"The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins

[hagbard_celine]

Here's my book review of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.

Sorry. It's a long article to cut and paste. I'd have to go through it and do all the italics again and I'm really tired so I hope nobody minds if I just post a link to the original:

http://hpanwo.blogspot.com/2008/04/god-delusion-by-richard-dawkins.html

[dedicate]

Good article. This new scientific/atheism is ugly. I got the impression that you needed a barf bag handy after a few chapters. I agree. The nausea stench from those intellectual planes can get pretty disgusting.

Ken Wilber does have a much better approach to the subject. And he's fun to read. Sadly, not many media people reporting on Ken Wilber.

[pilgrim]

Nice article hagbard. :)

[hagbard_celine]

Good article. This new scientific/atheism is ugly. I got the impression that you needed a barf bag handy after a few chapters. I agree. The nausea stench from those intellectual planes can get pretty disgusting.

Ken Wilber does have a much better approach to the subject. And he's fun to read. Sadly, not many media people reporting on Ken Wilber.

I think really Ken Wilber deserves to be more famous that Richard Dawkins. Hopefully one day he will be.

I did find the book difficult to read and I had to stop and scoff out loud occasionally! As I said, some of his pronouncements are truly scornful. He uses the word "prescientific" to describe his own mind before he learned about science. This is appaling! It implies that a non-scientist's mind is in a juvenile or immature state. I'm glad I thought of the word "rationalocentric". That's what Dawkins is.

[hagbard_celine]

Nice article hagbard. :)


Thanks, Pilgrim. :)

[guuna]

Dawins, yes, beloved of the BBC and 'New' Labour.

I heard an interview with him on Radio 2 some months ago were he said that he was looking forward to attending a Christmas Church service, despite the fact that he believes in none of it.

I understand he also gave away free copies of THE GOD DELUSION to members of The parlimentary Labour Party. I don't know how much it retailed for, but that sure is expensive toilet paper!

[hagbard_celine]

Dawins, yes, beloved of the BBC and 'New' Labour.

I heard an interview with him on Radio 2 some months ago were he said that he was looking forward to attending a Christmas Church service, despite the fact that he believes in none of it.

I understand he also gave away free copies of THE GOD DELUSION to members of The parlimentary Labour Party. I don't know how much it retailed for, but that sure is expensive toilet paper!

:D:D:D That figures; he's in with the Blairists!

Dawkins said in the book that he saw nothing wrong with attneding Christian weddings, funerals baptisms etc. he says that this is because they don't really mean anything, so why do they matter... But in that case, why is he so keen to persuade other people not to do the same? It sounds like he's saying that it's OK to do something if you don't really mean it and think it's true.:confused::confused: I find it hard to get where he's coming from!

[adimon]

Dawins, yes, beloved of the BBC and 'New' Labour.

I heard an interview with him on Radio 2 some months ago were he said that he was looking forward to attending a Christmas Church service, despite the fact that he believes in none of it.

I understand he also gave away free copies of THE GOD DELUSION to members of The parlimentary Labour Party. I don't know how much it retailed for, but that sure is expensive toilet paper!

Actually, like most secularists, Dawkins finds himself bewildered at the negligence of the government to protect people from religion - especially children. The Labour government aren't secularists in the slightest, so its unfair to associate the two!

[intruder]

It's a wonderful, inspiring, and thoughtful review hagbard!

[intruder]

:D:D:D That figures; he's in with the Blairists!

Dawkins said in the book that he saw nothing wrong with attneding Christian weddings, funerals baptisms etc. he says that this is because they don't really mean anything, so why do they matter... But in that case, why is he so keen to persuade other people not to do the same? It sounds like he's saying that it's OK to do something if you don't really mean it and think it's true.:confused::confused: I find it hard to get where he's coming from!


HUH! That reminds of an advertisement that used to repeatedly run in Guitar Player magazine, and I quote:

"Learn how to play the blues without having to live them."

In other words, learn how to express yourself without really meaning it!
Not only is it a slap in the face to the origins of the music, it encourages apathy. As actually HAVING the blues, which is an not Afro-centric thing at all
can actually lead to creative expression.

[hagbard_celine]

It's a wonderful, inspiring, and thoughtful review hagbard!

Cheers, intruder.:)

[hagbard_celine]

Actually, like most secularists, Dawkins finds himself bewildered at the negligence of the government to protect people from religion - especially children. The Labour government aren't secularists in the slightest, so its unfair to associate the two!


(My emphasis) I'm all in favour of protecting children from indoctrination (religious or any other kind), but what about adults? Don't grown men and women, who've been given both sides of the story, have a right to choose for themselves? I might go along to one of Dawkins' seminars; and if I get the chance to ask a question, mine will be: "If you could, would you outlaw religion?"

[hagbard_celine]

HUH! That reminds of an advertisement that used to repeatedly run in Guitar Player magazine, and I quote:

"Learn how to play the blues without having to live them."

In other words, learn how to express yourself without really meaning it!
Not only is it a slap in the face to the origins of the music, it encourages apathy. As actually HAVING the blues, which is an not Afro-centric thing at all
can actually lead to creative expression.


Yes. It sounds a bit like Dawkins is promoting the same thing he reckons Robert Winston is doing. In The Story of God, Dawkins says that he suspects the only reason Winston attends Synagogue, weddings, bah-mitzvahs etc is out of Jewish community and family tradition and a desire to "bed of backwards", as Dawkins puts it in his book, to please those he loves.

[adimon]

(My emphasis) I'm all in favour of protecting children from indoctrination (religious or any other kind), but what about adults? Don't grown men and women, who've been given both sides of the story, have a right to choose for themselves? I might go along to one of Dawkins' seminars; and if I get the chance to ask a question, mine will be: "If you could, would you outlaw religion?"

He has been asked that many times...perhaps the lack of study I let you off on, on the other thread is beginning to betray itself? ;) I suggest that you watch as many online video clips as you can of "these atheist people" before you post about them. The answer of course is that he doesn't want it outlawed, but he doesnt want it indoctrinating children, stifling freedoms of speech and debate, or leading us into holy wars. (Unlike Hitchens, Dawkins is against the occupation of Iraq - yet ANOTHER example of how the atheist label says nothing else about a persons beliefs other than their non-belief in an invisible man in the sky)

Yes. It sounds a bit like Dawkins is promoting the same thing he reckons Robert Winston is doing. In The Story of God, Dawkins says that he suspects the only reason Winston attends Synagogue, weddings, bah-mitzvahs etc is out of Jewish community and family tradition and a desire to "bed of backwards", as Dawkins puts it in his book, to please those he loves.

Don't understand what you mean here HC? Could you please clarify and expand?

[hagbard_celine]

He has been asked that many times...perhaps the lack of study I let you off on, on the other thread is beginning to betray itself? ;) I suggest that you watch as many online video clips as you can of "these atheist people" before you post about them. The answer of course is that he doesn't want it outlawed, but he doesnt want it indoctrinating children, stifling freedoms of speech and debate, or leading us into holy wars. (Unlike Hitchens, Dawkins is against the occupation of Iraq - yet ANOTHER example of how the atheist label says nothing else about a persons beliefs other than their non-belief in an invisible man in the sky)



I've been watching lots of online clips about "these atheist people" (Who's that quote by? not me:confused:). Only yesterday I watched the Shermer-Jacoby debate and Dawkins and Mcgrath debating (I went to see McGrath live in Oxford last year).

I'm tempted to comment on your own amount of study, but can't we please just talk about the matter in hand instead of criticising eachother on a personal level?

You answered my question about Dawkins... thank you. I've nothing to add.

[hagbard_celine]

Don't understand what you mean here HC? Could you please clarify and expand?

What I meant was that Dawkins said to robert Winston that he susects Winston's practice of religion is out of respect for his family and friends, not out of conviction that God is real. That maybe so, but Dawkins said the the book that he might consider doing the same, participating in religious weddings, funerals etc. Not that there's anything wrong with that of course, but isn't it better to do these things and mean them than go through the motions?

[adimon]

I've been watching lots of online clips about "these atheist people" (Who's that quote by? not me:confused:). Only yesterday I watched the Shermer-Jacoby debate and Dawkins and Mcgrath debating (I went to see McGrath live in Oxford last year).

The quote is Ted Haggard, the former head of evangelical America who admitted buying methamphetamine from a gay prostitute.

Since you have now seen McGrath vs Dawkins on video, are you willing to admit that McGrath ignores all of Dawkins questions? If you've seen the whole clip, then you'll have noticed the C4 director continually stopping proceedings and asking McGrath to answer the question directly, which he never does.

I'm tempted to comment on your own amount of study, but can't we please just talk about the matter in hand instead of criticising eachother on a personal level?

I wasn't criticising in a rude way, and I welcome any comment you might have on my studies, assuming you know what they are and what I've read...which reminds me...I still owe you a review of Harries' seminar, and how I never once felt moved to heckle or interrogate him because it's patently obvious he doesn't believe in Christianity one iota. The fact that I subsidise his wage made me wait for him afterwards for a more private confrontation, but he made a (miraculous?) getaway in a 6L VW.

So...apologies if I made a false assumption (no-one can be free of making these errors occasionally) but your question regarding Dawkins struck me as being on an issue which he repeatedly addresses in several of his books and nearly all his programs.

What I meant was that Dawkins said to robert Winston that he susects Winston's practice of religion is out of respect for his family and friends, not out of conviction that God is real. That maybe so, but Dawkins said the the book that he might consider doing the same, participating in religious weddings, funerals etc. Not that there's anything wrong with that of course, but isn't it better to do these things and mean them than go through the motions?

Well...having met Winston I can confirm that I have the same suspicions as Prof. Dawkins as to the man's faith, or lack of. As for Dawkins himself, there are countless occasions where Dawkins advocates and encourages people toward civil ceremonies, and describes his suggestions for how the religiousity can be replaced with humanist forms instead - personal, poetic eulogies replacing "dust to dust" rhetoric, etc...

Please let me ask you one question HC, because I'm very curious now, having waded through lots of your posts - what do you think of Islamism? If you could make specific reference to the demagogue once known as Josef Cohen I would be highly appreciative.

Have a good weekend. :)

[synergy777]

http://www.dechen.org/

All beings have buddha nature.

Mind itself is the source of true joy, wisdom and compassion.

It is this discovery that constitutes enlightenment.

[hagbard_celine]

The quote is Ted Haggard, the former head of evangelical America who admitted buying methamphetamine from a gay prostitute.



:D:D

Since you have now seen McGrath vs Dawkins on video, are you willing to admit that McGrath ignores all of Dawkins questions? If you've seen the whole clip, then you'll have noticed the C4 director continually stopping proceedings and asking McGrath to answer the question directly, which he never does.

I haven't watcherd all of that one yet, just the first half. I've only seen the illustrated audio on on Youtube. http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=dawkins+and+mcgrath&sitesearch= From what I've seen I think McGrath does a fairly good job. The debate for C4 is a rough cut outtake and pauses and retakes are not uncommon. You see the same thing in Dawkins' discussion with Harries. The thing is that McGrath and Dawkins are on different "thought frequencies". I felt the same way when reading TGD. Still I'll watch the debate again and get back to you.


I wasn't criticising in a rude way, and I welcome any comment you might have on my studies, assuming you know what they are and what I've read...which reminds me...I still owe you a review of Harries' seminar, and how I never once felt moved to heckle or interrogate him because it's patently obvious he doesn't believe in Christianity one iota. The fact that I subsidise his wage made me wait for him afterwards for a more private confrontation, but he made a (miraculous?) getaway in a 6L VW.

So...apologies if I made a false assumption (no-one can be free of making these errors occasionally) but your question regarding Dawkins struck me as being on an issue which he repeatedly addresses in several of his books and nearly all his programs.

Not in TGD to my recall. That's Ok though.:) I often think somebody has not studied or understood a certain issue when all it is is that they think differently.



Well...having met Winston I can confirm that I have the same suspicions as Prof. Dawkins as to the man's faith, or lack of. As for Dawkins himself, there are countless occasions where Dawkins advocates and encourages people toward civil ceremonies, and describes his suggestions for how the religiousity can be replaced with humanist forms instead - personal, poetic eulogies replacing "dust to dust" rhetoric, etc...

Please let me ask you one question HC, because I'm very curious now, having waded through lots of your posts - what do you think of Islamism? If you could make specific reference to the demagogue once known as Josef Cohen I would be highly appreciative.

Have a good weekend. :

Thanks. you too.:)

I had a debate with somebody at work who's a Muslim and he showed me a lecture my Muhammed Didac. I've never heard of Josef Cohen i'm afraid. Mainstream Islam seems no different to any rhetoric and scripture-based religion, but I have a lot of respect for the Sufi order. This is because they are gnostic in nature. There's a difference to spirituality and religion which is very obvious to me, but I don't think Dawkins understands it. There are many very spirutal people who are not religious (Like me) and plenty of religious beliers who are in no way spiritual.

[jmmk]

Somebody can make you feel inferior without your consent. It's called religion. I was
forced to go to church from an infant to age 18 and believe without reading the
Bible once. I had no choice, I was given no other views. Why does there have to
be a God? To make you feel INFERIOR! The masters of hypnosis say "Repeat after me!"
Religion says-"repeat after me". The patri-idiotic flagwavers of USA say-"Repeat after
me". Do I see a pattern here?

[element]

Views on God are all different. The traditional religions believe in a person god that can be happy or angry at you. Personally, I believe more in a superconsciousness that is connected to all life, all life has soul. Religions all come from esotoric knowledge, all of them do have valueble points. This (spiritual consciousness) we may aswell álso call god. Many people do. The title ''the god delusion'' should rather be ''the religious fundamentalists delusion''.

[danster82]

Even the slightest understanding of God beyond fundamentally religion gives you the realization that proving the non existence of God using science is insane.

You cant prove the non existence of anything using science. Prove to me there is not a pink teapot floating somewhere in the universe... prove it

The rational and analytical mind will never get you into heaven.

[blondina1]

Great article!

Started reading it but never finished it :o

Would recommend, as an alternative on the same subject:
God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Christopher%20Hitchens)

[thetonic]

Even the slightest understanding of God beyond fundamentally religion gives you the realization that proving the non existence of God using science is insane.

You cant prove the non existence of anything using science. Prove to me there is not a pink teapot floating somewhere in the universe... prove it

The rational and analytical mind will never get you into heaven.

well said danster

[hagbard_celine]

Somebody can make you feel inferior without your consent. It's called religion. I was
forced to go to church from an infant to age 18 and believe without reading the
Bible once. I had no choice, I was given no other views. Why does there have to
be a God? To make you feel INFERIOR! The masters of hypnosis say "Repeat after me!"
Religion says-"repeat after me". The patri-idiotic flagwavers of USA say-"Repeat after
me". Do I see a pattern here?


Religion is a way that the PTB have invented to divert our natural spiritual instincts into a cul-de-sac where it can be contained and controlled.:(

[hagbard_celine]

Views on God are all different. The traditional religions believe in a person god that can be happy or angry at you. Personally, I believe more in a superconsciousness that is connected to all life, all life has soul. Religions all come from esotoric knowledge, all of them do have valueble points. This (spiritual consciousness) we may aswell álso call god. Many people do. The title ''the god delusion'' should rather be ''the religious fundamentalists delusion''.


I'm glad David mentioned Richard Dawkins at Brixton and called him "The ultimate left-brain prisoner" and he is.:D

[hagbard_celine]

Great article!

Started reading it but never finished it :o

Would recommend, as an alternative on the same subject:
God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Christopher%20Hitchens)



Thanks.:)

[adimon]

Great article!

Started reading it but never finished it :o

Would recommend, as an alternative on the same subject:
God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Christopher%20Hitchens)




Indeed. 'God is Not Great' competes, on my bookshelf, amongst a strong field of competition, as one of the greatest works ever. The man is immense.

[legendary]

i've read the god delusion whilst it is interesting i feel that he is blatantly biased against religion and due to this he fails to understand the true meaning of various of the arguments for the existence of God, before going on to trash them also he fails to fairly represent counter-arguments to his suggestions.

overall a good book but it needs to be read alongside other information if you want to get the full picture of the arguments he discusses

[hagbard_celine]

i've read the god delusion whilst it is interesting i feel that he is blatantly biased against religion and due to this he fails to understand the true meaning of various of the arguments for the existence of God, before going on to trash them also he fails to fairly represent counter-arguments to his suggestions.

overall a good book but it needs to be read alongside other information if you want to get the full picture of the arguments he discusses

I agree.:cool: Dawkins is a "tabloid atheist". That's why he's so successful. The media today likes things simple and polarized. Subtlty is not encouraged because it doesn't sell newpapers and it aids creative and critical thought; that's the last thing our manipulators want!

Dawkins really displays his own stupidity in this vid: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8059991273314767024&q=the+story+of+god&ei=GF1-SJzDCI-6igKs7OiHCw It's a long one but worth watching. The scene with Dawkins is in the third episode towards the end. He can't deal with the aparent "contradction" of Winston being a scientist and a religious man. Dawkins says something like: "I suspect that your religious feelings are not real and are merely an acting out of family tradition." Dick head!:rolleyes:

[legendary]

Yes also seeing as he attempts to link religion to stupidity he fails to explain how various great philosophers and thinkers have for thousands of years arrived at a conclusion that there must be some form of God (although not necessarily the monotheistic one) through use of logic.

[hagbard_celine]

Yes also seeing as he attempts to link religion to stupidity he fails to explain how various great philosophers and thinkers have for thousands of years arrived at a conclusion that there must be some form of God (although not necessarily the monotheistic one) through use of logic.

As I said in my review of the book, Dawkins has little time for philosophical issues. He writes the book on the unspoken premise that Western Ratioinalism and Materialism is The One and Only Only True Way of human thought. It never even occurs to him that there is a debate about that!:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[fullfathomfive]

You cant prove the non existence of anything using science. Prove to me there is not a pink teapot floating somewhere in the universe... prove it

It's all just a storm in a teacup.










Sorry.

[danster82]

He says he will convert any spiritualist to a materialist after reading his book, So he believes someone can make a choice to change their core beliefs but then proceeds in the book to explain that our beliefs are genetically encoded and everything is the result of a random event which would have to mean all your beliefs and choices are the result of random events in which case why does he bother giving an opinion at all or writing his book because hes essential saying he has no opinion hes just a machine that is randomly writing a random book based on his beliefs that were created by random chance because of his genes that were randomly encoded in such a way to give him them beliefs.

He denies there's any part of us separate from the material world so why if he has come to beleive hes just a machine does he bother to give his opinion at all.

[hagbard_celine]

He says he will convert any spiritualist to a materialist after reading his book, So he believes someone can make a choice to change their core beliefs but then proceeds in the book to explain that our beliefs are genetically encoded and everything is the result of a random event which would have to mean all your beliefs and choices are the result of random events in which case why does he bother giving an opinion at all or writing his book because hes essential saying he has no opinion hes just a machine that is randomly writing a random book based on his beliefs that were created by random chance because of his genes that were randomly encoded in such a way to give him them beliefs.

He denies there's any part of us separate from the material world so why if he has come to beleive hes just a machine does he bother to give his opinion at all.


Dawkins is a very scarey man!:eek: I hope to God that he never gets any political power!

