Dawkins & Religion

[sojourner]

Except it isn't, since there is exactly zero evidence of the existence of a God. Just the same as the amount of evidence for the existence of fairies, werewolves and the Loch Ness monster.

Ephemeral means "short-lived." but the concept of God has perpetuated since history began.

So, again, if somebody believes in fairies and said belief adds to what they believe is their understanding of themselves, how is their belief in any way different to an average theists? What makes the comparison illogical?

then their understanding of fairies is much, much different than the popular usage would dictate, and the fairies would constitute, for them, their idea of "God."

 

[sojourner]

And why should it be separated? That implies it occupies a unique place, my question is why should it have that place and why does anybody strongly objecting to it having that place deserve ire?

Theologically, God is completely Other than human. God is separated out from human endeavor or construct. To lump God in with other human constructs is to make God -- not God.

 

[Autodidact]

Dicky D has nothing worthwhile to contribute the argument about religion, really. He is a waste of time.

Any man who finds altruism a mystery that has to have a scientific explanation is a dick-head, and possibly a very dangerous evil for mankind.

All the weak are being weeded out now, and like Dicky D, even selecting themselves for the eternal burning, weeping and gnashing of teeth.

You do know that Richard Dawkins has founded an atheist charitable organization the sole purpose of which is altruism, right?

 

[sojourner]

Dicky D has nothing worthwhile to contribute the argument about religion, really. He is a waste of time.

Any man who finds altruism a mystery that has to have a scientific explanation is a dick-head, and possibly a very dangerous evil for mankind.

All the weak are being weeded out now, and like Dicky D, even selecting themselves for the eternal burning, weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Alllll Right-y, then!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No,but making false claims about a subject and then holding the subject accountable to those false claims is bullying.

No, that isn't bullying. That's just dishonesty. And where has Dawkins ever done that?

His reasons (as given above) are largely invalid. They're straw men.

Such as...?

Of course they are. Charity is based in love, as the church is based in love (or should be. If Dawkins wants to present a valid case for self-serving churches, I'd be more than happy to hear it). Ministry to others is charity. By definition.

Sorry, but the definition of "charity" has nothing to do with "love". It's to do with organizations that work solely based on donations, for no profit, and work towards giving those donations to a particular cause. The church does not do that.

And no, ministry to others is not charity. The guy who stands in the middle of the city I live in yelling at people about how they're going to hell and how homosexuals are the cause of the decline of society is not engaged in a charitable act. And yes, I am aware that not all ministers are like him, but if you're going to claim that ministering is charity then he falls under that very same umbrella.

"valid" as in is altruistic, as opposed to something like a cult.

I would argue that most religions are more-or-less indecipherable from cults, and that there is no such thing as a truly altruistic religion as all religions, to some degree, work for their own benefit. Therefore, there is no such thing as a "valid" religion in your terms.

How is "deepen" vague?

Because it doesn't mean anything. Do you mean increase knowledge?

How is "understanding" vague?

Because "understanding" doesn't mean anything without context. Understanding of what?

spiritually, yes. And that is the kind of understanding that we're talking about. Dawkins bashes it because he doesn't buy that there even is such a thing as spirituality.

Now this is just the tired old "he doesn't believe in spirituality therefore he's biased" argument. There is a reason he doesn't buy into spirituality, and it's the same reason I and many other atheists give.

My ability to understand religion, or a particular religious viewpoint, is in no way hindered by my upbringing, nor is my upbringing reason to dismiss my or Dawkins' opinions on religion. That's really scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of logical arguments.

No, I think he set out to bash religion, and substituting "fact" for "truth" is his method.

But, again, "bashing religion" is not an agenda. And agenda is his reason for doing something. Now, what is Dawkins' reason, in your opinion, for bashing religion?

Much of his argument is aimed at irresponsible religion that has ulterior motives. This kind of religion promotes unreasoned thinking and suppresses criticism. Then he lumps all religion into that mold, which clearly is the wrong thing to do.

No, he does not. He simply states that religion is logically void, and has lead to horrific things as a direct result of it's undeserved position in society. He has never stated that all religion, or all theists, have ulterior motives or suppress criticism, but that does not change the fact that their beliefs are still just as logically void. His objection is not purely with the evils religions have given birth to, but with the irrationality that subsists as the very basis of religious convictions. Do you understand the difference?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Ephemeral means "short-lived." but the concept of God has perpetuated since history began.

