Which part of the God Delusion did you find most offensive? (beliefs, experience)

[lilithu]

Btw, here are some links pertaining to the relationship between the UUA and the Scouts. As you can see, even tho we still maintain a relationship with them, we haven't been quiet about our objections.

Unitarian Universalist Association
UUA: Work to Change Discriminatory Policies of Boy Scouts of America
Boy Scouts of America

In particular, I'd like to highlight the following:

The UUA has since entered into negations with the BSA to be represented on the BSA Religious Relationships Committee. They commented that:

• a large number of young Unitarian Universalists have been involved in Scouting.
• the BSA "will need counsel from groups like the UUA -- not just from religious conservatives," -- to help it adapt to "the religious pluralism of the 21st century." BSA will also need to change in order to avoid future court challenges to its religious discrimination policies.
• "Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation should not be allowed to continue as a national policy of the BSA. It will ruin the organization, costing them the support of millions of people, of foundations, and of the United Way in many areas."

[MidnightBlue]

Originally Posted by Runt

Again, you're generalizing. Yes, some religious people condone bigotry and exclusion, but certainly not all religious people, and certainly not all religions. And not necessarily. It's unfair to say that because some religions condone bigotry and exclusion sometimes, ALL religions are negative and should be done away with.

At no time have I said that all religions are negative and should be done away with. As a matter of fact, I haven't said that any religion should be done away with, though I certainly think that there are many religions that would have to be drastically reformed before it would be ethical to support them. I attempt, with limited success, to practice two religions myself.

I do understand Richard Dawkins' anger at the idea that people should consider turning to religion an appropriate response to violence motivated by religion. I understand his contention that it's better to abandon all such belief systems than to quibble endlessly about the details of what believers' Imaginary Friend does and does not sanction. I don't agree with his opinion in all details, but I don't think it's anywhere near as outlandish as people claim it is. Reason and compassion are almost always better guides to good behavior than dogma and revelation. When once you have accepted the principle of religious authority, you have accepted not only that religion may compel you to do evil, but that religion may demand that you believe evil is good.

Irrational beliefs and religious authorities have the potential to be very destructive things, and all too often they live up to that potential in spades. Is it really so hard to understand why Richard Dawkins should consider it a bad thing to cling so desperately to insupportable ways of believing and thinking, especially when so many believers refuse even to face the fact that religion ever has evil outcomes?

How many times on these forums have I read that religious violence, coercion and bigotry have nothing to do with religion, not even when they're officially mandated by religious authorities and enthusiastically embraced by believers for what both the authorities and their followers explicitly say are religious reasons? Admitting that you have a problem is the first step.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

I don't really think I ought to have to point out what I did and didn't say, but I wasn't talking about heaven and hell, I was talking about dividing the world into "us" and "them."

Those who are going to heaven are "us" and those who are going to hell are "them." And I'm saying that it's much more complex than your assertion that all the Abrahamic faiths divide into us versus them.

From my pov, YOU are the one dividing people into us versus them. You're the one who's being absolutist. "Don't associate with the evil-doers." I am surrounded by friends of the Abrahamic faiths who bear no ill-will towards anyone and try to make the world a better place, and you are saying that it's wrong to associate with them, because they're wrong for associating with their faith because some in their faith are hateful. It's wrong to talk to the Boy Scouts because some elements of them are hateful. You are dividing people into us versus them.

Why don't you try some of that Buddhist non-attachment, since you think it's so superior to the Abrahamic faiths?

I'm going to bed.

[MidnightBlue]

Originally Posted by lilithu

From my pov, YOU are the one dividing people into us versus them. You're the one who's being absolutist. "Don't associate with the evil-doers."

That is not only not what I said, it's the precise opposite of what I said.

Originally Posted by lilithu

It's wrong to talk to the Boy Scouts because some elements of them are hateful. You are dividing people into us versus them.

I didn't say it was wrong to talk to the Boy Scouts; I didn't say it was wrong to talk to anybody. I said, and I believe, that it's wrong to participate in the Boy Scouts.

I'm really having trouble understanding why you keep insisting on putting words in my mouth, and criticizing me for saying things I haven't said.

Originally Posted by lilithu

Why don't you try some of that Buddhist non-attachment, since you think it's so superior to the Abrahamic faiths?

Very mature, Lilithu.

Originally Posted by lilithu

I'm going to bed.

That's a good idea. Your head may be clearer after some sleep.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

How many times on these forums have I read that religious violence, coercion and bigotry have nothing to do with religion, not even when they're officially mandated by religious authorities and enthusiastically embraced by believers for what both the authorities and their followers explicitly say are religious reasons? Admitting that you have a problem is the first step.

And you clearly have a problem.

Science and religion are both human endeavors and both suffer from the association. So, for example, we've 'Social Darwinism' evolve to justify the violence, coercion and bigotry of the 19th and 20th century.

At the same time, we've also seen religion in the vanguard of the Abolitionist, Peace, Humanist, and Civil Rights movements.

Your bigoted view is adolescent and superficial. Perhaps your head will be clearer after some sleep.

[BalanceFx]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

I was watching an interview with Richard Dawkins the other day and heard him make the claim that if a theist read his book, they would not find it offensive. However, my experience has been the complete opposite because I have met many, many theists who have read his book and found it offensive.

Are there any theists here who found The God Delusion inoffensive?

If you did find The God Delusion offensive, which bit in particular (quotation or specific reference) did you find most offensive?

I personally loved it. I have never seen Gods existence argued against in such a logical manner. Even a Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawkings does not delve into that subject but rather touches upon it here and there. (I just read a Briefer History of Time buy Hawkings.... Like 140 pages of where we are today science wise written for the non scientist.)

It touches on string theory, quantum gravity, relativity etc etc.

But back to Dawkins... He is quite thorough... obviously different people would say he skipped over different things in regards to their particular faith but his argument seems to apply equally to most religions. Dawkins himself ackowledges that there may be a God of some sort in the einsteinian sense in that its still a useful construct at this point to theorize how the beginning of our known universe came about.

[logician]

Originally Posted by lilithu

Perhaps you could try it for once, and then we'll find out if we do.

Getting testy in your old age? I can refute any argument you make for the existence of
some god.