[seven_star_hand]

Long story short, there are 11 dimensions to this reality, validated by both the math of String/M theory and ancient Egyptian-Nubian wisdom, once you know how to read the symbology. Likewise, David Bohm's Wholeness and the Implicate Order is a brilliant analysis of observations from quantum physics that demonstrate the existence and nature of the non-physical (conceptual-spiritual) aspect of our reality. In short, there are dual aspects to this reality; the four dimensions of space-time are the so-called "physical universe" and the remaining seven dimensions are the conceptual-spiritual aspect.

Read the River of Truth for a very good summary (http://homepage.mac.com/sevenstarhand/Vatican_Evil_Illuminated/ebooks.html)

Next, seven and four are two of the most important numbers from many ancient wisdom narratives and symbolic Hebrew prophecies. Notice that 7+4=11? Space-time is four dimensions and that leaves seven dimensions that precede and define space-time, hence Bohm's implicate order.

Also read the following excerpt from here: (http://homepage.mac.com/sevenstarhand/Vatican_Evil_Illuminated/vatican_lies_prologue.html)

Go to the linked article (above) for supporting links.

Even more profound is Amen's (Amun, Amon) and Min's double (dual) feathered headdress. It is divided into four large (vertical, 11:11) and seven small (horizontal, 7:7) divisions (hence 11 dimensions flowing from a dual foundation/conception...) to purposely and accurately model the structure and nature of our universe. Amen's headdress thereby symbolizes our 11-dimension universe emanating from the dualistic thoughts and mindset of the "doubly hidden" creator. Contemplate the fact that this ancient symbolized "god"-principle of Nubia and Egypt clearly and undeniably models data about our universe and a pivotal aspect of String/M Theory that leading scientists are still haggling over (whether there are 10 or 11 dimensions, etc.).

As described in Part I, earlier articles, and in my book, the structure of our universe, which was only recently alluded to by the math of string theory and quantum physics, was also purposely and accurately modeled by the symbology of the Apocalypse. Angels and stars are used to symbolize four large (1440-year) and seven small (360-year) cycles. Four large space-time dimensions and seven small or hidden (conceptual-spiritual) dimensions, hence 11 total, are redundantly modeled or alluded to in other ancient symbolic sources, which all long-postdate ancient Egyptian-Nubian possession and mastery of such quintessentially profound wisdom and cosmology. This is further evidenced by the many later uses, symbolic groupings, and pivotal importance of the numbers seven (heavens, spirits, eyes, seals, pillars, candlesticks, etc.) and four (elements, essences, corners, winds, etc.).

In essence, ancient Egyptian wisdom, String/M theory, and quantum physics all agree that there is a verifiable seven-dimension conceptual-spiritual aspect to this reality. Dawkins and others are so stuck on their opinions that the science that disproves them is purposely ignored and/or discounted.

Also, I cover this material from several directions in my E-book and the following articles. You can search them for the phrase "implicate order" and read the surrounding material if the remaining subject matter bothers you...

http://homepage.mac.com/sevenstarhand/hurricanes.html
http://homepage.mac.com/sevenstarhand/endgame.html

Also, here's another viewpoint on Dawkins views (http://exposing-religious-deception.blogspot.com/2008/01/analyzing-creator-debate.html)

Peace...

[dedicate]

Dawkins is a ghoul or a gecko or just a demon. Why else would they be fronting him.

[malkor]

His writing made me think along new lines of thought that I had neglected and for that, it does have value. He did come across as a bit anal though, a bit too married to his theory and unable to accept opposing views.

[hagbard_celine]

Dawkins is a ghoul or a gecko or just a demon. Why else would they be fronting him.


Actually I think he's just a buffoon. The classic "useful idiot".:cool:

[hagbard_celine]

His writing made me think along new lines of thought that I had neglected and for that, it does have value. He did come across as a bit anal though, a bit too married to his theory and unable to accept opposing views.

Definitely:cool:. And you're also right in that what he has to say is worth listening to. I've not only read the book but watched both his Sketpic TV series: The Root of All Evil and Enemies of Reason. It's actually unfair for people to criticize him until they've studied a bit of his work.

I have studied his work and I think he's wrong about most things.

[chris]

I think Dawkins is right when he says we come from nowhere and go back to nothingness, his philosophy is very much like Zen and Taoism in this regard. I just don't think he's spent enough time on what "nothingness" actually is.

[deafbred]

his nothingness was probably his childhood

[hagbard_celine]

I think Dawkins is right when he says we come from nowhere and go back to nothingness, his philosophy is very much like Zen and Taoism in this regard. I just don't think he's spent enough time on what "nothingness" actually is.

For a Western Materialist (WM) it's a simple matter: oblivion, non-exitsance in the same form as the non-existance before your conception and birth. As a Materialist philosopher (whose name I can't recall) put it: "Really my own death will be a non-event from my position, something that I will not be able to experience myself. Death is therefore only something that one can see in others".

Although I reject the Western Monothesitic Religion model of Life-After-Death I also reject the simplisitc Western Materialist model too. Your consciousness does not cease to exist with the death of the physical body, although I don't think it continues in the same state that it is during physical life.

[hagbard_celine]

I'm currently reading the very irreverantly-titled The Dawkins Delusion by Alister McGrath.
http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/3713/dawkinsdel0281059276lzv3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

I bought a copy last year when I saw McGrath live. It's wonderful to read because I love it when somebody seriously challenges Dawkins. By "seriously" I mean in an intelligent and academic way. The people who the mainstream media usually depects challenging Dawkins are not serious, they're Baptist preachers who say things like: "Richard Dawkins is an agent of Satan and an enemy of the Laawd!":rolleyes::D

McGrath is an Oxford don like Dawkins, but he's a theologian and he completely takes old Dawky to the cleaners!:cool::D:cool: His own review is just as disparaging as my own, but we dislike TGD for different reasons.

Here's McGrath's site: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~mcgrath/

[spinoza]

The science/religion conflict is one that should never have arisen; and any that says the two aren't concilable or compatible is an agent of Satan and an enemy of the Laaaaawd! Nevertheless, it's a debate that will be played out as long as there are unscrupulous politicians. :cool:

[seanx]

Originally Posted by chris
I think Dawkins is right when he says we come from nowhere and go back to nothingness, his philosophy is very much like Zen and Taoism in this regard. I just don't think he's spent enough time on what "nothingness" actually is.

it is ANYTHING BUT......

Zen does not refer to nothingness - but to no-thingness.

Western mind has completely misunderstood that to mean nothinghness
- but Zen is refering to that that which COMES BEFORE form, stays
with form and is still THRERE when forms decays into it.

It is the FULLNESS of all life - the exact opposite of the negative spin
that the West attaches to it.

It like a room full of stuff - of 'things'. You take all the 'things' out -
so that there is 'nothing' there - except of course the essence and core
of the room itself - the space.

[pandamania]

The science/religion conflict is one that should never have arisen;

Actually it never did. The scientists in the West just started praying to Charles Darwin and Al Gore instead of Jesus and Buddah.

You're post is spot on. A lot of science today is based on Victorian mindset that "we are right and you are wrong." - If this mindset was applied to any aspect of life other than science, it would be viewed as fanatical and intolerant.

I know a few scientists who are embrrassed by Dawkins doing things like putting a photo of Bush up and calling this a typical believer in religion. I think Dawkins makes some very valid points and is a great writer and speaker, but his massiah complex which his followers are all wrapped up in has now gone to his head.

[legendary]

I'm currently reading the very irreverantly-titled The Dawkins Delusion by Alister McGrath.
http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/3713/dawkinsdel0281059276lzv3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

I bought a copy last year when I saw McGrath live. It's wonderful to read because I love it when somebody seriously challenges Dawkins. By "seriously" I mean in an intelligent and academic way. The people who the mainstream media usually depects challenging Dawkins are not serious, they're Baptist preachers who say things like: "Richard Dawkins is an agent of Satan and an enemy of the Laawd!":rolleyes::D

McGrath is an Oxford don like Dawkins, but he's a theologian and he completely takes old Dawky to the cleaners!:cool::D:cool: His own review is just as disparaging as my own, but we dislike TGD for different reasons.

Here's McGrath's site: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~mcgrath/

yes my friend recommended that book to me but i never got round to reading it. suppose i'll have to find some time before September

[spinoza]

I know a few scientists who are embrrassed by Dawkins doing things like putting a photo of Bush up and calling this a typical believer in religion. I think Dawkins makes some very valid points and is a great writer and speaker, but his massiah complex which his followers are all wrapped up in has now gone to his head.

Dawkins works by railing at the stereotype God, the judgmental overlord in the clouds who will mete your punishment in the afterlife. But there is no afterlife, only eternal life. And "the Kingdom of God is within you".
But these atheist crawlers rely on this image of a creator/judge God, in order to completely destroy any image of God, which is wrong. There is an idea of God in the mind, of which God is the cause. When we are deceived by looking to the blue yonder, then we allow ourselves to be driven by hypocrisy and fallacy, and having our own ideas, which are valid in themselves, confused by knaves like Dawkins, Hitchens and other atheists.

[jim fear]

I think Dawkins is right when he says we come from nowhere and go back to nothingness, his philosophy is very much like Zen and Taoism in this regard. I just don't think he's spent enough time on what "nothingness" actually is.



I've not read any "dork ins" but the impression I get is that he's challenging the traditional fundamental Christian view of "God".

I think that the "We are nothing but mistakes" argument is a bit simplistic personally. The math does work ether think about it"

Nothing + Nothing = Nothing

A+B=C

C = out of nothing a self healing, conscious, procreating, intelligent and highly complex life forms were created

Conclusion:
There’s obviously something more than world of matter some of us are natural aware and are born with a “Knowing”, however some people for whatever reason just don’t quite “Get it” and join the god corporation or visit Chemical chance R us. Perhaps its better to let them enjoy their chemical chance in peace, and let the others keep grovelling to their man in the sky.

[element]

Let them be obsessed with materialism! They will learn when they leave their bodies.

[talkingchimp]

Let them be obsessed with materialism! They will learn when they leave their bodies.

i would say that every human being is obsessed with materialism of some form as we live in the material world. food is a material you need it to survive. the paper you wipe your arse with is material. the water you drink is material. the hair on your head is material. the epidermis surrounding your entire body is material form. the house you live in, the people you love, everything you know comes from the material world. one whiff of new age tosh and everyone is ready to give up their bodies. well do it now! if you dislike this world that much and the materialism in it release yourself and flee your material bond.

[element]

i would say that every human being is obsessed with materialism of some form as we live in the material world. food is a material you need it to survive. the paper you wipe your arse with is material. the water you drink is material. the hair on your head is material. the epidermis surrounding your entire body is material form. the house you live in, the people you love, everything you know comes from the material world. one whiff of new age tosh and everyone is ready to give up their bodies. well do it now! if you dislike this world that much and the materialism in it release yourself and flee your material bond.

LoL you don't get it do you? I'm talking about people who think the material world is all there is... darwinists aka atheists aka materialists

[talkingchimp]

how do you know the material world isnt all there is? you dont!! you only have other humans opinions who are alive. so you have a hunch but you dont know shit.

[element]

how do you know the material world isnt all there is? you dont!! you only have other humans opinions who are alive. so you have a hunch but you dont know shit.

How can you talk for me? You crack me up dude! :D I do know there is something beyond materialism thanks to OOBE'S I've had from a young age.
So yes I do know shit.

Besides that, even if I didn't had experienced that, I would still believe there is more, and I would try to find it. I wouldn't be a pure sceptic.
If one wants to know more, one needs experience, not material proof or scepticism.

[talkingchimp]

How can you talk for me? You crack me up dude! :D I do know there is something beyond materialism thanks to OOBE'S I've had from a young age.
So yes I do know shit.

Besides that, even if I didn't had experienced that, I would still believe there is more, and I would try to find it. I wouldn't be a pure sceptic.
If one wants to know more, one needs experience, not material proof or scepticism.

thanks to OOBES. my word. thats some startling evidence. believe me dude i want nothing more to believe this but there is zero evidence only conjecture.

[element]

thanks to OOBES. my word. thats some startling evidence. believe me dude i want nothing more to believe this but there is zero evidence only conjecture.

You want pure evidence? Then find it out and experience yourself. You cannot find material evidence for a spiritual experience, so you get zero evidence unless you work things out by yourself. I'm not here to convince you or win the argument.

[talkingchimp]

You want pure evidence? Then find it out and experience yourself. You cannot find material evidence for a spiritual experience, so you get zero evidence unless you work things out by yourself. I'm not here to convince you or win the argument.

ive worked it out bro. psilocybin and salvia gave me the answers i wanted too and i also want believe that the body is only temporary, but i dont know. i have no evidence of life after death. no one has. argument won bro.

[element]

ive worked it out bro. psilocybin and salvia gave me the answers i wanted too and i also want believe that the body is only temporary, but i dont know. i have no evidence of life after death. no one has. argument won bro.

You say you believe and then you say ''I won the argument''. Says it all.
Knowing that you can get ''out'' is self-evidence of life after death. Your physical body needs food,water,air,ages etc etc.
You can't win an argument based on beliefs, neither can I win it with non material proof. This is pointless.

[hagbard_celine]

The science/religion conflict is one that should never have arisen; and any that says the two aren't concilable or compatible is an agent of Satan and an enemy of the Laaaaawd! Nevertheless, it's a debate that will be played out as long as there are unscrupulous politicians. :cool:


True.:cool: The religion/science divide is engineered to destroy people's genuine spirituality. If we all were given genuine spirituality for one second, Illuminati rule would fall to pieces:D.

[hagbard_celine]

:DActually it never did. The scientists in the West just started praying to Charles Darwin and Al Gore instead of Jesus and Buddah.
:D:D:D

You're post is spot on. A lot of science today is based on Victorian mindset that "we are right and you are wrong." - If this mindset was applied to any aspect of life other than science, it would be viewed as fanatical and intolerant.

I know a few scientists who are embrrassed by Dawkins doing things like putting a photo of Bush up and calling this a typical believer in religion. I think Dawkins makes some very valid points and is a great writer and speaker, but his massiah complex which his followers are all wrapped up in has now gone to his head.

This is one of the best points McGrath makes in the book. Yes, Dawkins is not the voice of science on this matter at all. I take him to task for this in my own review of TGD where he announces that most scientists are monists (materialists) without explaining why when he makes such an open-and-shut case for scientific materialism!:rolleyes:

[hagbard_celine]

I've not read any "dork ins" but the impression I get is that he's challenging the traditional fundamental Christian view of "God".

I think that the "We are nothing but mistakes" argument is a bit simplistic personally. The math does work ether think about it"

Nothing + Nothing = Nothing

A+B=C

C = out of nothing a self healing, conscious, procreating, intelligent and highly complex life forms were created

Conclusion:
There’s obviously something more than world of matter some of us are natural aware and are born with a “Knowing”, however some people for whatever reason just don’t quite “Get it” and join the god corporation or visit Chemical chance R us. Perhaps its better to let them enjoy their chemical chance in peace, and let the others keep grovelling to their man in the sky.

:D

One of the points I make is that some "chemical chance-ers" are actually only following that creed for the street-cred it gives them!:rolleyes:

The whole debate about life-after-death, LAD, has become blighted by machismo. In the world of philosophy and science, to believe that consciousness is a mere product of electrochemical activity in the brain that is extinguished forever at death puts you on the pedestal of a “strong hero” who has the courage to accept the bleak reality of life:rolleyes::D; unlike the “weak and ignorant jellies” who need the comfort blanket of an immortality myth to keep them going!:rolleyes::rolleyes: The non-LAD-believers have become a kind of intellectual elite. They’re the equivalent of the boy at school who won everything at sports day and dated all the prettiest girls in the class. Therefore in this situation you could argue that non-LAD belief is the most appealing position to take for the prestige it gives you. Maybe Dawkins doesn’t appreciate this because he’s enjoyed that prestige for so long. Actually I would say that it’s remotely possible that Dawkins knows full well that LAD is real but doesn’t want to admit it because he’s scared of being called a wimp! He is under a lot of scientific social and political pressure to maintain his stance. He has a Gold Materialist Bravery Award and he wears it on his sleeve!

[hagbard_celine]

Let them be obsessed with materialism! They will learn when they leave their bodies.

They'll stumble around like ghosts, unablke to accept what's happened, like Patrick Swayze's character in the film Ghost.

But maybe some of them are closet Life-After-Death believers; see my post immediately above.

[hagbard_celine]

how do you know the material world isnt all there is? you dont!! you only have other humans opinions who are alive. so you have a hunch but you dont know shit.

thanks to OOBES. my word. thats some startling evidence. believe me dude i want nothing more to believe this but there is zero evidence only conjecture.

I don't know where to start...:eek:

There's so much more to it than that!

[hagbard_celine]

ive worked it out bro. psilocybin and salvia gave me the answers i wanted too and i also want believe that the body is only temporary, but i dont know. i have no evidence of life after death. no one has. argument won bro.

Talkingchimp:

I think you should be nominated for an MBA youself!:D;)

[spinoza]

True.:cool: The religion/science divide is engineered to destroy people's genuine spirituality. If we all were given genuine spirituality for one second, Illuminati rule would fall to pieces:D.

We already have it. They try to convince us we don't.

[zede]

Oh my first post !


Will somebody PLEASE spike ole Dawkykins with some DMT ?

Id love to read his next book after that....... !

[seven_star_hand]

Hello everybody,

I've been away stirring up the pot for all who want a thrill. There are some big changes on the horizon, so look to the arising sun...

Here's that double dose you prescribed:

Open Letter to Atheists and Skeptics (http://sevenstarhand.blogspot.com/2008/07/open-letter-to-atheists-and-skeptics.html)
Open Letter to Religious Leaders (http://exposing-religious-deception.blogspot.com/2008/07/open-letter-to-religious-leaders.html)

Peace...

[hagbard_celine]

Hello everybody,

I've been away stirring up the pot for all who want a thrill. There are some big changes on the horizon, so look to the arising sun...

Here's that double dose you prescribed:

Open Letter to Atheists and Skeptics (http://sevenstarhand.blogspot.com/2008/07/open-letter-to-atheists-and-skeptics.html)
Open Letter to Religious Leaders (http://exposing-religious-deception.blogspot.com/2008/07/open-letter-to-religious-leaders.html)

Peace...

Well done, SSH!:) Give it to 'em straight. I'll read the whole thing later.

[hagbard_celine]

Oh my first post !


Will somebody PLEASE spike ole Dawkykins with some DMT ?

Id love to read his next book after that....... !

Skeptic paramilitaries would probably assassinate him for being a "traitor to rational thought!":D Honestly, if Dawkins turned coat what would they do! It would be all over for the Skepper movement!:cool::D

[drakul]

Here's my book review of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.

Sorry. It's a long article to cut and paste. I'd have to go through it and do all the italics again and I'm really tired so I hope nobody minds if I just post a link to the original:

http://hpanwo.blogspot.com/2008/04/god-delusion-by-richard-dawkins.html

Hi Hagbard - Thanks for the link to your review of Richard Dawkins book. Very impressive. I read about halfway through and am looking forward to reading the rest.

A few points -

You mentioned that belief in God is not rational - I beg to differ. There are rational methods for achieving Higher/God consciousness which have been known and practiced for thousands of years, which I am sure you are aware of. I call it LOGICAL MYSTICISM.

