So many people have misinterpreted him and I agree with his vision so the basic conception of it at least should be made clear.
Let's imagine that a massive group of people believed we were put on this earth by benevolent aliens. This led some people to do charitable work and some people interpreted the aliens differently, and they started wars for it. Then one day it was undisputably confirmed that aliens had nothing to do with our presence on earth. You can see where I'm going with this...wouldn't it still be ridiculous to even do the charitable work in the name of aliens? People would realise that charity itself is still good, but not because of aliens. And war is now POINTLESS instead of just being undesireable
So now we get to Dawkins who has a uniquely qualified understanding of evolution and this is exactly as he (and probably all atheists) sees the world as it is today. Only we argue about which aliens put us here...
The end of the God Delusion describes the need for politics to be governed by rationale instead of something people put faith in when faith was a more comforting alternative to nothingness. The only way people can have a singular framework to make policy in is if it is based in logic. It's true Dawkins suggests a code to live by, but before that he says before (paraphrasing) "this is an example, surely people better than me are qualified to direct social order....I am only a scientist"
The more an issue is steeped in religious signifigance the harder it is to resolve between two ideologically opposed parties.
Given the greater understanding of the world science is providing us with everyday religiosity should be diminishing, however, given the rise of Militant Islamic Jihadists and Fundamentalist Christians mean it is no longer acceptable for atheists to just think there is no God in their "closets" so to speak. There must be a motion to dismantle the power religion has over what are supposed to be secular societies anyway!
There isn't a god, there never had been and there never will be, and can somebody save us from these religious nuts before they kill us all? DISCUSS!
I will extract and address the salient points of your post:
”So now we get to Dawkins who has a uniquely qualified understanding of evolution.” Dawkins suggests a code to live by, but before that he says before (paraphrasing) "this is an example, surely people better than me are qualified to direct social order....I am only a scientist"
Why is his understanding “uniquely qualified”? Because you adhere to it? As far as the “surely people better than me and …I am only a scientist” bit goes, feigned modesty has always triggered a regurgitory response from me.
”everyday religiosity should be diminishing, however, given the rise of Militant Islamic Jihadists and Fundamentalist Christians mean it is no longer acceptable for atheists to just think there is no God in their "closets" so to speak. There must be a motion to dismantle the power religion has over what are supposed to be secular societies anyway!”
This has been ongoing against Christians by Atheism. However, I see no such action against Muslims, only capitulation at every confrontation. As simple examples: remember the cow dung on Virgin Mary and the crucifix in the jar of urine, the “artists” are unchallenged. Compare that to Salman Rushdie and the cartoon fiasco. Atheists are toothless dogs and lack the intestinal fortitude to do what you suggest to Muslims. As evidenced by your next statement:
”And war is now POINTLESS instead of just being undesirable”
How do you intend to “dismantle” the Jihadists? All night Science classes? They will take your head my friend! You know it is true. If groups of Scientific Atheists attempted to “dismantle the power” of Muslims they would face fatwas and be forced to hide or die.
So it comes down to this. If you put forth a concerted effort to destroy Christianity, which is possible, all that will occur is the triumph of unopposed Muslimism, which you lack the will to oppose, throughout the world. Do you DESIRE to live under Shiria law?
Originally posted by MacSwainDawkins is uniquely qualified because he's got about as high credentials as a scientist can get. His groundbreaking book The Selfish Gene from 1977 was crucial in understanding how the forces of evolution work. He is more qualified than 99% of people on earth because I can't think of anyone who has spent longer and more producitve hours, days, months, years on these issues.
I will extract and address the salient points of your post:
[i]”So now we get to Dawkins who has a [b]uniquely qualified understanding of evolution.” Dawkins suggests a code to live by, but before that he says before (paraphrasing) "this is an example, surely people better than me are qualified to direct social order....I am only a scienti ...[text shortened]... you lack the will to oppose, throughout the world. Do you DESIRE to live under Shiria law?
