The Route Of All Evil

[kalniel]

Dawkins point is simple - Religion is an invalid science because it does not rely on proof.

Quite right. But religion isn't trying to be a science and it will never be. Dawkins failure comes in saying that nothing can exist unless it is a science.

If religion is not a science then how come others are trying to explain the complexities of they eye through their religion? It's a fine line.

That's probably for historical reasons.

Before Popper and others, science *was* religion, or at least partially. Before proper experiments science was largely thought experiment and faith based, just like religion. However science is no longer done under the same paradigm so it's not really valid to use the same for both.

The point being that structural engineering is not habitually rammed down many childrens throats before they are able to REASON for themselves.

And I would hope religion isn't either. Whether or not you do is a purely social decision and in many countries it doesn't happen. Certainly it's not beneficial to faith to do so (what faith is there if you haven't come to your own decision?)

[fuddam]

To all the Christians here -
why do you not believe in the sun god Ra?
why do you not believe the word of Mohammed the last prophet?
why are you not a buddhist?
why do you not believe in a sacred teapot that has been obiting the sun since the creation of the universe? It has divine powers don't you know. That teapot suffered for the sins of man if you didn't know. I believe whole heartedly in the existence and wisdom of this teapot. I cannot prove that it exists or that it created everything I see, but I will chose to believe the sacred texts based on the existence of this wonderful miracle making teapot.

Point being - why believe in something that is not provable?

FACTS? yes, there are facts that can be debated.

eg1: my father spent most of his life with one leg an inch shorter than the other. One day he had it prayed for. His leg grew that missing inch.

eg 2: my friend was travelling away from the UK, in Europe. No-one had been told where he was going - destinations were on a whim. nonetheless, one day he was walking down a road in Germany, out in the countryside, a relatively desolate area - all forests and things. He walked past a phone booth. The phone rang. It was his friend back in the UK who needed to contact him urgently, and had prayed to Christ and received the phone number in answer to his prayer.

eg 3: this past week a number of my friends have been in India, performing to crowds of 1000s. Gospel band - rock oriented etc. Well, some of the meetings were to huge crowds. Some 30,000, some 300,000 - one even was 650,000. Anyway, at one of the meetings was a famous healer by the name of Ram Babu. Normally he prays over particular people, but at one of his meetings 30,000 approx turned up. No, not 30,000 Christians, mostly hindu or otherwise. Anyway, they turned up en masse because they'd heard there was this healer in town. Yep, I know a lot of you atheists / skeptics are rolling your eyes already, visions of the hardsell seen partic on a lot of American evangelical channels, which often seems a request for cash. Well, thing is that all these people heard was that they could be healed. From the slums, they didn't have cash. No cash was mentioned etc. These people just ran to the front to be healed. Ram Babu was kinda taken back - hadn't seen this before. One woman he saw had only a hand growing out of her shoulder - birth deformity. He saw her arm GROW out of her shoulder. The streets outside the venue afterward were just litttered with abandoned stretchers and empty rickshaws.

Now, hear me when I say I AM NOT TRYING TO PROVE GOD'S EXISTENCE. All I want to hear from you, in the face of such occurrences, is how YOU explain them? You can speak to people, daily, who experience such things. I know many. You can question them at length, have a look at photos of before and after, apply all sorts of scientific tests with as many instruments as you can muster.

Now, having done all those tests, I will be very interested to hear your explanations. Of course, as in any science, paradigm shifts take place, and one can simply say that one's current paradigm doesn't fit but one day the knowledge will be able to do so.

understood.

what I am scribbling all this down for is this: understand that you will have a much tougher time refuting God than I do believing Him. Just as someone of the flat earth society can stubbornly refuse to recognise certain phenomena that indicate the earth is round.

Now, all of this doesn't prove God's existence, as I already said. I KNOW He is responsible for such awesome events; you do not. Just because you refuse to believe does not mean I'm wrong.

