Root of all Evil?

[Satyr]

Has anyone seen a documentary by Dawkins called The Root of all Evil? (I think) about how religion breads closed-minded fanaticism?

He made the point – with which I agree – that the 9/11 attacks were the product of religious certainty and dogma and that the American Bible belt is no less fanatical than the Taliban.
The point was that religion is but another idealism which has closed its mind to possibility.

Here in Canada the documentary was followed by a discussion forum where religious and non-religious people confronted Dawkins himself.

I found the documentary provocative and the ensuing discussion typical.

I loved it.

I dedicate this thread to lightgigantic.

He inspires me.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

Surely if God created everything then by default He is the root.

I dedicate this post to atheism.

It doesn't need inspiration.

 

[Baron Max]

...and that the American Bible belt is no less fanatical than the Taliban.

I'll bet that Dawkins nor anyone else can actually tell us where the "American Bible Belt" is!! ...LOL! And yet he makes such claims, and YOU agree with him!! ...LOL!

Okay, Satyr, where is the "American Bible Belt" and do the women there all have to wear burkhas, and cover their ankles and faces? Or what do the people in the Bible Belt do that makes them the same as the dictatorial Taliban? Please, since you agree with Dawkins, tell us.

Baron Max

 

[VitalOne]

"Virtue is persecuted more by the wicked than it is loved by the good." - The Buddha

 

[redarmy11]

Religion is what you make of it. The smart and the good take the best from it - the messages of tolerance and forgiveness - and leave the rest; the bad use it to further their own agendas; the stupid eat it all up indiscriminately, like ice-cream. It's not religion itself that's to blame, but extremist interpretations of it. Political ideas are similarly susceptible to being hijacked by nutcases (aka the rich and the powerful).

 

[Roman]

He made the point – with which I agree – that the 9/11 attacks were the product of religious certainty and dogma and that the American Bible belt is no less fanatical than the Taliban.

I'm sure you've seen this video.

I thought it was pretty cool. We're training extremists to fight their extremists!

 

[Satyr]

This is what the mind-set of lightgigantic lead to.

This is man at his retarded best.
This is what religion does to the brain.

 

[James R]

where is the "American Bible Belt"...

It's a common enough term. Haven't you heard it before?

The "bible belt" mostly consists of land-locked US states. Most of the bible belt is rural. Much of it is the southern states.

It's the area when many people are very religious - committed Christians. They go to church at least once a week. They are generally deeply conservative, and distrust anything they consider "liberal". They don't believe in evolution and generally think that the bible is an infallible and accurate historical document.

As an Australian, I am surprised I need to tell you about your own country. You should take more of an interest in your own surroundings.

 

[Jaster Mereel]

Religion is what you make of it. The smart and the good take the best from it - the messages of tolerance and forgiveness - and leave the rest; the bad use it to further their own agendas; the stupid eat it all up indiscriminately, like ice-cream. It's not religion itself that's to blame, but extremist interpretations of it. Political ideas are similarly susceptible to being hijacked by nutcases (aka the rich and the powerful).

Perfect. It seems like some of the people around here refuse to accept this simple fact.

Some people act like religion is an entity separate from the people who practice it, like it's a person that someone can blame for evil or for good. That's ludicrous. Religion is what people use it for. Lots of people use it for positive things. Lots of people use it for negative things. Religion is as varied as humanity itself. It's just an idea.

 

[Athelwulf]

I've been slowly watching it on YouTube. I got dial-up, so it's sorta painful. But I've managed to watch the first half hour to fourty minutes today. It's interesting. Of course, I'm aware of some of the subject material already, but that's just fine with me.

I tell you, the leader of the evangelicals (Pastor Ted Haggert, I think) is kinda scary. Is it just me, or does his upper lip flex almost into a snarl when he talks?

 

[wsionynw]

I'll bet that Dawkins nor anyone else can actually tell us where the "American Bible Belt" is!! ...LOL! And yet he makes such claims, and YOU agree with him!! ...LOL!

