View Full Version : Dawkin's God Delusion
GavinZac
07/04/2007, 2:32 PM
Presumably, you don't get put to death until Monday.
No wonder staff turnover is high in supermarkets these days.
Presumably, you don't get put to death until Monday.
Those were the days eh. Can't get back to that former life now.
kingdom hoop
11/04/2007, 11:32 AM
for any fretful christians who thought their faith may have been slipping here is his holiness' views on creation;
Pope Benedict, elaborating his views on evolution for the first time as Pontiff, says science has narrowed the way life's origins are understood and Christians should take a broader approach to the question.
The Pope also says the Darwinist theory of evolution is not completely provable because mutations over hundreds of thousands of years cannot be reproduced in a laboratory.
But Benedict, whose remarks were published today in Germany in the book Schoepfung und Evolution , praised scientific progress and did not endorse creationist or "intelligent design" views about life's origins.
Those arguments, proposed mostly by conservative Protestants and derided by scientists, have stoked recurring battles over the teaching of evolution in the United States. Some European Christians and Turkish Muslims have recently echoed these views.
"Science has opened up large dimensions of reason ... and thus brought us new insights," Benedict, a former theology professor, said at the closed-door seminar with his former doctoral students last September that the book documents.
"But in the joy at the extent of its discoveries, it tends to take away from us dimensions of reason that we still need. Its results lead to questions that go beyond its methodical canon and cannot be answered within it," he said.
"The issue is reclaiming a dimension of reason we have lost," he said, adding that the evolution debate was actually about "the great fundamental questions of philosophy - where man and the world came from and where they are going."
GavinZac
11/04/2007, 12:04 PM
The Pope also says the Darwinist theory of evolution is not completely provable because mutations over hundreds of thousands of years cannot be reproduced in a laboratory.
And yet they can, as the myriad of tests on germs and viruses that become resistant to medicines through natural selection have proven.
As usual, the church's position is to restrict further investigation, where science's is to push those boundaries of knowledge.
"But in the joy at the extent of its discoveries, it tends to take away from us dimensions of reason that we still need. Its results lead to questions that go beyond its methodical canon and cannot be answered within it," he said.
He says it like thats a bad thing - and interesting that he used the word canon. For thats the difference between religion and science - religious cannon defines limits and boundaries that we should not question, "universal truths", whereas science is the necessity of searching beyond our existing knowledge for answers.
Lionel Ritchie
11/04/2007, 11:54 PM
And yet they can, as the myriad of tests on germs and viruses that become resistant to medicines through natural selection have proven.
There's more evidence of evolution in pretty much every direction you look. As this is a football website it should be noted that football itself provides some facinating studies on evolution ...so long as there's been football there's been "stattos" of one form or another compiling stats on the details of those playing the game -and a good thing too.
In the 1860's when someone finally tried to regularise the rules of the many games known as football played here, there and everywhere it was ruled that the goal mouth should be "the width of three regular chaps head to toe". We know from the stats that the average height of a goalkeeper at the time -much the same as any other fully grown adult male was approximately 5'6" -from whence we get our 16ft wide goal.
However in the time since -goalkeepers have "grown" to a point where it's now rare to find one under 6ft and I suspect the average is a couple of inches taller again. Goalkeepers average heights have, and I'll put the farm on it, grown out of sync with the male population at large.
pineapple stu
12/04/2007, 12:53 PM
In the 1860's when someone finally tried to regularise the rules of the many games known as football played here, there and everywhere it was ruled that the goal mouth should be "the width of three regular chaps head to toe". TWe know from the stats that the average height of a goalkeeper at the time -much the same as any other fully grown adult male was approximately 5'6" -from whence we get our 16ft wide goal.
Nice theory, except that the width of a goal is 24 feet, not 16 feet. Football goals are eight feet high and eight yards wide.
By that logic, everyone's shrinking and there is a God. :)
John83
12/04/2007, 1:28 PM
Yes PS, because if he got one element wrong, certainly we can take the rest of his argument as given. :rolleyes:
For the sake of interest:
The Football Association Laws of 1863 as published in the press (in Bell's Life) for approval on Saturday, December 5th 1863:
1. The maximum length of the ground shall be 200 yards, the maximum breadth shall be 100 yards, the length and breadth shall be marked off with flags; and the goal shall be defined by two upright posts, eight yards apart, without any tape or bar across them.
