Atheism will eat itself

[Anon]

Dawkins is the outspoken itelligent chap standing in the crowd calling foul. People generally don't like having their faith challenged. Hopefully our descendants will look back on these unenlightened times and agree on the absurdity of organised religion much like we do of the witch trials. I hold this hope because I don't think there can ultimately be freedom and peace with barriers like religion not because I want to remove human and civil rights.

 

I don't think were that "unenlightened" at the moment. Were pretty much free to believe what we want without fear of being attacked for it (well, almost)

I don't think it's as black and white as "you either believe in God/the divine and are a religious person or you believe in science/reason and are an atheist", it's possible to believe in God and have a scientific worldview regardless of people's desire to pigeonhole and to segregate. I think it's the attitude of "you're either with us or against us" which is the most damaging attitude to have. Whether its between Christians and Muslims or Atheists and the whole religious community.

 

If you take Thomas Paine for example, the 18th century man who wrote "Common Sense", "The Rights of Man" and "The Age of Reason".

He cared deeply about civil and human rights, the abuse of power by those in the Monarchy and those in organised religions, yet he himself believed in God and reason.

 

That which is now called natural philosophy, embracing the whole circle of science, of which astronomy occupies the chief place, is the study of the works of God, and of the power and wisdom of God in his works, and is the true theology

 

It is a fraud of the Christian system to call the sciences human invention; it is only the application of them that is human. Every science has for its basis a system of principles as fixed and unalterable as those by which the universe is regulated and governed. Man cannot make principles, he can only discover them.

 

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.

 

It is only by the exercise of reason that man can discover God.

 

Thomas Paine lost a lot of friends and died alone because of his radical views on religion. I like to think we've made progress as a society and to compare our "unenlightened times" with days of witch trials is a bit dramatic.

The only witch hunts that are happening now are being orchestrated by Dawkins and his faithful followers

[MkII]

Sorry. I misread an earlier post.

s'ok then

 

It doesn't really matter if I know your Bible - it's all down to interpretation anyway. Makes you wonder why He wouldn't just stop His own suffering?

1. Yeah but you've said b4 that you know it better than me

2. Interpretation is the great thing.. hopefully we read it as intended and apply it accurately to our times. This makes it relevant. It certainly shouldn't be dismissed on those grounds, as you're trying to.

3. Why wouldn't he stop his own suffering.. you want to define God out of the water.. he's so powerful why doesn't he cease to exist? Perhaps he did!

 

(Faith) It's hard to rationalise.

 

I suppose the premise of certainty of the existence of the thing that you are putting faith in is a start. I could prove that the person I put my faith or hope in actually exists. We would be able to agree on things like exact physical characteristics. That's a good starting point.

If you are certain of anything then that doesn't require any faith. What you're putting faith in is something in the person that can't be known, even to them.

 

Meetings? Yeah, sorry about that one...

Leaders? Is that what maketh a religion?

Well most movements start with a charismatic person.

 

Brainwashing? I think that's against the point. Humanist, atheist and freethinking groups are usually interchangeable - I can think of real examples of brainwashing from many religions but not a single, for example, Atheist school. Brainwashing adults is actually quite tough and I don't think there is any idea to support your claim. Religion does this and I'm glad you pointed this out when comparing the two.

LOL Communism, Nazism?

 

Seeking charitable status? This is quite interesting. There are atheist charitable organisations already. Atheism is not looking for charitable status. Why did you raise this point? Have you got a problem with atheist charities or is it something that you associate only with religion?

LOL x2

 

(what makes science genuine?) It doesn't and asking another question isn't answering mine.

:handbag:

 

Genuine science is the process of attempting to disprove a theory based on doubt and reason. It is worldwide, peer-reviewed and embraced by almost all religions ('cept YEC and Scientology etc). It is fallible but is as good as is possible. Individual scientists may be biased or make mistakes but Science doesn't.

Ditto.

 

Re: Richard Dorkins

 

So you're justifying his fundamentalism? Is this a fundamentalist Atheist stroke Agnostic splinter cell or are you at liberty to practice publically?

 

 

because there isn't a conflict based on any ancient text.

*coughs*

 

I think you'd feel very differently about the way he speaks if there was a direct conflict that challenged something you believed strongly in. It wouldn't make you a fundamentalist just because you were made a spokesperson by your peers.

You think I'm not in direct conflict with RD every time I hear or read anything he says? Every paragraph of TDG has me reeling in disbelief at the ignorance of him.

 

I don't think I can make you understand this.

I think you should give the medication a rest

 

Dawkins is the outspoken itelligent chap standing in the crowd calling foul. People generally don't like having their faith challenged. Hopefully our descendants will look back on these unenlightened times and agree on the absurdity of organised religion much like we do of the witch trials. I hold this hope because I don't think there can ultimately be freedom and peace with barriers like religion not because I want to remove human and civil rights.

