Dawkins & Religion

[sojourner]

What are your personal feelings on the Great Commission? What do you think is (or should be) expected of Christians in terms of spreading Christianity?

I don't think that "spreading Xy" is the mission. That's like these fundys who want to "reclaim America for Jay-zus.":help:

The Great Commission merely says to go make "us" out of "them." In other words, welcome everyone indiscriminately and let God do the weeding out. Remember, the farmer lets the tares grow up with the wheat, and the reaper takes care of it at harvest time. Matthew's whole thing is that the church includes good and bad, and you can't always tell the difference.

I don't think we're to be all the same, or to believe the same, or to think the same. That's another wonderful side-effect from the imperialization of Xy.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Of course it is. It's Christian mission is to give everything to the poor and follow Jesus...
The fact that many don't do that notwithstanding.

The fact that many don't do that, including the institution of the church, does withstand.

Many other charities also operate off of foundations and grants. I have never known a church to make money off of renting out the building. The rental covers operations costs.

Are you seriously going to claim that such institutions as the Catholic church do not intentionally accrue wealth?

Most do not.

No, most, if not all, do.

haven't you heard of volunteer work? Sometimes professionals can claim tax deductions for the donation of their time. It is a valid argument.

And that's not charity either, so your argument is entirely invalid.

Provocative and not cogent to the argument. Ministry does not include yelling or pandering.

From where I sit, they're entirely the same.

Take another look. You're dead wrong here.

I've looked for years. If I'm wrong, please present examples.

Perhaps you need better boundaries -- and better perception.

Both indoctrinate, both pander to their followers, both are based around unproven beliefs as a core tenet.

Oh! You mean like your argument here?

Please don't project.

God's existence is not predicated upon human demonstration.

Why not? Jesus apparently demonstrated his power dozens of times.

It is there, and it can be perceived if that's how one chooses to understand it.

If it is there, then present it.

Going to Catholic schools is not exposure to spirituality. I taught in Catholic schools and they're the furthest thing from spiritual experience. Even with the inclusion of "mandatory chapel." If you understood, you wouldn't think spirituality was bogus.

More arrogance in lieu of facts. The Catholics I have spoken to throughout my life, and been taught by, thought exactly the same way you do.

Once again, do not assume that "understanding" equals deciding it's right. I understand spirituality fine, I was exposed to it from a young age and throughout my life. I've just never been convinced, and can safely conclude it is bogus.

If it is not, then please demonstrate why it is not.

Not arrogance. You're the one who said you grew up without exposure to it. I'm merely arguing that, without exposure, you cannot understand it, since it is an experiential and not an educational process.

No, I said I was raised by atheist parents but was sent to a series of Catholic schools throughout my life. This clearly means I was exposed to it.

So you're just lying now.

How can one who doesn't understand possibly be able to determine with any accuracy whether someone else understands? Spiritual experience is not found in reading books.

I already debated your claim that he doesn't "understand", and reject your notion that you need to "experience spirituality" in order to determine it's accuracy. If it can be determined, then you should be able to demonstrate that to me.

If not, then I can safely conclude that spirituality, and thus the understanding of it, are meaningless.

Well, I wouldn't say that it defies rationality. It exceeds rationality. It embraces the mythical, yes, but it does have its basis in reality.

Which is...?

God is God's own basis. God is beyond fact. God is largely experiential.

In other words, you believe in the existence of something for which you have no factual basis for believing?

God is not evidentiary, since evidence is a human construct. So to provide evidence is to reduce God to human terms. How can a human being objectively verify that which lies outside of, and yet is the essence of creation?

See above.

Well, we're at an impasse, since God cannot be factually verified.

How convenient.

One of my best friends in the world is an atheist -- and an engineer. He and I throw around the "does God exist" debate all the time. Yet we still have a great deal of respect for each other. I cannot fully understand atheism, because I cannot narrow the universe to what can be factually verified. For me, it would be like going blind. I do understand, though, that you eschew that "spiritual sight." That's ok.

When I say that "you don't understand," it's not said with judgment or with arrogance. I hope we can continue to debate with respect for each others' POV. Thanks for your comments.

And I hope you understand that whether or not you intend to be arrogant when claiming I don't understand, it is still an arrogant assumption on your part. For the sake of the argument, why not just take my word for it that I understand perfectly, and deal with my arguments as they come rather than dismissing them with such a cheap tactic?

