Diabolical drivel from dawkins?

[dandingo]

See, in one breath, I’m being told just how outnumbered atheists and secularists are compared to religious people, and in the next being told their charitable efforts don’t match up to those of Christians. As though they ever could. Though, I wonder whether the billions of dollars contributed by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett count for anything.

My point is that atheists don’t want to acknowledge that religion does any good, much less how much good it actually does. Instead, their main goal is to obliterate religion altogether, which would also obliterate all that they help.

 

[Sair]

My point is that atheists don’t want to acknowledge that religion does any good, much less how much good it actually does. Instead, their main goal is to obliterate religion altogether, which would also obliterate all that they help.

Actually, what I think you’ll find is that atheists generally won’t acknowledge that religion is the reason for doing good - most humans have the capacity for empathy, and although that can be abused by unscrupulous authority figures, we generally tend to want to do unto others as we would have done to ourselves; you know, the golden rule and all.

If you do a bit of research, you might also find that atheists, as such, don’t have much in the way of a collective agenda - we’re not really a homogeneous group (yes, I consider myself an atheist for the purposes of any discussion with those who believe in a personal god). People are free to believe what they will - but when the preferences of imaginary beings are considered ahead of the preferences of real humans and other sentient beings, don’t be too surprised if the voices of dissent become a lot louder than you’d like…

 

[philial]

Philial:

Are you sure you didn’t mean, “born Catholics?” Just take Hitler, shortly after his birth, much of Europe had already undergone a radical transformation away from Christianity, and was steadily moving in the direction of modernism, especially Germany. It can barely be said that Hitler was “raised” Catholic.

Two problems: first, how Hitler began and what he originally did made what he did later inconceivable to the rest of the world. Second, once the rest of the world caught on to what he was doing, it was, in a real sense, in shock and fear. The Vatican, surrounded by Mussolini, and with Hitler just up the road, and Franco, right around the corner, operated with great courage, despite the potential for obliteration.

Well, I wouldn’t necessarily call them “pals.”

And, Francisco Franco, el caudillo de Espana pro la gracia de dios, another cautious neighbor of Hitler’s, might not be counted on.

So, he just instantly turned from wanting to be a Priest to wanting to be a “mass murderer?”

Not too much, and certainly not Christianity.

Do you think “fear” might have played some part in a few of them? Do you think the problem of communication might have played a part in the few that occurred? Do you give any accolades to the Priests, Bishops, and Popes who helped the victims of those regimes? Or, should they have pre-known and become hit-men, preventing those regimes?

Yes they are.

God bless,
jd

With respect, I think you’ve missed the point I was seeking to make, namely, that those who oppose the Church latch on to the headlines, and rarely read the smaller print! They interpret history, not as it may be, but as it serves their own agenda (a very human trait!).

You will know, as we have all heard, that anti-church people have latched onto the fact that the current pope was a member of Hitler Youth! We know, of course, that he was young, conscripted against his will, and showed enormous courage in deserting - thereby putting his life at risk. However, this last point is ignored amid the cries of ‘fascist pope’, etc…

The self-inflicted wounds are, indeed, the sorest, and those churchmen who have colluded with oppression - let’s not pretend they have never existed - have inflicted some terrible wounds that will fester for decades to come!

So, I don’t disagree with the defense you make. But I refuse to ignore the elements of truth mixed in with the general filth thrown at us!

 

[Nelka]

When it comes to philosophy Richard dawkins is a joke. Everything he says is biased and uncritical in regards to the evils of humanity as a whole. He always speaks of evil as if it is something that is inevitably and historically born out of the Church while the innocent atheists are trampled underfoot. He fails to distinguish between those who actually follow Church teaching and those who are only catholic by name. But he is not concerned with that so much as he is concerned with making the Church as a faith look evil.

 

[dandingo]

Actually, what I think you’ll find is that atheists generally won’t acknowledge that religion is the reason for doing good - most humans have the capacity for empathy, and although that can be abused by unscrupulous authority figures, we generally tend to want to do unto others as we would have done to ourselves; you know, the golden rule and all.

If you do a bit of research, you might also find that atheists, as such, don’t have much in the way of a collective agenda - we’re not really a homogeneous group (yes, I consider myself an atheist for the purposes of any discussion with those who believe in a personal god). People are free to believe what they will - but when the preferences of imaginary beings are considered ahead of the preferences of real humans and other sentient beings, don’t be too surprised if the voices of dissent become a lot louder than you’d like…

Regardless if you don’t think that religion is the reason for doing good, it doesn’t negate how much good religion actually does. Should we rid our society of police and firefighters because a small percentage are corrupt? Should we shut down all schools because some teachers and principles are corrupt? Should we disband the United States of America because of the small percentage that give it a bad name?