Furthermore, what is it with the blatant condescension, the patronising tone, the arrogance in so many of the atheist responses, in this forum and many others? Why do you think us Christians are so irrational, so devoid of logical faculties, so desperate? Why do you use words like 'stupid' or 'blind' or 'illiterate'? All you do is show yourselves to be prejudiced, bigoted and lazy.

I follow Christ not because my parents told me to, not because some minister warned me that hell would be the alternative, or because I desperately need a crutch to get me through a life of difficulties. I follow Him because I know Him personally, I have spoken to Him for the better part of 25 years and He has spoken back. Little voices in my head? Delusions? Hallucinations? LOL - PLEASE. I KNOW He exists, just as you know you are alive and not the figment of imagination of some life form on another planet

ooh, bad analogy. Some of you aren't sure about the latter.

Let me put it other terms: if you lived in the Star Wars universe, and you were privvy to the Force, would you deny its existence? Others would tell you it's a load of bumph, but what would YOU believe? hmmmmm? They would say you have a blind faith in something unprovable. Well.................

For me to deny the existence, and current activity, of Christ would be like denying the necessity of breathing to sustain my life.

On a purely intellectual level, however, to atheists my words are just words. Some of you, I believe, will come to understand them from the heart one day, before you shuffle off your mortal coil. There is only black or white - no fence sitting. Hopefully, some of you will question your unbelief one day, open your minds to the possibility. Maybe.........

[TeePee]

Have you read through the secular sources?

'many Bible scholars consider the bracketed passages to be later Christian interpolations. '

'the earliest manuscripts that contain the references to Jesus date to the 10th or 11th century, so most scholars consider it a late Christian interpolation.'

'A 1st century historian (perhaps as early as 52 A.D.) - his works are lost!'

'Wrote "Chronicles" c. 140, now lost'

The others only seem to comment on the existance of christians around 100AD.

[Trippledence]

If you are of the opinion that people who believe in religion are sheep the Sheppard, to give a suitably bible linked analogy. Then its hard not to put your point across without sounding slightly stuck up.

Personally I don’t have a problem with religious people, as an atheist. However stemming from the original discussion of religious extremism, like many good things the merits of the church (Other religious institutes are available) are somewhat overshadowed by views of brainwashing, something that is all too common with the religious cult.

The problem with Science VS. religion is that the two are, in my strange opinion that I will try and explain trying to prove different things. I have to stop myself here because I cant think of that religion is trying to prove, as not many people really believe the bible is true work for word, and taking the minority would be unfair. Science tries to find the pieces of the jigsaw of the universe, bit by bit, and although it is impossible to prove anything to a state of certainty, I fell the mythology centred around science much more personally enlightening than religious views.

One more quip at religion, is the evolution of religion (Perhaps badly phrased). You cannot deny that society has changed since the time of the new or old testament taking Christianity as it is the only religion I am really familiar with. In the same way that law changes accordingly to the status quo at the time, should not religion if these are the guidelines to you life. Any way, trying to avoided getting too sucked into the debate, originally I asked how dangerous Religion is as regards to extremism in western and eastern societies. The debate seems to have moved on some what, so I propose a second question, regarding you views on both science and religion.

Can science be used as a form of control in the same way many feel religion is?

[nichomach]

It's already been attempted; consider Nazi dabbling with eugenics. That may be dismissed as bad science, but in the first half of the 20th Century, eugenics was a theory with some very prominent adherents (Conan Doyle was one, I believe, and he was a doctor). Who's to say that what we regard as good science now will be in fifty years? Certainly, it's possible for 'science' to be enlisted in the service of a political agenda - the 'science' of biometrics in promoting ID cards for instance?

[fuddam]

It's already been attempted; consider Nazi dabbling with eugenics. That may be dismissed as bad science, but in the first half of the 20th Century, eugenics was a theory with some very prominent adherents (Conan Doyle was one, I believe, and he was a doctor).

Sweden was PRACTISING eugenics for a long time after WW2 - all very hush hush until it was exposed in the 80s / 90s - have vague recollections - must go look it up somewhere......

[RVF500]

The problems is no with religion per se but the politics that have grown up within religion. Belief systems that have been hijacked by ruthless individuals throughout history.