Although, I will show you all due respect as you have yet to say anything that has so much as come close to offending or insulting me. I hope nothing I have written so far has been taken past that point by you as well, and if so I apologize.

 

[sojourner]

The fact that many don't do that, including the institution of the church, does withstand.

The mission is the mission. You can't bash the tenets of the religion, based upon the neglect of them by some.

Are you seriously going to claim that such institutions as the Catholic church do not intentionally accrue wealth?

Perhaps you'd like to present some solid evidence to show that they do?

And that's not charity either, so your argument is entirely invalid.

Well, you can be as picayune as you want to, but it don't change the reality (which you claim to adore). when people give of themselves, it's charity.

From where I sit, they're entirely the same.

Perhaps you should consider changing seats... You might get a better perspective.

I've looked for years. If I'm wrong, please present examples.

The examples are yours to find. I've already done my homework. Do your own.

Both indoctrinate, both pander to their followers, both are based around unproven beliefs as a core tenet.

I wasn't indocrinated. My church has no doctrine with which to indoctrinate. Churches with which I've been involved don't pander. And those that do need to stop.
"Unproven"/"belief." By definition, beliefs are unprovable. The argument is, therefore, meaningless.

Please don't project.

Please don't be unnecessarily provocative.

Why not? Jesus apparently demonstrated his power dozens of times.

Miracles are not demonstrative proof. Jesus said as much.

If it is there, then present it.

Not my job to present it. It is your job to perceive it.

More arrogance in lieu of facts. The Catholics I have spoken to throughout my life, and been taught by, thought exactly the same way you do.

If they did, I'd be Catholic. Who's presenting arrogance in lieu of facts now?

Once again, do not assume that "understanding" equals deciding it's right. I understand spirituality fine, I was exposed to it from a young age and throughout my life. I've just never been convinced, and can safely conclude it is bogus.

If you had had a spiritual experience and understood it as such, you would decide that it was valid.
"Convinced" is immaterial.

No, I said I was raised by atheist parents but was sent to a series of Catholic schools throughout my life. This clearly means I was exposed to it.

So you're just lying now.

Not lying. Let's refer to your Post #96:

I was entirely raised without religion. Would you say that has in any way hindered my ability to understand things?

Hmmm...

I was entirely raised without religion.

vs.:

but was sent to a series of Catholic schools throughout my life. This clearly means I was exposed to it.

Which is correct? What am I to assume when you tell me that you were raised "entirely without religion?"

I already debated your claim that he doesn't "understand", and reject your notion that you need to "experience spirituality" in order to determine it's accuracy.

It isn't about "accuracy." It's about experience.

If it can be determined, then you should be able to demonstrate that to me.

Once again, it isn't my job to demonstrate anything to you. It is your job to experience it for yourself.

If not, then I can safely conclude that spirituality, and thus the understanding of it, are meaningless.

Of course, you can stick your head in the sand and pretend that it doesn't exist. That's the beauty of living in America. We can sweep all kinds of things under the rug: Sub-prime mortgage scandals, O.J.'s guilt, Watergate, Iran/Contra, need I go on?

Which is...?

God.

In other words, you believe in the existence of something for which you have no factual basis for believing?

Not entirely correct. I believe that all creation has its basis in God, which is not based upon fact, but upon experience.

And I hope you understand that whether or not you intend to be arrogant when claiming I don't understand, it is still an arrogant assumption on your part.

Okely-dokely, Mr. Factoid.

For the sake of the argument, why not just take my word for it that I understand perfectly, and deal with my arguments as they come rather than dismissing them with such a cheap tactic?

From my POV, hoping to apply evidentiary fact to God is a cheap tactic.

I hope nothing I have written so far has been taken past that point by you as well, and if so I apologize.

Apology is unwarranted.

 

[Kathryn]

Why should i not think that people (including you) are of yourse also likely to be offended by the TONE of a persons argument if they dont agree?
See ... it is all a two sided coin.

But i do not have a problem with you beeing offended (or not offended). What interests me is if it actually was an offense EVEN from the standing point of someone who does not have your opinion.

So we agree on this point then - that we are less likely to be offended by a person or group, even if they are "brutally honest," or sarcastic, or even possibly condescending - if we agree with them on the subject matter.

