Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion.

[Meef Chaloin]

so you think morality has anything to do with religion?

YES how earth shocking it must be for you that moral is a product of evolution too?

well morality has more or less originated from religions, whether you believe in them or not. For example if you live in any western country you are living (broadly) under the morals of christianity or judaism. Sumerian morals were remarkably similar to our own, from political structure to the treatment of the homeless, and that was at least 5,000 years ago. Their morals were deeply rooted in their religious sensibilities, if their morals were the same how far back do you go, it all points to religions, not that im saying they are true at all, but morals do stem from religion, or at least they are strongly influenced by them. Thats not to say that atheists are immoral, every human has a sense of morals, but the judgement of which are right tends to have a religious context somewhere.

[BoimB son of BoB]

it's all of that.

but because people are still stuck mostly in the organized religion belief, he had to focus his book to those people first...

when enough people reach the state of deism: 'faith in an higher power' watever that may be to you. hopefully they can start educating people that that viewpoint is actually evenly flawed. and get that out of the way too.

[BoimB son of BoB]

so you think morality has anything to do with religion?

YES how earth shocking it must be for you that moral is a product of evolution too?

well morality has more or less originated from religions, whether you believe in them or not. For example if you live in any western country you are living (broadly) under the morals of christianity or judaism. Sumerian morals were remarkably similar to our own, from political structure to the treatment of the homeless, and that was at least 5,000 years ago. Their morals were deeply rooted in their religious sensibilities, if their morals were the same how far back do you go, it all points to religions, not that im saying they are true at all, but morals do stem from religion, or at least they are strongly influenced by them. Thats not to say that atheists are immoral, every human has a sense of morals, but the judgement of which are right tends to have a religious context somewhere.

let me tell you that religion itself is a dilusion that finds its origin in evolution and thus morality is a product of evolution.

[Meef Chaloin]

it's all of that.

but because people are still stuck mostly in the organized religion belief, he had to focus his book to those people first...

when enough people reach the state of deism: 'faith in an higher power' watever that may be to you. hopefully they can start educating people that that viewpoint is actually evenly flawed. and get that out of the way too.

so you're saying that scientific absolute atheism is what every human should believe in, nothing in the shape of higher power or consciousness than ourselves?

[Meef Chaloin]

so you think morality has anything to do with religion?

YES how earth shocking it must be for you that moral is a product of evolution too?

well morality has more or less originated from religions, whether you believe in them or not. For example if you live in any western country you are living (broadly) under the morals of christianity or judaism. Sumerian morals were remarkably similar to our own, from political structure to the treatment of the homeless, and that was at least 5,000 years ago. Their morals were deeply rooted in their religious sensibilities, if their morals were the same how far back do you go, it all points to religions, not that im saying they are true at all, but morals do stem from religion, or at least they are strongly influenced by them. Thats not to say that atheists are immoral, every human has a sense of morals, but the judgement of which are right tends to have a religious context somewhere.

let me tell you that religion itself is a dilusion that finds its origin in evolution and thus morality is a product of evolution.

haha thats an interesting way to put it in the context of the argument

[BoimB son of BoB]

i really don't think that religion itself has anything to do with the existance of morality, however it has been mixed up and spread that way.

believe me you do not need something like religion to have a 'clear' sense about what's right and wrong.

even so, that is not the point. like i said morality and religion are two products of evolution and for me the one has nothing to do with the other, although a lot of people think it does, or religion think it has some 'correct' view about morality which in my eyes it has absolutely not. i think the bible is mostly unmoral especialy the old testament. it's a discusting pience of literature.

[Meef Chaloin]

perhaps i should put it another way, are religion & spirituality one and the same thing for a dawkinist or different?


I have to say im perhaps agnostic at the moment but more of less atheist (id never rule anything out) but i strongly object to spirituality and religion being confused and the idea of a scientist preaching against spirituality.

