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 -
crookedspiral

Richard Dawkins and Christianity

1,158 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

danydandan
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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Illyrius
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Illyrius

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Illyrius
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.