Can someone give me a intellegent answer cause I dont get it!

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Srsly? Does anyone think Dawkins makes convincing or even well-founded arguments? His books are complete trash. The atheist community should be ashamed if Dawkins is the best it can muster.

In response to your second point, religion has moved far beyond that. While man may have once worshiped the sun because it brought light, his comprehension (and I'm using this in a very general sense) of the divine has improved and the role the divine plays in his life has become substantially more all-encompassing and complex.

I like how you clumped atheists together and complained when we clumped Christians together. Your second point is your opinion, religion continues to fester and be in objection to progress and try to creep into every part of life if possible.
My personal objection to Dawkin's is that he tries to be a general in atheist army. He forgets the basis that atheists aren't a group like Christians. We aren't a united group because we have no similar aspects other then a passive disbelief in god. I mean you don't see groups of people uniting because we don't believe in unicorns. Other then that Dawkin's is fine. I've read his book and its not bad for an English man. I mean what were you expecting? Huckleberry Fin?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[NickNaylor]

I don't have a problem with clumping Christians together - I had to make generalizations about them as well. Certainly not all Christians are as I described, but most are.

How is religion an objection to progress? Please don't try and say something along the lines of religion refusing to accept science, because that argument is old and, quite frankly, weak. Other than perhaps some kind of holy war, how is the priesthood preventing your stampede to utopia?

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

I don't have a problem with clumping Christians together - I had to make generalizations about them as well. Certainly not all Christians are as I described, but most are.

How is religion an objection to progress? Please don't try and say something along the lines of religion refusing to accept science, because that argument is old and, quite frankly, weak. Other than perhaps some kind of holy war, how is the priesthood preventing your stampede to utopia?

1)AIDs and condoms in Africa.
2) Honor killings and stoning
3) Stem cells

Must I go on?

These are all due to the religious organizations.

 

[NickNaylor]

1)AIDs and condoms in Africa.
2) Honor killings and stoning
3) Stem cells

Must I go on?

These are all due to the religious organizations.

Wow.

Is that really the best you can do?

 

[denco88]

Srsly? Does anyone think Dawkins makes convincing or even well-founded arguments? His books are complete trash. The atheist community should be ashamed if Dawkins is the best it can muster.

In response to your second point, religion has moved far beyond that. While man may have once worshiped the sun because it brought light, his comprehension (and I'm using this in a very general sense) of the divine has improved and the role the divine plays in his life has become substantially more all-encompassing and complex.

 

[Thing1]

Because religion doesn't require anything more than elementary arguments to discredit its existence. The arguments from 'intellectual' religious scholars are basically designed to give a false sense of intellectual or logical rigor to religion by shrouding it with complex pseudo-mystical language.

Strip all of that down, and it in the end, it's still comes down to an unprovable and irrational belief in some crazy psychopath in the sky. As you can imagine, it doesn't take a complex argument to counter that.

[YOUTUBE="zVG1EKf5jow"]As Hitchens says[/YOUTUBE]

This. I think it's ridiculous to call Dawkins an idiot (fwiw, he's a noted evolutionary biologist in his main profession) and his arguments aren't "elementary" just because he refuses to accept the fundamental tenets of your faith in his arguments. It's certainly possible to disagree with him, but I think his arguments are pretty strong actually.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Wow.

Is that really the best you can do?

How about we change this. Tell me why I should like religious organizations? See how I use the word organization and not the belief system itself?

 

[Thing1]

How about we change this. Tell me why I should like religious organizations? See how I use the word organization and not the belief system itself?

I've noticed that many people who usually think of atheists as idiots seem to think that you must actually disprove the existence of God in order to be an intelligent atheist

 

[NickNaylor]

How about we change this. Tell me why I should like religious organizations? See how I use the word organization and not the belief system itself?

I agree that religious organizations are inherently flawed, and I think they taint divine truth by the very fact of trying to propagate themselves. You can't attack organized religion and fairly attribute all of its weaknesses and flaws to religion generally. That said, religious organizations do a very large amount of charitable work, even if they are advancing social positions that are contentious at best. I say that with a grain of salt because, again, I think organized religion by its very existence distorts religious truth.