The creation cannot be proved or disproved. Nor can the big bang theory or any number of other theories out there. Quantum mechanics? Just how provable is the theory? Moreover, how subject to manipulation is it? The vast majority of us have absolutely no understanding of quantum mechanics and simply have to take some physicists word for it. It doesn't mean we are stupid, just that we havn't the aptitude for that particular discipline. But herein lies an issue. That of the theorist having a personal agenda in getting his/her work believed. All sound familiar? The very same argument has been put up against religious teachings.

As I said in an earlier post. I was told scientists have proved through quantum mechanics the existance of God. I wish I could find the publication, I can't, so sadly I can't back up this statement. However, if there is a thoery out there that has been 'proved' in such a way that means either the science is flawed or the science proves that the original argument, that of religious belief, is sound.

[kalniel]

Can science be used as a form of control in the same way many feel religion is?

Yes, in some ways. But it's not really science.

Science can very often be used as an excuse to control or determine our behaviour, but I don't think that is the fault of science, more the means in which science is (not) delivered to the people. The average UK paper can induce mass behavioural changes on the basis of 'science', when infact the better thing to do would be remove the distance and communication barriers that unfortunately exist between scientists and the general populice.

Perhaps the average person's faith in the science of tabloids is not so far removed from religious faith?


The reason as to why people use science to induce a change is not always all that different from the reason people use religion to induce a change. Eugenics was originally an honest attempt to improve the standard of life for people - and it was fully supported by British scientists at the time as well. Now it has become a lesson for scientists about the importance of ethical considerations alongside science. Thankfully those considerations are becoming more prevalent in teaching of science, but there is still a long way to go.

[DaBeeeenster]

lol

here's a hint: stop being so angry at the world. Stop being so angry with difference. Learn a little tolerance, let people believe what they want to believe - have YOU been subject to specific religious grief in your past? hmm.........

Go read the rest of that Guardian article - I just did. Makes some very valid points, IMHO, and no, the writer does not argue for or against religion.

Dawkings is a lazy academic who surrounds himself with anyone he can find to agree with him. At the end of the day, unfortunately, his epitaph is likely to be that of the old Marx plug:

Marx: God is dead

God: Marx is dead

lol

His name is "Dawkins". To suggest he is "a lazy academic who surrounds himself with anyone he can find to agree with him" demonstrates a worrying level of ignorance. He is unarguably the finest geneticist alive today.

What on earth made you think I was "angry with difference"? I have no problem with people following whatever religious faith they choose to let themselves be indoctrinated by. To each their own. The problem is that other people tend to get caught up in the inherent frictions that are generated.

[DaBeeeenster]

That may well be the case, or it may not be. Do you have a source for this, or are you just assuming that because someone told you and it seems like the kind of thing you expect that it is the case? Even if it is, what does that prove? It's a bad thing, and it happens. That just means that the people propogating this religion are going about it the wrong way. That does not make the religion bad. If you look at what the bible teached, hell itself is hardly ever mentioned, and when it is, it mentioned in the context of 'if you live a life of evil, you will go to hell'. Hell is very briefly described, not in the immense detail that Richard Dawkins was implying, and far more often is the exhortations of going to heaven - and is that really such a bad thing to tell children? Hardly an idea likely to cause emotional scarring I think. The problem is people abusing a religion, rather than serving it, as the bible actually commands.

Personally I find the idea of indoctrinating a young child's mind with such conceptual fallacies as "heaven" and "hell" to be somewhat disturbing. As far as everyone on planet earth with their mental faculties intact can logically surmise, they simply do not exist. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest that they do. It's quite simple.

Now that's just not true. Jesus existed, that's a known fact for a start. Jesus was well known, and was crucified for claiming to be the messiah, which incensed the Jews and worried the romans. That's a fact. Moses existed and led the Israelites out of Egypt against Pharoah Ramesses II's will. That is recorded historical fact.

