I’ve just picked up my own copy of The God Delusion and I’m going to start making some headway into it. Originally I didn’t want to support The Idiot but then I realised I’m going to have so much fuin getting angry and debating the whole thing that he should be rewarded for that.
My first, mysteriously disappeared, comment waffled on but the only thing that was close to a point was why is science the right yardstick for determining (G/g)od?
Having read the more recent comments I’m kind of worried. I’m worried that this is going to sound like personal attacks but some of the things here seem to be an atheist parallel of religious fundamentalism. Strokey said that he didn’t believe in the Bible. Now I’m assuming that you believe it exists, so do you disbelieve what it says? In what way? Is the whole thing a pack of lies? Do you disagree with the message that it puts forward? The Bible (in litteral terms) contradicts its message a couple fo times so disbelieving the whole thing can be tricky. Where would your morals stand if you reject entirely a wide-ranging book of morals? I do not believe in many of the Buddhist ‘teachings’ and would not call myself Buddhist should anyone ask, but I do not reject everything about the faith.
Secondly, restlessboy quoted The Idiot. He says that nobody thought that religion was dangerous from the start of religious beliefe up until 11/9/2001 ACE? I want everybody reading this to come up with five different examples of when religions has been dangerous prior to 11/9/01. You can all do it and if you put in the time you could come up with fifteen examples from before the birth of Jesus.
But he’s invoked the magical touchstone of 9/11! Command! And we shall follow unquestioningly! Well, he says that because of 9/11 we shouldn’t just wipe out Muslims, we should wipe out every religious person.
No, I’m not being unfair when I say that. That’s what he’s saying. That I am too dangerous to be allowed to live in case I decide to murder a few thousand people under the instructions of God. If I forsake religion, join the military and man the firing mechanism of thermo-nuclear weaponry and commit wholesale slaughter of thousands for my county that’s hunky-dory. But if I want to go to church on Sundays and donate to the charity collection I must be stopped, for I am in the same boat as those 9/11 hijackers.
The Idiot can’t seem to realise that being a twat and being religious are independent of each other. Neither implies nor necessitates the other. He also seems to think that religion is a reason behind all wars that had a religious influence. I’m not stupid enough to say that no war in history has been fought on solely religious grounds but I’m also not dense enough to believe that there would be significantly fewer conflicts if there were no religion. Aesop said that the strong will find a reason to do what they want. Getting rid of religion will not change what the strong want to do.
Let’s assume that Dawkins gets what he wants (God forbid), will he go after countries next? When people start doing and believeing things without evidence will he go after countries? When people commit terrible acts in the name of their families against people “labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition” and surname will he propose that the family unit be scrapped? Or will he realise that some people are just twats.