Yes, it's a common flaw in humans - to be self centered and see things only from our own perspective. It takes a lot of self discipline and self LESS ness to be able to put ourselves in another person's shoes and honestly try to see the same situation through THEIR eyes. But it's only from that perspective that we can begin to work together to make constructive changes and promote mutual respect.

I can accept that (and thank you for not trying to win me over).
Yet when all is subjective then why discuss it at all. As i stated my interest is in the rather objective question. We would never have all people agree on something as volatile as "style".

Yep, I waste a lot of time on this site. But hey, it's cheap entertainment.

You see.... i think it is NOT subjective.
My reasoning for it is rather logical and reasonable. It MAY be not conclusive and therefore WRONG, but it is not based on subjectivity.

You think I'm wrong and I think you're wrong. I think this is called an impasse.

Then I must have misunderstood your following statement taken from a post a few pages back:

Ahh, my bad (though my quote WAS taken "out of context," as so many people on this thread say that Dawkins are as well ). I was using the example of a ****** woman at work - whose co workers are always making excuses for when it comes to her ****** behavior, when the underlying problem is - she's just a *****. I related that to Dawkins. I could be wrong, but I think one of his basic character traits is arrogance, and I think it comes across in most of his articles and debates. That particular trait is a turn off to me whether it's coming from him or from the Pope.

And indeed i do tell the truth when i am asked for my honest opinion. Everybody around me knows that you shouldnt ever ask me about my honest opinion if you don't want it.

That's fine to a point. But I think most people have enough common sense to know the importance of "brutal truth" being balanced with kindness and, at times, diplomacy.

As i already stated.... if my kid came along with an F i wouldnt sit there and say "fine" just because it might feel insulted if i said "thats crap".

But would you sneer at him? Would you belittle him? Would you tell him "Wow, you're a simpleton." Or would you balance your strong opinion of his grade with an attempt to be constructive?

Sometimes truth that is handed out too brutally destroys any possibility of improving the situation. Is the goal to simply BE TRUTHFUL or is it to be truthful AND constructive?

Truth at another person's expense is often a very selfish form of honesty.

Well if we really want to devle into that then an apropriate statement would be:
"Honey, that garment makes you look ugly, old and fat. I would rather wear the other one that we bought 2 weeks ago." (constructive criticizm you know )
Or (to give you a statement that I get from my wife)...
"You have really gotten fat and look old, go and burn some fat."
Thats what i get to hear after a week of vacation with long nights and much pizza. And you know what... she is damn right about it and i love her for that.

Well, I'm glad you too have each other.

I am a firm supporter of truth in ANY relationship, especially marriage. However, when my husband says something along the lines of, "Man, I've gained so much weight. I feel like a pig." I don't pipe up and say, "Damn straight! You DO look like a pig!" And I wouldn't point it out to him unsolicited either. Do I really think he doesn't NOTICE that he's gained weight? Of course he does. If he asks me, I say something along the lines of, "Well, it's a struggle to keep our weight down now that we're middle aged. Let's start walking together again in the mornings."

But that's just a difference in marital styles. There's that style word again.

If you prefer a liar or someone like a politician ... well thats not something that would make ME happy. Never knowing the truth while someone smiles into your face is not my favorite way of living in trust with someone.

I don't prefer liars and I intensely dislike most politicians, regardless of party affiliation (likewise most preachers for that matter). But as I just stated, there's a big difference between lying and gently telling someone the truth.

Just because something's the truth, doesn't mean it must be said, either. Sometimes stating the obvious is superfluous and cruel.

Me to bank customer: "Wow, are you really this stupid? I guess you are. Not only that, looking at your bank statement, I'd say you have a gambling problem, as well as some possible substance abuse issues. And your family is obviously dysfunctional. Why can't you get your wife off QVC?"

Manager to me: "You're fired."

My point is, sometimes the brutal truth isn't appropriate.

Ok, i think i finally get the message.
I care for truth even if it doesn't sound as pleasing as I might want it to be.
You seem to care for comforting words and mild criticizm no matter how bad the situation actually is.

Well thats two different approaches and if yours makes you happy, then have a go at it. I have my problems with it.

Nope, you're wrong. I hope I've made my position clear on that. But I'm a problem solver by nature - not a prophet or a pundit. I see a problem, I want to get in and fix it. In order to fix a problem, of course we must determine what the truth is - but we don't have to annihilate people with it.

But then - some people just enjoy making others squirm, or getting a rise out of people. Sometimes they even call that "giving them something to think about."

