Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 42

Thread: Richard Dawkins: 'Somebody As Intelligent As Jesus Would Have Been an Atheist'

  1. #21
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Last Online
    Thursday, May 3rd, 2012 @ 09:29 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Mainly Yorkshire
    Country
    England England
    State
    Yorkshire Yorkshire
    Location
    Yorkshire
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,111
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    8 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by CruxClaire View Post
    Actually, I can readily admit to being influenced by Buddhism. I wouldn't call myself a Buddhist, but I admire some of their beliefs. I embrace some of the philosophical beliefs of Buddhism, but you wouldn't catch me worshiping Buddha. I find Taoism interesting as well.
    You find these effete ideologies appealing because they're compatible with your Christianity-conditioned nature, but conveniently aren't the Christianity you reject for failing to meet its own ideals.

    The whole idea with Christian morals is that one must act in a certain way to appease or mimic a deity. While many of my moral principles are similar to those preached in the Bible (although there are many moral contradictions within the Bible, especially between the Old and New Testaments), I consider my moral compass independent of Christianity because it's not rooted in the belief that God will punish me if I don't follow the rules.
    Yes, you find the intellectual commitment to Christianity redundant. Its moral core is what's latched itself to you.

    I value justice as well as empathy, and justice certainly isn't exclusive to Christianity either. Sikhism and Hinduism, to name a couple, seem to advocate empathy and tolerance.
    All worthless non-European belief systems.

    I think moral codes are more cultural than religious. Take the morals of slavery - plenty of Christians have used the Bible to justify slavery, and others to condemn it. And one can see the same phenomenon today with the defense/condemnation of homosexual marriage.
    This is my favourite part. Almost invariably we see liberals opposing Christianity for not being Christian enough. For the longest time, Christianity was interpreted very liberally (not meant in your sense), so as to excuse the continuation of almost any naturally European, or naturally human for that matter, instinct. We wanted to enslave people. We contrived a Biblical justification for it. Relatively late did the Christian virus worm its way to the core of European consciousness and uproot all that was natural. The Christian spirit reaches its perfection, ironically, in the atheistic liberal.

    Quote Originally Posted by renownedwolf View Post
    Somebody as supposedly intelligent and obviously pompous as Richard Dawkins would surely have to concede that he can prove neither so shouldn't espouse his contradictory anti-faith theories that are based upon a faith of their own.
    It's very easy to disprove the existence of God.

  2. #22
    Senior Member Unity Mitford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Online
    Friday, August 24th, 2012 @ 01:03 PM
    Status
    Prolonged Absence
    Ethnicity
    English
    Gender
    Family
    Engaged
    Posts
    516
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts
    ^ Hinduism and Budhism are far from redundant to Europeans. Look at Devi and EVola.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savitri_Devi

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Evola

  3. #23
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Last Online
    Thursday, May 3rd, 2012 @ 09:29 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Mainly Yorkshire
    Country
    England England
    State
    Yorkshire Yorkshire
    Location
    Yorkshire
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,111
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    8 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Unity Mitford View Post
    ^ Hinduism and Buddhism are not redundant. read Devi and EVola.
    Think I'll pass. They're more for



    and


  4. #24
    Senior Member CruxClaire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Last Online
    Thursday, August 23rd, 2012 @ 02:32 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Irish, German, Polish, Scottish, English
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Illinois Illinois
    Location
    Chicago area
    Gender
    Family
    Youth
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Center-left
    Religion
    Atheist
    Posts
    197
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    So then is Christianity for
    ?

    It's invalid to simply deny the importance of a religion if it's not deeply tied with Western civilization. While it's nice to live in a Western bubble, to get a more objective view of religion, I think one should look at it in a worldly sense, beyond Western culture.

    Relatively late did the Christian virus worm its way to the core of European consciousness and uproot all that was natural. The Christian spirit reaches its perfection, ironically, in the atheistic liberal.
    I also think it's invalid to argue that Christian morals are "unnatural." You agreed that people used Biblical justifications for practices like slavery. Religion influences individuals, but really, it's large bodies of people that influence religion. The sentiments you describe as "unnatural" have not come as a result of religion, but rather, as a result of the events of twentieth century Europe. People value altruism and multiculturalism because they remember the pain caused by WWII in particular (WWII was at least partially caused by nationalism and perceptions of racial/cultural superiority, as was WWI) and seek to avoid it. The impulse to avoid pain is only too natural, and with the advent of excellent recorded history and weapons of mass destruction have changed people's perspectives on society and life in general. Reactions to history have arguably brought about this "unnatural" moral system more than Christianity has.

