Thread: interesting article

http://http://www.brisbanetimes.com....1026-hevx.html

You can pick the 100 flaws in this guys argument easily, but still an interesting view point. He gets (rightly)torn apart in the viewers comments after though.

Brick, it tells me the link is broken.

That it does. Disregard.

Atheism | anti-religion | Christopher Hitchins | Richard Dawkins | Dvir Abramovich

Actual link if anyone was interested...

Thanks for the link, it was an interesting article with intelligent responses. Christopher Hitchens was a thought provoking guest on Q & A a couple of weeks ago. I think I'll grab his book soon.

Originally Posted by scottie2301

Atheism | anti-religion | Christopher Hitchins | Richard Dawkins | Dvir Abramovich



Actual link if anyone was interested...

cheers mate! I had a epic fail trying to post the link.

Yeah, I quite liked the article. I certainly have no conflict between my version of Christianity and science. I've read Dawkins book and have Hitchens but I haven't read it yet. I have utmost respect for both men, but I think they are focussed very much on right wing evangelical religion. This is natural as these religious zealots are the one's pushing controversial, unscientific agendas. If I was a scientist like Dawkins, I would also have these attitudes. I would also note that Dawkins has been somewhat more accommodating as he has encountered more liberal Christians (who happen to have similar beliefs to myself) so I believe he is more open that what his book might imply.

I will always believe in an other. Its just part of my genetic makeup I think. I was considering the other day how many events and reactions must have happened since the big bang for me to now exist (impossible to count or know) but its pretty humbling. How do the inanimate atoms of the big bang come together in such a way as those inanimate atoms understand they exist in me.

It's pretty cool.

Carl Sagan rather poetically said when describing all the complexity of the Universe including you are I that "these are the things that hydrogen atoms do given 13.7 billion years".

I like the simplicity of this statement. For me it tends too nullify questions like why are we here or what is the meaning of life. And instead replaces them with awe for the power of time. Human beings have existed for a blink of an eye in the time line of the Universe & occupy but a pin prick in it's fabric. The Universe will continue too exist long after humanity and even this planet have but disappeared.

I agree with Azza with regard to Dawkins and how he apeared to devote alot of his book to the radical religous right of USA. However, to some degree it needs to be said, form here it appears that they are a pack of idiots who are pushing there agenda on every body else through politics. Take a look at the doings of Bush and you will see how successful that is. Dawkins is defending science as much as presenting the argument for Atheism. Science is under threat at the moment by these nit-wits who think that the universe popped out of gods rear end 10,000 years ago.
I personally feel offended that they want to push 'creationalism' in schools, they want to Darwin in schools and push the bible instead - this is religous fanatisim (google American Taliban). As a society intelligent poeple fought for hundreds of years for a seperation of church and state - that is what makes the west great - but they want to go back to the dark ages.
For a thousand years science was repressed by the church and finally (Gallileo, Darwin and others) we managed to push the churches head back in the sand (and end heresy laws) so that science could flourish without prosecution. As a reslut our society has grown to understand the scientific principles it has but if it wasn't for religion we would be 1000 years ahead (not to mention the womans issues - don't get me started there)
But religion threatens to rise up again and drag us back into the dark ages - this is evident in USA.
I think that is why Dawkins spends much of his book dealing with this American issue.
Thanks to our relaxed attitude we don't have the same issue over here in Oz.

My 2 bobs Peter

Staying out of this.... except to say this:

If there are some that choose to bash those with religious beliefs, then fine, do your worst, I've heard it all, and I really don't care anymore. But despite the pounding that some aspects of organised religion gets, there has still been an inordinate amount of good done for society in the name of various religions. I'd rather have it, than not.

Extremist claptrap by either side of the argument, does neither any good in my view.

T2

I agree that some good has come from religion but need to say this -

Humans are very irrelevent!

Nature does not need us but we need it in a big way. The extremists need to focus on nature - not holy wars.

Targeting the extreme elements of faith is easy. But though it may sound strange, extremism is not the problem.

