Monday, September 17, 2007 | Reason : Science of Religion | print version

Print | Comments |

Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

by Richard Dawkins, The Independent

Reposted from:
http://comment.independent.co.uk/letters/article2970799.ece

[Below is the full, un-edited letter originally sent to The Independent]

Sir: Peter Stanford ("Doubts about Dawkins",14 September) writes that the recent books by Christopher Hitchens and me "deserve a decent response. But how to fashion it?" A decent start would be to read them. Page 1 of The God Delusion would suffice to demonstrate that I don't "caricature all church-goers as simple-minded fundamentalists" (Google: "Affection that I still retain for the Church"). Of course the church-goers that Stanford or I meet socially are not simple-minded fundamentalists. Unfortunately they are heavily outnumbered, especially in the most powerful country on Earth where nearly half the population believes the universe began after the domestication of the dog, and a slightly smaller proportion yearns for a Middle East Armageddon when they'll be raptured out of their clothes and "up" to Heaven. These people have the vote and we all live with the consequences, which are made all the more dangerous by the equally simple-minded fundamentalists of the Islamic world.

The "response" that Stanford recommends, by John Cornwell, does not display a very Christian standard of decency, as Stanford will discover if he Googles "Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity". He may have better luck with some of the other thirteen "replies" that have been published, under titles that monotonously permute "Dawkins", "God" and "Delusion", many in jackets that are equally derivative (Google: "The Fleas are Multiplying").

Cornwell's slighting of my reading list is singled out for special praise by Stanford. This is a stock criticism. It assumes that there is a serious subject called Theology, which one must study in depth before one can disbelieve in God. My own stock reply (Would you need to read learned volumes on Leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns?) is now superseded by P Z Myers' brilliant satire on the Emperor's New Clothes (Google "Courtier's Reply").

Stanford's trump card is his observation that "religion is not primarily about belief, as we understand the word today, but faith." Religion, as he sums it up, "simply isn't about facts." Exactly. I couldn't have put it better myself.

Richard Dawkins
Oxford

[Also see this forum post by Richard, which is a follow-up letter to The Independent highlighting some errors.]

Posted: Monday, September 17, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1301 - 1332 of 1332 | | View Alternate Comment Thread

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1301. Comment #79758 by Goldy on October 18, 2007 at 1:02 pm

Rev, they could have called you Shirley...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Crabtree

Other Comments by Goldy

1302. Comment #79826 by revcort on October 18, 2007 at 4:21 pm

Yeah, I suppose it could have been worse. Shirley would have been pretty tough. (though the guy on that link looks pretty tough :D) I also have a good friend, who is a guy, named Ashley. So, that's a tough one too. My first name is Darryl and people ask me all the time why I don't just go by that. Of course, the answer is that my mom would be heartbroken. (Courtney was her idea)

Regarding walk's question- I have 2 answers, but you guys deny either of them point to God.

#1 The Universe- All of Nature points to a Creator.
#2 The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Now, of course, you've explained the universe by evolution and you deny that Jesus was even a real person, so there's not much more I can give you.

Other Comments by revcort

1303. Comment #79828 by Paul Creber on October 18, 2007 at 4:34 pm

Revcort 1305 Now, of course, you've explained the universe by evolution and you deny that Jesus was even a real person, so there's not much more I can give you.

Perhaps you haven't been reading our posts as carefully as you might. I don't think anyone here has "explained the universe by evolution". We have offered evolution as by far the best explanation for the nature, diversity and huge longevity of life, but the universe itself remains largely an enigma, as I'm sure the scientists here will agree.
It is also an unfair blanket statement to suggest that everyone here denies that Jesus was a real person. Many of us accept that he probably existed, but maintain that the tales surrounding his life merely grew with the telling.
Just thought I'd put you straight on those two points.

Other Comments by Paul Creber

1304. Comment #79829 by Goldy on October 18, 2007 at 4:37 pm

Can't really explain the Universe by evolution. However, there apppear to be scientific data that suggest strongly that it was not created by God (for it is he you are referring to). I'll leave the creation of the Universe for those more in tune with that research.
Jesus - hmmm - life and death, maybe. Resurrection? That's right up there with amputees regrowing limbs. Maybe there was a Jesus. Maybe he did die. Or if not, he looked it - and hence we get resurrection. But there are so many similarities between this story and older myths in the Middle East - some of which were current at the time he was supposed ot have lived in. And, of course, the main meat of the NT was not from him - it was from others, some of whom, as has been pointed out to me on this site, seem to be rather adept salesmen ("Nah, don't worry, squire! You don't need to stop eating pork. Nah, God, through his son Jesus, said it was OK now..." That sort of thing).
We'd just like some more....concrete answers. After all, if a Mormon came to you and told you all about how Mormonism began and why it is the true religion, would you believe him?