2. A toss for goals shall take place, and the game shall be commenced by a place kick from the centre of the ground by the side losing the toss for goals; the other side shall not approach within 10 yards of the ball until it is kicked off.
3. After a goal is won, the losing side shall be entitled to kick off, and the two sides shall change goals after each goal is won.
4. A goal shall be won when the ball passes between the goal-posts or over the space between the goal-posts (at whatever height), not being thrown, knocked on, or carried.
5. When the ball is in touch, the first player who touches it shall throw it from the point on the boundary line where it left the ground in a direction at right angles with the boundary line, and the ball shall not be in play until it has touched the ground.
6. When a player has kicked the ball, any one of the same side who is nearer to the opponent's goal line is out of play, and may not touch the ball himself, nor in any way whatever prevent any other player from doing so, until he is in play; but no player is out of play when the ball is kicked off from behind the goal line.
7. In case the ball goes behind the goal line, if a player on the side to whom the goal belongs first touches the ball, one of his side shall he entitled to a free kick from the goal line at the point opposite the place where the ball shall be touched. If a player of the opposite side first touches the ball, one of his side shall be entitled to a free kick at the goal only from a point 15 yards outside the goal line, opposite the place where the ball is touched, the opposing side standing within their goal line until he has had his kick.
8. If a player makes a fair catch, he shall be entitled to a free kick, providing he claims it by making a mark with his heel at once; and in order to take such kick he may go back as far as he pleases, and no player on the opposite side shall advance beyond his mark until he has kicked.
9. No player shall run with the ball.
10. Neither tripping nor hacking shall be allowed, and no player shall use his hands to hold or push his adversary.
11. A player shall not be allowed to throw the ball or pass it to another with his hands.
12. No player shall be allowed to take the ball from the ground with his hands under any pretence whatever while it is in play.
13. No player shall be allowed to wear projecting nails, iron plates, or gutta-percha on the soles or heels of his boots.
Lionel Ritchie
12/04/2007, 3:03 PM
Nice theory, except that the width of a goal is 24 feet, not 16 feet. Football goals are eight feet high and eight yards wide.
By that logic, everyone's shrinking and there is a God. :)
Right you are I think ...about the width at least.:o The theory is still sound though as, at it's kernel is the fact that in under 150 years the average height of football goalkeepers has grown 7-9 inches -far outstripping any increase in height that has taken place in the population at large.
I contend this due to a variant of natural selection that does not involve gene survival and where the agent of selection is those many, many volunteer coaches of underage football teams who picked out the two lankiest 8-12 year olds in their squads, threw a ball approximately at them and whosoever grabbed it became the keeper and whoever tried to head it became Peter Crouch.
Part of the reason why FIFA have conducted experiments with larger goals is to try and restore the goalkeeper/goalmouth ratio to a level closer to it's origin.
Within those rules John has posted you can trace the evolution of other aspects of not just football but rugby as well
GavinZac
12/04/2007, 3:11 PM
while i agree with the point you're trying to prove, i would call the gradual increase in height of keepers manual-selection, rather than natural selection. i doubt goalkeepers are breeding.
pineapple stu
12/04/2007, 4:44 PM
Yes PS, because if he got one element wrong, certainly we can take the rest of his argument as given. :rolleyes:
Wow - didn't think I'd have to introduce you, of all people, to the concept of sarcasm!
Must be because I forgot my customary exclamation marks. I think they're going to have to return!!
Lionel Ritchie
13/04/2007, 7:36 AM
while i agree with the point you're trying to prove, i would call the gradual increase in height of keepers manual-selection, rather than natural selection. i doubt goalkeepers are breeding. Indeed. which is why I said...
I contend this due to a variant of natural selection that does not involve gene survival
Though what two or more consenting goalkeepers get up to in their own box is none of my business.:eek:
Poor Student
13/04/2007, 12:23 PM
Right you are I think ...about the width at least.:o The theory is still sound though as, at it's kernel is the fact that in under 150 years the average height of football goalkeepers has grown 7-9 inches -far outstripping any increase in height that has taken place in the population at large.
