The God Delusion

[Mersenne]

One. I remember that in almost one line in the whole book, he discards the hipotesis that religion might have a genetic root saying that in not clear what good get the believer from religion.
Is he is going to be fair he should have quoted medical evidence that religious people live generaly longer and have more children than non religious people, a clear evolutive advantage for the religious. And they endure certain medical treatment better. He should habe asked the believers what good they got from religion. But since he suscribes to the atheist mantra that religions is only a useless way to control people he did not ask the question and focused on the negatives of fundamentalist religion.

Dawkins main point was not that religion was useless, but that that god didn’t exist. In fact, he stated that, given the resources that religion consumes, we can be nearly certain that religion had some benefit to something at some point in time. But this helps to demonstrate why religion exists outside it being true. Your unsupported accusation is most likely a case of psychological projection. Like most Christians, since they are intollerant, dogmatic, and inflexiable, they try to make everyone out to be the same. Christians make themselves out to be oppressed, no matter how bizzare that statement may be. You try to make dawkins out to be subscribing to some kind of dogma, even though it is clear that he is presenting multiple possibilities and opinions and then presenting his own idea.

Personally, I think it is most likely a combination between the idea that societies as a whole function like individual organisms and Dawkins idea of a mind virus. The indoctorination of the young only really explains how the idea propigates, not why it does not die off, which I think is better explained by some benefit to primitive societies, such as a fearless army. But this is how science and debate works as opposed to religion, you present different arguements and evidence and some you find compelling and some you don’t. It’s not dishonest to hold an opinion. I can’t speak for Dawkins as to why he didn’t include that research, but I can think of a number of reasons more likely then that he’s a unflinching ideolog: he wasn’t aware of them, they were cherry picked studies out of many, he didn’t find the studies valid(which is likely given that it’s very hard for a study to show much of anything, experiements are needed to draw any definitive conclusions).

I found his comparation of chilhood religious indoctrination as worse that childhood sexual abuse realy offensive.

An important point for christians to learn, just because something upsets you does not make it untrue.

Also I seem that he is not clear about the Judeo- Christian God. By trying to apply the laws of biological science to that God, laws that started with the Big Bang, and cannot be appliyed to a God that existed before that.

Biology started at the big bang?

Dawkins forgot that science and politics does not make a good mix, and religion does not need to be theistic. The most murderous religion of all is socialism and is a agnostic and atheistic religion. Atheists socialists murdered more people in the XX century that in all the wars of religion combined.

I think much of that is just due to the era in which the murders happened. It’s easier to kill people with a blitzkriegs and gas chambers then with pointy sticks. I think many of the big evil in this century has come out of agnostisms and athiesm because to get in a position of power you generally have to be educated and smart, and in this century educated and smart people are athiest. In the past the power lied in the hands of the Catholic church, so big evil had to go through there. I do generally ascribe to the idea that it is faith and the rejection of reason that causes evil, not any particular religion. And yes, I am just as anti-socialism as I am anti-christian/islam.

 

[Donald45]

it’s not a non-sequitur, it’s a reasonable inference based on past experience.

Okay, friend, whatever lets you sleep at night.

The sources cited might accurately reflect the poster’s own viewpoint…

Then, given that you’ve asked the poster a supposedly honest question, why not take a few minutes to genuinely consider his response? (Note that you’ve already admitted that the articles cited may reflect the poster’s own viewpoint.)

…but it’s ridiculous to expect me to read a hundred page book to answer the question “where did Richard Dawkins state a half-truth?”

Of course, I didn’t offer “a hundred page book,” but merely referenced eight brief articles which address your stated concerns (and, by the way, you asked for five such examples). You could have chosen from among them. Instead, since you’ve clearly already made up your mind, and have no real intention of evaluating your own position----nor even the ability to do so----you weasel out by complaining that you might actually have to read something. Let’s not bother pretending that your questions are in any way honest ones, since it’s clear that they’re not.

It’s typical BS tactics used by people who have no real idea what they’re talking about.

Expecting someone else to do your homework for you: it’s a typically immature tactic used by people who have no real idea what they’re talking about, and no genuine interest in finding out.