Some people make a pretty good living at this sort of thing.

I think Dawkins is honest. He is not someone who smears honey around your mouth in order to lure you into something. He is "brutally" honest. You might find that insulting, I would agree that sometimes it is not the most effective way. But it is a truth (unless prooven otherwise).

You think it's truth, and God knows Dawkins may think it's truth. But I'm not convinced, and his delivery makes me uninclined to listen to his protestations and proclamations of what he believes to be true.

And I'm done beating this particular dead horse. Dawkins has never been all that interesting to me, and now I am thoroughly sick and tired of giving him room in my head!

 

[Smoke]

i dont have respect for him as his books and ideas are so easily critiqued that people have made a hobby out of it.

Then I take it you have not respect for the Bible, either.

Yea, thus sayeth the Lord.

Saith.

This thread is not about the VALIDITY of Dawkins' statements. This thread is about his "style" - his modus operandum so to speak - and whether or not he's intentionally offensive and sarcastic, from what I can gather from the OP.

Exactly. And yet his detractors have emphasized over and over again that it's his very opinions they find offensive, rather than his manner of expressing them.

People should "give a damn about what [people] hold dear." It's called respect.
Yes, people do think that their faith is important and sacred, because it is important and sacred.

The basic respect to which any person is entitled without having to do anything to earn it does not extend to that person's beliefs, opinions, superstitions and and prejudices, no matter how dear he holds them. If it did, we would be required to respect racism, Aryan supremacy, Manifest Destiny, Creationism, homophobia, sexism, jingoism and any other stupid idea that people hold dear.

The ideas people hold dear are not necessarily entitled to respect. In many instances, respecting a particular belief amounts to moral turpitude. If people demand respect for their beliefs, they're obligated to come up with some better criterion than the bare fact that they are their beliefs.

 

[Random]

Saith.

Yea, I see thou art conversant with the vernacular tongue, Smoke; but truly, t'is one or the other ("saith" in Old Pre-Modern; "sayeth" in that era which followed). But yea, it matters not; for all men of good breeding and a learned disposition are free to speak as they will. Bow to me, worship me, etc.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The mission is the mission. You can't bash the tenets of the religion, based upon the neglect of them by some.

What does that have to do with the argument that the church counts as a charitable institution?

Perhaps you'd like to present some solid evidence to show that they do?

Chief Rabbi tops spiritual earnings league table - Home News, UK - The Independent

Well, you can be as picayune as you want to, but it don't change the reality (which you claim to adore). when people give of themselves, it's charity.

Again, you're just playing with semantics. There is difference between the traditional or personal use of the word "charity" and what constitutes a "charitable organization". Do you understand that?

Perhaps you should consider changing seats... You might get a better perspective.

From where I sit, I can see plenty. Can you?

The examples are yours to find. I've already done my homework. Do your own.

I have done my homework, that's why I'm asking you for examples of your claims. Nothing makes me think a person has a weak argument more than them refusing to meet the requirement for evidence.

I wasn't indocrinated. My church has no doctrine with which to indoctrinate. Churches with which I've been involved don't pander. And those that do need to stop.

But your church continually reaffirms your belief with repetition, am I right? By definition, telling a large group of people exactly what they want to hear - facts disregarded - is pandering. That's what I see in every church I've ever been in.

"Unproven"/"belief." By definition, beliefs are unprovable. The argument is, therefore, meaningless.

And do you not care whether or not your beliefs a true? If you do, then you have no reason to disregard proof - even if it means changing your belief into knowledge.

Please don't be unnecessarily provocative.

I haven't been. You just make a nonsensical statement that had no basis, explanation or reason and read to me like inane rambling.

Miracles are not demonstrative proof. Jesus said as much.

And yet he still did them, and it was still used by him to apparently convince thousands of people.

Not my job to present it. It is your job to perceive it.

No it isn't. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

If they did, I'd be Catholic. Who's presenting arrogance in lieu of facts now?

They think the same way you do in that they perceive themselves as having the best perspective. What makes your perspective any better than the dozens of chaplains I was among throughout my school years.

If you had had a spiritual experience and understood it as such, you would decide that it was valid.
"Convinced" is immaterial.

And if you saw magic fairies and understood them as such, you would decide that it was valid. To me, your use of "understood" can be translated to "decided for no reason that...". Have you ever thought of the possibility that you are simply wrong about your interpretation of these supposed experiences, and that your "understanding" is not that at all?

Not lying. Let's refer to your Post #96:
Hmmm...

vs.:

Which is correct? What am I to assume when you tell me that you were raised "entirely without religion?"

Raised as-in brought up by my parents, who were secular.

It isn't about "accuracy." It's about experience.

If you don't care about the validity or accuracy of your interpretation of "experience" then you can decide that it means anything.

Once again, it isn't my job to demonstrate anything to you. It is your job to experience it for yourself.

No it isn't. You make the claim, you demonstrate it. If you cannot demonstrate it, then your claim is baseless.

Of course, you can stick your head in the sand and pretend that it doesn't exist. That's the beauty of living in America. We can sweep all kinds of things under the rug: Sub-prime mortgage scandals, O.J.'s guilt, Watergate, Iran/Contra, need I go on?

Once again, how am I "sticking my head in the ground"? I'm on a religious forum, I was raised in a series of religious schools, most of my best friends are religious. To imply that I'm "sticking my head in the ground" implies that I am intentionally ignoring something - but I have repeatedly asked you to demonstrate that the spiritual world exists and you continue to evade that requirement. If you cannot demonstrate it, what exactly am I ignoring? How on earth can you possibly equate untested, myth-based beliefs with actual historical and political events? If you want your claims to be taken on the same level as them, then demonstrate that your claims have a basis in reality. You know that this is a false comparison, surely.

God.

So, spirituality has a basis in fact, and that fact is God, and God cannot be tested for, provided evidence for or be understood by humans to exist in any capacity aside from wildly interpreted personal experiences?

I ask again: What basis does any of this have?

Not entirely correct. I believe that all creation has its basis in God, which is not based upon fact, but upon experience.

As soon as you say "not based upon fact" you lose all credibility. Thousands of people a year claim to of have experienced alien abduction. Who is more reliable, them or you?

Okely-dokely, Mr. Factoid.

From my POV, hoping to apply evidentiary fact to God is a cheap tactic.

And now you lose more credibility. Why do you care so little about whether or not your beliefs are true? If you cared, you'd have no reason not to include facts as a requirement.

Apology is unwarranted.

Thank you.

 

[Sunstone]

How can anyone respect Dawkins so long as he tries to make his points in the least boring ways possible?

 

[Peacewise]

So... then you'd have no problem with institutions (even purportedly Christian institutions) that advocate these sorts of activities being torn down?

If they are tearing down homophobia, slavery, bigotry then yep I have no problem with them in that instance.

If you're talking about Earthly punishment, I'd say that the evidence shows that things don't work the way you say. If you're talking about punishment in the afterlife, then taking comfort in what you describe would first require believing it to be true. Somehow, I doubt that anyone who doesn't believe in any gods is going to put much stock in the idea of a god they don't believe in wreaking punishment on people after they die in some unseen realm.

If the person does believe and they are homophobic and bigoted then eventually they suffer both in this world and the next, they'll suffer when they realise the error of their hatred and that all that time they had been going against the Word they believed in.

If the person doesn't believe then sure they have no reason to fear this punishment for they don't know any better, they aren't held to Christian standards by God, within the context of the Biblical understanding.

 

[Sententia]

It's amusing watching people defend their unfounded and largely ignorant opinion of Dawkins. They keep back peddling til they see the brick wall and then they bounce.

Calling it amusing is my form of sarcasm. Sigh.

 

[Sententia]

OK, OK - you win the splitting hairs contest. Atheism doesn't kill people, and neither does religion. People kill people.

People disbelieve in god so bad they crash planes into buildings?

Religion Does kill people.

Focus. Atheism doesn't kill people and neither does THEISM.

Religion is a world view and can be built upon either atheism or theism.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

People disbelieve in god so bad they crash planes into buildings?

Religion Does kill people.

Focus. Atheism doesn't kill people and neither does THEISM.

Religion is a world view and can be built upon either atheism or theism.

I for one do not believe in deities, yet my worldview could be considered as religious.

 

[sojourner]

What does that have to do with the argument that the church counts as a charitable institution?

The Church exists to raise up the downtrodden, without recompense. That's charity. The Church is an organization. Hence, a charitable organization.

Chief Rabbi tops spiritual earnings league table - Home News, UK - The Independent

The clergy are not the institution. The worker deserves his wages. You'll have to do better than that.