I contend this due to a variant of natural selection that does not involve gene survival and where the agent of selection is those many, many volunteer coaches of underage football teams who picked out the two lankiest 8-12 year olds in their squads, threw a ball approximately at them and whosoever grabbed it became the keeper and whoever tried to head it became Peter Crouch.
Part of the reason why FIFA have conducted experiments with larger goals is to try and restore the goalkeeper/goalmouth ratio to a level closer to it's origin.
Within those rules John has posted you can trace the evolution of other aspects of not just football but rugby as well
Lionel, I'm not following you too well (probably my fault) but is this an argument in support of Intelligent Design?:confused:
bennocelt
13/04/2007, 10:20 PM
wow 14 pages of this stuff
anyway sorry i didnt read all that
just a question..............someone said that Dawkins daughter or grand daughter was christened...............is that true? would be quite strange if so
anyway i like the guy, he is dead on what he says about religion
Lionel Ritchie
14/04/2007, 9:19 AM
Lionel, I'm not following you too well (probably my fault) but is this an argument in support of Intelligent Design?
Don't worry PS. I'm probably not explaining it too well ...I can't be if you thought there was an argument for the vicious pre-meditiated LIE that is Intelligent Design in there.;)
I'll have a crack at it agin later when the b@stard behind my eyes eases up
Lionel, this is a case of football becoming more global and professional, rather than evolution (in the space of 150 years?).
In the early days of the game the guys who played it were your typical miners, butchers, bakers etc who drank 5 pints before and after the game and got paid diddly squat for doing it. Basically, any old sod could do it.
These days the game is a massive money business and kids are getting selected from youth as goalies cause they're taller than their average classmates or what have you. They're then taken to pro clubs as apprentices where they meet more of the same kids from their age/height range in their area/country/continent (delete according to size of club) and the best are kept on by the club to be pros.
It may be evolution in the very vaguest sense of the word since it is progression, but nothing like evolution in the sense biologists think of it.
Schumi
14/04/2007, 6:34 PM
The population in general has got significantly taller over the past 100 years, generally believed to be because of improved nutrition. I'd imagine a large part of the increase in goalkeepers' height is because of an general increase in height.
sonofstan
14/04/2007, 10:26 PM
Pompous, self- refuting, absurd, yet obstinately refusing to die: this thread is beginning to resemble God in many important ways
BohsPartisan
14/04/2007, 11:08 PM
At any rate the Bible's a stonking read. Just spent ten days in Scotland and the Gideons Society gave me some fine bed time reading. Nothing like a fine dram and a few verses of Genesis.
John83
16/04/2007, 11:01 AM
At any rate the Bible's a stonking read. Just spent ten days in Scotland and the Gideons Society gave me some fine bed time reading. Nothing like a fine dram and a few verses of Genesis.
I don't know. It started out okay, but then they killed off the main charactor really early, and then it got all preachy.
Lord Winston argues in the Guardian today that titles such as 'The God Delusion' is more damaging to science than anything, given to good quotes I think,
"I think it is verey patronising to call a serious book about other people's views on the universe and everything a delusion. I don't think it is helpful and I think it portrays science in a bad light"
and
"Some people, both scientists and religious people, deal with uncertainty by being certain. That is dangerous in the fundamentalists and in the fundamentalist scientists"
Which pretty much sums up what I've being trying to sasy in this thread better than I have put across here myself
BohsPartisan
25/04/2007, 2:18 PM
"I think it is verey patronising to call a serious book about other people's views on the universe and everything a delusion. I don't think it is helpful and I think it portrays science in a bad light"
This is a shoddy arguement which basicly says if someone else has a certain view of things, it should not be criticised no matter what evidence there is.
By this logic, Nazis there was nothing wrong with what the Nazis did or what the US is doing in the middle east because after all it fits with their view of the universe.
Is it also wrong to call a schizophrenic person delusional because its their view of the world?
"Some people, both scientists and religious people, deal with uncertainty by being certain. That is dangerous in the fundamentalists and in the fundamentalist scientists"
Dawkins deals with this. He deals with uncertainty not by being certain but by probability.
