-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Dawkins on Christian Inconsistency...
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
What does this mean? Of course churches are based a belief in God. Why is this a common misconception? Even if the motives of some builders are money and power, it is still marketed as based on God. It's not based on vintage cars, or something else.
I heard a perfect saying once. "The God we don't believe in doesn't exist". God is real to those who believe in God. God isn't real to those who don't. And it is a matter of faith that makes that belief an absolute for all others regardless of their beliefs, in either direction.
Churches eventually crumble, but God doesn't.
Deities actually die left and right.
Indeed! The nature and, to an extent, even the presence of belief in God is significant to Churches. That is why such a conflict is possible in the first place, and also how it can be avoided - by correcting that unnecessary preconception.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
I don't think the term 'path' should be understood as something as narrow as that, or at least not as narrow as your words seem to imply.
Consider, for instance, how diverse people are ( including their ideas and ways of life ) even inside each religion. You can see the same diversity within atheism.
To be clear, it was not simply the noteworthy choice of the word "path" in regards to atheism, but the string of words in a sentence I was replying to which said, "Churches should embrace atheism as a valid path.". In order for churches, meaning the Christian belief system, to embrace atheism as a valid path, it has to see it as an entity, a "way", a philosophy, a worldview, an alternative path to God, as it were in their own eyes. You cannot embrace what is simply a lack of belief as a "valid" path. That suggests only one thing, an alternative belief system, a way, a method, a philosophy, a path, etc. To suggest churches embrace it, automatically makes it a way of belief.
Good example, but they all have a central, core belief that they rally around which qualifies them as a religion. My complaint is that those who say, "it's nothing but a disbelief in God", yet associate this with an "ism" in and of itself, complete with internal censorship, validating true atheist thought, rejecting those who stray, etc (all of which does in fact happen, as I am speaking from personal experience), the entire affair is not simply a "lack of belief", but an "ism". It is group membership, and self-identifications within a group. There are fundamentalists within that group identification, equally as there are those within the Christian religion. There's no difference. It's simply a matter of changing the object of belief, not changing the entire paradigm itself. It still acts, thinks, and behaves just like the religion it says it has the superior belief over.
Yes, I agree with you ideally, it's diverse. But make no mistake, group dynamics will always fall into line following this same pattern that people recoil against institutional religions for. It's a human thing. And unless there is a radical shift in how people think, not merely what things they believe or disbelieve it, it will continue. It's the nature of revolution. Out with the old, in with the same thing. Changing of the guards in the same old system. Christianity, without God.
I've said atheism, neo-atheism particularly is iconoclastic. It smashes the idols of the old gods, but then does what? If it has no system to offer, it's just destruction with no goal. And in the void, it will end of becoming the new system itself surrounding whatever ideology the center of gravity of the group moves towards. "No spirituality! 'Woo!', begone with you! 'Woo, woo'," for instance.
Last edited:
So, the bottom line is that you don't believe I meant what I said I meant because you want me to mean something else.
So be it.
So be it.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
I am interested in some of the highly ignorant things he has stated.
I find it funny that people often paint Dawkins out to be some assholish monster that eats babies. (not that you were I'm speaking to no one in particular on this point) but he is actually incredibly polite and tends to be very respectable to individuals. Not to ideas. In fact nearly every debate I have ever seen him in he is the more polite of the two. Hitchens? He was an ******* of the highest order. He put Reddit Atheists to shame. But he was right on many things and his critique of religion may be the most thorough. Dawkins runs on sensationalism. No one knew his name till he called out god.
I believe you want to believe it's not what I am pointing out is true. The pieces don't add up to support what you embrace as not some ism, such as denying fundamentalism could exist with it because it doesn't fit how you wish tho conceive of Atheism. Yet they exist.
Okay, I just thought of an exercise that may help you to make your case to me. Let's role-play that I am the representative of the church. Let's say I am the Pope of Rome. I call you before me because I heard an interesting suggestion you have been making and am curious to learn more. As you come to me I say to you, "Hello my friend Luis. I have heard you suggest that Holy Mother Church, 'should embrace atheism as a valid path.' We are intrigued to understand more. Explain to us this path you suggest. What are the teachings of this path? How will this benefit us if we follow it?"