The “preferences of imaginary beings” are where you, I and everyone else got their morality. I know that the atheist will argue vehemently that there is no absolute morality, that each person, or society, decides what is moral. But I have never been shown where this morality began, other than religion.

The main goal of the Christian is to do good. Is there a small percentage that use religion to do evil? Of course. But that does not, in any way, negate all of the good that they do.

 

[Hokomai]

His brain is too close to his anus.

Dawkins is a particularly good writer and communicator. He marshals facts very well, and explains his reasoning clearly. I think his criticisms of the Catholic Church are sometimes coloured by his Anglican upbringing: for example he thinks that the Pope has considerably more directive power than he in fact has. Turning now to his anus, and its proximity to his brain, I think Professor Dawkins would be happy to acknowledge that both are made of the same stuff, and that both developed, through evolution, into the functional body parts they are today. As someone who believes that mind arises purely from the brain (maybe with some other organs helping out), Professor Dawkins will not be worried by the association of anus with brain. Both are purely biological, and we can’t get by without them both. Neither are the subject of influence from a non-existent soul, or able to be influenced by non-existent spirits. (Although we have all had experiences with both organs which feel like such influence!).

 

[Elixir]

Leave it to the religious to mewl and whimper at the feet of an imaginary deity in their fear of death; leave it to them to spend their lives in denial of its reality

Mewling & whimpering huh? I never knew.

A perfect illustration of a childish (as opposed to child-like) view of religion and people who profess a faith other than Dawkins & Hitch. God forbid you subscribe to a view of reality other then theirs.

 

[tonyrey]

Neither are the subject of influence from a non-existent soul, or able to be influenced by non-existent spirits.

Is there a **rational **basis for your dogmatic assumption that there is no soul?

 

[JDaniel]

With respect, I think you’ve missed the point I was seeking to make, namely, that those who oppose the Church latch on to the headlines, and rarely read the smaller print! They interpret history, not as it may be, but as it serves their own agenda (a very human trait!).

You will know, as we have all heard, that anti-church people have latched onto the fact that the current pope was a member of Hitler Youth! We know, of course, that he was young, conscripted against his will, and showed enormous courage in deserting - thereby putting his life at risk. However, this last point is ignored amid the cries of ‘fascist pope’, etc…

The self-inflicted wounds are, indeed, the sorest, and those churchmen who have colluded with oppression - let’s not pretend they have never existed - have inflicted some terrible wounds that will fester for decades to come!

So, I don’t disagree with the defense you make. But I refuse to ignore the elements of truth mixed in with the general filth thrown at us!

Philial:

If I misunderstood you, please accept my apology. It was hard to tell, from your writing style, that you were being “tongue-in-cheek!” But, as your last sentence indicates, you do have some disparity with certain things that you believe were done in the name of Catholicism, by some, perhaps less than Catholic, historical people. Care to point out a few?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Dawkins is a particularly good writer and communicator. He marshals facts very well, and explains his reasoning clearly. I think his criticisms of the Catholic Church are sometimes coloured by his Anglican upbringing: for example he thinks that the Pope has considerably more directive power than he in fact has. Turning now to his anus, and its proximity to his brain, I think Professor Dawkins would be happy to acknowledge that [his] are [indistinguishable and] made of the same stuff, and that both developed, through evolution, into the functional body parts they are today. As someone who believes that mind arises purely from the brain (maybe with some other organs helping out), Professor Dawkins will not be worried by the association of anus with brain. [No, probably not.] Both are purely biological, and we can’t get by without them both. Neither are the subject of influence from a non-existent soul, or able to be influenced by non-existent spirits. (Although we have all had experiences with both organs which feel like such influence!).

I added a couple of words, above, that I believe you left out.

God bless,
jd

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Dawkins is a particularly good writer and communicator. He marshals facts very well, and explains his reasoning clearly. I think his criticisms of the Catholic Church are sometimes coloured by his Anglican upbringing: for example he thinks that the Pope has considerably more directive power than he in fact has. Turning now to his anus, and its proximity to his brain, I think Professor Dawkins would be happy to acknowledge that both are made of the same stuff, and that both developed, through evolution, into the functional body parts they are today. As someone who believes that mind arises purely from the brain (maybe with some other organs helping out), Professor Dawkins will not be worried by the association of anus with brain. Both are purely biological, and we can’t get by without them both. Neither are the subject of influence from a non-existent soul, or able to be influenced by non-existent spirits. (Although we have all had experiences with both organs which feel like such influence!).

