For Mr Dawkins: Atheism is a bit like having a penis. If you are proud of it, that's fine. But if you keep getting it out and waving it in my face, then we'll have problems
Yes, indeed, I think he would probably argue the same about overly zealous Christians.
I don't think there is anything wrong with starting a thread asking what people believe in, as long as everyone respects other peoples beliefs and opinions without saying their way is the right way, diversity is one of the things I love about our country and it should be embraced. I am a Christian and proud of it, the church community is a great one to be part of with some of the nicest selfless people I've ever met. Most of my other friends are atheists, I have some Muslim friends too and a Sikh, none of us shove our beliefs down each other's throats but can talk about them freely, same should go here.
I used to be athiest myself, I always joked that if I walked into a church I'd burn, but I found myself involved with church people when I started my charity work and then I started attending church myself and (this will sound cliche) my life started getting better and I was much happier. That is me though, everyone has their own way.
I think thats great Sadie, the community and charity side is brilliant.
However, the actual beliefs (God/Jesus/The Bible), to me, seem absolutely mental.
You could say the same about all sorts of things though... purely hypothetically, take money for example. There is no way a thin bit of paper will ever be physically worth £10,000. But if you sign that cheque, apparently it is. Why? Because we believe it to be, that's the only reason.
Evolution is pretty much a scientific fact nowadays but there are wholes in the theory - for example bats that have echolocation abilities. What are the odds that a bat would spontaneously mutate to have the capacity to generate the echoes, the ears to hear them with, and the brain to process it... then that bat would have to survive, and breed, and all those genes would have to be dominant, or every lady bat our example gets it on with would have to be carrying those exact same genes - all the while other non-echolocating bats of the same species somehow end up living in circumstances where suddenly echolocation is the big difference, and dying out.
You could also look at the dinosaurs - hundreds of millions of years of evolution, and they get wiped out in a freak incident that mammals just so happen to be better suited to surviving, and thus end up top of the evolutionary scale. Pure chance, that's all it is.
This doesn't prove that evolution does not exist, simply that our understanding of it is very, very basic. I do not believe in an omniscient creator being watching us in every moment - but I firmly believe that there is some sort of higher force that human brains will never be able to comprehend in entirety.
Totally get this point of view. There's a long-billed hummingbird in South America that's totally dependent on a trumpet-flowered plant for its survival. Equally the plant is solely dependent on the hummingbird for its pollination and ability to survive. Science goes some way to explain that, creation does too. I think too often there's a competition between creation and science that's so unnecessary. As a Christian I love the explanation that science offers, notwithstanding that it seems to change its mind every 5 minutes. Prefer the balance to the competition.
That'll be because of a thing called "learning", rather than being stuck with the teachings of a book written 600 years after the events, by people with a vested interest in controlling the masses, and never progressing from there. I only recently found out about the books that were left out of the bible, because the editors didn't like what they said...
Religion and religious teachings are all about control.
Sorry, that is completely untrue. The books that were "left out of the bible" were never part of the original cannon. Many of them are clearly not in line with what the bible teaches and the authorship of them has never been established. I don't see my faith as a way of being controlled. I wish I could convey they immense freedom I've had since coming to faith. Christianity isn't about rigid rules and rituals, it is about a relationship with God and that is all God is after. I know that God doesn't seek to control me but created me to be me and helps me be who I am, truly unique.
Q 1) Who decided they were never part of the original cannon?
A) The people who put the bible together the way they wanted it 600 years after the events.
Q 2) Who decided they were not in line with what the bible teaches (a book full of slayings, stonings, murder, revenge etc)?
A) The people who put the bible together the way they wanted it 600 years after the events.
Christianity does a great impression of being ALL about rigid rules and rituals - ten commandments anyone? (That's commandments, not "suggestions" or "requests"). Incense and Sunday services, prayers, icons, wine, wafers... need I go on?
A "good book" jam packed with threats as to what will happen to you if you stray outside the "true path"?
The whole of the Church of England was born out of the King's recognition of the power that threatening people with what might happen to them in the next life if they don't accept the current shit can bring.
The Catholic church that tells you there is one redeemer, but allows priests to "forgive" you?
The same church that has threatened scientists with excommunication for proving their "facts" wrong, before moving the goalposts in line with scientific fact years after with a bit of ducking and diving...
A commandment that tells you not to worship "Graven Idols", when both churches are packed with them...
I know there are Baptists and Methodists and other Christian groups out there, but most are indoctrinated by the two main players, and neither they nor any of the others make any sense to me.
Quite often I hear that people don't want 'religion' rammed down their throats but I wonder if the same people have an issue with the likes of Dawkins who are extremely aggressive in putting their views across? If that were an evangelical minister or missionary would it be different? It seems that that is acceptable to people which surprises me because that is his faith or belief or whatever and is put across as 'fact'. Who am I to tell you all that what you believe is rubbish? I very rarely talk about my faith. I live my life and hope that maybe others can experience the purpose, sense of direction, peace, fulfilment, joy etc that I've found and cannot be found in science or money or drugs or anything else I've seen. I guess these are things that I feel faith in Jesus has to offer and would love to share it with others as it is life changing (I have seen it change lives and that can't be denied). What he seems to offer is hostility with nothing worthwhile with the potential to make a positive difference in a person's life. For example, some people come to faith in Jesus and aren't able to kick their drug addiction or depression. But I've seen many that have managed it through their faith. As far as I'm concerned, that alone means that it is well worth sharing my beliefs with others if I sincerely believe it could be for that person's good and not to conform them to my way of thinking or living.
I whole heartedly agree with you about the importance of faith and how having Jesus in your life can heal us in more ways than we can logically explain, I do think that others have to find their own way, whether one day, like me it all starts to make sense and they open their minds and their hearts to The Lord or not. It's their path and it's their choosing. I'm bringing my children up in the church they go to Sunday school, messy church etc, they have all been christened and will all be confirmed, however if they ever say they don't want to go, I don't force them, my eldest, chose playing football over going to church I supported her with this, she now goes back to church sometimes by her own choice and is doing confirmation classes again by her own choice. My husband went to church when the kids were christened but refuses to go any other time, again I respect that. I don't like Jehovah's witnesses knocking on my door anymore than my atheist friends like being quoted the bible and being "preached" to.
I believe in heaven and hell as do all Christians but I believe that God will judge us it is not for us to judge or condemn people, Christians do some wonderful selfless things and it's a community I feel proud to be part of but there are people that have no religious beliefs that do an awful lot of good amazing things, I'm pretty sure they'll be granted their place in heaven regardless of their lack of faith, the difference between the out look they have leading up to their death.
I also believe you don't have to go to church to believe in God, there are many different ways to worship and a prayer at home is just as effective.
In short, although I agree that having faith helps everyone and know that has helped people fight demons such as drug abuse, it is not our place to tell people what to believe, you can give people the tools they need and be there to give advice and guidance if they ask for it but the path they choose to take is their decision, we were all blessed with good minds and thought processes and hearts and free will, we were made with the ability to make our own choices so why try and change that?
