retaliate against and/or confine--those who would otherwise make evil choices.
Morality, on the other hand, stems from choice. Apart from choice, morality ceases to exist. The person who refrains from embezzling money at work only because they're afraid they'll get caught is not considered morally praiseworthy. The person who refrains from embezzling money even when they're certain they could get away with it, is. Once coercion enters, morality vanishes. If someone embezzles money because someone has kidnapped his little girl and threatened to kill her if he didn't, we consider him a victim, not immoral. If you walk up to somebody on the sidewalk, say "I'm taking donations for the United Way," then pull out a gun and say "DONATE 50 BUCKS OR I BLOW YOUR BRAINS OUT!" the "donor" does not receive moral praise for her charity.
We assign moral credit or blame to others for their choices precisely because morality is inherently autonomous. It is their virtue or vice. A person who refrains from some evil act only out of fear of punishment has no moral virtue1. They act "good" only because their free will has been violated by external coercion. Christians commonly bring up the "free will" argument to explain why God does such a fine job of acting like he doesn't exist. If God healed amputees, or did any other unambiguously miraculous or divine thing, they tell us, we would not be free to choose whether or not to believe in him. This choice-to-believe then, is held as a moral act. This is why Christians who believe that only Christians are "saved" think that atheists and believers in other religions "must" be immoral. To disbelieve in Christianity is not merely a mistake, like thinking that the sun goes around the Earth or that a mirage in the desert is a pool of water, but a sin.
If God's existence were self-evident, then the choice to believe and worship would cease to be moral and become legal.2. Since A) God's existence is not self-evident3, and B) guilt-tripping is much more effective than threats of force4, turning the question of God's existence into a moral issue rather than a factual one is an extremely powerful adaptation of the Christian meme-set. Hence the importance, to me, of depriving Christianity of the weapon of morality.
I remember having read a book by Dawkins but i remember that his arguments attacked people's actions rather than ideologies/doctrines/philosophies and that wasn't what i wanted to read...maybe it was God is not great..don't remember..
Quote from: waitin4godot on May 25, 2012, 07:45:26 AM
I remember having read a book by Dawkins but i remember that his arguments attacked people's actions rather than ideologies/doctrines/philosophies and that wasn't what i wanted to read...maybe it was God is not great..don't remember..
God is not Great is by Christopher Hitchens. The God Delusion is the only polemic by Dawkins.
Quote from: Tank on May 25, 2012, 08:04:41 AM
Quote from: waitin4godot on May 25, 2012, 07:45:26 AM
I remember having read a book by Dawkins but i remember that his arguments attacked people's actions rather than ideologies/doctrines/philosophies and that wasn't what i wanted to read...maybe it was God is not great..don't remember..
God is not Great is by Christopher Hitchens. The God Delusion is the only polemic by Dawkins.
yep you're right ..thank you..it was Hitchens then..
I heart Hitchens ;A;
Dawkins? Oh great, the british are light years ahead of us. The sad thing is that british atheism is a bit too dry for my tastes... I do love the top hats, though. ;)
Atheism can be... Wet?
I suppose there are differences, as most atheists here are pretty... Bland. Comes with living in a place where religion is a secondary concern at best. Atheists in more religious areas have a bit more passion against the divine... But what exactly is dry atheism?
Wow. I just looked over my previous posts in this thread, from before I had deconverted. Talk about entering the twilight zone...