It's the power crazed fundamentalists that cause the problems. Responsible religion isn't the problem and doesn't deserve annihilation. The anti-religious witch hunt you're championing will be recorded in History as such.

 

(science is much a construct as is religion or atheism)

Atheism isn't a religion. It is a number of people that are united by not sharing the beliefs of a group of people that would very much (for some reason) like them to believe the same. Atheism only exists in response to religion.

So atheism isn't a religion because it only exists to debunk something. It's purpose is entirely negative. Sounds like the protestant church!

[gwendes]

Were pretty much free to believe what we want without fear of being attacked for it (well, almost)

 

WE are. Look around the world and it's a very different picture.

 

Well most movements start with a charismatic person.

 

Every person that enjoys a glass of wine in the evening is on the path to becoming an alcoholic sitting under a bridge with a bottle of meths.

 

LOL Communism, Nazism?

 

See above.

 

These were not atheist causes and religion played an important role.

 

Re: Richard Dorkins

 

So you're justifying his fundamentalism? Is this a fundamentalist Atheist stroke Agnostic splinter cell or are you at liberty to practice publically?

 

I do not think that Dawkins can be accurately described as fundamentalist.

 

I think you should give the medication a rest

 

LOL! We atheists need it to keep the devil out of our souls.

 

Responsible religion isn't the problem and doesn't deserve annihilation. The anti-religious witch hunt you're championing will be recorded in History as such.

 

Religion challenged science - if you read Dawkins earlier books he didn't even feel like there were people that supported creationism - science had won the battle already - in the 1970s.

 

Religion has put itself in the firing line of a theory that has almost universal support from every sane and educated person. I think the people that have been brainwashed from childhood with ancient myths have the right to learn about reality.

 

It's the 'power crazed fundamentalists' that need people that just believe to support them. Faith has given these people power - education is one way that power can be, slowly, gently removed. I hope.

 

So atheism isn't a religion because it only exists to debunk something. It's purpose is entirely negative. Sounds like the protestant church!

 

It only exists in response - nobody would define themselves as atheist if there were nothing to disassociate from. It's only negative if you assume that the thing that atheism challenges is postive. We agree that fundamentalist religion is negative and it would exist without atheism - If you want rid of Dawkins then we all need to support simple things like the teaching of science to children.

[MkII]

I do not think that Dawkins can be accurately described as fundamentalist.

I do.

 

Religion challenged science - if you read Dawkins earlier books he didn't even feel like there were people that supported creationism - science had won the battle already - in the 1970s.

 

Religion has put itself in the firing line of a theory that has almost universal support from every sane and educated person.

No, religious crackpots. You and Dawkins lump the insane together with the sane as all crazy and candidates for the gas chamber.

 

I think the people that have been brainwashed from childhood with ancient myths have the right to learn about reality.

 

It's the 'power crazed fundamentalists' that need people that just believe to support them. Faith has given these people power - education is one way that power can be, slowly, gently removed. I hope.

We're brainwashed by the current (since the 60's) zeitgeist in the UK of anti religion hate talk.

 

If you want rid of Dawkins then we all need to support simple things like the teaching of science to children.

We already have everyone supporting the teaching of science to children. Prove me wrong.

 

To be rid of Dawkins, we need to remove part of the human brain and make everyone think like you and he do.

[gwendes]

I do.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article1779771.ece

 

No, please, do not mistake passion, which can change its mind, for fundamentalism, which never will. Passion for passion, an evangelical Christian and I may be evenly matched. But we are not equally fundamentalist. The true scientist, however passionately he may “believe”, in evolution for example, knows exactly what would change his mind: evidence! The fundamentalist knows that nothing will.

 

 

No, religious crackpots. You and Dawkins lump the insane together with the sane as all crazy and candidates for the gas chamber.

 

When? There are millions of otherwise perfectly normal people that believe in fundamentalist ideas. I am for education not destroying opposing ideas. I genuinely believe that given an education based on reality children will not choose religion.

 

We're brainwashed by the current (since the 60's) zeitgeist in the UK of anti religion hate talk.

 

You mean that a minority, albeit a large minority, are finally free to reject their parents and elders ideas about the universe. You don't need to be told to reject God - it's the default for a baby. Science supports the idea that God is merely a human construct.

 

The religious still vastly outnumber the atheists in this country.

 

We already have everyone supporting the teaching of science to children. Prove me wrong.

 

Ok, but it isn't nice.

 

Sir Peter Vardy (an Evangelical) currently runs four educational institutions that teach creationism in the classroom.

 

Emmanuel - The Foundation

 

We are paying for the majority of this.

 

Andrian Hawkes - here he supports ACE ( [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerated_Christian_Education]Accelerated Christian Education - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] ) and literal interpretations of the bible - Noah's Ark and Creationism, for example.

