Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
laver

'The God Delusion'.. But is it true?

90 posts in this topic

The professor's book presents his atheistic beliefs and points to the damage that he believes religion has done and is doing in the world. You might agree but does that mean that there is no place for spirituality in life ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Some religions are doing a lot of damage in this world. If you don't believe the way they do and adhere to their religious beliefs they want to kill you. They want their countries law in tune with their religious laws and carried out without mercy. No room for free thinking at all.

Other religions, while I may or may not agree with them, as long as they aren't forcing their views on me or want to kill me if I don't agree I can live with them.

If your an atheist a religion person isn't going to care for having your views shoved down their throats either. You just have to respect others beliefs as long as their not trying to kill you.

Edited by Hilander
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some religions are doing a lot of damage in this world. If you don't believe the way they do and adhere to their religious beliefs they want to kill you. They want their countries law in tune with their religious laws and carried out without mercy. No room for free thinking at all.

Other religions, while I may or may not agree with them, as long as they aren't forcing their views on me or want to kill me if I don't agree I can live with them.

If your an atheist a religion person isn't going to care for having your views shoved down their throats either. You just have to respect others beliefs as long as their not trying to kill you.

An atheist of the Richard Dawkins ilk has no time for spirituality as to them there is nothing to be spiritual about; it was just the 'big bang' and evolution. This seems a simple answer, but to many of us an incomplete answer, to the mystery of human developement on our planet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The professor's book presents his atheistic beliefs and points to the damage that he believes religion has done and is doing in the world. You might agree but does that mean that there is no place for spirituality in life ?

I've always thought that while religion can be bad, faith is good (ie it's a religion that says "slaughter your enemies, get a reward" while it's a faith that says "that's a good idea").

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always thought that while religion can be bad, faith is good (ie it's a religion that says "slaughter your enemies, get a reward" while it's a faith that says "that's a good idea").

If "faith" means accepting an idea without questioning it, then faith is destructive. But if "faith" includes questioning your beliefs to make sure they are consistent with the physical universe, then it is constructive. The risk is that faith will lead one astray.

Doug

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always thought that while religion can be bad, faith is good (ie it's a religion that says "slaughter your enemies, get a reward" while it's a faith that says "that's a good idea").

Good? Good for whom? Dogma versus rational thought? But does that have anything to do with spirituality?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If "faith" means accepting an idea without questioning it, then faith is destructive. But if "faith" includes questioning your beliefs to make sure they are consistent with the physical universe, then it is constructive. The risk is that faith will lead one astray.

Doug

'Faith includes questioning your beliefs' ? surely that is a contradiction of terms?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Faith includes questioning your beliefs' ? surely that is a contradiction of terms?

No contradiction in my experience. You need to start with faith in yourself and the capacity to discern and disseminate the information that comes your way. There is a quote which I am not sure who said first "When the pupil is ready, the teacher will arrive". In my life that has been true, there is no question I can't ask because I know I have the right to know the truth. My questions have led me to know there is a God and I have faith that no matter the question, if I seek sincerely I will get the answer, even if it is an answer I may not like and struggle with for a time. I can't convince anyone of this though, I can only encourage that genuine questions be asked by others for themselves, it's only over time by the asking and testing of many questions that the body of personal evidence becomes insurmountable.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I somewhat agree with Dawkins' view, except that I am not an atheist.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No contradiction in my experience. You need to start with faith in yourself and the capacity to discern and disseminate the information that comes your way. There is a quote which I am not sure who said first "When the pupil is ready, the teacher will arrive". In my life that has been true, there is no question I can't ask because I know I have the right to know the truth. My questions have led me to know there is a God and I have faith that no matter the question, if I seek sincerely I will get the answer, even if it is an answer I may not like and struggle with for a time. I can't convince anyone of this though, I can only encourage that genuine questions be asked by others for themselves, it's only over time by the asking and testing of many questions that the body of personal evidence becomes insurmountable.

That does not sound much like following a particular religion but more a personal quest for a personal conviction. Whether you then feel the need to convert others to your beliefs or teach them to your children seems to be the problem area. Dawkins himself has been accused of this.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I somewhat agree with Dawkins' view, except that I am not an atheist.

