Teenage Boy Killed In Samurai Sword...
News6 mins ago
Love Letters To Dawkins
56 Answers
(Warning: contains words that may be considered offensive).
What do you think of these words of love from the peace-loving religious community?
What do you think of these words of love from the peace-loving religious community?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Answerprancer. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
bert, I’m not sure how you are aware of the extent of his knowledge, or if you deride him in an effort to feign some sort of intellectual superiority, but you’ve offered no evidence to support your derogatory remarks and I would therefore suggest that the prejudice you mention is your own.
You’re mistaken. Richard Dawkins hasn’t influenced my opinion – in fact I don’t always agree with him. For the record, my opinion of religion was formed through years of study – initially as a Christian - long before his books became popular and now I would defy anyone to conclude from reading the bible without pre-conceived notions that the God of Abraham was the omnipotent, omniscient, beneficent, creator.
Perhaps you’ll tell me why I’m wrong.
Incidentally, speaking of the conclusions people draw from reading the bible without pre-conceived ideas, I don’t expect you to find this amusing but it might entertain others. (Copied and pasted from the internet – with one slight adjustment at the end!).
//In the late stages of the Second World War, Evelyn Waugh was trapped in Europe in the company of Randolph Churchill, the boorish son of the wartime prime minister. "In the hope of keeping him quiet," he wrote to Nancy Mitford, "Freddie and I bet him £20 that he cannot read the whole Bible in a fortnight. Unhappily it has not had the result we hoped. He has never read any of it before and is hideously excited; keeps reading quotations aloud... or merely slapping his side & chortling 'God, isn't God a ***!'//
You’re mistaken. Richard Dawkins hasn’t influenced my opinion – in fact I don’t always agree with him. For the record, my opinion of religion was formed through years of study – initially as a Christian - long before his books became popular and now I would defy anyone to conclude from reading the bible without pre-conceived notions that the God of Abraham was the omnipotent, omniscient, beneficent, creator.
Perhaps you’ll tell me why I’m wrong.
Incidentally, speaking of the conclusions people draw from reading the bible without pre-conceived ideas, I don’t expect you to find this amusing but it might entertain others. (Copied and pasted from the internet – with one slight adjustment at the end!).
//In the late stages of the Second World War, Evelyn Waugh was trapped in Europe in the company of Randolph Churchill, the boorish son of the wartime prime minister. "In the hope of keeping him quiet," he wrote to Nancy Mitford, "Freddie and I bet him £20 that he cannot read the whole Bible in a fortnight. Unhappily it has not had the result we hoped. He has never read any of it before and is hideously excited; keeps reading quotations aloud... or merely slapping his side & chortling 'God, isn't God a ***!'//
"If I had the brass neck to criticise the work of biologists with as little understanding of biology as he has of religion, I'd be making as big a fool of myself as he does.".
Totally agree with half of that, Bert_H: I don't think my GCE in General Science would qualify me to challenge scientists on any aspect of their disciplines. But I don't see how the same argument applies to religion. Can you give me an example of the kinds of things I would need to know about religion before I was qualified to criticise it? In the biology case, I would need to know, say, how photosynthesis works, or the structure of DNA. What are the equivalent things in the domain of religion?
And isn't there a further big (I would say fundamental) difference between the scientific and the religious domains. It is this: wherever I go in the world, whatever university I might attend, there is a single biology, a central corpus of knowledge built on research, observation and experiment over the last (apologies to Aristotle) four hundred years. Differences, for sure, in the areas of unknowing like some of the mechanisms by which evolution has worked (e.g. Dawkins vs Gould), but not over the core principles of the discipline. But religion? I see no such consensus. To take just the Christian faith, there are thousands of sects, most of whom claim to be the only true interpreters of their religion. Might you not conclude from this that if one out of a thousand is true then nine hundred and ninety-nine must be wrong? And if that many are false might not all be so? I don't need ANY knowledge of their catechisms or creeds to make that assertion. It is a logical inference derived from their claims. In short what qualifies me (or Dawkins, or you) to criticise religion is the possesssion of a rational mind.
Totally agree with half of that, Bert_H: I don't think my GCE in General Science would qualify me to challenge scientists on any aspect of their disciplines. But I don't see how the same argument applies to religion. Can you give me an example of the kinds of things I would need to know about religion before I was qualified to criticise it? In the biology case, I would need to know, say, how photosynthesis works, or the structure of DNA. What are the equivalent things in the domain of religion?