[Meef Chaloin]

believe me you do not need something like religion to have a 'clear' sense about what's right and wrong.

i did not mean that in any sense, i am myself kind of an atheist

[BoimB son of BoB]

it's all of that.

but because people are still stuck mostly in the organized religion belief, he had to focus his book to those people first...

when enough people reach the state of deism: 'faith in an higher power' watever that may be to you. hopefully they can start educating people that that viewpoint is actually evenly flawed. and get that out of the way too.

so you're saying that scientific absolute atheism is what every human should believe in, nothing in the shape of higher power or consciousness than ourselves?

yes i strongly believe that.

i am a biotechnologist, and i think the world as it is and works at the molecular leven is absolutely amazing. you have no idea until you actuallt go study it in detail. most scientist see things, laws, patterns in nature that are so astoundingly beautiful and complex. yet most of them do not believe. this is because the most beautiful thing of it all is that evolution has given us the tools to actually try to understand how such complexitys can evolve from buttop up, without the need for some higher power that with a flick of his fingers created it all. if the latter would be true that would be a very very big disapointment for me. the beuaty lies in the actual understanding. ignorance and and unknowingness, with all do respect lead to things like religion. the wonders lay in nature itself and how it works and build itself up. those things are way more impressive than a mystical power of some sort.

[Meef Chaloin]

i really don't think that religion itself has anything to do with the existance of morality, however it has been mixed up and spread that way.

believe me you do not need something like religion to have a 'clear' sense about what's right and wrong.

even so, that is not the point. like i said morality and religion are two products of evolution and for me the one has nothing to do with the other, although a lot of people think it does, or religion think it has some 'correct' view about morality which in my eyes it has absolutely not. i think the bible is mostly unmoral especialy the old testament. it's a discusting pience of literature.

but you cannot deny the relevance and effect it has had on evolution, it doesnt matter if they came from religion or if you believe in the religion or if you agree with the direction, they have had a massive effect on the morals of humans and probably will for a very long time.

[BoimB son of BoB]

perhaps i should put it another way, are religion & spirituality one and the same thing for a dawkinist or different?


I have to say im perhaps agnostic at the moment but more of less atheist (id never rule anything out) but i strongly object to spirituality and religion being confused and the idea of a scientist preaching against spirituality.

i understand that standpoint, i think you definatly would find a great deal in dawkins book. he will adres your questions.

i think you will find him not agressive at all. he just has his arguments sharpened by years of insult etc. it's not about who's true, it's about opening people's eyes, give them tools to analyze their believes and worldviews.
some people find dawkin offensive just because he actually tells the truth here and there about religion and how it has actually done more bad then good. but for me that's not even the point anymore.

[Meef Chaloin]

it's all of that.

but because people are still stuck mostly in the organized religion belief, he had to focus his book to those people first...

when enough people reach the state of deism: 'faith in an higher power' watever that may be to you. hopefully they can start educating people that that viewpoint is actually evenly flawed. and get that out of the way too.

so you're saying that scientific absolute atheism is what every human should believe in, nothing in the shape of higher power or consciousness than ourselves?

yes i strongly believe that.

i am a biotechnologist, and i think the world as it is and works at the molecular leven is absolutely amazing. you have no idea until you actuallt go study it in detail. most scientist see things, laws, patterns in nature that are so astoundingly beautiful and complex. yet most of them do not believe. this is because the most beautiful thing of it all is that evolution has given us the tools to actually try to understand how such complexitys can evolve from buttop up, without the need for some higher power that with a flick of his fingers created it all. if the latter would be true that would be a very very big disapointment for me. the beuaty lies in the actual understanding. ignorance and and unknowingness, with all do respect lead to things like religion. the wonders lay in nature itself and how it works and build itself up. those things are way more impressive than a mystical power of some sort.

But that is not really different than a religious person saying that their view is right, dont you see the irony? You could educate someone from years & years in the patterns you talk about & that knowledge but they could still come out at the end and say i can see god through these patterns, i believe Einstein himself saw it that way.

[Meef Chaloin]

perhaps i should put it another way, are religion & spirituality one and the same thing for a dawkinist or different?