Other Comments by Goldy

1305. Comment #79830 by steve99 on October 18, 2007 at 4:39 pm

Regarding walk's question- I have 2 answers, but you guys deny either of them point to God.

#1 The Universe- All of Nature points to a Creator.
#2 The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Now, of course, you've explained the universe by evolution and you deny that Jesus was even a real person, so there's not much more I can give you.

The thing is, we know with high confidence that 1) is simply not true. We know of two mechanisms that can produce what looks like design - non-equlibrium thermodynamics and Natural Selection. These aren't theoretical - we see them both in action all the time, including the evolution of new species. To insist that all the Universe points to design after knowing about these phenomena is like continuing to believe that a card trick is real magic after someone has shown you how it is done - simply deluded.

And the evidence that Christ rose from the dead simply is not there; at least no more there than other supposed messias around at that time of history. Someone had to be chosen by later writers to promote their views; the story of Jesus did the trick. There are all kinds of stories like that of Christ spread through history. Why should be pick one of them and call it 'genuine'? (And no, saying is written in a book does not help, as there are other books)

A good way to understand how some of us feel is to think how you might feel if you came to see all the evidence and explanations of how the Universe worked before you came across the bible. It is virtually never the case that someone who has been through this process considers the bible a better or more useful explanation - they usually consider the bible a collection of ancient stories. The other explanations are not only simpler, but we can actually use those explanations to make things better for us.

Other Comments by steve99

1306. Comment #79831 by Bonzai on October 18, 2007 at 4:44 pm

Here is a take on Jesus by a rather unconventional "Christian" theologian. Tom Harpur's theme is that the early Christians understood the story of Jesus was a myth, it was a fable. Like other ancient mythologies it contains deep spiritual insights and profound truth about our place in the grand scheme of things but it was not meant to be taken as factual. He noted that archaeological findings in all earliest Chrsitian sites indicated that Christianity was a mystical religion. Then Paul came along and fabricated the whole history of Jesus out of Judiasm and Roman myths and created literal Christianity (the brand of Christianity that treats Jesus as an actual person and his story as historical fact)He then launched a hostile take over of other Christian sects.

Harpur argues that Jesus' life and teaching are not unique, they fit into a recurring motif in many mystical traditions. This, to him, is an indication that the teaching of Jesus is more universal than Christians traditionally acknowledge.

I wonder what is Brother John or Revort's view on this if either has read the book. If not may be you'll be intrigued enough to have a look based on the reviews.

http://www.tomharpur.com/books/books_thepaganchrist.asp

Other Comments by Bonzai

1307. Comment #79835 by Goldy on October 18, 2007 at 4:55 pm

If I can add to Bonzai's suggestion, try also Eden in the East, by Oppenheimer http://www.amazon.com/Eden-East-Drowned-Continent-Southeast/dp/0753806797
One man's thoughts, as good as anyone elses...

Other Comments by Goldy

1308. Comment #79868 by revcort on October 18, 2007 at 9:22 pm

1309. Comment #79831 by Bonzai on October 18, 2007 at 4:44 pm

Here is a take on Jesus by a rather unconventional "Christian" theologian. Tom Harpur's theme is that the early Christians understood the story of Jesus was a myth, it was a fable. Like other ancient mythologies it contains deep spiritual insights and profound truth about our place in the grand scheme of things but it was not meant to be taken as factual. He noted that archaeological findings in all earliest Chrsitian sites indicated that Christianity was a mystical religion. Then Paul came along and fabricated the whole history of Jesus out of Judiasm and Roman myths and created literal Christianity (the brand of Christianity that treats Jesus as an actual person and his story as historical fact)He then launched a hostile take over of other Christian sects.

Harpur argues that Jesus' life and teaching are not unique, they fit into a recurring motif in many mystical traditions. This, to him, is an indication that the teaching of Jesus is more universal than Christians traditionally acknowledge.

