Yes, it is ironic to witness fire and brimstone atheists dogmatically practice, then deny their own faith...
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Question for the Athiests
- Thread starter athlonmank8
- Start date
I returned serve, that's all...
There is no effort to hold out a racquet...
Now is there truth in what I say?
(How ironic that Dawkins was buggered on a squash court)
That is a much more interesting question:
In a recent editorial for the secular humanist magazine Free Inquiry, entitled âReligionâs Real Child Abuseâ, Richard Dawkins opined that: âOdious as the physical abuse of children by priests undoubtedly is, I suspect that it may do them less lasting damage than the mental abuse of having been brought up Catholic in the first place.â [1] Dawkins was himself the victim of a Latin master who âfondledâ him in the squash court: âa disagreeable sensation for a nineteen-year-old, a mixture of embarrassment and skin-crawling revulsion. . .â [2] However, says Dawkins, this âwas certainly not in the same league as being led to believe that I, or someone I knew, might go to everlasting fire.â [3]
In other words, in the final analysis âmight makes rightâ and the Darwinian âlaw of the jungleâ rules. Dawkins' atheistic worldview doesnât justify âa completely self-centred lifestyleâ, but then it doesnât justify any lifestyle. The choice between lifestyles, including the choice between a life that includes abusing children and a life trying to prevent that abuse, is nothing but a non-rational manifestation of a Neitzchian âwill to powerâ. As the agnostic philosopher Anthony OâHear says of Dawkins, âthis particular Darwinian is quite unable to explain why we have an obligation to act against our âselfishâ genes.â [20]
Even Dawkins admits: âI realise this is very weak. . . But I still think itâs a separate issue from beliefs in cosmic truths.â [21] It is a separate issue in that truths about an amoral reality can never discredit Dawkins' moral choice not to condone child abuse (of the physical or mental variety); but it is far from being a separate issue in that truths about an amoral reality can never condemn child abuse either.
The doctrine of Hell is the flip side of the doctrine of Heaven [22] , and both doctrines testify that life is not only meaningful, itâs serious. Christians should give some serious thought to how (and what) they teach about Hell, especially to children; but atheists should give some serious thought to the fact that without Heaven and Hell, their worldview offers neither justice nor hope, in a Godless universe that fails to provide any moral grounds for the condemnation of child-abuse. [23]
There is no effort to hold out a racquet...
Now is there truth in what I say?
(How ironic that Dawkins was buggered on a squash court)
That is a much more interesting question:
In a recent editorial for the secular humanist magazine Free Inquiry, entitled âReligionâs Real Child Abuseâ, Richard Dawkins opined that: âOdious as the physical abuse of children by priests undoubtedly is, I suspect that it may do them less lasting damage than the mental abuse of having been brought up Catholic in the first place.â [1] Dawkins was himself the victim of a Latin master who âfondledâ him in the squash court: âa disagreeable sensation for a nineteen-year-old, a mixture of embarrassment and skin-crawling revulsion. . .â [2] However, says Dawkins, this âwas certainly not in the same league as being led to believe that I, or someone I knew, might go to everlasting fire.â [3]
In other words, in the final analysis âmight makes rightâ and the Darwinian âlaw of the jungleâ rules. Dawkins' atheistic worldview doesnât justify âa completely self-centred lifestyleâ, but then it doesnât justify any lifestyle. The choice between lifestyles, including the choice between a life that includes abusing children and a life trying to prevent that abuse, is nothing but a non-rational manifestation of a Neitzchian âwill to powerâ. As the agnostic philosopher Anthony OâHear says of Dawkins, âthis particular Darwinian is quite unable to explain why we have an obligation to act against our âselfishâ genes.â [20]
Even Dawkins admits: âI realise this is very weak. . . But I still think itâs a separate issue from beliefs in cosmic truths.â [21] It is a separate issue in that truths about an amoral reality can never discredit Dawkins' moral choice not to condone child abuse (of the physical or mental variety); but it is far from being a separate issue in that truths about an amoral reality can never condemn child abuse either.
The doctrine of Hell is the flip side of the doctrine of Heaven [22] , and both doctrines testify that life is not only meaningful, itâs serious. Christians should give some serious thought to how (and what) they teach about Hell, especially to children; but atheists should give some serious thought to the fact that without Heaven and Hell, their worldview offers neither justice nor hope, in a Godless universe that fails to provide any moral grounds for the condemnation of child-abuse. [23]
Quote from Thunderdog:
Oh, so are you saying that your response was NOT spiritual and compelling and that you are NOT self-actualized? Who would have thought...
zzzzz, it seems the common theme here is the hate of religion, mainly christian, but where is it written that you have to believe in any of "man's" religions in order to believe in a supreme being ? One can have a relationship with the creator without even getting involved in religion.
