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

[MidnightBlue]

Originally Posted by Jay

And you clearly have a problem.

Science and religion are both human endeavors and both suffer from the association.

Yes, religion is good and pure and right; it's just those damned humans who make religion look bad.

Originally Posted by Jay

So, for example, we've 'Social Darwinism' evolve to justify the violence, coercion and bigotry of the 19th and 20th century.

Social Darwinism is not science, and you know that very well. It's not even Darwinism.

Originally Posted by Jay

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

Whenever we've seen religious people in those movements, they've always had to buck religious authority to make their points, and their strongest opponents have always been their fellow religionists. It's not for nothing that Frederick Douglass, having been a Methodist preacher, left the church in disgust. Not the white church, mind you, but the AME Zion Church. His opinion differed considerably from yours:

While America is printing tracts and bibles; sending missionaries abroad to convert the heathen; expending her money in various ways for the promotion of the gospel in foreign lands--the slave not only lies forgotten, uncared for, but is trampled under foot by the very churches of the land. What have we in America? Why, we have slavery made part of the religion of the land. Yes, the pulpit there stands up as the great defender of this cursed institution, as it is called. Ministers of religion come forward and torture the hallowed pages of inspired wisdom to sanction the bloody deed. They stand forth as the foremost, the strongest defenders of this "institution." As a proof of this, I need not do more than state the general fact, that slavery has existed under the droppings of the sanctuary of the south for the last two hundred years, and there has not been any war between the religion and the slavery of the south. Whips, chains, gags, and thumb-screws have all lain under the droppings of the sanctuary, and instead of rusting from off the limbs of the bondman, those droppings have served to preserve them in all their strength. Instead of preaching the gospel against this tyranny, rebuke, and wrong, ministers of religion have sought, by all and every means, to throw in the back-ground whatever in the bible could be construed into opposition to slavery, and to bring forward that which they could torture into its support. This I conceive to be the darkest feature of slavery, and the most difficult to attack, because it is identified with religion, and exposes those who denounce it to the charge of infidelity.

Originally Posted by Jay

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

I will take your opinion into consideration.

[MidnightBlue]

Originally Posted by lilithu

Really, please point out to me where you said that we should not view anyone as the Other or "them" including those of the Abrahamic faiths with which you disagree. I must have missed it.

You must have missed quite a bit. But I'm getting tired of your telling me I've said what I haven't said; suppose you read my posts for what they say instead of for how they make you feel?

I said:

I didn't say anything at all about who anyone could work with, who anyone could associate with, or anything of the kind. Very few of the people I work with or associate with share my beliefs or convictions. I'm not saying that religious people, or any people, ought to cut themselves off from the world. ...

You seem not to grasp the fact that I can disagree with someone's beliefs and ethics and still see much good about that person.

Originally Posted by lilithu

What, you're allowed to suggest that people live up to their ideals but others are not?

I'm not suggesting that the dominant religions in America don't live up to their ideals; I'm suggesting that their ideals are flawed. I don't really think that when you said "Why don't you try some of that Buddhist non-attachment, since you think it's so superior to the Abrahamic faiths?" it had anything at all to do with the subject of this thread. I think you just decided it would make you feel better to take a personal shot at me because you were piqued by my opinions. It's possible that I'm wrong about that, but that's certainly the way it seemed.

It's true that I'm not a very good Buddhist. I don't, however, think it's true that if I were a better Buddhist I would cease to have any opinions -- or even cease to have any opinions that are at odds with your own. And I don't think that greater non-attachment would cause me to have a more positive view of religious violence, coercion and bigotry, either. But that's just my opinion, and I am, as you point out, not a very good Buddhist.

Originally Posted by lilithu

You keep attacking religion and then saying that you didn't mean it that way. You berate people for engaging in the same "superstition" that caused 9/11 and then say that you are not calling for an end to the Abrahamic faiths.

I'm not calling for an end to anything. I'm not such a fool as to think that anyone would give up their violence or their bigotry or their religion because I called for it. I'm just observing characteristics of the Abrahamic religions, and I am, of course, speaking in generalities. It's hardly possibly to speak of something as broad as "the Abrahamic religions" in any other way.

Originally Posted by lilithu

You lump all the different sects of the Abrahamic traditions together as if they all teach the same thing. How is that not "us versus them?"

You are forgetting that I was a Christian myself for 45 years, that my husband is a Christian, that most of my friends are Christians, and that nearly all of my relatives are Christians. My antipathy is for ideas, not for people. I really don't understand how you can fail to see the distinction.

Originally Posted by lilithu

You condemn liberal religionists because they oppose conservative views on gender and orientation yet still maintain a relationship with the people. You are suggesting that liberal relgionists should sever themselves from conservatives.