You mean this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Jesus_Ferguson
That's Jesus, and there's a photo of him. Did the Jesus you are talking about walk on water? Or rise from the dead? Both of those things are physically impossible. Anyone suggesting otherwise is talking nonsense, in my opinion.

The point I was really trying to make though is that religion should be tought for what it is, i.e. a way of viewing life. Plenty of people believe in God's existance, and it is a perfectly reasonable idea - why should people not be tought that it is possible that God exists? even if your view is that it is incredibly unlikely that God exists (and this will always be a matter of opinion - there's nothing you can measure to judge probability of this accurately), but you cannot prove that He doesn't, then at least this should be tought to kids so they understand that a lot of people do actually believe in God.

There is no evidence to suggest that he does exist, so why teach it? Maybe we should start teaching kids that everything the centre of the sun contains a large gobstopper? Or that computers are actually powered by ghosts? I cant disprove these statements, but that's no reason to teach them to children

As to this 'murder' issue, context actually is important. The Israelites were commanded that if someone goes off to worship other Gods they should be executed. They were given this command whilst in the desert having been liberated from Egypt. There would be no doubt in any of the Israeilte's minds as to the existance of God. What they had been through in Egypt, and then in the desert would have made absolutely certain of that. Thus, any 'worshipping of other Gods' would have been an act of wilful disobedience againt a God that they knew to exist. Worship of other Gods involved sleeping with prostitutes, making money, and having a position of power over people.

As far as God is concerned at this point, he has saved them from slavery, they say 'well, thanks, but I prefer this other God (even though I know that Yahweh is the only God) 'cause it gives me a better time'. God says the punishment for this is death. Plenty of countries still have the death penalty nowadays, so I fail to see why this death penalty is so morally repugnant.

I find the death penalty repugnant, irrespective of whether it was created by a lawcourt or a bizarre tale involving Israelites. Just because "plenty of countries" carry out the death penalty is not a positive argument for it. Plenty of countries also have an AIDS epidemic; that doesn't really make AIDS OK though, does it?

My faith is no self-obsession - it is often harder in life if it is true - but I base my beliefs on what I think is true, not what I think is nice. You are however correct - I am not going to be moved by the musings of Richard Dawkins - especially when you understand the background to much that he obviously either does not, or pretends not to so that his arguments look better on the TV. Greatest biologist alive he may be, the greatest theologian, historian, or TV presenter he is not.

This goes back to my previous point. Once indoctrinated people seem to find it impossible to view reality objectively.

[yamangman]

What an extraordinary thread. Claiming a television programme had the sole purpose of generating a bunch of "hoo haa" - who would have thought it? Qutoes from the Guardian, whatever next?! I know, someone trying to convince through disproval of scientific method, using scientific notions that God exists and Religion (using the definition that we all know each other are referring too you pithy plonker) has not been and won't continue to be a burden for humankind.

[fuddam]

Personally I find the idea of indoctrinating a young child's mind with such conceptual fallacies as "heaven" and "hell" to be somewhat disturbing. As far as everyone on planet earth with their mental faculties intact can logically surmise, they simply do not exist. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest that they do. It's quite simple.

so anyone who disagrees with you is illogical, right? you sound exactly like Dawkins

Did the Jesus you are talking about walk on water? Or rise from the dead? Both of those things are physically impossible. Anyone suggesting otherwise is talking nonsense, in my opinion.

you know everything about the physical world, huh? LOL
One day you might understand Aristotle's point about knowledge. Might.

There is no evidence to suggest that he does exist, so why teach it? Maybe we should start teaching kids that everything the centre of the sun contains a large gobstopper? Or that computers are actually powered by ghosts? I cant disprove these statements, but that's no reason to teach them to children

see my previous post. no, wait, it's a waste of time for YOU to do so. Sorry.

This goes back to my previous point. Once indoctrinated people seem to find it impossible to view reality objectively.

you must be starting out in life. Yes, is my sorry assumption, but anyone who wields terms like "view reality objectively" still has some living to do. If you and 10 of your friends got together to discuss a happening you all witnessed, you wouldn't agree on all the details. Maybe not even the major details. Even 2 of you wouldn't necessarily agree. Which one of you is the objective one? hmm......?