Okay, Satyr, where is the "American Bible Belt" and do the women there all have to wear burkhas, and cover their ankles and faces? Or what do the people in the Bible Belt do that makes them the same as the dictatorial Taliban? Please, since you agree with Dawkins, tell us.

Baron Max

Maybe you should check out Jesus Camp.

 

[lightgigantic]

Given that the root of all evil is openly declared in any scripture you care to mention as lust, anger, avarice etc I am not sure how the claims of this thread suggest anything new -

The difficulties of mainitaining purity within an instituition are more to do with the mechanics of an institution - one can find similar incidences of fraud, embezzlement, nefarious behaviour etc even in scientific instituitions

 

[Gordon]

The problem with Dawkins is that he is an expert in a very narrow field (zoology) but his ego causes him to believe that he is an expert in matehematics, logic, sociology, theology and a whole host of other disciplines.

Reading some of his books you can very soon discover that his knowledge in these areas is often seriously lacking.

I don't know what makes him tick. He seems to have an (ever increasing) pathological hatred of religion, recently almost to the exclusion of all else. It is interesting that his early books represent a reasonable defence of naturalistic evolution based on his knowledge and research in his own field and can be read by those with any views on the subject on the basis of rational discussion. His more recent works abandon this almost totally and have simply become personal diatribes against religion, blaming it for virtually every ill on the planet. In an attempt at pseudo-science to support his odd views, he has invented the 'meme' for which there is absolutely no evidence (scientific or otherwise). He denegrates faith unmercifully by deliberately misdefining all faith as blind faith but this particular theory of his requires far more faith than believing in an omnipotent God! He seems to be as unbalanced about religion as white supremacists are about race.

Presumably something happened to him in the past. He is every bit as much of an extremist atheist as any extremist theist he can quote. It is probably as well he is safely in academia in a western society (England). In a position of power in a different type of society, where he could translate his extremist views into practical action, he could possibly be very dangerous.

People should never allow any convergence of view to permit themselves to align to those with extremist views. I do not for instance support 'Christain Voice' which is a most hateful organisation which I believe misuses the title 'Christian' totally. I likewise think moderate rational atheists and agnostics should be very careful of Professor Dawkins!


regards,


Gordon.

 

[audible]

The problem with Dawkins is that he is an expert in a very narrow field (zoology) but his ego causes him to believe that he is an expert in matehematics, logic, sociology, theology and a whole host of other disciplines.

why is that relevant, regardless of his intelligence level, there is evidence for everything else, but not god.

I don't know what makes him tick. He seems to have an (ever increasing) pathological hatred of religion, recently almost to the exclusion of all else.

I think it's more a fear of what damage religion does, as it is the most evil of institutions on this planet.

He denegrates faith unmercifully by deliberately misdefining all faith as blind faith

well is it anything else without any evidence.

People should never allow any convergence of view to permit themselves to align to those with extremist views.

exactly his whole point, I glad you understood that.
so what are you now going to do, stop following the views of others and use your own mind and will, instead of having it suppressed, by irrational belief.

 

[Dinosaur]

God is okay. It is his fan clubs which causes all the trouble.

 

[Bells]

His more recent works abandon this almost totally and have simply become personal diatribes against religion, blaming it for virtually every ill on the planet.

Think about it. Look at the last few years. Religious dogma and it's extreme interpretation has led to most of the ill's on this planet. After having watched this documentary and read some of his works, I can't say I blame him. He makes a very good point in that religion can and is dangerous. For example, Catholics who preach that the use of contraception is wrong, pushing such teachings in third world countries, resulting in the lives of people being at stake due to the rapid spread of AIDS. Or people thinking that only god can cure their ills, resulting in not a miracle, but death. He points out the illusion of religion and he also points out the dangers of such illusions. What he terms as the bible belt in the US for example are mostly all conservatives who have an influence on American politics. He spoke to atheists who virtually had to meet in hiding for fear of losing their jobs if found out. He spoke of the fact that religious teachings were pervading education, where the Evangelicals were pushing forth the teachings of the bible as fact.