Truly,

Don
+T+

 

[Mersenne]

Of course, I didn’t offer “a hundred page book,” but merely referenced eight brief articles which address your stated concerns (and, by the way, you asked for five such examples). You could have chosen from among them. Instead, since you’ve clearly already made up your mind, and have no real intention of evaluating your own position----nor even the ability to do so----you weasel out by complaining that you might actually have to read something. Let’s not bother pretending that your questions are in any way honest ones, since it’s clear that they’re not.

Except the fact that I’ve answered other posters clearly disproves this theory of yours. Look, let’s be realistic, it’s reasonable to expect an ANSWER to the question, not a fist full of links. You’re clearly the one dodging and being dishonest. Why don’t you simply answer the question?

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

I read the first page and didn’t see any actually arguements contained, do you think you could just point out, where Richard Dawkins states a half truth or a misinterpretation and why you think it is so?

Page one is a preface that introduces myself and the book. It doesn’t contain any arguments or mention anything contentious.

Page two begins by summarising Dawkin’s chapter. I try to do this in a non-partisan way. Then towards the end you will read

However Dawkins opens his book with the assertion that "I suspect - well I am sure - that there are lots of people out there who have been brought up in some religion or other, are unhappy with it, don’t beleive in it, or are worried about the evils that are done in its name, and wish they could, but don’t realise that leaving is an option. Now in a country of sixty million people, I don’t doubt you can find a few individuals who fit that description. And it may be true of some Muslims or other minorities. However we live in a religiously plural society. Religious practise is optional, and the norm is not to attend church except perhaps for Christmas, weddings, and funerals. How can Dawkins be so detached from the reality as not to realise that his readers do not appreciate that non-church attendance is an option?

So there’s an example of a half-truth or misinterpretation by Dawkins. He imagines he is enlightening a lot of religious people about the possibility of an atheist life. In fact his book reflects a society in which churches have seen a huge drop in attendance. It is utter nonsense to suggest that large numbers of people “don’t realise that leaving is an option”.

Of course there are many more places where I disagree with Dawkins. Maybe you want a discussion about atheism itself, rather than related sociological issues. Both Dawkins and I do discuss a wide range of matters.

 

[Donald45]

…it’s reasonable to expect an ANSWER to the question, not a fist full of links.

Apparently, you want to ask the question, then dictate the answer. In fact, the articles cited contain my answer to your question. However, you’re either too pre-conditioned by your own opinions, or simply too intellectually lazy, to bother reading them. As you like.

You’re clearly the one dodging and being dishonest.

Given that, unlike yourself, I’ve actually read both Dawkins and McGrath, as well as many articles on both sides of the issue, your claim simply falls flat. It’s clear that you’re pathologically unable to honestly critique your own position, thus rendering your “questions” both disingenuous and dishonest. Do your homework on this issue, then we’ll talk.

Why don’t you simply answer the question?

See Post #15 above.

Don
+T+

 

[Mersenne]

So there’s an example of a half-truth or misinterpretation by Dawkins. He imagines he is enlightening a lot of religious people about the possibility of an atheist life. In fact his book reflects a society in which churches have seen a huge drop in attendance. It is utter nonsense to suggest that large numbers of people “don’t realise that leaving is an option”.

That’s the best that you can do? Dawkins thinks there are people who don’t realize leaving their religion is an option and you think he think there are more then there really are? Well, frankly, I agree with Dawkins. There are lots of people who live in environments where the idea of leaving Christianity or Islam or whatever is treated as the equivelent of stabbing babies, or just not treated at all. I think you need to gain some awareness of life outside your own bubble. Even if you’re right, that’s the best you can do to show Dawkins as being “misleading”? That’s a difference of opinion.

 

[Mersenne]

Apparently, you want to ask the question, then dictate the answer. In fact, the articles cited contain my answer to your question. However, you’re either too pre-conditioned by your own opinions, or simply too intellectually lazy, to bother reading them. As you like.