I wonder what is Brother John or Revort's view on this if either has read the book. If not may be you'll be intrigued enough to have a look based on the reviews.

http://www.tomharpur.com/books/books_thepaganchrist.asp

Well Bonzai, I checked out those links. And it's old news. It's gnosticism, plain and simple. (part of the conspiracy brought up by the DaVinci Code) This guy is taking his lead from the gnostic gospels of Thomas, Judas, Mary, etc. And, if you want to believe those versions of the story of Jesus' life, then you're really having to go on faith. We don't even know who wrote those books. We DO know they weren't written by Thomas, Judas or Mary though. They picture a Jesus who floats around on the earth and wasn't a real person, but more like a spirit.

They also came long after the fact. You say that the Apostle Paul created the idea of a literal Jesus, but at least he actually lived during the time of Jesus' "alleged" life. The gnostic gospel of Thomas, for example, was not even preserved at all initially because of its strange teachings (I'm sure you'll call this conspiracy to cover up a non-orthodox writing). It is estimated to have been written during the mid-second century AD.

Compare to the dates of some other Christian writings... years A.D. or C.E. as you'd prefer
50-60 1 Thessalonians
50-60 Philippians
50-60 Galatians
50-60 1 Corinthians
50-60 2 Corinthians
50-60 Romans
50-60 Philemon
50-80 Colossians
50-95 Book of Hebrews
65-80 Gospel of Mark
70-100 Epistle of James
80-100 2 Thessalonians
80-100 Ephesians
80-100 Gospel of Matthew
80-110 1 Peter
80-130 Gospel of Luke
80-130 Acts of the Apostles
90-120 Gospel of John
90-120 1 John
90-120 2 John
90-120 3 John
90-120 Epistle of Jude
100-150 1 Timothy
100-150 2 Timothy
100-150 Titus

One thing that should tip us off is the distance from the actual events that the gnostic literature was written. That's a big red flag- or should be.

Have you ever read any of the writings of these people? It is freakish stuff like you wouldn't believe. It makes Jesus sound like a madman. And it amazes me that anyone would rather listen to these than the Gospels with authentic authorship. (i'm not saying Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were the actual scribes in every case, but they are based on their actual teachings by their contemporaries) It is yet another example of the lengths to which people will go to deny the truth. They would claim authority from something as foolish as gnosticism in order to deny Jesus was a literal person.

So, it's no wonder that a person, relying on the traditions of the gnostics, would conclude that Jesus wasn't an actual historical figure. They were attempting to make their own cult based on the success of Christianity.

Here's an excerpt:

11 Jesus said, "This heaven will pass away, and the one above it will pass away.

The dead are not alive, and the living will not die. During the days when you ate what is dead, you made it come alive. When you are in the light, what will you do? On the day when you were one, you became two. But when you become two, what will you do?"

12 The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?"

Jesus said to them, "No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being."

13 Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me to something and tell me what I am like."

Simon Peter said to him, "You are like a just messenger."

Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher."

Thomas said to him, "Teacher, my mouth is utterly unable to say what you are like."

Jesus said, "I am not your teacher. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring that I have tended."

And he took him, and withdrew, and spoke three sayings to him. When Thomas came back to his friends they asked him, "What did Jesus say to you?"

Thomas said to them, "If I tell you one of the sayings he spoke to me, you will pick up rocks and stone me, and fire will come from the rocks and devour you."

14 Jesus said to them, "If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourselves, and if you pray, you will be condemned, and if you give to charity, you will harm your spirits.

There's some really weird stuff there people. But, by all means, take it as truer that the synoptic Gospels.

Other Comments by revcort

1309. Comment #79885 by Philip1978 on October 19, 2007 at 12:44 am

"Thomas said to them, "If I tell you one of the sayings he spoke to me, you will pick up rocks and stone me, and fire will come from the rocks and devour you."

I really don't understand what this has to do with what Jesus was asking them to do, he was asking them what they thought he was and then dear old Thomas marches back and says this, why? Isn't that all a little bit harsh?

I like the idea that Jesus in this story is asking his friends, well then chaps, who or what do you think I am? Fine, makes sense that the guy is seeing if his friends truly know what he is up to, makes some kind of sense to me. But to then add this ridiculous "you will have to stone me and then fire will devour you etc" sounds more like Eddie Izzard the comedian going off on of his hilarious but obscure tangents. Its a bit like saying "I went into a shop to buy a newspaper and whilst talking to the proprietor of the shop about the World Cup Rugby he suddenly turned into a large chocolate radiator called Geoff!" This is what it is like for me reading the Bible, you sit there and normal things are happening and the suddenly its all chocolate radiators!

