Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Richard Dawkins and Christianity


Only_

Recommended Posts

Illyrius

Quote

It was aimed from the very beggining that USA will enter a war against Hitler when he gets into trouble of making too much enemies, so crimes of Soviets even before WW2 were very well known about only the press kept silent about them and has been preparing American public with anti-nazi propganda to support a war against Hitler when the time comes and he gets weakened enough.

The source of anti-fascist propaganda was the fascist regimes themselves. They were proud of themselves. Also, the United States was one of the destinations of choice for high-profile Europeans who fled for their lives. It's difficult for an Einstein to take refuge here without the American public noticing, and there was no mystery about why he moved here.

Meanwhile, up to within months of America's entry into the war, Hitler and Stalin were allies. Any "preparation" for a war against Hitler would also be for a war against Stalin.

Had Japan not attacked the American fleet in Hawai'i, it is entirely possible that the United States would never have entered the war. That was a suprise attack, by definition something that the public wasn't "prepared for." It was Germany's decision whether to honor its commitment to Japan and declare war on the United States. Had they not (and there were plenty of pretexts to sidestep their commitment, as there always are), then the United States may well have chosen to pursue only the Pacific War.

Yes, in that hypothetical war within a war, the United States would have been an ally of all organized Chinese resistance forces, including Mao's, but also including the Nationalists. I have no idea how the postwar reorganization of China would have played out in that scenario.

dan

Quote

Don't Christians eat the body of Christ during the transubstantiation? This has been happening for centuries so what's wrong with now?

That's a more interesting question than I thought it was at first glance, and succeeds in making a weird tangent on-topic (yup, it's Dawkins and Christianity, all right). Bravo.

The bread becomes the body of Christ within an ontology that imagines that every real thing has its appearances (still bread and watered wine) and its essential nature (changing from vegetable to something of animal origin), which can be changed independently of one another (which is handy for making gold from lead, too). This simply isn't a popular modern ontology (we're more "if it all came only from plants, then it's vegan and stays that way" - and lead pretty much stays lead, too).

There  are also the additional complications that this is Jesus' resurrected body, and quite literally, God only knows what that is made of, PLUS the person consuming the food is a member of yet another "body of Christ," the mystical one. Christ would seem to be eating himself, whatever that means. (Umm, it has happened that I have cut myself and licked the wound to clean it. Am I an occasional cannibal? And let's not even try to sort out what happens if a hiking companion gets bitten by a snake, lol.)

OK, what's the ontological status of meat that is "derived" from human cells, but wasn't itself "harvested" from a human body? Is that even "meat," as we currently use the word? Beats me, but whatever it is, it simply isn't the stuff that has ever been the subject of any culture's taboo (and it is cultural, like enthusiasm for consuming dog meat). It has never existed, and has scarcely even been imagined until now. Soylent Green really was people.

-

@Illyrius@danydandan

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Just now, Illyrius said:

Like you friend.

Really? Show me where I've been continually parroting fallacious articles.

I mean you don't even comprehend percentages, but don't let something unimportant like mathematics or logic get in the way of your diatribe against atheism and secular science.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Really? Show me where I've been continually parroting fallacious articles.

I mean you don't even comprehend percentages, but don't let something unimportant like mathematics or logic get in the way of your diatribe against atheism and secular science.

So one mistake with percentages makes me fallacious? What about your atheist bros and yourself parroting nonsense that communism and atheism are completely separate things?

Keep on parroting bros, it's fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Illyrius said:

So one mistake with percentages makes me fallacious? What about your atheist bros and yourself parroting nonsense that communism and atheism are completely separate things?

Keep on parroting bros, it's fun.

One mistake? No, the articles you posted make a lot of errors. The mistake with percentages and the fact you tried to defend it shows you don't examine what you're posting.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

One mistake? No, the articles you posted make a lot of errors. The mistake with percentages and the fact you tried to defend it shows you don't examine what you're posting.

And i at least admit when i make a mistake, but you people don't you keep defending complete nonsense, but go on.. and on.. and on... just remain that way.

In all articles i posted you found a mistake with percentages, what about all these other errors you are speaking about? What are these errors friend?