I am interested in how you will frame a response to the Pope in this, as it will make clear in my mind what you mean by embracing the path of atheism.
I am interested in how you will frame a response to the Pope in this, as it will make clear in my mind what you mean by embracing the path of atheism.
fiat lux
Member
The problem for many atheists seems to be that non-belief just isn't really enough. Well there's always the Atheist Church, but even amongst the atheists there seems to be already a schism; those to whom "God doesn't exist" and those for whom "there is no God". As Spock would say, - Fascinating!
The church of self-worship: Sunday morning with the atheists » The Spectator
The church of self-worship: Sunday morning with the atheists » The Spectator
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Atheist is a non-qualifying descriptive term that leads to be anything and everything that is "not" a specific thing (the thing being theism or those that believe in god). So there has never been and never will be any kind of consensus much less unification as a group with Atheists. I am no more connected to any other Atheist as you are to all non-Packer's fans. There is no "community" to provide a schism. There are specific groups that are under the massive umbrella that can be called atheists and they almost never fully agree with one another but it isn't any kind of division of a previously unified group.
Why is that even a problem?
Hardly. His 1976 book "the Selfish Gene" sold a million copies. He was one of the most prominent science authors in the world long before he started publishing books about God and religion.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
I exaggerate but I'm not wrong. He was a prominent scientist but I wouldn't call him a household name.
fiat lux
Member
Are you sure about this?
No, I just made it up.
I think blanket statements that belief in God is a form of delusion, is one pretty blaring one right there. It's the title of one of his anti-religion books. I've read that book, and listened to it on audio book as well, and it was seriously like listing to a college freshman blathering on and on as an authority about stuff he simply had an uninformed opinion about. No one of any credentials really takes him seriously as an authority on the subject of religion. He's kind of like Rush Limbaugh in that way.
Yes, well when you say everyone who believes in God is delusional, I think it's pretty hard to say "but he's such a polite man". Religion is a whole lot more than just an idea. It is tied to ones very self-identity, cultural values, beliefs and ideals, and so forth. "Don't take it personal when I say your religion is no different than believing 'in fairies in the garden'". The only thing he does is betray his own ignorance on the subject. I love what Elaine Pagels said of him. "He's not speaking of any God I believe in", and she also quite eloquently referred to him as "The Village Atheist".
I thought that was priceless.Kudos to him for being polite. Now if he could add informed to that, he'd amount to something respectable.
Good Lord, no!
As a mythic-literal debunker going after what is not much more than Picture Book Bible versions of religion used in preschooler Bible studies, he does a great job showing that's not real. Whoopie! That's not hard to do. Like I like to say, it's like a Jr. Highschooler raiding the 1st Grader's playground, kicking sand in their faces and throwing their toy trucks in the bushes. Big accomplishment. When it comes to a discussion beyond preschooler ideas, he appears the fool. Agreed. Many of my friends say he says what he does because his publishers what him to make money for them. "Go tell people how stupid they are to believe in God. Say things to offend them.", like Limbaugh's handlers. Now I take that as rather cynical (though it probably does have some truth in there). But I do believe he is just legitimately fed up with fundamentalism trying to compete as science when it's not. I congratulate him on that. Beyond that, he's just a mouthpiece for the neo-atheist movement, which is something beyond traditional atheism, a champion of the faith, so to speak.
I personally identify much more with Jean Paul Sartre and Albert Camus in regards to atheist thought, than the likes of Harris, Dawkins, and company. They are a whole new breed, and it has it's role in the whole to be sure, but it's to iconoclastic for my tastes.
Last edited:
In my experience, if you take what Richard Dawkins says about faith and flipped to be about lack of faith, you'd get something that would not be out of place coming from a liberal Anglican/Episcopalian minister whose biggest fault in most people's eyes was that he was rather boring.
I think there's a huge double standard in how people judge atheists versus theists.
Well, I agree that doing the opposite is just as bad. But my point is, he is doing the same. He is the flipside of the fundamentalist coin. It's the True Religion versus False Religion argument. Like an ex-fundi turned atheist friend of mine from Bible college days said to me, "I'm so glad I really DO have the truth now!". Same thing as before when he believe he really had the truth then. Same mentality.