=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
Dawkins seems a bit *confused* here
Log In to post a reply
47 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
CianMcLiam
CianMcLiam
1067 posts

Edited Jul 09, 2009, 10:58
Re: Dawkins seems a bit *confused* here
Jul 09, 2009, 10:35
handofdave wrote:


Again, this fallacy that the only irrational doctrines are religious ones!


You would surely agree though that whatever about other doctrines, religious ones by their very nature come with irrational beliefs in supernatural intervention and guidance, thus guaranteed to have largely irrational doctrines built in. It's part of their spec.
Other doctrines may or may not have irrational elements that can be evaluated and accepted or rejected. With religious doctrines though, if you are serious about them, you are welcoming irrationality as part of your moral guidance, maybe even insisting on it. This is what sets them apart.

handofdave wrote:

It's very easy to use stereotypes about religion when constructing arguments against it, because the extreme examples of it are so comical.

But what about the people who are not foam-mouthed or irrational? And what about that type that is divorced from religion, but finds all sorts of other irrational doctrines to advance? You don't need God to be irrational!


You're right of course that you don't need god to be irrational but believing in supernatural entities that intervene in human affairs and can suspend the physical laws of the universe when requested by us mortals requires irrational (or absence of) thought. That is what religions are based on.

handofdave wrote:

How many people out there would call themselves spiritual, but not religious?


How many people call themselves football fans but not cricket fans? What Dawkins discusses is on organised religious systems that attempt to dictate a world view based on stuff people made up and which forms the basis of moral judgement. Spiritualism like I think you are describing is a personal choice of belief that people have found comfortable for themselves, there is no 'spiritual agenda' out there insisting that 'the spirits said we should burn you alive' or that schools should teach people that the world was created by a fluffy cloud fart (ok, extreme examples but you get the general idea). If there was then the same criticisms levelled by Dawkins and others would then apply equally to them also.

handofdave wrote:

Putting the whole world into two oversimplified camps of 'atheist' and 'faithful' may be correct, but only superficially.

People are so much more!



Yes, people are. It's a pity that most religions do not tolerate a diversity of personal belief or lifestyle, and those that do had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world.
In reply to:
Re: Dawkins seems a bit *confused* here (handofdave)		 Replies:
Re: Dawkins seems a bit *confused* here (handofdave)
Topic Outline:
U-Know! Forum Index