For Mr Dawkins: Atheism is a bit like having a penis. If you are proud of it, that's fine. But if you keep getting it out and waving it in my face, then we'll have problems
Whilst I became aware of the work of Prof Dawkins through a show on C4, I don't see a programme called "Songs of Dawkins" on the TV on a Sunday, or "Dawkins Worship" on BBC Radio 4 on Sunday morning. There was no coverage of a Humanist ceremony to mark the start of WWI, there was 4 hours of Christian worship on BBC1 and BBC2 though.
I have no problem with this, I just ignore it the way I would ignore X Factor, but I am merely making a point to counter your claim that somehow you are inundated with atheism in the form of Dawkins...
I was brought up as a Catholic but as soon as I was old enough to think for myself I became an atheist and I am about 99.9% confident that I am right. However I would never try to impose my beliefs on anyone else and for that reason I can't abide anyone trying to change my beliefs.
What sparked creation ?
I have absolutely no idea and wouldn't even begin to try to understand how life or anything is possible. That way madness lies.
E and F. I am an atheist but I hate people who belittle others because they have a faith as much as I hate those with a faith preaching to others. Atheism has become a religion in itself to many people, and it's prophets are Hitchens (Peace be upon him) and Dawkins.
I think thats great Sadie, the community and charity side is brilliant.
However, the actual beliefs (God/Jesus/The Bible), to me, seem absolutely mental.
You could say the same about all sorts of things though... purely hypothetically, take money for example. There is no way a thin bit of paper will ever be physically worth £10,000. But if you sign that cheque, apparently it is. Why? Because we believe it to be, that's the only reason.
Evolution is pretty much a scientific fact nowadays but there are wholes in the theory - for example bats that have echolocation abilities. What are the odds that a bat would spontaneously mutate to have the capacity to generate the echoes, the ears to hear them with, and the brain to process it... then that bat would have to survive, and breed, and all those genes would have to be dominant, or every lady bat our example gets it on with would have to be carrying those exact same genes - all the while other non-echolocating bats of the same species somehow end up living in circumstances where suddenly echolocation is the big difference, and dying out.
You could also look at the dinosaurs - hundreds of millions of years of evolution, and they get wiped out in a freak incident that mammals just so happen to be better suited to surviving, and thus end up top of the evolutionary scale. Pure chance, that's all it is.
This doesn't prove that evolution does not exist, simply that our understanding of it is very, very basic. I do not believe in an omniscient creator being watching us in every moment - but I firmly believe that there is some sort of higher force that human brains will never be able to comprehend in entirety.
Totally get this point of view. There's a long-billed hummingbird in South America that's totally dependent on a trumpet-flowered plant for its survival. Equally the plant is solely dependent on the hummingbird for its pollination and ability to survive. Science goes some way to explain that, creation does too. I think too often there's a competition between creation and science that's so unnecessary. As a Christian I love the explanation that science offers, notwithstanding that it seems to change its mind every 5 minutes. Prefer the balance to the competition.
That'll be because of a thing called "learning", rather than being stuck with the teachings of a book written 600 years after the events, by people with a vested interest in controlling the masses, and never progressing from there. I only recently found out about the books that were left out of the bible, because the editors didn't like what they said...
Religion and religious teachings are all about control.
Sorry, that is completely untrue. The books that were "left out of the bible" were never part of the original cannon. Many of them are clearly not in line with what the bible teaches and the authorship of them has never been established. I don't see my faith as a way of being controlled. I wish I could convey they immense freedom I've had since coming to faith. Christianity isn't about rigid rules and rituals, it is about a relationship with God and that is all God is after. I know that God doesn't seek to control me but created me to be me and helps me be who I am, truly unique.
Q 1) Who decided they were never part of the original cannon?
A) The people who put the bible together the way they wanted it 600 years after the events.
Q 2) Who decided they were not in line with what the bible teaches (a book full of slayings, stonings, murder, revenge etc)?
A) The people who put the bible together the way they wanted it 600 years after the events.
Christianity does a great impression of being ALL about rigid rules and rituals - ten commandments anyone? (That's commandments, not "suggestions" or "requests"). Incense and Sunday services, prayers, icons, wine, wafers... need I go on?
A "good book" jam packed with threats as to what will happen to you if you stray outside the "true path"?
The whole of the Church of England was born out of the King's recognition of the power that threatening people with what might happen to them in the next life if they don't accept the current shit can bring.
The Catholic church that tells you there is one redeemer, but allows priests to "forgive" you?
The same church that has threatened scientists with excommunication for proving their "facts" wrong, before moving the goalposts in line with scientific fact years after with a bit of ducking and diving...
A commandment that tells you not to worship "Graven Idols", when both churches are packed with them...
I know there are Baptists and Methodists and other Christian groups out there, but most are indoctrinated by the two main players, and neither they nor any of the others make any sense to me.
I can see how it doesn't make any sense to you, believe me. Bible scholars to this day discuss the authorship of scripture and for me, if it doesn't convey the message of the God of love that I serve alarm bells start to ring. Some of these 'left out books' do not even match the writing style of their supposed author. Jesus came to turn the whole idea of controlling people with religious beliefs upside down (have you read any of the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke or John)). People were in bondage from some of the distorted teachings of those who were only interested in preserving their 'holy' image and maintaining their status as leaders in communities. Yes, bad things happen if we 'go off path' as part of life's natural sequence of circumstances. But we all know that. The guidelines that are given are for my own good. I know that if I take drugs for example, that I am harming myself and potentially pushing myself towards an early grave. If you have children, do you let them do whatever they like or do you set them guidelines? God sees so much more of the big picture than out tiny minds could ever comprehend.
I'm not part of the CofE and know nothing of it's history. The Catholic church's way of having priests forgiving sin is something I find a bit strange as I believe that only God has that power. I'd never accept that I've been forgiven or cleansed by a human being. What graven idols are churches packed with? God was warning his people to trust in the one true God and not to worship things they had created themselves (seems to make sense to me). We have crosses in churches, but these are not objects of worship and are symbols of the love of Jesus.
Finally, the bible teaches that we can't do anything to earn our salvation. It says, "It is by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing." Meaning that no amount of Sunday Services, Evangelism, 'kind gestures' or 'following commandments' keeps us 'on the good path'. It is simply through believing.
Quite often I hear that people don't want 'religion' rammed down their throats but I wonder if the same people have an issue with the likes of Dawkins who are extremely aggressive in putting their views across? If that were an evangelical minister or missionary would it be different? It seems that that is acceptable to people which surprises me because that is his faith or belief or whatever and is put across as 'fact'. Who am I to tell you all that what you believe is rubbish? I very rarely talk about my faith. I live my life and hope that maybe others can experience the purpose, sense of direction, peace, fulfilment, joy etc that I've found and cannot be found in science or money or drugs or anything else I've seen. I guess these are things that I feel faith in Jesus has to offer and would love to share it with others as it is life changing (I have seen it change lives and that can't be denied). What he seems to offer is hostility with nothing worthwhile with the potential to make a positive difference in a person's life. For example, some people come to faith in Jesus and aren't able to kick their drug addiction or depression. But I've seen many that have managed it through their faith. As far as I'm concerned, that alone means that it is well worth sharing my beliefs with others if I sincerely believe it could be for that person's good and not to conform them to my way of thinking or living.