A sound position. Dawkins is very strident but does point out the downsides of religious practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That does not sound much like following a particular religion but more a personal quest for a personal conviction. Whether you then feel the need to convert others to your beliefs or teach them to your children seems to be the problem area. Dawkins himself has been accused of this.

Agreed, whether you doggedly believe there can be no God or you believe that God is just and only as your particular denomination determines it is still blind belief. Science has their theories which Dawkins exclaims rightly many scientists rejoice when new evidence that supercedes or proves theories false are produced, because real knowledge and the evolution of human understanding is produced this way. I don't see why our understanding of the divine can't show the same rigorous attempts at gaining knowledge and our comprehension of the deeper meanings of human condition should be encouraged - we are our own greatest adventure, the true undiscovered country is inside us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, whether you doggedly believe there can be no God or you believe that God is just and only as your particular denomination determines it is still blind belief. Science has their theories which Dawkins exclaims rightly many scientists rejoice when new evidence that supercedes or proves theories false are produced, because real knowledge and the evolution of human understanding is produced this way. I don't see why our understanding of the divine can't show the same rigorous attempts at gaining knowledge and our comprehension of the deeper meanings of human condition should be encouraged - we are our own greatest adventure, the true undiscovered country is inside us.

Oh LibstaK would that you and Dawkins were right... BUT

'Science has their theories which Dawkins exclaims rightly many scientists rejoice when new evidence that supercedes or proves theories false are produced'

There is a huge resistance to new ideas even in science let alone the religious fraternity where it is almost a complete no no. Richard Dawkins likes to see science as always open to new ideas but this is sadly not the case. Outside his real field of evolution etc he is far less able to cope with new ideas that question his atheistic beliefs and which indicate ancient knowledge of a 'foreign' intelligence at work in our world thousands of years ago. This is a fact because a document sent to him giving details was returned to the author with thanks but no comment presumably because it raised serious questions about ancient spiritual beliefs that he would find very difficult to answer.

Dawkins dismisses a huge amount of accumulated knowledge, myth and legend as irrelevant to his main theme of Godless evolution.

'we are our own greatest adventure, the true undiscovered country is inside us.' and around us I would suggest.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Faith includes questioning your beliefs' ? surely that is a contradiction of terms?

It would certainly sound that way. But one can always change one's mind - with or without evidence.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Science has their theories which Dawkins exclaims rightly many scientists rejoice when new evidence that supercedes or proves theories false are produced'

When new evidence and/or reasoning renders an older idea obsolete, that is always a cause for rejoicing because we are that much closer to Truth.

There is a huge resistance to new ideas even in science let alone the religious fraternity where it is almost a complete no no. Richard Dawkins likes to see science as always open to new ideas but this is sadly not the case. Outside his real field of evolution etc he is far less able to cope with new ideas that question his atheistic beliefs and which indicate ancient knowledge of a 'foreign' intelligence at work in our world thousands of years ago. This is a fact because a document sent to him giving details was returned to the author with thanks but no comment presumably because it raised serious questions about ancient spiritual beliefs that he would find very difficult to answer.

The very first thing you must do before you can rationally use god as evidence of anything is to establish that there is/was a god. It doesn't matter whether there is/was a god or not if you can't establish the idea as fact. If the document in question did not do that up front, it would not be worth reading the rest of it and Dawkins would be right to dismiss

a huge amount of accumulated knowledge, myth and legend as irrelevant to his main theme of Godless evolution.

'we are our own greatest adventure, the true undiscovered country is inside us.' and around us I would suggest.

Careful with that last line. You never know what you will discover. It was reading the Bible that led me to doubt the existence of god.

Doug

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When new evidence and/or reasoning renders an older idea obsolete, that is always a cause for rejoicing because we are that much closer to Truth.

The very first thing you must do before you can rationally use god as evidence of anything is to establish that there is/was a god. It doesn't matter whether there is/was a god or not if you can't establish the idea as fact. If the document in question did not do that up front, it would not be worth reading the rest of it and Dawkins would be right to dismiss

Careful with that last line. You never know what you will discover. It was reading the Bible that led me to doubt the existence of god.