I too believe in evolution, and I still think that his anus is far too close to his brain.

 

[JDaniel]

Actually, what I think you’ll find is that atheists generally won’t acknowledge that religion is the reason for doing good -

Sair:

Strange, isn’t it, that so much “good” seems to aggregate in the proximity of non-atheists?

most humans have the capacity for empathy, and although that can be abused by unscrupulous authority figures, we generally tend to want to do unto others as we would have done to ourselves; you know, the golden rule and all.

You and I both know that bologna has a brand name, and its initials are": O-M.

If you do a bit of research, you might also find that atheists, as such, don’t have much in the way of a collective agenda - we’re not really a homogeneous group (yes, I consider myself an atheist

Oh, goodness me! Who would ever have thought that?

People are free to believe what they will - but when the preferences of imaginary beings are considered ahead of the preferences of real humans and other sentient beings, don’t be too surprised if the voices of dissent become a lot louder than you’d like…

You and I know that you have just tried to push some more bologna, on those whom you believe to be far below your level of erudition. Little did you know that we could know that!

God bless,
jd

 

[ALotLessThumb]

Dawkins, like a lot of British subjects brought up in the last two years or so, is heavily indebted to an Epicurean philosophy which colors his thinking. I think Mr.Dawkins is a smart man, who like many smart men, is unable to clearly assess his own thoughts- in other words, for all his intelligence he does possess, he seems to lack a sense of self-awareness, perceptibility or insightful which ultimately clouds his judgment. Which is why his true gift is that of persuasiveness in popularizing other peoples’ work. He amounts to a prolific mouth with a limited mind, and his work shows this. Which is why I don’t think he should be taken seriously.

 

[tonyrey]

Dawkins, like a lot of British subjects brought up in the last two years or so, is heavily indebted to an Epicurean philosophy which colors his thinking. I think Mr.Dawkins is a smart man, who like many smart men, is unable to clearly assess his own thoughts- in other words, for all his intelligence he does possess, he seems to lack a sense of self-awareness, perceptibility or insightful which ultimately clouds his judgment. Which is why his true gift is that of persuasiveness in popularizing other peoples’ work. He amounts to a prolific mouth with a limited mind, and his work shows this. Which is why I don’t think he should be taken seriously.

Precisely!

 

[JDaniel]

Dawkins, like a lot of British subjects brought up in the last two years or so, is heavily indebted to an Epicurean philosophy which colors his thinking. I think Mr.Dawkins is a smart man, who like many smart men, is unable to clearly assess his own thoughts- in other words, for all his intelligence he does possess, he seems to lack a sense of self-awareness, perceptibility or insightful which ultimately clouds his judgment. Which is why his true gift is that of persuasiveness in popularizing other peoples’ work. He amounts to a prolific mouth with a limited mind, and his work shows this. Which is why I don’t think he should be taken seriously.

Precisely!

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Precisely!

What’s that about great mimes?

God bless,
jd

 

[Hokomai]

Is there a **rational **basis for your dogmatic assumption that there is no soul?

Yes. Total absence of evidence that meets any standard of observation we require for accepting the existence of anything else. I do not assume hat there is no soul. I simply say there is no evidence for it, and act accordingly. In the same way, I believe there is no evidence for reincarnation. I put the words ‘non-existent’ into my post to make clear my own point of view, since I have found when I do not do so, some believers feel I am misleading them.

 

[tonyrey]

Total absence of evidence that meets any standard of observation we require for accepting the existence of anything else. I do not assume hat there is no soul. I simply say there is no evidence for it, and act accordingly. In the same way, I believe there is no evidence for reincarnation. I put the words ‘non-existent’ into my post to make clear my own point of view, since I have found when I do not do so, some believers feel I am misleading them.

What evidence do you have for** anything **apart from your thoughts, feelings, choices, decisions and perceptions?

 

[Hokomai]

What evidence do you have for** anything **apart from your thoughts, feelings, choices, decisions and perceptions?

Observations that can be replicated in similar conditions.

 

[tonyrey]

What evidence do you have for* anything ***

Then you agree that the primary evidence and the primary realities of which we are aware are our intangible thoughts, feelings, choices, decisions and perceptions?

NB Observations consist of **inferences **from our perceptions and presuppose intelligent observers…