Richard Dawkins

[Shaitan]

And it appears you don't understand simple logic.

You claim religion devalues life and as evidence note how often the words kill, etc are contained in the Bible.

Yet if the mere appearance of these words is evidence of the the devaluation of life, then their appearance in your post - at a much higher rate per 1000 words - must be evidence that you also place little or no value on life.

What don't you understand about that?

Ophiolite and baumgarten, but mainly Ophiolite, could you put it laymans terms, as I just dont get it, because how can a person pointing out the evils in a book, albeit a holy one, be guilty of devaluing life.
if they were guilty of following by example, or carrying out said evils, then you would be right.
if those words were'nt there would there have been so much killing.
the point to that is proven by the very religions that do not preach any violence, is it not.

 

[baumgarten]

There is constant killing in the name of religion despite the fact that most of these religions do not actually condone violence. This shows that religion does not stop people from killing each other and that religion is often used as a justification for violence. But how does it imply that the violent passages in religious scriptures are to blame for the violence? Considering all the other different excuses we have for violence, it would seem that we don't really need gory mythology to compel us to kill each other.

 

[lightgigantic]

Fire

They can, but do they? Perhaps even with such advanced weapons around, war is a deterant on both sides and has forced more allies. Do you think the EU, UN, NATO etc would exist if every country just had simple weapons like olden times? No, perhaps war would be as flippant as ever and we would return to battlefields of tens of thousands of soldiers with swords and pea shooters. Afterall, there's no nuclear bomb for the politicians who wage war, to fear. Hence why I question deaths from advanced weapons is actually higher than that of 1,000 years ago (bearing in mind population growths).

Actually the notion of a leader hiding in some bunker far removed from the front line is a development of industrial war - in more conventional periods the king was actually qualified by his abiltity to lead his men into battle - there are instances of even queens refusing to open the city gates to their defeated husbands because they returned from the battle field with no wounds (suggesting they were imposters since the "real" king would not succumb to such displays of weakness of heart on the battlefield) - such notions of course don't manifest in contemporary warfare since chivalry simply gets you killed - hence there is a different type of ruler in the guise of political leadership in contemporary society

 

[Raithere]

It is interesting that Dawkins when attacking traditional religions, fails to point out that Scientific industrialism has also not been wholly a blessing to mankind. Look at the development and mass production of weapons and the tremendous loss of life they produced in World War I and World War II.

Increased loss of life, yes, but also a rebalance of power. Prior to advent of gunpowder only the nobility could afford to maintain soldiers trained in the use of weaponry. The common man had zero chance against a mounted knight or samurai. The rifle, indeed the great equalizer, evened the odds and redressed an imbalance of power that had existed since the advent of civilization. It is no accident of history that common democracy followed the rifle. Today things have swung back again a bit, but not entirely, fighter jets, bombers and artillery still cannot hold an armed populace.

In another part of the same article she says, "People may be properly nourished and fully employed, but if they are granted no personal dignity and are trained to no standard of character or excellence, if there is no Quality at the core of their lives, they will either withdraw sullenly into themselves or pursue material extravagance and sensual stimulation as shallow substitutes for Quality."

Historical romanticism. Dignity, quality, and excellence have always been the pursuit of the few while the masses toil away at survival, and escapism. The English gave them plays, the Romans gave them coliseum battles and Christianity, and the Americans gave them MTV. It's all the same.

~Raithere

 

[lightgigantic]

Raithere

Increased loss of life, yes, but also a rebalance of power. Prior to advent of gunpowder only the nobility could afford to maintain soldiers trained in the use of weaponry. The common man had zero chance against a mounted knight or samurai. The rifle, indeed the great equalizer, evened the odds and redressed an imbalance of power that had existed since the advent of civilization. It is no accident of history that common democracy followed the rifle. Today things have swung back again a bit, but not entirely, fighter jets, bombers and artillery still cannot hold an armed populace.

On th e contrary your descriptions of the rebalance of power is false - its not like access to firearms has socially equalised everyone - try again

Historical romanticism. Dignity, quality, and excellence have always been the pursuit of the few while the masses toil away at survival, and escapism. The English gave them plays, the Romans gave them coliseum battles and Christianity, and the Americans gave them MTV. It's all the same.

Actually the things you describe as escapism actually thrive on presenting people with a notion of dignity etc

 

[Ophiolite]

Ophiolite and baumgarten, but mainly Ophiolite, could you put it laymans terms, as I just dont get it, because how can a person pointing out the evils in a book, albeit a holy one, be guilty of devaluing life.
if they were guilty of following by example, or carrying out said evils, then you would be right.
if those words were'nt there would there have been so much killing.
the point to that is proven by the very religions that do not preach any violence, is it not.

Look. The other poster was claiming because the words kill, smite, etc appeared in the Bible this was evidence that the Bible was evil and that the Bible devalued life.
In other words their logic is very simple - the appearance of the words kill, smite, etc in a piece of writing is clear evidence that the writers of that work are devaluing life. Thaty is their sole argument. The Bible uses those words, therefore the Bible is devaluing life.
But they have not considered the context of the words. For example, one usage of kill is in the commandment - thou shalt not kill. Is that devaluing life. Of course not. But the poster seems to think it does.
What we are pointing out is that he is also using those words, therefore by hos own logic, he must also be devaluing life.
I hope that makes it clearer.
Cheers

 

[Raithere]

On th e contrary your descriptions of the rebalance of power is false - its not like access to firearms has socially equalised everyone

I disagree. Universal egalitarianism is a relatively new concept; particularly on a global scale. Admittedly it had surfaced in micro-cultures in the past but significant strides towards the realization of ideal did not truly occur until gunpowder made the common man into an effective soldier.

Actually the things you describe as escapism actually thrive on presenting people with a notion of dignity etc

Sometimes they do, sometimes they do not. But being passively entertained with representations of these things is certainly not the same as the actual pursuit of them. One can achieve nothing vicariously.

~Raithere

 

[S.A.M.]

I disagree. Universal egalitarianism is a relatively new concept; particularly on a global scale. Admittedly it had surfaced in micro-cultures in the past but significant strides towards the realization of ideal did not truly occur until gunpowder made the common man into an effective soldier.

Sometimes they do, sometimes they do not. But being passively entertained with representations of these things is certainly not the same as the actual pursuit of them. One can achieve nothing vicariously.

~Raithere

Do we indeed have universal egalitarianism?

 

[Raithere]

Do we indeed have universal egalitarianism?

No, but we are closer to it than since humans were nomadic foragers and hunter, and for the most part not even then. Certainly the ideal has never been more wide-spread.

~Raithere

 

[lightgigantic]

Raithere

I disagree. Universal egalitarianism is a relatively new concept; particularly on a global scale. Admittedly it had surfaced in micro-cultures in the past but significant strides towards the realization of ideal did not truly occur until gunpowder made the common man into an effective soldier.

Is it a rebalance of power to enable an unqualified person or community access to things that they will misuse - at the very least the democratic right to bear arms seems to be heavily monitored by the US on a global level - I think you are perceiving "the balance of power" to be the "balance of power in your favour" - certainly the women in third world countries who balance sledge hammers on their heads so they can carry their babies in their arms while walking to work may disagree

Sometimes they do, sometimes they do not. But being passively entertained with representations of these things is certainly not the same as the actual pursuit of them. One can achieve nothing vicariously.

They all seem to thrive on concepts of dignity, quality and excellence - they may not appear dignified etc to you but its the nature of value systems to be varigated