 

[ame=http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=lqJ5KM9txkQ]YouTube - Richard Dawkins vs Adrian Hawkes 1/8[/ame]

 

Those are Christian. There are thousands of 'faith' schools that teach myth and tradition as fact and science.

 

It's very sad.

To be rid of Dawkins, we need to remove part of the human brain and make everyone think like you and he do.

 

That suggests that all atheists think the same and not that we've independently reached the same conclusions. I wasn't taught atheism!

[MkII]

What a(nother) trash statement from Dawkins. Ignorantly (as he (like you) repeatedly and despite the facts being endlessly presented to him FAILS YET AGAIN to understand that Christianity ISN'T about unquestioning. YES DAWKINS IS THAT FUNDAMENTALIST because he is fixed in his ideas. Ideas which he can be no more sure of. You (and he) confuse Evangelical with Fundamentalist. They're not the same.

 

When? There are millions of otherwise perfectly normal people that believe in fundamentalist ideas. I am for education not destroying opposing ideas. I genuinely believe that given an education based on reality children will not choose religion.

You just happen to promote a one view system. Oh, and want to destroy anyone with an opposing view.

 

You mean that a minority, albeit a large minority, are finally free to reject their parents and elders ideas about the universe. You don't need to be told to reject God - it's the default for a baby. Science supports the idea that God is merely a human construct.

Yes, I'm talking about that 93% minority that you belong to, who have been rejecting religion for at least a century. How sorry do I feel for you that no one in this society we live in thinks like you do, that religion is irrelevant. Seriously gwendes... wake up.

 

The religious still vastly outnumber the atheists in this country.

 

Sir Peter Vardy (an Evangelical) currently runs four educational institutions that teach creationism in the classroom.

 

Emmanuel - The Foundation

 

We are paying for the majority of this.

In a sorely underdeveloped area where millions of charitable funding create great educational institutions. Yes the state in it's deal to support this part fund it, and hold some control. What you're against is an opposing view having a fair crack. It's not that kids should have a balanced education, it's just that you want to force the populist view onto teaching.

 

Dawkins sees the sense when talking about science but fails to apply the same logic to religion. To science he allows freedom to change, develop and interpret. Not so religion. For religion he sees constraint where there is none.

 

Those are Christian. There are thousands of 'faith' schools that teach myth and tradition as fact and science.

 

It's very sad.

No, it's great! You ignorantly (like Dawkins) call religion myth when it isn't.

 

That suggests that all atheists think the same and not that we've independently reached the same conclusions. I wasn't taught atheism!

You were taught because you made no choice to think. You just think what everyone else is telling you to think.

Edited January 19, 2009 by MkII

[MkII]

Watching Adrian Hawkes and RD there again I found I had absolutely no problem with anything Adrian said. He believes 100% the same as I do seemingly (yet you call me an oddball with unique views). I was expecting fundamentalism and indoctrination and found quite the opposite and a very balanced person squaring solidly to RD.

 

It almost makes me respect RD (and yourself) more as an outsider who hasn't grasped the concept.

[gwendes]

What a(nother) trash statement from Dawkins. Ignorantly (as he (like you) repeatedly and despite the facts being endlessly presented to him FAILS YET AGAIN to understand that Christianity ISN'T about unquestioning. YES DAWKINS IS THAT FUNDAMENTALIST because he is fixed in his ideas. Ideas which he can be no more sure of. You (and he) confuse Evangelical with Fundamentalist. They're not the same.

 

I don't accept what you're saying about Christianity placing importance on questionning and doubt.

 

You just happen to promote a one view system. Oh, and want to destroy anyone with an opposing view.

 

I think one is based on tradition and myth. This is culturally important but inflexible and results in forcing people to take a fundamentalist approach - we should all challenge this.

 

Yes, I'm talking about that 93% minority that you belong to, who have been rejecting religion for at least a century. How sorry do I feel for you that no one in this society we live in thinks like you do, that religion is irrelevant. Seriously gwendes... wake up.

 

 

Are you basing this on your personal opinion or the statistics?

 

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_England[/ame]

 

The UK is 31-44% atheist.

 

Adherents.com: Atheist Statistics | Agnostic

 

In a sorely underdeveloped area where millions of charitable funding create great educational institutions. Yes the state in it's deal to support this part fund it, and hold some control. What you're against is an opposing view having a fair crack. It's not that kids should have a balanced education, it's just that you want to force the populist view onto teaching.

 

Great! Education should definately be based on the personal beliefs of the people with the most money!

 

The majority of the funding for schools like Sir Vardy's is state. We are therefore paying for blatent indoctrination.

 

Dawkins sees the sense when talking about science but fails to apply the same logic to religion. To science he allows freedom to change, develop and interpret. Not so religion. For religion he sees constraint where there is none.

 

Because religion is based on faith. Science is not a 'thing' it's a set of beliefs with doubt, logic and reason at the core. Modern, liberal religion might try to do the same thing but at the core remains faith - belief becuase it is true.

