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

[crystalonyx]

Originally Posted by BalanceFx

Their motivation was due to their fantactical belief in an after life inspired by religion, the promise of 40 virgins taught by religion and being always remembered with their religion as a hero.


.

Besides the fact I don't believe it, isn't this promise more metaphorical than real?

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by Apex

It probably started when some posters began to try and paint all religions as "evil" at their core due to the actions of a few. Other posters refuted this, and it just kept on going. Look back about the statement Dawkins made about the prayer rally after 9/11, I think it started there.

That seems about right.

[BalanceFx]

Originally Posted by crystalonyx

Besides the fact I don't believe it, isn't this promise more metaphorical than real?

Not its not real. Its their beleif. In the US polticians dont want to use the R word and characterize suicide bombers and the hijackers of 9/11 as pure evil or psychotic. Dawkin's writes about this in the god delusion much more eloquently then I could:

Originally Posted by The God Delusion

However misguided we may think them, they are motivated, like the Christian murderers of abortion doctors, by what they perceive to be righteousness, faithfully pursuing what their religion tells them.
They are not psychotic; they are religious idealists who, by their own lights, are rational. They perceive their acts to be good, not because of some warped personal idiosyncrasy, and not because they have been possessed by Satan, but because they have been brought up, from the cradle, to have total and unquestioning faith.

[crystalonyx]

Originally Posted by BalanceFx

Not its not real. Its their beleif. In the US polticians dont want to use the R word and characterize suicide bombers and the hijackers of 9/11 as pure evil or psychotic. Dawkin's writes about this in the god delusion much more eloquently then I could:

No, I mean they don't literally believe they will see 40 or 70 virgins in the afterlife, it's a metaphorical concept.

[BalanceFx]

Originally Posted by crystalonyx

No, I mean they don't literally believe they will see 40 or 70 virgins in the afterlife, it's a metaphorical concept.

I believe its 72, I was mistaken earlier with 40... As far as whether they really believe it or not I think it would depend. Their real motivation may be more because they will be taking a short cut and guaranteeing their place in the afterlife. Perhaps its more martyrdom if you understand what they believe from that vantage.

I haven't really spoken or debated any of these people but I have read about Jihad which is a special paradise for martyrs and prophets.

As far as whether they believe it to be metaphorical. Likely for many. For others perhaps not. If you are familiar with the abrogation interpretation of the Koran(Quran?) you would quickly to begin to fear some of these people. The majority are non-violent but I often wonder how many of these people would be doing this if they were not taught as children that faith is a virtue and you believe because its your religion and who you are.

Originally Posted by Bertrand Russel

Many people would sooner die than think. In fact they do.

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

Is that why communism is a religion even though it's officially atheistic?

First, it's not officially atheistic. The more famous communistic communities, i.e. the Soviet Union, were officially both, but that's like saying Bob has short hair and brown eyes. Sure the co-existed in a certain example, but that doesn't mean they hav anything to do with each other.

Second, communism is not a religion. It is a socio-political philosophy. In Stalin's case, and a few others, it became somewhat like a religion because of how he went about it, but then it became less and less like true communism, and more like a dictatorship. Also, being a religion and being atheistic are not mutually exclusive. I would think you'd been around here enough to understand that. Buddhism is the best example for this. May forms are considered both a religion and atheistic.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

Lilithu, I don't understand why you have so steadfastly misconstrued everything I've said,

I see no other way to construe what you have said, and you have not explained another way. I have asked you, since you say you're not calling for the end of the Abrahamic faiths, what it is you envision as the "reform" you think is so needed. I could ask you, since you say you're not calling me or others to change, what the point was of your litany against liberal religion. I have asked you, and only response I've gotten from you thus far is a repetition of the above accusation.

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

or why you've spent the first part of this thread ranting about what a horrible person Dawkins is and the latter part ranting about what a horrible person I am, but if that's what you need to do, fine. I don't mind anything you say about me.

You think I've been ranting about what a horrible person either you or Dawkins are?

???

Right, we perceive things very differently.

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

However, I disclaim responsibility for your decision to "react with emotion" and "react with passion." Even if I had said the things you misrepresent me as having said, and even if I'm all the things you say I am, there is nothing about my grievous character flaws that forces you to lose control of your emotions.

First of all, I never said you had responsibility for how I react. Secondly, I said, to a supposed friend, that my feelings were hurt by his comments. That is a FAR CRY from losing control of my emotions.

If you want to try to dismiss this by passing it off as me losing control of my emotions, that's your problem. What I see is you making the argument about my "emotions" instead of addressing my questions. You attack people whom I respect and love. I respond with passion because you have attacked people whom I respect and love, but addressing specific points. And your response is to ignore the points and say "why are you so emotional"? Honestly, you really should know better.