09 Dec 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuWhat age were your children when the woman who gave birth to them, nursed them and raised them, said to them "If you die tomorrow, it won't upset me in the slightest"?
But the proper thing to do, is to wait till the questions come, and then you answer according to their age and understanding.
09 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by John W BoothThats a good question. He obviously has never experienced the death of his own child.
What age were your children when the woman who gave birth to them, nursed them and raised them, said to them "If you die tomorrow, it won't upset me in the slightest"?
If he had he would not sound so callous about it.
09 Dec 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonOne wonders why any human creed would center around rejecting our essential humanity and all the wonderful experiences it embraces?
Thats a good question. He obviously has never experienced the death of his own child.
If he had he would not sound so callous about it.
09 Dec 10
I have just finished The God Delusion, and speak as an agnostic.
Trying to be as objective as possible, all I can say is that a huge percentage (not all) of the arguments used against his work by religious people are simply not a true representation of what Dawkins says.
By contrast, he takes quite a lot of care, when attacking the views of others, to present their case as objectively as he can. Of course, it is not entirely possible for him to do so, as he simply does not believe the arguments presented, and in some cases does not believe the person putting them forward believes them either. But the balance of mispresentation is massively tilted towards the religious side.
Which makes me wonder. Why is it that religious people feel the need to misrepresent Dawkins arguments, but he does not feel the need to misrepresent theirs?
Deepak Chopra (which I have also just read) does exactly the same thing.
For example, Dawkins spends a lot of his book refuting the suggestion that his view is that everything came about by chance. Yet this is the accusation levelled at him by many critics, and we have seen from Vishvahetu et all.
Nor does he equate all religious people with fundamentalists that blow inoccent people up in the name of their religion. It is quite clear, in fact, that he has religious friends, which would be odd if he tarred all religious people with the same brush.
It is depressing that people (on both sides) cannot argue the point sensibly without misrepresenting the other sides views. It just smacks of a lack of confidence in your position, and that in fact the strength of your beliefs is less then you would like to think.
09 Dec 10
Originally posted by Rank outsiderVery well said!
I have just finished The God Delusion, and speak as an agnostic.
Trying to be as objective as possible, all I can say is that a huge percentage (not all) of the arguments used against his work by religious people are simply not a true representation of what Dawkins says.
By contrast, he takes quite a lot of care, when attacking the views of other ...[text shortened]... ur position, and that in fact the strength of your beliefs is less then you would like to think.
09 Dec 10
Originally posted by John W BoothGood grief, we never said that, and it would be inconsiderate to do so.
What age were your children when the woman who gave birth to them, nursed them and raised them, said to them "If you die tomorrow, it won't upset me in the slightest"?
I am telling you how I think.... that is something very different.
09 Dec 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonI am not a Christian, but Jesus says in the Bible says "let the dead bury the dead".
Thats a good question. He obviously has never experienced the death of his own child.
If he had he would not sound so callous about it.
This means the dead body is nothing to be concerned about, and only a person with the spiritual vision can appreciate this.
You to can have the spiritual vision of truth, but you must take to the spiritual life and raise your consciousness to the transcendental platform, and then you will also not feign respect for that which deserves no respect.
09 Dec 10
Originally posted by John W BoothMy children lead their own lives, and if they want to discuss spiritual matters I would discuss anything with them, but I would choose different words than I use here in this forum.
So you have kept your core beliefs secret from your children?
In this forum I find many atheist who are puffed up with false knowledge and like to boast of there rejection of God, thinking they are so clever....so I speak very direct and frank, and I drop all the niceties, because they are so challenging where challenging is unwarranted.
Why are you digging around to find some fault?
There is a difference in not being upset, and not caring.
09 Dec 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThat is my point, that your god did nothing about it even in the face of massive extinctions going on as we speak. Of course it is mankind causing the problem. The fact your god or the 'gods' of other folk have not stepped up to the plate says they don't care (assuming they actually exist in the first place) what mankind does to the planet. Therefore it is as I have said before, gods or no gods, we are in this mess alone and will survive or go extinct on our own petards and don't expect last minute reprieve by some magically appearing god. It seems if your god exists, it is more interested in destroying non-believers than in the general good of the planet, the non-human population of the planet. So are we to believe since this magical help is not forthcoming thousands of species will die with no consequence for humans? It says to me the only consequence for humans is we go to hell in a hand-basket of our own making and if we drive our own self perceived importance into extinction, your god will just go, oh well, lets try somewhere else in the galaxy, maybe the new life forms we invent can actually get it right.
shall we look at the state of the planet and lay the blame on God, after all, was it not the application of science and technology which is responsible for the hole in the ozone, lead in petrol, the production of CFCs, excessive use of Nitrogen as in fertilisers, depletion of fishing stocks, deforestation on a massive scale, millions of tons of carbo ...[text shortened]... e actively engaged in weapons programs, which one of these are you now prepared to blame on God?