I whole heartedly agree with you about the importance of faith and how having Jesus in your life can heal us in more ways than we can logically explain, I do think that others have to find their own way, whether one day, like me it all starts to make sense and they open their minds and their hearts to The Lord or not. It's their path and it's their choosing. I'm bringing my children up in the church they go to Sunday school, messy church etc, they have all been christened and will all be confirmed, however if they ever say they don't want to go, I don't force them, my eldest, chose playing football over going to church I supported her with this, she now goes back to church sometimes by her own choice and is doing confirmation classes again by her own choice. My husband went to church when the kids were christened but refuses to go any other time, again I respect that. I don't like Jehovah's witnesses knocking on my door anymore than my atheist friends like being quoted the bible and being "preached" to.
I believe in heaven and hell as do all Christians but I believe that God will judge us it is not for us to judge or condemn people, Christians do some wonderful selfless things and it's a community I feel proud to be part of but there are people that have no religious beliefs that do an awful lot of good amazing things, I'm pretty sure they'll be granted their place in heaven regardless of their lack of faith, the difference between the out look they have leading up to their death.
I also believe you don't have to go to church to believe in God, there are many different ways to worship and a prayer at home is just as effective.
In short, although I agree that having faith helps everyone and know that has helped people fight demons such as drug abuse, it is not our place to tell people what to believe, you can give people the tools they need and be there to give advice and guidance if they ask for it but the path they choose to take is their decision, we were all blessed with good minds and thought processes and hearts and free will, we were made with the ability to make our own choices so why try and change that?
Sadie, I think I agree with absolutely everything you've said and really enjoyed reading your post. The only way to find Jesus is by him revealing himself, whether that's through actually seeking or something really direct. I don't yet have children, but will do pretty much what you're doing, raising your children to know the Lord, yet not standing in their way if they decided they don't want to and I really disagree with Jehovah's Witnesses and NEVER preach at people. Your contributions to this discussion have been an encouragement to me.
You have to admit it makes an interesting discussion. While I agree 100% with the people who have found confort through faith (no matter what exactly they have found faith in!) the arguement about having atheism rammed down your throat is one I find a bit silly, as you'd have to hunt around to find books about it, and the TV does'nt exactly fill up with Dawkins celebrations, whereas as was previously mentioned, the WW1 celebrations were all relegious, not humanist, so there's not much pandering to the opposition. Just to make myself look a bit silly, I will freely admit I love all the aspects of christmas. I live in Spain but have made sure my kids know Good King Wenceslas and Deck the Halls, Christmas pudding and crackers, and they get the original christmas story around then too. The drawback is that I don't give it much more credence tan the Santa Claus story, but that's just me.
You have to admit it makes an interesting discussion. While I agree 100% with the people who have found confort through faith (no matter what exactly they have found faith in!) the arguement about having atheism rammed down your throat is one I find a bit silly, as you'd have to hunt around to find books about it, and the TV does'nt exactly fill up with Dawkins celebrations, whereas as was previously mentioned, the WW1 celebrations were all relegious, not humanist, so there's not much pandering to the opposition. Just to make myself look a bit silly, I will freely admit I love all the aspects of christmas. I live in Spain but have made sure my kids know Good King Wenceslas and Deck the Halls, Christmas pudding and crackers, and they get the original christmas story around then too. The drawback is that I don't give it much more credence tan the Santa Claus story, but that's just me.
Thanks for your response. This is a really interesting discussion. I know atheists who are a lot more opinionated and outspoken about their beliefs than any of my Christian friends. I have worked in an office with two other Christians and two non believers and who do you think brought up the subject of religion? It was the atheist and her non believing friend and it was Dawkins brand atheism that they displayed with the type of 'zeal' that would be widely condemned had it been from a Christian. The fact that there a Christian celebrations broadcast on television? Well, what do you expect? This is a country which has a history of being a Christian nation and beyond Songs of Praise with their prime time (not) slot of 5pm or whatever it is on a Sunday afternoon, I don't see how media is filled with Christian views. You do not have to watch Songs of Praise. You can switch it over. There are four other terrestrial television channels that will not have anything faith based on them and literally hundreds of other channels on SKY if you want religion free viewing. Or has it now come to the point where it is now offensive to display anything concerning beliefs on television unless it is atheism? I don't think that is what you are saying but Christianity hardly dominates the airwaves.
I was brought up as a Catholic but as soon as I was old enough to think for myself I became an atheist and I am about 99.9% confident that I am right. However I would never try to impose my beliefs on anyone else and for that reason I can't abide anyone trying to change my beliefs.
What sparked creation ?
I have absolutely no idea and wouldn't even begin to try to understand how life or anything is possible. That way madness lies.
Nonsense.
There are several scientific theories about how life originated - including panspermia, conditions being favourable for it on 3.5 billion year old Earth (or elsewhere in the case of panspermia) and random chance. In fact, random chance has the best mathematical odds of being the origination of creation, since there are an almost infinite number of planets orbiting round an almost infinite number of stars circulating in an almost infinite number of galaxies residing in an almost inifinite number of universes.
E and F. I am an atheist but I hate people who belittle others because they have a faith as much as I hate those with a faith preaching to others. Atheism has become a religion in itself to many people, and it's prophets are Hitchens (Peace be upon him) and Dawkins.
I have never seen or heard Richard Dawkins "preaching" atheism. He merely spends his time countering the nonsense spouted by all religions. There is a very big difference.
E and F. I am an atheist but I hate people who belittle others because they have a faith as much as I hate those with a faith preaching to others. Atheism has become a religion in itself to many people, and it's prophets are Hitchens (Peace be upon him) and Dawkins.
I have never seen or heard Richard Dawkins "preaching" atheism. He merely spends his time countering the nonsense spouted by all religions. There is a very big difference.
He does it in such an insufferable way though, Dawkins is a complete and total self righteous arsehole and most people, even atheists such as myself, acknowledge that.
I was brought up as a Catholic but as soon as I was old enough to think for myself I became an atheist and I am about 99.9% confident that I am right. However I would never try to impose my beliefs on anyone else and for that reason I can't abide anyone trying to change my beliefs.
What sparked creation ?
I have absolutely no idea and wouldn't even begin to try to understand how life or anything is possible. That way madness lies.
Nonsense.
There are several scientific theories about how life originated - including panspermia, conditions being favourable for it on 3.5 billion year old Earth (or elsewhere in the case of panspermia) and random chance. In fact, random chance has the best mathematical odds of being the origination of creation, since there are an almost infinite number of planets orbiting round an almost infinite number of stars circulating in an almost infinite number of galaxies residing in an almost inifinite number of universes.
Isn't that the point though? All theories. If anybody can find conclusive proof during my lifetime I'll be amazed.
I was brought up as a Catholic but as soon as I was old enough to think for myself I became an atheist and I am about 99.9% confident that I am right. However I would never try to impose my beliefs on anyone else and for that reason I can't abide anyone trying to change my beliefs.
What sparked creation ?
We don't know. But there was a time we don't know why the sun rose in the sky and said a god or god did it. To say because we don't know it must be god is horrifically lazy and wilfully ignorant.
We are the universe trying to understand itself. If a god or almighty being does exist, he almost certainly doesn't know who we are or if he did he probably doesn't give a shit about us.
Personally I believe that we come from the same elements and atoms as the stars and will return to being like that when we die. I don't find it depressing at all, in fact I think that's a lot more awesome than an eternity of bliss (if there is such a possible thing).