You brought out the CONTEMPT Dawkins holds for Believers - that's a good way of putting it. It's really a kind of Ad Hominem attack - we've all heard the refrain - `People who believe in God are (dumb) ignorant, poor and afraid of death. `Successful people don't believe in GOD are you kidding. Look at meee!' Dawkins chirps. This is why I think Dawkins position is insecure because it is based on IGNORANCE of spirituality. Dawkins has never experienced Higher/God Consciousness, never worked at it, trained for it and doesn't want to - therefore God does not exist simply because it is not within Dawkins' realm of experience. That is a weak position.

Unfortunately - the only people I have ever heard debate Dawkins are basically coming from the same logic structure that he is. This puts his opponents in an inferior debating position because everyone knows you can't get God out of a book.

Honestly I would not classify myself as a Believer. I am a humble Seeker who has had experiences of Higher Consciousness. The key word here is EXPERIENCE. Experience doesn't come out of a book. Once you have experienced Higher Consciouness very few people would say with certainty - There Is NO God'.

BTW - I enjoy reading your posts :)

[hagbard_celine]

Hi Hagbard - Thanks for the link to your review of Richard Dawkins book. Very impressive. I read about halfway through and am looking forward to reading the rest.

A few points -

You mentioned that belief in God is not rational - I beg to differ. There are rational methods for achieving Higher/God consciousness which have been known and practiced for thousands of years, which I am sure you are aware of. I call it LOGICAL MYSTICISM.

You brought out the CONTEMPT Dawkins holds for Believers - that's a good way of putting it. It's really a kind of Ad Hominem attack - we've all heard the refrain - `People who believe in God are (dumb) ignorant, poor and afraid of death. `Successful people don't believe in GOD are you kidding. Look at meee!' Dawkins chirps. This is why I think Dawkins position is insecure because it is based on IGNORANCE of spirituality. Dawkins has never experienced Higher/God Consciousness, never worked at it, trained for it and doesn't want to - therefore God does not exist simply because it is not within Dawkins' realm of experience. That is a weak position.

Unfortunately - the only people I have ever heard debate Dawkins are basically coming from the same logic structure that he is. This puts his opponents in an inferior debating position because everyone knows you can't get God out of a book.

Honestly I would not classify myself as a Believer. I am a humble Seeker who has had experiences of Higher Consciousness. The key word here is EXPERIENCE. Experience doesn't come out of a book. Once you have experienced Higher Consciouness very few people would say with certainty - There Is NO God'.

BTW - I enjoy reading your posts :)

Thanks, Drakul.:) I'm glad you enjoy my contribution to the forum and my review of TGD. I'll look into "logical mysticism"; I'd hate to leave any avenue unexplored.

The ignorance of Dawkins' position is very apparent to many philosophers. He really is locked into the materialist paradigm so deeply that he is almost literally in a different universe!:eek: I've noticed that serious challengers find it very hard to discuss the issues with him. I'm sure in his own mind he sees his challengers' arguments equally incomprehensible. This is thing about human consciousness: it's not all the same thing. Science tends to address human consciousness as a singular entitiy, but it is not. There are many forms of human consciousness which are in no way similar. Two human minds can be as dissimilar as two minds of two separate animal species.

Dawkins has unwittingly been set up by the media as a "pop atheist" character. He's usually put in public debates with very ignorant religious nuts, and this doesn't help him. In fact his controllers humour him somehat:D to keep him in his frame of mind! There are exceptions though. Like his debates with Alister McGrath that I refer to earlier in the thread and in other threads, like this one: http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6457.

Hope you enjoy the rest of my review of TGD, and I hope you'll post your feedback on it:).

(BTW: I've just noticed that comment on the article from a couple of months ago. I'd better reply to it:o:eek:)

[haukipesukone]

I don't have the energy to read the article right now, and I know I'd just get angry reading about Dawkins' ideas. Just based on your comments here, Hagbard, I think I agree with you on Dawkins. I've never read any of his books, but I've seen a few documentaries.

He's such a hateful man.

[tjohn]

I am not impressed with Mr Dawkins' reasoning at all. I do not follow any known religion; however, I do have a concept of God and some thoughts in line with conclusions that I independently came to, can be found on the the following video - of which, I do suspect that Mr Dawkins will not be able to give a clear answer.

Dawkins, if you should see this, can you give us a logical answer?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2RD4vTuPN0 .
So how does Dawkins explain that experiments in quantum physics show that 'things' such as photons, seem to know when we are looking at them?
Then here's my concept of God...
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41126

http://ftp4.dns-systems.net/%7Etruth009/Godmind.jpg

[hagbard_celine]

I don't have the energy to read the article right now, and I know I'd just get angry reading about Dawkins' ideas. Just based on your comments here, Hagbard, I think I agree with you on Dawkins. I've never read any of his books, but I've seen a few documentaries.

He's such a hateful man.

I'm not so sure, a person needs an iota of intelligence to be hateful and Dawkins lack that.:D I agree with another member here who described a few monmths ago him as a "useful idiot".

[hagbard_celine]

I am not impressed with Mr Dawkins' reasoning at all. I do not follow any known religion; however, I do have a concept of God and some thoughts in line with conclusions that I independently came to, can be found on the the following video - of which, I do suspect that Mr Dawkins will not be able to give a clear answer.

Dawkins, if you should see this, can you give us a logical answer?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2RD4vTuPN0 .
So how does Dawkins explain that experiments in quantum physics show that 'things' such as photons, seem to know when we are looking at them?
Then here's my concept of God...
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41126

http://ftp4.dns-systems.net/%7Etruth009/Godmind.jpg

True intelligent theology and spiritualism is beyond Dawkin's ability to contemplate!:rolleyes: This is what really struck me when I read the book. He actually equates all spiritual thought... of any kind at all... with Western monotheistic dogma-religion. Concepts like gnosticism and pantheism go completely over his head!

Serious philosophers take Dawkins to the effin' cleaners every day, but Dawkins is to dense to even realize that!:D:eek:

[drakul]

Hagbard - I finished reading your review of the Dog Delusion. 000Ps, meant to say God Delusion (freudian?) Anyway your review was so perceptive and well thought out - I can't do it justice here. So many interesting comments -

`This is why I say again and again that I don’t see organized religion and conventional science as opposites. I see them together on one side, with other forms of spirituality on the real opposite side'.

Dawkins' real book title is `Atheism for Idiots' :D

If Dawkins was a REAL scientist he would do a statistical study on people who have rejected God (not just religion but GOD - they are two different things) and how this has vastly improved their lives as he claims it will.

Spirituality has provided my life with wonder and incredible experiences from the beginning to now. To take this away from some children would be a tragic loss. Others would probably never realize their loss. BTW - I don't know why you feel guilty about sending your daughter to a Catholic elementary school. Did she suffer there? Was she beaten? Crucified? Left twisting in the wind?

I am not a Catholic and I absolutely despise the VATICAN. But my daughter was so unhappy at her public highschool that I sent her to a Catholic H.S. and she did much better. I was very impressed with the kindness and dedication of the teachers there. :) She is now getting her Masters in English on a full scholarship and working as a research ass't under a published author.

[tjohn]

True intelligent theology and spiritualism is beyond Dawkin's ability to contemplate! I think that spirituality would be a better word and anyway I agree that much is beyond his ability to comprehend.

This is what really struck me when I read the book. He actually equates all spiritual thought... of any kind at all... with Western monotheistic dogma-religion. Concepts like gnosticism and pantheism go completely over his head! I didn’t have to read his book(s), the videos showed plenty enough!

For instance: in one video someone politely asked him, “What if you are wrong?” and his dishonest answer was that he can admit that he is wrong but depending on what religion a person is brought up in, is what people will believe. Then almost everyone in the audience clapped, apparently not realising that he had not answered the question!


When are people going to wake up and stop following like sheep?

I sent him an email with links to this site but I do suspect that he will not join us in any honest discussion and it is likely that he will not join with us or even answer at all.

[haukipesukone]

I'm not so sure, a person needs an iota of intelligence to be hateful and Dawkins lack that.:D I agree with another member here who described a few monmths ago him as a "useful idiot".

I thought he was sort of intelligent, in some limited field of thought at least. I once watched once one of his science lectures and I was impressed that wasn't the same kind of raving lunatic as he is talking about religion. In the lecture he seemed intelligent, granted I lost interest halfway through and didnt' pay much attention anymore.

[hewrote]

Great article!

Started reading it but never finished it :o

Would recommend, as an alternative on the same subject:
God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Christopher%20Hitchens)




really, would you recommend Hitchen's book as an expose of mythological fantasy are you sure? careful now "from Afghanistan the holy order was given to annex two famous achievements of modernism – the high-rise building and the jet aircraft – and use them for immolation and human sacrifice. The succeeding stage, very plainly announced in hysterical sermons, was to be the moment when apocalyptic nihilists coincided with Armageddon weaponry. Faith-based fanatics could not design anything as useful or beautiful as a skyscraper or a passenger aircraft. But, continuing their long history of plagiarism, they could borrow and steal these things and use them as a negation." from God Is Not Great.

He may not believe in God, but he perpetuates mythical delusions none the less.

[drakul]

really, would you recommend Hitchen's book as an expose of mythological fantasy? are you sure? careful now "from Afghanistan the holy order was given to annex two famous achievements of modernism – the high-rise building and the jet aircraft – and use them for immolation and human sacrifice. The succeeding stage, very plainly announced in hysterical sermons, was to be the moment when apocalyptic nihilists coincided with Armageddon weaponry. Faith-based fanatics could not design anything as useful or beautiful as a skyscraper or a passenger aircraft. But, continuing their long history of plagiarism, they could borrow and steal these things and use them as a negation." from God Is Not Great.

He may not believe in God, but he perpetuates mythical fantasy and delusions none the less.


Uhuh. The camel jockeys flew passenger jets into the world trade towers and the pentagon (most heavily guarded airspace in the world), while the US military stood by and WATCHED. Uhuh. (shakes head)

[tracker]

Here's my book review of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.

Sorry. It's a long article to cut and paste. I'd have to go through it and do all the italics again and I'm really tired so I hope nobody minds if I just post a link to the original:

http://hpanwo.blogspot.com/2008/04/god-delusion-by-richard-dawkins.html

ive already read his book on this .

its bound to cours a sture to the delusional at heart thats for sure .

[hewrote]

Uhuh. The camel jockeys flew passenger jets into the world trade towers and the pentagon (most heavily guarded airspace in the world), while the US military stood by and WATCHED. Uhuh. (shakes head)

yes!! Had Hitchen's invoked half the of the energy he unleashes upon religion and applied it in the same fashion to honestly investigating 9/11...well, he may have written another book. A book that would have sealed his fate within the establishment, but at least people would remember him when he's dead !!

[hewrote]

it's almost tragic, yet QUITE hilarious how Hitchen's exposes his own faith-based fanaticism in reciting the official version of 9/11. No amount of linguistic grace can remove the noose he's put around his own neck!!

[agneau]

I have read your review of Richard Dawkin’s Book, and it is indeed very well written.

However, what struck me most was the emphasis in your review on the position that Dawkins is writing from – as though his book was supposed to be a thoroughly exhaustive treatise on the absurdity of all religions.

I consider the book to be one aimed as an introduction to the subject of atheism, much as his other populist books about genetics and evolution are aimed at the layman. From that point of view he must have aimed it at the common western perception of God, since this is his primary target for his ‘evangelism’.

To the more sophisticated philosopher, such as you appear to be, it would necessarily seem to be a somewhat limited scan across the belief systems available to mankind as a whole.

However, having said that, some of his more fundamental points are of universal significance, and even if he fails to directly address the beliefs of other cultures, the basic principles of his argument hold true to any rational mind.

And one of the most simplistic but vital questions he raises is ‘why do we have to accept the belief of others in any form of God?’. There is no evidence of the existence of a God, and it is not the responsibility of atheists to disprove God. We do have a responsibility to point out that religion has caused, and still does cause, more problems and grief than it’s advantages warrant.

There is no evidence for belief other than personal testimony, and that cannot be reasonably attributed to a divine experience or revelation so long as the only ratification is the profession of the affected themselves; Dawkins insinuately equates this with the delusion of those believing themselves Napoleon –which is perhaps harshly sneering – but the point is valid. This is a personal experience and does not make it an absolute truism.

Religious apologists cannot demonstrate God, and most ‘believers’ of any faith are generally indoctrinated from birth or early childhood or, worse still, by fear. It is this propagation that Dawkins seems to most object to, and I share that distaste.

Dawkins book then is very valuable as a cure to this historically one sided view of religion – the view that we must at all costs respect all religions just because they are religions; that somehow religion is immune to ridicule. It offers us the alternative that belief is not enough in itself for us to accept; that perhaps it is a condition that is not desirable in man and can be ‘cured’.

Finally, I would put in a word for scientific rationality. It has to be accepted as a proven tool, since everything we truly understand and universally accept stems from it.

There is no God and there are no Gods outside of our own minds, and our minds are very good at wishing and make-believe. I mean no disrespect to anyone personally, but you have nothing to show me that proves there is a god, and so the only conclusion is that you are suffering from a delusion – a delusion that is at best benign in some, but distinctly dangerous in others.

[drakul]

There is no God and there are no Gods outside of our own minds, and our minds are very good at wishing and make-believe. I mean no disrespect to anyone personally, but you have nothing to show me that proves there is a god, and so the only conclusion is that you are suffering from a delusion – a delusion that is at best benign in some, but distinctly dangerous in others.

You write like an educated person. How many years of work did you put into your education? At least 12+ I would imagine.

How many years of genuine work have you put into achieving Higher/God Consciousness?

[element]

You write like an educated person. How many years of work did you put into your education? At least 12+ I would imagine.

How many years of genuine work have you put into achieving Higher/God Consciousness?

Probably nothing. Materialists are extremely lazy and locked in their objective beliefs.

Or maybe just another parrot.;)

[drakul]

Probably nothing. Materialists are extremely lazy and locked in their objective beliefs. I wonder why such people keep coming here? Maybe questioning their own beliefs?

Or maybe just another parrot.;)


We realize that education is worthwhile and for that we sacrifice untold hours. Is not Higher/God Conciousness just as important?

A few necessities (to start) -

* The mind has to learn how to completely focus, dismissing thoughts and all distractions

* The nervous system has to be strengthened

* The body must be made flexible, circulation, heart, spine strengthened

* DIET (need I say more)

* Abstention from drugs & alcohol (which only drain the nervous system)

* DESIRE - Genuinely Ask and you shall recieve

* A TEACHER - Knock and the door shall be opened

[element]

We realize that education is worthwhile and for that we sacrifice untold hours. Is not Higher/God Conciousness just as important?

A few necessities (to start) -

* The mind has to learn how to completely focus, dismissing thoughts and all distractions

* The nervous system has to be strengthened

* The body must be made flexible, circulation, heart, spine strengthened

* DIET (need I say more)

* Abstention from drugs & alcohol (which only drain the nervous system)

* DESIRE - Genuinely Ask and you shall recieve

* A TEACHER - Knock and the door shall be opened

Yes, all very true. ;)

[drakul]

In Thailand (I used to live there), every male is expected to go into a monastary and live as a monk for 6 months at some point in his life. Even the king of Thailand did this. Thai people are far from perfect, Western influences have deeply corrupted their society. But overall I would say that the Thai people are still the most deeply spiritual of any I have known.

[hagbard_celine]

Hagbard - I finished reading your review of the Dog Delusion. 000Ps, meant to say God Delusion (freudian?) Anyway your review was so perceptive and well thought out - I can't do it justice here. So many interesting comments -

`This is why I say again and again that I don’t see organized religion and conventional science as opposites. I see them together on one side, with other forms of spirituality on the real opposite side'.

Dawkins' real book title is `Atheism for Idiots' :D

If Dawkins was a REAL scientist he would do a statistical study on people who have rejected God (not just religion but GOD - they are two different things) and how this has vastly improved their lives as he claims it will.

Spirituality has provided my life with wonder and incredible experiences from the beginning to now. To take this away from some children would be a tragic loss. Others would probably never realize their loss. BTW - I don't know why you feel guilty about sending your daughter to a Catholic elementary school. Did she suffer there? Was she beaten? Crucified? Left twisting in the wind?

I am not a Catholic and I absolutely despise the VATICAN. But my daughter was so unhappy at her public highschool that I sent her to a Catholic H.S. and she did much better. I was very impressed with the kindness and dedication of the teachers there. :) She is now getting her Masters in English on a full scholarship and working as a research ass't under a published author.


Glad you found it useful, Drakul.

I don't really feel guilty about sending my kid to a Catholic school. I'm glad to say she's an open-mined young lady who asks relevent questions. Like when she learned about how the pyramids were built: by people who hadn't invented the lever or wheel yet, she came to mke and asked to hear the alternbative version.

I like the title Atheism for Idiots!:D It's true! But he hets a run for his money! Have you seen Dawkins' debate with Alister McGrath?

[revolutionary_jam]

I like the title Atheism for Idiots!:D It's true! But he hets a run for his money! Have you seen Dawkins' debate with Alister McGrath?youtube?

[agneau]

How many years of genuine work have you put into achieving Higher/God Consciousness? - Drakul

But that is the whole point, isn’t it, Drakul? Of course I’ve put no work into achieving Higher God Consciousness, because I believe that there is no such state. Therefore, why would I spend time in such a proposed ‘education’ any more than I would spend time in trying to ‘discover’ Fairies and Goblins, or teach myself levitation or mind-reading.

Instead I put time and energy into trying developing and improve myself morally, and helping those less fortunate. In effect I suppose, I am trying to take on-board all those good lessons given in the likes of the Bible, the Koran, the teachings of Wicca – any place I can find it – and applying it to everyday life. Real life here and now. No god, no Nirvana.

But it is the astounding certainty of those with faith, and the umbrage of many at being gain-sayed, that lends Dawkin’s rather extreme-stance some credibility – it’s assumed I’m wrong and it’s my fault, and when I have the temerity to suggest the Emperors not actually wearing any clothes, I get this sort of response:

Materialists are extremely lazy and locked in their objective beliefs. I wonder why such people keep coming here? Maybe questioning their own beliefs?

Or maybe just another parrot - Element
Well, thanks, Element. So, because I don’t believe in a god, then I’m automatically a trapped and lazy materialist, or just reciting some other persons atheistic liturgy. Anything else I am because I don’t believe? Obviously you consider me inferior because of it. Wrong colour spiritual skin for your liking, eh? Which god do you follow, and what do you think his main message is?

[element]

Well, thanks, Element. So, because I don’t believe in a god, then I’m automatically a trapped and lazy materialist, or just reciting some other persons atheistic liturgy. Anything else I am because I don’t believe? Obviously you consider me inferior because of it. Wrong colour spiritual skin for your liking, eh? Which god do you follow, and what do you think his main message is?

It's not about 'beliefs'.

You are telling us we are delusional, while most people here would advocate to actually search for inner, spiritual truth rather then repeat the old ways.
But anyway, what have you done to come to your conclusion? If you don't want to put effort in it, then you shouldn't be talking about delusions etc.

[agneau]

It's not about 'beliefs'.