Every criticism I've read of Dawkins's book either misquotes him or misrepresents what he says.
finlma
25/04/2007, 7:48 PM
"I think it is verey patronising to call a serious book about other people's views on the universe and everything a delusion. I don't think it is helpful and I think it portrays science in a bad light"
Dawkin's book doesn't once patronise people's view of the universe. It's people's belief in the existence of a supernatural God that he criticises.
On another note - Dawkins appeared on The O'Reilly Factor on Fox the other night. That Bill O'Reilly is one serious loud mouthed fool.
strangeirish
25/04/2007, 7:54 PM
On another note - Dawkins appeared on The O'Reilly Factor on Fox the other night. That Bill O'Reilly is one serious loud mouthed fool.
Not as loud mouthed as usual. I think he was intimidated by Dawkins. See for yourself here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wECRvNRquvI).
BohsPartisan
25/04/2007, 9:33 PM
Not as loud mouthed as usual. I think he was intimidated by Dawkins. See for yourself here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wECRvNRquvI).
What a moron that o Reilly is. He clearly hasn't read the book yet at the end he still has the gaul to say "your book is fascinating!"
Poor Student
25/04/2007, 9:47 PM
What a moron that o Reilly is. He clearly hasn't read the book yet at the end he still has the gaul to say "your book is fascinating!"
From all I've heard from people who've read the book he fell into a lot of the traps Dawkins outlines that he would have known had he read it. From all I've heard of Dawkins, this is my first time seeing him, it sounds like he was pretty tame on O'Reilly as if he was aware that he was an irrelevant segment filler and couldn't be arsed.
Lionel Ritchie
25/04/2007, 9:48 PM
Lord Winston argues in the Guardian today...
...and who the fcuk is Lord Winston when he's at home anyway?
Beyond that I think BohsPartisan took him assunder tidily enough.
Risteard
08/05/2007, 10:44 AM
g8etMHn4P6g
...and who the fcuk is Lord Winston when he's at home anyway?
Beyond that I think BohsPartisan took him assunder tidily enough.
He's a very respected British scientist, heres a link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Winston). And personally I don't think BP took him assunder, I thought the Nazi comment wasn't even worth commenting on, and as BP has said himself here, whilst a probability of 99.9% isn't certain, its close enough to be certain, so really you are dealing in certainties if you believe that.
I don't understand why Dawkins went on Fox to be honest, it would be hard to make O'Reilly look like anymore of an idiot than he makes himself look on a daily basis anyway, plus it's Fox, their viewers aren't exactly known for changing their minds on any topic. Here's a link for his interview with the Panel last year, in which I think he makes some good points (the child abuse one especially), but he also comes across as very insulting on two or three occasions (three if you count the child abuse comment, which a lot of people could take as a serious insult)
Vx5RSxHbiZg
finlma
08/05/2007, 2:55 PM
but he also comes across as very insulting on two or three occasions (three if you count the child abuse comment, which a lot of people could take as a serious insult)
Its not insulting. He's speaking what he believes to be the truth. If someone went on talking about God and the reasons he existed I would think it is rubbish but it wouldn't be insulting cause its what the person believes. Just like mass every week - its not insulting, just a load of people being deluded with a flase hope ;)
Its not insulting. He's speaking what he believes to be the truth. If someone went on talking about God and the reasons he existed I would think it is rubbish but it wouldn't be insulting cause its what the person believes. Just like mass every week - its not insulting, just a load of people being deluded with a flase hope ;)
Fair enough, but calling people's beliefs nonsense, which he does here, and stating that calling your child catholic, muslim etc. is child abuse (even if I agree with the point he is trying to make) comes across as very harsh and insulting, and is what Lord Winston was getting at when he said that tone does science more damage then good
John83
08/05/2007, 4:37 PM
...calling people's beliefs nonsense... and stating that calling your child catholic, muslim etc. is child abuse... comes across as very harsh and insulting...