Thing1, I don't think all atheists are idiots by any means. I have no problem with atheists except for when their arguments are founded on flat-out incorrect generalizations/facts regarding religions, which appears to be the case with a majority of positive (i.e., active) atheists. I also have a problem when atheists evangelize and speak as if their "truth" is the only truth. I think that's just as ignorant as many of the actions religious fundamentalists do in the name of religion. The former comes across as fashionable and intelligent, but it's really no different than the latter.

 

[Hoody]

so...

I know this is about religion, but I also think that Maslow's Needs and also the basic stages of grief have a lot to do with how people cope with situations, which can include God, etc.

I'm a CCRN in a large mixed ICU (regional trauma level II). We see all sorts of crazy shiz. I am continually "shocked" by lay patient's behaviors, etc...but what I've definitely learned is that medicine is not magic, and it can be unpredictable. In general, Patients and Patients families are looking for definitive answers...and with uncertainty they use different coping mechanisms to help themselves feel better about the decisions they do make.

Basically you give the best care possible to promote optimal well being while they are physically with you. Then roll em out the door and get the room cleaned STAT cause you got a 89 year old in the ER with unstable angina going to the cath lab, a multiple MVA in which two drunk drivers hit each other head on, and a 15 year old in DKA because she didnt want to be different" and take her insulin all headed your way.

Oh, and Mrs. Kool Aid blood wants some more coffee when you get a chance.

Its wild. But I love it. And so does everyone I work with. We don't try to figure it out or understand it.....we just hope the insurance companies will.

 

[Doctor246853]

1)AIDs and condoms in Africa.
2) Honor killings and stoning
3) Stem cells

Must I go on?

These are all due to the religious organizations.

 

[Doctor246853]

This. I think it's ridiculous to call Dawkins an idiot (fwiw, he's a noted evolutionary biologist in his main profession) and his arguments aren't "elementary" just because he refuses to accept the fundamental tenets of your faith in his arguments. It's certainly possible to disagree with him, but I think his arguments are pretty strong actually.

Yeah. I dont fully agree with Dawkins but the guy is no idiot at all.

Wow.

Is that really the best you can do?

Dude? Are you serious?

 

[DrYoda]

Uhh thats not what I meant by missing out Fail? Sure buddy.

So why don't you specify what you meant? If they're not missing out on group sex and binge drinking; what exactly is it that you think is holding them back from living life to its fullest. (ignoring that everyone has their own definition of living a full life)

And before anyone pulls out the "living life like there is no tomorrow" cliche: that's a cop out answer, we're all here for a limited time and we all recognize it.

 

[NickNaylor]

Dude? Are you serious?

Yeah I'm pretty srs.

 

[IvyHopeful20]

Does anyone think Dawkins makes convincing or even well-founded arguments? .

Yes, I do.

His books are complete trash. The atheist community should be ashamed if Dawkins is the best it can muster.

Dawkins is great, even though I prefer Hitchens.

In response to your second point, religion has moved far beyond that. While man may have once worshiped the sun because it brought light, his comprehension (and I'm using this in a very general sense) of the divine has improved and the role the divine plays in his life has become substantially more all-encompassing and complex

SO instead of worshiping the Sun, people worship the invisible entity that might have created the sun. That's progress?

 

[IvyHopeful20]

The former comes across as fashionable and intelligent, but it's really no different than the latter.

You're right, saying 'I won't believe in something until there is proof' is really no different than 'This dude woke up from the grave a bunch of days after being dead and now will punish us with an eternity of torture if we stick it up the poop shoot.'

Totally equivalent.

 

[Doctor246853]

So why don't you specify what you meant? If they're not missing out on group sex and binge drinking; what exactly is it that you think is holding them back from living life to its fullest. (ignoring that everyone has their own definition of living a full life)

And before anyone pulls out the "living life like there is no tomorrow" cliche: that's a cop out answer, we're all here for a limited time and we all recognize it.