Again, you're just playing with semantics. There is difference between the traditional or personal use of the word "charity" and what constitutes a "charitable organization". Do you understand that?

I do, and the difference you're trying to make is smoke and mirrors. My point is that, for purposes of our discussion here, the traditional definition works better than the legal definition.

From where I sit, I can see plenty. Can you?

I sit behind the pulpit. I know whereof I speak.

I have done my homework, that's why I'm asking you for examples of your claims. Nothing makes me think a person has a weak argument more than them refusing to meet the requirement for evidence.

This is what I've been trying so patiently to explain to you. Evidence isn't required. Or even asked for. Except by you. Which tells me that you don't understand what it's about.

But your church continually reaffirms your belief with repetition, am I right?

And so a math teacher and a reading teacher reaffirm the multiplication tables and the alphabet with repetition. So what?

By definition, telling a large group of people exactly what they want to hear - facts disregarded - is pandering.

Once again, reputable religion doesn't tell people what they want to hear. Had Jesus done that, they wouldn't have killed him. And we don't pretend to tell them facts. We offer a perspective of spiritual truth.

And do you not care whether or not your beliefs a true?

I believe in truth. Truth is not always supported by fact. Just ask O.J.

If you do, then you have no reason to disregard proof - even if it means changing your belief into knowledge.

Proof has no bearing on spiritual reality. Belief need not regress into knowledge. But knowledge may progress to belief.

You just make a nonsensical statement that had no basis, explanation or reason and read to me like inane rambling.

The basis is in spiritual truth. There is no explanation that you would accept. The reason is God's reason. It read to you like inane rambling because you don't understand. You search only for facts. Try searching for the Sacred.

And yet he still did them, and it was still used by him to apparently convince thousands of people.

No they were not used by him to convince people. They were used by him to advance humanity into the spiritual realm.

No it isn't. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

There is no burden of proof, because proof doesn't matter.

They think the same way you do in that they perceive themselves as having the best perspective. What makes your perspective any better than the dozens of chaplains I was among throughout my school years.

Perspective isn't superlative. I never claimed it was. I merely said it was different.

And if you saw magic fairies and understood them as such, you would decide that it was valid.

Neither magic nor fairies fall within the realm of what creates spiritual understanding for me.
Magic is magic, fairies are fairies, and spiritual enlightenment is spiritual enlightenment.

To me, your use of "understood" can be translated to "decided for no reason that...".

Precisely why I say you don't understand.

Have you ever thought of the possibility that you are simply wrong about your interpretation of these supposed experiences, and that your "understanding" is not that at all?

Of course, until I realized that my ego was too involved. Understanding is not something one grasps. One is grasped by understanding.

Raised as-in brought up by my parents, who were secular.

Which is not what we were led to believe in post #96...

If you don't care about the validity or accuracy of your interpretation of "experience" then you can decide that it means anything.

I care about the validity. If it's not valid, belief is not valid. "Accurate" is a very relative term. when flying an airplane, you learn very quickly that "accurate" altitude falls within a range. You can drive yourself crazy following the altimeter up and down.

Interpretation is interpretation. It can mean anything. I think you're tumbling onto it!

You make the claim, you demonstrate it.

I claim nothing but my experience.

If you cannot demonstrate it, then your claim is baseless.

Not for me. But for you it necessarily is. You need to have your own experience. I can't have an experience for you.

Once again, how am I "sticking my head in the ground"? I'm on a religious forum, I was raised in a series of religious schools, most of my best friends are religious. To imply that I'm "sticking my head in the ground" implies that I am intentionally ignoring something - but I have repeatedly asked you to demonstrate that the spiritual world exists and you continue to evade that requirement. If you cannot demonstrate it, what exactly am I ignoring?

You're ignoring the reality that "demonstration" and "requirement" are not useful tools for this venture.

How on earth can you possibly equate untested, myth-based beliefs with actual historical and political events?

I don't. The mythic is more real.

If you want your claims to be taken on the same level as them, then demonstrate that your claims have a basis in reality.

I don't want them to be taken that way. They are not in the reality of fact and evidence.

You know that this is a false comparison, surely.

Of course I do. Don't you? Why are you arguing for a comparison that doesn't exist?

So, spirituality has a basis in fact, and that fact is God, and God cannot be tested for, provided evidence for or be understood by humans to exist in any capacity aside from wildly interpreted personal experiences?