E and F. I am an atheist but I hate people who belittle others because they have a faith as much as I hate those with a faith preaching to others. Atheism has become a religion in itself to many people, and it's prophets are Hitchens (Peace be upon him) and Dawkins.
I have never seen or heard Richard Dawkins "preaching" atheism. He merely spends his time countering the nonsense spouted by all religions. There is a very big difference.
He does it in such an insufferable way though, Dawkins is a complete and total self righteous arsehole and most people, even atheists such as myself, acknowledge that.
I don't find him at all insufferable and I'm an atheist.
E and F. I am an atheist but I hate people who belittle others because they have a faith as much as I hate those with a faith preaching to others. Atheism has become a religion in itself to many people, and it's prophets are Hitchens (Peace be upon him) and Dawkins.
I have never seen or heard Richard Dawkins "preaching" atheism. He merely spends his time countering the nonsense spouted by all religions. There is a very big difference.
He does it in such an insufferable way though, Dawkins is a complete and total self righteous arsehole and most people, even atheists such as myself, acknowledge that.
I don't find him at all insufferable and I'm an atheist.
Well there you go. I suppose that's the point about religion, everyone has their own view! When I was younger I was a lot like Dawkins, a massive anti theist who would go on at anyone with a religion, shouting them down for being wrong and being an idiot, then I (in my opinion) grew up a bit and decided to live and let live. As a consequence Dawkins embarrasses me, as an atheist.
I never, ever have the right to talk down to someone and tell them that they are wrong and that I am right when it comes to faith. Faith is personal, I can not attack you for your faith and you cannot attack me for mine. More than anything else, it does absolutely no good. How many people do you think Dawkins has won over to the atheist persuasion? My guess is the square root of zero, he is just posturing to fan boys, and putting himself forward as the prophet of atheism. If you actually read everything that he says, he is just a loud, over opinionated bellend.
If you could influence people to change religion over 140 characters on Twitter, Dawkins would be fabulous, but the only people that actually listen to him are other atheists, that in my eyes, is a religious leader.
I'm with Stephen Hawking: "God was not needed to create the universe".
There are, also, others who are much more capable than I am of putting into words certain concepts. So I'm indebted to Frank Zappa for these quotes: "My best advice to anyone who wants to raise a happy, mentally healthy child is: Keep him or her as far away from a church as you can." “Take the Kama Sutra. How many people died from the Kama Sutra as opposed to the Bible? Who wins?” “The essence of Christianity is told us in the Garden of Eden history. The fruit that was forbidden was on the tree of knowledge. The subtext is, All the suffering you have is because you wanted to find out what was going on. You could be in the Garden of Eden if you had just keep your fucking mouth shut and hadn't asked any questions.” “Music is the only religion that delivers the goods.”
E and F. I am an atheist but I hate people who belittle others because they have a faith as much as I hate those with a faith preaching to others. Atheism has become a religion in itself to many people, and it's prophets are Hitchens (Peace be upon him) and Dawkins.
I have never seen or heard Richard Dawkins "preaching" atheism. He merely spends his time countering the nonsense spouted by all religions. There is a very big difference.
He does it in such an insufferable way though, Dawkins is a complete and total self righteous arsehole and most people, even atheists such as myself, acknowledge that.
I don't find him at all insufferable and I'm an atheist.
Well there you go. I suppose that's the point about religion, everyone has their own view! When I was younger I was a lot like Dawkins, a massive anti theist who would go on at anyone with a religion, shouting them down for being wrong and being an idiot, then I (in my opinion) grew up a bit and decided to live and let live. As a consequence Dawkins embarrasses me, as an atheist.
I never, ever have the right to talk down to someone and tell them that they are wrong and that I am right when it comes to faith. Faith is personal, I can not attack you for your faith and you cannot attack me for mine. More than anything else, it does absolutely no good. How many people do you think Dawkins has won over to the atheist persuasion? My guess is the square root of zero, he is just posturing to fan boys, and putting himself forward as the prophet of atheism. If you actually read everything that he says, he is just a loud, over opinionated bellend.
If you could influence people to change religion over 140 characters on Twitter, Dawkins would be fabulous, but the only people that actually listen to him are other atheists, that in my eyes, is a religious leader.
What a load of horseshit. People only find Dawkins threatening because he speaks with such clarity. That in turn makes the person(s) he is debating with look like idiots.
And I'm sure Dawkin's presence has made many people question their beliefs for the better
I was brought up as a Catholic but as soon as I was old enough to think for myself I became an atheist and I am about 99.9% confident that I am right. However I would never try to impose my beliefs on anyone else and for that reason I can't abide anyone trying to change my beliefs.
What sparked creation ?
I have absolutely no idea and wouldn't even begin to try to understand how life or anything is possible. That way madness lies.
Nonsense.
There are several scientific theories about how life originated - including panspermia, conditions being favourable for it on 3.5 billion year old Earth (or elsewhere in the case of panspermia) and random chance. In fact, random chance has the best mathematical odds of being the origination of creation, since there are an almost infinite number of planets orbiting round an almost infinite number of stars circulating in an almost infinite number of galaxies residing in an almost inifinite number of universes.
Isn't that the point though? All theories. If anybody can find conclusive proof during my lifetime I'll be amazed.
True. But what you do when you approach a problem scientifically is to postulate a theory, then find evidence to support it, or evidence that disproves it. As opposed to the religious approach - which is bascially to listen to what someone tells you and believe it despite there being no evidence.
Quite often I hear that people don't want 'religion' rammed down their throats but I wonder if the same people have an issue with the likes of Dawkins who are extremely aggressive in putting their views across? If that were an evangelical minister or missionary would it be different? It seems that that is acceptable to people which surprises me because that is his faith or belief or whatever and is put across as 'fact'. Who am I to tell you all that what you believe is rubbish? I very rarely talk about my faith. I live my life and hope that maybe others can experience the purpose, sense of direction, peace, fulfilment, joy etc that I've found and cannot be found in science or money or drugs or anything else I've seen. I guess these are things that I feel faith in Jesus has to offer and would love to share it with others as it is life changing (I have seen it change lives and that can't be denied). What he seems to offer is hostility with nothing worthwhile with the potential to make a positive difference in a person's life. For example, some people come to faith in Jesus and aren't able to kick their drug addiction or depression. But I've seen many that have managed it through their faith. As far as I'm concerned, that alone means that it is well worth sharing my beliefs with others if I sincerely believe it could be for that person's good and not to conform them to my way of thinking or living.
oh dear.... I'm not really sure where to start with this
as i say, i live in a city where around half the white population (around 150 people) are missionary and clearly hold the type of beliefs that you describe at the end of your message.
can you at least see how, as the question is by necessity full of uncertainty, your position comes across as arrogant?
am sure you a lovely person. most Christians i know are... but... for you to think you have a duty to encourage people to think the same way as you is a bit too much for me
E and F. I am an atheist but I hate people who belittle others because they have a faith as much as I hate those with a faith preaching to others. Atheism has become a religion in itself to many people, and it's prophets are Hitchens (Peace be upon him) and Dawkins.
I have never seen or heard Richard Dawkins "preaching" atheism. He merely spends his time countering the nonsense spouted by all religions. There is a very big difference.