I mean who in their right minds would believe that the Earth was less than 10,000 years old? And to teach such falsehoods to children? He points out that religions were completely ignoring facts discovered and proven by science and continuing to teach what is said in the bible, no matter how wrong it is. Now in light of all this, could it be dangerous? Hell yes. Look at religious where fanaticism leads to the death of others. Roman linked a report on Jesus camps where children are being indoctrinated in becoming christian warriors. He may not blame it on just about every ill on this planet, but if one looks at all the problems that plague us at the moment, religions of influence sure do have quite a hold on a lot of them.

He denegrates faith unmercifully by deliberately misdefining all faith as blind faith but this particular theory of his requires far more faith than believing in an omnipotent God!

His theory? Oh you mean the ones proven by science? Right.. He told a story in this documentary of one of his old professor's who's theory had been disproven by a visiting American scientist, and how his old professor applauded the American for having proven his 15 year old theory wrong. His point? That science accepts and will admit when someone else proves them wrong. Religion does not. It has refused to do so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Why? Blind faith. Religion demands that their followers believe in their doctrines and in their God. Religion demands that any proof pointing otherwise should and must be ignored.

I have a cousin who has become a religious evangelical nut. Yesterday her mother found her and her husband kneeling in front of the TV with their hands pressed flat to the TV, which was showing one of those stupid American evangelical prayer meetings, and they were doing the 'praise the lord he is cured' crap.. and my stupid idiotic cousin and her equally idiotic husband believed because the moron on the TV told them that if they put their hands on the screen and prayed and screamed to god to heal the sick on the screen, miracles would happen. My aunt was, to say the least, mortified, shocked and from what I hear, amazed that her daughter had become so stupid. She did the only safe thing to do, she backed away and tried to not make eye contact with her daughter and son in law. Now what would lead the two previously very intelligent people and now utter morons to behave as such? Blind faith.

He is every bit as much of an extremist atheist as any extremist theist he can quote.

At least he admits it. I am sure the parents of the kids in the Jesus Camp story do not think they are extremist when they send their kids to a camp where they are told that to fight for God they must pick up arms and kill Muslims and defend Bush.

It is probably as well he is safely in academia in a western society (England). In a position of power in a different type of society, where he could translate his extremist views into practical action, he could possibly be very dangerous.

You mean like Haggart and his extremist views are put into practical action through the political arena in the US? Or do you mean like Bush? You never know, Dawkins could do the really bad thing of forcing schools to go back to teaching science and *GASP* evolution to kids, instead of teaching them creationism. Imagine how dangerous that could be..

 

[Satyr]

-Once you’ve introduced Creationism of God Creator as just another viable scientific theory – which only just happens to have no supporting evidence – taught in schools right beside Evolution Theory with mountains of supporting evidence and rational arguments, then you create minds that believe on the grounds of authority or indubitable Scripture and you equate the superior to the inferior or the sensual world with the imagined one.

They do not look, at the world but they listen to another describing the world to them.
When you teach a mind to believe unquestioningly on the grounds of authority and it ceases using its own sensual awareness of the world around it, then you close this mind up to the empirical experienced world and it becomes a tool of ideologies manipulating its emotions and needs.

-If a mind can believe, unquestioningly and uncritically, theories that promise much and show little – all because they offer a relief from existential uncertainty – then what else can you convince this mind about?
Perhaps that if it dies in the name of God that it will go to heaven or, perhaps that if it castrates itself and drinks poison a UFO will come and take it away to another planet or that when it dies it will live forever?

If it has suspended critical thinking in one area then what else can you make it suspend critical thinking about?