 

No, it's great! You ignorantly (like Dawkins) call religion myth when it isn't.

 

Religion is myth. By definition.

 

a myth is a sacred story involving symbols that are usually capable of multiple meanings. The body of myths in a given culture usually includes a cosmogonical or creation myth concerning the origins of the world or how the world and its creatures came into existence. The active beings in myths are generally gods and goddesses, heroes and heroines, or animals.

 

You were taught because you made no choice to think. You just think what everyone else is telling you to think.

 

I went to a school where I was forced to sing hymms about creation, God and other myths contained in the Bible. I have chosen to trust the scientific model over any ancient myth. No one told me that this is the only way to get into heaven. No one told me that I would be in trouble if I didn't. No one invoked primitive ideas about the universe, distorting the facts, to try and convince me.

 

I've read a lot of books, listened and watched a lot of TV and radio, spoken to friends and family with very different ideas, explored the internet, watched videos and independently reached the conclusion that God is a poor explanation. I found out that I was an atheist, and had been born an atheist - I wasn't told this was the case - I am by definition.

 

Watching Adrian Hawkes and RD there again I found I had absolutely no problem with anything Adrian said. He believes 100% the same as I do seemingly (yet you call me an oddball with unique views). I was expecting fundamentalism and indoctrination and found quite the opposite and a very balanced person squaring solidly to RD.

 

It almost makes me respect RD (and yourself) more as an outsider who hasn't grasped the concept.

 

100%? He believes in literal interpretation of the Bible!

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but the 'concept' we are unable to grasp is that the universe has a God. Why should I believe this over any other creation myth? You're the one that is accepting as fact what you have been told. A child is atheist by default, not Christian or any other religion - had you not been told about Christianity you would not have decided on it independently.

 

Noah's Ark because it cannot be disproved. Facts can be proven to have happened because they are in the Bible. I hope you're not that simplistic.

 

Mr Hawkes then goes on the justify the teaching of falsehoods on the basis that he was taught falsehoods himself.

 

Mr Hawkes cannot find a reason to be moral if there is no super-being when almost every animal behaviour we observe favours co-operation and altruism...

 

Mr Hawkes also supports the warping of health education to link HIV with sin.

 

Why can't you see how dangerous this is?

 

You can deny evidence but it doesn't make it false!

 

Show me a single example of evidence for believing in God and I'm happy to come over to your side of the fence - I don't believe because I would like things to be true I believe things because, based on the best science we have, they appear to accurately represent reality.

Edited January 20, 2009 by gwendes

[MkII]

I don't accept what you're saying about Christianity placing importance on questionning and doubt.

You remain ignorant of the subject

 

I think one is based on tradition and myth. This is culturally important but inflexible and results in forcing people to take a fundamentalist approach - we should all challenge this.

Again you insist on wrongfully labeling. We should challenge fundamentalism without condition, and that should include modern incarnations.

 

Are you basing this on your personal opinion or the statistics?

Unbiased statistics

 

Great! Education should definately be based on the personal beliefs of the people with the most money!

 

The majority of the funding for schools like Sir Vardy's is state. We are therefore paying for blatent indoctrination.

Something like 60% of the funding comes from 3% of the population. Run down, abandoned areas benefiting from charitable aid. The video interview establishes that it isn't indoctrination. Your being argumentative for the sake of it.

 

Because religion is based on faith. Science is not a 'thing' it's a set of beliefs with doubt, logic and reason at the core. Modern, liberal religion might try to do the same thing but at the core remains faith - belief becuase it is true.

Watch the video again - you missed it.

 

Religion is myth. By definition.

Most definitely your definition. Myth = untrue - Christianity is the search for truth. Not scientific truth - that's a different sort. Dawkins & yourself seem incapable of grasping that fact.

 

I went to a school where I was forced to sing hymms about creation, God and other myths contained in the Bible.

myths again

 

I have chosen to trust the scientific model over any ancient myth.

Hmm.. unique. Shame you missed serious thought out.

 

No one told me that this is the only way to get into heaven. No one told me that I would be in trouble if I didn't. No one invoked primitive ideas about the universe, distorting the facts, to try and convince me.

But you ended up believing exactly the same as the vast majority of your contemporaries. How amazing.

 

I've read a lot of books, listened and watched a lot of TV and radio, spoken to friends and family with very different ideas, explored the internet, watched videos and independently reached the conclusion that God is a poor explanation. I found out that I was an atheist, and had been born an atheist - I wasn't told this was the case - I am by definition.

People are born agnostic. Not committed believers. You haven't explored faith and dismiss it - is the more accurate truth.

 

100%? He believes in literal interpretation of the Bible!

I think you watched a different video. Try watching it without preconceived prejudice.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but the 'concept' we are unable to grasp is that the universe has a God.