I will admit Im pretty lame. I dont "drink and have group sex". I also dont smoke or what ever other extreme health risk you might think I concider living life to the fullest. I wasnt even thinking about this quote but after reading you post this is pretty much what I mean. Cliche?Ehh. But it is pretty accurate. I mean people have negative bias feelings due to their religions. Like one could be raised in a christian church taught that gays are sinners god created adam and eve blah blah, then when they get older and see tow men/women together they dont see the person as a person but as a sinner. I only used this example cause its pretty rampid in todays society. I know not a religious ppl are bad( before you try and bash this post) but they can be "missing out" on meeting certain people in life or just having a openmind period can lead to new things. Im very openminded and just this year finally noticed how I been brain washed since I was a kid. Every time I talk to my family about this subject I get the "See thats your problem, your just like these dam scienctist, you think too much, you dont need to know everything" speech. I sit there thinking too myself (cause Im outnumbered by christians) If we didnt question everthing we wouldnt have the advances we have today and would be 'missing out' on so much. I have more examples but my wrist hurts.

 

[NickNaylor]

You're right, saying 'I won't believe in something until there is proof' is really no different than 'This dude woke up from the grave a bunch of days after being dead and now will punish us with an eternity of torture if we stick it up the poop shoot.'

Totally equivalent.

When you fairly represent the opposing argument I'll actually respond to you. Until then, go grab yourself a juice box and take a seat at the little kids table.

 

[IvyHopeful20]

That is the opposing argument for the majority of people, look at the polls about people's beliefs in the US.

 

[Tipp]

Doctor, what exactly did you mean then? Christians appear to be "limited" in that way alone, because there is a moral obligation to stay away from those things. They are not emotionally limited, and actually enjoy more freedom, most would say, because they know the forgiveness of a loving God that brings peace. They are not intillectually limited either, as science says nothing of value or purpose and is therefore distinct from and not counte-intuitive to faith. Benjamin Carson is a great example of a very intelligent physician who also believes in God. It comes down to worldviews or noetic frameworks, which say nothing at all about intelligece. A Christian merely says, "there was a man name Jesus who lived and I believe his message and life, so I have no reason to doubt the rest of the bible either, including creation" where the atheist says "science will figure it out someday". The interesting thing about this debate is that since Christ lived and died, it now takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a christian.

 

[Longshanks]

I strongly disagree with your comment about Richard Dawkins and the overall tone of your post.

Dawkins is a fool and I agree with those below. Dawkins is simply a close-minded individual with an agenda, whom without logic or reason simply has a disdain for anything religious and rather than be a true analytical scientist who studies religion and life attacks religion with the fervor of a fanatic similar to those whom he demonizes.

A much more sane view by someone who is a true scientist who utilizes a rational approach when studying religion is David Sloan Wilson, who is an atheist himself yet he doesn't succumb to the biases and fallacies/generalizations which Dawkins does.

Dawkins' arguments against religion/for atheism are elementary at best. He really is a dolt, and if anyone is convinced by his arguments then they're just too lazy to think about the topic themselves.

Dawkins is an idiot.

 

[IvyHopeful20]

Haha, how do you 'rationally' study the six day creation myth?

Sloan writes well about why religion is helpful to groups and its roots (Darwin's Cathedral), but that's a separate issue to rationally studying it's actual content and beliefs.

 

[Longshanks]

1)AIDs and condoms in Africa.
2) Honor killings and stoning
3) Stem cells

Must I go on?

These are all due to the religious organizations.

Whether it was their intention or not, and despite their eventual backlash against it during the 1600s, we would not have had the scientific revolution in the West without the Catholic Church's desire to make a more accurate calendar than the old Roman Julian calender and funding astronomers.. leading to the eventual scientific breakthroughs by Copernicus and Galileo.

edit: I only quoted your response since it was the closest on this page of the thread, but the post is mainly in response to the discussion by you, DoctorB, and Cole.

 

[IvyHopeful20]

We also would not have had the scientific revolution without the black plague.

Actually, that's pretty much what religion is.

 

[Longshanks]

Haha, how do you 'rationally' study the six day creation myth?

Sloan writes well about why religion is helpful to groups and its roots (Darwin's Cathedral), but that's a separate issue to rationally studying it's actual content and beliefs.

Not all religions are based on a "six day creation myth", and not all groups affiliated with religions are fundamentalists and practice in the same way. Dawkins and most of the atheist community seem concerned with the Western Theist Abrahamic religions, what about the various indigenous beliefs or Eastern religions?

 

[IvyHopeful20]

Not all religions are based on a "six day creation myth", and not all groups affiliated with religions are fundamentalists and practice in the same way.

