The God Delusion

Started by Strangelove2 pages

The God Delusion

This new book, by Richard Dawkins, is a criticism of the basic tenets of all monotheistic faiths. An outspoken athiest and scientist who studies ethics, his books and documentaries have dealt with the pseudosciences within religion to how the world would be better off without religion. In his new book, The God Delusion he makes the claim that God does not exist. He quotes Douglas Adams:

"Religion ... has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. What it means is, 'Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? - because you're not. If someone votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. ... But on the other hand, if somebody says 'I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday', you say 'I respect that.'"

The book is out now

The God Delusion (Wikipedia)

Dawkins is a smart man.

Is he one of the people trying to get "under God" taken from the Pledge of Allegiance?

It should be taken out of the Plege of allegience because it was added as a bastardization of the original text. Under God in 1954 does not equal under god in 1776.

"god" had different meanings, which these assholes seem to have problems understanding.

The original Pledge, written in 1892: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

They changed 'my flag' to 'the flag of the United States of America' in 1924, so immigrants would know which flag they were pledging allegiance to

The addition of 'Under God' was passed by Congress in 1954, and the idea was originally Abraham Lincoln's, but President Eisenhower was convinced to do it, by a minister (surprised?)

I don't really mind the first one, i think we can clarify which flag we are talking about (it is the US pledge of allegience).

The second one bothers me. A LOT.

Athieism needs to chill, I'm not in any way Religious, yet I have no problem with saying it, why do you? Is it somehow hurting you? The Nation was based on Christian Morals and such

Yo. You're also the same guy yo tried to the pull the religious people have more morals one on us.

This nation is NOT based on Christian morals. If it is...name them.

Originally posted by Alliance
Yo. You're also the same guy yo tried to the pull the religious people have more morals one on us.

This nation is NOT based on Christian morals. If it is...name them.

Actually, I did not, you twisted my words in that sense, the only thing I said was that "I prefer people THAT NEED IT to have Religion for Morals" that in no way implies that, but because you're an Athiest, anything mentioning Religion means BADNESS

1.)The Nation, settlers and such, were here for RELIGIOUS Freedom, their own ways of Christianity
2.)The Equality stated in that is based on the Bible's saying all people are Equal

More than this, but those are off the top of my head

I love how no Athiest can ever Answer WHY it's bad, or reasons for getting rid of it

I think it's because you want Religion completely removed from everything, the Athiest Religion hates Religion. But they won't say it, I do not see why you have a problem with it, I'm far from being Religious, yet there COULD be, shutting that away is kinda Illogical

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
I love how no Athiest can ever Answer WHY it's bad, or reasons for getting rid of it
This is the reason I agree with:

"Some critics assert that the under God clause seriously weakens the Pledge of Allegiance; they claim that the religious can view the phrase as an out-clause, qualifying their pledge, so that their allegiance is only binding when the nation acts in accordance with their perception of God's will."

Originally posted by Strangelove
This is the reason I agree with:

"Some critics assert that the under God clause seriously weakens the Pledge of Allegiance; they claim that the religious can view the phrase as an out-clause, qualifying their pledge, so that their allegiance is only binding when the nation acts in accordance with their perception of God's will."

Right....

Again I say how it is bad....

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
Actually, I did not, you twisted my words in that sense, the only thing I said was that "I prefer people THAT NEED IT to have Religion for Morals" that in no way implies that, but because you're an Athiest, anything mentioning Religion means BADNESS

I'm not twisting, you ssaid people who are religous are more moral (except for yourself, of course).

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
The Nation, settlers and such, were here for RELIGIOUS Freedom, their own ways of Christianity

So, that has nothign to do with the creation of the US govenrmnet. This is a JIA agument.

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
The Equality stated in that is based on the Bible's saying all people are Equal
Really, since the bible has slavery, mentions how you can sell your daughter, stone homosexuals, and defines a "natural role" for women. Have you even read the bible? Clearly, in its literal sense, it says nothing about equality. If the bible and Christianity were so important....why is the Constitution devoid of the Bible and stock full of enlightenment philosophy?

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
More than this, but those are off the top of my head

Thats a short list for such an overwhelming and obvious connection.

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
I love how no Athiest can ever Answer WHY it's bad, or reasons for getting rid of it

I've answered repeatedly what I see as the problems of religion. Just because you weren't here or didn't take the time to read what I wrote, doesn't mean I didn't say it. This leads us to....

Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
I think it's because you want Religion completely removed from everything, the Athiest Religion hates Religion. But they won't say it, I do not see why you have a problem with it, I'm far from being Religious, yet there COULD be, shutting that away is kinda Illogical

1. There is no Atheist religion. This has been proven over and over again.

2. I don't think religion should be removed form everything. There is sensible religion and there is crap religion. JIA and the kind fall under the crap category. Christian soup kitchens fall under the good category.

You need to realize that we live in a pluralistic society. This soicety needs to take positions that are not exclusive to people. This nation is not "under god" that implies that the US has some sort of supernatural mandate. "In god we trust" is a reference to the deist statement and is in light with the positions held by the founding fathers. "god" was a natural order and it was natural for all men to be created equal. THAT is a differnce, despite the fact that you seem too dull to divide it.

There are many good aspects to religion, but I've seen both directly and indirectly the havoc it can wreck. I've also seen its good side.

In fact, since you have me so figured out, you'd remember my threat that said that we should increase the use of religion government. Remeber that? Oh...thats right. This government needs to re-discover its deist roots and start talking about government as a religion again. I don't support Bush's "god-this" and "god-that," but I do support statements like "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

You're the one who has to figure out his contradictory stance.

You see?

Yet, why not something that we cannot comprehend?.....

what?

Something.

yeah...exactly.

Infact who could really explain quantum to someone in the year 343 bc.??

Could be like this to us.

The point is, who can explain quantum mech today?

well, you could follow atheism thinking that religion is what causes wars; on the other hand, you could be religious because you believe religion gives inner peace, which ever flavor sounds better

rather over-simplified.