I believe in democracy, free healthcare and strong labour laws. I believe in causality, gravity and that Tony MacDonnell is a 9'7" Taiwanese thermostat control assembly. If you question any of that, I can defend it (well, except for maybe causality - quantum mechanics wrecks my head), and I can choose to be insulted, but I'd be insulted more if you weren't allowed state your opinion. Why do so many people want to treat religion differently?
finlma
08/05/2007, 4:53 PM
Fair enough, but calling people's beliefs nonsense, which he does here, and stating that calling your child catholic, muslim etc. is child abuse (even if I agree with the point he is trying to make) comes across as very harsh and insulting, and is what Lord Winston was getting at when he said that tone does science more damage then good
How often are Hari Chrisnas, Mormons, Church of Jesus Christ, Scientology, etc dismissed by Catholics as nonsense? Pretty regularly I would say.
Richard Dawkins and plenty more including myself see Christianity, Hinduism, Islam as equally ridiculous and have every right to question it. If someone comes up with scientific proof for the existence of a God I'll put my hand up and admit I'm wrong but until then I will believe that people who believe in a god have nonsensical believes and I'm quiet happy to say so.
I believe in democracy, free healthcare and strong labour laws. I believe in causality, gravity and that Tony MacDonnell is a 9'7" Taiwanese thermostat control assembly. If you question any of that, I can defend it (well, except for maybe causality - quantum mechanics wrecks my head), and I can choose to be insulted, but I'd be insulted more if you weren't allowed state your opinion. Why do so many people want to treat religion differently?
As in what way? Dawkins can say what he wants, I couldn't care less, my main issue with him is the language he sometimes uses. I mean saying that calling your child a catholic (so does that mean bringing a child up catholic?) is child abuse is a very harsh statement to make, and many could find it very, very insulting (basically he's just called my parents, and many other parents child abusers). Whilst I agree with his point that a child should be brought up to learn about all religions, and atheism too, I don't think catholics who bring up their children in the catholic faith, or atheists that bring their kids up to be atheists are child abusers (think of what that term actually means)
John83
08/05/2007, 4:57 PM
How often are Hari Chrisnas, Mormons, Church of Jesus Christ, Scientology, etc dismissed by Catholics as nonsense? Pretty regularly I would say.
Richard Dawkins and plenty more including myself see Christianity, Hinduism, Islam as equally ridiculous and have every right to question it. If someone comes up with scientific proof for the existence of a God I'll put my hand up and admit I'm wrong but until then I will believe that people who believe in a god have nonsensical believes and I'm quiet happy to say so.
There's a nice quote that sums your opinion there up in a neat way:
"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." -- Stephen Roberts
How often are Hari Chrisnas, Mormons, Church of Jesus Christ, Scientology, etc dismissed by Catholics as nonsense? Pretty regularly I would say.
Oh pull your head out of your ass would you, I've never once heard a priest or a nun call people with any faith nonsense, so don't go throwing your insults at those people and then pretend that thats religious peoples viewpoint.
Richard Dawkins and plenty more including myself see Christianity, Hinduism, Islam as equally ridiculous and have every right to question it. If someone comes up with scientific proof for the existence of a God I'll put my hand up and admit I'm wrong but until then I will believe that people who believe in a god have nonsensical believes and I'm quiet happy to say so.
See above for what I'm actually on about here, but all I'll say is that perhaps you should be more tolerant? Nonsensical beliefs they may or may not be, but is there much need for you or anyone else to get so worked up about it?
John83
08/05/2007, 5:10 PM
See above for what I'm actually on about here, but all I'll say is that perhaps you should be more tolerant? Nonsensical beliefs they may or may not be, but is there much need for you or anyone else to get so worked up about it?
Sure, if there are people trying to get it taught as science, definitely.
GavinZac
08/05/2007, 5:18 PM
I don't think catholics who bring up their children in the catholic faith, or atheists that bring their kids up to be atheists are child abusers (think of what that term actually means)
the term is a combination of 2 words. abuse, which we see at football matches quite often, is a broad word. it can be psychological abuse, like calling pat fenlon an angry midget. it can be physical abuse, or sexual abuse - the terms i'm assuming your outrage is directed at. so we'll go ahead and say that giving your child zero choice in the beliefs they are supposed to adhere to, and threatening them with a loss of love and eternal hellfire if they don't - that'll probably fit under psychological abuse.
"child" psychological abuse, clearly, just infers its directed at a child. its quite a mouthful to be using three or four times in a conversation. perhaps dawkins just assumed people would have the intelligence to understand his meaning, rather than taking the definition of child abuse from the sunday world.