I at least read Dawkins's book. Did you? The commentary you quoted regarding Dawkins and religion strongly suggests that the author of that comment either did not read Dawkins's book in its entirety or that he conveniently ignored those portions about which he chose to issue contentions. Either way, it is no longer all that surprising the bullshit that one can find on the Internet. Which brings me to my original question in this post: Did you at least read Dawkins's book, now that you are ready to pass judgment on what he stands for? Or are you relying on faith that you already know all you need to know to make sweeping generalizations?
Oh, quite right.
Faith in God is a very personal thing that has unfortunately become much too public...
Faith in God is a very personal thing that has unfortunately become much too public...
Quote from volente_00:
zzzzz, it seems the common theme here is the hate of religion, mainly christian, but where is it written that you have to believe in any of "man's" religions in order to believe in a supreme being ? One can have a relationship with the creator without even getting involved in religion.
tdog, zzzz is rather crude but why the "hate" of religion ? You either like or dislike something or have no opinion, but when you hate something it is caused by a bad experience you had with that something in the past. Instead of this bickering, I would actually enjoy trying to better understand the "reasons" that led the nonbelievers to their opinion if they would like to share. I'm a fan of dawkins.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc&feature=related
The common theme appears to be more towards some religious people consider criticism of their beliefs to be a hate of them.Quote from volente_00:
zzzzz, it seems the common theme here is the hate of religion, mainly christian, but where is it written that you have to believe in any of "man's" religions in order to believe in a supreme being ? One can have a relationship with the creator without even getting involved in religion.
Otherwise I think you are right. You don't have to and should not have to believe in any man's religion. Furthermore you don't have to and should not have to believe in any man's supreme being. Or any other for that matter.
I didn't read the entire newspaper today...
And your point is that I don't know what the major stories of the day are?
Dawkins freely admits to his being buggered, and damaged as a child.
A common reaction among damaged children is to rail against the institutions that were at the foundation of the damage...
It is not uncommon for a child buggered by a priest to turn atheistic, and driven by conscious and unconscious factors find solace in anti religion thinking.
Why is it so difficult for those atheists here who are so radically opposed to religion and intolerant of the beliefs of other in God to look at their own damaged psyche as perhaps the source of their own hostility toward the personal faith of others?
I have no problem with atheists clinging to their own faith...I won't even say they are wrong in their faith...not my place. As long as they don't endanger my freedom of religion via the political process, no worries.
However, Dawkins at least had the willingness to admit his personal damage, as others here have admitted to their religious past...which was obviously a major factor in their decision to embrace non God.
A man loses his faith in God, but doesn't lose his need for faith in something.
Atheism is your religion and the religion of the ET atheists, but apparently that atheistic religion requires making the personal faith of others who have chosen another faith wrong. There is simply no logical foundation at work here, which leaves us with damage and resentment at the heart of the militancy.
I simply do not understand this need to try to make others personal faith in God wrong...or personal faith in non God wrong.
You have your religion, I have mine.
To take poetic license from Don Corleone:
"I want to congratulate you on your new religion and I'm sure you'll do very well and good luck to you. Especially since your interests don't conflict with mine."
And your point is that I don't know what the major stories of the day are?
Dawkins freely admits to his being buggered, and damaged as a child.
A common reaction among damaged children is to rail against the institutions that were at the foundation of the damage...
It is not uncommon for a child buggered by a priest to turn atheistic, and driven by conscious and unconscious factors find solace in anti religion thinking.
Why is it so difficult for those atheists here who are so radically opposed to religion and intolerant of the beliefs of other in God to look at their own damaged psyche as perhaps the source of their own hostility toward the personal faith of others?
I have no problem with atheists clinging to their own faith...I won't even say they are wrong in their faith...not my place. As long as they don't endanger my freedom of religion via the political process, no worries.
However, Dawkins at least had the willingness to admit his personal damage, as others here have admitted to their religious past...which was obviously a major factor in their decision to embrace non God.
A man loses his faith in God, but doesn't lose his need for faith in something.
Atheism is your religion and the religion of the ET atheists, but apparently that atheistic religion requires making the personal faith of others who have chosen another faith wrong. There is simply no logical foundation at work here, which leaves us with damage and resentment at the heart of the militancy.
I simply do not understand this need to try to make others personal faith in God wrong...or personal faith in non God wrong.
You have your religion, I have mine.
To take poetic license from Don Corleone:
"I want to congratulate you on your new religion and I'm sure you'll do very well and good luck to you. Especially since your interests don't conflict with mine."
Quote from Thunderdog:
I at least read Dawkins's book. Have you? The commentary you quoted regarding Dawkins and religion strongly suggests that the author of that comment either did not read Dawkins's book in its entirety or that he conveniently ignored those portions about which he chose to issue contentions. Either way, it is no longer all that surprising the bullshit that one can find on the Internet. Which brings me to my original question in this post: Did you at least read Dawkins's book, now that you are ready to pass judgment on what he stands for? Or are you relying on faith that you already know all you need to know to make sweeping generalizations?