And that, in no way, lends any credibility to the notion. The concept of God has consistently changed from the dawn of history, and many of the Gods that were once believed to exist are now considered little more than fantasies.

then their understanding of fairies is much, much different than the popular usage would dictate, and the fairies would constitute, for them, their idea of "God."

No it wouldn't, since they don't believe fairies are in any way responsible for the creation of the universe.

 

[Random]

You do know that Richard Dawkins has founded an atheist charitable organization the sole purpose of which is altruism, right?

Sure, but only after he'd decided that being helpful and nice to people had a rational basis in group selection (which he's still a bit skeptical about); after all, being helpful and nice to people apparently uses up precious (private, self-owned) resources and decreases fitness (in the evolutionary biological sense). You see how complicating a simple thing can make a millionaire careerist of even the densest scientist? Yea, thus sayeth the Lord.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Theologically, God is completely Other than human. God is separated out from human endeavor or construct. To lump God in with other human constructs is to make God -- not God.

Okay, now demonstrate that God exists so that you can make these claims about him and actually have a basis for them.

 

[Willamena]

Okay, now demonstrate that God exists so that you can make these claims about him and actually have a basis for them.

What does it mean "to exist" (to you)? Existence doesn't mean anything without context, and if you're challenging him to put "God" into the same context in which we (for example) exist, you're asking him to defy what he just claimed.

 

[ἄθεος]

What does it mean "to exist" (to you)? Existence doesn't mean anything without context, and if you're challenging him to put "God" into the same context in which we (for example) exist, you're asking him to defy what he just claimed.

I'll have to disagree here. I don't want to speak for him but I believe "exist" in that context is pretty self-explanatory as it is directly referencing a subject, in this case "god".

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What does it mean "to exist" (to you)? Existence doesn't mean anything without context, and if you're challenging him to put "God" into the same context in which we (for example) exist, you're asking him to defy what he just claimed.

No I'm not, I'm just asking for any demonstrable evidence that indicates a God's existence. I don't see how asking for evidence of the existence of something that exists "separate to human endeavor or construct" is any less logical to claiming the existence of something "separate to human endeavor or construct".

Claiming the existence of such a thing that, supposedly, is so separate is completely meaningless, as if it were separate no claims to their existence or nonexistence have any basis or merit by definition. I might as well claim the existence of the invisible, untouchable, flying wish pony that cannot be comprehended by the human brain, and as soon as somebody asks me for evidence I can respond with "well ,if there was evidence it wouldn't be comprehended by the human brain".

"I can't demonstrate God's existence because God's existence cannot be defined in human terms" is a cop-out argument, nothing more.

 

[Autodidact]

Sure, but only after he'd decided that being helpful and nice to people had a rational basis in group selection (which he's still a bit skeptical about); after all, being helpful and nice to people apparently uses up precious (private, self-owned) resources and decreases fitness (in the evolutionary biological sense). You see how complicating a simple thing can make a millionaire careerist of even the densest scientist? Yea, thus sayeth the Lord.

Actually, evolution favors altruism. Are you saying that Richard Dawkins has claimed to the contrary?

 

[McBell]

Werewolves, fairies and unicorns do not help us to understand ourselves more deeply.

That is YOUR failing.
If you are unable to see how werewolves, fairies, and unicorns help one understand themselves better it is merely because you have not been possessed by the right spirit.

 

[McBell]

Dicky D has nothing worthwhile to contribute the argument about religion, really. He is a waste of time.

Any man who finds altruism a mystery that has to have a scientific explanation is a dick-head, and possibly a very dangerous evil for mankind.

All the weak are being weeded out now, and like Dicky D, even selecting themselves for the eternal burning, weeping and gnashing of teeth.

What the hell are you talking about?

 

[Random]

Actually, evolution favors altruism.

Indeed y.

Are you saying that Richard Dawkins has claimed to the contrary?

That's one way to avoid the issue.

 

[Random]

What the hell are you talking about?

I would have thought it was obvious, but apparently not. Never mind.

 

[McBell]

I would have thought it was obvious, but apparently not. Never mind.

Obvious to whom?
I guess I am not a member of your choir.