Oh pull your head out of your ass would you, I've never once heard a priest or a nun call people with any faith nonsense, so don't go throwing your insults at those people and then pretend that thats religious peoples viewpoint.
of course you haven't, who would pull that fragile thread in ireland today? on the other hand, in less enlightened places, people are still be killed for converting to one sect or another, or discriminating against them because a guy with the same colour skin wrote a book hundreds of years ago.
Sure, if there are people trying to get it taught as science, definitely.
I assume you're talking about creationism being taught in American schools? Well first off I don't think its okay to take the fundamentalists of religion and use it in any discussion with someone who isn't a fundamentalist, why should I have to answer for their...nonsense :eek:
Secondly I think kids should be taught about creationism, not as science, I agree with you there, but then again see my point above as to why I shouldn't have to answer for things I don't personally believe in
the term is a combination of 2 words. abuse, which we see at football matches quite often, is a broad word. it can be psychological abuse, like calling pat fenlon an angry midget. it can be physical abuse, or sexual abuse - the terms i'm assuming your outrage is directed at. so we'll go ahead and say that giving your child zero choice in the beliefs they are supposed to adhere to, and threatening them with a loss of love and eternal hellfire if they don't - that'll probably fit under psychological abuse.
"child" psychological abuse, clearly, just infers its directed at a child. its quite a mouthful to be using three or four times in a conversation. perhaps dawkins just assumed people would have the intelligence to understand his meaning, rather than taking the definition of child abuse from the sunday world.
:rolleyes:
anyway saying "don't teach children that that is your religion, that's child abuse" is still a very harsh term to use, only fools would argue otherwise (I give you the above)
of course you haven't, who would pull that fragile thread in ireland today? on the other hand, in less enlightened places, people are still be killed for converting to one sect or another, or discriminating against them because a guy with the same colour skin wrote a book hundreds of years ago.
Whats that got to do with my point about never hearing a nun or a priest say that people's faith is nonsense? And whats people using a book like the Bible to discriminate against someone else got to do with this?
Maybe when the Bibles were wrote they thought that people would have the intelligence to see the deeper meaning in the stories? Or that people would have enough sense not to quote passages that were relevant to that society hundreds years of years later? Be it in favour of the message, or just some bright spark thinking he can argue about religion by referencing the Old Testament, something which most of us have already discussed at great length, and discounted some pages ago
John83
08/05/2007, 5:33 PM
...I don't think its okay to take the fundamentalists of religion and use it in any discussion with someone who isn't a fundamentalist, why should I have to answer for their...nonsense
Reasonable.
However, organised religion (specifically Catholicism) has and continues to have a substantial impact on everyone. Consider the law in this country as it relates or related to issues such as marriage and divorce, abortion, contraception, gay rights, etc, the widespread link between religious institutions and eduction and the significance of the power of the church in the widespread clerical conspiracy to hide child molesters. Mainstream religion has had an immense impact on the law and society and therefore has to be open to criticism from secular as well as internal avenues to allow a common morality to be enshrined in the legal system, which is sort of happening at a glacially slow pace because of the difficulty in criticising someone's opinion on a subject which has an associated religious doctrine.
GavinZac
08/05/2007, 5:42 PM
:rolleyes:
anyway saying "don't teach children that that is your religion, that's child abuse" is still a very harsh term to use, only fools would argue otherwise (I give you the above)Once again, you disagree with me and have no counter argument, so you resort to insults. I'd say something about the Limerick mentality but I'm afraid :eek:
Whats that got to do with my point about never hearing a nun or a priest say that people's faith is nonsense? And whats people using a book like the Bible to discriminate against someone else got to do with this?It has got everything to do with it. I mean, for crying out loud the very declaration that one is a christian in the nicean creed is saying that every other belief system is not just false but an affront to an angry jealous god. only, its so embedded in your head, you think its normal. meanwhile, muslims call christians the great satan, but thats different. thats not us.