Edited by Illyrius
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

So one mistake with percentages makes me fallacious? What about your atheist bros and yourself parroting nonsense that communism and atheism are completely separate things?

Keep on parroting bros, it's fun.

Communism and Ahteism are literally two completely different things. Literally by definition. Communism is an social economic idology and Atheism is the belief that there is no God. 

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/communism https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism.

Like I mentioned a number of times no one is agruing that they are not connected throughout history.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Illyrius said:

And i at least admit when i make a mistake, but you people don't you keep defending complete nonsense, but go on.. and on.. and on... just remain that way.

When? In your head?

You insisted the articles were well supported by facts. The Gene Entropy theory you posted is based on the Biblical longevity myths. Complete utter bull****.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

And i at least admit when i make a mistake, but you people don't you keep defending complete nonsense, but go on.. and on.. and on... just remain that way.

What nonsense are people defending?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, danydandan said:

What nonsense are people defending?

You should know because you first claimed religion was not mentioned in manifesto, then after that was refuted, you said something else, and when i refuted that then you said something third... so it goes with all of yu. You just cant accept the truth but instead from all the tons of text i posted you find one mistake with percentages and clinge to it like it is like some sort of holy straw of salvation of your illusions.

Edited by Illyrius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

You should know because you first claimed religion was not mentioned in manifesto, then after that was refuted, you said something else, and when i refuted that then you said something third... so it goes with all of yu. You just cant accept the truth but instead from all the tons of text i posted you find one mistake with percentages and clinge to it like it is like some sort of holy straw of salvation of your illusions.

I already admitted I should have correctly expressed myself regarding the argument relating to atheism bring a core principle of communism.

I only remember the mentioning of religion in the manifesto being refuted. I don't remember another claim perhaps you can enlighten me.

What other nonsense is being defended?

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I already admitted I should have correctly expressed myself regarding the argument relating to atheism bring a core principle of communism.

What other nonsense is being defended?

Well good for you.

Crucial nonsense is the question of link between communism and atheism, so since you insist i must ask you the following question: Do you find any basic difference between Nazi persecution of Jews and Communist persecution of Christians?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Illyrius said:

Well good for you.

Crucial nonsense is the question of link between communism and atheism, so since you insist i must ask you the following question: Do you find any basic difference between Nazi persecution of Jews and Communist persecution of Christians?

There is no difference persecution based idiology is the same, regardless of the idology in my opinion. One doesn't make the other right.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
9 minutes ago, danydandan said:

There is no difference persecution based idiology is the same, regardless of the idology in my opinion. One doesn't make the other right.

Now the other question. You often repeat that Communism is economic ideology. Is it only economic ideology?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Illyrius said:

Now the other question. You often repeat that Communism is economic ideology. Is it only economic ideology?

Social economic political idiology.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Social economic political idiology.

I am fairly satisfied with this answer, this is the first time you add this other aspects of Communism into consideraton.

But just for the sake of precision let us expand this to its full scope:

In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal")[1][2] is the philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology

Now..

In a philosopical, social and political aspect was this ideology so intimately connected to atheism as to make all the states that encompassed this ideology an OFFICIAL ATHEIST STATES and in the name of atheism persecute all Religions (especially Christians), and other people which opposed this sort of tyranny?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

 

In a philosopical, social and political aspect was this ideology so intimately connected to atheism as to make all the states that encompassed this ideology an OFFICIAL ATHEIST STATES and in the name of atheism persecute all Religions (especially Christians), and other people which opposed this sort of tyranny?

No I don't think the idology is intimately connected to atheism. I do not see how a lack of a belief in a God or gods has anything to do with a classless society.

However the two idologies are linked historically and atheism was used to take power from religions.

Edited by danydandan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, danydandan said:

No I don't think the idology is intimately connected to atheism. I do not see how a lack of a belief in a God or gods has anything to do with a classless society.

Well please pay attention now.

First of all I will ask you 2 questions;

Why do you think Communist states were OFFICIALY ATHIEST STATES?

Why do you think Christians and other religious groups of people were massacred by this regime in large numbers, far greater than that was the case in the Jewish Holocaust?

Now a few links may help you to open your eyes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_Atheists

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Illyrius said:

Well please pay attention now.