You are telling us we are delusional, while most people here would advocate to actually search for inner, spiritual truth rather then repeat the old ways.
But anyway, what have you done to come to your conclusion? If you don't want to put effort in it, then you shouldn't be talking about delusions. You got 0 experience it seems.

What do you mean what have I done to come to my conclusion?

(And I've already explained about why I wouldn't put the 'effort' into this particular research, so I'm not going over that again.)

[drakul]

What do you mean what have I done to come to my conclusion?

(And I've already explained about why I wouldn't put the 'effort' into this particular research, so I'm not going over that again.)

How can you say something is not there if you have not researched it? Is that scientific? :rolleyes:

[thirdwave]

you can say you do not believe it to be the case.... and there for focus your time and energy on researching things you do think is there....

Ok, the truth is no one here KNOWS there is a God..... even the most die hard Christian does not KNOW there is a god no matter how strong their claim is.

but for me I have not seen anything in religion to lead me to think there is a God in terms of a being.... Now while I don't KNOW of course there has to be a part of you who is open to the fact... But I figure if there is one then it has not done a good job in letting it be known... and it has very much left us with guess work... so even if it is up there I don't think its my job to point it out... and work out what it wants... and if it is anything like what most religions make out then I think its an arse hole anyway and would not care for it at all....

This is why I do not bother to research God... and I follow something I am %100 certain about and that's my conciousness ... all of it and as much of it as I can be concious of... and I figure if there is a person out there called God, then the more concious my self is, then the more chance I have of meeting it anyway.

I strongly believe we are all god... and we all create our own lives.... and every single speck of the universe is an extension of us.... which means it is also god....

you can never get away from god... even if you went to hell god would be right there with you feeling every single thing you do.... there is no bogie man who can take you away from god.... if there is a bogie man there then that bogie man is also God.....

[drakul]

So you are 100% certain about your consciousness? Well that's what I'm talking about - Higher/God Consciousness. Have you ever experienced it? (drugs don't count)

[knightofthegrail]

What we have to bare in mind is that Dawkins is doing the best he can; like so many people in society. He (and they) just havnt begun to grasp the existance of (for want of a better term) the divine-that-is-in-all.

[element]

What we have to bare in mind is that Dawkins is doing the best he can; like so many people in society. He (and they) just havnt begun to grasp the existance of (for want of a better term) the divine-that-is-in-all.

No, he's making parrots of people..

[knightofthegrail]

No, he's making parrots of people..

They, and he, know no better; the simply have not begun to grasp the concept of the divine. Its a matter of education and experience.

Yes he's pied pipering people further into atheism, but that is, in part, because we are not putting the opposite case to the full. Its like Blair said (I cant believe I'm quoting phonie tony!!), if you mention the "God" word people think you are mad.

Yes the odds can appear stacked against us at times (especially with the way the media is dedicated to spreading judgement and notions of "an ugly world") but we have the advantage of being on the side of truth :) We just need to find a better way to get it across.

Dawkins isnt a monster. Rather he epitomizes the challenge we face :)

[thirdwave]

So you are 100% certain about your consciousness? Well that's what I'm talking about - Higher/God Consciousness. Have you ever experienced it? (drugs don't count)

Yes I have.... on drugs and off drugs ..

and drugs do count.... do your research.

[drakul]

Yes I have.... on drugs and off drugs ..

and drugs do count.... do your research.

So have I - on and off and there is no comparison.

I would be genuinely interested to hear about some of your experiences of Higher Consciousness.

Over the years I found that drugs drastically deplete your nervous system. They drain your brain's endomorphins.

By following traditional, known methods reaching Higher Consciousness, such as yoga, meditation, Sufism, etc., you are immensely strenghthening your mind, nervous system, circulatory system, musculature and developing flexibility. This also improves eyesight and hearing. You will have more experiences of Higher Consciousness because you have done the work, you are in the driver’s seat. Your intake, your needs become less while your output increases.

Drugs do you. Drugs are just a cheap, dirty fix. Drugs make you dependent on them. They weaken you. This is why people who do drugs start looking `WASTED'. They are. They are wasting themselves. The drug experience may seem initially uplifting, but as time goes on and the brain has less endomorphins and the nervous system becomes depleted, the drug experience becomes less and less of a revelation, instead often devolving into paranoia, panic, even thoughts of suicide or violent aggression.

I know what I'm talking about. I did drugs for over 10 years. I have seen what drugs have done to those close to me. Some of these people have gone into a downward spiral and never come out of it. Meanwhile the rest of the world moves on, while they slowly sink down further into a drug-induced spiral. It's very sad to see, especially as people get older and lose their youth and the ravages of drug use really begin to show, both mentally and physically. Combining drugs and alcohol together are a REAL brainkiller.

Thirdwave - are you an ATHEIST or are you just against RELIGION? There is a huge difference.

[thirdwave]

So have I - on and off and there is no comparison. ..everyone to their own.

I would be genuinely interested to hear about some of your experiences of Higher Consciousness.

whats there to tell I have achieved higher states of conciousness through meditation.... through sleep.... through astral projection.... through states of hi emotion.... and through drugs.

Over the years I found that drugs drastically deplete your nervous system. They drain your brain's endomorphins.

So it is established that taking to much drugs can have negative effects... this does not mean that consuming some of mother natures offerings is wrong.

By following traditional, known methods reaching Higher Consciousness, such as yoga, meditation, Sufism, etc., you are immensely strenghthening your mind, nervous system, circulatory system, musculature and developing flexibility.

I found taking psychedelic drugs extremely enlightening and opened my mind to many new concepts... and I found that meditation was then much easier as if I had more of a taste of where I should be going with it...

This also improves eyesight and hearing. You will have more experiences of Higher Consciousness because you have done the work, you are in the driver’s seat. Your intake, your needs become less while your output increases.

Why does it always have to be black or white.... right or left.... drugs or no drugs??? ... can you not contemplate that a little drugs can help some people to enlightenment?.. help them start the work that is needed? ... why does the earth grow such things? if a person was spend an evening taking magic mushrooms it would not harm him/her one tiny bit!.


Drugs do you. Drugs are just a cheap, dirty fix. Drugs make you dependent on them.

false, some drugs are dirty and cheep, and some drugs make you dependent on them.... but with many it is only pycological anyway... you think some people do not become depended on yoga or religion?

anything you find salvation in has a risk of creating addiction... its us that creates that.

They weaken you.
No Magic Mushrooms do not weaken you one tiny bit.... they offer you the chance to use more of your brain and to see more ... and to learn from it.

This is why people who do drugs start looking `WASTED'. They are. They are wasting themselves. The drug experience may seem initially uplifting, but as time goes on and the brain has less endomorphins and the nervous system becomes depleted, the drug experience becomes less and less of a revelation, instead often devolving into paranoia, panic, even thoughts of suicide or violent aggression.

You are now talking about addiction... not the expirience its self.... you are talking about drugs making people lazy.... not about the enlightenment some offer... also many street drugs are not to be trusted as they are the work of the CIA created to make money and to make people docile.

Go to a Shaman across the world and tell him he is wasted and paranoid....


I know what I'm talking about. I did drugs for over 10 years.

well there you go!! that's 10 years!

I have seen what drugs have done to those close to me. Some of these people have gone into a downward spiral and never come out of it.
I am no stranger to the effects of drugs.... and from my expiance the guys who went in clubs doing 5-6 acid trips where the ones that never seemed to know much about the drug other than being... "mad man..... just insane.... blows your fucking mind....." ... thats all you really get out of them... hardely think they would have been much conversation at the time...

I used to take 1 trip in a forest some place and would get to states they would not dream of.... never needed to take another to make it stronger.


Meanwhile the rest of the world moves on, while they slowly sink down further into a drug-induced spiral.

You have a habit of generalising things.... have you ever thought that most people simply are not ready to deal with such conciousness and there for have a negative effect from it....

You have some people who lose there minds after doing strong Reiki.... no need for drugs there...


It's very sad to see, especially as people get older and lose their youth and the ravages of drug use really begin to show, both mentally and physically. Combining drugs and alcohol together are a REAL brainkiller. I agree drugs can be a right fucker..... and drag people right down.... but there are many many kinds of drugs... and many many kinds of people.

Thirdwave - are you an ATHEIST or are you just against RELIGION? There is a huge difference.

I dont belive there is a "being" who is god... so if that makes me an Atheist then so be it....

I belive in God as an energy.. a presence that we all are.... so maybe that makes me not an Atheist...

I am not against religion in that I would try to stop it.... No, I believe everyone is free to believe and be what they wish.... However, I feel Religion is simply a symptom of the lost ignorant and oppressed state man kind are in.... and that the only way to remedy it is for more and more alternative info to come out and for people to see.... its simple, people need a god because they do not feel in control enough without one..... so people need to learn to take control of them selves... and when they do so we will all create much more than we do now.

[drakul]

I was very conservative in my drug use too, but the marijuana became a daily habit - psycological addictions can be extremely difficult to break. Marijuana is a serious DIURETIC, like most other natural drugs. You know what that is, right? A diuretic DRAINS You. Literally. I also found over the years that smoking it weakened my heart.

How many years have you been taking drugs? Have you ever tried to stop?

As far as God - Carlin says `There IS NO GOD' period. No question marks. No `energy' (as you think there is), no nothing. By ranting about religion and confusing it with GOD, isn't Carlin deliberately attempting to cut people off from their (God-given) spirituality?

`There's nothing out there, no God, so don't even try'. And some people believe him, because Carlin knows how to make them laugh. And they like to laugh. Laughter feels good. So Carlin becomes their influential icon. A shame.

This is why I say Carlin is an Agent of Influence for the NWO. The NWO hates human spirituality. And when I say spirituality I mean that in a higher sense - Love and Compassion. The NWO hates God. The NWO worships LUCIFER.

[thirdwave]

I was very conservative in my drug use too, but the marijuana became a daily habit - psycological addictions can be extremely difficult to break. Marijuana is a serious DIURETIC, like most other natural drugs. You know what that is, right? A diuretic DRAINS You. Literally. I also found over the years that smoking it weakened my heart.

Pot nowadays is laced with so much shit is no longer comes under the "mother nature" brand in my book.... even self grown stuff I would not trust so much as the seeds are normaly still from wjhats in circulation....

and its not something you should smoke everyday anyway... this is why the effects are so bad for many... my old drummer had his life changed around from doing too much pot...was addicted for years and was constantly paranoid and lazy... that being said, it was easy to talk to him about most spiritual things... he had a good perspective of it all.... just to much dope in the end..

How many years have you been taking drugs? Have you ever tried to stop?

I do not really do them any more.... on an odd occasion i will take some pot.... and if im really in the mood and in good company i will do some shrooms.... last time was about 3 years ago....

I have done coke in the past, never got to stuck into it and at weekends a few people do it around me and i don't really bother as its to much money and send me to much out of character.. not to mention makes me feel knackered the next day...

But I have tried most drugs.... the only one I would say I am close to being addicted to is alcohol.... purely because come the weekend im dyeing to have a few pints with my mates...

As far as God - Carlin says `There IS NO GOD' period. No question marks. No `energy' (as you think there is), no nothing. By ranting about religion and confusing it with GOD, isn't Carlin deliberately attempting to cut people off from their (God-given) spirituality?

I dont mind if he does not belive in the "god energy" thing... and I dont take it as a bad thing as its his personal opinion... and who knows, he might be right at the end of the day.

I personaly think he is coming from a religious perspective and when he says there is no god its quite clear what kind of "god" he was refering to....

Now, if one was to have a convo to him about who we are and where we come from...maybe he would offer more incite into what he things.... but I get the impression he just personally thinks its a waste of time... not his bag....

I dont think its a case of him cutting people off from spirituality... and certainly is not a case of him ATTEMPTING to cut us off... as his general message and point is that of peace.... and pointing out the lack of peace religion has brought... he quite clearly valued human freedom, and quite clearly valued the earth... and quite clearly see's how corrupt and wrong parts of the world are.... so in order to recognise all this and feel so strongly about it there must be something human about him... and I don't need him to tell me how to feel about god in order for me to like him..


`There's nothing out there, no God, so don't even try'. And some people believe him, because Carlin knows how to make them laugh. And they like to laugh. Laughter feels good. So Carlin becomes their influential icon. A shame.

well to a degree I agree with him... there is no god..... there is no outside force that is watching and guiding us.... there is no being out there who is the creator.

its us... that's all..... i just happen to think that us is what god is...

But you have no evidence of god... so who are you to condemn him for believing their is not one?

and why do you need god to be spiritual? .... why cant you be spiritual without god?


This is why I say Carlin is an Agent of Influence for the NWO. The NWO hates human spirituality. And when I say spirituality I mean that in a higher sense - Love and Compassion. The NWO hates God. The NWO worships LUCIFER.

I think you are talking baloney.... I do not know the guy personally... but all I see is an old cynical guy who has grown fed up with much of man kinds ignorance and let it rip on his stage....

if he did not care then he would not have been doing it.

Maybe he does worship Lucifer... he did say he worshippers the sun....who knows.

I don't really care, I still liked him.... Lucifer is Christ's enemy anyway...not mine.

[thirdwave]

so is that chap a Lucifer worshipper as well?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=mHey5g56CIs&feature=related

[revolutionary_jam]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byooW_ZBl3U

[drakul]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byooW_ZBl3U

So what do YOU think of that `prayer' video? It was a little strange - especially the ending. The disastrous `double blind prayer experiement' did bring back a strong memory for me -
I had to have an operation to have a tumor removed and if it was cancerous then the doctors would have to cut out alot more flesh. There was also the great fear of death from cancer, the kill or cure treatments of radiation, chemotherapy, more cutting, etc. You get the picture.

Before the operation, I talked about my deep fear at a group therapy session. these people were complete strangers to me. As i was expressing my deep sense of panic about it, I completely broke down. I have this incredible memory of what happened then. It was more like a sensation really of THE GROUP crowding around me, picking me up bodily and holding me up. There was this total sense of COMPASSIONATE ENERGY. No real words. Those wonderful people they didn't know me from Adam but they CARED.

I never saw these people again, but an amazing thing happened. The panic went away. I completely lost ALL my fear. Completely. I went through the operation completely calm. And I have always been TERRIFIED of doctors. The tumor turned out to be benevolent. After the operation I remember the nurse saying - `Oh the doctor says you don't even need a transfusion, that's very unsusual'.

So there's double-blind experimental `prayer' (oh please lord let this person have a successful operation and get well soon etc ) and then there's PRAYER (heartfelt compassion).

[hagbard_celine]

Thanks, Drakul:).

I heard Peter Fenwick talking about some prayer studies and he had a very different story to tell to Dawkins!:) He said that the studies he was involved in were conducted properly and they show that prayer does have an effect.:cool:

[revolutionary_jam]

Thanks, Drakul:).

I heard Peter Fenwick talking about some prayer studies and he had a very different story to tell to Dawkins!:) He said that the studies he was involved in were conducted properly and they show that prayer does have an effect.:cool:

i wouldn't be surprised! I've heard similar!

[dreamweaver]

Thanks, Drakul:).

I heard Peter Fenwick talking about some prayer studies and he had a very different story to tell to Dawkins!:) He said that the studies he was involved in were conducted properly and they show that prayer does have an effect.:cool:

Yeah, and the tooth fairy exists too.

[hagbard_celine]

Yeah, and the tooth fairy exists too.

So sarcasm aside:rolleyes: how do you know Fenwick is wrong? Dawkins talks in his book about THE Templeton Prize prayer study. If there are others that give different results then we need to hear about them.

[element]

How the body works, influences the mind. And the mind influences our spiritual path. Thoughts are very powerful if applied with willpower,
Prayer might do the trick aswell, but maybe not for everyone. Or try mantras, ever tried?

I've had dreams providing me the future. It's crazy, try write dreams down for half a year or so..

We shouldn't dismiss anything(!) if we haven't tried it!
Spirituality is a practical thing..

[hagbard_celine]

How the body works, influences the mind. And the mind influences our spiritual path. Thoughts are very powerful if applied with willpower,
Prayer might do the trick aswell, but maybe not for everyone. Or try mantras, ever tried?

I've had dreams providing me the future. It's crazy, try write dreams down for half a year or so..

We shouldn't dismiss anything(!) if we haven't tried it!
Spirituality is a practical thing..

When it coms to direct mental intent then prayer and mantra are just names fro the same thing.

[tjohn]

When it coms to direct mental intent then prayer and mantra are just names fro the same thing.So can talking to one'self.

[disconnex]

Yeah, and the tooth fairy exists too.

It's been said that the human mind can "will" almost anything physical to happen to itself. Now, I don't mean anything in the terms of sprouting wings and flying, but changes have happened to the human body through thought and will.

Positive thought can keep the human mind and body healthy, while negative thought, stress, and depression can manifest symptons of illness and disease.

[dreamweaver]

So sarcasm aside:rolleyes: how do you know Fenwick is wrong? Dawkins talks in his book about THE Templeton Prize prayer study. If there are others that give different results then we need to hear about them.
I've only just seen this post and I've never even heard of Fenwick, so you can't expect me to comment on a study I haven't even seen.

It's been said that the human mind can "will" almost anything physical to happen to itself. Now, I don't mean anything in the terms of sprouting wings and flying, but changes have happened to the human body through thought and will.

Positive thought can keep the human mind and body healthy, while negative thought, stress, and depression can manifest symptons of illness and disease.

The "placebo effect" is well known, certainly.

[disconnex]

The "placebo effect" is well known, certainly.

Do we discredit prayer as being the placebo effect, or do we credit the placebo effect for actually being, in some way, powerfull.

Could people actually think that by having their own minds control their bodies, that they have allowed spirits to help them.

[dreamweaver]

Do we discredit prayer as being the placebo effect, or do we credit the placebo effect for actually being, in some way, powerfull.

Could people actually think that by having their own minds control their bodies, that they have allowed spirits to help them.
Is that the "royal we"?

Doctors are well aware of the human body's remarkable self-healing abilities. If you want to believe that this can only be explained by supernatural forces, you are free to do so.

[disconnex]

Is that the "royal we"?

Doctors are well aware of the human body's remarkable self-healing abilities. If you want to believe that this can only be explained by supernatural forces, you are free to do so.

No, not royal at all. I know where I stand on the issue, I was adding for discussion as a group.

More so I wanted your opinion on the fact that there are people that believe that supernatural forces do apply when it comes to self healing, along with the belief of an actual working medicine when all they eat are sugar pills. I had thought you would have responded cleverly, not take it out of context...

[hagbard_celine]

So can talking to one'self.

Yes.:)

[hagbard_celine]

It's been said that the human mind can "will" almost anything physical to happen to itself. Now, I don't mean anything in the terms of sprouting wings and flying, but changes have happened to the human body through thought and will.

Positive thought can keep the human mind and body healthy, while negative thought, stress, and depression can manifest symptons of illness and disease.

This is true. I often make myself ill if I'm worried or insecure.

As for willing anything to happen. Some Shamans and Tibetan mystics claim to be able to create spiritual and even physical forms, a "Tulpa" or homunculus etc. This was attested to by the Western explorer Alexandra David-Neel.

[hagbard_celine]

I've only just seen this post and I've never even heard of Fenwick, so you can't expect me to comment on a study I haven't even seen.



I don't. (Deadpan emoticon)

But Peter Fenwick is a man who tellls a different story to Dawkins on this subject. I'm not saying Fenwick is definitely correct, only that there is another side to the story that is not covered in TGD.