I think this is why I can't read the bible properly, my brain cannot cope with the weirdness and continually questions it rather than just accepting it.

Revcort, how do you cope with it all?

Every time I read something like the pigs on a marathon story or Jesus's feet washing obsession, I immediately start thinking, well, why do that? Being Jesus surely he could get demons to sod off just by sending them away, pigs dont have to run 20 odd miles to jump off a cliff to get rid of them. Plus being the son of God don't you think he could keep his feet clean and smelling great purely by His divine will! Its just so odd and peculiar!

Ah well, at least I am sane enough to hear the Call of the Kettle telling me its 08:43 and its Time for Tea!
Beep! :)
Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

1310. Comment #79911 by Goldy on October 19, 2007 at 2:50 am

There's some really weird stuff there people. But, by all means, take it as truer that the synoptic Gospels.

Well, taking ANY of it as true is kinda freaky to me...walking on water, anyone? Feeding 5000 with a couple of fish and a loaf or two? Changing water into wine (actually, I sort of did that too. They were too drunk to notice...)? Dying and then coming back from the dead? I'm sure there are other stories which fall into the rather odd category :-)
And there was a long thread with a Christadelphian convinced of the veracity of Ezekiels prophesies regarding Tyre. I mean, have you read the first chapter of Ezekiel? This should give one confidence in his prophesies?

Other Comments by Goldy

1311. Comment #79966 by revcort on October 19, 2007 at 9:37 am

1312. Comment #79885 by Philip1978 on October 19, 2007 at 12:44 am

"Thomas said to them, "If I tell you one of the sayings he spoke to me, you will pick up rocks and stone me, and fire will come from the rocks and devour you."

I really don't understand what this has to do with what Jesus was asking them to do, he was asking them what they thought he was and then dear old Thomas marches back and says this, why? Isn't that all a little bit harsh?

I like the idea that Jesus in this story is asking his friends, well then chaps, who or what do you think I am? Fine, makes sense that the guy is seeing if his friends truly know what he is up to, makes some kind of sense to me. But to then add this ridiculous "you will have to stone me and then fire will devour you etc" sounds more like Eddie Izzard the comedian going off on of his hilarious but obscure tangents. Its a bit like saying "I went into a shop to buy a newspaper and whilst talking to the proprietor of the shop about the World Cup Rugby he suddenly turned into a large chocolate radiator called Geoff!" This is what it is like for me reading the Bible, you sit there and normal things are happening and the suddenly its all chocolate radiators!

I think this is why I can't read the bible properly, my brain cannot cope with the weirdness and continually questions it rather than just accepting it.

Revcort, how do you cope with it all?

Every time I read something like the pigs on a marathon story or Jesus's feet washing obsession, I immediately start thinking, well, why do that? Being Jesus surely he could get demons to sod off just by sending them away, pigs dont have to run 20 odd miles to jump off a cliff to get rid of them. Plus being the son of God don't you think he could keep his feet clean and smelling great purely by His divine will! Its just so odd and peculiar!

Ah well, at least I am sane enough to hear the Call of the Kettle telling me its 08:43 and its Time for Tea!
Beep! :)
Philip

Philip, that section that I quoted is not Scripture- it is the gospel of Thomas, which was written by a heretic. It is NOT Scripture. I was quoting it to illustrate how freakish the gnostics were. I do not believe that is inspired writing.

Other Comments by revcort

1312. Comment #79969 by oxytocin on October 19, 2007 at 10:24 am

I'm sorry, but I truly fail to see how the gnostic gospels, written by heretics as they were, are any more "freakish" than the canonical texts. The gospels make Jesus appear like a madman as well...only your preconception of what Jesus must have been like differentiates one type of madness from another. Who's to say a magical person wouldn't speak like in the gnostic gospels? Jesus performs parlour tricks and then convinces people to follow him and leave their families behind. Are we to believe that this is not madness?

Also, the temporal distances between many of the books in the bible and the time of Christ are quite robust. I mean, who would think to write a newspaper article on an event that took place in 2007 in 2157 [i.e., like Titus]? How accurate would that be? Does it make a difference, especially in a largely non-literate culture, how temporally removed the gnostic gospels are? Nearly all the books in the current version of the bible fall victim to this very same phenomenon.

Other Comments by oxytocin

1313. Comment #79974 by steve99 on October 19, 2007 at 10:54 am

Judas, Mary, etc. And, if you want to believe those versions of the story of Jesus' life, then you're really having to go on faith.

And you don't for the other versions? Why not? I am serious - do you realise who chose which versions of the story to include in the bible? Why should you trust them?

Other Comments by steve99

1314. Comment #79981 by Bonzai on October 19, 2007 at 1:00 pm

Well I don't know if Tom Harpur even "believes" in the gnostic gospels. Not having read his book but based on a few interviews I think his point is that the early Christians never took the story of Jesus as factual but they understood the whole thing as a sort of mythical poetry. If he is right the early gnostic didn't really think there was a magic man called Jesus who "floated around".

Other Comments by Bonzai

1315. Comment #80107 by irate_atheist on October 20, 2007 at 2:21 am

Hello revcort -

Nice to see you're still trying to defend your own brand of (in)sanity.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

1316. Comment #80108 by Goldy on October 20, 2007 at 2:33 am

How would it have been, Rev, if they had chosen the Gospel of Thomas at the Synod of Niceae? Can you imagine if it had been Scripture?
Of course, you'll say that God had a hand in it - though who is to say the writer of that gospel was not as filled with the holy spirit as any other?

Other Comments by Goldy

1317. Comment #80376 by Mr DArcy on October 21, 2007 at 2:01 pm

Although this particular thread seems to have run out of steam, I hope that revcort, brother john, and any other believer ( including The Wee Flea), will feel comfortable enough to join us again.

I for one, would like to know if revcort found anything at the creation museum that confirmed him in his young Earth beliefs or indeed raised some questions. Also how's the dating of rocks research going? I suspect stoney silence and only scripture, but I'm always prepared to be proved wrong.

Other Comments by Mr DArcy

1318. Comment #82787 by CHeard on October 27, 2007 at 3:00 pm

Hey - I just wanted to apologize to those of you (Quine, gr8hands, Veronique, etc.) with whom I was conversing on this threat for dropping out of sight. I've been very busy offline and, also, I live in southern California and the last week I have been preoccupied with the fires & catching up after the fires. Hope we have more chances to converse on other threads.

Other Comments by CHeard

1319. Comment #82791 by Corylus on October 27, 2007 at 3:25 pm

CHeard.

The news reports on this were just awful.

Obviously, an unbelievably stressful and distressing time for so many people.

Best wishes.
C.

Other Comments by Corylus

1320. Comment #82800 by Quine on October 27, 2007 at 4:45 pm

Chris,

Thanks for checking in, and I am glad to hear you are okay. I have been thinking of you as I have watched the Malibu fire. I live in a forest in Northern California, so fire is not a remote idea. Also, I have firefighter relatives and friends who are down there (now, mostly mopping up). Part of my college education was in Hollywood, and as a young guy my friends and I would ride bicycles through the canyons around Topanga and down to the ocean, so watching the live video feed was riveting. Again, thanks for letting us know.

Other Comments by Quine

1321. Comment #187250 by empyredon on June 1, 2008 at 4:27 pm

Comment #71084 by revcort

"whom He has taught to love Him"

Has He, taught You?

Other Comments by empyredon

1322. Comment #199498 by Shrommer on June 25, 2008 at 9:01 pm

Dawkins' column talks out of two sides of the mouth. He starts off by saying that a good start would be to read the books of your opponent in a debate, but he ends by saying that you don't need to read the works of an opponent in order to conclude that what they're saying is false.

The same argument works both ways. I don't have to read theology before I can start disbelieving in God, and I don't have to read atheist works before I can start disbelieving in atheism.

The idea of there being no intelligent ancestor prior to an intelligent one is just so far out I had might as well believe in leprechauns.

Dawkins is trying to say that we shouldn't reason through the issues; we should simply accept what he says at face value with no study and no deep thinking to bear on the issues. I think we should study these things out in order to see what is true.

Other Comments by Shrommer

1323. Comment #199500 by Styrer- on June 25, 2008 at 9:08 pm

Comment #199498 by Shrommer on June 25, 2008 at 9:01 pm

Hello again Shrommer

Got any evidence for that deity of yours yet?

Looking forward to it all in your next post.

Thanks so much.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

1324. Comment #199504 by Goldy on June 25, 2008 at 9:23 pm

He can start with the resurrection - and he mustn't use this thread as an example ;-)

Other Comments by Goldy

1325. Comment #199505 by 8teist on June 25, 2008 at 9:25 pm

I aint holding my breath.
Hi Goldy, hey you read Garth George in the NZ Herald this morning...Hahahahahahahahahahahah

If I knew how to link it I would

Other Comments by 8teist

1326. Comment #199511 by Goldy on June 25, 2008 at 9:40 pm

8teist - you mean this?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10518356
He annoys me. So does that Tipa Masu. And Chris Rattue. Whole damn paper annoys me :-)

Other Comments by Goldy

1327. Comment #199515 by 8teist on June 25, 2008 at 9:52 pm

Haha thats the one I nearly threw up ,I only buy it out of habit,......NOTE to self ,remember to take book to read at smoko.
What a load of crap

Other Comments by 8teist

1328. Comment #199521 by Goldy on June 25, 2008 at 10:06 pm

That Garth has his head so far up his arse he's staring out of his mouth (I know, biologically impossible..)
He never pauses to think what religion might be doing - hell, it seems that some of those murderers who killed that Sikh liquor store owner were actually church going Christians. I know they were taught religion. He thinks religious extremism is the saviour of society without even pausing to think that maybe the malaise is not going to be sorted by the church (who fancy the souls they can save) but by working out what is wrong with some people. God isn't going to help anyone - people are, and they aren['t going to get anywhere using God to help them help others.
A fuckwit. He always was, by the sound of it. I'm swapping to the Dominion Post now...

Other Comments by Goldy

1329. Comment #199523 by 8teist on June 25, 2008 at 10:16 pm

I`ve given up watching the TV news ,in the process of weaning myself off granny herald but its the only paper here in the morning. Garths wearing his anus as a belt. Perhaps we should suggest he reads the koran as a way to solve the countrys problems....

Other Comments by 8teist

1330. Comment #215925 by afyuen on July 22, 2008 at 1:55 pm

6. Comment #70820 by Theocrapcy on September 17, 2007 at 2:36 am

"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!"
-- Homer Simpson

Oh, I would love to see an episode of Simpsons with Homer and RD battling it out ;) Although I think Homer has undoubtedly more common sense than your average religious wingnut

Other Comments by afyuen

1331. Comment #302549 by librehombre on December 17, 2008 at 8:59 am

In comment 28 we read:

"The study of why people believe in God, how they believe and the consequences is increasingly important."

"Until we more fully understand the religious hold on the minds of otherwise sensible and intelligent people - we are not very well equipped to offer a cure!"

Offered as why critics of religion should study theology in response to an article by Richard Dawkins in an oped page.

Yes, knowing why people believe in God might be important, but the answer won't be found in theology books. We should instead study psychology, sociology, anthropology, cognition and the like. But before we worry too much about the cause, that may be irrelevant because we really do have a an effective cure. The cure is to stop the infection of young vulnerable minds. It has worked in Scandinavia, Japan and France to name just a few places in the world where secular humanism has triumphed over superstition and dogma. Which is really what this fight is about. Forget about disproving God, that is a useless waste of time. Fight against dogma and superstition and the right of children to enjoy freedom of consciousness. That is the vaccine we must administer.

It wasn't necessary to know alll about how the smallpox virus effected the human organism to devise a vaccine. In fact virologists are even to this day learning more about this virus long after the way to overcome the disease was demonstrated.

Secretly, many parents know they are on weak ethical ground when they consign there children to a religion because it is taking advantage of their vulnerability. We just need to find effective ways to make them feel guilty. If there is one thing we know about parents it is that they are all insecure.

http://endhereditaryreligion.blogspot.com

Other Comments by librehombre

1332. Comment #431148 by Talesian on November 11, 2009 at 5:36 pm

"Do you realize that a person who claims with absolute certainty that there is no god must claim absolute knowledge? Atheism is intellectual suicide."

Atheism is not the conviction that there is no god. Atheism is the lack of a belief in god. It would seem logical to me that a person should be able to claim with a great deal of certainty what they personally do not hold a belief in. There is no need to claim absolute knowledge.
As for the term "intellectual suicide", what is that anyway? Even if there is a god, being wrong about it's existence doesn't kill your mind. It may be embarrasing, but hardly mind damaging.

Other Comments by Talesian

Reload Comments | Back to Top