Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion.

[stale bread]

i have no respect for religion, NONE.

it's the only thing i have no respect for.

it's a very dangerous creation of man's mind, heapily abused by the smarter to inflict pain on millions, and as a mean to gain power.

if the astounding complexity of nature from micro organisation at molecular level, to complex patterns in ecology, even culture would be the result of some (stupid) god: that would be the biggest disapointment of my life.

of course i know that won't happen

so yeah i laugh at religious people, and no i do not pay them any respect if the matter should come at hand.

i will tell them in their face they are DUMB, if they give me reason to do so.

trust me when I say....... you're no better than them. your post shows that in that you're mimicking what you hate.
time to self destruct.

[BoimB son of BoB]

Science knows so little about the mind and consciousness, its ludicrous to me to deny outright any possibility of a greater force/intelligence of some kind.

you know what for my part there is an alien out there with a greater force conciousness out there. but it will not be god, it may even have created life on earth formy part. but that creature itself willbe the product of evolution itself.

you can not PROVE ythere is NO god. but as dawkins says it very clear, the chance of there being one is statisticly NIHIL. so NIHIL for me it's not even worth poundering about.

[BoimB son of BoB]

BoimB son of BoB wrote:

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

and: "morality for me doesn't need religion to have evolved..."

We are not talking about 'morality for you', we are talking about morality as scientific fact, independent of a particular observer.

You seem to be suggesting that morality itself has evolved, ie it is changing over time. This is an interesting idea, but it suggests that there is no particular morality at all: it can change over time, and the morality that sells hard drugs to children, for example, is just as valid as a morality that looks after people in need.

I had thought the concept of morality was that it was unchanging, like the laws of physics. We might discover new truths in physics, but the truth was always there, it just needed discovering. Is morality unchanging in this way? Is it a law of the universe, like the laws of physics, biology, and of evolution? Dawkins does not seem to address this. I agree with the observation from Meef Chaloin that Dawkins "method is very wrong and looks to me like someone who is out of his league".

i think not. you mustfor once stop thinking so human narrow minded. there is more in this world than the human intellect.

Good and Wrong are terms that only make sense to ous humans. and there are many times good and wrong are not black and white. mostof the time it's a big grey zone.

in nature, the animal world there is NO GOOD en NO WRONG. it's a big slaughter out there. animals killing other animals for food etc. it's a big struggle! most humans kill animals by the millions. that could be considered as bad now could it. and NO i don't agree that morality is something to be 'dicovered' somthing that is a mahematical rule out there. that's crap. morality itself is a pure human thing evolved through culture etc.

[BoimB son of BoB]

trust me when I say....... you're no better than them. your post shows that in that you're mimicking what you hate.
time to self destruct.

well you see, that is not the point. it's not a beauty contest or Mr Nice contest.

it's about the truth. why should i be better than them. what gives them the right to be all super cocky and indoctrinating people with the most stupid ideas possible.

you know: suppose you have 2 salesmen at your door. both trying to sell you a vacuum cleaner, only 1 of the 2 is actually making things up that ain't there. he's dillusional or does it on purpose to trick you.

both are trying to sell you stuff. but that doesn't mean apart from both be anoying, that the 1 is telling rubbish to you and the other one telling yo how it is.

there is a big difference in that.

it's no fucking beauty contest!

[ryansupak]

I believe in God, and I think that religion is responsible for many good things (Greenpeace, soup kitchens, etc...) but I think religion is often misused by people in power.

I think that most (but not all) of the people who are aggressively anti-religion have ulterior motives.

rs

[BoimB son of BoB]

I believe in God, and I think that religion is responsible for many good things (Greenpeace, soup kitchens, etc...) but I think religion is often misused by people in power.

I think that most (but not all) of the people who are aggressively anti-religion have ulterior motives.

rs

arr, what does ulterior motives mean?

[BoimB son of BoB]

I believe in God, and I think that religion is responsible for many good things (Greenpeace, soup kitchens, etc...) but I think religion is often misused by people in power.

I think that most (but not all) of the people who are aggressively anti-religion have ulterior motives.

rs

and what do you mean bu agressively.

verbal agressive?

well if that's the only thing they do 'wrong' i give them my full support.

what does it matter that greenpeace has catholic roots? wtf does it matter.

it's not 'who does the most good' contest either.