Correction. The 'concept' is Christianity.

 

A child is atheist by default, not Christian or any other religion

hmmm - direct contradiction of yourself above.

 

Noah's Ark because it cannot be disproved. Facts can be proven to have happened because they are in the Bible. I hope you're not that simplistic.

We've been over this until it hurts. Yet you still flog the dead horse.

 

Mr Hawkes then goes on the justify the teaching of falsehoods on the basis that he was taught falsehoods himself.

Misquote.

 

Mr Hawkes cannot find a reason to be moral if there is no super-being when almost every animal behaviour we observe favours co-operation and altruism...

Misquote. He clearly says that without moral guidance any guidance is groundless, and I agree 100%. Great point.

 

Mr Hawkes also supports the warping of health education to link HIV with sin.

Typical sensationalist conclusion. Shallow and thoughtless.

 

Show me a single example of evidence for believing in God and I'm happy to come over to your side of the fence - I don't believe because I would like things to be true I believe things because, based on the best science we have, they appear to accurately represent reality.

 

How completely ignorant is that statement given our previous discussion. It seems pointless to carry on in the face of such bare faced denial.

[gwendes]

You remain ignorant of the subject

 

I simply don't agree with you. That doesn't make one of us ignorant. I think that there is too much evidence that Christianity relies on faith (belief without evidence) over doubt.

 

We should challenge fundamentalism without condition, and that should include modern incarnations.

 

Of course. My point was that any system based on a text like the Bible will result in fundamentalism.

 

Unbiased statistics

 

Can I see them?

 

Something like 60% of the funding comes from 3% of the population. Run down, abandoned areas benefiting from charitable aid. The video interview establishes that it isn't indoctrination. Your being argumentative for the sake of it.

 

You can now make a 'charitable donation' and be handed control of the school. The ACE curriculum incorporates biblical stories into science - children are not taught RE, RE is literally interpreted and used in all subjects. The same happens in lots of 'faith' schools and it is indoctrination. Schools are not a place to teach the word of God - I would happily see all 'faith' schools abolished and make them free for anyone to attend or teach at. Why are we sitting back and accepting that it's ok to seperate children from each other on the basis that their parents were indictrinated with slightly different gods or texts.

 

Watch the video again - you missed it.

 

Religion is based on faith. Which video and at what time?

 

Most definitely your definition. Myth = untrue - Christianity is the search for truth. Not scientific truth - that's a different sort. Dawkins & yourself seem incapable of grasping that fact.

 

I didn't say that. Myth is not by definition untrue - it's generally a story passed through generations - it would be miraculous if it didn't change but you have to admit that most of the bible is mythical - true or untrue. Strange that you're happy to accept this fact for earlier religions (Greek and Roman) but not your own.

 

What I'm trying to say is, when you use the word 'myth', that, yes, it might be a myth but it might not be. Some of the things that I was taught in Science were, turned out to be myths.

 

Well, I don't mean 'myth' as just something that is false. A myth is something that is ancient, it's a poetic story, which has grown up within a tribe and the world is full of origin myths. There are hundreds, thousands, of origin myths all over the world and the Noah's Ark myth happens to be an ancient Suranian and it was taken up by the Jews and that's how it comes into the Bible.

 

Why teach that myth...?

 

Because it is in the Bible, I guess.

 

Hmm.. unique. Shame you missed serious thought out.

 

I didn't say I accept everything that scientists say. I embrace the model.

 

But you ended up believing exactly the same as the vast majority of your contemporaries. How amazing.

 

Yes. However it was never something we really discussed. We've reached the same conclusions on our own. I'm also friends with many people that hold different beliefs - how amazing that they're not atheist.

 

People are born agnostic. Not committed believers. You haven't explored faith and dismiss it - is the more accurate truth.

 

I would have to agree. You haven't explored every faith either.

 

hmmm - direct contradiction of yourself above.

 

Not at all. I found out that I fitted the definition of the word 'atheist'. When I learned more about the world I felt it was important to be proud of this.

 

We've been over this until it hurts. Yet you still flog the dead horse.

 

It's important because he is teaching children these things - children that trust him.

 

Misquote. He clearly says that without moral guidance any guidance is groundless, and I agree 100%. Great point.

 

No he doesn't, he goes further and says that that must come from God. You've missed my point.

 

Re: HIV being related to sin - as stated by his own literature.

 

Typical sensationalist conclusion. Shallow and thoughtless.

 

He's the one that said it. He also refuses to answer the question instead reeling off an anecdote about how horrible it that a child in his care was given work, from school, mentioning finding your boyfriend in bed with another girl...

 

I think if we're going to get morals from anywhere I'd prefer to avoid God - the bible says a lot worse than that.

 

If you believe the same can you answer Dawkins, and my, concerns with an answer and not an unrelated statement? Hawkes immediate reaction actually scares me - he's covering a smile and then laughs.

