Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jdawg2 · 09-11-2002, 07:43 PM

hmm...

sure religion can be both good and bad, but when you can cite specific examples in the holy books that they're are supposedly based on, then there's cause to worry. Obviously, no one's trying to ban all religions or anything, but if a verse says to "kill unbelievers", and people think that "well it's in the holy book so it must be true", then we better start trying to educate them. Of course, people will say, "but what all the love your neighbor stuff?". Hopefully that's when they realize it's just a book (or collection of books) written by humans that contains contradictory statements, and is not a bunch of literal commands from some invisible guy in the sky. "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" and the Salem Witch Trials seem obviously the fault of religion to me...

Thankfully, people these days seem to ignore most of their holy books so we aren't all insane killers for god

scigirl · 09-11-2002, 07:56 PM

Vanderzyden,

What Dawkins books did you read?? Or rather, what adolescents do you know??

I don't agree with all of Dawkins' theories, and he does tend to over-simplify or gloss over genetic mechanisms, however, I would call his writing still pretty sophisticated! I can't write that way NOW and I'm 27!!

Maybe you mean the news colums. . .

scigirl

Doubting Didymus · 09-11-2002, 08:03 PM

Dawkins deliberately leaves out the fine genetic details because his books are for a lay audience.

Albion · 09-11-2002, 08:07 PM

I would hardly call high-school biology classes "getting them young." Especially when set against pictures of preschoolers being dragged along to Ken Ham's anti-evolution meetings at local churches. I think very few people would agree with evolution being mythology or religion. But creationists do seem to be able to redefine everything to suit themselves, so I suppose we shouldn't be surprised to see it happen here.

This is the bit of Prof Dawkins's piece that I agree with the most: "I am trying to call attention to the elephant in the room that everybody is too polite - or too devout - to notice: religion, and specifically the devaluing effect that religion has on human life. I don't mean devaluing the life of others (though it can do that too), but devaluing one's own life. Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end."

Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end. Indeed.

Albion · 09-11-2002, 08:10 PM

"Maybe you mean the news colums. . ."

Nah - he means that Dawkins disagrees with him.

Vanderzyden · 09-11-2002, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus:
I would like to address something.

Vanderzyden, you are being extremely frustrating. You post several items where an extremely indignant and firey response would be well deserved, but you also make a policy of not engaging anyone who is less that 100% polite. So, if we want our objections to you adressed, we have to ignore half of what you say.

Try being a little more polite yourself, and please make more responses to your critics. Monkensticks challenge about DNA sequence similarities and my own responses to you in the libel thread are both valid responses that you have not responded to.

Also, please be less shocked when someone occasionally gets angry at you, as you are not Mr calm and collected yourself.

OK, perhaps you have a point. Please explain what is frustrating/disrespectful in my illustration. However, before you do so, go and re-read the Dawkins article to see how immeasurably insulting he is. When that rubbish is posted here and then held up as good material, something must be said from the other side.

Vanderzyden

Vanderzyden · 09-11-2002, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end. Indeed.

But Dawkins has nothing to substantiate his opinion. He could be wrong, and then what, will he say with Bertrand Russell, "You didn't give me enough evidence".

That's like standing beside a great waterfall, and claiming to hear no noise and feel no mist.

Vanderzyden

Mark_Chid · 09-11-2002, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:


OK, perhaps you have a point. Please explain what is frustrating/disrespectful in my illustration. However, before you do so, go and re-read the Dawkins article to see how immeasurably insulting he is. When that rubbish is posted here and then held up as good material, something must be said from the other side.

Vanderzyden

Is it an insult to state what you sincerely believe to be the truth, even if others find that offensive? I agree with his article, yet I do not believe I am being rude when I say this.

I believe that religion is evil, but I do not believe that the religious are evil, or even stupid. I believe its a very strong and powerful affliction that is very hard to be rid of.

If you take offense at this you do not understand my point at all, since their is no ill-will towards you in my words. I sincerely believe that you are a victim, not a villain.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ · 09-11-2002, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:


But Dawkins has nothing to substantiate his opinion. He could be wrong, and then what, will he say with Bertrand Russell, "You didn't give me enough evidence".

That's like standing beside a great waterfall, and claiming to hear no noise and feel no mist.

Vanderzyden

Actually, he has far more to substantiate his opinion than you do yours. Namely, there is a complete and utter lack of evidence whatsoever of an afterlife. Your analogy fails for this reason. It's more like standing in the middle of the Kalahari Desert and saying that you can find no water around you. Most likely, that is the case.

Mark_Chid · 09-11-2002, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:


But Dawkins has nothing to substantiate his opinion. He could be wrong, and then what, will he say with Bertrand Russell, "You didn't give me enough evidence".

That's like standing beside a great waterfall, and claiming to hear no noise and feel no mist.

Vanderzyden

ALL scientific evidence is in favour of death being the end. Nothing detectable survives physical death, and the study of brain diseases such as Alzheimers shows that personality very often doesn't even survive that long.

All that we call 'soul' can 'die' while the body still lives, so how can any scientists conclude other than the obvious - death is the end.

The only 'evidence' against this is words in a book od doubtful authorship.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-11-2002, 07:43 PM	#11
jdawg2 Regular Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Cedar Hill, TX USA Posts: 113	hmm... sure religion can be both good and bad, but when you can cite specific examples in the holy books that they're are supposedly based on, then there's cause to worry. Obviously, no one's trying to ban all religions or anything, but if a verse says to "kill unbelievers", and people think that "well it's in the holy book so it must be true", then we better start trying to educate them. Of course, people will say, "but what all the love your neighbor stuff?". Hopefully that's when they realize it's just a book (or collection of books) written by humans that contains contradictory statements, and is not a bunch of literal commands from some invisible guy in the sky. "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" and the Salem Witch Trials seem obviously the fault of religion to me... Thankfully, people these days seem to ignore most of their holy books so we aren't all insane killers for god

09-11-2002, 07:56 PM	#12
scigirl Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seattle Posts: 4,261	Vanderzyden, What Dawkins books did you read?? Or rather, what adolescents do you know?? I don't agree with all of Dawkins' theories, and he does tend to over-simplify or gloss over genetic mechanisms, however, I would call his writing still pretty sophisticated! I can't write that way NOW and I'm 27!! Maybe you mean the news colums. . . scigirl

09-11-2002, 08:03 PM	#13
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	Dawkins deliberately leaves out the fine genetic details because his books are for a lay audience.

09-11-2002, 08:07 PM	#14
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	I would hardly call high-school biology classes "getting them young." Especially when set against pictures of preschoolers being dragged along to Ken Ham's anti-evolution meetings at local churches. I think very few people would agree with evolution being mythology or religion. But creationists do seem to be able to redefine everything to suit themselves, so I suppose we shouldn't be surprised to see it happen here. This is the bit of Prof Dawkins's piece that I agree with the most: "I am trying to call attention to the elephant in the room that everybody is too polite - or too devout - to notice: religion, and specifically the devaluing effect that religion has on human life. I don't mean devaluing the life of others (though it can do that too), but devaluing one's own life. Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end." Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end. Indeed.

09-11-2002, 08:10 PM	#15
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	"Maybe you mean the news colums. . ." Nah - he means that Dawkins disagrees with him.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.