[hagbard_celine]

Do we discredit prayer as being the placebo effect, or do we credit the placebo effect for actually being, in some way, powerfull.

Could people actually think that by having their own minds control their bodies, that they have allowed spirits to help them.

The prayer experiment was actually designed to eliminate the placebo effect. So any positive results become a lot more interesting than simply someone getting better because their mother said: "I prayed for you".

[talkingchimp]

uri geller claims tobe a psychic, do you believe him? what separates his claims from tibetan shamans? a claim is a claim until you have irrevocable proof.

[hagbard_celine]

uri geller claims tobe a psychic, do you believe him? what separates his claims from tibetan shamans? a claim is a claim until you have irrevocable proof.


I've not made my mind up about Uri Geller. Sometimkes I think he's just a stage conjourer. He's veryt different to Tibetan Shamans etc though. The Tibetans etc base their abilities on millennia old philosophy and lifestlye.;

[revolutionary_jam]

they were surprisingly nice to me on the Richard Dawkins forum when I joined to post a link to the vid :-D

[talkingchimp]

I've not made my mind up about Uri Geller. Sometimkes I think he's just a stage conjourer. He's veryt different to Tibetan Shamans etc though. The Tibetans etc base their abilities on millennia old philosophy and lifestlye.;

that what i used to think until it dawned on me that millenia old lifestyle and philosophy is just another way of saying indoctrinated. and im curious to know, how many practioners of bon-po do you know? one mans shaman is another mans bishop.

[hagbard_celine]

they were surprisingly nice to me on the Richard Dawkins forum when I joined to post a link to the vid :-D

Some Skepper fourms are OK, like UK Skeptics, but I'd avoid James Randi's JREF forum! The members are a bunch of fascists!:rolleyes::D But the wost is Derren Brown's forum (or at least the old one). Any non-Skeptic who joins is basically hounded off the forum. It's institutional trolling!:mad:

[hagbard_celine]

that what i used to think until it dawned on me that millenia old lifestyle and philosophy is just another way of saying indoctrinated.

I disagree. The Western Ratioinalist Logical Left-Brain Paradigm has become an indoctrination after a well under a millennnium:D:cool:;).

and im curious to know, how many practioners of bon-po do you know?


None, your point being?:confused:

one mans shaman is another mans bishop

And one man's professor is another man's Ayatollah.

[bensonz]

In this sense, it is not a book that questions or criticizes religion at all, just certain types of.

Im reading this book the moment, I find the book to be extremly critical of religeon. IE God, the bible and jesus, which is namely the religeon of Christianity.

From a Christian perspetive it is blasphemy of the highest order. By all means be an atheist but this mand vitriolic hatred for anything christian is obvious.

Having said that he cherry picks scripture beautifully wickedly in his character assassinations of both the biblical God and Jesus figures.

[talkingchimp]

I disagree. The Western Ratioinalist Logical Left-Brain Paradigm has become an indoctrination after a well under a millennnium:D:cool:;).




None, your point being?:confused:



And one man's professor is another man's Ayatollah.

im not in the slightest bit confused. 'bon-po' is the 'religion of tibetan shamans/priests, who use their 'special knowledge' to control others and thus coerce them to do their bidding through fear of 'god' doesnt matter how you clothe it you simply cant polish a turd. unfortunately in the west we have been psychologically primed for this generations now, through all forms of media (mainly because its used as positive propaganda against the growing power of china)and we lap it up because we think it 'mystical' woooooo. i submit to you that even if (and im open enough to say that there may be something behind it ive missed) it has some credibilty it makes ZERO difference to the hungry child, or terrified iraqi/afghani/palestinian, and indeed in the west with our nutritionless food, posioned water, mercury and cancer virus laden vaccines, liberties being eradicated daily it has no bearing on our lives except for the innate human desire to believe in something magical. fuck me i believe paul daniels could pull a rabbit from a hat when i was a kid, but if he was a true magician he could say allez oop and grow his real hair back. im afraid that its all a con.

[hagbard_celine]

im not in the slightest bit confused. .

The emoticon I used was meant to refer to myself being confused.:o


'bon-po' is the 'religion of tibetan shamans/priests, who use their 'special knowledge' to control others and thus coerce them to do their bidding through fear of 'god' doesnt matter how you clothe it you simply cant polish a turd. unfortunately in the west we have been psychologically primed for this generations now, through all forms of media (mainly because its used as positive propaganda against the growing power of china)and we lap it up because we think it 'mystical' woooooo. i submit to you that even if (and im open enough to say that there may be something behind it ive missed) it has some credibilty it makes ZERO difference to the hungry child, or terrified iraqi/afghani/palestinian, and indeed in the west with our nutritionless food, posioned water, mercury and cancer virus laden vaccines, liberties being eradicated daily it has no bearing on our lives except for the innate human desire to believe in something magical. fuck me i believe paul daniels could pull a rabbit from a hat when i was a kid, but if he was a true magician he could say allez oop and grow his real hair back. im afraid that its all a con

But it all runs so much deeper than that. Copnventional Buddhism has indeed been all dressed up and laced with mystical god and goddesses. But the essence of the Buddha is very different. Zen is a much better philosphy I think.

[revolutionary_jam]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cdxJoCzLJyw

[drakul]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cdxJoCzLJyw

Ahhh isn't that cute little Dawkins brilliant?

By the same token to Dawkins - Spirituality is `interesting' and if you don't agree YOU can `feck off'. Haahahah isn't that hilarious?

[talkingchimp]

The emoticon I used was meant to refer to myself being confused.:o




But it all runs so much deeper than that. Copnventional Buddhism has indeed been all dressed up and laced with mystical god and goddesses. But the essence of the Buddha is very different. Zen is a much better philosphy I think.

i think it is all part of a patriarchial heirachy, the best experience is your own experience because thats the only life you are ever gonna lead. i was primed for all this 'oneness' and mysticism by george lucas's 'force' and the want to believe, much like all the ufo chasers were primed by him and speilberg and the lost city hunters the same (see indiana jones) its just a vast system of clever marketing i fear, i will reiterate i hope im wrong, but the older and more realistic i become i think (i dont know for sure) i see the picture more clearly.

[revolutionary_jam]

Ahhh isn't that cute little Dawkins brilliant?

By the same token to Dawkins - Spirituality is `interesting' and if you don't agree YOU can `feck off'. Haahahah isn't that hilarious?

he was actually quoting a former editor of New Scientist
I found it very amusing tho I must say


you know what Dawkins rebuttal to what you said would be though, that spirituality is interesting to study perhaps as a cultural phenomenon but has no basis in reality

I'm sure many of us here beg to differ

[zilky]

As I am understanding it, Dawkins is typically coming from the materialist perspective. The over in the other camp is the idealistic perspective. And through the ages for quite a while now, I see these two ideologies clash in various forms. HOWever, I see that at root both of them resent nature and death and are racist and misogynist and anti-psychedelic, because they again at root are patriarchal

Dawkins someone claims is dismissive, aloof, patronizing twards 'spirituality' saying that you can KIND of understand it but not take it seriously like his great religion of science

But what about the people, millions of them being classed by his great religion of science/Scientism to be 'mentally ill'?

by this I mean, when we suppress the spiritual aspect of ourselves via dogma this creates emotional and physical distress. This doesn't necessarily mean science has to be abandoned, but just to know its place. NOT to become a fukin dogma like the Christian church before it. AND I might add, when I talk about spirituality in its real meaning, I am not talking bout the latter neither!

[drakul]

he was actually quoting a former editor of New Scientist
I found it very amusing tho I must say


you know what Dawkins rebuttal to what you said would be though, that spirituality is interesting to study perhaps as a cultural phenomenon but has no basis in reality

I'm sure many of us here beg to differ

How can someone who has admittedly NOT experienced spirituality say it has no basis in reality? Is that a scientific approach to the issue? I thought science was about testing all possiblities and THEN coming to a conclusion. But Dawkins has not tested the spiritual reality/experience HE JUST SIMPLY DENIES IT.

What is reality? Is reality based on experience? What about those who have had spiritual experiences, are they mentally ill? crazy? do they need reality pills to bring them back to `reality"?

Sadly being born a mystic is to be in a very small virtually invisible minority. Therefore it is easy to deny that we exist.

[thirdwave]

Sadly being born a mystic is to be in a very small virtually invisible minority. Therefore it is easy to deny that we exist.

why do you need people to know you exist? .. as long as i cam free to practice what I believe then why would i care of people know about me doing so?

the bottom line is truth can never be debunked as it will always raise its head...

[drakul]

why do you need people to know you exist? .. as long as i cam free to practice what I believe then why would i care of people know about me doing so?

the bottom line is truth can never be debunked as it will always raise its head...

There is a saying - Truth is always the first casualty of war.

[thirdwave]

There is a saying - Truth is always the first casualty of war.

of course the does not mean the war is in the name of truth... more the lack of it..

[revolutionary_jam]

How can someone who has admittedly NOT experienced spirituality say it has no basis in reality? Is that a scientific approach to the issue? I thought science was about testing all possiblities and THEN coming to a conclusion. But Dawkins has not tested the spiritual reality/experience HE JUST SIMPLY DENIES IT.Preaching to the choir there boyo :)


still like Dawkins tho, he's free comedy

[moina]

This clip from YouTube is SOOO funny. A must watch.:)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=QERyh9YYEis&feature=related

[hagbard_celine]

i think it is all part of a patriarchial heirachy, the best experience is your own experience because thats the only life you are ever gonna lead. i was primed for all this 'oneness' and mysticism by george lucas's 'force' and the want to believe, much like all the ufo chasers were primed by him and speilberg and the lost city hunters the same (see indiana jones) its just a vast system of clever marketing i fear, i will reiterate i hope im wrong, but the older and more realistic i become i think (i dont know for sure) i see the picture more clearly.

There may be an element of what your saying, but I think you're being far too cynical. Clever marketing cannot explain every interest in the esoteric. In fact sometines it's the other way round. Indiana Jones was himself a fictionalization of several real people, most notably Otto Rahn.

[hagbard_celine]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=cdxJoCzLJyw

:D:D I think science is interesting too. But I think many non-scientific things are too. Can I still fuck off, Rich?

[hagbard_celine]

you know what Dawkins rebuttal to what you said would be though, that spirituality is interesting to study perhaps as a cultural phenomenon but has no basis in reality

I'm sure many of us here beg to differ

I certainly do!:cool: And Dawkins' position on spirituality is summed up in your post. But in reading TGD I actually thought that Dawkins doesn't understand what spirituality is! He's almost naive about it!:eek::D As I said in my review: He's got it into his head that Mahatma Gandhi and Isaac Newton were atheists like him! They were not; it's just that Dawkins assumed they were because their views don't fit into his own model of religious thought.:rolleyes:

[hagbard_celine]

the bottom line is truth can never be debunked as it will always raise its head...


Yes it will. What you said reminds me of the title of What the Bleep contributer Andrew Newburg's book Why God Won't Go Away.:D

[hagbard_celine]

This clip from YouTube is SOOO funny. A must watch.:)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=QERyh9YYEis&feature=related

If Dawkins designed the book, then who designed the Dawkins?:D:D

Is the interviewer William Hague?;)

Did you know there's a real book called The Dawkins Delusion:):cool:, it's by his Oxford colleague Alister McGrath (I think I posted a link above). I saw McGrath live last year and he's brilliant.

[hagbard_celine]

still like Dawkins tho, he's free comedy

Couldn't agree more!:D

[thirdwave]

Couldn't agree more!:D

good review...

I know what you mean, you can give these Atheist types a pat on the back at times when they underline how stupid many religious beliefs are and how it has been so fucked up...

But at the same time you normally end up getting egg in your face when you find out how narrow minded and limited there minds are.... they make all the effort to revel all the rubbish and misunderstandings in religion.... yet show the same amount of ignorance on the other side of the spectrum... they are only yo happy to open there eyes to show what is NOT there..... but are quick to close them when there may be something there...

[hagbard_celine]

good review...

I know what you mean, you can give these Atheist types a pat on the back at times when they underline how stupid many religious beliefs are and how it has been so fucked up...

But at the same time you normally end up getting egg in your face when you find out how narrow minded and limited there minds are.... they make all the effort to revel all the rubbish and misunderstandings in religion.... yet show the same amount of ignorance on the other side of the spectrum... they are only yo happy to open there eyes to show what is NOT there..... but are quick to close them when there may be something there...


Cheers, TW:)

Yeah, they are typical of imbalance. They start out by doing good to correct a previous imbalance, in this case organized religion, but in their eagerness to redress that initial imbalance they swing the pendulum too far the other way and create their own imbalance. People in that kind of mindset are so hard to convince!:rolleyes:

BTW: Did you see I've got some comments from someone called David Colquhoun?:eek: Aparently he's a Skeptic Knight who's always campaigning for "rational thought". He's very anti-"Quackery", alternative medicine

[thirdwave]

Cheers, TW:)

Yeah, they are typical of imbalance. They start out by doing good to correct a previous imbalance, in this case organized religion, but in their eagerness to redress that initial imbalance they swing the pendulum too far the other way and create their own imbalance. People in that kind of mindset are so hard to convince!:rolleyes:

BTW: Did you see I've got some comments from someone called David Colquhoun?:eek: Aparently he's a Skeptic Knight who's always campaigning for "rational thought". He's very anti-"Quackery", alternative medicine

not seen that David Colquhoun, will check it out in a bit... cheers!

[moina]

If Dawkins designed the book, then who designed the Dawkins?:D:D

Is the interviewer William Hague?;)

Did you know there's a real book called The Dawkins Delusion:):cool:, it's by his Oxford colleague Alister McGrath (I think I posted a link above). I saw McGrath live last year and he's brilliant.

Yeah i've seen that book but havent got round to buying it.

I like Richard Dawkins, I think he puts foward good arguements and represents skeptics very well. He's also a character.

[zilky]

How can someone who has admittedly NOT experienced spirituality say it has no basis in reality? Is that a scientific approach to the issue? I thought science was about testing all possiblities and THEN coming to a conclusion. But Dawkins has not tested the spiritual reality/experience HE JUST SIMPLY DENIES IT.

What is reality? Is reality based on experience? What about those who have had spiritual experiences, are they mentally ill? crazy? do they need reality pills to bring them back to `reality"?

Sadly being born a mystic is to be in a very small virtually invisible minority. Therefore it is easy to deny that we exist.

haha, he HAS to deny it. He is 'damned' TO deny it, because as 'science' was constructed since Galileo, via Bacon, and so on--ONLY what can be measured has supposed to have any 'objective' reality. So even if Dawkins had some kind of spiritual experience which he felt 'subjectively', he most likely is SO far gone in materialistic fundamentalism, he'd deny the experience, and/or explain it away in a materialistic fashion!

[hagbard_celine]

Yeah i've seen that book but havent got round to buying it.

I like Richard Dawkins, I think he puts foward good arguements and represents skeptics very well. He's also a character.


Yes, I do prefer him to many other Skeppers. He doesn't take on the smugness that so many of them do.

And he does make some good points about organized religion. He simply fails to understand that materialism is tnot the true opposite of that. He thinks that by demolishing organized monotheistic religion he can prove materialism right. No, he cannot!

[hagbard_celine]

haha, he HAS to deny it. He is 'damned' TO deny it, because as 'science' was constructed since Galileo, via Bacon, and so on--ONLY what can be measured has supposed to have any 'objective' reality. So even if Dawkins had some kind of spiritual experience which he felt 'subjectively', he most likely is SO far gone in materialistic fundamentalism, he'd deny the experience, and/or explain it away in a materialistic fashion!


And that for me is the very definition of fundamentalism. To adjure to a minset in the face of all instinct and intellect.

[hank_scorpio]

haha, he HAS to deny it. He is 'damned' TO deny it, because as 'science' was constructed since Galileo, via Bacon, and so on--ONLY what can be measured has supposed to have any 'objective' reality. So even if Dawkins had some kind of spiritual experience which he felt 'subjectively', he most likely is SO far gone in materialistic fundamentalism, he'd deny the experience, and/or explain it away in a materialistic fashion!
Science has been around for aeons it wasnt created by galileo. where are you picking up these so called facts? Read http://richarddawkins.net/article,3534,The-Evolution-of-Religion,J-Anderson-Thomson-MD the evolution of religion.

Bill Mahers movie Religulous is good. Theres also a new movie called The God who wasn't there. Human beings are starting to realize more and more how rediculous the ideas of god are. The evidence for evolution is overwelming.

If there is a god hes nothing more than a murderer.

[zilky]

Science has been around for aeons it wasnt created by galileo. where are you picking up these so called facts? Read http://richarddawkins.net/article,3534,The-Evolution-of-Religion,J-Anderson-Thomson-MD the evolution of religion.

Bill Mahers movie Religulous is good. Theres also a new movie called The God who wasn't there. Human beings are starting to realize more and more how rediculous the ideas of god are. The evidence for evolution is overwelming.

If there is a god hes nothing more than a murderer.

"The main point of Laing's attack was that science, as it is practiced today, has no way of dealing with consciousness, or with experience, values, ethics, or anything referring to quality. "This situation derives from something that happened in European consciousness at the time of Galileo and Giordano Bruno", Laing began his argument. "These two men epitomize two paradigms - Bruno, who was tortured and burned for saying that there were infinite worlds; and Galileo, who said that the scientific method was to study this world as if there were no consciousness and no living creatures in it. Galileo made the statement that only quantifiable phenomena were admitted to the domain of science. Galileo said: "Whatever cannot be measured and quantified is not scientific"; and in post-Galilean science this came to mean: "What cannot be measured and quantified is not real." This has been the most profound corruption from the Greek view of nature as physis, which is alive, always in transformation, and not divorced from us. Galileo's programme offers us a dead world: Out go sight, sound, taste, touch, and smell, and along with them have since gone esthetic and ethical sensibility, values, quality, soul, consciousness, spirit. Experience as such is cast out of the realm of scientific discourse. Hardly anything has changed our world more during the past four hundred years than Galileo's audacious program. We had to destroy the world in theory before we could destroy it in practice."
(Uncommon Wisdom: Conversations with remarkable people, Fritjof Capra, page 139)

[hagbard_celine]

This situation derives from something that happened in European consciousness at the time of Galileo and Giordano Bruno", Laing began his argument. "These two men epitomize two paradigms - Bruno, who was tortured and burned for saying that there were infinite worlds; and Galileo, who said that the scientific method was to study this world as if there were no consciousness and no living creatures in it.

Giordano Bruno is often regarded as a martyr to science, as is Gallileo. Gallileo probably deserves that epithet, but Bruno would be regarded as a mystical charleton by mondern empirical rationalists.

[moina]

Has anyone seen Expelled? I think this is a clip from it.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc

[hagbard_celine]

Has anyone seen Expelled? I think this is a clip from it.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc

No, but I'd like to see it.

I think evolution is real, but I like to hear both sides of the debate.

[moina]

In the clip above Dawkins doesnt deny that intelligent design is not impossible and that it could have been aliens who set life on this planet, what is your view on this Hagbard?

[drakul]

In the clip above Dawkins doesnt deny that intelligent design is not impossible and that it could have been aliens who set life on this planet, what is your view on this Hagbard?