    Honestly, looking at history, I rarely see an instance of Christianity fulfilling its own supposed moral standards. Its leaders have used it as a manipulative force, to wield their power and influence. I don't think "the Christian virus" just magically became effective. I think some big world events happened, culture evolved, and people became more educated. Hence the rise of "Christlike" atheists.

    It's very easy to disprove the existence of God.
    Oh? Please, enlighten me: how exactly does one disprove the existence of God?

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    Wednesday, May 9th, 2012 @ 11:35 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Canadian
    Ancestry
    German
    Country
    Canada Canada
    Gender
    Posts
    1,051
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    What constitutes a "fundamental Christian" in your opinion?

    Quote Originally Posted by GeistFaust View Post
    I don't see Richard Dawkins as an ideal atheist, just as much as I don't find some fundamental Christians to not be ideal Christians. He should know that intelligence is not a thing strictly limited to atheism anymore then stupidity can be associated with it at times.

  6. #26
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Last Online
    Thursday, May 3rd, 2012 @ 09:29 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Mainly Yorkshire
    Country
    England England
    State
    Yorkshire Yorkshire
    Location
    Yorkshire
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,111
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    8 Posts
    It's invalid to simply deny the importance of a religion if it's not deeply tied with Western civilization. While it's nice to live in a Western bubble, to get a more objective view of religion, I think one should look at it in a worldly sense, beyond Western culture.
    No belief system is objective. To identify with a religion is to identify with the subjectivity of its creators/followers, not to identify with truth. I have no interest in aligning my subjective perception of reality with that of the two people I posted. And I never said I didn't know what these people believed. I just said I didn't care.

    Oh? Please, enlighten me: how exactly does one disprove the existence of God?
    It usually helps to give one adjective along with God, such as 'absolute God' or 'conscious God'. But, regardless, there are many arguments that can be used. The absolute is unchanging by definition. The absolute therefore can't do, only be. This means, at best, that God is the universe, and didn't create it. But the universe changes, and therefore can't itself be an absolute God. Another argument: an absolute God, or a perfect God, can't be conscious, since consciousness exists only through a disconnection of something with itself. In a Sartrean sense, consciousness is something fated forever to strive for what it can never be (i.e. one with its object/with being). Very imperfect. Third argument: If God is the thing through which all we know came into existence, then God is pure otherness. If these things already existed, or were part of God, then God is redundant as an explanation of how they came to be. But if God is pure otherness, then we can say God is nothing we can conceive of, including 'absolute', 'conscious' etc. and, paradoxically, neither can we meaningfully say God is 'pure otherness', since we can understand that general concept also.

    Then you need to look into the origin of consciousness. It came into being. It wasn't there from the outset. It evolved in step with evolutionary pressures, from the angle of a particular species. It's relvative; it's not absolute. It's forever in the process of becoming; it's not absolute. And the Hegelian idea that all life, all consciousness is progressing toward the 'perfect being/oneness of God', and the imperfection of consciousness is just a stage along its journey thereto, falls apart when you consider there's absolutely no unitary progression toward any singular ideal in nature (the trend is toward multiplicity, if anything), and certainly not in the world of consciousness, which, as I said, is inherently perspectival.

  7. #27
    Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Online
    Friday, September 13th, 2019 @ 09:25 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Albion.
    Subrace
    Alpinid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    New York New York
    Gender
    Age
    43
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    'anti-semite'
    Politics
    Republicanism, traditionalism, .
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Posts
    1,791
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    14
    Thanked in
    13 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Hamar Fox View Post
    Think I'll pass. They're more for



    and

    A female orc and Gollum?

