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 have got to say that I hadn't picked that point up, and it does provide an understandable rationale.
Why not leave religion be if it is not doing any harm? Well, if it did not harm, I daresay that we could leave it be, but we consider that it does harm, not in obvious ways like covering up child abuse or refusing to bury people who fell behind with their tithes, and not even in trying to shoehorn mythology into the science class or campaigning against gay marriage (you and i would probably agree that this is 'harm') but the sheer ongoing influence of a superstition, book of mythology and a lot of twaddle -spouters in dog collars telling us how to run our lives, never mind that reason and evidence says that the claims of religion are false - which is reason enough to reduce it to the library shelf for fairy tales, is why we do what we do.
I would hope for some understanding of the motives we have for spending hours debating with the closed minded in the hopes that we are getting the message over, but, if you can't see anything to approve or praise in our efforts, we will just have to do without it.
No Nozz...the "abuse" & "stream of bile and invective" is his...so much so, he is known world wide for it.
See what I mean? You just throw out generalized nonsense without citing or dealing with a thing the man actually ever said. For someone who "hates hate" you spend a lot of time posting it.
But why actually deal with anything someone actually says when you can just spew bile about them instead, huh?
I have got to say that I hadn't picked that point up, and it does provide an understandable rationale.
Why not leave religion be if it is not doing any harm? Well, if it did not harm, I daresay that we could leave it be, but we consider that it does harm, not in obvious ways like covering up child abuse or refusing to bury people who fell behind with their tithes, and not even in trying to shoehorn mythology into the science class or campaigning against gay marriage (you and i would probably agree that this is 'harm') but the sheer ongoing influence of a superstition, book of mythology and a lot of twaddle -spouters in dog collars telling us how to run our lives, never mind that reason and evidence says that the claims of religion are false - which is reason enough to reduce it to the library shelf for fairy tales, is why we do what we do.
I would hope for some understanding of the motives we have for spending hours debating with the closed minded in the hopes that we are getting the message over, but, if you can't see anything to approve or praise in our efforts, we will just have to do without it.
Yep, hammer and nail became best friends with this post - if you know what I mean.
The reason why religion can't simply be left alone is because it is only a matter of time before it does more harm. It's akin to leaving that asteroid alone because it's doing no harm - even though we know it's going to smash into the earth in a few decades. Meh, just leave it.
There will be more acts of terror due to religion. There will be more jihads and crusades. There will be more attempts at denying people their rights. There will be more attempts at banning forms of expression religion doesn't like. There will be more honor killings. There will be more children left to die because the parents' religion says not to use doctors. There will be more oppression of women and denunciations of women because they were not created equal. There will be more blame games and scapegoating when natural disasters occur.
It takes a surprisingly small percentage of the population to affect the will of a nation. This is why the vocal minority of religious anti-gay zealots managed to influence the majority of states to ban gay marriage - even though polling data showed that a majority of people were in favor of marriage equality. A small but loud and well-funded minority managed to inflict its will upon everyone else.
Let's say that thousands of people claim to have seen a ghost. Their experience isn't disproved by arguing that the universe is made of atoms and molecules, rendering non-physical entities impossible. The actual experience of seeing a ghost must be met on its own terms. The same holds true for the millions of people across the centuries who claim to have an experience of God, heaven, the soul, the afterlife, and so on. Telling them that life evolved from one-celled microorganisms doesn't say anything about their experience, which is why Dawkins, a canny propagandist, resorts to disdain and ridicule to demolish religious belief, adding a healthy dose of accusations against the evils produced by organized religion (which are undeniable but again don't address people's genuine spiritual experiences).
Saying that a ghost disbeliever's argument is that the universe is made of atoms and molecules is a strawman unless there is a specific argument someone has made that he is referring to without citing. That would be a foolish argument to make. The argument against ghosts is that there is no testable evidence supporting their existence. The reference to millions of people's experience is an argumentum ad populum. It doesn't matter how many say they have experienced it, what matters is the existence and quality of evidence in support. The ability to explain these types of experiences doesn't have any bearing on the accuracy or usefulness of evolutionary theories. They simply state what we have observed and tested and owe no answer to any question we might have.
If you want an explanation for spiritual experiences you should test them using the scientific process rather than complaining that your unfounded answers are being attacked by those that give no favor to guesses and hopes as explanations of phenomena. You may not find what you are hoping for; you may get no answer at all in your lifetime. That's simply the way it works.
Dismissing Dawkins ideas on religion based on his views on unrelated matters is a form of ad hominem attack. If you wait to accept knowledge from only those whose summation of opinions are tolerable to you, then you will spend your life waiting and will miss out on a lot in the meantime. Take the good parts and listen to someone else on the other matters.
Finally, Deepak Chopra makes a lot of pseudo-scientific statements that he has not supported with actual science. At least he has shown the world a model of how to make such nonsense profitable.