Yes, there is no way to individually attack every single person's own little fiefdom of beliefs.

People who claim Dawkins is not disputing the 'reasoned' or 'intellectual' theist miss the point that the vast majority of people do not share beliefs with that relatively elite group and are much more literal minded when it comes to their respective texts.

 

[DrYoda]

I will admit Im pretty lame. I dont "drink and have group sex". I also dont smoke or what ever other extreme health risk you might think I concider living life to the fullest. I wasnt even thinking about this quote but after reading you post this is pretty much what I mean. Cliche?Ehh. But it is pretty accurate. I mean people have negative bias feelings due to their religions. Like one could be raised in a christian church taught that gays are sinners god created adam and eve blah blah, then when they get older and see tow men/women together they dont see the person as a person but as a sinner. I only used this example cause its pretty rampid in todays society. I know not a religious ppl are bad( before you try and bash this post) but they can be "missing out" on meeting certain people in life or just having a openmind period can lead to new things. Im very openminded and just this year finally noticed how I been brain washed since I was a kid. Every time I talk to my family about this subject I get the "See thats your problem, your just like these dam scienctist, you think too much, you dont need to know everything" speech. I sit there thinking too myself (cause Im outnumbered by christians) If we didnt question everthing we wouldnt have the advances we have today and would be 'missing out' on so much. I have more examples but my wrist hurts.

You do realize that your posts here overwhelmingly display the same negativity and biases you are now complaining about? Religious arguments can never be won... but if you're going to participate in one realize that commenting on the subjective quality of others' lives can't be done well and isn't going to further your cause. Sorry about your family situation by the way, that sucks.

I also wouldn't lump the religious and scientists into two separate groups. There are many religious scientists (Francis Collins, the current director of the NIH, for example).

PS: I'm an atheist.

 

[IvyHopeful20]

I also wouldn't lump the religious and scientists into two separate groups. There are many religious scientists (Francis Collins, the current director of the NIH, for example).

PS: I'm an atheist.

This is true - Newton for example was extremely religious (and considered his exploration of the Bible as more important than his work in math & physics). However, upwards of 90% of the National Academy of Sciences is atheist or agnostic. So while it's certainly possible to be both, there is an extremely strong correlation between a career as a scientist and a lack of belief in God.

 

[surftheiop]

This is true - Newton for example was extremely religious (and considered his exploration of the Bible as more important than his work in math & physics). However, upwards of 90% of the National Academy of Sciences is atheist or agnostic. So while it's certainly possible to be both, there is an extremely strong correlation between a career as a scientist and a lack of belief in God.

I don't think this is as meaningful as you make it out to be. There seems to be some drive among humans to seek and make known knowledge/truth. If someone is an atheist/agnostic then academia is the main means to that end. (I would say that arts are another, but thats a different sort of intelligence and a different approach to expressing truth, i would say)

If someone is religious then there are ton more "options" to follow that human drive and the religious may have different motivations/goals. I suspect some of the most intelligent religious minds are not in academia or even vocal debators for faith, they are probably humbly meditating in some hindu temple or feeding orphans somewhere.

 

[Thing1]

Dawkins is a fool and I agree with those below. Dawkins is simply a close-minded individual with an agenda, whom without logic or reason simply has a disdain for anything religious and rather than be a true analytical scientist who studies religion and life attacks religion with the fervor of a fanatic similar to those whom he demonizes.

A much more sane view by someone who is a true scientist who utilizes a rational approach when studying religion is David Sloan Wilson, who is an atheist himself yet he doesn't succumb to the biases and fallacies/generalizations which Dawkins does.

Um, he's written an entire book explaining his logic in disbelieving in religion as well as his reasons for disdaining it. Have you even read/skimmed it?

 

[Longshanks]

Um, he's written an entire book explaining his logic in disbelieving in religion as well as his reasons for disdaining it. Have you even read/skimmed it?

Yes, and I've watched several of his speeches.

 

[Doctor246853]

You do realize that your posts here overwhelmingly display the same negativity and biases you are now complaining about? Religious arguments can never be won... but if you're going to participate in one realize that commenting on the subjective quality of others' lives can't be done well and isn't going to further your cause. Sorry about your family situation by the way, that sucks.

