Some reconsiderations...
| Posted On: 11/28/06 08:46:01 PM |
Age 33, OK |
It sounds like the author of this article did not read Dawkins' book. There are several segments of this article where the author states something like, "and Dawkins fails to mention or explain X". Having read the book, I know that those statements are not true. Dawkins is quite thorough in his discussion. This is not to say that I agree with him, but the author of this article needs to try to be more honest.
For example, the author repeatedly mentions that Hitler and Stalin, arguably the two most destructive men of the 20th century, were atheists. Yes, they were. The author then admits that many evil deeds have been committed in the name of Christianity. Dawkins argues in his book that these are not comparable scenarios. The Christians who fought the Crusades and burned people at the stake were doing it all in the name of Christianity. Hitler and Stalin, however, were NOT committing their deeds in the name of atheism. It other words, their atheism was not a necessary condition for their actions. This is not the case with the Christian perpetrators.
It is also noteworthy to mention the fact that "proving" the existence of God does NOT prove anything about Christianity. Just because it seems logically reasonable that there is indeed some divine being in existence does NOT necessarily mean that this "God" has to be the god of the Bible.
In the same way, disproving the theory of evolution does NOT automatically prove creation theory. It is possible that boths theories are wrong.
Click here to reply to this post
|
- Re: Some reconsiderations...
| Posted On: 11/29/06 07:52:07 PM | | Age 27, WA |
I know Dr. Noebel, and believe me, he has definitly read the book. I think you are simply misunderstanding his article. When he speaks about Hitler and Stalin and atheism, he is not just talking about atheism as a religion he is talking about the atheistic worldview. This incompasses not just what they think about God, but also what they think about life, society, economics, law etc... He is talking about all of their beliefs and ideologies. In other words, it was definitly their atheistic worldview that was a necessary condition for their actions.
Click here to reply to this post
Re: Atheism is on the March: Dawkins, Dennett, and Darwin
| Posted On: 11/28/06 07:58:35 PM |
Age 53, PA |
I find that argument that it was the atheism of Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao that made them monsters simply silly. It was not their atheism, it was their lust for power and lack of sympathy that made them murdering monsters. Atheists such as myself who have no desire to have power over others and who feel sympathy for others cannot even imagine hurting human beings the way these dictators did.
Neither atheism nor theism leads to moral or immoral behavior. It is our moral emotions such as shame, embarrasssment, guilt, sympathy, and compassion that lead to moral behavior and lack of moral emotions that lead to immoral behavior. And where do these emotions come from? They are evolved adaptations of course.
The pointlessness of arguing whether theists or atheists have caused more suffering and death in the history of humankind has been well described in a short article at http://www.infidels.org/secular_web/feature/1999/violence.html
Click here to reply to this post
|
- Here here!
| Posted On: 12/07/06 12:41:39 AM | | Age 20, UN |
Thanks for pointing out this article! I agree 100% with what you say, it is how we have evolved as humans that dictate our morals, not religion (or lack thereof). When people argue with me on this point I point out the actions of animals: meerkats don't kill other meerkats, not because they have high morals given to them by religion, but because they have evolved that way. To me as well the argument of who kills more people (atheists or theists) is pointless and sick, because by saying that religion "kills less" than "someone else" is side stepping the real question: why do people get killed because of religion at all? It's like comparing a man who has brutally killed two people to a serial killer; the actions of one man does not make the other man's any less vulgar. It's a cold, shallow argument at best, and a ridiculously stupid one at worst. I encourage everyone to read the aforementioned article, I liked the caricature too :). Cheers - ScienceBoy
Click here to reply to this post
Re: Atheism is on the March: Dawkins, Dennett, and Darwin
| Posted On: 11/28/06 06:59:06 PM |
Age 81, CA |
Atheists choose a lifestyle first and ignore:
1. Their own need to deny shortcoming (sin) in personal life raised most accurately and constuctively in Judeo-Christian faith. 'Scientific self-imposed' ignorance. 2. Deny any God initiator of the 1st Cause of our causal universe - denoted originally in Biblical scripture. 3. Needful to distinguish between Judeo-Christian God-made and all other man-made faiths. 4. Only Biblical Transcendent Criteria, which which man cannot invent, and Fulfilled Prophetic Validation verifies non-man made Source of Scripture. 5. A Biblical Human Paradigm as premise for the greatest nation in human history - The United States of America.