First of all I will ask you 2 questions;

Why do you think Communist states were OFFICIALY ATHIEST STATES?

Why do you think Christians and other religious groups of people were massacred by this regime in large numbers, far greater than that was the case in the Jewish Holocaust?

Now a few links may help you to open your eyes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_Atheists

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union

 

I think they were and are officially atheist because it suited and suits their needs. Rather than having two masters, Rome and the state or God and the stare, the communist leadership wanted themselves to be the only masters of it's people. The religious population would certainly rebel against not being able to express or practice their faith and this is why the state aggressivly put down religious populations. They couldn't have anyone question the stare now could they.

It's kind of the same as how Lutherism grew so fast in Europe by declaring that the head of the church was whom ever held the Crown in their respective County. It's why Catholics in Ireland were persecuted by the British for so long.

Communist states didn't even follow the principles of communism like everyone else they picked and chosen what suited them.

The reason Catholics were not persecuted by the Nazi party because of the richskonkordar, I hope I spelled that correctly, this inturn led to Hitler gaining power through the enabling act which was supported by the central Catholics party. The pope justified the pact as it prevented more atrocities by the Nazi party. kon

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I think they were and are officially atheist because it suited and suits their needs. Rather than having two masters, Rome and the state or God and the stare, the communist leadership wanted themselves to be the only masters of it's people. The religious population would certainly rebel against not being able to express or practice their faith and this is why the state aggressivly put down religious populations. They couldn't have anyone question the stare now could they.

You could put it that way.

I would rather say that they hated religion for they were all atheists and in the name of atheism and this hatered they slaughtered 25 million of Christians in USSR. It was an example of tolerance and love atheists are so proud of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

You could put it that way.

I would rather say that they hated religion for they were all atheists and in the name of atheism and this hatered they slaughtered 25 million of Christians in USSR. It was an example of tolerance and love atheists are so proud of.

This is where we disagree. I'm not going to convince you and you are not going to convince me.

But please read this:

https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/anti.html

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But  anyways back to the main topic and delusional Richard Dawkins;

 

But here is Richard Dawkins to dispel the clouds of fear and gloom – that is, religion. He is by profession a dedicated promoter of the Public Understanding of Science. In his view, understanding is clearly not to be achieved by looking at history, or at present or potential consequences of science and its practice for that same Public. I note these omissions because Dawkins implicitly defines science as a clear-eyed quest for truth, chaste as an algorithm, while religion is atavistic, mad, and mired in crime.

Since Dawkins’s declared intention in this book is to hearten the many atheists who, he is sure, exist, but who conceal their convictions for fear of disapproval or rejection, no doubt his tendentiousness is meant to be enjoyed by the like-minded, as is so much that is called
“objectivity” in these fulminating times.
Yet Dawkins is in earnest in presenting himself as a man in possession of liberating truth – another characteristic of the genre – and his readership is sure to be much wider than the crypto-atheist community. So it seems fair, if not strictly possible, to take him as seriously as he takes himself.

These are, certainly, troubled times. The tectonics of culture are suddenly active, and all the old rifts and stresses and pressures that seemed to have fallen dormant have awakened at once, with a great deal of portentous rumbling and spouting. The God Delusion is another instance of this phenomenon. Like so much of the contemporary clamor, it is out to name and denounce the great Satan, which in this case is religion. This view is commonplace now, in part because the institutions of religion, like the institutions of journalism and government, have done a great deal to trivialize or disgrace themselves lately.

The gravest questions about the institutions of contemporary science seem never to be posed, though we know the terrors of all-out conflict between civilizations would include innovations, notably those dread weapons of mass destruction, being made by scientists for any country with access to their skills. Granting for the purposes of argument that Dawkins is correct in the view that the majority of great scientists are atheists, we may then exclude religion from among the factors that recruit them to this somber work. We are left with nationalism, steady employment, good pay, the chance to do research that is lavishly funded and, by definition, cutting edge – familiar motives of a kind fully capable of disarming moral doubt. In any case, the crankiest imam, the oiliest televangelist, can, at his worst, only urge circumstances a degree or two farther toward the use of those exotic war technologies that are always ready, always waiting. If it is fair to speak globally of religion, it is also fair to speak globally of science.