OF COURSE it had to be `Aliens'. That's much more believeable than GOD as Creator. Since Dawkins believes there is no God, then it must be the `Aliens' who have the complex power to create LIFE.

Riiiight. Unfortunately `Aliens' are just as nonexistent non proveable as `God'. Maybe God is an Alien? That's right - God is an Alien! That would solve everything! :rolleyes:

[octopusrex]

OF COURSE it had to be `Aliens'. That's much more believeable than GOD as Creator. Since Dawkins believes there is no God, then it must be the `Aliens' who have the complex power to create LIFE.

Riiiight. Unfortunately `Aliens' are just as nonexistent non proveable as `God'. Maybe God is an Alien? That's right - God is an Alien! That would solve everything! :rolleyes:

Yep yep.. But who created the Alien? We are looking for a Prima Causa here... The origin becomes the destination. All things (matter) return to their most basic state. What is that state?

[hagbard_celine]

In the clip above Dawkins doesnt deny that intelligent design is not impossible and that it could have been aliens who set life on this planet, what is your view on this Hagbard?

It's perfectly possible. In fact the notion abounds in ancient myths across the world. It's also a theme of several UFO contactees. Beings from another planet, or another dimension (more likely I'd say), helped evolution along with a few nudges here and there. After all we do the same with leser forms of life. All the arable crops and livestock you see on a farm, as well as different breeds of pets, are the result of centuries of genetic engineering.

[primordialman]

I would ask Prof Dawkins why he figures religions must be the root of all, evil when the Nazis and Soviet Marxists and other tyranncial ideologies had entirely secular roots, infact in occult secret society design the Nazis, the Thule Society, the soviets, theosophy. You want sources i will be sure to post them next post.

[hagbard_celine]

I would ask Prof Dawkins why he figures religions must be the root of all, evil when the Nazis and Soviet Marxists and other tyranncial ideologies had entirely secular roots, infact in occult secret society design the Nazis, the Thule Society, the soviets, theosophy. You want sources i will be sure to post them next post.

Dawkins disliked the title of that TV series and campaigned against the producers to get it changed. However it's clear that although he's correct in much of what he says about mainstream organized religion, he still sees secularism through rose-tinted glasses. Occultism has played a role in almost everything done by humans. It even has a place in the origins of science!:eek:

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Dicky!:D;):p

[primordialman]

Ok here that link I promised to post, not just for you hagbard anyone whom doubts my claims http://enc.slider.com/Enc/Rassenmystik.

Another note its kind of ironic that Tom Cruise is making that movie "Valkerie" another stock standard hollywood production on Nazis when he is a Scientologist one of the biggest Occult orgs on the planet, equal with any occult groups that have produced secular fanatical ideologies.
Surely for the good of democracy & freedom he should disassociating himself from the occult world, if wants to be honest about the message of latest flick, however i wont hold my breath.


Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Dicky
btw What do you mean by that??:confused:

[hagbard_celine]

btw What do you mean by that??:confused:

I was addressing Richard Dawkins personally. Sorry if that wasn't clear.:o:cool:.

[hagbard_celine]

Ok here that link I promised to post, not just for you hagbard anyone whom doubts my claims http://enc.slider.com/Enc/Rassenmystik.

Another note its kind of ironic that Tom Cruise is making that movie "Valkerie" another stock standard hollywood production on Nazis when he is a Scientologist one of the biggest Occult orgs on the planet, equal with any occult groups that have produced secular fanatical ideologies.
Surely for the good of democracy & freedom he should disassociating himself from the occult world, if wants to be honest about the message of latest flick, however i wont hold my breath.



I've arranged to go and see Valkerie with a friend next week. I'll let you know what it's like.

Thanks for the link. I'll check it out. I'm interested in the influence of the Occult on openly-unrellated parts of society:cool:.

[oddblock]

I didn't ever believe in God, but when I see someone as complex, intelligent and good looking as Richard Dawkins it made me realise there must be a supreme being somewhere with the ability to create such amazing people. Thanks Richard.

;)

:D

:p

[hagbard_celine]

I didn't ever believe in God, but when I see someone as complex, intelligent and good looking as Richard Dawkins it made me realise there must be a supreme being somewhere with the ability to create such amazing people. Thanks Richard.

;)

:D

:p

roflmao!:D:D

[drakul]

Has anyone seen Expelled? I think this is a clip from it.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc


I have much more respect for Ben Stein now. He got Dawkins to admit that he believes in INTELLIGENT DESIGN BY ALIENS - BUT says Dawkins, `God did not create the aliens'.

[revolutionary_jam]

Has anyone seen Expelled? I think this is a clip from it.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlircI'm really interested in seeing this movie, but to be honest I thought the interviewer which was far more annoying than Dawkins who came out looking better I think.

[hagbard_celine]

I'm really interested in seeing this movie, but to be honest I thought the interviewer which was far more annoying than Dawkins who came out looking better I think.

He managed to get Dawkins to admit the limitations of his ideas. This is something he's honest enough to do when pressed, but rarely does because it hardly ever comes up:D. Like all Materialists Skeptics, his notions and theories are simple, an open-and-shut case. This is why, as I say in my review, the very presence of dissent in the scientific ranks is reason enough to doubt their paradigm:cool:. Why is all scince not a united front, all easily embracing this straightrforward truth. Why are there Peter Fenwicks, John Anthony Wests, Wilhelm Reichs?:confused:

[revolutionary_jam]

awk all the real science is supressed i think

i never know what the bloody hell to believe unless I deduce it myself
so many things I was certain are true now have counter arguments that seem equally valid

[hagbard_celine]

A new Richard Dawkins debate::p

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=988134574542478162&ei=46LtSar8LYSc-Ab629mFCQ&q=richard+dawkins+debate

Here he takes on Professor John Lennox, also of Oxford. It's not the best debate. Alister McGrath is a far better opponent!:cool::)

[miracles]

Great post and great thread, especially Dr John Lennox, a Northen Irish brother.

[hagbard_celine]

Great post and great thread, especially Dr John Lennox, a Northen Irish brother.

Thanks, Miracles.:) I'll have to look out for Lennox' lectures. seeing as I'm local.

[miracles]

Thanks, Miracles.:) I'll have to look out for Lennox' lectures. seeing as I'm local.

Good on you, I see you get to alot of speakers events. Your obvioulsy very well read and very well informed. Have you published any books mate? Id like to read them, if you have.

All the blessed.

[hagbard_celine]

Good on you, I see you get to alot of speakers events. Your obvioulsy very well read and very well informed. Have you published any books mate? Id like to read them, if you have.

All the blessed.


Thanks Miracles. I've got two books out. They're fiction, but they're relevent to the subjects we discuss on the forum. They're calledf Evan's Land and Rockall

[miracles]

Thanks Miracles. I've got two books out. They're fiction, but they're relevent to the subjects we discuss on the forum. They're calledf Evan's Land and Rockall

Cheers, I'll check that out

[hagbard_celine]

I saw Richard Dawkins today!:D He was riding along Queen's Lane, a small narrow road, virtually an alley, that twists through the back garden area of the university. He was just riding along on his bike looking preoccupied. I called out: "Morning Richard." but he didn't hear me.

[hagbard_celine]

Here's a new thread about Senor Dawkins:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=71703

[hagbard_celine]

A really good lecture by Richard Dawkins.:):cool:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3074112391393365364&ei=Kk5vSuyqA5Cl-Abr4o2TAQ&q=richard+dawkins+ted+2009

Yes, he does do some really good presentation when he gets of his atheist soapbox!:D This is very interesting and I wish I'd gone along because it was in Oxford last week.:(

[revolutionary_jam]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXAQaDx6hXI

[malkor]

Faulty premise in that video. A scientific theory cannot be equated to a religious belief. Totally different beasts. One postulates a possibility, the other one an absolute. Also, the dictionary definition of delusion is what is being aimed at; an inability to distinguish between what is real and what seems real, and persisting in beliefs even in the face of contrary evidence.

[hagbard_celine]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXAQaDx6hXI

Thanks for that.:)

[the cosmos]

awk all the real science is supressed i think

i never know what the bloody hell to believe unless I deduce it myself
so many things I was certain are true now have counter arguments that seem equally valid

Absolutely true

Stuff like Nassim Haramein's physics and Gregg Braden's attempt to marry science and spirituality. This is the real stuff.

[hagbard_celine]

persisting in beliefs even in the face of contrary evidence.

Perhaps, but if a very powerful intuitive urge cannot be backed up by scientific evidence then the question becomes: Shall I go with my heart or my head? If a person shooses to take the scientific line and reject their powerful intuitive urge and stick with rational evidence in the face of all opposition then that person is a fundamentalist. They may not have a religious belief, but they are exhibiting religious-type behavior.

[the cosmos]

Here's my book review of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.

Sorry. It's a long article to cut and paste. I'd have to go through it and do all the italics again and I'm really tired so I hope nobody minds if I just post a link to the original:

http://hpanwo.blogspot.com/2008/04/god-delusion-by-richard-dawkins.html

Dawkins has even admitted evidence for evolution is circumstantial.

[merde]

i am sorry for not reading this thread in its entirety so forgive me if someone has already pointed out the similarity of the names dawkins and darwin. just a coincidence...

[malkor]

Perhaps, but if a very powerful intuitive urge cannot be backed up by scientific evidence then the question becomes: Shall I go with my heart or my head? If a person shooses to take the scientific line and reject their powerful intuitive urge and stick with rational evidence in the face of all opposition then that person is a fundamentalist. They may not have a religious belief, but they are exhibiting religious-type behavior.

What you say has the quality of truth. I think Dawkins was on to a good idea but he didn't take it far enough. I postulate that all beliefs are a delusion. A true indicator of mental stability and health, as well as an individual truly free is one who is free of all beliefs.

[tenzingnorgay]

Here's my book review of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.

Sorry. It's a long article to cut and paste. I'd have to go through it and do all the italics again and I'm really tired so I hope nobody minds if I just post a link to the original:

http://hpanwo.blogspot.com/2008/04/god-delusion-by-richard-dawkins.html

Good effort. A very thoughtful piece.

I do disagree with your comment that "nobody can question his benevolent will". Dawkins has no benevolence toward anyone who fails to share his religion. He is no different than hardcore Muslims or Christians.

And I can tell you where you fit into Dawkins world - he would belittle and despise you.

[tenzingnorgay]

Faulty premise in that video. A scientific theory cannot be equated to a religious belief. Totally different beasts. One postulates a possibility, the other one an absolute. Also, the dictionary definition of delusion is what is being aimed at; an inability to distinguish between what is real and what seems real, and persisting in beliefs even in the face of contrary evidence.

Scientific theories are religious beliefs.

[malkor]

Scientific theories are religious beliefs.

Nope.

[noewhan]

Nope.

Some scientists treat it like a religion though, I reckon.

[malkor]

Some scientists treat it like a religion though, I reckon.

Well yes but scientists are flawed beings like any other. The scientific method however, is flawless within its parameters. I will maintain this view until such time that someone can reasonably argue against it.

[hagbard_celine]

What you say has the quality of truth. I think Dawkins was on to a good idea but he didn't take it far enough. I postulate that all beliefs are a delusion. A true indicator of mental stability and health, as well as an individual truly free is one who is free of all beliefs.

Yes, wisdom is keeping your mind's structurres fluid. As i say in the linked review: In the book Dawkins naively claims that if science proved Evolution wrong all of them would change their minds overnight... no they wouldn't!:eek::rolleyes:

[hagbard_celine]

Good effort. A very thoughtful piece.

I do disagree with your comment that "nobody can question his benevolent will". Dawkins has no benevolence toward anyone who fails to share his religion. He is no different than hardcore Muslims or Christians.

And I can tell you where you fit into Dawkins world - he would belittle and despise you.

I'm sure he would!:D

I suppose what I meant is that he comes across as caring. He's certainly a lot better than some other Skpetic-atheists.

[hagbard_celine]

Scientific theories are religious beliefs.

Technically they're not because they're based on scientific evidence, however many scientists behave in a religious-like way towards them. This includes Dawkins himself. Hence the name of Alister McGrath's book Dawkins' God.

[orlibonurb]

Galatians {6:7} Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. {6:8} For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

The one and only living God said He would fill every saved soul with the Holy Spirit as a testimony of Him.

John {15:26} But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: {15:27} And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.

He said, anyone who asks shall receive,

Luke {11:9} And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. {11:10} For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. {11:11} If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if [he ask] a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? {11:12} Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?

It is written, if Jesus Christ (God manifested in the flesh) did not rose again from the grave, saved souls would not be filled with the Holy Spirit so they could know with 100% certainty who the true and living God is,

1 Corinthians {15:12} Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? {15:13} But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: {15:14} And if Christ be not risen, then [is] our preaching vain, and your faith [is] also vain. {15:15} Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. {15:16} For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: {15:17} And if Christ be not raised, your faith [is] vain; ye are yet in your sins. {15:18} Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. {15:19} If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. {15:20} But now is Christ risen from the dead, [and] become the firstfruits of them that slept.
{15:21} For since by man [came] death, by man [came] also
the resurrection of the dead.

John {8:32} And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Free from everything, free from drug addiction, free from porn addiction, free from alcoholism, free from our sinful nature, and become spiritually alive.


Testimonies of the power of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit,
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=97708


Yes, Dawkins, be not deceived, God is not mocked, and no - God is not a religion, is not a church, is not a doctrine, is not our "cosmic buddy".

Matthew {1:23} Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. {1:24} Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: {1:25} And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

John {14:6} Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. {14:7} If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

Acts {4:10} Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, [even] by him doth this man stand here before you whole. {4:11} This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. {4:12} Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.


The power of the Holy Spirit inside born-again, saved souls, is the testimony - for anyone who asks, shall receive. Our wicked, sinful, dumbed down, brainwashed, "Generation X", has turned their ears to Hollywood fables. Truth can be slapped into people's faces, they won't even recongnize it.

2 Corinthians {4:4} In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. {4:5} For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake. {4:6} For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to [give] the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Amen.

[malkor]

The one and only living God said He would fill every saved soul with the Holy Spirit as a testimony of Him.
...
He said, anyone who asks shall receive,
...
It is written, if Jesus Christ (God manifested in the flesh) did not rose again from the grave, saved souls would not be filled with the Holy Spirit so they could know with 100% certainty who the true and living God is,


People have been having religious 'experiences' long before Christ came onto the scene, and they've been doing so with other gods as well. Followers of other faiths are no less certain of who the 'true' god is or even who the 'true' gods are.


Free from everything, free from drug addiction, free from porn addiction, free from alcoholism, free from our sinful nature, and become spiritually alive.

You can have all these things with a bit of self discipline. But in order to be truly free, you have to discard your beliefs as well for while you have beliefs, you are their prisoner. They will be used against you, exploited by others.


Testimonies of the power of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit,
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=97708

There are also testimonies from other religions, testimonies from people who talk with aliens from other planets, testimonies from people who see and communicate with the dead, etc.. The only good information you can get from testimonies is a mental picture of the ones who give them.


Yes, Dawkins, be not deceived, God is not mocked, and no - God is not a religion, is not a church, is not a doctrine, is not our "cosmic buddy".

How do you know all this? Someone told you in your head? Or did you just make it all up or repeat something you've heard or read elsewhere?


Amen.

Ra

[hagbard_celine]

Hitchens Vs McGrath:cool::):

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6851159367044940771&ei=MAxnS7--PIit-AajgtXyAQ&q=alister+mcgrath+hitchens#

[malkor]

Hitchens Vs McGrath:cool::):

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6851159367044940771&ei=MAxnS7--PIit-AajgtXyAQ&q=alister+mcgrath+hitchens#

From a few years back. McGrath got owned. Can't blame him, it's hard to argue against reason.

[consciousness]

Here's my book review of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.

Sorry. It's a long article to cut and paste. I'd have to go through it and do all the italics again and I'm really tired so I hope nobody minds if I just post a link to the original:

http://hpanwo.blogspot.com/2008/04/god-delusion-by-richard-dawkins.html

Very nice Hagbard.

[whatistruth]

Great article hagberd, you're a really great writer.


However, the denialism of dawkins' obvious truths is simply the very last intellectual vestiges of spiritualism in its death throws.

All the idiots still believe in various religions, but in the last 100 years most of the true intellectuals have got past that, there are a few left that will cling to these dillusions for a little longer.
But in 60 years we'll be totally secular in the west, at least among the academic classes.

[orlibonurb]

lol


http://www.atheistdelusion.net/

http://www.atheistdelusion.net/books.php

http://www.atheistdelusion.net/audio.php


Since in "100 years" there will be no "world system" as you know it now, since we are now living in the Biblical end times and God is not mocked. You claim idiots believe in religion, yet

1. You do not protect the freedom of choice for people to believe whatever they want (be it lies such as evolution). Only idiots don't protect our God given freedom / free will. Yes, your natural rights didn't come from government, nor from "evolution". The law is set in your heart. You don't know God because you live in your fallen sinful nature and only Jesus (God in the flesh) can reconnect us back to Him.

2. You defend a man-made religion (evolution / atheism) - so I hope you included yourself in the "idiot" category. A religion which has been debunked left & right.

3. You are so historically ignorant that you have no idea who brought you the society you have now. All major nations are protestant / Christian, who came out from the temporal & spiritual power of the Papacy during the inquisition / dark ages (everything being destroyed by the Papacy once again - welcome New World Order). You should thank them for the few you have today. Ironically, the generation which has access to an unbelievable ammount of information is also the most dumbed down and manipulated generation ever to be seen. The same generation which is brainwashed to the core by the demonic inspired public school of indocrination.

4. So, in a certain way, you are right. The world is almost totally secularized, read: brainwashed.

Romans {3:23} For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; {3:24} Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:



Show this to Dawkins,

http://orrinwoodward.blogharbor.com/10_Commandments.gif

Him, like everyone on the face of this planet has lied, stolen something, murdered and commited adultery. We'll stick with only 4 commandments.

Poor Dawkins and poor man who follow man,

Matthew {15:14} Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

2 Timothy {3:7} Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.


Here we are . . . the generation which will see His second coming, totally secularized, vast majority of the world does not repent of their sins and accept Jesus as their savior, and as it was in the days of Noah or Soddom & Gomorrah . . . they also did not believe, same exact thing today. You folks are in for such horrendous surprise it won't even be funny.

You talk about 100 years, hang tight because the generation which saw Israel's reborn as a nation (1948) will not pass away.

Matthew {24:34} Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. {24:35} Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.


When one calls Darwin of an intelectual, it just shows how much dumbed down we are as a society.

Game over.

[whatistruth]

^ You just can't reach people like him, he's a cultist.

Quoting and old book means NOTHING, God DID NOT write that, even if you believe in him.

Get off hagberds thread you christian cultist idiot, you make the reasonable people from your camp look bad.

[armoured_amazon]

Poor deluded Dawkins.

[amaralsright]

Does Dawkins have any answers?

He's right to question religion but as a scientist he has his dogmas as well.

I think the only rational view is to look at the world and admit you haven't got a clue what it's all about.

Scientists can't tell you were self awareness comes from. How can an unaware plasmic explosion become aware of itself?

Science has no answer to that.

Religion can't answer either... the traditional "God" doesn't do it... why would this God sent so many contradictory messages to all and sundry?