Yes, I want to dictate the answer in the sense that I want an actual answer. As I’ve said, I’ve gone through this a dozen times before and it always goes the same way. 90% of the time I spend the time to read the article and it’s hardly relevent to the discussion. 9% of the time it may be relevent but it’s a small chunch of a large article and we spend more time just trying to nail down exactly what part of the article THEY think answers the question then would be spend for them to simply tell me their opinion. If we can then actually figure out what they’re talking about then starts the pages and pages over argueing about what arguement the ARTICLE was making. And then if we come to an agreement about what the article is saying, and I show that it’s clearly wrong, then they say “well that’s not even really my opinion anyway” and then post another article. Quit dodging and just answer the question.

Given that, unlike yourself, I’ve actually read both Dawkins and McGrath, as well as many articles on both sides of the issue, your claim simply falls flat.

There’s a difference between reading and understanding, and we’ve no evidence yet that you’ve done either. Even if you had, that’s hardly disproof of your lack of integrity, which is made clear by your unwillingness to acknowledge common sense and answer a simple question with a simple response. You’re clearly just running your mouth with no support of your accusations against Dawkins.

It’s clear that you’re pathologically unable to honestly critique your own position, thus rendering your “questions” both disingenuous and dishonest.

As I’ve pointed out before, the fact that I engage everyone else in discussion clearly proves you wrong. The fact that you’ve ignored this point twice now just does more to demonstrate your intellectual dishonesty and that I’m wasting my time on you, when there are other people who don’t have such irrational demands of my limited time.

 

[Donald45]

Yes, I want to dictate the answer in the sense that I want an actual answer.

See Post #15 above.

There’s a difference between reading and understanding, and we’ve no evidence yet that you’ve done either.

Well, friend, at least I can say I’ve actually read both Dawkins as well as his critics (McGrath being chief among them). Rather than whining about my “limited time,” I’ve actually made the time to educate myself on these issues in a balanced and thorough manner, something you certainly cannot say, and have yet to do. In addition, behind all that, I hold university degrees in both philosophy and theology. Unlike yourself, I’ve plainly done my homework on the subject under discussion. When you’ve done yours, then you might have a basis for the beginning of a debate on these things.

…You’re clearly just running your mouth with no support of your accusations against Dawkins.

Nice ad hominem barb. Your hero, Dawkins, would be proud of you.

…there are other people who don’t have such irrational demands of my limited time.

We all have limited time, friend. This is precisely why I elected to cite a few relevant articles that reflect my viewpoint, rather than to spend an inordinate amount of time composing a lengthy post (or several) in order to outline a position already adequately presented in the essays I referenced. In any case, the articles are there, and they answer your concerns quite well. Consider them or not, as you like.

:tiphat:

Don
+T+

 

[mlchance]

Richard Dawkins is a theological/philosophical hack. His entire argument against God is based on a strawman backed up with irrational, fundamentalist fervor. For a view from someone with no dog in the fight, check out Stanley Fish’s savaging of the so-called “New Atheists.”

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

That’s the best that you can do? Dawkins thinks there are people who don’t realize leaving their religion is an option and you think he think there are more then there really are? Well, frankly, I agree with Dawkins. There are lots of people who live in environments where the idea of leaving Christianity or Islam or whatever is treated as the equivelent of stabbing babies, or just not treated at all. I think you need to gain some awareness of life outside your own bubble. Even if you’re right, that’s the best you can do to show Dawkins as being “misleading”? That’s a difference of opinion.

That’s the best I can do on page one, or page two if you count the preface as page one.
If Dawkins were writing mainly for a Muslim audience then maybe there would be some force to his claim that many people don’t realise that atheism is an option. For an English audience it is absurd.

Obviously there are other areas where I disagree with Dawkins. But if we cannot agree on theology, maybe we can agree on the sociology. Would you agree that all Christian churches in England have seen a fairly high rate of membership attrition? Would you agree that most English people know of at least one non-Church attender and realise that non-attendance is a socially-sanctioned option? Would you agree that most also know of at least a few atheists, evwen if they might not know them persoanlly, and realise that atheists don’t face any serious social disabilities in Britain?

Or do you think that the situation is not as I have described it?

 

[Mersenne]

I’ve actually made the time to educate myself on these issues in a balanced and thorough manner

Educating yourself is not the same as simply reading something, and you’ve yet to demonstrate that you’ve done either.