 

I think whatever is actually taught so be independently scrutinised. Thoroughly.

 

 

How completely ignorant is that statement given our previous discussion. It seems pointless to carry on in the face of such bare faced denial.

 

It's a statement to clarify my reasoning. I don't want you do actually prove that God exists - you cannot and I cannot prove He doesn't... I wonder how people live day-to-day basing all actions on experience and when they look for help or guidance from a deity no evidence is required. Before I potentially wasted my time in prayer I'd want to know that something was listening - ideally something that could do something about it.

 

There's no point in praying to the sun (to paraphrase)

Edited January 21, 2009 by gwendes

[MkII]

I simply don't agree with you. That doesn't make one of us ignorant. I think that there is too much evidence that Christianity relies on faith (belief without evidence) over doubt.

 

To answer all of your points in one gwendes, it's not a question of 'agreeing'. No one can just 'agree' with Christianity, it takes more than that. This discussion is pointless because we're talking acceptance of a concept. Without that acceptance, the rest will not make sense. Your thoughtful position is 100% correct for a person outside acceptance. Not that this acceptance is non rational. Yes it's complimentary to scientific reasoning, for example, but exists perfectly none the less. It remains entirely fruitless a discussion, as I think we've proved. Exhaustively.

 

Consequently, the struggle remains. I agree that those without faith will correctly (according to me) draw the conclusions that you do. Where do we go from here? The thrust of this thread is the intolerance of those of faith being allowed to practice in this society by those with no faith. That to me is the point of this thread. Could you ever tolerate a different position to yourself? I re-affirm that I totally agree with everything Adrian Hawkes said on that video. From an acceptance of the concept point of view it is more than entirely logical, but also extremely positive in every sense. I also agree with every Christian Faith School/ Academy (I know church.co.uk have about 11) as being the best model possible at the moment for education.

 

Christianity teaches tolerance of non Christians. It seems non faith doesn't tolerate faith at all.

[gwendes]

To answer all of your points in one gwendes, it's not a question of 'agreeing'. No one can just 'agree' with Christianity, it takes more than that. This discussion is pointless because we're talking acceptance of a concept. Without that acceptance, the rest will not make sense. Your thoughtful position is 100% correct for a person outside acceptance. Not that this acceptance is non rational. Yes it's complimentary to scientific reasoning, for example, but exists perfectly none the less. It remains entirely fruitless a discussion, as I think we've proved. Exhaustively.

 

The simple question to make this completely meaningless is, which Christianity? I don't believe that there is any way to have this 'acceptance' without being told that it is the truth by another person - it strikes me as obvious that any divine truth and spirituality that potentially exists would also exist independently from human interpretation. That doesn't seem to make sense to you.

 

Consequently, the struggle remains. I agree that those without faith will correctly (according to me) draw the conclusions that you do. Where do we go from here? The thrust of this thread is the intolerance of those of faith being allowed to practice in this society by those with no faith.

 

Only when they present a direct challenge to the education of children or vunerable adults. You still haven't answered the question but your answers seem to support teaching of creationism as an alternative theory - I think this needs to actively prevented.

 

That to me is the point of this thread. Could you ever tolerate a different position to yourself? I re-affirm that I totally agree with everything Adrian Hawkes said on that video. From an acceptance of the concept point of view it is more than entirely logical, but also extremely positive in every sense. I also agree with every Christian Faith School/ Academy (I know church.co.uk have about 11) as being the best model possible at the moment for education.

 

Of course. As I've said I have friends that have many different faiths. I don't confuse disagreement with dislike!

 

I think that schools are a place for education and faith is not part of that. How dare we label children by their parents faith and push them into single-faith schools. Education needs to be free, unbiased and open to everyone.

 

Don't you find the children of Muslim parents being seperated from the children of Jewish parents disgusting? This isn't an issue with fundamentalists of atheists - it's the continuation of artificial barriers which are seperating people that might - without religion - talk to each other and get along, have dinner-parties etc etc...

 

Christianity teaches tolerance of non Christians. It seems non faith doesn't tolerate faith at all.

 

Some Christianity I'm sure does. Some doesn't - you seem to ignore the failings of your own particular faith.

 

I, as an atheist, tolerate, and actually sometimes quite like, others until their idea of freedom infringes on my actual freedom. I cannot speak for other atheists.

Edited January 21, 2009 by gwendes

[SYNACK]

Looks like this guy would fit right in to this discussion:

 

The Information Paradox: Why Believers are Ethically Bankrupt

[MkII]

Your points are invalid gwendes because you don't know what you're talking about. You flounder about trying to rationalise the subject from a scientific perspective when it's been pointed out to you on countless occasions that this is a foolish objective that contradicts itself. You like to sit on your high horse and cry "prove to me that there is a god" when the question isn't worthy of a nursery child. I really can't fathom the depths of your banality there.