As for the second point I think you really misunderstood what I was saying. I meant that there should be a correlation between the rise of science and the decline in religion. The more we understand our past the less we need a God to explain it, but despite the rise in scientific understanding Islam and Christian fundamentalists are working hard to keep us from progressing.
You can't speak of atheism as if it's an organized body like other religions. There is no representative for atheists! They are just individuals.
Trust me, I don't support the capitulation towards Muslims! You seem to think we're in disagreement about that I don't know why. I think all religious symbols should be put into jars of urine if thats what an artist wants to do, and if atheism had a symbol he could piss all over it. But there's something to be said for the violence of Muslim radicals...I don't know why you think its only atheists responsibility to fight that though. I don't see anybody making a stand against them. Like I said atheists aren't organized in bodies because the only common belief there is amongst them is a negative belief in something else.
I don't think it's up to atheists to dismantle Jihadists! My point wasn't that atheists need to group together and form a coalition of non-believing superheroes, it's that people all over should see the world for what it is. Dawkins is trying to catch politics up with science!
Maybe my point was unclear, and from the other response I got it seems like it is. This is the last type of response I expected to get! Muslim extremists can function because it's only the outward expression of their religiosity they don't approve of. If the roots were cut it'd be different. IE if people all over the world realised finally there was no God.
I don't expect this to happen anytime soon. It will almost definitely never happen! It's not that I'm so naive...but for any chance of any lasting REAL world peace there has to be a framework that EVERYONE shares in common. So long as peoples ideologies act as walls that another ideology can't penetrate there will be no meaningful dialogue over the most contentious issues.
Originally posted by The Dude 84His science credentials, while unknown to me, still do not qualify him to determine the validity of religion in general or any religion in particular. But it's reassuring to know that wars are religious things and therefore communists are inherently peaceful, charitable people as opposed to all those religious warmongers.
Dawkins is uniquely qualified because he's got about as high credentials as a scientist can get.
Really, I just don't get how people put so much faith in Dawkins -- one man -- but criticize other people for putting their faith in other men who have religious beliefs.
Originally posted by MacSwainIf we were to get rid of islam then doesn't that mean we'll be living under christian fundamentalists and the KKK🙄
So it comes down to this. If you put forth a concerted effort to destroy Christianity, which is possible, all that will occur is the triumph of unopposed Muslimism, which you lack the will to oppose, throughout the world. Do you DESIRE to live under Shiria law?
Originally posted by The Dude 84Since declaration of self is being made: I am not a mystic of any stripe, including the world’s third largest religion, Atheism. As a child, I was indoctrinated with traditional views by parents, school and society. Thank God (pardon the pun), at a young age I possessed logic and reason as necessary to extrapolate truth and since have followed no man save myself.
Dawkins is uniquely qualified because he's got about as high credentials as a scientist can get. His groundbreaking book The Selfish Gene from 1977 was crucial in understanding how the forces of evolution work. He is more qualified than 99% of people on earth because I can't think of anyone who has spent longer and more producitve hours, days, months, y ate there will be no meaningful dialogue over the most contentious issues.
”I think you really misunderstood what I was saying”
Then perhaps you need to re-write your initial post and leave out bits suggesting religious intent, such as: ”Dawkins suggests a code to live by” “Given the greater understanding of the world science is providing us with everyday, religiosity should be diminishing.” “There should be a correlation between the rise of science (atheism?) and the decline in religion” Your writing indicates the basis of religious trappings and the under-current of your thought undoubtedly indicates a desire for Atheism to replace Christianity and Islam.
”The more we understand our past the less we need a God to explain it, but despite the rise in scientific understanding Islam and Christian fundamentalists are working hard to keep US from progressing.”
And you are surprised those two religions take exception to being displaced by a third and are pushing back? How naïve. 🙂
”You can't speak of atheism as if it's an organized body like other religions. There is no representative for atheists! They are just individuals.”