So.. just enjoy the ride (if you can) and let what happens next happen (if there is anything).. and don't be horrible to people along the way and even try to be kind now and again.

[edible]

From a few years back. McGrath got owned. Can't blame him, it's hard to argue against reason.



Hitchens attacks Gore Vidal for being a 'crackpot'

Former protégé takes America's great man of letters to task for adopting 9/11 conspiracy theories


More 'reason' from Hitchens?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/hitchens-attacks-gore-vidal-for-being-a-crackpot-1891753.html

[malkor]

Hitchens attacks Gore Vidal for being a 'crackpot'

Former protégé takes America's great man of letters to task for adopting 9/11 conspiracy theories


More 'reason' from Hitchens?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/hitchens-attacks-gore-vidal-for-being-a-crackpot-1891753.html

Other activities of Hitchens are irrelevant to the context of the comments I made concerning that one debate.

[malkor]

Does Dawkins have any answers?

He's right to question religion but as a scientist he has his dogmas as well.

I think the only rational view is to look at the world and admit you haven't got a clue what it's all about.

A most reasonable position.


Scientists can't tell you were self awareness comes from.

They have theories.


How can an unaware plasmic explosion become aware of itself?

Science has no answer to that.

Don't know what you mean by plasmic explosion.


Religion can't answer either... the traditional "God" doesn't do it... why would this God sent so many contradictory messages to all and sundry?

So.. just enjoy the ride (if you can) and let what happens next happen (if there is anything).. and don't be horrible to people along the way and even try to be kind now and again.

There is one major difference however.

Science: I have a theory about this, let's explore it further.

Religion: This is the way it is. Don't question it.

[hagbard_celine]

From a few years back. McGrath got owned. Can't blame him, it's hard to argue against reason.

"Owned"? Do you mean "pwned"?:confused:

Where was that? I'd like to see it.:cool:

[hagbard_celine]

Very nice Hagbard.

I reckon Hitchens was a tougher opponent than Dawkins. He does make some good points, although I reckon McGrath holds his own. It's a shame he never got to respond to Hitchens allegations about Christian passifism.

[hagbard_celine]

Great article hagberd, you're a really great writer.




Thanks, WIT.:)

However, the denialism of dawkins' obvious truths is simply the very last intellectual vestiges of spiritualism in its death throws.

Well as I explain I think that's not the case. Dawkins' "truths" are far from obvious; in fact they're philosphically very thin. Yes indeed, official organized religious dogmas are getting harder and harder to uphold in the face of their obvious lunacy, but the fall of religions does not equal the fall of spirituality.

All the idiots still believe in various religions, but in the last 100 years most of the true intellectuals have got past that, there are a few left that will cling to these dillusions for a little longer.
But in 60 years we'll be totally secular in the west, at least among the academic classes.

And that will be a very good thing!:):cool: Although the trend I see is two-way. On the one hand we have "New Atheists" who are leading more and more academics away from organized religion; although the dominence of Materialism in academia has been around for a long time. But a second movement is one of more and more scientists moving away from Materialism... and organized religion... into Spirituality; this number is increasing not decreasing:cool:. This I also welcome.

[amaralsright]

but the fall of religions does not equal the fall of spirituality.

I have to agree with this.

There are no religions that know "the" truth.

Science does not know "the" truth either... science has no answers on how we are self-aware or if our lives have meaning or not.

This does not mean that a yearning for "the" truth is invalid.. I would day it's the ultimate quest.

It may also be impossible for us to know "the" truth.

That would be a bummer.

[malkor]

"Owned"? Do you mean "pwned"?:confused:

Owned, "pwned," defeated, crushed... pick your adjective.

Where was that? I'd like to see it.:cool:

Maybe you watched a different video? McGrath's counter arguments were unsubstantial. He was constantly on the defensive, unable to parry Hitchens's jabs while Hitchens brushed aside McGrath's arguments with ease, even though he (Hitchens) did come out as the 'ass' in the debate.

[revolutionary_jam]

this thread exemplifies how retarded Richard Dawkins fans can it be when it actually comes to engaging with alternative material scientifically, they're unwilling, they just dismiss it offhand:
http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=97934&start=0

[whatistruth]

this thread exemplifies how retarded Richard Dawkins fans can it be when it actually comes to engaging with alternative material scientifically, they're unwilling, they just dismiss it offhand:
http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=97934&start=0


She says that she’s seen people throw other people across a room by their thoughts alone.

She’s seen evidence where one person in one part of America sent their thoughts to heal someone in another part of America.

Well I’ve seen Wile E. Coyote fall off a 1000 foot cliff and not get hurt and the Road Runner blow him up with dynamite; again… he suffered no ill effects. In fact (I would hazard a guess) he was probably healed by one of those ‘Intention Masters’.

Sorry, but he owned you.

[hagbard_celine]

Owned, "pwned," defeated, crushed... pick your adjective.



It's a strange word. It looks Welsh. "pwn" is a noun though. it means "load" or "burden".:confused:



Maybe you watched a different video? McGrath's counter arguments were unsubstantial. He was constantly on the defensive, unable to parry Hitchens's jabs while Hitchens brushed aside McGrath's arguments with ease, even though he (Hitchens) did come out as the 'ass' in the debate.

I think there's only one debate between Hitchens and McGrath. I interpret it differently from you. I find Hitchens a far more credible atheist than Dawkins, but I still think Mcgrath holds his own. It's a shame he didn't use his last five minutes to address Hitchens' point on Christian passifism. I expected him to say how many soldiers in WWII were Christians etc, and saw the fight against Hitler as part of their faith... but I shouldn't speak for McGrath. That's just what I'd have said in his place:cool:.

[dreamweaver]

It's a strange word. It looks Welsh. "pwn" is a noun though. it means "load" or "burden".:confused:

Are you being serious? ;)

If you are, "pwned" is just an internet meme that started because of people mistyping "owned". It just looks more 1337 that way. ;)

[hagbard_celine]

Are you being serious? ;)

If you are, "pwned" is just an internet meme that started because of people mistyping "owned". It's just looks more 1337 that way. ;)

Really? Thanks, I didn't know that.:)

Is it pronounced "pooned"?

[dreamweaver]

Really? Thanks, I didn't know that.:)

Is it pronounced "pooned"?

No, it's still pronounced "owned". :)

[energi]

Really? Thanks, I didn't know that.:)

Is it pronounced "pooned"?

No, it's "Powned" ;)

[subl1minal]

No, it's "Powned" ;)

Yeah, it's hilarious to hear people actually say this ''you got P-owned'' :rolleyes:

[amaralsright]

I though it was owened.

As in "you'ne owened".

Who would want to be made welsh?

[malkor]

It's a strange word. It looks Welsh. "pwn" is a noun though. it means "load" or "burden".:confused:

That way to spell things got popular with the runts a while back. Didn't know it was still in use.



I think there's only one debate between Hitchens and McGrath. I interpret it differently from you. I find Hitchens a far more credible atheist than Dawkins, but I still think Mcgrath holds his own. It's a shame he didn't use his last five minutes to address Hitchens' point on Christian passifism.

The broad format of the debate was stacked against McGrath, he had no chance to win. He was constantly forced to defend his own interpretations and personal beliefs while Hitchens was broadsiding the entire religion at leisure and throwing in some other religions into the mix.

I saw no adequate responses from McGrath against any argument brought up by Hitchens. Saying for example "...I don't interpret it that way..." is a sure sign of capitulation. We (the audience) aren't interested in hearing how he justifies his own faith, we're interested in hearing how he defends religion re: "Poison or Cure? Religious Belief in the Modern World."


I expected him to say how many soldiers in WWII were Christians etc, and saw the fight against Hitler as part of their faith... but I shouldn't speak for McGrath. That's just what I'd have said in his place:cool:.

No Christian ever went to war.

[hagbard_celine]

The broad format of the debate was stacked against McGrath, he had no chance to win. He was constantly forced to defend his own interpretations and personal beliefs while Hitchens was broadsiding the entire religion at leisure and throwing in some other religions into the mix.

I saw no adequate responses from McGrath against any argument brought up by Hitchens.


Then I must have misinterpreted the object of the debate.:o;) Was it to refute that religion was a "poison"? In that case McGrath did fail. I mostly agree with Hitchens in that respect; religion is for the most part a "poison". But in defending his own religious views McGrath did put an obstace in Hitchens' path: that is that some people can express a genuine spirituality through an established religion:cool:. I couldn't which is why I'm not a Christian, but obviously McGrath can. This really blunted Hitchens' victory.

Saying for example "...I don't interpret it that way..." is a sure sign of capitulation. We (the audience) aren't interested in hearing how he justifies his own faith, we're interested in hearing how he defends religion re: "Poison or Cure? Religious Belief in the Modern World."

Speak for yourself;). I, as part of the audience, had no such wish. And all people watching are entirely at liberty to interpret what they saw in their own way; it is definitely not a capitulation to do so:p. I wanted to hear how McGrath stood up as an open-minded Christian who's faith has been a great personal bonus to himself, in the face of a theory that says such a thing is not possible.


No Christian ever went to war.

Yes, they did. Often it was for highly unethical reasons, eg: the Crucades:(, but for others in more recent wars for "liberation", even though that "liberation is illusuary, their Christian faith inspired them:cool:.

[malkor]

Speak for yourself;). I, as part of the audience, had no such wish.

I would think anyone who watches a debate titled "Poison or Cure? Religious Belief in the Modern World." would be doing so for the reason I outlined. There can't really be a debate vs. somebody's private interpretations of scripture for personal enlightenment. Arguing "you believe in a god who ordered babies to be crushed against rocks" does not deter such a person. Such a person does not "interpret" it that way.


And all people watching are entirely at liberty to interpret what they saw in their own way; it is definitely not a capitulation to do so:p.

Failing to answer the question of the debate can be construed as such. Can you honestly say that McGrath was able to portray religion as a cure and was he more successful in doing so than Hitchens was in portraying religion as poison?


I wanted to hear how McGrath stood up as an open-minded Christian who's faith has been a great personal bonus to himself, in the face of a theory that says such a thing is not possible.

How do we know it was a bonus? There is no standard with which to compare. We don't have an exact duplicate of McGrath who went through life to reach the same point without faith. Sure, he claims that he used to be an atheist, but we don't know if he would have been more or less successful had he remained one or even had he decided to become a Buddhist instead.


Yes, they did. Often it was for highly unethical reasons, eg: the Crucades:(, but for others in more recent wars for "liberation", even though that "liberation is illusuary, their Christian faith inspired them:cool:.

I will repeat. No Christian ever went to war.. There are many who went to war and thought of themselves as Christians but how a man perceives himself is not how he is judged.

For a Christian, there can't be an ethical reason to go to war. War is completely antithetical to their faith. You can't love your enemy while you're bayoneting his guts.

[whatistruth]

The problem with Mcgrath is he seems to be coming from a purely christian perspective of "well maybe jesus did rise from the dead" etc.
It's ridiculas.

If he was a scientist arguing against materialism that'd be different, but just picking one faith and claiming that trumps science is a loss every time.

[malkor]

The problem with Mcgrath is he seems to be coming from a purely christian perspective of "well maybe jesus did rise from the dead" etc.
It's ridiculas.

If he was a scientist arguing against materialism that'd be different, but just picking one faith and claiming that trumps science is a loss every time.

He didn't say it trumps science.

[hagbard_celine]

I would think anyone who watches a debate titled "Poison or Cure? Religious Belief in the Modern World." would be doing so for the reason I outlined. There can't really be a debate vs. somebody's private interpretations of scripture for personal enlightenment.

I think there can.:cool: What I see is that McGrath didn't win the debate in relation to the title of it, but he expanded it into a wider arena with new rules.

Arguing "you believe in a god who ordered babies to be crushed against rocks" does not deter such a person. Such a person does not "interpret" it that way.

I think there are many Christian believers, as well as Muslims, Jews etc, who would take Hitchens' position in such a case. In fact Hitchens admits in another debate of his that he would not like to see religion abolished altogether. He concedes that a world completely devoid of all aspects of religion would not be as good as the one he envisions: in which religion would simply have a changed role. He's a secularist and so am I.

Failing to answer the question of the debate can be construed as such. Can you honestly say that McGrath was able to portray religion as a cure and was he more successful in doing so than Hitchens was in portraying religion as poison?

No, and I've already said that. Above I wrote: "Was it to refute that religion was a "poison"? In that case McGrath did fail. I mostly agree with Hitchens in that respect; religion is for the most part a 'poison'." If I was a Skeptibitch I'd use that old cliche: "Please try to read my posts more carefully!" But I'm not so I won't.:D;)


How do we know it was a bonus? There is no standard with which to compare. We don't have an exact duplicate of McGrath who went through life to reach the same point without faith. Sure, he claims that he used to be an atheist, but we don't know if he would have been more or less successful had he remained one or even had he decided to become a Buddhist instead.

I know, there's no "control group" we can use to carry out an experiment. That's always the case with personal life-testimonies. But I still think it's significant that McGrath used to be a militant atheist just like Hitchens and then changed his mind. He has certainly done so in what I would call an aware and mature way. See how he has become religious, but is still not a Creationist; he still understands that Evolution is true.

I will repeat. No Christian ever went to war.. There are many who went to war and thought of themselves as Christians but how a man perceives himself is not how he is judged.

For a Christian, there can't be an ethical reason to go to war. War is completely antithetical to their faith. You can't love your enemy while you're bayoneting his guts.

And I also repeat: Christians have gone to war.;) This is why I wish McGrath had been allowed to respond to that last point by Hitchens. There may be some Christians who do literally turn the other cheek every time. But McGrath doesn't see it like that, and he's said so at other events, including a live lecture that I attended. You actually can love somebody while bayonetting then or blowing them sky high. I actually can unravel this apprent contradiction. It's not too different from what David says about universal love. And this may be put to the test soon!:eek::( If troops from an Illuminati-occupied authority were bearing down on me and my loved ones and I had a gun in my hand, would I use it?:confused: Yes, of course I would! Who wouldn't? But then I hope I'd have the self-control to fight back in awareness of the bigger picture, that I was not "good" fighting "evil" at all. I was carrying out a necessary action that resulted from a failure to convince other people not to be mind-controlled. To use McGrath's example of the Amish school shooting. They forgave the killer and this helped break the closed cycle of "revenge-counter-revenge-and-counter-counter-revenge". But does this mean that if they had kept a gun in that classroom they should not have used it to defend those children?;) Yes they should! But after that it wouldn't change their feelings of forgiveness and reconcilliation.

[malkor]

I think there can.:cool: What I see is that McGrath didn't win the debate in relation to the title of it, but he expanded it into a wider arena with new rules.

Ahh, dirty pool. I always know I've won a debate when someone resorts to widening the arena or changing the rules. I apply the same precedent to debates held by others. Otherwise debates would widen ad infinitum.


I think there are many Christian believers, as well as Muslims, Jews etc, who would take Hitchens' position in such a case. In fact Hitchens admits in another debate of his that he would not like to see religion abolished altogether. He concedes that a world completely devoid of all aspects of religion would not be as good as the one he envisions: in which religion would simply have a changed role. He's a secularist and so am I.

It has some good points, but as Hitchens points out, you can have those good points without religion. What use is the extra baggage? This applies to all ideologies actually and I count religions among the ideologies. Take what is good. Trash the dogma, ritual and stupidity (this last one is a broad subject encompassing bias, racism, etc).



No, and I've already said that. Above I wrote: "Was it to refute that religion was a "poison"? In that case McGrath did fail. I mostly agree with Hitchens in that respect; religion is for the most part a 'poison'." If I was a Skeptibitch I'd use that old cliche: "Please try to read my posts more carefully!" But I'm not so I won't.:D;)

Too late! Skeptibitch. I like that one, mind if I steal it?
I just wanted you to clarify your position since it seemed to conflict with your other suggestion of McGrath having held his own. I wanted to be sure that you wanted to have your cake and eat it too. Glutton :D



I know, there's no "control group" we can use to carry out an experiment. That's always the case with personal life-testimonies. But I still think it's significant that McGrath used to be a militant atheist just like Hitchens and then changed his mind. He has certainly done so in what I would call an aware and mature way. See how he has become religious, but is still not a Creationist; he still understands that Evolution is true.

Commendable, but like I mentioned before, I didn't watch a debate to hear him excuse his personal beliefs. Good for biography, bad for debate.



And I also repeat: Christians have gone to war.;)

No they haven't :P


This is why I wish McGrath had been allowed to respond to that last point by Hitchens. There may be some Christians who do literally turn the other cheek every time. But McGrath doesn't see it like that,

Thank you, yes. McGrath doesn't see it like that. I also don't care about McGrath's favorite color or what he had for breakfast.


and he's said so at other events, including a live lecture that I attended. You actually can love somebody while bayonetting then or blowing them sky high.

??

I'd need a lot of salt and barrels of water to wash that mesh down. High on fiber.


I actually can unravel this apprent contradiction. It's not too different from what David says about universal love. And this may be put to the test soon!:eek::( If troops from an Illuminati-occupied authority were bearing down on me and my loved ones and I had a gun in my hand, would I use it?:confused: Yes, of course I would!

Okay, but how is that loving the Illuminaty agent or did you not yet begin to unravel the contradiction?


Who wouldn't?

A Christian! A Christian has faith that God will protect or God will take. Whatever the case, it's up to God.
But the point is moot, a Christian would have capitulated to Illuminati authority long before it came to that. Obey the ruling authority without transgressing the domain of God (eg: taking someone's life). That's basically the Christian creed described by Jesus. Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar and unto God what belongs to God.


But then I hope I'd have the self-control to fight back in awareness of the bigger picture, that I was not "good" fighting "evil" at all. I was carrying out a necessary action that resulted from a failure to convince other people not to be mind-controlled.

I would expect any decent reasoning human being to fight to protect his life and loved ones. I however am not suggesting that religion is decent or reasonable :)


To use McGrath's example of the Amish school shooting. They forgave the killer and this helped break the closed cycle of "revenge-counter-revenge-and-counter-counter-revenge". But does this mean that if they had kept a gun in that classroom they should not have used it to defend those children?;) Yes they should! But after that it wouldn't change their feelings of forgiveness and reconcilliation.

Yes, they should. I agree. But had they done so, they would not have been Christians. It would have meant that they did not have faith in God and took authority into their own hands... decided to change the rules of the game... dirty pool.

[hagbard_celine]

Ahh, dirty pool. I always know I've won a debate when someone resorts to widening the arena or changing the rules. I apply the same precedent to debates held by others. Otherwise debates would widen ad infinitum.



"Won"? I don't understand. I'm not in competition with you.:confused: I like the idea of debates widening ad infinitum. Hitchens did prove that religion is far more a poison than a cure, I don't deny that; but McGrath added another element to it.


It has some good points, but as Hitchens points out, you can have those good points without religion. What use is the extra baggage? This applies to all ideologies actually and I count religions among the ideologies. Take what is good. Trash the dogma, ritual and stupidity (this last one is a broad subject encompassing bias, racism, etc).

