09 Dec 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadyes, this has been debated elsewhere. how much of the garbage he spews does he really believes?
I feel compelled to point out that there are practically no restrictions on who may have children by biological means.
Also, it must be noted that vishvahetu says a whole lot of nonsensical or grossly over exagerated things on this forum. It is highly improbable that he believes half of it or even talks like that in his personal life.
your view on him lying about half of what he says is, in my opinion, biased by the belief, hope if you will, that such a moronic person cannot exist.
i am afraid anything is possible.
09 Dec 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonHe copied the text from an article by Deepak Chopra, in which Chopra 'debunks' the Dawkins 'God Delusion' book.
“...its not my argument, ...”
your 'argument' was that “..Dawkins still believes there are solid objects randomly colliding to HAPHAZARDLY form more and more complex objects, until over the course of billions of years the universe produced human DNA with its billions of genetic bits ..” (my emphasis)
this is what you claim; right?
If so, I des ...[text shortened]... that natural selection is not purely random etc etc) .
Which “author” are you referring to?
http://www.beliefnet.com/Holistic-Living/2007/02/Debunking-The-God-Delusion-Part-1.aspx
09 Dec 10
Originally posted by vishvahetusoo, love for your wife, children is an ilusion too?
lets get one thing clear.......your children are not your children, and your wife is not your wife.
You are playing a game in this world, and sometimes you are a wife to someone, or a child to someone, or a husband to someone, but its all an illusion or role playing.
You have been born trillions of times in this temporary material creation in diffe ...[text shortened]... of the planet.
The only thing that is real is the spiritual, and the unreal is the material.
09 Dec 10
Originally posted by ZahlanziIf you actually read the book, he never says categorically God doesn't exist.
on the contrary, it is quite relevant.
one of the main points in dawkins crusade against religion is this zealotry that doesn't stem for any conclusive proof. but if he himself is a zealot without any conclusive proof (that god absolutely doesn't exist, any religious person is deluded) then that paints him as a hypocrite and diminishes his credibility.
09 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knobi read some of it, and yes, the book is quite civilised and fairly understanding. however he does say in his documentaries that any religious person is deluded.
If you actually read the book, he never says categorically God doesn't exist.
yes, he may abstain from actually saying "god is 100% not real". however i don't see any passage in which to say "there is a chance god IS real"
also, i was pointing out the fact that his zealotry is relevant to the subject IF this and that were true.
09 Dec 10
Originally posted by ZahlanziHe says, something along the lines of, 'i don't believe God exists but of course i can never state anything with 100% certainty', or something along those lines. I don't own a copy of the book to check.
i read some of it, and yes, the book is quite civilised and fairly understanding. however he does say in his documentaries that any religious person is deluded.
yes, he may abstain from actually saying "god is 100% not real". however i don't see any passage in which to say "there is a chance god IS real"
Religious fundamentalists are 100% certain they are correct, there is a difference between the mindsets of Dawkins and fundamentalist religious folk.
09 Dec 10
Originally posted by Proper KnobYes. One side has faith, the other does not.
He says, something along the lines of, 'i don't believe God exists but of course i can never state anything with 100% certainty', or something along those lines. I don't own a copy of the book to check.
Religious fundamentalists are 100% certain they are correct, there is a difference between the mindsets of Dawkins and fundamentalist religious folk.
09 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonthe quotation was from the article posted by Doward.
“...its not my argument, ...”
your 'argument' was that “..Dawkins still believes there are solid objects randomly colliding to HAPHAZARDLY form more and more complex objects, until over the course of billions of years the universe produced human DNA with its billions of genetic bits ..” (my emphasis)
this is what you claim; right?
If so, I des ...[text shortened]... that natural selection is not purely random etc etc) .
Which “author” are you referring to?
09 Dec 10
Originally posted by divegeesterRegarding theology, yes.
I'm don't agree with Dawkins, but he is not an ignoramus, surely...?