 

[sojourner]

No, that isn't bullying. That's just dishonesty. And where has Dawkins ever done that?

See the above quotes. almost all of them are based on misleading assumptions -- at least for mainstream Xy. It is bullying when one makes repeated accusations that are designed to undermine something -- especially if the accusations are false or misleading.

Sorry, but the definition of "charity" has nothing to do with "love".

Charity is derived from the word charis, which is translated as "love." It has everything to do with love.

It's to do with organizations that work solely based on donations, for no profit, and work towards giving those donations to a particular cause. The church does not do that.

Hmmm. Churches work solely based upon donations, for no profit. They work toward the giving of time, treasure and talent to the less fortunate.

And no, ministry to others is not charity. The guy who stands in the middle of the city I live in yelling at people about how they're going to hell and how homosexuals are the cause of the decline of society is not engaged in a charitable act. And yes, I am aware that not all ministers are like him, but if you're going to claim that ministering is charity then he falls under that very same umbrella.

Well, I'd argue that that's not ministry. It's yelling an opinion at best, and pandering at worst.

I would argue that most religions are more-or-less indecipherable from cults, and that there is no such thing as a truly altruistic religion as all religions, to some degree, work for their own benefit. Therefore, there is no such thing as a "valid" religion in your terms.

cults are not altruistic. They engage in theft, brainwashing, kidnapping, and are usually centered around one individual, who claims to be the most recent incarnation of Christ. Mainstream religion does none of that. Their motives are self-serving to the extent that any charity is self-serving.

Because it doesn't mean anything. Do you mean increase knowledge?

This has very little to do with knowledge. It has to do with experience and how that experience informs the meaning of our existence in relationship with the universe.

Because "understanding" doesn't mean anything without context. Understanding of what?

Of ourselves in relationship to the Divine.

Now this is just the tired old "he doesn't believe in spirituality therefore he's biased" argument. There is a reason he doesn't buy into spirituality, and it's the same reason I and many other atheists give.

Has nothing to do with belief, but with perception. The reason he doesn't buy into it is because he doesn't see it.

My ability to understand religion, or a particular religious viewpoint, is in no way hindered by my upbringing, nor is my upbringing reason to dismiss my or Dawkins' opinions on religion. That's really scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of logical arguments.

You can't even understand the nature of the Church. How can you hope to understand spirituality when you've never been exposed to it?

But, again, "bashing religion" is not an agenda. And agenda is his reason for doing something. Now, what is Dawkins' reason, in your opinion, for bashing religion?

It doesn't fit his mold for what expresses truth. So he bashes it, because he doesn't understand it.

No, he does not. He simply states that religion is logically void, and has lead to horrific things as a direct result of it's undeserved position in society. He has never stated that all religion, or all theists, have ulterior motives or suppress criticism, but that does not change the fact that their beliefs are still just as logically void. His objection is not purely with the evils religions have given birth to, but with the irrationality that subsists as the very basis of religious convictions. Do you understand the difference?

I understand that his definition of what is rational and logical is very narrow. In fact, he's partially right, because spirituality extends beyond reason and embraces mystery.

 

[sojourner]

Okay, now demonstrate that God exists so that you can make these claims about him and actually have a basis for them.

I don't need to do that. God is not based in my demonstration.

 

[sojourner]

No I'm not, I'm just asking for any demonstrable evidence that indicates a God's existence. I don't see how asking for evidence of the existence of something that exists "separate to human endeavor or construct" is any less logical to claiming the existence of something "separate to human endeavor or construct".

Claiming the existence of such a thing that, supposedly, is so separate is completely meaningless, as if it were separate no claims to their existence or nonexistence have any basis or merit by definition. I might as well claim the existence of the invisible, untouchable, flying wish pony that cannot be comprehended by the human brain, and as soon as somebody asks me for evidence I can respond with "well ,if there was evidence it wouldn't be comprehended by the human brain".

"I can't demonstrate God's existence because God's existence cannot be defined in human terms" is a cop-out argument, nothing more.

To reduce God to human terms in order to identify God is to make God less than God. Definition engages knowledge. We're not looking for knowledge, and if we are, then we don't "get it" (case in point: Mr. Dawkins).

It's not a cop-out any more than not being able to demonstrate that something is beautiful is a cop-out.