Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mx5me
The point about Dawkins (somehow I knew that quoting him would start an argument) in interesting. After The God Delusion came out, a firestorm of essays were written basically asking why he couldn't play nice and have some respect. But why should he if he honestly thinks that belief in a higher being is unfounded, dangerous and blatantly stupid?
|
Because to think that is in itself stupid. Look at it this way. You've been told since you were a toddler that lightbulbs emit light. What if some jackass comes along and writes a book that says they suck dark instead? Are you supposed to suddenly believe him just because he says so? Are you to go against years of indoctrination to the idea that lightbulbs emit light?
Silly example (with apologies to MIT) I know, but the same holds true for religion. Whether there is or is not a god, if you've been told by everyone you know since you were a toddler that God exists, it's going to take some doing to decide that he doesn't. It's certainly not *stupid* of people to believe what they're told by their parents, teachers, and others they look up to while they're growing up. To decide that someone is stupid simply because he happens to agree with the majority of the world is the height of arrogance.
Plus, Dawkins is displaying his utter lack of understanding of the social graces. If I want to convince you to vote democrat, I'm not going to start off by calling you a blithering idiot. That won't exactly put you in the frame of mind needed to listen to my points and come around to my side.
Dawkins then goes on to display his ultimate arrogance by saying that we agnostics are just as stupid as the religious people because only he and his ideas can be right. Frankly, that proves he's just as stupid as he claims the religious crowd is. He doesn't KNOW there is no god. He doesn't really KNOW what comes after death any more than anyone else does. Yet he's decided nothing comes after death and he must be right, while those of us who are courageous enough to admit that we don't know if god exists or not, and that we don't know what happens when we die, are morons.
that's pretty much why I don't have much patience for Mr. Dawkins.
Quote:
|
Yet from the other side of the coin, the heads of big name churches will publicly condemn non-believing "sinners" without rebuke, so is there a double standard?
|
No. Anyone who takes their faith and attempts to prove it to others or who decides that those who do not believe in what they themselves cannot know or prove is just as arrogant as Mr. Dawkins.
Quote:
|
We all walk on eggshells in our respect for religion, but what warrants that? Why do religions reap benefits that atheists do not?
|
They don't. If someone wants to believe absolutely that there is definintely a god, that's fine. Nothing wrong with that. If they then want to tell me that I'm a halfwit because I'm not so sure, well then that's pretty stupid on their part.
Quote:
|
I'm confused by your 3 questions, shakran. All 3 are curious, but number 2 in particular strikes me. Aren't believers supposed to take God at his word? Isn't that was it's all about?
|
That's my point. How can you take God at his word when his word isn't consistant?