In addition, behind all that, I hold university degrees in both philosophy and theology.

If true, that must be a joke university, given that you don’t even know what an ad hominem is.

Nice ad hominem barb. Your hero, Dawkins, would be proud of you.

It’s not an ad hominem to accuse you of intellectual dishonesty. Do you know longer need to understand philosophy to get a philosophy degree?

We all have limited time, friend. This is precisely why I elected to cite a few relevant articles that reflect my viewpoint

I read one of your articles and it did not answer my question. Therefore I think we are done. Though I still can’t understand how you think it reasonable to expect me to parse through a lengthy article that may or may not contain your answer to my question somewhere in it, instead of just providing an answer that could be anywhere from a single sentence to a few paragraphs. You’ve spent more time making accuses as to why you can’t answer then it would have taken to simply answer it. But I suppose when you have no idea what you’re talking about that’s the sort of think you have to resort to. Googling and then spamming links without reading their content and hoping to wear the other person into giving up.

 

[Mersenne]

Obviously there are other areas where I disagree with Dawkins.

Well, then present a better example if you have one, that’s pretty shakey ground for an accusation.

Obviously there are other areas where I disagree with Dawkins. But if we cannot agree on theology, maybe we can agree on the sociology. Would you agree that all Christian churches in England have seen a fairly high rate of membership attrition? Would you agree that most English people know of at least one non-Church attender and realise that non-attendance is a socially-sanctioned option? Would you agree that most also know of at least a few atheists, evwen if they might not know them persoanlly, and realise that atheists don’t face any serious social disabilities in Britain?

I would agree that it is likely the case in England, but I am fairly sure, even pretending as if the book were ment only for english audiences, that people in England are aware of the existence of the United States. I can’t imagine how he would be misleading people in England even if they weren’t aware, as it would seem an immediate falsehood to them if they weren’t.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Well, then present a better example if you have one, that’s pretty shakey ground for an accusation.

I would agree that it is likely the case in England, but I am fairly sure, even pretending as if the book were ment only for english audiences, that people in England are aware of the existence of the United States. I can’t imagine how he would be misleading people in England even if they weren’t aware, as it would seem an immediate falsehood to them if they weren’t.

So you’d agree that Dawkins is at least careless in suggesting that the American situation is normative? Presuming that most Americans do not consider atheism to be a socially or intellectually viable option, which actually I would say is wrong.

I’d say that America has both a strong religious and a strong secular faction, and the secular faction is if anything stronger than ours - they mount legal challenges under the constitution, for instance, whilst only a tiny minority oppose faith schools in Britain. Adherence to the secular lobby is seen as an option for most Americans, but it is only one party. The religious opposition is as strong, which is another place where America differs from Britain. Here there is practically zero social pressure to attend Church.

The important point is that Dawkins has said something which is misleading, and at best a half-truth. Only on a minor issue, but then we are still on page two.

 

[Good_Fella]

A physicist once owned it is more absurd not to believe in God than to believe in Him.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Oh wow, ugly book, even hated by many athiests. It mainly deals with radical fanatical issuses, not even so much on science. Try reading “The Dawkins Delusion” by Alister McGrath and Joanna Collicutt McGrath, a response to the God delusion. Very wonderful and interesting.

Yes, I just looked through it at a book store. I happened on their repsonse to the “God-is-just-a-projection-of-desires”: if you do not eat, you get hungry and desire food. Therefore food is just a projection of hunger.

 

[utunumsint]

Of course, this would be a complete non sequitur, since the sources cited might accurately reflect the poster’s own viewpoint, and he may very well be siting them simply to save time.

On my reading of Dawkins, for example, these brief essays do a fine job of outlining some of the problems I found in The God Delusion, and there are many more than five:

faithandthecity.org/issues/social/articles/The-Dawkins-Delusion.shtml
skepticalchristian.com/br_goddelusion.htm
skepticalchristian.com/r_dawkins.htm
christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/1.21.html
theage.com.au/news/book-reviews/the-god-delusion/2006/11/24/1164341383277.html
godandscience.org/apologetics/the_god_delusion1.html
godandscience.org/apologetics/the_god_delusion2.html
arn.org/docs/williams/pw_dawkinsfallacies.htm

The bottom line is that, as a biologist, Dawkins is brilliant; as a philosopher and theologian, however----well, he needs to keep his day job.

