Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think Dawkins is bright either. He is the quintessential type of atheist that I cannot peacefully co-exist with because he is intolerant of the fact that everyone has a right to their own world view.
I think Dawkins is extremely bright, and what is more, he does think that others have a right to their own view. He simply wants religion out of government. I have read several of his books, and he is very intelligent with excellent academic credentials.
You have you opinion and I have mine...The loss of religion is cause for celebration, but it does not mean the loss of culture.
I believe he said "a culture" not culture in general.
Certainly elements of British culture would be gone if Christianity disappeared altogether there. The works of William Blake, G. K. Chesterton, John Donne, Gerard Manley Hopkins, John Milton, Christopher Smart, and so forth. Or the church architecture of Christopher Wren, Pugin, et alia. A Britain where Christianity is dead might still enjoy or understand these things, but some forms of appreciation might be essentially dead because they will be products of what is a fully dead culture just as much as Roman ruins were a dead culture to Christian Britain.
Yes he does have that right....but he doesn't have the right to 'respect' for his belief.
I'm no Nazi but what I understand from the Nazis is that they don't ask for respect.
Nazis generally take it.
Or dupe others into giving it to them (in the same way Hitler won the German election democratically).
He duped others but he wasn't really elected democratically as I recall. He made a deal with, I think, Fritz Van Papen. Then he put in an "Enabling Act" turned against other parties and had a basically "One-Party Election" at some point.
He made a deal with, I think, Fritz Van Papen. Then he put in an "Enabling Act" turned against other parties and had a basically "One-Party Election" at some point.
I'm no history buff, but even when this is true, it was all done within the boundaries of democracy?
I mean if the majority of the people in a democracy (like the Germans did) voted for becoming a dictatorship the transformation from a democracy into a dictatorship still is part of the democratic process.
BTW am I mistaken to believe that Hitler won the election fair and square?
I believe he said "a culture" not culture in general.
Certainly elements of British culture would be gone if Christianity disappeared altogether there. The works of William Blake, G. K. Chesterton, John Donne, Gerard Manley Hopkins, John Milton, Christopher Smart, and so forth. Or the church architecture of Christopher Wren, Pugin, et alia. A Britain where Christianity is dead might still enjoy or understand these things, but some forms of appreciation might be essentially dead because they will be products of what is a fully dead culture just as much as Roman ruins were a dead culture to Christian Britain.
None of those works would be gone, not the architecture, nor the understanding or appreciation of any great works of the past, but more likely these things would be protected as we protect Greek and Roman works of art, and indeed even primitive artifacts and art such as the cave paintings in France, are protected as examples of cultures of the past.
Religion, like many of the things you mention rightfully belongs in the past but that doesn't mean it will be forgotten any more than any other culture that has marked mankind's ascent out of his dark past. A past that's littered with the bones of bygone superstitions...This is just one more step required in mankind's enlightenment and separation from what essentially is just one more myth.
No. Certain relationships are immoral by God's laws.
Is that the 'laws' that, when you find one you don't like, you claim you don't have follow any more because your man-god abolished them... but when you find a law you do like, a law that will allow you to exercise homophobia, hatred or bigotry... suddenly go back to being 'God's law that must be obeyed'?
Is that the 'laws' that, when you find one you don't like, you claim you don't have follow any more because your man-god abolished them... but when you find a law you do like, a law that will allow you to exercise homophobia, hatred or bigotry... suddenly go back to being 'God's law that must be obeyed'?
No. You're confusing (on purpose) the OT laws meant for the Jews & NT "rules for living" for Christians.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
BTW am I mistaken to believe that Hitler won the election fair and square?