Doug

To establsh whether there is/was a god as a fact is not an easy task; as I am sure you are aware. But it is possible to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that there was a 'foreign' intelligence working in our world thousands of years ago and left evidence behind which has now been discovered. In brief ancient sacred sites dating back to the Bronze Age and earlier in the Holy Land and Eastern Mediterranean area were located in particular places and this can now be shown to have been not just a random choice of sites. These sites, many of them, were set out to conform to and mark out a geometric design on the landscape over great distances. This is a fact and because of the number of them and that we can now understand some of the logic behind the geometry is way beyond the possibilty of being just pure chance alignments.

Details of this will be published soon with full mathematical evidence and a copy of this was sent to a few people for pre-publication feedback, one of these people was Professor Richard Dawkins.

This very ancient landscape geometry is way beyond the capabilities of people of that time as we understand them today, so required some 'foreign' intelligence to be involved and the ancient sites were dedicated to Gods and Goddesses by the people of the lands involved. We are talking long before the time of Abraham but according to the Old Testament he visited some of these sites even then known to have a special sanctity.

How was this ancient geometry set out?

It required knowledge and ability which we only have had in very recent years so there are only a couple options

1. A very advanced native intelligence at work in the world at least 3000 years BCE and probably much older.

2. It was set out by a 'foreign' intelligence and the people clearly dedicated these sites to the works of Gods and Goddesses

Whether Richard Dawkins or one of his researchers read the document sent to him I do not know but it clearly raises serious questions about his atheistic beliefs and ideas of pure Darwinian evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How was this ancient geometry set out?

It required knowledge and ability which we only have had in very recent years so there are only a couple options

Do you have examples? Because the closest thing I can think of are the imaginary ley lines.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have examples? Because the closest thing I can think of are the imaginary ley lines.

'Imaginary ley lines'?

Ancient sacred sites either do or do not align that is a matter of fact or fiction and can be readily proved scientifically. If they do align or form patterns in the landscape then the question is... is this is by design or pure chance. In the case of the Holy Land and Eastern Mediterranean the alignment of very ancient sacred sites is quite clear when you know the lines that they are following which are not just any old bearing lines but pre-designed based on a very distant focal point. There is nothing 'imaginary' about this because it is a fact. It is also a very significant fact that one of these bearing lines from the focal point identifies a string of sites(churches) named in the first 3 Chapters of the Book of Revelations, the last book of the bible, and that the choice of these locations is attributed to Jesus.

Chapter 1 verse 20 of Revelations tells us that there is a 'secret meaning' in these church locations and there is. Beyond all reasonable doubt it is because these locations conform to the ancient landscape geometry of the area and because of the great age of sites involved, like Shechem or Mamre, it must have been established thousands of years before the time of Christ.

You do not have to just believe this to be true...the evidence is out there on the landscape and has been for thousands of years. Maybe Professor Richard Dawkins or his team decided to turn a blind eye to the evidence... maybe you will too... but it won't go away now that it has been discovered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Imaginary ley lines'?

Ancient sacred sites either do or do not align that is a matter of fact or fiction and can be readily proved scientifically.

No, it is a matter of drawing a fricking line through them. But lets play your game, prove them "scientifically".
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it is a matter of drawing a fricking line through them. But lets play your game, prove them "scientifically".

The best way is to find out the latitude and longitude of the sites being considered. Then if you have a site you think is important as a focal point or key location use this to calculate the bearing lines to other sites that are being considered to see if they are aligned along a particular bearing line to the focal point. If a number of sites do conform to a particular line then this could just be a coincidence or indicate a design.

If there are several sites that have very ancient origins and were clearly considered sacred to people long ago then this sanctity may be linked to their geograhical position on the landscape. If the number of sites involved and if the bearing lines use the same focal point then this would strongly suggest the presence of an ancient design.

This is the case with the Holy Land and Eastern Mediterranean sites and alignments and because the focal point is far away in southern Britain to set out these alignments would have been impossible with our present understanding of people thousands of years ago.

