The study of religious or heroic legends and tales. One constant rule of mythology is that whatever happens amongst the gods or other mythical beings was in one sense or another a reflection of events on earth. Recorded myths and legends, perhaps preserved in literature or folklore, have an immediate interest to archaeology in trying to unravel the nature and meaning of ancient events and traditions.
Ishtar wrote:
But my point is ... if the man is stupid or ignorant enough to think that anything that such an omnipotent and omniscient being could ever be is contained in the book of Genesis and so by overturning Genesis, he's overturning God.... then who is under The God Delusion ... God or Dawkins?
Its another example of the logic of religion though, Christian literalists do believe that Genesis contains God in that sense.
in any case, from what i've read of Dawkins that was just a starting point. i know in my case that when I was seven or so I began wondering why, when Christ was on the cross he felt it necessary to ask himself why he had forsaken himself, I mean you would think he knew why he had forsaken himself. it was the beginning of a lot of inquiry for me into the matter.
seeker wrote:Its another example of the logic of religion though, Christian literalists do believe that Genesis contains God in that sense.
Of course, but Dawkins isn't a Christian Literalist. So why does he believe that by overturning their story, he has disproved the existence of God? It doesn't make sense. The idea of God existed long before Genesis as you well know from Zoroastrianism.
seeker wrote:
in any case, from what i've read of Dawkins that was just a starting point.
Well, I've just been watching him on a documentary trying to persuade some sixth form science pupils in a lab that God cannot exist because the age of the fossils debunks Genesis. He didn't appear to have anything else. So I'd be interested to hear whatever else you say he's got on it.
seeker wrote:
i know in my case that when I was seven or so I began wondering why, when Christ was on the cross he felt it necessary to ask himself why he had forsaken himself, I mean you would think he knew why he had forsaken himself. it was the beginning of a lot of inquiry for me into the matter.
Seems like you and I did a lot of thinking about these things at a very young age ... and we're still inquiring into it, it seems!
Of course, but Dawkins isn't a Christian Literalist. So why does he believe that by overturning their story, he has disproved the existence of God?
You may have to break down and read his books, Ish. I could start quoting passages out of The God Delusion but that would be fragmented and I don't have the time to do it today, anyway.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
Ish, I've read The God Delusion. He actually makes a sophisticated set of arguments in that book. The problem with documentaries is that they try to break down complex arguments into memorable sound bites, it doesn't work well. Dawkins has already stated his arguments more eloquently than I could and these arguments are conveniently available in paperback.
Yes Ish, we seem to have both been considering the picture for quite a while
Well... I think this probably belongs in another thread, so maybe we should open one up.
But you two guys are atheists so you ought to be able to make your case for being atheists without relying on chunks of Dawkins' book.
I mean, I would assume that you've thought it through thoroughly, and got very quickly beyond Dawkins fossil record against Genesis?
If you haven't, and you're just following someone's else ideas in a book that you can't quite explain right here, I'd say that you're not really card carrying atheists - you're more religio-phobes, which is fine... you're entitled to be who you are. But then you cannot then say that your beliefs are based on anything more scientific than Arch's, God bless his cotton socks.
I don't need anyone's book to tell you why I'm not an atheist. But I don't pretend that my beliefs are based on science either.
His explanation for "natural selection" go far beyond merely debunking the fairy tale of Genesis.
He deals with that standard canard of creationism, irreducible complexity, in a superb manner.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
Minimalist wrote:His explanation for "natural selection" go far beyond merely debunking the fairy tale of Genesis.
He deals with that standard canard of creationism, irreducible complexity, in a superb manner.
Yes, but my point is ... if you can't make the case for atheism without relying on Judaeo Christian creationism to make it, then you're just a camp follower of someone's else's idea...which you can't quite remember what it is right now...and anyway, you don't have time to explain to me ...but anyway, you really really really believe it!
I don't know about that, Ish. We are surrounded by people sprinkling jesus-dust all over the landscape. They are the ones who force the issue by wanting "creationism" taught in school.
Personally, I don't care what they believe as long as they keep it to themselves.
Were we in an Islamic country I doubt that jesus would rate much of a discussion.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
Ishtar wrote:Well... I think this probably belongs in another thread, so maybe we should open one up.
But you two guys are atheists so you ought to be able to make your case for being atheists without relying on chunks of Dawkins' book.
I mean, I would assume that you've thought it through thoroughly, and got very quickly beyond Dawkins fossil record against Genesis?
If you haven't, and you're just following someone's else ideas in a book that you can't quite explain right here, I'd say that you're not really card carrying atheists - you're more religio-phobes, which is fine... you're entitled to be who you are. But then you cannot then say that your beliefs are based on anything more scientific than Arch's, God bless his cotton socks.
I don't need anyone's book to tell you why I'm not an atheist. But I don't pretend that my beliefs are based on science either.
I can tell you why I am and I think its fairly simple. I think we can agree that we can suppose all kinds of things from Santa Claus to invisible pink bunnies and we can agree than even though they could exist they probably don't. If I told you that I could walk on water or fly you would be skeptical and rightly so (actually I can fly but my landings really suck).
The point is that I see the claims for the existence of god in the same light. They are fantastic claims for which there is no evidence. All the things that are attributed to God like creation, morality etc have natural explanations that fit the evidence. Simply put there is no reason to think that a God exists
Min, you are exactly right. The reason Dawkins attacks the bible is because he using their own sword to chop their own heads off. Judaism and even Muslims are not fighting the teaching of evolution in our schools, Christians are, and the more liberal Christians that want evolution taught are not making a peep that anyone can hear for fear of being called "not a real Christian". Our kids are stupid in science and getting stupider by the day.
I, too, recommend that you read the book, Ish. It's good.
I always like a dog so long as he isn't spelled backward.
I tried like hell to remain a beliver. I then went through a long period of being agnostic. Then I went through the "if god wants me to believe, He will find a way to show me he exists." Several years ago, I finally threw all my emotional religous baggage in the garbage. My god does not exist and neither does anyone elses. We are just here. And for no real reason except what we make of it.
It is actually a very liberating feeling.
I'm sure John has some lyrics for this!
I always like a dog so long as he isn't spelled backward.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
Min, you are exactly right. The reason Dawkins attacks the bible is because he using their own sword to chop their own heads off.
They bring it on themselves, Patty, by putting their bible tales into the fray. Scientists, such as Dawkins, would not give a rats ass about the bible if these fundy fools weren't out there championing it as "the answer" instead of what it is....which is, as Ish points out, at best some sort of allegorical tale.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
