This is a "call to arms" for a once-quiet minority. Dawkins in his "The God Delusion" talks about the numerous harms of religion (threatening the integrity of science, making people not think critically) besides the fact that religions are a strong power that have no foundation and no way to reason with.
In science, for example, wrong is wrong -- no matter what your beliefs. While in religion, wrong is right BECAUSE of your beliefs. Should we allow people to believe in such ignorance? Telling us how to live our lives, with the imminent possibility of them using destructive means (because their leaders told them (that their gods told them) so)?
What do you think?
-
hmmm.....well religious people are going to get us all killed but it's not really cool to step on their rights either. On the other hand they don't give a damn that they're stepping on the rest of the world for their beliefs. This is a very difficult matter to address. The global religious climate is threatening to scorch the entire Earth but it's not really a cool idea to be oppressive even if it is to prevent a global catastrophe. Ends don't justify means. In addition, none of the religious powers nor any of their followers will learn the error of their ways even if everything leads to everyone getting the crap nuked out of themselves in the name of a fictional carpenter and/or a guy who apparently has no face and lived in the dessert.22% Voted for by jackgillespie, ExpensiveThinker.
you know nobody is pushing this god delusion book on anyone but people try to MAKE me take a bible or try to pass off religious tracts on people. People harass gay people or anyone who looks different because if you look different it's because your a fag; and god hates fags. There is constant direct assault of freedom from religion but who cares about that. The united states is 76% christian. A person would get arrested if they went door to door trying to convince people to be atheists. There is no equality in the freedom of religion because it's perfectly legal to harass or physically harm someone because heir not christian. the only time it becomes important is when someone who isn't christian and has alot of money finds out about it and puts up a fuss. -
oh my god...how many topics need to be started about one religion (or lack there of) attacking another religion (or lack there of) before people just come to terms with the fact that we all hate each other?Voted for by Crazyhead.
-
Blood for the SaintsBelief is power and superiority, the sole governor of higher functionality and dominating mentality. It is the convergence of the will into a domineering, urging force, greater than one's convictions and delusions.Voted for by TeChNoWC.
The only weakness of belief is doubt, which is the counteractive so as to produce more faith and determination. The 'test', per se.
The idealistic utopia that you head towards should be led and spurred on by the group that you critique.
Atheists are the thorn of this evolutionary movement, a skeptic's voice that is unfortunately misguided and philosophically immature and weakly founded. Only philosophical skepticism need stand as the doubt for one's mentality, although taking into account different mental functionality, some may need the atheistic influence, and I must admit I have used it from time to time (via conviction).
Such risks however are an endangerment to the ultimatum of belief, and thus any attempt at such an uprising should be quelled immediately, so as to save any further spreading of this mind disease.
The minority of the unGodly shall perish for the good of the destined hive-mind societal efforts. The uniformity and conformity to the one ideal shall be the hallmark of the new ethos of passion, burning belief syndrome, upon which the stones of the new world shall be laid.
We should not allow those who seek to stand in our way to spread impurity and rank teachings indifferent from their own driving destruction.
Should I take such a stance upon such a matter? -
Hmm.I personally believe that religion is hindering our further chances of evolution an infinite life. While these people who do nothing to get ahead, just wait peacefully for thier saviour to come, are praying, we are making epic advancment in science. If we ever do get off the Earth to live elsewhere, and they come, it'll be on our backs and it will be, to them, God's Will. And they'll keep praying.Voted for by Oral Fixation.
We are being hindered by hope and belief when we have work that needs to be done. -
Attack on God. (no USA)Apologies for the title. I don't know why but I made this nation-centric. Of course these ideas should permeate nationalities (lest we hope). Unfortunately I cannot change the title-- Or maybe someone can, and can delete this comment.Voted for by ExpensiveThinker.
-
We should allow itWe should argue against it, however. Hopefully logical arguments of science and atheism will win out against superstition and religion and 'convert' the religious person into an atheist. If there are neurological differences rather than just psychological belief differences between scientists and atheists and we think it matters, we should only have children with other atheists. (I don't know how true that is, for example many atheists were once theists and vice versa)Voted for by pozo.
However, we should not allow religion to provide a cover for hatred, for example of gay people, other races (example of this is the KKK) and atheists/people who disagree with their religion. -
The Stereotypical ReligionYou say religion keeps science from going further, and that religion kills people, but I ask you this: What religion are you talking about? There has never been a day in my church where the pastor told me to go kill the infidels (but I know that other religions do). There is also a great number of christian scientists that have improved scientific understanding and improved our living quality.Voted for by Tito the Ninja.
Take Christianity for instance. Nowhere in the Bible does it state that man should stand still and not improve his life. There is no scripture that condemns man for trying to find a cure for cancer (random example, I know)
Adding your reply:
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
frndofyaweh
December 10, 2006
Edit | Reply
Now Jack...
The thing that is killing us, is us.I would say false religion, dictorial government, cigarette smoking , etc are whats really killing us.
TeChNoWC
December 12, 2006
Edit | Reply
Those that are dead should remain dead, and feel lucky whenever they get an invitation to be among the living again.
Such a notion of 'abhoration and desolation of which must be utterly destroyed' is a ploy that religion normally uses itself, and rightfully so under some circumstance, such as when pitiful atheists try and rise to the challenge; but honestly, this dawkins guy is just angry to the core, and out to build his ego.
Applehead
December 12, 2006
Edit | Reply
God has been given too many identities. Why give Him an identity, it narrows our thinking. He's not a person. Yes (I as a Christian believe) he partly took human form as Jesus. But He is indescribable by our standards. Personally I respect and have faith in His unworldly being.