He does it in such an insufferable way though, Dawkins is a complete and total self righteous arsehole and most people, even atheists such as myself, acknowledge that.
I don't find him at all insufferable and I'm an atheist.
.......How many people do you think Dawkins has won over to the atheist persuasion?......
When does he try to do that? He is simply one of the leading world thinkers who is not afraid to articulate against the insufferable medieval nonsense that still plagues the world today.
In my opinion we show too much tolerance to religions and religious leaders in europe and the US. I love it when he aggressively ridicules and dismantles the absolute tosh spouted by Archbishops, imans, rabbis, priests, and other religious leaders on TV.
The notion that people who stand up and declare themselves to be atheists are no different to evangenical christians or muslim fundamentalists is lazy and plain wrong.
You have to admit it makes an interesting discussion. While I agree 100% with the people who have found confort through faith (no matter what exactly they have found faith in!) the arguement about having atheism rammed down your throat is one I find a bit silly, as you'd have to hunt around to find books about it, and the TV does'nt exactly fill up with Dawkins celebrations, whereas as was previously mentioned, the WW1 celebrations were all relegious, not humanist, so there's not much pandering to the opposition. Just to make myself look a bit silly, I will freely admit I love all the aspects of christmas. I live in Spain but have made sure my kids know Good King Wenceslas and Deck the Halls, Christmas pudding and crackers, and they get the original christmas story around then too. The drawback is that I don't give it much more credence tan the Santa Claus story, but that's just me.
Thanks for your response. This is a really interesting discussion. I know atheists who are a lot more opinionated and outspoken about their beliefs than any of my Christian friends. I have worked in an office with two other Christians and two non believers and who do you think brought up the subject of religion? It was the atheist and her non believing friend and it was Dawkins brand atheism that they displayed with the type of 'zeal' that would be widely condemned had it been from a Christian. The fact that there a Christian celebrations broadcast on television? Well, what do you expect? This is a country which has a history of being a Christian nation and beyond Songs of Praise with their prime time (not) slot of 5pm or whatever it is on a Sunday afternoon, I don't see how media is filled with Christian views. You do not have to watch Songs of Praise. You can switch it over. There are four other terrestrial television channels that will not have anything faith based on them and literally hundreds of other channels on SKY if you want religion free viewing. Or has it now come to the point where it is now offensive to display anything concerning beliefs on television unless it is atheism? I don't think that is what you are saying but Christianity hardly dominates the airwaves.
I think one of the major problems people have with religion nowadays is that it's so transparently a tool to extract money from the poor and gullible. On the days when i don't bike it into work, I have to get the tube to and emerge at Oxford Circus to be greeted by a bunch of God Botherers foisting religious pamphlets upon me, and run the gauntlet of signs saying 'what does the bible teach us?'. Then, less than 500 yards down the road as I turn the corner to the street my office is on, I walk past the Brazilian consulate building, where the brainwashed UCKG cult members are busy pushing the same shit on people in Portugese. I've yet to see a bunch of people standing there handing out leaflets saying 'God doesn't exist'. Four years ago I went to a holy communion celebration where they had not one, but TWO collections for the pope's visit to Britain. Millions were donated to the Catholic church by the gullible folks of the UK, and millions more spent by UK taxpayers on the visit in the form of security, policing and administration. All this for an institution that pays no taxes and has literally billions in cash and assets?
Quite often I hear that people don't want 'religion' rammed down their throats but I wonder if the same people have an issue with the likes of Dawkins who are extremely aggressive in putting their views across? If that were an evangelical minister or missionary would it be different? It seems that that is acceptable to people which surprises me because that is his faith or belief or whatever and is put across as 'fact'. Who am I to tell you all that what you believe is rubbish? I very rarely talk about my faith. I live my life and hope that maybe others can experience the purpose, sense of direction, peace, fulfilment, joy etc that I've found and cannot be found in science or money or drugs or anything else I've seen. I guess these are things that I feel faith in Jesus has to offer and would love to share it with others as it is life changing (I have seen it change lives and that can't be denied). What he seems to offer is hostility with nothing worthwhile with the potential to make a positive difference in a person's life. For example, some people come to faith in Jesus and aren't able to kick their drug addiction or depression. But I've seen many that have managed it through their faith. As far as I'm concerned, that alone means that it is well worth sharing my beliefs with others if I sincerely believe it could be for that person's good and not to conform them to my way of thinking or living.
oh dear.... I'm not really sure where to start with this
as i say, i live in a city where around half the white population (around 150 people) are missionary and clearly hold the type of beliefs that you describe at the end of your message.
can you at least see how, as the question is by necessity full of uncertainty, your position comes across as arrogant?
am sure you a lovely person. most Christians i know are... but... for you to think you have a duty to encourage people to think the same way as you is a bit too much for me
sorry
Hi there. I don't really see how it comes across as arrogant or full of uncertainty. I am certain that people's lives have been changed through putting their faith in Jesus. Am I certain that everyone's experience will be the same as mine or anyone else's? No. I know that there is hope in this message, so why should I not be open about something that has the potential to make a huge difference in someone's life. I think that would just be selfish. My way of showing it isn't even by telling people. I just live my daily life and when I'm asked how I deal with situations or how I can be so at peace, fulfilled and happy, then I will tell them. I'm not into telling people who don't want to know.
I wouldn't want people to think the same way as me. How can I put across what I've seen? I've seen people have their lives transformed from drug addiction, crime, depression. It has worked for many and will continue to work for many, many more. Should I keep that to myself?
Also, my point about Dawkins is that he, without question is an evangelist of atheism. He backed a campaign to have atheist views displayed on the side of London buses! If that's not in your face evangelism and arrogance, I don't know what is.
I read a really interesting article in the Times last month by Matt Ridley which I have copied and pasted below. I was particularly shocked and embarassed to read (embarassed because I have always felt proud to be living in an essentially secular society).
Britain is one of only four countries in the world to allow religious selection in admissions to state-funded schools. The others are Estonia, Ireland and Israel.
Anglicans and atheists, unite against intolerance Matt Ridley
The excesses of the Trojan Horse scandal would be allowed in faith schools. Religious practice has no place in education
We now know from Peter Clarke’s report, published today but leaked last week, that there was indeed “co-ordinated, deliberate and sustained action to introduce an intolerant and aggressive Islamist ethos into some schools” in Birmingham.
Whistleblowers first approached the British Humanist Association in January with such allegations, weeks before the appearance of the Trojan Horse letter. The BHA (of which I should declare I am a “distinguished supporter” though I’ve never done much to deserve this accolade) properly passed on the information to the Department for Education.
Pavan Dhaliwal, of the BHA, has made the awkward point that much of what went on in the Park View Trust schools would have been permissible if the schools had been designated “faith schools”. The BHA campaigns against the very existence of state-funded faith schools, pointing out that Britain is one of only four countries in the world to allow religious selection in admissions to state-funded schools. The others are Estonia, Ireland and Israel.
In short, we can hardly be shocked to find religious indoctrination going on in some schools if we encourage segregation on the basis of faith. Since 2000 the proportion of secondary schools that are legally religious has increased by 20 per cent, and their freedom of action has greatly increased. The best way to prevent young girls in Birmingham being told that “if a woman said no to sex with her husband then angels would punish her from dusk till dawn”, as happened in Birmingham, is to leave religious practice — though not education about religion — out of school altogether.