There is a pervasive exclusion of historical memory in Dawkins’s view of science. Consider this sentence from his preface, which occurs in the context of his vision of a religion-free world: “Imagine . . . no persecution of Jews as ‘Christ-killers.'” In a later chapter he condemns Jews for discouraging “marrying out” and complains that such
“wanton and carefully nurtured divisiveness” is “a significant force for evil.” It is of course no criticism to say that he values the tradition of Judaism not at all, since this is only consistent with his view of religion in general. He seems unaware, however, that there was in fact significant intermarriage between Jews and gentiles in Europe as well as secularism and conversion among the Jews, and that this appears only to have fired the anti-Semitic imagination. While it is true that persecution of the Jews has a very long history in Europe, it is also true that science in the twentieth century revived and absolutized persecution by giving it a fresh rationale – Jewishness was not religious or cultural, but genetic. Therefore no appeal could be made against the brute fact of a Jewish grandparent.

Dawkins deals with all this in one sentence. Hitler did his evil “in the name of. . . an insane and unscientific eugenics theory.” But eugenics is science as surely as totemism is religion. That either is in error is beside the point. Science quite appropriately acknowledges that error should be assumed, and at best it proceeds by a continuous process of criticism meant to isolate and identify error. So bad science is still science in more or less the same sense that bad religion is still religion. That both of them can do damage on a huge scale is clear. The prestige of both is a great part of the problem, and in the modern period the credibility of anything called science is enormous. As the history of eugenics proves, science at the highest levels is no reliable corrective to the influence of cultural prejudice but is in fact profoundly vulnerable to it.

There is indeed historical precedent in the Spanish Inquisition for the notion of hereditary Judaism. But the fact that the worst religious thought of the sixteenth century can be likened to the worst scientific thought of the twentieth century hardly redounds to the credit of science. To illustrate the point: Dawkins tells the story of Edgardo Mortara, the Italian Jewish child taken from his family by the police in 1858 and reared by priests because he had been secretly baptized by a maid in his parents’ house. A terrible story indeed. And how might it have been worse? If the child had fallen, as in the next century so many would, into the hands of those who considered his Jewishness biological rather than religious and cultural. To Dawkins’s objection that Nazi science was not authentic science I would reply, first, that neither Nazis nor Germans had any monopoly on these theories, which were influential throughout the Western world, and second, that the research on human subjects carried out by those holding such assumptions was good enough science to appear in medical texts for fully half a century. This is not to single out science as exceptionally inclined to do harm, though its capacity for doing harm is by now unequaled. It is only to note that science, too, is implicated in this bleak human proclivity, and is one major instrument of it.

 

http://solutions.synearth.net/2006/10/20/

Edited by Illyrius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Saru said:

You seem to be on some kind of mission to expose how terrible you think atheists are.

I want to expose how terrible atheism is with 5 times more fire than Dawkins wants to expose how terrible religion is. If that is against the rules of this forum then i will draw away from here, it not - cool as.

As for inappropriate behaviour towards atheist members of this forum they are the ones that are chasing all spiritually minded people with their mockery and personal attacks all over the place, i am just speaking their own language back at them.

Edited by Illyrius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Illyrius said:

There is a pervasive exclusion of historical memory in Dawkins’s view of science. Consider this sentence from his preface, which occurs in the context of his vision of a religion-free world: “Imagine . . . no persecution of Jews as ‘Christ-killers.'” In a later chapter he condemns Jews for discouraging “marrying out” and complains that such

“wanton and carefully nurtured divisiveness” is “a significant force for evil.” It is of course no criticism to say that he values the tradition of Judaism not at all, since this is only consistent with his view of religion in general. He seems unaware, however, that there was in fact significant intermarriage between Jews and gentiles in Europe as well as secularism and conversion among the Jews, and that this appears only to have fired the anti-Semitic imagination. While it is true that persecution of the Jews has a very long history in Europe, it is also true that science in the twentieth century revived and absolutized persecution by giving it a fresh rationale – Jewishness was not religious or cultural, but genetic. Therefore no appeal could be made against the brute fact of a Jewish grandparent.

The Talmud prohibits intermarriage.

Actually Jewishness is subject to interpretation and NOT merely decided by genetics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew%3F

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
  • The topic was locked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.