We think we are real because of our abilty to perceive the world around us. Our senses are limited though we cannot see things that are beyond our physical capabilities (without using manmade equipment). All creatures are different, Dogs a have an acute sense of smell. Sharks detect blood 1 part in a billion. Bats use echolocation to check out prey. Elephants hear things we dont so do dogs. All of these senses differ from our own. Limitation is everywhere, we dont recognise everything that is going on around us. We cannot prove God exists because science is limited. We cannot perceive God through our senses He is in our hearts.
If God, whatever or whoever He may be did not create all the universe around us, where did it all come from. Nowhere?
ExpensiveThinker
December 27, 2006
January 3, 2007
Edit | Reply
what?
Yeah.... Maybe you should read my post again cause I never said science was a religion. I actually never even used the word science or even talked about any topic related to science. perhaps you might want to edit or remove your reply until you read my post.ExpensiveThinker
December 27, 2006
Edit | Reply
January 3, 2007
Edit | Reply
also
yeah also don't post the same thing twice.that's really rude just to post the same thing twice we heard your oppinion once already. you don't need to shove it down our throats by posting it more.
TeChNoWC
January 3, 2007
Edit | Reply
This topic stuffed too; comment meant for ads under Oral Fixation's post
It was pseudonymic (yet again), and it made perfect sense, to a well educated (I was hoping to say 'as yourself' but maybe I can't) person.If I may clarify, religion is a survival tactic, a mental stabilizer, a social foundation. It is evolutionary superiority of which its deterent's are undermining the progress they seek to find.
Crazyhead
January 14, 2007
Edit | Reply
and i think it's stupid, not evil...
ExpensiveThinker
February 2, 2007
<
I think I was replying to someone else, not you. I think it was in Appleface's post but my eyes are too strained to look at that now.It's a good argument anyhow, even if it's not relevant, don't you think?
ExpensiveThinker
February 2, 2007
Edit | Reply
Alexander Hine
June 6, 2007
Edit | Reply
Wow, I went way off-topic there, my apologies.
You did, however make a very good point. If we thought that way we could also say that scientists seek to sterilise large portions of the population in the name of eugenics...why can science progress, but religion is not allowed?
K. F.
Alexander Hine
June 6, 2007
Edit | Reply
An Australian comedian went door to door trying to convert people to atheism in the USA and he was not arrested ("John Saffran versus God"). I am religious and I have never tried to convert anyone in my entire life. "The global religious climate is threatening to scorch the entire Earth" well, actually, it is global warming that is threatening to do that, and it is led by Corporatist attitudes of unbridled capitalism, underwritten by science. Now, modern science is probably the greates achievement of human existence, but religion is not intrinsically opposed to it. I say that people who oppose science for religious reasons are just stupid, but so are people who oppose me, a religious person, because I supposedly "don't give a damn that [I'm] stepping on the rest of the world for their beliefs" which I have never done; "will [never] learn the error of [my] ways even if everything leads to everyone getting the crap nuked out of themselves in the name of a fictional carpenter and/or a guy who apparently has no face and lived in the dessert" well, not all religious people are Christians, I am Jewish (well, converting), plus some of the strongest protests against nuclear weapons and warfare come from religious cicles...oh, and who invented the Bomb again...it was Jesus wasn't it...oh no, that's right, it was those atheist American scientists who are leading us to Utopia; "harass gay people or anyone who looks different because if you look different it's because your a fag; and god hates fags" I have never harrassed a gay person or someone who looks different and I strongly disagree (much to the chagrin of many religious folks) that 'God hates fags', plus it is usually me who is getting harrassed because of strong insistence on an ethical life...a view supported by Judaism.
Anyway, my point is that destructive and ignorant arguments don't help anyone, our world needs reform in almost every area - especially religion - but these reforms need not mean atheism; it means an ethical existence. I admire atheism, I was one myself for a time (until I started reading philosophy and science books)and I think it is as brave and noble a belief as genuine theism. So don't give atheists a bad name with such rants.
K. F.
P. S. You should read this:
www.beliefnet.com/story/202/story_20279_1.html
and don't be put off by 'beliefnet'; the site includes many atheist views.
P. P. S. Oh, and try reading "God without the supernatural: A defence of Scientific Theism" by Peter Forrest. Then get back to me :-)
K. F.
Orange seedsandpeel
June 7, 2007
Edit | Reply
you are the most intelligent, logical religion supporter i have yet to meet
and have many good, productive insights beyond the typical bickering of many people who post here
Alexander Hine
June 9, 2007
Edit | Reply
Ah, well, such is e-life I guess.
K. F.
October 16, 2007
Edit | Reply
Applehead
February 28
Edit | Reply
Applehead
February 28
Edit | Reply
God attracts your attention it is whether we choose to listen that makes a difference.
As for faith people avoid taing the leap as though something terrible is going to happen if they do. In reality it is quite possible that the opposite will happen. As you said yourself, if it were not for the commandments of God our morals may be very different (I agree you worded it differently).
Love is simple yet complex because we make it so. Our sinful selfish nature makes things complicated. If we love completely simplicity cannot be avoided yet people do not see it because of the vail. I as preachy as i am do not see it in its entieity because i am not yet able this does not mean however that I will give up doing my best to live as I know the truth to be.
Dawkins can keep his world if he loves it so much.. who requires this explanation? science? God gave us science He is THE scientist for all we know he mite have mumerous ists that we cannot comprehend.
I wonder, is there a history behind dawkins resentment towards religion?
We have freewill and with this freewill we make choices. Maybe Im just a softy but I choose Jesus way anyday. Be He prophet, man or Son of God he had it right.
Please register or login to comment! It's totally free