 

The question on creationism we've covered in depth on another thread. You try to single out a point so that you can hang a faith with it. You totally miss the real issue being discussed between Dawkins and Hawkes. You say that you have religious friends, but your attitude is one of intolerance, which is the idea you're avoiding here.

 

If you want to see why faith should be part of a balanced education then go watch that video you linked and listen to what Adrian Hawkes said. You might have to hang your nazi insignia at the door first though.

 

You support the the idea of liberal nothingness being better than rightly held beliefs. I disagree. I think people need hold on firm to what they know is right (and wrong).

 

I don't ignore the failings of my own faith, I know how to differentiate between the faith and people. Again, we've covered this more than the 4th bridge has been painted, but like I've found around the web, the non religious are happy to argue black is white disregarding any logic. Fundamentalism defined.

 

You don't tolerate. You're actively aggressive against anyone who's point of view you don't understand. Otherwise you'd live and let live, and there'd be no discussion here.

[MkII]

Looks like this guy would fit right in to this discussion:

 

The Information Paradox: Why Believers are Ethically Bankrupt

Another child in the grown up world of Faith.

[Domino]

woahwoahwoah.......

 

 

 

...Pub?

 

[localzuk]

Wow Mark, you have just summarised why I don't like most people who are actively religious - they are condescending and intolerant of anyone else's views. (Just because I don't like them doesn't mean I don't respect their beliefs...) Gwendes has followed a logical train of thought to conclusion, and is, from that, questioning your processes of reaching your own conclusion. To me most of what you believe is completely unfathomable, and just makes me wonder how on Earth you could reach such conclusions.

 

You say he's intolerant? I say he's not. I say he's more willing to change his views than you are. Questioning the beliefs of others is not intolerance. Turning around and saying 'you don't know what you're talking about' and 'your nazi insignia' are intolerance.

 

But anyway, this article may be interesting to some: Science vs. Religion: Has Darwin Failed? - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

Edited January 22, 2009 by localzuk

[MkII]

I am defending myself from continuous relentless attack tho' Localz. Just because you agree with gwendes doesn't make it go away. You may not understand my point of view, and that is perfectly ok, but you can't tell me what I think, which is what gwendes is continually doing in trying to belittle my opinion. My belief is solid and rational, it just isn't the same as yours. Trying to understand what someone else believes and rubbishing that belief are two entirely different things. Gwendes steps way over the line all the time.

 

I agree with gwendes' line of thought - I said so above. Did you not see that? I completely tolerate his right to believe what he does, and although I think it's wrong, I don't seek to "actively prevent" his theology as he does mine (he said this above).

 

He and Dawkins don't know what they're talking about when it comes to Christianity - that much is blindingly obvious. It would be wrong of me to know that and not say anything. Again you are trying to restrict my freedom.

 

The Nazi line was over the top I admit. Gwendes and I have a history of raising the barrier when insulting each other, and my remark refers back to the Scientology thread where someone mentioned a forum thread reaches a certain point when Hitler is raised. I am a Christian, I don't necessarily act like one. That's the lesson.

[localzuk]

Mark, your views seem to, sometimes, vary from the usual 'Christian' line. You state Dawkins doesn't know what he's talking about, but again, you are wrong for the majority of 'Christianity'. Christianity, as a whole, as an organised religion, is not what you seem to be discussing. You seem to be a completely different type of Christian (well, not completely different, as you also have the same views as 'typical' Christians on a few things).

 

Dawkins mostly covers the mass movement, those people who all 'tie the party line' - which is the vast majority (or at least, the most vocal group of people).

[gwendes]

Your points are invalid gwendes because you don't know what you're talking about.

 

I think I have a very good idea of the subject we are discussing. I've listened to many different points of view and am interested in the discussion more than reaching a conclusion.

 

You flounder about trying to rationalise the subject from a scientific perspective when it's been pointed out to you on countless occasions that this is a foolish objective that contradicts itself. You like to sit on your high horse and cry "prove to me that there is a god" when the question isn't worthy of a nursery child. I really can't fathom the depths of your banality there.

 

Flounder? I've asked several direct questions following a logical chain of thought and you simply dismiss my ideas as 'foolish'. I don't expect faith to be assessed as a science - if it were it would be called science! I do think it's reasonable to ask questions of a position of faith.

 

High horse? Nursery child? Banality?

 

The language of tolerance!

 

I think I've been very respectful of your faith.

 

The question on creationism we've covered in depth on another thread. You try to single out a point so that you can hang a faith with it. You totally miss the real issue being discussed between Dawkins and Hawkes.

 

In the other thread you said you didn't support creationism in the science classroom. Adrian Hawkes does and also supports the teaching of other aspects of the Bible across the curriculum including what some might consider a fundamentalist approach in combining health education and religion. You said you agreed with his position so I'm left a little confused, feel free to answer or not.