Or ask a married couple which one is the objective one and start a REAL debate - lol

All you peeps who say children must not be 'indoctrinated' in religion have yet to understand a very simple point: EVERYTHING you say to them (or anyone else) is informed by your perception. ALL is ideology. You sound like fledgling marxists, the kind who thought science / economics was the only 'truthful' way of examining reality, that all living under a capitalist system were labouring under a misapprehension of the 'true' state of affairs, blah blah blah.

As soon as you tell a child that God does not exist, you are as guilty of indoctrination as the believers you reject. You are pushing your beliefs on to that child. You have no proof that God does NOT exist.

The best you can do, as atheists, is tell them that God might exist but you have no personal knowledge of Him / it. You are being as truthful as possible.

As for me, as someone who knows of God's existence, I must be truthful to what I know, and tell the child God DOES exist to my knowledge.

YOU CANNOT ESCAPE FORCING BELIEFS ON A CHILD.
The child asks a question, you answer as best you know how. If you want to bring up that child in the most 'neutral' way possible you would have to tell the child you are not certain of anything, that all reality might be a hallucination, that you have no idea whether your perception (eg) of the colour red matches with their perception of red, etc etc, and leave the child a quivering mess in a world of uncertainty. Go ahead. Good luck to your kids. Don't blame me when they break out the steak knife in the dead of night.

My kids, 5yrs old and younger, go to school happy in the knowledge that a God who loves them deeply made them beautiful and precious in His sight, they talk to Him constantly, and joke with Him, they communicate with Him, AND that they should respect other people for not sharing that belief. They feel safe in His care and protection, and have deep compassion for other people, since they too were made by Him, regardless of race, creed, belief etc.

Your atheist kids might also grow up to be balanced individuals. Either way, they are NOT more objective than mine. You cannot avoid seeing 'reality' through the blinkers of your belief system.

[fuddam]

Religion (using the definition that we all know each other are referring too you pithy plonker)

nope, slow learner, the point is that they are ALL valid applications of the term religion simultaneously. Your atheist belief (if that is what you profess to be) is just as much a religion as my Christianity. I have never considered atheists to be irreligous - the closest to the latter would be someone who just doesn't care either way, completely disinterested in the question.

has not been and won't continue to be a burden for humankind.

go ahead, Great Humanitarian. Am surprised you have time to spend in a forum like this, on top of all the schools you have founded over the centuries, the health clinics, the hospitals, the crisis centres, counselling centres, libraries, universities, colleges, charitable foundations; also too the great works of art you have inspired that far exceed anything done by those pithy ponkers Leonardo Da Vinci & Michelangelo (amongst thousands if not millions of others), who were sorely deluded, albeit talented. If I had Bono's phone number, I'd tell him to give up his Christian beliefs because they are surely of no benefit to the world.

DOH!!!!!!!!

[Kumagoro]

So some people only do things because of god religion etc, thats pretty shallow.

[yamangman]

Yes, i'm aware religion has different meanings, hence pointing out the fact. I don't find I need to persue atheism with conscientious zeal and devotion however, I know it's right, I don't need to 'believe' in it. The point made was the topic refers to religion i.e. reverence in supernatural beaing/teapot etc etc, i.e. not the other meanings, no matter how funny you think it is that they can be described by the word religion (haw haw). Quite a simple concept really.

You seem quite embittered for someone who pertains to be a Christian. Your great list is truly astounding. You do realise anyone with a fair dosage of common sense is capable of good, they don't need to presribe to a religion.

Now lets make a list of all the terrible things that happen in the name of religion. Let's see, i'll go first, then maybe someone else can mention another thing.

Errm, Pope Innoncent III, "Outside the Church there is no salvation". Quite a chilling tale I think you'll find.

[yamangman]

Furthermore why don't you attempt to answer some of the difficult questions, rather than focusing in on the minute details of peoples arguments. I'm sure you'll find you will be a more rounded person as a whole if you do.