No, I'm suggesting that they should not participate in bigotry themselves -- at least, not if they don't want anybody to notice.

Originally Posted by lilithu

Perhaps you have a point somewhere other than your antipathy for the Abrahamic traditions, but you're certainly not making it clear.

Perhaps I'm not, or perhaps your emotional reaction to what I say is making it difficult for you to understand what I'm saying.

[logician]

Originally Posted by BalanceFx

Well we can explain the evolution of our solar system, planet, life on our planet and even the evoution of species... (More or less) However all signs point that all galaxies are red shifted indicating they are moving away from us. Now recently there has been some debate about how fast they are moving away but they are moving away.

This has led us again to the belief that the universe we know and exist in had a beginning in time. That is at one point all the galaxies were together. The Pangea theory of the universe or the Big Bang. hehe.

Ok so if an argument were made for a god it would be for one that started that chain reaction that created our universe and the fundamental laws we must live by. The four forces, Basic atomical structure etc etc.

Whats interesting is people at one time believed the universe to be endless and now they are leaning towards the universe is not flat it is round theory. That is that the universe has boundaries because space time curves in on itself thus if you were to travel far enough in one direction you would eventually get to the same spot you began at.

We as creatures bound by such space can't escape that space to see what's outside of it.

In terms of philosphy I have heard it summed up as... You once believed the earth the center of everything, and then the sun... Soon the center of our galaxy was the center of everything and now the universe. What vanity you must have as humans to assume this universe is the only one?

Funny and rhetorical since we can't answer it and it plays with the meaning of what we call the universe. The same person also said, "Scientists always talk of theories that are completely accurate but become fatally flawed with errors when used on a macro or micro scale without realizing that the theory is flawwed the whole way through it justs the error is so small when normally considered." I forgot who said it.

Dawkins argument is things in our universe are the way they are because if they were not we would not be here. Quite logical really. That guy is pretty cool hehe.

But the multiple universe theory implies that there were lots of failed universes and ours is probably one of those failures as the universe will eventually contract back in on itself. Or maybe it wont... One theory is the galaxies will keep moving away until whatever force blew them apart is expended and then gravity will pull everything back together... and then boom again... hehe. Its equally probable though that we dont have enough data and all the galaxies are in fact spinning around something larger:

Earth Rotates at the equator at 1000 miles per hour
Earth Rotates the sun at 67,000 miles per hour.
Sol (the sun) rotates the center of the galaxy at 486,000 miles per hour.
The galaxy is moving (Possibly and probably rotating) at 300,000 miles per hour.

We sitting still are moving as a sum of those numbers. Or 854,000 Miles per hour.

The speed of light moves at 670,616,629.2 miles per hour.

We know that if we were to send stuff at speeds approaching light the objects on board would experience time in a slower fashion. Past the speed of light nothing happens for said object. You can experience the same effect by cooling an object to absolute 0.

Why Absolute 0? Why is the Speed of Light the Speed of Light? Etc etc... An argument for god could be made that something set all these factors just as an equal argument could be made that these numbers are what they are because they could be nothing else.

This argument was refuted at length in the "God Delusion".

[logician]

Originally Posted by lilithu

The thing is, I don't make arguments for the existence of God. I believe in God, but I don't try to convince others to believe in God. Whereas you approach every statement about God as an argument for God, and then do your tedious "there is no God" thing.


THIS is a perfect example. I don't believe in heaven and hell either, except for what we create here on earth. But you can't be bothered to pay attention to the context of the argument. You see the words heaven and hell and your automatic response is "there is no heaven or hell."

Really,

For someone who isn't trying to convince someone of anything, you're on here almost 24/7 not doing it.

ROFLMAO

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by logician

For someone who isn't trying to convince someone of anything, you're on here almost 24/7 not doing it.

lilithu is easily one of the most coherent and respected participants in these forums. The fact that you do not recognize her qualities no doubt goes far in explaining your persistent inability to model them.

[BalanceFx]

Originally Posted by logician

This argument was refuted at length in the "God Delusion".

That's not entirely true. Dawking argued against:

Originally Posted by Dawkins

there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us

He never argued against an 'einsteinian' god or perhaps a god which could not be understood by us. If such a god took a direct interest in us or in affecting the world we live in I am certain then he would then object.

His book is essentially refuting classical religious beliefs and the classical view that god created everything. When physics and the limits of our knowledge are reached he never argued against that crane except to mention infinite regression and the likelyhood that there is an all powerful god is a very low number.

He also has a chapter on how such religious beliefs can be harmful to both society and the person.

Much of his points are based in logic and reason and his book is quite the journey.