[fatrabbit]

Of course science doesn't have all the answers. Things are being revealed gradually by experimentation, and if you think about it science is relatively young and only really got going 300-400 years ago.*

*Of course this is not counting the innovations made in ancient times (Egyptians, Mesopotamiens, Romans etc.), but most of these were born out of necessity and practicality rather than seeking answers to things.

[terragong]

http://www.dailyzen.com/zen/zen_reading0203.asp

[shtreimel]

OK this took out of context is poorly worded, what I was trying to say is one's take on religion, whether atheist or muslim, jewish, or whatever, has little bearing on their moral and ethical behavior in the real world.

Go spend time with religious Jews...anywhere. You'll retract your statement...quickly.*


* I can't speak for non-Jews, but I'm assuming a legislated lifestyle of volunteering, family cohesion, prayer, etc., leads to ethical behavior. And dare I say, more than secular folks.

[shtreimel]

the chance of there being one is statisticly NIHIL. so NIHIL for me it's not even worth poundering about.

Man, I wish I had your cocky confidence Bob. But since I don't, and I'm just an artsy fartsy musician, I'll leave it up to these folks to prove that your opinions are very ill-formed:

Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery Of Harmony Between Modern Science And The Bible
The Science of God
Gerald Schroeder -Israeli physicist, Trained at MIT


Worldmask
Rabbi Dr. Akiva Tatz - Surgeon and Director of Jerusalem Medical Ethics Forum


Heard great things about:
The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief
Francis S. Collins -Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH)

[majais]

Did anybody mention here or anywhere else the biggest and most dangerous religion of all of them, the one that nobody seems do doubt in it's essence? Everybody or almost everybody seems to fall for it....... it's called science....

[ethios4]

AFA you arguing that Dawkins is getting it wrong etc. well you're looking to find where he's wrong. You're reading him to find his faults. Then you complain that atheists do that to the bible, yet your example with Dawkins is most definitely splitting hairs.
Anyway, I have no interest in "converting" you to atheism. Like I said before I just don't see mankind as emotionally evolved enough to abandon religious thinking.

I'm not interested in converting anybody here, I'm just standing up for what I believe to be true. I'm looking for fault in Dawkins' arguments just like he is looking for fault in religion - comparing what is stated against what I rationally believe. The difference is that I was a strong atheist before, and I completely understand and appreciate where an atheist is coming from, whereas I get the feeling that Dawkins has never understood and appreciated where a religious person is coming from.

I can't represent Dawkins accurately here, since I don't have anything of his to quote here. I don't think my example is splitting hairs because I don't think it was a simple misstatement on Dawkins' part. The relation of God to the universe is a foundational idea in any religion, and is one of the major concepts that sets different religions apart. So to misunderstand or misstate the relation of God to the universe renders much of the argument irrelevant, IMO.

[BoimB son of BoB]

the chance of there being one is statisticly NIHIL. so NIHIL for me it's not even worth poundering about.

Man, I wish I had your cocky confidence Bob. But since I don't, and I'm just an artsy fartsy musician, I'll leave it up to these folks to prove that your opinions are very ill-formed:

Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery Of Harmony Between Modern Science And The Bible
The Science of God
Gerald Schroeder -Israeli physicist, Trained at MIT


Worldmask
Rabbi Dr. Akiva Tatz - Surgeon and Director of Jerusalem Medical Ethics Forum


Heard great things about:
The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief
Francis S. Collins -Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH)

oh i have confidence allright. i have no fear going through all that material you present. it'll be a good laugh.

2 of these are jewish? the most racist belief of the moment. i'm talking fundamentalist jews here. being smart is no guarantee for being wise either.

[shtreimel]

oh i have confidence allright.

Looking forward to your book review

i have no fear going through all that material you present. it'll be a good laugh.

I'm not asking you to go visit dracula in his castle. A simple awareness that there are folks, with the same training as Dawkins, that believe in God...BECAUSE OF their awareness of physics, science, etc.

2 of these are jewish? the most racist belief of the moment. i'm talking fundamentalist jews here.

Y'know Boimb...maybe, just maybe you had some of the 14 year olds on this BB fooled that you knew a thing or two. But I'll let you dig your hole deeper...please explain the "racist" and "fundamentalist jews" comment. I think I'm about to have a stormfront moment

being smart is no guarantee for being wise either.

Which would be true of Dawkins as well, huh?