Since the sites were sacred locations, sacred to the Gods and Goddesses of the people and later generations it raises the quite legitimate question of how this landscape geometry was set out and whether a 'foreign' intelligence was involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Dawkins is too cold. I do not say he is necessarly wrong in his assumptions, but his world would be cold and mechanical. I think people need religion, but certainly not the bible thumping shove it down your throat we will burn if you do not believe kind. I think that to have some level of spitiuality is one of the things that define us as humans. It seems we need something to believe in. Some believe in one God, others in several Gods, others in Marxism-Leninism. No, I do not joke, for if you look at these political movements it is clear they serve the same function as religion. People like to believe in something, be it angels, elves or five year plans. Some, like Dawkins ridicule those who go to church to attend what is in some cases, Orthodox or Catholic, a wonderful play with music. People like this even if they have doubts, or do not believe at all. Some like to bang drums and chant in forest, the sensible thing of course as Pagans have got it right :)

However, none of this harms anybody unless it is forced on them, so why ridicule it? If religious practises were banned, then they would soon re-appear in a different form anyway, worship of Lenin or $ for instance. Even if Dawkins is right, why does he shout and insult many millions who are happy with their religious practises, why is he so angry about this? Let live and none of this cold impersonal totalitarian seeming harshness. We may well face total oblivion at death, but let us live as we wish before then, let us believe what we wish before then. I reject this essentialy nihilism of Dawkins.

Edit just to avoid charge of hypocracy due to some of my posts about this in other threads. I agree with Dawkins that there is no creator god. I believe the universe, multiverse, or whatever it really is that we live in, came into being by natural forces that we may pretend to understand, but maybe never will. So I do not believe in "God". However, what happened after the universe came into being is a different matter.....

Edited by Tutankhaten-pasheri
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dawkins clearly has some valid arguments about the down sides of some religious practices and the harm they have done and still do in the world. But the idea that life is just about a 'big bang' origin and subsequent evolution leaves many unanswered questions. The pre-Abrahamic or Pagan religions clearly believed that certain locations were of special importance, places to worship Gods and Goddesses, from ancient times. Many of these ancient sacred locations then became sacred or holy to later beliefs.

To find that behind many of these sacred sites there appears to be a geometric relationship that goes back thousands of years raises important questions about how this landscape geometry was set out. The evidence is out there on the landscape but is often ignored or classed as 'pseudoscience' when in fact it is plainly just simple geometry set out on a large scale. Was this the work of some 'foreign' intelligence? because it would obviously have been beyond the capabilities of ancient peoples without help from somewhere. It was also obviously an important part of ancient spirituality, places where people felt close to the divine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly there is geometry involved with some Pagan sites. But I only see this at a local level, or at most joining two or more sites in a reasonably small geographic area. I do not believe in Lay lines. I think it is us modern people who with the benefit of maps, satelite imagery and overactive imagination, draw lines that do not exist in reality. It is difficult not to see that many Pagan sites and old Pagan sites long with Christian churches built over them, are in places that we generaly see as being of particular beauty, whether a dramatic setting, or very often a cozy "Lord of the Rings" Shire type setting, at least from a European perspective. I think ancient people created their sacred places because they also saw these places as being so pleasant. I do not think their Gods told then to put them in particular places. Over time of course, then such places will develope an aura of "holyness" or mystery, but I think that is from within us, not any external force. Gods do not need to be restricted to particular locations, they are everywhere, it is us who has the desire to congregate at particular places.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best way is to find out the latitude and longitude of the sites being considered. Then if you have a site you think is important as a focal point or key location use this to calculate the bearing lines to other sites that are being considered to see if they are aligned along a particular bearing line to the focal point. If a number of sites do conform to a particular line then this could just be a coincidence or indicate a design.

In other words you pick what sites fit your preconceived conclusion.
If there are several sites that have very ancient origins and were clearly considered sacred to people long ago then this sanctity may be linked to their geograhical position on the landscape. If the number of sites involved and if the bearing lines use the same focal point then this would strongly suggest the presence of an ancient design.
The same sacred geometry has been applied to Woolworth stores.

http://www.badscience.net/2010/01/voices-of-the-ancients/

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.