Yep, hammer and nail became best friends with this post - if you know what I mean.
The reason why religion can't simply be left alone is because it is only a matter of time before it does more harm. It's akin to leaving that asteroid alone because it's doing no harm - even though we know it's going to smash into the earth in a few decades. Meh, just leave it.
There will be more acts of terror due to religion. There will be more jihads and crusades. There will be more attempts at denying people their rights. There will be more attempts at banning forms of expression religion doesn't like. There will be more honor killings. There will be more children left to die because the parents' religion says not to use doctors. There will be more oppression of women and denunciations of women because they were not created equal. There will be more blame games and scapegoating when natural disasters occur.
It takes a surprisingly small percentage of the population to affect the will of a nation. This is why the vocal minority of religious anti-gay zealots managed to influence the majority of states to ban gay marriage - even though polling data showed that a majority of people were in favor of marriage equality. A small but loud and well-funded minority managed to inflict its will upon everyone else.
Indeed. Which is why atheism vs. Theism is an academic debate and militant atheism vs. organized religion is a campaign for hearts and minds.
Hammer and nail can co -exist and more and more theists are seeing that particular specific holy-book -based religions are not credible and the authority of organized religion is reprehensible. And they are the Theists who post here arguing for God while stating frankly that they have no time for particular faiths.
As friend Gldnrule pointed out in another thread, atheism and even agnosticism doesn't seem to be increasing greatly, but irreligion is mushrooming, and this is the atheist avalanche, even if that isn't realized. Many irreligious theists in time become agnostic and agnostics become atheists.
It's a tightrope giving assurances of respect for God -belief while reserving the right to show that it has no logical or evidential credibility, but let's face it, any theist with brains and guts enough to realize that religions are a crock is going to understand that their God -faith is based on revelations that that are not logical or evidenced by science, but (they believe) do exist. But they can (1) understand that I have good reasons for my disbelief.
And hopefully, they would respect that honesty requires that I debate their argument for "God" rather than keep quiet in the interests of tactically getting irreligious theism on our side. People who had reasoned thus far will appreciate someone who says it like it is rather than mendaciously stroke their fur.
I do hope that you-awl follow my argument. If so, please explain it to me
(1)..yep has to be foopnote...hopefully - though I can't think of any examples just now, while I can think of quite a few who seem to think I am closing my mind to "Facts".
If you want an explanation for spiritual experiences you should test them using the scientific process rather than complaining that your unfounded answers are being attacked by those that give no favor to guesses and hopes as explanations of phenomena. You may not find what you are hoping for; you may get no answer at all in your lifetime. That's simply the way it works.
Dismissing Dawkins ideas on religion based on his views on unrelated matters is a form of ad hominem attack. If you wait to accept knowledge from only those whose summation of opinions are tolerable to you, then you will spend your life waiting and will miss out on a lot in the meantime. Take the good parts and listen to someone else on the other matters.
Perhaps science is not yet advanced enough to be able to test "spiritual experiences". Maybe science will never be able to test that, and honestly I think I would prefer it that way. I have my proof and my experiences and that is all I need.
Dawkins is a biologist, not a religious expert. Maybe he should stick to talking about what he knows.
Perhaps science is not yet advanced enough to be able to test "spiritual experiences". Maybe science will never be able to test that, and honestly I think I would prefer it that way. I have my proof and my experiences and that is all I need.
Dawkins is a biologist, not a religious expert. Maybe he should stick to talking about what he knows.
The scientific method will remain the same. Technology will advance. We can state our preferences but they will have no effect on what we find.
Chopra is a doctor, not a religious expert. Here we see the problem with declaring the presence or lack of authority. Credentials and experience may give you some probable expectation of the nature of a person's claims, but the support for the claims themselves are what is important, regardless of their origin.
Chopra is primarily, I think, what Alan Watts at least had the integrity to openly call himself: a "metaphysical entertainer".
Chopra is an endocrinologist by training, true, but many in medicine regard him as a quack now, and his insistence that "consciousness creates your reality" is classic solipsism.
Good points, saying that science is not equipped to deal with spiritual matters is pretty much saying that nobody knows anything about them. So it is all speculation and guesswork.
Thus there is no relevant Authority in these matters. Dawkins applies biology in some areas, but in others his authority is no greater than mine or Deepak Chophra's. It is the strength of the case that matters and, where science is not equipped to deal, then who knows?
And if we don't know, then anyone who says they do on Faith can expect a well -deserved raspberry.
Thus there is no relevant Authority in these matters. Dawkins applies biology in some areas, but in others his authority is no greater than mine or Deepak Chophra's. It is the strength of the case that matters and, where science is not equipped to deal, then who knows?
There are people that are well educated on religious matters. I don't go around debating about religion and saying I will only debate priests and experts on religion like Dawkins does.
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.