I know such a view is considered intolerant, even bigoted — a charge frequently levelled at non-believers. “The trouble with that Richard Dawkins”, a lay preacher said to me some years ago, “is that he’s welcome to his views, but I don’t like him forcing them on others.” Passing up the temptation to point out his own hypocrisy as a preacher, I gently reminded him that, whereas I had to go to prayers or chapel every day at my school, nobody has ever been forced to read Richard Dawkins on atheism.
August sees a great global gathering of atheists and humanists in Oxford for the World Humanist Congress, the first time this body has met in Britain since 1978. Professor Dawkins will be on the stage, along with a galaxy of infidel stars, including the Nobel prizewinner Wole Soyinka, Philip Pullman, Jim al-Khalili, Nick Clegg and the Bangladeshi blogger Asif Mohiddun, who was attacked and stabbed in the back, shoulder and chest by a group of radical religious fundamentalists because of his criticism of Islam.
Not there in person will be Mubarak Bala, the Nigerian detained on a psychiatric ward for being an atheist, whose case has been highlighted by the International Humanist Ethical Union. His father had Mr Bala sectioned for expressing doubts about religion and he got out, two weeks ago, only because of a strike at the hospital. Nor will Alexander Aan— the scientist in Indonesia who was arrested and imprisoned for two years for expressing doubts about God — be present. But many similar activists from Africa and Asia will be there, including Gululai Ismail, who runs the Aware Girls project in northwest Pakistan, challenging patriarchy and religious extremism, and under constant threat of violence. It was her organisation that Malala Yousafzai was working for when shot by the Taliban.
It is clear that the kind of rational scepticism that we British have been tolerating for three centuries is resulting in terrible persecution throughout the Muslim world, and it is getting worse. I say we tolerate atheism here, and we do, but still grudgingly. Atheists lose count of the number of times we are told we are lacking in imagination and wonder, or that we just don’t see the human need for spirituality, or that we must have trouble justifying morality.
British Christians are generally prepared to be much ruder about atheism than they are about Islam. Some of the stuff Professor Dawkins has to read about himself would be condemned as hate speech if said about a Muslim. This is partly because atheists do not threaten our critics with violence, whereas any “Islamophobic” remark or cartoon leads to death threats. It is also because Christians are continually trying to make common cause with other religions in defence of “faith” as a source of morality and harmony in the world. Did I dream it, or did a recent archbishop muse about the virtues of Sharia?
Anglicanism is a mild and attenuated form of the faith virus and may even act as a vaccine against more virulent infections, but Christianity is becoming more evangelical in response to its global competition with Islam. This has always happened in religious history: where religions compete, they become more extreme — the crusades, the 30-years war, Ulster.
So for all the pious talk of “faith communities”, the two religions are not on the same side. To combat the rise of radical Islam and radical Christianity, we should try the secular, free-thinking approach. Mild Anglicanism should make common cause with humanists in defence of tolerance.
The experience of the past three centuries is that if lots of people stop believing in gods, they do not become less moral. On the contrary, the number of people attending church has gone down at about the same rate as the number of people who commit violent crimes. I am not suggesting a causal connection — though I suspect religious people would if the trends were different — but these facts give the lie to the idea that godlessness leads to immorality. (And don’t tell me that communist regimes were irreligious — they enforced a worship of their leaders with all the techniques and fervour of religion.)
Unlike the almost triumphalist mood among atheists in the 1960s, when Francis Crick foresaw the end of religion and started a competition for what to do with the college chapels in Cambridge, rationalists no longer expect to get rid of religion altogether by explaining life and matter: they aim only to tame it instead, and to protect children from it. Nonetheless, they are slowly winning: witness the fact that more than 12 per cent of funerals in this country are now humanist in some form. And humanists are showing no signs of turning intolerant, let alone violent.
When people on the street ask me if I'd like to learn about Jesus my reply is "would you like to learn about Charlton Athletic?" And then just quote stats at them until they go away.
Quite often I hear that people don't want 'religion' rammed down their throats but I wonder if the same people have an issue with the likes of Dawkins who are extremely aggressive in putting their views across? If that were an evangelical minister or missionary would it be different? It seems that that is acceptable to people which surprises me because that is his faith or belief or whatever and is put across as 'fact'. Who am I to tell you all that what you believe is rubbish? I very rarely talk about my faith. I live my life and hope that maybe others can experience the purpose, sense of direction, peace, fulfilment, joy etc that I've found and cannot be found in science or money or drugs or anything else I've seen. I guess these are things that I feel faith in Jesus has to offer and would love to share it with others as it is life changing (I have seen it change lives and that can't be denied). What he seems to offer is hostility with nothing worthwhile with the potential to make a positive difference in a person's life. For example, some people come to faith in Jesus and aren't able to kick their drug addiction or depression. But I've seen many that have managed it through their faith. As far as I'm concerned, that alone means that it is well worth sharing my beliefs with others if I sincerely believe it could be for that person's good and not to conform them to my way of thinking or living.
oh dear.... I'm not really sure where to start with this
as i say, i live in a city where around half the white population (around 150 people) are missionary and clearly hold the type of beliefs that you describe at the end of your message.
can you at least see how, as the question is by necessity full of uncertainty, your position comes across as arrogant?
am sure you a lovely person. most Christians i know are... but... for you to think you have a duty to encourage people to think the same way as you is a bit too much for me
sorry
Hi there. I don't really see how it comes across as arrogant or full of uncertainty. I am certain that people's lives have been changed through putting their faith in Jesus. Am I certain that everyone's experience will be the same as mine or anyone else's? No. I know that there is hope in this message, so why should I not be open about something that has the potential to make a huge difference in someone's life. I think that would just be selfish. My way of showing it isn't even by telling people. I just live my daily life and when I'm asked how I deal with situations or how I can be so at peace, fulfilled and happy, then I will tell them. I'm not into telling people who don't want to know.
I wouldn't want people to think the same way as me. How can I put across what I've seen? I've seen people have their lives transformed from drug addiction, crime, depression. It has worked for many and will continue to work for many, many more. Should I keep that to myself?
Also, my point about Dawkins is that he, without question is an evangelist of atheism. He backed a campaign to have atheist views displayed on the side of London buses! If that's not in your face evangelism and arrogance, I don't know what is.
hey. am not interested in dawkins and didn't mention him. am also not atheist.
what piqued my interest in your viewpoint and prompted me to respond to you was the arrogance i perceived in someone (like my missionary pals) who believe they can see "The Truth" and feel the need to share it with others for their own good at every available opportunity.
can you see my point yet? can you see how that would seem arrogant to some/me?
You have to admit it makes an interesting discussion. While I agree 100% with the people who have found confort through faith (no matter what exactly they have found faith in!) the arguement about having atheism rammed down your throat is one I find a bit silly, as you'd have to hunt around to find books about it, and the TV does'nt exactly fill up with Dawkins celebrations, whereas as was previously mentioned, the WW1 celebrations were all relegious, not humanist, so there's not much pandering to the opposition. Just to make myself look a bit silly, I will freely admit I love all the aspects of christmas. I live in Spain but have made sure my kids know Good King Wenceslas and Deck the Halls, Christmas pudding and crackers, and they get the original christmas story around then too. The drawback is that I don't give it much more credence tan the Santa Claus story, but that's just me.
