Root of all Evil?

[phish]

I think theism has brought people to do more harm than good. I think whatever benefits religion alone brings has been outweighed by the problems religion "brings." Sure, its nice to have a Mother Theresa, but even such amazing good is destroyed by a religious bigot with the same, unalterable determination.

 

[wsionynw]

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?
.

Gordon, evolution science doesn't claim to have the answer to the origin of life, it explains the variety of life on this planet. Evolutionists admit that much of their science is educated conjecture based on the evidence and current knowledge in the field. It's wide open to additions, revisions, corrections and support. This is what I was taught. If you choose not to believe in the various theories of evolution science then that's up to you, but science will continue regardless of religious ignorance.
Dawkins is simply using attack as a form of defence, since his science is constantly being attacked (not so much in the UK). If theists want to attack evolution then why not also attack geology, astronomy, chemistry, etc,?
I'm not sure why you consider Dawkins dangerous? Please explain.

 

[Bells]

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?

Is there no evidence? Dawkins looks at religion as a meme. He looks at God as a meme. In 'The Selfish Gene', where his notion of 'meme' is first mentioned, he describes the meme of god as being one that has been passed down through the generations through writings, art, stories. What he describes is that every church passes these stories down to the congregation. And when added with stories of notions of things such as hell, it is seen as an added incentive for the weak mind to simply fall into line and believe. After all, who wants to go to a burning lake and be tortured by the devil? Children are taught these stories from the get go by not only their parents but by the leaders of their churches. Telling a child that the devil will hurt them and that the only thing who can save them from such a boogie man is god is a very powerful message. The child then grows up seeking guidance from the only people it can, its parents and circle of family and extended friends, which in many families includes churches and their fellow members. The child then begins to imitate, as Dawkins puts it in his work, its parents and such behaviour is passed down to the next generation. And in each one the notion of God is altered and becomes more powerful. Rejection of such stories means the individual is ostracised by not only the family but their very community.

Yes I have read Dawkins. And yes some of his ideas are bizarre, but the whole point, which he also states, is that no matter how bizarre, if someone can disprove them through scientific research and not merely blind faith, then he would welcome them. Religion does not allow such disqualification of ideas and entrenched beliefs, no matter how much proof exists to discount the religious premise involved.

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.

Yes but Dawkins hasn't started a war because science told him so and he hasn't killed anyone because it would be scientifically prudent to do so. Extremist atheists do exist and yes Dawkins is one of them, but he doesn't seek to cause harm to people for his beliefs or lack of. There is the difference.

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!

How many theists have you known who has been critical of their god's actions as written in the texts of their own religion? I have yet to meet one. I wonder why that is? could it be they fear the thought of burning in everlasting hell and damnation? Do they fear the backlash from others in their religion and close family and friend circle?

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.

Marxist and lack of human rights has nothing to do with atheism or with religion. No one is saying that all atheists are peaceful people. What I am saying is that in the past and in the present, religion and gods have been used as an excuse to murder, kill and start wars. Looking back into history, I cannot see an instance where someone started a war against believers merely because they believed in god.

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.

And? A communist and marxist government has nothing to do with atheism. After all, an atheist in such a country who decided to voice their opinion against their leaders would also be facing the same risk as your friends, if not more so.

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.

Oh you are absolutely correct. Tribal customs and political differences has played a major part in the wars of recent times. But behind all of that is also religion and differences in different gods and beliefs all together. Kosovo is one of those examples. Northern Ireland is another.

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.

Why would one believe that they are supernatural or somehow connected to a greater entity? Why is there a need to connect anything to god simply because it cannot be explained otherwise? Does it provide comfort to think that there is a father figure in the sky looking down on you?

Lets look at art for example. How did it come about? Could it have been some form of communication in the ancient past? Those little rock drawings of a hunt telling a story or warning others who may come across them of what had happened there before hand? Isn't that what art is in a sort of ways? Trying to communicate or convey something to any who might see it? Why is there a need to attribute it to something supernatural? Because science hasn't found an reason as to why cavemen first drew on the walls, therefore god is the reason? The fact that you and many other theists fail to realise is that while science has yet to find an answer to a particular question, it will keep on looking for it. Theists merely say 'god' and that's that. No more research needs to be made. Nothing else needs to be said.

This is what Dawkins is saying. Religion does not challenge its history or its beliefs. God is the only answer and nothing else needs to be looked at or spoken of.

To believe in the supernatural is totally rational and to mock such beliefs is not.

How so? How is it rational to believe in something of which no proof exists of its existence, merely what has been passed down through the generations and through stories? Please educate us.