Maybe when the Bibles were wrote they thought that people would have the intelligence to see the deeper meaning in the stories? Or that people would have enough sense not to quote passages that were relevant to that society hundreds years of years later? Be it in favour of the message, or just some bright spark thinking he can argue about religion by referencing the Old Testament, something which most of us have already discussed at great length, and discounted some pages agoIts quite possible to convey the deeper meanings and the message without believing one particularly hairy chap could do magic. Buddhism does it admirably. and as someone said, if the only reason you're sticking to behaving well is the big surveillance camera in the sky, you probably shouldn't be allowed to tell people what to do.
That leads me, helpfully, to another far less controversial but no less thought provoking Dawkins book, The Selfish Gene. In it, it describes the origins of behaviour - the built in characteristics of animals that make them do seemingly altruistic things like feed the weak or respect other animal's territory. I guess my point is that we had morals before someone took various assorted fairy tales from around the middle east, and told them to a bunch of goat herders in the levant to make them pay tithes. And we'll have morals after people stop believing this crap and realise how much more wonderous it is that virtually everything makes sense, without the need for magic to bind the blindspots.
Reasonable.
However, organised religion (specifically Catholicism) has and continues to have a substantial impact on everyone. Consider the law in this country as it relates or related to issues such as marriage and divorce, abortion, contraception, gay rights, etc, the widespread link between religious institutions and eduction and the significance of the power of the church in the widespread clerical conspiracy to hide child molesters. Mainstream religion has had an immense impact on the law and society and therefore has to be open to criticism from secular as well as internal avenues to allow a common morality to be enshrined in the legal system, which is sort of happening at a glacially slow pace because of the difficulty in criticising someone's opinion on a subject which has an associated religious doctrine.
Oh I realise all that, personally I would keep religion out of the law system altogether, well obviously murder, robbery etc. as laid out in the ten commandments stand up today in concurance with the law. But in regards to abortion, divorce, contraception I would keep religion out of it, for the record I am pro-choice, and agree with divorce and the use of contraception. That said I don't think religion can be held accountable for peoples backward attitude to gay rights. Sure most religious people are against it, but so are the majority of people as far as I can see, and I know just as many religious people (myself included) who focus more on the equality message of the New Testament than the bile that often comes from the Vatican
Once again, you disagree with me and have no counter argument, so you resort to insults. I'd say something about the Limerick mentality but I'm afraid :eek:
If you make a decent point, then I'll give you a counter argument, until then you'll get insults. I'll give you the discussion between myself and John at the moment as a proper point and counter-point discussion
It has got everything to do with it. I mean, for crying out loud the very declaration that one is a christian in the nicean creed is saying that every other belief system is not just false but an affront to an angry jealous god. only, its so embedded in your head, you think its normal. meanwhile, muslims call christians the great satan, but thats different. thats not us.
Wow, I must tell that to all the Christians that have moved on from the centuries old belief that if you're not with us, you're against us attitude :rolleyes: next
GavinZac
08/05/2007, 5:57 PM
If you make a decent point, then I'll give you a counter argument, until then you'll get insults. I'll give you the discussion between myself and John at the moment as a proper point and counter-point discussion
did you just not comprehend what i said? you don't think threatening kids to do as you say with scary magic is psychological abuse?
Wow, I must tell that to all the Christians that have moved on from the centuries old belief that if you're not with us, you're against us attitude :rolleyes: nextso the nicean creed they recited in confirmation, that was just a formaility and the truth is closer to pantheism or agnosticism? why are they christians then?
did you just not comprehend what i said? you don't think threatening kids to do as you say with scary magic is psychological abuse?
No I didn't get that from
Once again, you disagree with me and have no counter argument, so you resort to insults. I'd say something about the Limerick mentality but I'm afraid :eek:
As for your original point, I'll ask again what that has to do with me contending that Dawkins using the term 'child abuse' in relation to teaching your children your beliefs is very harsh, and could be seen as insulting? Even if you take scary magic as child abuse, what has that got to do with my point about Dawkins use of language? You know, how this round of the discussion came about? The one that you have interjected yourself into and have so far made no attempt to actually participate? The one where you are just trying to turn the whole thing around into something that has been discussed over the last 15 pages?
so the nicean creed they recited in confirmation, that was just a formaility and the truth is closer to pantheism or agnosticism? why are they christians then?