What Hitches,Harris and to a degree Dawkins do, is show how its the "moderates" who let the extremests validate their cause.

The argunment of if we are better with or without religion is a great one. Religion provdeds framework, guidence and importance to ones life.

But you have to ask the question what is this framework based on?

The belief that good deeds done, and a life lived fairly will get you into an afterlife. This theme is common to monotheism and beyond. But it releys on you only doing good work so you get the pay off in heaven. In that way no of the work done by any charity or mission really counts as being altruistic.

A more moralistic approach, and an entirely secular one, is to do good things, becasue you want good things to be done to you( the golden rule!)


I was thinking the other day how people want to see Atheism as a type of belief system. It is not.

The difference is this. Those of faith must regularly attend gatherings to re-affirm their faith, simply becasue it really is a strange and unworkable concept that it must constantly be re-asserted.

You could arrive at a point of athiesm without very being told about it (like i did) unlike religious beliefs which must be introduced to you...

Originally Posted by Andypoo

Nature does not need us but we need it in a big way. The extremists need to focus on nature - not holy wars.

Isn' t that Green-peace?? :)

Originally Posted by Bricktop

A more moralistic approach, and an entirely secular one, is to do good things, becasue you want good things to be done to you( the golden rule!)

Yes doing good through want as opposed to "pressure" from a religous body is an interesting topic in itself.

And yes I'm a greenpeace member!

Originally Posted by Bricktop

Targeting the extreme elements of faith is easy. But though it may sound strange, extremism is not the problem.

What Hitches,Harris and to a degree Dawkins do, is show how its the "moderates" who let the extremests validate their cause.

The argunment of if we are better with or without religion is a great one. Religion provdeds framework, guidence and importance to ones life.

But you have to ask the question what is this framework based on?

The belief that good deeds done, and a life lived fairly will get you into an afterlife. This theme is common to monotheism and beyond. But it releys on you only doing good work so you get the pay off in heaven. In that way no of the work done by any charity or mission really counts as being altruistic.

A more moralistic approach, and an entirely secular one, is to do good things, becasue you want good things to be done to you( the golden rule!)


I was thinking the other day how people want to see Atheism as a type of belief system. It is not.

The difference is this. Those of faith must regularly attend gatherings to re-affirm their faith, simply becasue it really is a strange and unworkable concept that it must constantly be re-asserted.

You could arrive at a point of athiesm without very being told about it (like i did) unlike religious beliefs which must be introduced to you...

Yes, you're right about Hitchens and Dawkins, but I also think hitting up moderates is the weakest part of their arguments. It's like blaming the Liberals for Hitler or Labour for Communists. I think the argument is driven due to their experience that moderates often fail to speak up and be counted when the right wing fundamentalists are spreading their fallacies (perhaps myself included - although I'm much more left than moderate).

I also reject your arguments on the afterlife. Most western christians give the afterlife hardly any thought. I always find it incredible that those who believe in a wonderful afterlife are those that fight harder than anyone to stay on Earth. People do use religion to establish a moral mindset to do good works. Also, the secular view discounts altuism as being inherently selfish (the selfish gene)...so we're damned either way (either a religious nut or a selfish git)!

Also, I ask, who introduced the original religious thought? Animals do not have religious thoughts, so it must have been an original concept to someone at sometime. In fact, look at any society (our on Aboriginal nation for example) and they have derived their own spirituality, when logically atheism should be the default position. So, I think the evidence shows that if you leave a bunch of humans around long enough, spirituality arises naturally rather than atheism, which is logically deduced. Maybe that is the god gene in our mind that science has been investigating?

In the end, I see religion as art - it is human being's unique attempts to explain the unexplainable and the mystery of life. Call it time, call it creativity, call it mystery, call it God. We will never really know. Viewed in this way, religion can be beautiful. Move it out of the artistic and metaphoric (that is, literalise it) and it will always become a tool of oppression.

I also note that the Uniting Church has taken the somewhat controversial step to introduce a preamble into its Constitution recognising God's work in the spirituality of the Aboriginal people and the sins of the Church in dealing with them. A very brave move of which I'm proud.