When you convince a retard that it fights on the side of absolute goodness and that eternity will be its just reward for spreading death and destruction to non-believers then what else can you make it do on behalf of God or 'justice' or 'goodness'?

The issue here isn’t what you believe, since all beliefs are general extrapolations with superior or inferior supporting arguments or empirical evidence, and they are speculations based on different levels of rational thought, but how you believe or how you are taught to believe is at issue here.

How little evidence do you require to become convinced of what you wish to believe in or what suits your vanity and instinctual need to survive or what adheres to what you’ve been taught from birth as part of your cultural heritage?

How much unquestioning authority do you accept as part of your reality and how much do you rely on your own awareness and analysis?

How much does fear and emotion and need infect your reasoning - for wisdom is more than intelligence, and human judgment is often clouded by emotionalism?

When the belief urges you to accept it unquestioningly and only based on the power of its historical or mystical authority – an authority it supports itself, becoming its own supporting evidence – then this belief is attempting to close your mind off from any other possibility by manipulating your human fears and anxieties and using a system of reward/threat arguments.

The unquestioning mind is now fanatical. It has ceased thinking, exploring, doubting, thinking and it is now “knowing” or "fiathful" (hope).
This mind is now ripe for manipulation, it is a religious mind, and even though it thinks itself righteous or on the side of ‘good’ and ‘love’ it never analyzes what these terms mean and so it becomes a tool of avarice and hatred even while thinking itself the opposite.
No greater evils have been perpetrated by man than when men believed themselves to be fighting for justice and ‘good’ and a God.

Everything from Communism to Christianity has had a certainty concerning its own ideologies.

Spirituality doesn’t necessarily lead to fanaticism but it can be a first step towards religion, and religion is often dogmatic, superficial, authoritarian, absolutist and unquestioning.
This is when it becomes dangerous.

A belief cannot be judged on what its supposed ‘pure essence’ is or what its ideal man is, but by what its actual man and its actual products are.

All ideologies promise a ‘better man’ a ‘good man’ a ‘just man’ a ‘loving man’ a 'superior man' and all ideals pretend that their errors are due to men not practicing their ideals accurately, but then the question becomes:
Are these ideals based on a hypothetical man whom nobody can live up to?

Are we to judge an ideal or a belief or a religion by what it pretends to be or wants to be or should we judge it by what kind of men it actually produces and what kinds of minds are attracted to it or by its historical past?

-The argument that religion produces better men rests on the assumption that ‘good’ is ‘useful’ to the whole – just like a ‘good’ cow is the cow that produces the most milk or births the most calves.
Here the individual is valued as he relates to other humans and not the universe.
In most cases what ‘good’ means is avoided or defined from the perspective of collectivism or community.
The assumption that information/knowledge must necessarily lead to ‘happiness’ with its mere belief and that no further effort is needed to shape information/knowledge into something useful underlies all faith based beliefs.
The only effort required here is the suppression of reason so as to accept information entirely and absolutely based on hearsay and then to control all thoughts of doubt or uncertainty.
Faith is the suppression of thought by emotion for survival’s sake.

In fact all authority demands complete discipline by destroying or suppressing individuality.
Everything from the military to religion use psychological methods of character assassination to achieve group cohesion and harmony.
Authority appears both menacing and comforting. It then rewards those that obey, offering an escape from their threat through total submission.

Furthermore the myth of religion producing ‘good men, rests on the assumption that men only act compassionately or justly if they believe in a threatening/rewarding entity or are promised a reward for their efforts.
That is that I can only be nice to my neighbor if there is a God there watching and judging.
The rational reasons for being ‘nice’ are replaced by emotional ones and then they are masked behind mythologies.
Selfishness is turned into selflessness and love ceases being a survival mechanism and it becomes a mystical, universal force that will save us all.