I also wouldn't lump the religious and scientists into two separate groups. There are many religious scientists (Francis Collins, the current director of the NIH, for example).

PS: I'm an atheist.

Im not trying to "win" a argument. I dont want to change anyones mind/belief. It wont matter when we die anyhow. I also didnt know I came off as negative and biase. Sorry. I agree with your overall post by the way.

 

[tabascosauce]

I dont understand why religious organizations get special treatment. the pope knowingly covered for pedophiles and yet we are to turn a blind eye. the fact remains that the catholic church is the oldest 'boys only club'. religious organizations only stand to hinder any type of modernization. you need only look at the pope's response to the pedophilia scandal. he shuns away any and all signs of modernity. we need to hold this organization accountable!

 

[Thing1]

Yes, and I've watched several of his speeches.

Why would I be mad? I'm not Dawkins. But given that The God Delusion is comprised entirely of his arguments against religion, I find it hard to believe you can read it and say he has no logic or reason for not believing in religion. At least say you disagree with his arguments or something...

 

[chen an zu]

I like how you clumped atheists together and complained when we clumped Christians together. Your second point is your opinion, religion continues to fester and be in objection to progress and try to creep into every part of life if possible.
My personal objection to Dawkin's is that he tries to be a general in atheist army. He forgets the basis that atheists aren't a group like Christians. We aren't a united group because we have no similar aspects other then a passive disbelief in god. I mean you don't see groups of people uniting because we don't believe in unicorns. Other then that Dawkin's is fine. I've read his book and its not bad for an English man. I mean what were you expecting? Huckleberry Fin?

I think only a racist sees everything as a racist-micro-aggression. Likewise, I think you have to have a dog in this fight to really care one way or the other. In any case, you're wrong on a few bits.

Dawkins is, at all times, defending science against claims that evolution is not true.
If you are a premed or on a premed forum -- you probably agree with him that evolution is a fact. Now imagine you were on the receiving end of hate-mail and phone calls saying evolution is a lie created by some hocus pocus villain in another dimension to hide us from the real truth (obviously, by real truth, I mean the hocus pocus hero in another dimension) -- you'd probably be compelled to write books about these loons -- which is exactly what he has done.

Before he was really famous for his "bold" statement that evolution is real and not a lie created by the devil, he was famous for The Selfish Gene -- a book that has been referenced in my biology textbooks from 1998, 2000, and 2008. A book I have a copy of.

I'm going to say that I really doubt that most people who hate dawkins have actually read his books. I'm compelled to think that even a staunch (insert magical and unfounded philosophy here) would agree with him, but just be secure enough in their (re-insert magical and unfounded philosophy here) to shrug it off afterwards.

In any case -- he repeatedly uses the metaphor that totally destroys what you said in my quoted passage from you -- "there is no such thing as leading atheists or uniting them, atheists are like a herd of cats more than a herd of cattle."

 

[Longshanks]

Why would I be mad? I'm not Dawkins. But given that The God Delusion is comprised entirely of his arguments against religion, I find it hard to believe you can read it and say he has no logic or reason for not believing in religion. At least say you disagree with his arguments or something...

Which I did. I presented an opinion, and said I prefer Wilson's arguments and investigation into the matter.

 

[Silverman780]

Arguing your personal beliefs like this is pointless. It's like watching children fighting over a toy.

(I still can't get over the 800 BGL)

 

[Thing1]

Issa’s priorities are, to an astonishing degree, representative of the new Republican House majority. Last year, when John Boehner, of Ohio, the incoming House Speaker, was asked by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos about his party’s plans to address climate change, he had this to say: “The idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen, that it is harmful to our environment, is almost comical.” John Shimkus, of Illinois, is one of four members now vying for the chairmanship of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. At a congressional hearing in 2009, he dismissed the dangers of climate change by quoting Genesis 8:22: “As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease.” He added, “I believe that’s the infallible word of God, and that’s the way it’s going to be for His creation.” Another contender for the Energy Committee post, Joe Barton, of Texas—who is one of the House’s top recipients of contributions from the oil-and-gas industry—argues that CO2 emissions have nothing to do with climate change, and, in any event, people will just adapt. “When it rains, we find shelter,” he has said. “When it’s hot, we get shade. When it’s cold, we find a warm place to stay.” (Barton is perhaps best known for the apology he offered, last June, to the C.E.O. of BP, Tony Hayward, for what he described as a “shakedown” of the company by the Obama Administration.)