Blessings,

Don
+T+

Well since no one is actually going to read these articles, I thought I would give it a shot. Here follows a summary of some of the arguments in the first link Don gave.

This link has to do with Alister McGrath’s critic of Dawkins.

How reliable are Dawkins’ criticisms of religion?

Critique one : He makes bad arguments and consistently portrays religious people in the worst possible light.

But what of the arguments themselves? The God Delusion is often little more than an aggregation of convenient factoids, suitably overstated to achieve maximum impact, and loosely arranged to suggest that they constitute an argument. This makes dealing with its “arguments” a little problematical, in that the work frequently substitutes aggressive, bullying rhetoric for serious evidence-based argument. Dawkins often treats evidence as something to shoehorn into his preconceived theoretical framework. Religion is persistently and consistently portrayed in the worst possible way, mimicking the worst features of religious fundamentalism’s portrayal of atheism.

Critique two : Critique of the idea that religion is a virus of the mind.

So are all ideas viruses of the mind? Dawkins draws an absolute distinction between rational, scientific and evidence-based ideas, and spurious, irrational notions – such as religious beliefs. The latter, not the former, count as mental viruses. But who decides what is “rational” and “scientific”? Dawkins does not see this as a problem, believing that he can easily categorize such ideas, separating the sheep from the goats.

Except it all turns out to be horribly complicated, losing the simplicity and elegance that marks a great idea. For instance, every worldview – religious or secular – ends up falling into the category of “belief systems,” precisely because it cannot be proved. That is simply the nature of worldviews, and everyone knows it. It prevents nobody from holding a worldview in the first place, and doing so with complete intellectual integrity in the second. In the end, Dawkins’ idea simply implodes, falling victim to his own subjective judgement of what is rational and true. It’s not an idea that is taken seriously within the scientific community, and can safely be disregarded.

Critique three : The main argument of The God Delusion, however, is that religion leads to violence and oppression.

There is no doubt that religion can generate violence. But it’s not alone in this. The history of the twentieth century has given us a frightening awareness of how political extremism can equally cause violence.

He give the examples of Pol Pot in Cambodia, the rise of the Soviet Union.

In one of his more bizarre creedal statements as an atheist, Dawkins insists that there is “not the smallest evidence” that atheism systematically influences people to do bad things. It’s an astonishing, naïve, and somewhat sad statement. The facts are otherwise. In their efforts to enforce their atheist ideology, the Soviet authorities systematically destroyed and eliminated the vast majority of churches and priests during the period 1918-41. The statistics make for dreadful reading. This violence and repression was undertaken in pursuit of an atheist agenda – the elimination of religion. This doesn’t fit with Dawkins’ highly sanitized, idealized picture of atheism. Dawkins is clearly an ivory tower atheist, disconnected from the real and brutal world of the twentieth century.

When I have some time, I’ll finish reading the article and see if I can draw out a fourth and a fifth critique.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Good_Fella]

Yes, I just looked through it at a book store. I happened on their repsonse to the “God-is-just-a-projection-of-desires”: if you do not eat, you get hungry and desire food. Therefore food is just a projection of hunger.

Spoken like a true Augustinian!