 

[Gordon]

Think about it. Look at the last few years. Religious dogma and it's extreme interpretation has led to most of the ill's on this planet. After having watched this documentary and read some of his works, I can't say I blame him. He makes a very good point in that religion can and is dangerous. For example, Catholics who preach that the use of contraception is wrong, pushing such teachings in third world countries, resulting in the lives of people being at stake due to the rapid spread of AIDS. Or people thinking that only god can cure their ills, resulting in not a miracle, but death. He points out the illusion of religion and he also points out the dangers of such illusions. What he terms as the bible belt in the US for example are mostly all conservatives who have an influence on American politics. He spoke to atheists who virtually had to meet in hiding for fear of losing their jobs if found out. He spoke of the fact that religious teachings were pervading education, where the Evangelicals were pushing forth the teachings of the bible as fact.

I mean who in their right minds would believe that the Earth was less than 10,000 years old? And to teach such falsehoods to children? He points out that religions were completely ignoring facts discovered and proven by science and continuing to teach what is said in the bible, no matter how wrong it is. Now in light of all this, could it be dangerous? Hell yes. Look at religious where fanaticism leads to the death of others. Roman linked a report on Jesus camps where children are being indoctrinated in becoming christian warriors. He may not blame it on just about every ill on this planet, but if one looks at all the problems that plague us at the moment, religions of influence sure do have quite a hold on a lot of them.


His theory? Oh you mean the ones proven by science? Right.. He told a story in this documentary of one of his old professor's who's theory had been disproven by a visiting American scientist, and how his old professor applauded the American for having proven his 15 year old theory wrong. His point? That science accepts and will admit when someone else proves them wrong. Religion does not. It has refused to do so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Why? Blind faith. Religion demands that their followers believe in their doctrines and in their God. Religion demands that any proof pointing otherwise should and must be ignored.

The theory referred to is that of 'memes' for which there is no evidence whatever. It would be useful if instead of always trotting out the same anti-christian diatribes, some contributors here actually read the contributions and perhaps did some background research. Have any of you read any of Dawkin's recent works (or indeed any at all) which even his atheistic peers in the same field think is more than a little bizarre?

Yes of course there are extremist 'nutters' who call themselves christians but there are plenty of extremist atheists too and Dawkins is one of them. That is the point I was making.

Everyone needs to wake up to the difference between those who believe in the freedom to think, speak and write and those who do not. If people (like so many on this forum and elsewhere) continue to believe that all atheists believe in freedom and all theists (christians, muslims etc.) all believe in restriction of freedom, we are all going to be in a very sorry state in regard to that freedom. If you cannot identify the enemy correctly, you will most certainly lose any battle!

Of course you can point to where supposedly christian people and societies have gone wrong but people on this forum seem to believe that all theism causes all evils (a bit like Dawkins) whilst atheism is a great panacea for peace. Everyone seems to want to shut their eyes to the appalling mess that today is Albania after over 40 years of atheistic Marxist rule or of course a country like North Korea, a place with almost no human rights whatever.

Just for the record I have very liitle time for many of the US TV evangelists but they do not represent all of christianity (if any part at all in some cases). And the USA is of course not all of the world nor even the most important part (whatever some may believe). In fact if you think for just one moment maybe all the rationalisations for not wanting any form of external morality and simply adopting a totally 'personal choice society' might just be a rationalisation for excusing the Western nations appallingly selfish attitude towards the world and the other nations and peoples in it.

Coming back to Albania, I have christian friends who are desperately trying to spread some peace and love across the evil mess that is post Marxist Albania at great personal risk to themselves so forgive me if I find much of the theoretical pseudo intellectual nonsense expressed on this site about 'evil christians' and 'peaceful atheists' somewhat unconvincing.

If you believe that christians are all evil or stupid or both, and that 'Religious dogma and its extreme interpretation has led to most of the ills on this planet.' I fear that you are the one who is at the very least misinformed. I have on another thread given a list of mass murderers of the twentieth century (all atheists to a man except Hitler who I would categorise as an occultist if anything). If you look at wars and civil unrest, the reasons are often complex. If you seriously believe that they are all simply the result of differences in religious beliefs between the sides, then again you must be misinformed or not capable of rational analysis.