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2010/11/22/101122taco_talk_kolbert

Just happened to read this, and thought it was somewhat relevant.

 

[DancinSarah]

( I do believe most humans need something to believe in no matter how bazzar)

Not sure if that was intentional, but it really brightened up my night

 

[Shaolin]

Oh hey, another religion "debate". Seriously, doesn't this topic spring up at least once a month. Can we give it a rest.
Militant Atheists, we get it. Believing in a higher power = stupid person worthy of contempt and mockery. Being a hypocrite is the WORST crime ever. We yield to your infinite wisdom.
I get the feeling that OP started this thread:
A.) To pick a fight and mock people of faith.
B.) To have his beliefs reinforced.
C.) All of the above.

Arguing your personal beliefs like this is pointless. It's like watching children fighting over a toy.

(I still can't get over the 800 BGL)

I agree. Nobody's mind is going to be changed here. Meaningless.

 

[Thing1]

Not sure if that was intentional, but it really brightened up my night

The misspelling of "intelligent" is also ironic. No offense OP.

 

[IvyHopeful20]

So where is he wrong?

 

[Doctor246853]

Not sure if that was intentional, but it really brightened up my night

The misspelling of "intelligent" is also ironic. No offense OP.

Too both you and DancinSarah. I noticed both after I clicked "submit reply". I type fast, click, then read. Guess I should proof read first. I figured someone would bash me (being a premed thread and all) but hey Good call.

Oh hey, another religion "debate". Seriously, doesn't this topic spring up at least once a month. Can we give it a rest.
Militant Atheists, we get it. Believing in a higher power = stupid person worthy of contempt and mockery. Being a hypocrite is the WORST crime ever. We yield to your infinite wisdom.
I get the feeling that OP started this thread:
A.) To pick a fight and mock people of faith.
B.) To have his beliefs reinforced.
C.) All of the above.

I agree. Nobody's mind is going to be changed here. Meaningless.

The answer is D no of the above. Im not trying to pick a fight. Why the hell would I, I dont know you people. I dont want my "beliefs" reinforced, I dont have any and I dont care if someone thinks their going to heaven or not. Thats their thing it dosnt bother me. I started this thread becuase I was curious about a certain day at work and it kinda got shifted to a religious debate. But I dont care what anyone believes in and I dont want to change that. Your beliefs are great. <--Ok ok that was a lame joke but seriously man I dont care what people believe in and I know they dont care what I think. Im happy that way.

 

[paul411]

I think that religion is great for those that have the ability to accept it. It is especially effective for those that can separate dogmatic/religious beliefs from interfering with their rational/scientific understanding of the world (Note: I'm not trying to draw a line between the two; people can use their rational faculties to justify their religious beliefs).

Personally, no matter how open minded I have been and am to the possibility of the supernatural, I just cannot bring myself to believe in anything supernatural. Furthermore, the more I read the Bible, Qur'an, and other religious texts, the more disgusting religion seems, especially in its dogmatism.

To some extent, we are genetically predisposed to certain capacities for belief. Arguments for atheism from Dawkins seem like weak irrational bull**** to Longshanks and ColeOnTheRoll. Arguments for theism sounds like weak irrational bull**** to the atheists. In most cases, people have already made up their minds (or have a strong predilection for a belief) and “debates” such as these just reinforce everyone's own points of view.

 

[necoli]

I think that religion is great for those that have the ability to accept it. It is especially effective for those that can separate dogmatic/religious beliefs from interfering with their rational/scientific understanding of the world (Note: I'm not trying to draw a line between the two; people can use their rational faculties to justify their religious beliefs).

Personally, no matter how open minded I have been and am to the possibility of the supernatural, I just cannot bring myself to believe in anything supernatural. Furthermore, the more I read the Bible, Qur'an, and other religious texts, the more disgusting religion seems, especially in its dogmatism.

