hephzibah wrote:Let's talk about oxygen. Can you see it? nope. Can you feel it? nope. Can you touch it? nope. Can you smell it? nope. Can you hear it? nope. Yet it's there right? Science has "proven" that we need it to live. But how can I trust that oxygen is REALLY there if I can't see, feel, touch, smell, or hear it? Science contradicts itself.
Whereas ignorance is invicible, it is no excuse for foolish statements. Oxygen can be detected by its flammable property. Oxygen can be detected by its reactions to know, solid elements or chemical compounds which can be seen, smelt, tasted and touched. It is shown to be present by rust, which is iron oxide. It can be detected by its spectral signature.
Quote:So let's just lump all of those who believe in God into one group shall we? Don't ya'll hate it when we do this to you? Do you want to know what brings intolerance, violence, and destruction instead of morality, peace, and hope? Pride, arrogance, self-righteousness, and misunderstanding the impact of our actions on other people. You know what though? THIS kind of behavior is not limited to the "religious".
You are certainly correct that such behavior is not limited to religious communities. It cannot be denied, however, that there is an exclusivity of alleged sanctity in all religious credos which leads to bigotry, and bigotry inevitably leads to prejudice, from which it is a short step to violence and crime of all sorts. The problem is not with the character of individual believers, but rather with the credo which lends itself to such exploitation.
Quote:Whew... this is a dusey. Really, I think he's giving entirely too much credit to the "religious". Religion endangers humanity? Oh brother... Well, by all rights then he's made a confession that there is actually a power behind those who represent religion then. I mean if they would be able to endanger the progress of humanity as this Dawkins guy see's it.
This is an unfounded assumption. It is entirely possible to authorize all sorts of dangerous thinking on the basis of a flawed premise. It is simply necessary to demonize the "other," something to which religion easily lends itself. Once again, it is not the character of the individual believer which is at issue, it is the character of the credo. This is also true of ideologies, such as the Fascisti, the Falange, the National Socialists and the Communists. That Dawkins confines his observations to religion does not lessen the truth that dogmatic beliefs are dangerous. Were Dawkins to contend that
only religious dogma is dangerous, you'd have a point. Which leads me to ask if you are reacting to Dawkin's program (Americans do not commonly misspell this word as the English do--for the irony challenged, that was humo
ur), or if you are reacting to the post. Neither you nor i should condemn Dawkins himself without having seen the program.
Quote:Yep, and if he'd actually research both sides of the story before running his mouth he'd see this was talked about, even prophesied about years and years ago in the bible.
Exegesis is always shakey ground upon which to make a stand. But i'll let it go, while obseving that given the history of the middle east for several thousand years, predicting strife there is a no-brainer.
Quote:Again, the guy needs to do a little research before he starts running his mouth. As a matter a fact he's contradicted himself already! What was it he said before? "In addition, though religions preach morality, peace and hope, in fact, says Dawkins, they bring intolerance, violence and destruction." If he'd actually been to a church or two he'd have seen that this kind of behavior does not merely exist towards those outside of christian circles.
They judge, criticize, and are not tolerant of one another either. If the preacher say's one thing they don't like they tell everyone they can, "Humph... he must not have "heard" God. Gee, I wonder what's going on with him? Oh... yeah... did you see how much extra attention he's been giving Mrs. Brown lately after church??" If someone wears something to church they don't like they sit at lunch afterwards and say, "Did you see what she was wearing??? Oh my gosh! Who does she think she is!" Once again this kind of behavior stems from pride, arrogance, self-righteousness, and misunderstanding the impact of our actions on other people. Which again is not limited to the "religious".
I am uncertain what you are trying to say here, but i would note that religion, and specifically christianity, has been used to justify all sorts of criminal enormities. Slavery in the United States is one glaring example. Once again, if Dawkins is criticizing the potential flaws of dogmatic creeds, as opposed to suggesting that all individual believers are flawed, you really have no argument. But in the final analysis, neither you nor i are qualified to judge without having seen the program. I think that your post has very much the character of someone getting angry because they feel they have been insulted. It may be that Dawkins has treated the believer unfairly, but we can't know if we haven't seen the program. Your actual beef might be with those here who describe it, as opposed to Mr. Dawkins himself.