Yes I can. And I am. Have you not named one possible representative? (*note that you have made a Freudian slip when saying ‘like other religions&rsquo😉
”Trust me, I don't support the capitulation towards Muslims! You seem to think we're in disagreement about that I don't know why”
Because Atheists are actively fighting against Christianity which is the same as fighting for Islam.
”I think all religious symbols should be put into jars of urine if thats what an artist wants to do, and if atheism had a symbol he could piss all over it. But there's something to be said for the violence of Muslim radicals...I don't know why you think its only atheists responsibility to fight that though. I don't see anybody making a stand against them. ”
Please try to follow this: It WAS Atheist artists who smeared the cow dung and used the jar of urine to deface Christian symbols! That being established, hopefully explains to you why I think it shows a definite lack of balls that your ilk has not done the same to Islamic symbols, although I fully understand why not – Cowardice + Love of Life. 🙂
”I don't think it's up to atheists to dismantle Jihadists! My point wasn't that atheists need to group together and form a coalition of non-believing superheroes, ”
My point is: If you don’t have the ability to “dismantle Jihadists” then please leave the damned Christians alone and quit attacking them just because they will not hurt you. That is schoolyard BULLY tactics. Picking on the ones that do not fight back.
Do you DESIRE to live under Shiria law?
Originally posted by mrstabbyI hope you did not direct this at me??? I have not indicated a desire to "get rid of Islam." Totally your idea as far as I am concerned. Have that discussion with someone else as I have never devoted thought to that subject.
If we were to get rid of islam then doesn't that mean we'll be living under christian fundamentalists and the KKK🙄
Originally posted by MacSwainThat post was taken seriously?😕
I hope you did not direct this at me??? I have not indicated a desire to "get rid of Islam." Totally your idea as far as I am concerned. Have that discussion with someone else as I have never devoted thought to that subject.
Originally posted by The Dude 84I find it disturbing that you, Dawkins, or both has the mind set of us
So many people have misinterpreted him and I agree with his vision so the basic conception of it at least should be made clear.
Let's imagine that a massive group of people believed we were put on this earth by benevolent aliens. This led some people to do charitable work and some people interpreted the aliens differently, and they started wars for i , and can somebody save us from these religious nuts before they kill us all? DISCUSS!
against them and they (the religious are out to get you) it seems you are
looking for a fight even with those that may not care one wit what you
think or say.
"There isn't a god, there never had been and there never will be, and can somebody save us from these religious nuts before they kill us all? DISCUSS!"
You do realize not everyone who has a belief in God is out to get you
or kill you off don't you?
Kelly
Originally posted by The Dude 84Such certainty, such dogma!
There isn't a god, there never had been and there never will be, and can somebody save us from these religious nuts before they kill us all? DISCUSS!
If you apply scientific reasoning to the question then you should accept that God or Gods may exist (not necessarily anything like a God of any particular religion) but the likelihood is uncertain, based on the lack of any empirical evidence!
Originally posted by The Dude 84Dawkins, His science is great, his God Delusion book was full of interesting points, good arguments and well written, but was far to aggressive and partisan. While both he and you have claimed that there is no representative of atheism, there is for a certain type of atheism. The over the top in your face atheism has Dawkins as its representative. It's happening increasingly. Incidentally... here's a great, if long article I dragged out of the archives recently for another debate...
So many people have misinterpreted him and I agree with his vision so the basic conception of it at least should be made clear.
Let's imagine that a massive group of people believed we were put on this earth by benevolent aliens. This led some people to do charitable work and some people interpreted the aliens differently, and they started wars for i ...[text shortened]... , and can somebody save us from these religious nuts before they kill us all? DISCUSS!
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sam_harris/2007/10/the_problem_with_atheism.html
Like I said, it's long, but very much worth the read...
Originally posted by mrstabbyNo. What makes you think that most people are religious nut-cases of one sort or another?
If we were to get rid of islam then doesn't that mean we'll be living under christian fundamentalists and the KKK🙄
Nor is militant atheism the only alternative to 'religion': complete indifference is the best attitude.