I have to say im perhaps agnostic at the moment but more of less atheist (id never rule anything out) but i strongly object to spirituality and religion being confused and the idea of a scientist preaching against spirituality.

i understand that standpoint, i think you definatly would find a great deal in dawkins book. he will adres your questions.

i think you will find him not agressive at all. he just has his arguments sharpened by years of insult etc. it's not about who's true, it's about opening people's eyes, give them tools to analyze their believes and worldviews.
some people find dawkin offensive just because he actually tells the truth here and there about religion and how it has actually done more bad then good. but for me that's not even the point anymore.

yeah i have read a few of his previous books, the blind watchmaker and another about the panspermia idea, but ive only seen the video he did for this recent stuff. Im just not impressed with his new direction, i can understand and and pretty much agree with what he is trying to say but i think his method is very wrong and looks to me like someone who is out of his league, he should stay being a scientist not trying to influence socialogical change, he doesnt have the tact and comes across as yet another extremist but of the atheist type.

To me atheism means being atheist until proven otherwise, it seems like he is saying we should be atheists no matter what, and to be honest that narrow mindedness is as dangerous as a wacko US christian preacher

[BoimB son of BoB]

i really don't think that religion itself has anything to do with the existance of morality, however it has been mixed up and spread that way.

believe me you do not need something like religion to have a 'clear' sense about what's right and wrong.

even so, that is not the point. like i said morality and religion are two products of evolution and for me the one has nothing to do with the other, although a lot of people think it does, or religion think it has some 'correct' view about morality which in my eyes it has absolutely not. i think the bible is mostly unmoral especialy the old testament. it's a discusting pience of literature.

but you cannot deny the relevance and effect it has had on evolution, it doesnt matter if they came from religion or if you believe in the religion or if you agree with the direction, they have had a massive effect on the morals of humans and probably will for a very long time.

agreed. but the whole basis of it is just 'false'. but you are absolutely right about the effect religion has had on marality. although i would call it culture. because morality for me doesn't need religion to have evolved...

[BoimB son of BoB]

perhaps i should put it another way, are religion & spirituality one and the same thing for a dawkinist or different?


I have to say im perhaps agnostic at the moment but more of less atheist (id never rule anything out) but i strongly object to spirituality and religion being confused and the idea of a scientist preaching against spirituality.

i understand that standpoint, i think you definatly would find a great deal in dawkins book. he will adres your questions.

i think you will find him not agressive at all. he just has his arguments sharpened by years of insult etc. it's not about who's true, it's about opening people's eyes, give them tools to analyze their believes and worldviews.
some people find dawkin offensive just because he actually tells the truth here and there about religion and how it has actually done more bad then good. but for me that's not even the point anymore.

yeah i have read a few of his previous books, the blind watchmaker and another about the panspermia idea, but ive only seen the video he did for this recent stuff. Im just not impressed with his new direction, i can understand and and pretty much agree with what he is trying to say but i think his method is very wrong and looks to me like someone who is out of his league, he should stay being a scientist not trying to influence socialogical change, he doesnt have the tact and comes across as yet another extremist but of the atheist type.

To me atheism means being atheist until proven otherwise, it seems like he is saying we should be atheists no matter what, and to be honest that narrow mindedness is as dangerous as a wacko US christian preacher

i do not agree with that. istrongly suggest you actually read the book. i think it is not as offensive as it looks...

also i think you description of atheis is actually agnost and not atheist.
i can live with that .

i do not think at all his views are narrow minded, i would even take that as an insult.

and i would like to say the man does not propagandate some doctrine of some sort. and it's not a mister sypathico contest either.

i hope his book will reach a lot of young minds and give them the tools to break free. i had to wait until i was 13 years old until i finally got an amazing alternative which blew away all my doubt. Dennett: darwins dangerous idea. first 54 pages or so and there it was, i imediatly threw away all the religion brable. and i felt very relieved.

i wished for you there was a middle way, some sort of compromise. but reality says there isn't. and it's about time some people stand up against all this religious brable. it's about facts, the man's ego is the least of my concerns.