I didn't say that. You said that.

I ask again: What basis does any of this have?

God.

As soon as you say "not based upon fact" you lose all credibility. Thousands of people a year claim to of have experienced alien abduction. Who is more reliable, them or you?

apparently, I lose more credibility if I say, "is based upon fact." How convenient for you! The debate must be won on your terms. Why not try God's terms?
I'm not particularly concerned with "credibility." I don't care who's more reliable, other than to say that my spiritual experiences have made me a more whole and better human being. Many abductees are unbalanced. That's the only "credibility" I have to offer.

And now you lose more credibility. Why do you care so little about whether or not your beliefs are true? If you cared, you'd have no reason not to include facts as a requirement.

Not necessarily. As we've already covered, fact does not always support truth. I care very much about the truth of my belief. I care not whether there are facts that bear them out in the empirical world.

Thank you.

You are most welcome, sir!

 

[Sententia]

I didn't say I don't have a problem with his underlying message. I don't agree with his underlying message - which is the support and proselytizing for the cause of atheism. I DO however, support his right to be an atheist and express his beliefs - and make a lot of money doing so as well.

I don't agree with his message, and I don't like his approach. So...I'm probably not going to buy or read any of his books.

You don't agree with his underlying message? Even if you were a world wide recognized literary critic and an enlightened religious leader you would still have to READ the material prior to claiming you understand his underlying message let alone criticize it.

You haven't read Dawkins. You don't know either his message or his approach. You know your googled self built perception. The honest thing to do is to admit you don't really know Dawkins or his underlying message. You have yet to read his material but from little you have seen you are not impressed nor inclined to learn more.

Atheist regimes have killed millions of people BECAUSE of their belief in religion. Dawkins seems to conveniently forget that salient point.

Who is this saliently clear too? Atheism itself isn't a cause or a philosophy. Neither is Theism.

The way you pound these war drums... RELIGION is a belief system. Atheism is not. Religion is one reason why people fight, die, or kill. If an atheist kills someone you better ask why he did it. You think millions are being slaughtered because people really don't believe in god and the only way to prove that is murder? Salient point? Maybe its not atheism... maybe its baldness...

Is this just something you like to throw out there? One minute its a salient point and the next you state atheism doesn't kill people:

Atheism doesn't kill people, and neither does religion. People kill people.

 

[Kathryn]

Exactly. And yet his detractors have emphasized over and over again that it's his very opinions they find offensive, rather than his manner of expressing them.

Why are you directing that comment at me? I've specifically stated over and over again that it's his demeanor, style, and delivery that sets me off.

People disbelieve in god so bad they crash planes into buildings?

Religion Does kill people.

Focus. Atheism doesn't kill people and neither does THEISM.

According to another well visited thread on this site, atheists have the highest suicide rates.

I'm just sayin'...

 

[dogsgod]

According to another well visited thread on this site, atheists have the highest suicide rates.

I'm just sayin'...

And you believe it.

 

[Sententia]

According to another well visited thread on this site, atheists have the highest suicide rates.

I'm just sayin'...

Just saying what exactly? And for what purpose?

 

[McBell]

That tired old come back again, please get some new material.

:sleep:

As soon as you get a new tactic.

I merely call them as I see them.
If you dislike the picture you draw, draw another one.

 

[darkendless]

I don't think that "spreading Xy" is the mission. That's like these fundys who want to "reclaim America for Jay-zus.":help:

The Great Commission merely says to go make "us" out of "them." In other words, welcome everyone indiscriminately and let God do the weeding out. Remember, the farmer lets the tares grow up with the wheat, and the reaper takes care of it at harvest time. Matthew's whole thing is that the church includes good and bad, and you can't always tell the difference.

I don't think we're to be all the same, or to believe the same, or to think the same. That's another wonderful side-effect from the imperialization of Xy.

But thats exactly the problem. Leave us alone and maybe we'll respect people within your organisation.

This great mission gives dawkins unbelievable amounts of ammunition. He can and should criticise the hell out of christian organisations for their arrogance. Until atheists do door knocking and public preaching then people will continue to be critical.

Its not up to the non-christians to control the fundies.

 

[Peacewise]

As soon as you get a new tactic.

I merely call them as I see them.
If you dislike the picture you draw, draw another one.

The violent would see a martyr in a call for respect.