I've explained my viewpoint on Christianity as a whole in this thread, if you care to look for it, it's close to pantheism in fairness (although it was called a mix of Buddhism and Jedism a few pages ago, which in fairness I liked), but I'm not going to go through that for probably the third time in this thread, and I've explained a few posts ago that I'm not going to be held accountable for other people's beliefs, no matter how much you try and force me to
finlma
08/05/2007, 6:13 PM
Oh pull your head out of your ass would you, I've never once heard a priest or a nun call people with any faith nonsense, so don't go throwing your insults at those people and then pretend that thats religious peoples viewpoint.
I didn't once say priests or nuns. I said Catholics in general. You or whoever else is Catholic. Priests and nuns are generally PC but they have to believe that all other faiths are nonsense, the Bible teaches that.
The word abuse has bad connotations when it comes to children but to teach something to a child as the truth without a single shred of evidence is wrong, very wrong.
GavinZac
08/05/2007, 6:16 PM
As for your original point, I'll ask again what that has to do with me contending that Dawkins using the term 'child abuse' in relation to teaching your children your beliefs is very harsh, and could be seen as insulting? Even if you take scary magic as child abuse, what has that got to do with my point about Dawkins use of language? You know, how this round of the discussion came about? The one that you have interjected yourself into and have so far made no attempt to actually participate? The one where you are just trying to turn the whole thing around into something that has been discussed over the last 15 pages?its not insulting, its not only his opinion but his "use of language" (god forbid he omit the word psychological and assume people understand he's not calling every catholic parent a pederast) if perfectly valid. i object to your blatant ignorance and hence had the temerity to post a response to something you said, you know, on a forum.
I've explained my viewpoint on Christianity as a whole in this thread, if you care to look for it, it's close to pantheism in fairness (although it was called a mix of Buddhism and Jedism a few pages ago, which in fairness I liked), but I'm not going to go through that for probably the third time in this thread, and I've explained a few posts ago that I'm not going to be held accountable for other people's beliefs, no matter how much you try and force me toand yet you're defending those beliefs :confused: why would you argue something and then when presented with a counter point just say "oh, well, i dont have to explain myself, i dont actually believe it".
kingdom hoop
08/05/2007, 6:24 PM
The word abuse has bad connotations when it comes to children but to teach something to a child as the truth without a single shred of evidence is wrong, very wrong.
I'd be more of the view that it is...right. In that religion teaches good lessons, as a part of the repository for parents to delve into. Once the child matures a little you can tell them the truth, a lot like Santa really:)
its not insulting, its not only his opinion but his "use of language" (god forbid he omit the word psychological and assume people understand he's not calling every catholic parent a pederast) if perfectly valid. i object to your blatant ignorance and hence had the temerity to post a response to something you said, you know, on a forum.
Then why go on about magic tricks as child abuse? That has nothing to do with Dawkins use of language, thats just you trying to pretend you're superior to religious people again. Plus the use of the word psychologically (by the way, I'm pretty sure everyone realised that that was what Dawkins meant, no-one thought he was talking about physically molesting a child here) wouldn't take from the harshness of his use of the term 'child abuse'. In any context its a harsh and insulting phrase to use for people who...well aren't child abusers. And blatant ignorance? Ignorance of what here Gavin? That you're still smarting from the pasting you took off 5 of us in the last thread? I'm not ignorant of that at all, and I realise thats why you are trying to twist this discussion to suit your own needs
and yet you're defending those beliefs :confused: why would you argue something and then when presented with a counter point just say "oh, well, i dont have to explain myself, i dont actually believe it".
I'm defending peoples right to have an opinion on this that you don't, I'm defending people not being referred to as idiotic simply because they believe something that you don't. Oh and thats the last of this off topic back and forth between us as far as I'm concerned
GavinZac
08/05/2007, 6:29 PM
I'd be more of the view that it is...right. In that religion teaches good lessons, as a part of the repository for parents to delve into. Once the child matures a little you can tell them the truth, a lot like Santa really:)
The problem is, everyone stops believing in santa, and everyone realises eventually that Beauty and the Beast is just a tale of equality. With religion there are still people killing each other over which particular santa they prefer and until recently, people on this island killing each other over the equivalent of what the reindeer's names were.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.