I like what King Lear has to say: “Nothing comes from nothing.” The physical world cannot explain its own existence apart from being caused by something else beyond the physical. That something else is God. For everything physical evidently has a beginning, and that which begins cannot be eternal. I think the “Big Bang” theory hangs on the idea that the universe was formed by a singular form of atom from which all forms of matter emerged. But how did this single atom come to exist? Was it formed by some other physical property, and that one in turn created by another ad infinitum? (An eternity of one physical thing created by a preceding created thing?) We have an infinite regress of physical cause and effect. We are left with the problem of how the physical in itself can exist eternally although physical items all have a beginning and an end. Moreover, how can the physical in itself -unconscious and dead- be responsible for its own existence and mechanism? I can understand why a physicist would consider it more absurd not to believe in God. If I’m not mistaken, Quantum theory suggests an eternal movement of “something-nothing-something-nothing.” But then neither postive nor negative could have come first, each preceding the other and following the other forever alternating their roles of cause and effect. We have no absolute principal cause, and we are still stuck with the question of what higher principle caused this unending physical alternation. We cannot escape the necessity of a primary cause that transcends the physical world, a first principle, that which relies on no other principle, which is God. The order - not the design - of the physical universe shows us that it was created by a higher transcendent first Principle. And this first Principle is obviously a conscious, intelligent Being, since it takes a conscious, intelligent being to make something intelligible out of the physical universe. Energy is blind, matter is dead, so I find it absurd to think that these fundamental elements of the universe are responsible for their own existence and thereby the order of the universe. Human experience teaches us that it takes consciousness and intelligence to create something essentially intelligible and ordered.

Before the mountains were born
or the earth or the world brought forth,
you are God, without beginning or end.
{Psalm 90:2}

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[JimG]

I confess I haven’t read the Dawkins book. I did watch a lecture he gave on PBS. What struck me, listening to his argument, was that he didn’t seem to be describing any god or theology which I was familiar with. In fact, he seemed to be trying to refute a god and a theology believed in only by the most narrow fundamentlist one could find.

 

[utunumsint]

Critique four: reguarding Dawkin’s description of religion as creating that it encourages the formation and maintenance of “in-groups” and “out-groups” and his depiction of Jesus.

Dawkins’ analysis here is unacceptable. There are points at which his ignorance of religion ceases to be amusing, and simply becomes risible. In dealing with this question he draws extensively on a paper published in Skeptic magazine in 1995 by John Hartung, which asserts that – and here I cite Dawkin’s summary: Jesus was a devotee of the same in-group morality – coupled with out-group hostility – that was taken for granted in the Old Testament. Jesus was a loyal Jew. It was Paul who invented the idea of taking the Jewish God to the Gentiles. Hartung puts it more bluntly than I dare: “Jesus would have turned over in his grave if he had known that Paul would be taking his plan to the pigs.” Many Christian readers of this will be astonished at this bizarre misrepresentation of things being presented as if it were gospel truth. Yet, I regret to say, it is representative of Dawkins’ method: ridicule, distort, belittle, and demonize. Still, at least it will give Christian readers an idea of the lack of any scholarly objectivity or basic human sense of fairness which now pervades atheist fundamentalism.

In the first place, Jesus explicitly extends the Old Testament command to “love your neighbour” to “love your enemy” (Matthew 5.44). Far from endorsing “out-group hostility,” Jesus both commended and commanded an ethic of “out-group affirmation.” As this feature of the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth is so well-known and distinctive, it is inexcusable that Dawkins should make no mention of it. Christians may certainly be accused of failing to live up to this demand. But it is there, right at the heart of the Christian ethic.

In the second place, many readers would point out that the familiar story of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10) makes it clear that the command to “love your neighbour” extends far beyond Judaism. (Indeed, this aspect of the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth seems to have resulted in people suspecting Jesus of actually being a Samaritan: see John 8.48). It is certainly true that Jesus, a Palestinian Jew, gave priority to the Jews as God’s chosen people, but his definition of who was a “true Jew” was radically broad. It included those who had excluded themselves from Judaism by intimate collaborators with Roman occupying forces. One of the main charges levelled against Jesus by his critics within Judaism was his open acceptance of these out-groups. Indeed a substantial part of his teaching can be seen as a defence of his behaviour towards them. Jesus’ welcome of marginalized groups, who inhabited an ambiguous position between “in” and “out” is also well attested in accounts of his willingness to touch those considered by his culture to be ritually unclean (for instance Matthew 8.3, Matthew 9.20-25).

Critique five: The God delusion actually backfire in trying to protray all religions as intollerant, doctrinary, and disagreeable.

So what are we to make of this shrill and petulant manifesto of atheist fundamentalism? Aware of the moral obligation of a critic of religion to deal with this phenomenon at its best and most persuasive, many atheists have been disturbed by Dawkins’ crude stereotypes, vastly over-simplified binary oppositions (“science is good, religion is bad”), straw men, and seemingly pathological hostility towards religion. Might The God Delusion actually backfire, and end up persuading people that atheism is just as intolerant, doctrinaire and disagreeable as the worst that religion can offer? As the atheist philosopher Michael Ruse commented recently: “The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist.”