To some extent, we are genetically predisposed to certain capacities for belief. Arguments for atheism from Dawkins seem like weak irrational bull**** to Longshanks and ColeOnTheRoll. Arguments for theism sounds like weak irrational bull**** to the atheists. In most cases, people have already made up their minds (or have a strong predilection for a belief) and “debates” such as these just reinforce everyone's own points of view.

Just wanted to note that this is the first insightful post on this thread.

As an item of interest, the Bible accounts for those who are "genetically predisposed" to believing one thing or another; the whole some-crucibles-are-destined-for-destruction bit seems like it touches on that.

Further as another item of interest, I once heard a lecture at the Masters Seminary and the topic of the lecture was the effects of sin on the world. The train of thought more or less ran like this:
The world is fallen (that is to say, when the world was created it was good, but then man sinned and has been sinning ever since, in so doing the world has become a worse and worse place to live). Someone presented the lecture with a background in science, and he presented some interesting concepts on how religion and science are interconnected.

That being said, a conservative Christian might look at the 3 things seranade said that religion messes up, and say that if it weren't for the sinfulness of man then those things really wouldn't be an issue. The HIV topic for instance.... abstinence from both drugs and fornication would go a long way in preventing transmissions. Further the death penalty is not indicative of a culture honoring the killing of people, rather, it is indicative the presence of resolute ethical standards (If you murder an innocent child then you deserve to die).

As to the stem cell research: 1. do you seriously believe that stem cells would be the mythical-wonder-cure and will save the world from all forms of deadly diseases? A conservative Christian would likely say no- Deuteronomy 28 specifically points out that God will create incurable diseases for sinners. 2. There are forms of stem cell research out there that do not require the exploitation of embryos.

 

[NickNaylor]

I think that religion is great for those that have the ability to accept it. It is especially effective for those that can separate dogmatic/religious beliefs from interfering with their rational/scientific understanding of the world (Note: I'm not trying to draw a line between the two; people can use their rational faculties to justify their religious beliefs).

Personally, no matter how open minded I have been and am to the possibility of the supernatural, I just cannot bring myself to believe in anything supernatural. Furthermore, the more I read the Bible, Qur'an, and other religious texts, the more disgusting religion seems, especially in its dogmatism.

To some extent, we are genetically predisposed to certain capacities for belief. Arguments for atheism from Dawkins seem like weak irrational bull**** to Longshanks and ColeOnTheRoll. Arguments for theism sounds like weak irrational bull**** to the atheists. In most cases, people have already made up their minds (or have a strong predilection for a belief) and “debates” such as these just reinforce everyone's own points of view.

I think you make a good point, though I would like to say that I don't think atheism is "irrational bull****." I used to be an atheist. I just have a problem with Dawkins because I think his arguments have no real substance. That said, atheism is a legitimate system of belief, and I don't think atheists are inherently bad people.

 

[IvyHopeful20]

System of belief? What do I, as an atheist believe?

And for the second time, I'll ask which arguments of his are BS?

 

[gettheleadout]

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2010/11/22/101122taco_talk_kolbert

Just happened to read this, and thought it was somewhat relevant.

Lets get a big round of applause for the productivity of religion in government!

Don't we have some kind of separation of that? Hmm...

 

[paul411]

Like many other's who pointed this out already, I think you feel Dawkins' arguments are insubstantial because:

Dawkins does not claim to disprove God with absolute certainty. Instead, he suggests as a general principle that simpler explanations are preferable, and that an omniscient and omnipotent God must be extremely complex. As such he argues that the theory of a universe without a God is preferable to the theory of a universe with a God.

Most of Dawkins' work is focused on (a) promoting evolution by natural selection as the more logical explanation for the diversity of life, and (b) showing that belief in God is not necessary for leading a good, happy life.

Most atheists aren't really all that interested in mustering up strong arguments against the existence of a God. As de facto atheist spokespersons, people like Dawkins and Hitchens have to, invariably, take a polarizing stance on religion. But in general, I hope you'll see that albeit their talking points, they are quite rational and by no means "idiots."

 

[gettheleadout]

Most atheists aren't really all that interested in mustering up strong arguments against the existence of a God. As de facto atheist spokespersons, people like Dawkins and Hitchens have to, invariably, take a polarizing stance on religion. But in general, I hope you'll see that albeit their talking points, they are quite rational and by no means "idiots."