There seems to be a total confusion on this site between what is irrational and what is supernatural. This is part of Dawkin's problem. He understands that there are things which do not lend themselves to totally natural explanations (in the sense of the material matter energy universe). Things like love, music poetry, all sorts of arts etc. etc. It is therefore totally rational to believe in these supernatural things because we all know that they exist. Dawkins however is so afraid of the merest possibility of anything supernatural that he has to regard such things as 'natural' and has invented his 'meme' theory to try and disprove what is evidentially true to any one who actually is rational.

To believe in the supernatural is totally rational and to mock such beliefs is not. Of course what you regard as supernatural and what not may depend on your view of life and some will ascribe to 'the supernatural' that which clearly is not but there can often be some very grey areas, where either could apply but when a naturilistic explanation requires a distortion of the workings of probability even beyond the abuse which Dawkins (who appears not to understand the subject properly at all) affords it in some of his works.


regards,


Gordon.

 

[Gordon]

-Once you’ve introduced Creationism of God Creator as just another viable scientific theory – which only just happens to have no supporting evidence – taught in schools right beside Evolution Theory with mountains of supporting evidence and rational arguments, then you create minds that believe on the grounds of authority or indubitable Scripture and you equate the superior to the inferior or the sensual world with the imagined one. ............

Here in the UK evolution (including many parts of the theory now totally outdated and discredited and including the famous Haeckel fakes) was taught as fact to children when I was in primary shcool (now nearly 50 years ago). Creationism was not taught (even most of our 'Religious Instruction' teachers taught 'theistic evolution' other than those who were atheists!!). The question is not whether you should 'brainwash people into Genesis' but whether when there is no proof that the universe and life started accidentally, that you should teach that as fact but merely point out whatever evidence there is and allow children to decide whether accident or cause is more likely.There is no reason to be specific about the cause. It need not be a christian God or any other formalised religion's version of god, merely a cause. Why is the possibility of a cause dogma whilst the possibility of chance (neither scientifically provable) science?

-When you convince a retard that it fights on the side of absolute goodness and that eternity will be its just reward for spreading death and destruction to non-believers then what else can you make it do on behalf of God or 'justice' or 'goodness'?

Insulting people by describing them as 'retards' and 'it' does not indicate any rational analysis.

-The issue here isn’t what you believe, since all beliefs are general extrapolations with superior or inferior supporting arguments or empirical evidence, and they are speculations based on different levels of rational thought, but how you believe or how you are taught to believe is at issue here.

How little evidence do you require to become convinced of what you wish to believe in or what suits your vanity and instinctual need to survive or what adheres to what you’ve been taught from birth as part of your cultural heritage?

How much unquestioning authority do you accept as part of your reality and how much do you rely on your own awareness and analysis?

How much does fear and emotion and need infect your reasoning - for wisdom is more than intelligence, and human judgment is often clouded by emotionalism?

When the belief urges you to accept it unquestioningly and only based on the power of its historical or mystical authority – an authority it supports itself, becoming its own supporting evidence – then this belief is attempting to close your mind off from any other possibility by manipulating your human fears and anxieties and using a system of reward/threat arguments.

The unquestioning mind is now fanatical. It has ceased thinking, exploring, doubting, thinking and it is now “knowing” or "fiathful" (hope).
This mind is now ripe for manipulation, it is a religious mind, and even though it thinks itself righteous or on the side of ‘good’ and ‘love’ it never analyzes what these terms mean and so it becomes a tool of avarice and hatred even while thinking itself the opposite.
No greater evils have been perpetrated by man than when men believed themselves to be fighting for justice and ‘good’ and a God.