I'm in agreement with the idea that you can have goodness, compassion, art and architecture without religion. But as McGrath points out; you can have a happier secularist world, with the added bonus of a more mature and intelligent spirituality. If I had the choice, I'd take Hitchens' secularist model, but "double up" with the free side order too!;)

...your other suggestion of McGrath having held his own. I wanted to be sure that you wanted to have your cake and eat it too. Glutton

Yum yum!:D No I concede that if it was McGrath's intention to prove Hitchens' main point wrong then he failed. But at the same time he gave us food for thought. If I'd only heard Hitchens' position up to that time and took the simplistic Dawkins-like view of religion then I'd be stunned by what McGrath said, and it would make me go back to the library and begin my studies again. It really would be a revellation!

Commendable, but like I mentioned before, I didn't watch a debate to hear him excuse his personal beliefs.

I did.;)

Good for biography, bad for debate.

It depends what the object of what you're debating is.

No they haven't.

Oh yes they have. (I love the Panto!:D)

Thank you, yes. McGrath doesn't see it like that. I also don't care about McGrath's favorite color or what he had for breakfast.

Unless he can recomend a good deli in Washington DC.:D It was good to hear McGrath shed light on Hitchens' misunderstanding. "Turn the other cheek" may well be interpreted by some Christians as being totally passive. Sadly the Amish take this position. There's that famous scene in Witness when some thugs are teasing the Amish by smearing them with icecream and they refuse to even raise a hand to stop them. Personally I'd do what Harrison Ford's character did and take action to stop them; 95% of people would. But at the same time I would try to avoid hating them as much as I could.:eek: For me, and what McGrath said elsewhere: it's not about being passive, it's about breaking the chain of revenge and counter-revenge... ad infinitum. If I'd been in that classroom that day I'd have shot back at the killer, but after that would still have joined the Amish in their act of reconcilliation with the killer's wife.



??

I'd need a lot of salt and barrels of water to wash that mesh down. High on fiber.

As I said, I'd try to fight back without hating them, as much as I could. Difficult I know, from experience as well as theory, but if we can achive this we can break the chain!

Okay, but how is that loving the Illuminaty agent or did you not yet begin to unravel the contradiction?

No, as I said, it is possible. If we can achive it, think what a difference it will make!

A Christian! A Christian has faith that God will protect or God will take. Whatever the case, it's up to God.
But the point is moot, a Christian would have capitulated to Illuminati authority long before it came to that. Obey the ruling authority without transgressing the domain of God (eg: taking someone's life). That's basically the Christian creed described by Jesus. Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar and unto God what belongs to God.

That is the simplistic view of religion I was talking about, although you're probably correct in many individual cases.:eek: However what McGrath does is break that simplistic model apart, and Hitchens has been given a information-cookie to eat; whether he chooses to eat it or not.;)

I would expect any decent reasoning human being to fight to protect his life and loved ones. I however am not suggesting that religion is decent or reasonable

For the most part it is certainly not decent or reasonable. That is not in dispute here.

Yes, they should. I agree. But had they done so, they would not have been Christians. It would have meant that they did not have faith in God and took authority into their own hands... decided to change the rules of the game... dirty pool.

I don't know what you mean by "dirty pool" in either place you use it in your previous post:confused:. But although the Amish in that case would have certainly breached the rules of their own cultural dogma, they would not... not have ceased to be Christians. It is this explanation that is McGrath's greatest contribution to the debate.

[orlibonurb]

I agree religion is poison.

Take the religion of Evolution out of our (now dead) culture. Brainwashing the entire world into thinking this is nothing but the price of randomness (YEAH, VIOLATION OF THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS). Then again, Satan is the price of the air of this world, the ruler of this global system, it's not a surprise he had to combat Genesis 1:1.

Damn voodoo science, and it's religion of EVILution by those wicked Jesuits - in this case - the non-existent, non-provable "Evolution", by Jesuit trained Charles Darwin, Freemasonic Georges Lemaitre, followed by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

Go to, I think, it's websters dictionary. You can't even see the word "pre-historical" until mid 1800's.

lol . . . . .

If only you folks knew how God (Jesus) proves Himself to us by filling us (all born-again Christians) with the Holy Spirit which completely changes our lives, completely regenerates our lifes, which is not found in any "spiritual path" or any "religion", which you can not do it by yourself, but only by divine intervention. If only you knew . . .

Jesus loves you.

[malkor]

"Won"? I don't understand. I'm not in competition with you.:confused:

I meant that in a general sense. We're not having a debate, we're having a discussion :)


I like the idea of debates widening ad infinitum. Hitchens did prove that religion is far more a poison than a cure, I don't deny that; but McGrath added another element to it.

Hitchens didn't fall for it and stuck to his guns. In a similar situation, I would've done the same, though with less tact. Discussions on the other hand can widen ad infinitum, even ad nauseam... someone usually gets nauseated and quits before the other. Feel any churning in the pits of your stomach yet? Probably too early.



I'm in agreement with the idea that you can have goodness, compassion, art and architecture without religion. But as McGrath points out; you can have a happier secularist world, with the added bonus of a more mature and intelligent spirituality. If I had the choice, I'd take Hitchens' secularist model, but "double up" with the free side order too!;)

Why eat a banana with the peel? You can have spirituality sans religion as well.



Oh yes they have. (I love the Panto!:D)

Nope, not a single one. Ever.

On the other hand, I bet there have been plenty of Catholics, Protestants, Lutherans, Anglicans, etc. etc. .. But never a single Christian.


Unless he can recomend a good deli in Washington DC.:D It was good to hear McGrath shed light on Hitchens' misunderstanding. "Turn the other cheek" may well be interpreted by some Christians as being totally passive.

There is no other way to interpret it in the context of the Christ's preachings. Anything else is personal redefinition... adjusting a standard to fit your behavior rather than adjusting your behavior to fit a standard. Dirty pool.


Sadly the Amish take this position. There's that famous scene in [I]Witness when some thugs are teasing the Amish by smearing them with icecream and they refuse to even raise a hand to stop them.

Foolish but commendable. An example of adjusting behavior to fit a standard. A foolish standard, but you have to admire the dedication.


Personally I'd do what Harrison Ford's character did and take action to stop them; 95% of people would.

I'd go with a higher estimate. But I don't hold anything against fighting injustice within reason. Christianity as defined by Christ is almost an impossible condition with which to live life in almost any society. It calls for a certain isolationism from the temptations of society and the classical Amish have the right track, or at least the closest to actual Christianity that I've witnessed.


But at the same time I would try to avoid hating them as much as I could.:eek: For me, and what McGrath said elsewhere: it's not about being passive, it's about breaking the chain of revenge and counter-revenge... ad infinitum. If I'd been in that classroom that day I'd have shot back at the killer, but after that would still have joined the Amish in their act of reconcilliation with the killer's wife.

I can imaging anger, hatred, even cold impassiveness when forced to kill in self defense. But the only situation I can imagine where I could 'love' my victim while killing is for euthanasia. Anyone who had to put down a dog (or worse a family member!) knows the feeling. I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.



As I said, I'd try to fight back without hating them, as much as I could. Difficult I know, from experience as well as theory, but if we can achive this we can break the chain!

Well, without hating them isn't really the question. The question is can you love them while killing them?
The rules are to 'love' your enemy, 'bless' those who curse you, 'turn' the other cheek. The theme is there: Stand and take your lumps with a smile. The Christian way.


No, as I said, it is possible. If we can achive it, think what a difference it will make!

I think we're having a mis-communication. You're probably talking about killing without passion. The theme is 'with love' not 'without hate.' Whew.



That is the simplistic view of religion I was talking about, although you're probably correct in many individual cases.:eek: However what McGrath does is break that simplistic model apart, and Hitchens has been given a information-cookie to eat; whether he chooses to eat it or not.;)

Complexity is the best defense religion has. One can always say..."those guys may do it that way, we don't." .. the perfect apology and McGrath's favorite from what I gather. Fortunately Hitchens knows how to dismantle the perfect apology and all that complexity with the simplistic question: "can it be done without religion?"


For the most part it is certainly not decent or reasonable. That is not in dispute here.

I was just clarifying any ambiguity that may have arisen from my previous sentence there.


I don't know what you mean by "dirty pool" in either place you use it in your previous post:confused:.

Dirty pool - changing the rules of the game while playing, cheating.


But although the Amish in that case would have certainly breached the rules of their own cultural dogma, they would not...[I] not have ceased to be Christians.

One can make the argument that they acted impulsively to defend their own lives while they were in a situation not of their choosing and their actions can be made up with atonement. That however is a completely different condition from voluntarily placing yourself in a position where you will be breaking the rules of the game with full knowledge in advance..

As an example... going to boot camp, learning how to murder your fellow man a thousand and one ways, arming yourself with the tools of murder and shipping out to the battlefield and acting our your conspiracies. Those who have done so have indeed ceased to be Christians in act and deed, if not in thought.


It is this explanation that is McGrath's greatest contribution to the debate.

I didn't see him making much of an impassioned defense of this idea in that debate. Perhaps he has done a better job of it elsewhere. If a recording of that is available on the 'net, please offer a link, I would like to listen to his entire explanation before demolishing it :)

[malkor]

I agree religion is poison.

Take the religion of Evolution out of our (now dead) culture. Brainwashing the entire world into thinking this is nothing but the price of randomness (YEAH, VIOLATION OF THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS). Then again, Satan is the price of the air of this world, the ruler of this global system, it's not a surprise he had to combat Genesis 1:1.

Damn voodoo science, and it's religion of EVILution by those wicked Jesuits - in this case - the non-existent, non-provable "Evolution", by Jesuit trained Charles Darwin, Freemasonic Georges Lemaitre, followed by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

Go to, I think, it's websters dictionary. You can't even see the word "pre-historical" until mid 1800's.

lol . . . . .

If only you folks knew how God (Jesus) proves Himself to us by filling us (all born-again Christians) with the Holy Spirit which completely changes our lives, completely regenerates our lifes, which is not found in any "spiritual path" or any "religion", which you can not do it by yourself, but only by divine intervention. If only you knew . . .

Jesus loves you.

Did anyone garner a single coherent thought expressed in this rant? I got "my religion good, yours bad" but was there anything else?

[hagbard_celine]

I meant that in a general sense. We're not having a debate, we're having a discussion :)


Fair enough.


Hitchens didn't fall for it and stuck to his guns. In a similar situation, I would've done the same, though with less tact.

That would be an achivement; few use less tact that Hitchens!:D I disagree though that Hitchen's somehoww nullified McGrath's positon. I think it was the other way round. McGrath had to concede that Religion was generally more poison than cure, but he gave both Hitchens and the audience a little more to think about.

Why eat a banana with the peel? You can have spirituality sans religion as well.

Yes you can. You can eat strawberry's without cream any time you like:D.

Nope, not a single one. Ever.

On the other hand, I bet there have been plenty of Catholics, Protestants, Lutherans, Anglicans, etc. etc. .. But never a single Christian.

Eh? Are those groups above not Christians?:confused: Why's that?

There is no other way to interpret it in the context of the Christ's preachings. Anything else is personal redefinition... adjusting a standard to fit your behavior rather than adjusting your behavior to fit a standard. Dirty pool....

...The rules are to 'love' your enemy, 'bless' those who curse you, 'turn' the other cheek. The theme is there: Stand and take your lumps with a smile. The Christian way.



Yes there are plenty of other ways to interpret the Gospels. I mean, Christians throughout the ages have done so. Like "love thy neighbour" can be interpreted as: "Go to America and kill Indians".:rolleyes: Some religious believers interpret the Bible literally, but I think they're in a minoirity.


I can imaging anger, hatred, even cold impassiveness when forced to kill in self defense. But the only situation I can imagine where I could 'love' my victim while killing is for euthanasia. Anyone who had to put down a dog (or worse a family member!) knows the feeling. I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.

Well, without hating them isn't really the question. The question is can you [i]love them while killing them? [if you answer yes, I'll have some serious doubt about your psychological well being!]


For me the concept of loving an enemy is not literal; it's the awareness that can put your anger in perspective. It means we could fight a war, but be aware that it is not a fight of "good vs evil". Eckart Tolle writes a lot about this.

I think we're having a mis-communication. You're probably talking about killing without passion. The theme is 'with love' not 'without hate.' Whew.

You might find this easier to deal with if you read these statements less literally. I'm not a Christian, but I find that the words of the Gospels do sometimes inspire me in developing my own philosophy. I wouldn't literally turn my cheeck to somebody and allow them to hit me. But I can detect a distinct and subtle wisdom behind those words.

Complexity is the best defense religion has. One can always say..."those guys may do it that way, we don't." .. the perfect apology and McGrath's favorite from what I gather. Fortunately Hitchens knows how to dismantle the perfect apology and all that complexity with the simplistic question: "can it be done without religion?"

Skeppers use a mixture of excessive complexity and excessive simplicity, and I think New Atheists just do simplicity. There's was nothing excessive about the complexity of McGrath's arguement; on the contrary, I think he exposed Hitchens excessive-simpicity tactic very successfully. Just because "it can be done without religion" doesn't neutralize McGrath's reasons for believing in God.

I was just clarifying any ambiguity that may have arisen from my previous sentence there.

OK.

Dirty pool - changing the rules of the game while playing, cheating.

I've not done that and neither did McGrath.

One can make the argument that they acted impulsively to defend their own lives while they were in a situation not of their choosing and their actions can be made up with atonement. That however is a completely different condition from voluntarily placing yourself in a position where you will be breaking the rules of the game with full knowledge in advance..

As an example... going to boot camp, learning how to murder your fellow man a thousand and one ways, arming yourself with the tools of murder and shipping out to the battlefield... . Those who have done so have indeed ceased to be Christians in act and deed, if not in thought.

Yes, there's a big difference between those two situations.

...and acting our your conspiracies...

??:confused:

I didn't see him making much of an impassioned defense of this idea in that debate. Perhaps he has done a better job of it elsewhere. If a recording of that is available on the 'net, please offer a link, I would like to listen to his entire explanation before demolishing it :)

By all means I will try to find one of his interviews where this issue comes up. Unfortuntely you'll be looking at it in private so I won't be able to watch McGrath "pwn" you.:D;)

[hagbard_celine]

Melkor, would you like to apply for the prestigious Materialist Bravery Award?:cool: I don't know if you qualify yet. You have to disbelive in Life-
After-Death and say so very loudly on at least 3 occasions per day, preferably in the presence of those who do. (See here for more details: http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49525

Have you got what it takes?:D

[malkor]

Yes you can. You can eat strawberry's without cream any time you like:D.

Indeed sir, but cream may improve the taste of a strawberry while religion only sours the taste of spirituality.



Eh? Are those groups above not Christians?:confused: Why's that?

Not Christian. They are what whatever they call themselves; Protestant or Catholic or Orthodox or whatever. They have their dogmas, rituals, traditions, values, etc. as independent religions that share a common root. They relate to Christianity about the same was as Christianity relates to Judaism, perhaps somewhat closer, yet remain distinct.


Yes there are plenty of other ways to interpret the Gospels. I mean, Christians throughout the ages have done so. Like "love thy neighbour" can be interpreted as: "Go to America and kill Indians".:rolleyes: Some religious believers interpret the Bible literally, but I think they're in a minoirity.

They weren't Christians. :)



For me the concept of loving an enemy is not literal; it's the awareness that can put your anger in perspective. It means we could fight a war, but be aware that it is not a fight of "good vs evil". Eckart Tolle writes a lot about this.

You're not a Christian either. :)


You might find this easier to deal with if you read these statements less literally. I'm not a Christian, but I find that the words of the Gospels do sometimes inspire me in developing my own philosophy. I wouldn't literally turn my cheeck to somebody and allow them to hit me. But I can detect a distinct and subtle wisdom behind those words.

Nothing wrong in being inspired. It happens to me and you every day and not just from reading bibles. I have no problem with it as long as you're not inspired into doing evil (which I interpret as causing wanton harm).


Skeppers use a mixture of excessive complexity and excessive simplicity, and I think New Atheists just do simplicity. There's was nothing excessive about the complexity of McGrath's arguement; on the contrary, I think he exposed Hitchens excessive-simpicity tactic very successfully. Just because "it can be done without religion" doesn't neutralize McGrath's reasons for believing in God.

That might have meant something if the debate was about neutralizing McGrath's reasons for believing in [a] God. I don't think any line of reasoning can accomplish such a task.

The simplicity of Hitchen's argument was in proving his case in the debate.

I respect that you came out of watching the debate with something more than you came in with. Food for thought, great stuff.


I've not done that and neither did McGrath.

I didn't accuse you of doing it. McGrath however is guilty of it in my view or I wouldn't have brought it up.



??:confused:

Conspiracies as in planning to go to war with the intent of murdering (call it what you want: killing the other guy) and then doing so.



By all means I will try to find one of his interviews where this issue comes up. Unfortuntely you'll be looking at it in private so I won't be able to watch McGrath "pwn" you.:D;)

Impossible sir! I'm like water. The moment you think you have me in your fist, I drip out from between your fingers!

[malkor]

Melkor, would you like to apply for the prestigious Materialist Bravery Award?:cool: I don't know if you qualify yet. You have to disbelive in Life-
After-Death and say so very loudly on at least 3 occasions per day, preferably in the presence of those who do. (See here for more details: http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49525

Have you got what it takes?:D

Ooh! I'll have to check it out later. I may just qualify for it after my scheduled lobotomy.

[hagbard_celine]

Ooh! I'll have to check it out later. I may just qualify for it after my scheduled lobotomy.

If you can become an MBA Laureate the world will be your plaything!:D:cool:

[hagbard_celine]

Indeed sir, but cream may improve the taste of a strawberry while religion only sours the taste of spirituality.


True. That's a good phrase actually.:cool::)


Not Christian. They are what whatever they call themselves; Protestant or Catholic or Orthodox or whatever. They have their dogmas, rituals, traditions, values, etc. as independent religions that share a common root. They relate to Christianity about the same was as Christianity relates to Judaism, perhaps somewhat closer, yet remain distinct.



They weren't Christians. :)

I see, but those are branches of Christianity, denominations. It's like the Sunni, Shia, Sufi sects etc of Islam.

McGrath is Anglican, but does this mean that he's not really a Christian?

[malkor]

[quote]I see, but those are branches of Christianity, denominations. It's like the Sunni, Shia, Sufi sects etc of Islam.

Branching is a key point!

Islam is a branch of Christianity/Judaism and Christianity is a branch of Judaism and Judaism is a branch of Babylonian/Egyptian, and those are branches of Sumerian. That's as far back as I can go with the available information.

Also, the above is not an exhaustive list, I've left out many minor links in between. It's like an evolution of ideas or memes according to Dawkins. Branching produces new species.


McGrath is Anglican, but does this mean that he's not really a Christian?

It does indeed. Christianity does not have political affiliations or jurisdictions. Anglicanism is a religion with a political jurisdiction created because some guy didn't like being under the political jurisdiction of a religion in a foreign country.

[malkor]

If you can become an MBA Laureate the world will be your plaything!:D:cool:

Poo :(

The video has been removed.

[whatistruth]

True. That's a good phrase actually.:cool::)




I see, but those are branches of Christianity, denominations. It's like the Sunni, Shia, Sufi sects etc of Islam.

McGrath is Anglican, but does this mean that he's not really a Christian?

I can understand someone arguing the existense of something other than this world, something spiritual, after all no one can truely know the nature of reality.

But to have this guy trying to debate hitchens as basically a christian bible literalist is almost laughable.
Why not islam or seehk or hindu?