  8. #28
    Senior Member CruxClaire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Last Online
    Thursday, August 23rd, 2012 @ 02:32 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Irish, German, Polish, Scottish, English
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Illinois Illinois
    Location
    Chicago area
    Gender
    Family
    Youth
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Center-left
    Religion
    Atheist
    Posts
    197
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    No belief system is objective. To identify with a religion is to identify with the subjectivity of its creators/followers, not to identify with truth. I have no interest in aligning my subjective perception of reality with that of the two people I posted.
    I think religion can be looked at objectively. Not because any of the "truths" preached in any religions are necessarily true. I don't think they are. But religion is tied into the culture and politics of regions and peoples. Since the world today is changing in that people are connected globally by the internet and communicating is so much simpler now, religion is undergoing its own sort of bizarre evolution because now, people really do have more to choose from than the religion or religions that used to be most strongly associated with their regions and cultures, which, in my case, was Christianity. Now a Lutheran might convert to Buddhism, or a Muslim might convert to Christianity.

    I personally find it relevant to look at Christianity in comparison to the religions that go beyond the boundaries of Europe, because we can see the ways some very different belief systems have had similar power over their lands, and have stirred up the same tensions.

    If I'm going to argue against religion, I can't simply stop with Christianity and ignore all the other religions.

    And your arguments against God's existence were good, but they were intellectual disproof. I was looking for physical disproof. Most theists won't be convinced against the existence of an absolute God, except by physical or scientific proof - empirical evidence - of his existence, which is ironic because there's not even any real intellectual/philosophical evidence that God exists.

    Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

    Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

    Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

    Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
    -Epicurus

  9. #29
    Senior Member paraplethon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Online
    Thursday, August 23rd, 2012 @ 03:55 AM
    Ethnicity
    Irish-Welsh-Scots
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    Tasmania Tasmania
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    Green Right
    Posts
    290
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hamar Fox View Post
    It usually helps to give one adjective along with God, such as 'absolute God' or 'conscious God'. But, regardless, there are many arguments that can be used. The absolute is unchanging by definition. The absolute therefore can't do, only be. This means, at best, that God is the universe, and didn't create it. But the universe changes, and therefore can't itself be an absolute God. Another argument: an absolute God, or a perfect God, can't be conscious, since consciousness exists only through a disconnection of something with itself. In a Sartrean sense, consciousness is something fated forever to strive for what it can never be (i.e. one with its object/with being). Very imperfect. Third argument: If God is the thing through which all we know came into existence, then God is pure otherness. If these things already existed, or were part of God, then God is redundant as an explanation of how they came to be. But if God is pure otherness, then we can say God is nothing we can conceive of, including 'absolute', 'conscious' etc. and, paradoxically, neither can we meaningfully say God is 'pure otherness', since we can understand that general concept also.

    Then you need to look into the origin of consciousness. It came into being. It wasn't there from the outset. It evolved in step with evolutionary pressures, from the angle of a particular species. It's relvative; it's not absolute. It's forever in the process of becoming; it's not absolute. And the Hegelian idea that all life, all consciousness is progressing toward the 'perfect being/oneness of God', and the imperfection of consciousness is just a stage along its journey thereto, falls apart when you consider there's absolutely no unitary progression toward any singular ideal in nature (the trend is toward multiplicity, if anything), and certainly not in the world of consciousness, which, as I said, is inherently perspectival.
    Pure linguistic gymnastics.

  10. #30
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Last Online
    Thursday, May 3rd, 2012 @ 09:29 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Mainly Yorkshire
    Country
    England England
    State
    Yorkshire Yorkshire
    Location
    Yorkshire
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,111
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    8 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by paraplethon View Post
    Pure linguistic gymnastics.
    Fascinating rebuttal. I can't come back from that. I thanked your post because I've never in my life seen such a devilishly convincing disproof of my disproofs, and never will again.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Classify Richard Dawkins
    By Pro-Alpine in forum Anthropological Taxonomy
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Friday, April 15th, 2011, 11:36 PM
  2. Prof Richard Dawkins Drives Support for London's First Atheist Bus Advert
    By Hanna in forum Agnosticism, Atheism, & Irreligion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: Monday, May 31st, 2010, 01:46 AM
  3. Professor Richard Dawkins Wants to Convert Islamic World to Evolution
    By Renwein in forum Agnosticism, Atheism, & Irreligion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: Saturday, August 29th, 2009, 12:50 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •