Posted on 10/31/2006 4:41:17 AM PST by zippy the razor
Dawkins ducks the question about Stalinism. The charge is that religion produces fanaticism and that his form of Enlightenment does not. But he is wrong just as Voltaire was wrong, and hardly was Voltaire in his grave when the Jacobins' Reign of Terror proved how frail a vessel human reason is in opposition to the will to power.
At some point you are going to have to conclude that it isn't religion or no religion. It's people. They can bring evil out anything. Without good religion with its moral boundaries, what's to restrain them?
And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ ... 2 Corintians 4:3-4
To have faith requires no self hypnosis but self hypnosois requires having faith.
You know, you seem polite, what with your use of the word "please" and all. Yet your condescending tone and air of superiority make it difficult to take you seriously. I admit I know nothing of self hypnosis, so since you obviously know nothing about having faith in anything by yourself, I suggest you contact a local pastor that can help you understand the difference between faith and self-hypnosis.
But every muslim is an eater! Just like the great example you came up with -- Dahmer, "The Eater".
True, but they usually try harder to hide it from the public. Dawkins is blowing their cover, sort of like the Australian mufti :-).
Wow, an intolerant, self-righteous, and bigoted statement pointing out the intolerance, self-righteousness, and bigotry of a huge group of people. Cool.
As a biologist myself I take great offense at the idea that people of my profession and educational background are the second-most horrible group you can think of. Biologists are the folks who bringing you modern medicine. Biologists are the people who are working on the defenses against agents of biological warfare (and, in truth, the people creating such agents in the first place). Biologists are the folks who are responsible for a several-fold increase in the agricultural productivity of the worlds farms in just the last few decades. So if atheistic biologists aren't your cup of tea, head somewhere where you won't be needing our services.
As for Dawkins, as distasteful as his ideas may be, I think they serve a necessary role. He is to atheism and agnosticism as evangelicals are to Christianity. It's his job to get people riled up and force people to think and defend their position by presenting a well-constructed (if ultimately flawed) argument. More critical thinking isn't a bad thing.
I don't accept religion without questioning. I don't have blind faith in the Bush administration or any other without questioning their motives and correctness of their decisions, and doing so constantly. This is part of an enlightened existence, and if Dawkin's rabble-rousing gets people to think more, then he's a welcome addition to the cultural conversation.
I believe he's literally, 100% correct. There are misguided people who will become evil through a misinterpretation of the average religious faith. Be it Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism...whatever...someone's going to go sideways in their faith and cross the line into evil.
But you can't become evil if you're a Stalinist, because you have to be evil to become a Stalinist. That is to say, a prerequisite to being a Stalinist is being evil.
Much the same way that true Satanism doesn't create evil people, people who become true Satanists are evil before they become Satanists.
Subsequently, between religious faith and Stalinism, religious faith will inherently create more evil people simply because Stalinists can't be made evil. They already are.
umm...probably the word "self".
Self hypnosis is you doing something to yourself. Having faith is an appeal to another, higher understanding.
Dawkins, like most atheist fundamentalists, sets up a straw man. He says that people believe that their faith must not be questioned and they have pat answers for everything. Some people are like that but I daresay that most folks (excluding the Islamists) don't go around demanding that no one question their beliefs.
And most people, if they are honest, will admit to having doubts and will admit that not every question has been answered. And how often do we even know we are asking the right questions? This struggle should not be confused with the self-satisfied complacency of the liberal churches that have given up on answers -- they tend to believe that there is no such thing as an answer or if there is an answer, it will not likely involve God. There is the easy believeism of the religious fanatic but there is also the easy skepticism of people who exclude God or believe that no answers are possible.
Well said and nice post. Especially this part.
As always, follow the money trail. Dawkins writes for a niche market that will line up to buy his book before it is even published as long as it speaks hatefully of our Creator.
Dawkins is a high priest and prophet of his own religion. Seculariam is a religion. Atheism is a religion. And the sect Dawkins leads is particularly hate-filled and full of zealots.
Mr. Dawkins is apparently under the impression that faith is strictly a religious principle. Not true. It is a strong belief in something unseen based on previous experiences or personal evidences. We do not see the sun during the night but we have faith that it will rise in the morning. When we start our car in the morning, we have faith (some of us, anyway) that it will start. If we drop a ball off the side of a building, we have faith that it will fall to the ground.
Faith, true faith, is based in truth. Faith without evidence or personal experience is merely wishful thinking, bias or, in this case, political expediency.
I once knew a wise if somewhat vulgar man who stated "Only two things inspire men to great deeds. Those are an afterlife and a piece of ass." Those great deeds can be greatly good or greatly evil.
Islam as the most intolerant and violent of the current crop of religions as evidenced by the headlines. Haven't heard anything about militant Methodist suicide bombers or Amish drive by shooters. Not always so, as anyone who has read the history of Christianity will testify. Read the details of the crusades, inquisitions, and forced conversions of the past 1500 years or so before you tell me that followers of Christ do no evil.
I don't know much about Buddhism. Have militant Buddhists ever wreaked havoc anywhere?
Someone splain the gulags to this guy
The difference being that under a Christian state, you are free to express your opinion. Under an atheist state, you end up in a labor camp. It's no accident that all the atheist states in the 20th Century turned out to be the worst human rights offenders.
Wow...well done!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.