What you quote are for the most part human weaknesses which apply to all human beliefs, organised religious, cultural, even personal.There are at least as many dangers in personal analysis wihtout reference to others and believing that you alone have got it right as there are in following particular organisations. The latter can guide people who would go astray personally just as they can guide people to go astray who might not otherwise have gone. It's a very complex interaction. It is not simply religion bad, personal belief good. This is a misguided trivialisation.

-Everything from Communism to Christianity has had a certainty concerning its own ideologies.

Beliefs cannot have certainties, only people. That those who believed were certain is really a statement of the obvious. Whether communist leaders generally were quite so certainly 'faithful' Marxists or saw it as a useful method of authoritarian power could be dabated

-Spirituality doesn’t necessarily lead to fanaticism but it can be a first step towards religion, and religion is often dogmatic, superficial, authoritarian, absolutist and unquestioning.
This is when it becomes dangerous. .

True but but the fact that 'it is often' means also that it logically is not always and 'dogmatic, superficial, authoritarian, absolutist and unquestioning' are atttributes not necessarily intrinsic to religions and certainly not unique to them either.

-A belief cannot be judged on what its supposed ‘pure essence’ is or what its ideal man is, but by what its actual man and its actual products are.

All ideologies promise a ‘better man’ a ‘good man’ a ‘just man’ a ‘loving man’ a 'superior man' and all ideals pretend that their errors are due to men not practicing their ideals accurately, but then the question becomes:
Are these ideals based on a hypothetical man whom nobody can live up to?

Are we to judge an ideal or a belief or a religion by what it pretends to be or wants to be or should we judge it by what kind of men it actually produces and what kinds of minds are attracted to it or by its historical past?

-The argument that religion produces better men rests on the assumption that ‘good’ is ‘useful’ to the whole – just like a ‘good’ cow is the cow that produces the most milk or births the most calves.
Here the individual is valued as he relates to other humans and not the universe.
In most cases what ‘good’ means is avoided or defined from the perspective of collectivism or community.
The assumption that information/knowledge must necessarily lead to ‘happiness’ with its mere belief and that no further effort is needed to shape information/knowledge into something useful underlies all faith based beliefs.
The only effort required here is the suppression of reason so as to accept information entirely and absolutely based on hearsay and then to control all thoughts of doubt or uncertainty.
Faith is the suppression of thought by emotion for survival’s sake.

In fact all authority demands complete discipline by destroying or suppressing individuality.
Everything from the military to religion use psychological methods of character assassination to achieve group cohesion and harmony.
Authority appears both menacing and comforting. It then rewards those that obey, offering an escape from their threat through total submission.

Furthermore the myth of religion producing ‘good men, rests on the assumption that men only act compassionately or justly if they believe in a threatening/rewarding entity or are promised a reward for their efforts.
That is that I can only be nice to my neighbor if there is a God there watching and judging.
The rational reasons for being ‘nice’ are replaced by emotional ones and then they are masked behind mythologies.
Selfishness is turned into selflessness and love ceases being a survival mechanism and it becomes a mystical, universal force that will save us all.

There are a lot of issues compounded and muddled into one here.

All ideologies certainly do not promise a 'better' man (they may promise a 'better society' or various other rather different goals).

You cannot judge any belief honestly by other than what that that belief espouses. Otherwise as soon as anyone who notionally ascribes to it, does not live up to that, you have to decide that the belief has intrinsically changed in some way (because you are now judging it differently). This is absurdly illogical. It would mean that you would have to decide that the basic principles of law and order for instance were not worthy because some people sometimes steal, mug and murder. Whether a belief system is inherently good or evil depends on what it advises/tells/commands people to do not on how many of them how many times do differently to what its says.

You can certainly accuse many christians over the years (including now) of not being peaceful and not doing good and even of being evil. You may debate the meaning of 'christian' and even the words in scripture as to what the belief set of christianity is or is not. All of these are valid rational discussions. However to extrapolate the behaviour of some (even if they were the many) to being the basis of the belief is not a logical deduction in any way. It may just be that the belief is one that few can live up to.