Really this sort of thing is understandable in some ways. I mean you have "theologians' doing the same with science. They are largely ignorant of science and create things like the Creation museum. So in retaliation, Dawkins comes out with ignorant books like the one he has written. In short, you often disdain what you have no knowledge about. You then become arrogant soley upon your area of expertise.
As for myself, I enjoyed a book by Dr. Gerald Schroeder called Genesis and the Big Bang. It was nice having someone with a working knowledge about religion AND science.
09 Dec 10
Originally posted by John W BoothYou are totally mistaken, because you are in illusion like the mad man in the padded cell who says he is Napoleon.
No. In [b]reality my child is my child. In the realm of cyberprattle he may be "dust in the wind". I have no particular interest in questioning the degree to which you care for - or don't care for - your own children, which as twitehead pointed out seem to be some kind of biological right of yours and almost anyone and everyone.
I am, however, c ...[text shortened]... en is all just more cyber jizz smeared across my screen, as far as I am concerned.[/b]
The child you see is just a rotting body, and you will never be able to be a proper father to your children until you have the spiritual vision, that the child before you is really an eternal spiritual being, that does not belong to you.
When you can understand that your child is only in your care until they reach maturity, and you teach them the spiritual principles of life, and the truth of God, and life and death in this world....then you can claim to be a fit father.
If you do not teach your children the spiritual principles of life, then you are abusing your power as a guardian.
It might surprise you, that I am probably the only qualified person in this forum to be a father, because I dont mistreat my children, by telling them false beliefs and teachings from the dishonest mainstream religions, and the dishonest scientific establishment.
Because I can actually see that my children are spiritual beings, I can actually respect them on a real level of understanding ....one spiritual being to another spiritual being.
And if they died tomorrow, it wouldn't upset me the slightest, because for the soul (the real person) there is no death.
If you think when your child dies that they cease to exist,.... then that is disrespectful on your part, because you haven't understood who your child really was, when they were in your care and alive.
Are you teaching them well?....or are you teaching them that the goal of life is to chase material pleasure, which is even available to the hogs, dogs, camels and asses.
09 Dec 10
Originally posted by ZahlanziThere is real love, and there is artificial love.
soo, love for your wife, children is an ilusion too?
Spiritual love is real, which means with your spiritual vision you see the real person on the soul level, and any love directed in that way is real.
But if you love the person and dont respect them for having an eternal spiritual soul (which is them).....then that love is artificial and not genuine.
Tell me......will you love your wife in 1000 years time.
Answer..no
Because you John Smith, and your temporary wife Mary Smith, will not exist as husband and wife, but be living another life with another spouse, and professing your eternal love for them instead......and the circle goes round and round and round.
09 Dec 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuEvery person is on their own spiritual journey, and when the children are young you cannot teach them religion, because they do not understand.
You are totally mistaken, because you are in illusion like the mad man in the padded cell who says he is Napoleon.
The child you see is just a rotting body, and you will never be able to be a proper father to your children until you have the spiritual vision, that the child before you is really an eternal spiritual being, that does not belong to you.
...[text shortened]... fe is to chase material pleasure, which is even available to the hogs, dogs, camels and asses.
But the proper thing to do, is to wait till the questions come, and then you answer according to their age and understanding.
If the questions dont come, then you respect their position (it might be neutral)....but what you do do is, bring them up in an environment (the family home) where there is no meat eating, no gambling, no intoxication, and no illicit sex and show by example that over endeavoring for material acquisition is not necessary.
My children have left home, but they are aware of my spiritual understanding, and their spiritual understanding is their private concern.
You have to realize that being connected by blood, doesn't mean we all think the same, and in some cases family members are quiet opposite, because every individual soul has their unique past which of course is unique to them.
The main thing here is, that you can only ever teach the child if they are inquiring of their own volition.....and where talking about my spiritual understanding not theirs, because my understanding allows me to see them as soul, travelling in a temporary material body, which will ultimately become dust in the wind.