This, for openers, less than 750 word limitation.
semper fidelis
Click here to reply to this post
|
- Re: Re: Atheism is on the March: Dawkins, Dennett, and Darwin
| Posted On: 11/29/06 01:26:55 AM | | Age 20, UN |
I see far more "self imposed ignorance" in religion than science sir/madam. From what I recall from history class wasn't it a scientist who proposed the world was round not flat, and that he was called a sinner by Christians sir/madam? Every one of the 20,000 religions in the history of humankind sir/madam professes that their religion is correct and based on the teachings of their God or Gods, and that every other religion is wrong and is man made. Every religion is man made I'm afraid sir/madam, and every single one justifies itself in the same, identical way. Sir Stephen Henry Roberts said it best: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer God than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible Gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." And as for your comment sir/madam about the USA being the greatest nation: profess a love for our planet and her people, not for the human made paradigm of a "nation". As my grandfather says sir/madam to JW's who arrive at his door (I'm paraphrasing sir/madam): "I encourage you to step outside your religious restrictions and see the world for what it is, even just for 5 minutes. We have barely scratched the surface of understanding and already we can see the universe is far more wondrous, amazing and beautiful than anything religion has been able to come up with. If the thought scares you, stay in your religious bubble where you can explain everything and where there's no uncertainty. I don't have a problem with it, I'm just sorry for you." And so you don't have to say it sir/madam, yes I am young and ignorant Atheist who will burn in hell. I appreciate the lively debate sir/madam. Thank you - ScienceBoy
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: Re: Re: Atheism is on the March: Dawkins, Dennett, and Darwin
| Posted On: 12/01/06 01:53:27 PM | | Age 47, GA |
Actually, the Bible teaches the earth is spheroid / round. (see Isaiah 40:22) You have to be very careful when you evaluate "what someone says the Bible says" vs. what the Bible really states. Atheists, in my experience, rely upon others to tell them the Bible is wrong, but rarely take the time to study it in detail for themselves. When they do this openly, honestly, and objectively, they often become Christians (see Josh McDowell, Dr. Hugh Ross, Charles Colson, etc. Many, many more examples too). Ironic, isn't it, that those who demand objective evidence instead of faith are often the ones who are quickest to "believe" the Bible is wrong without ever really examining the objective facts for themselves! There's a lot more fascinating scientific accuracies in the Bible. I challenge you to check it out, that is, if you have the courage to accept the real verdict of your investigation.
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: Re: Re: Re: Atheism is on the March: Dawkins, Dennett, and Darwin
| Posted On: 12/06/06 06:38:48 PM | | Age 20, UN |
You're right, instead of attacking me as soon as you saw "Atheist" you presented me with an argument that was backed up, which is more that what most people do here. My mum is a Christian, I will ask her about this tonight. I wouldn't be too quick to say reading a religion's holy book will convert you though, just as you reading Darwin's Theory of Evolution or the Qur'an wouldn't probably convert you either. You have to remember as well there are large parts of the Bible that discuss stoning of untrue virgins, the acceptance of slavery, the treatment of women as property (to be owned and raped), murder and other remarks that I find (politely) wrong and that do not have a place in today's society. I'm actually in the process of reading Buddha's Teachings as we speak. Cheers - ScienceBoy
Click here to reply to this post
- Re: Re: Re: Atheism is on the March: Dawkins, Dennett, and Darwin
| Posted On: 11/30/06 06:40:42 PM | | Age 27, WA |
First, what is with all the "sir/madam" stuff, that just got annoying.
"From what I recall from history class wasn't it a scientist who proposed the world was round not flat, and that he was called a sinner by Christians sir/madam?"
-FALSE - The first people to propose that the earth was flat were Pythagoras, Plato, and Aristotle about 300-600 years before Christianity. It was later a christian that proved the earth was round.
"Every one of the 20,000 religions in the history of humankind sir/madam professes that their religion is correct and based on the teachings of their God or Gods, and that every other religion is wrong and is man made."
-FALSE - Many religions propose that all religions are equal. But that aside, the statement that they all claim to be true, does not make them all false. (eg. one of them could be correct)
"Every religion is man made I'm afraid sir/madam, and every single one justifies itself in the same, identical way."
-FALSE - Not enough space to explain, but it is pretty obvious that they don't all justify themselves in the same identical way.
We have barely scratched the surface of understanding and already we can see the universe is far more wondrous, amazing and beautiful than anything religion has been able to come up with.
-TRUE - You "have barely scratched the surface of understanding," but we can clearly see that the universe is far more wondrous, and beautiful than anything random chance can come up with out of nothing.
If the thought scares you, stay in your Anti-God bubble where you can explain everything and where there's no uncertainty. I don't have a problem with it, I'm just sorry for you. And I seriously hope that you don't remain ignorant, or burn in hell.
Click here to reply to this post
Re: Atheism is on the March: Dawkins, Dennett, and Darwin
| Posted On: 11/25/06 02:17:39 PM |
Age 20, UN |
I believe most of what the authors you quoted say; reading your first few paragraphs when you describe the stupidity of religion and how it causes so much trouble really struck a chord with me! However that aside, I think both Dawkins and Dennett are doing nothing to help religious tolerance and cherishing multiculturalism. They are doing much harm by saying what they say in such brash tones; the last thing we need is yet another reason for there to be a religious conflict based on a "he said, she said" routine. They have demonstrated that they are no better than the people they are trying to bring out of the delusion of religion in the first place! I guess I can more confidently describe myself as being a Weak Atheist (as opposed to a Strong one). Cheers - ScienceBoy from the World View Weekend Expos (http://ravingatheists.com/scienceboy/)
Click here to reply to this post
|
|
|
|