09 Dec 10
Originally posted by sonhouseActually my friend, i have a hope towards my God that he will not let the earth be destroyed beyond a point in which it may be able to replenish itself,
That is my point, that your god did nothing about it even in the face of massive extinctions going on as we speak. Of course it is mankind causing the problem. The fact your god or the 'gods' of other folk have not stepped up to the plate says they don't care (assuming they actually exist in the first place) what mankind does to the planet. Therefore it is ...[text shortened]... somewhere else in the galaxy, maybe the new life forms we invent can actually get it right.
(Revelation 11:18) . . .and to bring to ruin those ruining the earth.”
I see that you put forth no solution yourself, yet you are willing to chastise those who have a belief in Gods promises, well that is fine, however i came to the conclusion way back in the early nineties that an environmental disaster was impending for the earth could not keep sustaining the environmental abuse that it was taking, i stand by that, this problem is beyond humans to find a solution for no matter how well meaning and sincere, which country is willing to sacrifice its economic stability for the environment, thus they remain, greed and corruption, a mis management of the earth's resources and an inability to govern has brought us to the brink, these are spiritual problems which require a spiritual solution. Solve greed and your half way there!
09 Dec 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAll well and good but I see no sign of your god coming down to kick butt. I imagine that you and a lot of other people like to keep their house warm, take a jaunt on the roads, read a newspaper and so forth, like to eat that turkey and chicken coming from prison farms so how much longer will it go on before half the species on the planet are gone? Do you think there is some cosmic trip point that will cause the gods to come down and say, enough, stupid humans, now you do it MY way? Hasn't happened yet and don't hold your breath.
Actually my friend, i have a hope towards my God that he will not let the earth be destroyed beyond a point in which it may be able to replenish itself,
(Revelation 11:18) . . .and to bring to ruin those ruining the earth.”
I see that you put forth no solution yourself, yet you are willing to chastise those who have a belief in Gods promises, ...[text shortened]... re spiritual problems which require a spiritual solution. Solve greed and your half way there!
If all 7 billion of us just wish hard enough.......
09 Dec 10
Originally posted by sonhousewell that just the thing, i have faith that God has carried out promises in the past and will do so again, as for turkey and chicken, i never really liked them, i am more a veg head, although i will eat meat if forced. It seems to me that it comes down to what is the more plausible solution, waiting on humankind or waiting on God?
All well and good but I see no sign of your god coming down to kick butt. I imagine that you and a lot of other people like to keep their house warm, take a jaunt on the roads, read a newspaper and so forth, like to eat that turkey and chicken coming from prison farms so how much longer will it go on before half the species on the planet are gone? Do you t ...[text shortened]... happened yet and don't hold your breath.
If all 7 billion of us just wish hard enough.......
10 Dec 10
2 edits
Originally posted by vishvahetuSo your children never knew - and still don't know - that your core belief with regard to them was "If they die tomorrow, it won't upset me in the slightest"? all along, from when they were born, up to and since they moved away.
My children lead their own lives, and if they want to discuss spiritual matters I would discuss anything with them, but I would choose different words than I use here in this forum.
You withheld the details of your faith - a central tenet of your faith - from them? You regale strangers on the internet with descriptions of your essential beliefs but you kept them secret from your own children?
vishvahetu: "If you do not teach your children the spiritual principles of life, then you are abusing your power as a guardian. "
Did you teach your children about your core "spiritual principles" as you claim? Or did you keep your core "spiritual principles" secret from them as you also now claim?
vishvahetu: "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."
and then...
vishvahetu: "My children lead their own lives, and if they want to discuss spiritual matters I would discuss anything with them..."
You are saying one thing in one post and then something else in another.
10 Dec 10
5 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm not really certain what my take on moderate Christianity is to be honest. I don't see it as an intrinsically bad thing - do I think it's a misguided belief? Of course...otherwise I wouldn't be an atheist; but I argue perhaps that a "healthy" majority of moderates; though they legitimise (indirectly) their fundamentalist counterparts, they also serve to marginalise their outrageous beliefs by virtue of an otherwise rational mindset; i.e. inspite of "God" belief they still accept the crucial elements of science, and would promote (as opposed to stifle) healthy education for future generations.
His book should be of great interest to the vast number of people who are theists by tradition or theists in name only. Most people, theists or otherwise see no harm in moderate religion regardless of whether it is right or wrong. Many see it as a good thing. Many people who go to Church and say they are Christian are really more agnostics.
I think Dawki ...[text shortened]... pathy for example) and consider whether they too are harmless or should be actively discouraged.
I don't think we'll ever see an end to religion (certainly not in my or your lifetime at least) but I prefer that for those inclined towards belief in the supernatural, they merrily go about their business with a hazy, or non-archaic concept of Christian god and make sound contributions to society, science, teaching, etc... as opposed to the mostly binary alternartive: not god, or rabid, frothing at the mouth fundamentalism. I see in this case an ongoing battle on our parts to resist their efforts in dragging us back to the bronze age as they bully through insipid policies (such as blasphemy laws/curtailment of free speech against religion etc...) through government by strength of numbers.