Clearly people can do good for all sorts of reasons and even for not very good ones just as people do evil things for all sorts of reasons (including misplaced good intentions).

I do not for one moment believe that there are no atheists doing good things. That would be absurd!

Christianity does not require you to do good things to get a reward. That is the wrong way round. Eternal life (the 'reward' to which I assume you are referring) is a gift of God, totally unearned. That you should want to help others is only an outward manifestation of having taken on board the love of God and a wish to spread that love amongst others. If you do not wish to do that (of your own free will based on no desire for any reward), then the truth of your 'christian' belief must be in serious doubt.


Interestingly but not surprisingly, in all these debates all the good work done by those who really do follow Jesus' teaching such as individuals and organisations giving real practical help to people in need, are of course ignored. Perhaps you are just not aware of them. Just as an example have a look at what Tearfund (a christian relief organisation) is doing quietly and without fuss (including supplying condoms to reduce HIV transmission incidentally!). (http://www.tearfund.org/). This is how true christians do show what christianity is really all about.


regards,



Gordon.

 

[geeser]

Yes of course there are extremist 'nutters' who call themselves christians but there are plenty of extremist atheists too and Dawkins is one of them. That is the point I was making.

has he blown anybody up.

Everyone needs to wake up to the difference between those who believe in the freedom to think, speak and write and those who do not.

yes exactly his point.

If people (like so many on this forum and elsewhere) continue to believe that all atheists believe in freedom and all theists (christians, muslims etc.) all believe in restriction of freedom,

with atheism you hav'nt an all powerful deity to control your lives, your free to think, speak and write what you wish, if a theist states something against his religion, he is ostracized, condemned, and shunned.

Of course you can point to where supposedly christian people and societies have gone wrong but people on this forum seem to believe that all theism causes all evils (a bit like Dawkins) whilst atheism is a great panacea for peace.

there is good and evil in every section of society, please dont be foolish.

Everyone seems to want to shut their eyes to the appalling mess that today is Albania after over 40 years of atheistic Marxist rule or of course a country like North Korea, a place with almost no human rights whatever.

47 years and marxist, not atheist, however what happened to religion during these 47 years, did everybody who was religious suddenly stop, or did it go underground, and what of human rights in islamic countries and catholic countries(south american for example)
your arguement is invalid.

Coming back to Albania, I have christian friends who are desperately trying to spread some peace and love across the evil mess that is post Marxist Albania at great personal risk to themselves so forgive me if I find much of the theoretical pseudo intellectual nonsense expressed on this site about 'evil christians' and 'peaceful atheists' somewhat unconvincing.

what do you think atheism is, what is your view, as you seem to be mixing up communism and atheism, thats like saying a catholic is a muslim.

If you believe that 'Religious dogma and its extreme interpretation has led to most of the ills on this planet.' I fear that you are the one who is at the very least misinformed.

then it is up to you to re-educate us, by showing us a time when the world went on it's merry way without any religious interference at all.

I have on another thread given a list of mass murderers of the twentieth century (all atheists to a man except Hitler who I would categorise as an occultist if anything). If you look at wars and civil unrest, the reasons are often complex. If you seriously believe that they are all simply the result of differences in religious beliefs between the sides, then again you must be misinformed or not capable of rational analysis.

again you labeling everyone as atheist, as opposed to being simple a nutter, or a power mad nutter.
most crazy peole get put in asylums but sometimes they get by us, just like moses, muhammed, Torquemada, etc.

There seems to be a total confusion on this site between what is irrational and what is supernatural. This is part of Dawkin's problem. He understands that there are things which do not lend themselves to totally natural explanations (in the sense of the material matter energy universe). Things like love, music poetry, all sorts of arts etc. etc.

all these things either can be measured or effect the senses, however the supernatural cannot. unless you've changed the laws of physics.