Thanks for your response. This is a really interesting discussion. I know atheists who are a lot more opinionated and outspoken about their beliefs than any of my Christian friends. I have worked in an office with two other Christians and two non believers and who do you think brought up the subject of religion? It was the atheist and her non believing friend and it was Dawkins brand atheism that they displayed with the type of 'zeal' that would be widely condemned had it been from a Christian. The fact that there a Christian celebrations broadcast on television? Well, what do you expect? This is a country which has a history of being a Christian nation and beyond Songs of Praise with their prime time (not) slot of 5pm or whatever it is on a Sunday afternoon, I don't see how media is filled with Christian views. You do not have to watch Songs of Praise. You can switch it over. There are four other terrestrial television channels that will not have anything faith based on them and literally hundreds of other channels on SKY if you want religion free viewing. Or has it now come to the point where it is now offensive to display anything concerning beliefs on television unless it is atheism? I don't think that is what you are saying but Christianity hardly dominates the airwaves.
I think one of the major problems people have with religion nowadays is that it's so transparently a tool to extract money from the poor and gullible. On the days when i don't bike it into work, I have to get the tube to and emerge at Oxford Circus to be greeted by a bunch of God Botherers foisting religious pamphlets upon me, and run the gauntlet of signs saying 'what does the bible teach us?'. Then, less than 500 yards down the road as I turn the corner to the street my office is on, I walk past the Brazilian consulate building, where the brainwashed UCKG cult members are busy pushing the same shit on people in Portugese. I've yet to see a bunch of people standing there handing out leaflets saying 'God doesn't exist'. Four years ago I went to a holy communion celebration where they had not one, but TWO collections for the pope's visit to Britain. Millions were donated to the Catholic church by the gullible folks of the UK, and millions more spent by UK taxpayers on the visit in the form of security, policing and administration. All this for an institution that pays no taxes and has literally billions in cash and assets?
I'm sorry to hear about your experiences but cannot comment on the Catholic church's activity as I don't know a lot about it and don't subscribe to a lot of what I do know. Why should the Pope be paid to go to different countries? I have no idea. I'm sure there are people who abuse their position in religion, including Christian churches for their own financial gain but Christianity is fundamentally about looking after those who are downtrodden, poor and needy. The idea that it is there to take money from poor people couldn't be further from the truth. The bible teaches that no amount of physical possessions, including money can satisfy or fulfil us and that we are to give to the poor. I really think that people who say the bible is outdated really haven't actually read it. The new testament warns us against the love of money and material possessions as they don'y lead to fulfilment and encourages us to give radically of our time and money to those who are in real need. A message we really need to hear today. It is a message that is for the least and where the seemingly least significant can be and quite often is the most significant.
Comments
A) The people who put the bible together the way they wanted it 600 years after the events.
Q 2) Who decided they were not in line with what the bible teaches (a book full of slayings, stonings, murder, revenge etc)?
A) The people who put the bible together the way they wanted it 600 years after the events.
Christianity does a great impression of being ALL about rigid rules and rituals - ten commandments anyone? (That's commandments, not "suggestions" or "requests"). Incense and Sunday services, prayers, icons, wine, wafers... need I go on?
A "good book" jam packed with threats as to what will happen to you if you stray outside the "true path"?
The whole of the Church of England was born out of the King's recognition of the power that threatening people with what might happen to them in the next life if they don't accept the current shit can bring.
The Catholic church that tells you there is one redeemer, but allows priests to "forgive" you?
The same church that has threatened scientists with excommunication for proving their "facts" wrong, before moving the goalposts in line with scientific fact years after with a bit of ducking and diving...
A commandment that tells you not to worship "Graven Idols", when both churches are packed with them...
I know there are Baptists and Methodists and other Christian groups out there, but most are indoctrinated by the two main players, and neither they nor any of the others make any sense to me.
I believe in heaven and hell as do all Christians but I believe that God will judge us it is not for us to judge or condemn people, Christians do some wonderful selfless things and it's a community I feel proud to be part of but there are people that have no religious beliefs that do an awful lot of good amazing things, I'm pretty sure they'll be granted their place in heaven regardless of their lack of faith, the difference between the out look they have leading up to their death.
I also believe you don't have to go to church to believe in God, there are many different ways to worship and a prayer at home is just as effective.
In short, although I agree that having faith helps everyone and know that has helped people fight demons such as drug abuse, it is not our place to tell people what to believe, you can give people the tools they need and be there to give advice and guidance if they ask for it but the path they choose to take is their decision, we were all blessed with good minds and thought processes and hearts and free will, we were made with the ability to make our own choices so why try and change that?
I have no problem with this, I just ignore it the way I would ignore X Factor, but I am merely making a point to counter your claim that somehow you are inundated with atheism in the form of Dawkins...
I'm not part of the CofE and know nothing of it's history. The Catholic church's way of having priests forgiving sin is something I find a bit strange as I believe that only God has that power. I'd never accept that I've been forgiven or cleansed by a human being. What graven idols are churches packed with? God was warning his people to trust in the one true God and not to worship things they had created themselves (seems to make sense to me). We have crosses in churches, but these are not objects of worship and are symbols of the love of Jesus.
Finally, the bible teaches that we can't do anything to earn our salvation. It says, "It is by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing." Meaning that no amount of Sunday Services, Evangelism, 'kind gestures' or 'following commandments' keeps us 'on the good path'. It is simply through believing.
Just to make myself look a bit silly, I will freely admit I love all the aspects of christmas. I live in Spain but have made sure my kids know Good King Wenceslas and Deck the Halls, Christmas pudding and crackers, and they get the original christmas story around then too. The drawback is that I don't give it much more credence tan the Santa Claus story, but that's just me.
There are several scientific theories about how life originated - including panspermia, conditions being favourable for it on 3.5 billion year old Earth (or elsewhere in the case of panspermia) and random chance. In fact, random chance has the best mathematical odds of being the origination of creation, since there are an almost infinite number of planets orbiting round an almost infinite number of stars circulating in an almost infinite number of galaxies residing in an almost inifinite number of universes.
We are the universe trying to understand itself. If a god or almighty being does exist, he almost certainly doesn't know who we are or if he did he probably doesn't give a shit about us.
Personally I believe that we come from the same elements and atoms as the stars and will return to being like that when we die. I don't find it depressing at all, in fact I think that's a lot more awesome than an eternity of bliss (if there is such a possible thing).
I never, ever have the right to talk down to someone and tell them that they are wrong and that I am right when it comes to faith. Faith is personal, I can not attack you for your faith and you cannot attack me for mine. More than anything else, it does absolutely no good. How many people do you think Dawkins has won over to the atheist persuasion? My guess is the square root of zero, he is just posturing to fan boys, and putting himself forward as the prophet of atheism. If you actually read everything that he says, he is just a loud, over opinionated bellend.
If you could influence people to change religion over 140 characters on Twitter, Dawkins would be fabulous, but the only people that actually listen to him are other atheists, that in my eyes, is a religious leader.
There are, also, others who are much more capable than I am of putting into words certain concepts. So I'm indebted to Frank Zappa for these quotes:
"My best advice to anyone who wants to raise a happy, mentally healthy child is: Keep him or her as far away from a church as you can."