And isn't there a further big (I would say fundamental) difference between the scientific and the religious domains. It is this: wherever I go in the world, whatever university I might attend, there is a single biology, a central corpus of knowledge built on research, observation and experiment over the last (apologies to Aristotle) four hundred years. Differences, for sure, in the areas of unknowing like some of the mechanisms by which evolution has worked (e.g. Dawkins vs Gould), but not over the core principles of the discipline. But religion? I see no such consensus. To take just the Christian faith, there are thousands of sects, most of whom claim to be the only true interpreters of their religion. Might you not conclude from this that if one out of a thousand is true then nine hundred and ninety-nine must be wrong? And if that many are false might not all be so? I don't need ANY knowledge of their catechisms or creeds to make that assertion. It is a logical inference derived from their claims. In short what qualifies me (or Dawkins, or you) to criticise religion is the possesssion of a rational mind.
//We have an irreconcilable difference of opinion there, Naomi. He understands religion at his own rather puerile level, and in line with his own prejudices. However, because he's a world-class scientist and author, he has the knack of making it sound convincing. I'm sorry you've been taken in, but I can see why.//
If ^ that ^ doesn't describe the essence of religious belief . . . what does?
If ^ that ^ doesn't describe the essence of religious belief . . . what does?
bert_h - "... [Dawkins is] a world-class scientist and author, he has the knack of making [religion] sound [ridiculous]..."
Unfortunately for you, you don't have to be a world-class scientist to make a convincing case for showing that organised religion is replete with absurdities, contradictions, logical fallacies and general unpleasantness. A great many people do so on a daily basis without being scientifically trained. The only thing one needs in order to see just how insidious and vile organised religion is is some common sense and a lack of blind credulity.
Unfortunately for you, you don't have to be a world-class scientist to make a convincing case for showing that organised religion is replete with absurdities, contradictions, logical fallacies and general unpleasantness. A great many people do so on a daily basis without being scientifically trained. The only thing one needs in order to see just how insidious and vile organised religion is is some common sense and a lack of blind credulity.
I'm sorry that you found my post derisive, Bert; I didn't set out to adopt an offensive tone. You did read it, didn't you?
As far as the OP goes, neither Dawkins nor anyone posting on this thread is using the "love letters" as an argument against religion; it was a "joke" video. The Dawkins argument, in its simplest form, is that religion is based on unproved, unprovable and mutually contradictory assertions. Why do you think he is unqualified to make this statement? What does he need to know about REAL religion before he IS so qualified?.
As far as the OP goes, neither Dawkins nor anyone posting on this thread is using the "love letters" as an argument against religion; it was a "joke" video. The Dawkins argument, in its simplest form, is that religion is based on unproved, unprovable and mutually contradictory assertions. Why do you think he is unqualified to make this statement? What does he need to know about REAL religion before he IS so qualified?.
bert, Derisive? Have you watched that video? Just as well atheists do have a sense of humour! I dread to think what the response would have been had people of religion been targeted in a similar vein! I did ask you to tell me why I’m wrong but you haven’t responded to that or to any other question here, not even to Atalanta’s very reasonable “ Will Bert H please tell us which of Dawkins' books he has read?” Have you actually read any of his books? A disappointing response from you, bert, although not entirely unexpected. Funny how God’s supporters are so reluctant to fight his corner.
Now I come to think about it, maybe we're talking at cross purposes. It's possible that what you mean by "real" religion, Bert, is what others might call moral impulse - a sense of community, compassion and concern for our fellow man, honesty in our dealings and respect for others. If that is what you mean by religion then that is certainly NOT what Dawkins is attacking in books like the God Delusion.
Are you there, Bert?
Muses sadly to self: is anything as sad as unrequited love!
Are you there, Bert?
Muses sadly to self: is anything as sad as unrequited love!
-- answer removed --
What make you assume that religious people are peace loving?
Abrahamic religions are built on foundations of conflict and bigotry. Most of the intractable conflicts on the planet involve them.
Their ultimate goal is an Almighty showdown where their deity kills all who do not accept their particular flavour of fascist doctrine.
There will be no peace on Earth while their primitive death cults persist.
Abrahamic religions are built on foundations of conflict and bigotry. Most of the intractable conflicts on the planet involve them.
Their ultimate goal is an Almighty showdown where their deity kills all who do not accept their particular flavour of fascist doctrine.
There will be no peace on Earth while their primitive death cults persist.
I have to assume that Bert has not in fact read any of Dawkins' books. If he fails to read what he is criticising, this exposes him to accusations of hypocrisy and prejudice. In case he does not know what prejudice means, it means deciding on an attitude without considering all facts and opinions on both sides, but only the facts and opinions you like. There again, if he comes back with a reasoned argument about the books he has read, I shall respect his opinion. If he doesn't, I shall know exactly what to think of him. And it won't be flattering
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
Crosswords9 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles13 mins ago
News36 mins ago
ChatterBank56 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.