 

You say that you have religious friends, but your attitude is one of intolerance, which is the idea you're avoiding here.

 

You think that I'm lying? I do not have an attitude of intolerance - I'm just asking questions which I think are interesting. I don't share your ideas and I'm fascinated why you do - particularly as you've said that you share many other opinions with me.

 

If you want to see why faith should be part of a balanced education then go watch that video you linked and listen to what Adrian Hawkes said. You might have to hang your nazi insignia at the door first though.

 

I've watched the video and others that argue faith should form the basis of education and I simply do not agree. For a start it is logical to ask which faith we should choose and why. If you think Christianity because it happens to be the most popular in the UK then we need to ask if popularity is a good measure of suitability. I think that education and faith should have a very high wall between them and society would benefit from all schools being open to all children and teachers regardless of faith- kids don't have prejudices until they are taught.

 

Nazi insignia? Wooah. I think a little more Libertarian.

 

You support the the idea of liberal nothingness being better than rightly held beliefs. I disagree. I think people need hold on firm to what they know is right (and wrong).

 

I think it's important to ask who is choosing these perfect rights and wrongs. And why.

 

I don't ignore the failings of my own faith, I know how to differentiate between the faith and people. Again, we've covered this more than the 4th bridge has been painted, but like I've found around the web, the non religious are happy to argue black is white disregarding any logic. Fundamentalism defined.

 

I seem to remember hearing that the Fourth Bridge has only been painted a couple of times - technically. Since it takes so long it's ongoing...

 

Anyway...

Applying logic is the ideal as far as I'm concerned. If religion made for more a better society I would probably be in favour (whether I could be faithful myself or not). We can look at the worldwide statistics and observe that religion does not improve any aspect of society - health, wealth, education - anything. I think it's fair to ask why.

 

You don't tolerate. You're actively aggressive against anyone who's point of view you don't understand. Otherwise you'd live and let live, and there'd be no discussion here.

 

We need to be open to the conversation.

 

I think it's positive for both sides to listen to each other - ultimately I couldn't care less how you choose to live your life - I'm interested in why and will become much less 'tolerant' if your rights infringe on mine or those of my children.

 

The idea that religion is untouchable, unquestionable because it might offend somebody is simply wrong. Nothing is above the question - that breeds dangerous certainties.

[gwendes]

woahwoahwoah.......

 

 

 

...Pub?

 

 

Sounds like a plan

[gwendes]

Another child in the grown up world of Faith.

 

Doesn't seem like a very open or tolerant attitude tbh mark.

[MkII]

Mark, your views seem to, sometimes, vary from the usual 'Christian' line. You state Dawkins doesn't know what he's talking about, but again, you are wrong for the majority of 'Christianity'. Christianity, as a whole, as an organised religion, is not what you seem to be discussing. You seem to be a completely different type of Christian (well, not completely different, as you also have the same views as 'typical' Christians on a few things).

 

Dawkins mostly covers the mass movement, those people who all 'tie the party line' - which is the vast majority (or at least, the most vocal group of people).

You can't say at the same time you can't understand what I believe and then that you know what Christianity stands for. Make up your mind, either you do or you don't. The majority of vocalising on Christian belief is from non believers who are spouting what they think Christianity stands for.

 

Nice you can slag me off at the same time though

 

Dawkins covers the chocolate box picture in much the same way as the Mirror or the Sun.

[MkII]

Doesn't seem like a very open or tolerant attitude tbh mark.

 

Depends how you read it. The linked persons' site shows he is naive of religion and knowledgable on the atheist argument.

[gwendes]

I am defending myself from continuous relentless attack tho' Localz.

 

ATTACK?

 

which is what gwendes is continually doing in trying to belittle my opinion.

 

BELITTLE?

 

Gwendes steps way over the line all the time.

 

I am not! I'm just asking questions and you've suddenly taken offence!

 

I don't seek to "actively prevent" his theology as he does mine (he said this above).

 

I would only actively prevent your theology if it infringed on my rights - who wouldn't do the same?

 

He and Dawkins don't know what they're talking about when it comes to Christianity - that much is blindingly obvious. It would be wrong of me to know that and not say anything. Again you are trying to restrict my freedom.

 

I need to have a good understanding of religions in order to disagree. Christopher Hitchens, for example, has better understanding of many scriptures than the leaders of those religions. I do not seek to restrict any freedom.

 

The Nazi line was over the top I admit. Gwendes and I have a history of raising the barrier when insulting each other, and my remark refers back to the Scientology thread where someone mentioned a forum thread reaches a certain point when Hitler is raised. I am a Christian, I don't necessarily act like one. That's the lesson.

 

Godwin's Law. Don't worry, I'll not get on my 'high-horse'. I seek to understand your (and anybody else that is prepared to discuss) faith - not destroy it.

 

As I've said before, I don't confuse disagreement with dislike.