“Take the Kama Sutra. How many people died from the Kama Sutra as opposed to the Bible? Who wins?”
“The essence of Christianity is told us in the Garden of Eden history. The fruit that was forbidden was on the tree of knowledge. The subtext is, All the suffering you have is because you wanted to find out what was going on. You could be in the Garden of Eden if you had just keep your fucking mouth shut and hadn't asked any questions.”
“Music is the only religion that delivers the goods.”
Tax the churches!
And I'm sure Dawkin's presence has made many people question their beliefs for the better
as i say, i live in a city where around half the white population (around 150 people) are missionary and clearly hold the type of beliefs that you describe at the end of your message.
can you at least see how, as the question is by necessity full of uncertainty, your position comes across as arrogant?
am sure you a lovely person. most Christians i know are... but... for you to think you have a duty to encourage people to think the same way as you is a bit too much for me
sorry
In my opinion we show too much tolerance to religions and religious leaders in europe and the US. I love it when he aggressively ridicules and dismantles the absolute tosh spouted by Archbishops, imans, rabbis, priests, and other religious leaders on TV.
The notion that people who stand up and declare themselves to be atheists are no different to evangenical christians or muslim fundamentalists is lazy and plain wrong.
I wouldn't want people to think the same way as me. How can I put across what I've seen? I've seen people have their lives transformed from drug addiction, crime, depression. It has worked for many and will continue to work for many, many more. Should I keep that to myself?
Also, my point about Dawkins is that he, without question is an evangelist of atheism. He backed a campaign to have atheist views displayed on the side of London buses! If that's not in your face evangelism and arrogance, I don't know what is.
Britain is one of only four countries in the world to allow religious selection in admissions to state-funded schools. The others are Estonia, Ireland and Israel.
Anglicans and atheists, unite against intolerance
Matt Ridley
The excesses of the Trojan Horse scandal would be allowed in faith schools. Religious practice has no place in education
We now know from Peter Clarke’s report, published today but leaked last week, that there was indeed “co-ordinated, deliberate and sustained action to introduce an intolerant and aggressive Islamist ethos into some schools” in Birmingham.
Whistleblowers first approached the British Humanist Association in January with such allegations, weeks before the appearance of the Trojan Horse letter. The BHA (of which I should declare I am a “distinguished supporter” though I’ve never done much to deserve this accolade) properly passed on the information to the Department for Education.
Pavan Dhaliwal, of the BHA, has made the awkward point that much of what went on in the Park View Trust schools would have been permissible if the schools had been designated “faith schools”. The BHA campaigns against the very existence of state-funded faith schools, pointing out that Britain is one of only four countries in the world to allow religious selection in admissions to state-funded schools. The others are Estonia, Ireland and Israel.
In short, we can hardly be shocked to find religious indoctrination going on in some schools if we encourage segregation on the basis of faith. Since 2000 the proportion of secondary schools that are legally religious has increased by 20 per cent, and their freedom of action has greatly increased. The best way to prevent young girls in Birmingham being told that “if a woman said no to sex with her husband then angels would punish her from dusk till dawn”, as happened in Birmingham, is to leave religious practice — though not education about religion — out of school altogether.
I know such a view is considered intolerant, even bigoted — a charge frequently levelled at non-believers. “The trouble with that Richard Dawkins”, a lay preacher said to me some years ago, “is that he’s welcome to his views, but I don’t like him forcing them on others.” Passing up the temptation to point out his own hypocrisy as a preacher, I gently reminded him that, whereas I had to go to prayers or chapel every day at my school, nobody has ever been forced to read Richard Dawkins on atheism.
August sees a great global gathering of atheists and humanists in Oxford for the World Humanist Congress, the first time this body has met in Britain since 1978. Professor Dawkins will be on the stage, along with a galaxy of infidel stars, including the Nobel prizewinner Wole Soyinka, Philip Pullman, Jim al-Khalili, Nick Clegg and the Bangladeshi blogger Asif Mohiddun, who was attacked and stabbed in the back, shoulder and chest by a group of radical religious fundamentalists because of his criticism of Islam.
Not there in person will be Mubarak Bala, the Nigerian detained on a psychiatric ward for being an atheist, whose case has been highlighted by the International Humanist Ethical Union. His father had Mr Bala sectioned for expressing doubts about religion and he got out, two weeks ago, only because of a strike at the hospital. Nor will Alexander Aan— the scientist in Indonesia who was arrested and imprisoned for two years for expressing doubts about God — be present. But many similar activists from Africa and Asia will be there, including Gululai Ismail, who runs the Aware Girls project in northwest Pakistan, challenging patriarchy and religious extremism, and under constant threat of violence. It was her organisation that Malala Yousafzai was working for when shot by the Taliban.
It is clear that the kind of rational scepticism that we British have been tolerating for three centuries is resulting in terrible persecution throughout the Muslim world, and it is getting worse. I say we tolerate atheism here, and we do, but still grudgingly. Atheists lose count of the number of times we are told we are lacking in imagination and wonder, or that we just don’t see the human need for spirituality, or that we must have trouble justifying morality.
British Christians are generally prepared to be much ruder about atheism than they are about Islam. Some of the stuff Professor Dawkins has to read about himself would be condemned as hate speech if said about a Muslim. This is partly because atheists do not threaten our critics with violence, whereas any “Islamophobic” remark or cartoon leads to death threats. It is also because Christians are continually trying to make common cause with other religions in defence of “faith” as a source of morality and harmony in the world. Did I dream it, or did a recent archbishop muse about the virtues of Sharia?
Anglicanism is a mild and attenuated form of the faith virus and may even act as a vaccine against more virulent infections, but Christianity is becoming more evangelical in response to its global competition with Islam. This has always happened in religious history: where religions compete, they become more extreme — the crusades, the 30-years war, Ulster.
So for all the pious talk of “faith communities”, the two religions are not on the same side. To combat the rise of radical Islam and radical Christianity, we should try the secular, free-thinking approach. Mild Anglicanism should make common cause with humanists in defence of tolerance.
The experience of the past three centuries is that if lots of people stop believing in gods, they do not become less moral. On the contrary, the number of people attending church has gone down at about the same rate as the number of people who commit violent crimes. I am not suggesting a causal connection — though I suspect religious people would if the trends were different — but these facts give the lie to the idea that godlessness leads to immorality. (And don’t tell me that communist regimes were irreligious — they enforced a worship of their leaders with all the techniques and fervour of religion.)
Unlike the almost triumphalist mood among atheists in the 1960s, when Francis Crick foresaw the end of religion and started a competition for what to do with the college chapels in Cambridge, rationalists no longer expect to get rid of religion altogether by explaining life and matter: they aim only to tame it instead, and to protect children from it. Nonetheless, they are slowly winning: witness the fact that more than 12 per cent of funerals in this country are now humanist in some form. And humanists are showing no signs of turning intolerant, let alone violent.
what piqued my interest in your viewpoint and prompted me to respond to you was the arrogance i perceived in someone (like my missionary pals) who believe they can see "The Truth" and feel the need to share it with others for their own good at every available opportunity.
can you see my point yet?
can you see how that would seem arrogant to some/me?