Hopefully this summary will be enough for people to quickly read through instead of actually looking at the article. My goodness, that article took me all of 30 minutes to read!. What a burden.

God bless,
Ut

 

[De_Maria]

Dawkins main point was not that religion was useless, but that that god didn’t exist.

Did he express this as an opinion, or did he make it out as a fact?

As for me, I’ve never read Dawkins, but I’ve been following your comments with interest. Although you claim that Dawkins did not make half truths or misrepresentations, I believe you have and I’ll prove it simply from this message.

In fact, he stated that, given the resources that religion consumes, we can be nearly certain that religion had some benefit to something at some point in time.

Strange statement, religion consumes resources? What do you mean exactly?

But this helps to demonstrate why religion exists outside it being true.

Religions consumption of resources explain why religion exists outside it being true?

This is not only half truth, but it is obfuscation of the highest order.

First. All religions are true in the sense that they exist. They actually exist, therefore, they are true. We can prove they exist because we have met people who worship accoriding to those religions, Hindu, Buddha, Christian, Muslim, even Pagan. They exst.

Second, Every religion of which I’m aware teaches at least some truth.

As best I understand your confused statement, you are trying to say that because people believe in their respective religions, spend resources in order to worship and attend to their respective religions, this is in your eyes proof that they exist outside of truth?

There are not enough adjectives to explain how wrong you are. A simple description of “non-sequitur” will suffice.

Your unsupported accusation is most likely a case of psychological projection. Like most Christians, since they are intollerant, dogmatic, and inflexiable, they try to make everyone out to be the same.

Well now, I’m a Christian who was once an atheist. I didn’t consider myself intolerant, dogmatic and inflexible then and I don’t now. In fact, as I remember my atheists friends, they were much more inflexible, intolerant and dogmatic than my Christian friends are today.

And you sound pretty inflexible and intolerant in this message.

But lets continue examining your half truths. Do you have any quantifiable data to show that most Christians are inflexible and intolerant?

Christians make themselves out to be oppressed, no matter how bizzare that statement may be.

Quite bizarre.

You try to make dawkins out to be subscribing to some kind of dogma, even though it is clear that he is presenting multiple possibilities and opinions and then presenting his own idea.

Are you sure he isn’t presenting his own idea as dogma?

• Religion changes, for people, the definition of good.*
  richarddawkins.net/article,1700,Logical-Path-from-Religious-Beliefs-to-Evil-Deeds,Richard-Dawkins

The above is a statement by Dawkins. Can you explain why this statement is not dogmatic? If it is dogmatic, then why do you believe he would make dogmatic statements in his articles but not in his book?

In this articles, note how he lumps all religions in with the religion of the Taliban. That seems at the very least, an implied half truth and a misrepresentation of religion as all being like the Taliban.

Personally, I think

Thats the problem with atheists. Your thoughts are your whole world. If you don’t understand it, it isn’t so.

it is most likely a combination between the idea that societies as a whole function like individual organisms and Dawkins idea of a mind virus.

In other words, Dawkins associates the teaching of religion to the young as a mind virus.

To what does he associate the teaching of atheism to the young in Public School? To me, that is the mind virus and our teaching of the Catholic faith to the young is the inoculation.

But you are defending Dawkins religion of atheism. Show me the organized religion of atheism which teaches in a systematic manner, what is good and what is evil.

As for me, I show you the Catholic Church and her doctrines. The teachings of the Church lead a man, even if he were atheist to live a peaceful and meaningful life.

But atheism has no leadership, so far as I can see it is a confusion of voices. Some teach one thing and others another. The only thing that unites you is your dismissal of God’s influence in the world. Unless you can show me different.

The indoctorination of the young only really explains how the idea propigates, not why it does not die off, which I think is better explained by some benefit to primitive societies, such as a fearless army.

The reason why it propagates and why it continues to grow is because people need God. We are made for Him.
CONT’D