Richard Dawkins- The Root of All Evil

[Burning Zeppelin]

No, I said before. After Gog and Magog everyone will be dead

Maybe it's just me, but that little exchange sounded rather funny. Or maybe it's just too late in the night, and I'm not thinking.

But... umm... sorry for asking, but do you actually take Revelations literally? For that matter, do Muslims read Revleations? Its apocryphal even in the Christian church, and there's quite a bit of contention about what it means. Being rather fringe even for Christians (or, at least, it should be) I wasn't under the impression that Muslims actually looked at it. I know you consider Jesus a prophet (a funny thing, though, to hear of Muslims boycotting the Da Vinci Code and holdings signs saying Muslims for Jesus or something like that), but what do you consider the other post-Jesus writers?

Hm, I don't know about Revelations. Gog and Magog are in Muslim scriptures too.
And I "pfft" at the boycott. I mean seriously...as Chaser's War On Everything said:
"Davinci Code is a pile of crap"

What do you mean "post-Jesus writers" by the way? All in all, we accept (in pure form) only four scriptures, Torah, Gospel, Psalms and Quran. Oh, and Muhammads writings. Anything else is just innovation.

[Legend of the Past]

Therefore you are calling my God radical.

Seeing as you believe Allah is the Jewish God, that might shut me up. However, I DO NOT believe the Jewish God and Allah are one, so, I plead guilty.

[Lord J Esq]

Boys, boys...everyone's god can be a radical!

[Legend of the Past]

Boys, boys...everyone's god can be a radical!

Yeah, but Allah's not hiding it, anyway.

[Hadriel]

Hypothetical question: If you uncovered a piece of information that proved beyond any possible doubt that religion was false, would you release it?

[Burning Zeppelin]

Hypothetical question: If you uncovered a piece of information that proved beyond any possible doubt that religion was false, would you release it?

Probably.
Wait...

Boys, boys...everyone's god can be a radical!

Yeah, but Allah's not hiding it, anyway.

Yeah, well, why should God's word be censored

[Legend of the Past]

Yeah, well, why should God's word be censored

Because no God should openly support the death of most of mankind?

Hypothetical question: If you uncovered a piece of information that proved beyond any possible doubt that religion was false, would you release it?

Witout a doubt, I would. It would mean little, the religous people would fall back to their 'It's in the holy book' eventually and refuse to listen, but sure.

[Lord J Esq]

Hypothetical question: If you uncovered a piece of information that proved beyond any possible doubt that religion was false, would you release it?

Fallacious question. "Religion" ultimately exists with respect to individual people's faith, and appealing to their sense of reason would be like trying to make a slice of bread tastier by singing to it. When you premise an irrefragable disproof of religion, you imply that people would choose to accept it as valid evidence. They wouldn't, so it's a fallacious question.

[Burning Zeppelin]

Hypothetical question: If you uncovered a piece of information that proved beyond any possible doubt that religion was false, would you release it?

Fallacious question. "Religion" ultimately exists with respect to individual people's faith, and appealing to their sense of reason would be like trying to make a slice of bread tastier by singing to it. When you premise an irrefragable disproof of religion, you imply that people would choose to accept it as valid evidence. They wouldn't, so it's a fallacious question.

I might. =]

[Lord J Esq]

Fallacious question. "Religion" ultimately exists with respect to individual people's faith, and appealing to their sense of reason would be like trying to make a slice of bread tastier by singing to it. When you premise an irrefragable disproof of religion, you imply that people would choose to accept it as valid evidence. They wouldn't, so it's a fallacious question.

I might. =]

Are you suggesting, then, that you are aware of no such evidence today?

[Burning Zeppelin]

Fallacious question. "Religion" ultimately exists with respect to individual people's faith, and appealing to their sense of reason would be like trying to make a slice of bread tastier by singing to it. When you premise an irrefragable disproof of religion, you imply that people would choose to accept it as valid evidence. They wouldn't, so it's a fallacious question.

I might. =]

Are you suggesting, then, that you are aware of no such evidence today?

Nothing at this level:

Hypothetical question: If you uncovered a piece of information that proved beyond any possible doubt that religion was false, would you release it?

[Sentenal]

Josh, do you honestly believe everyone who believes in God to be ignorant, and never question their faith in the slightest?  That's kind of insulting.

[Lord J Esq]

Josh, do you honestly believe everyone who believes in God to be ignorant, and never question their faith in the slightest?  That's kind of insulting.

We are all ignorant, Sentenal. But some of us make it easier on ourselves to live with, by believing what we want rather than what is warranted. If you feel insulted by being called on your ignorance, then you are guilty of pride as well.

Of course the devout have many great minds among them; religious faith does not disqualify their other strengths. But faith is no friend to humanity. Faith says, “I am right.” It asks no explanation, no evidence. But which is more virtuous: proving yourself right, or proving yourself wrong?

You yourself would agree that none of us are born in wisdom, and yet your religion speaks of divine truths that stand above all worldly, measurable truths. If you claim faith in God, you are claiming to have mastered an extraordinary sort of wisdom. That is ignorance to an extraordinary sort of degree.

“Question” your beliefs all you like; it’s a kangaroo court. I have seen people like you testify to the excellence and diligence of their own critical faculties. Fraud. So long as you begin by assuming the very beliefs that are supposedly under question, little good will come of your self-reflection. You will succeed only in persuading yourself, and those who are already likeminded.

Didn’t I say it earlier in this thread, that extraordinary proof requires extraordinary evidence? Maybe you should question your faith more than in “the slightest.” Maybe you should reserve judgment until the evidence has been presented. Maybe you should make a ruling based on what is justified rather than what you arbitrarily want to believe.

No doubt it would be easier for you if nonbelievers were to come up to you all the time and say “Wow, Sentenal, your faith is admirable and compelling!” I bet that would make you feel pretty good about yourself. Well, my condolences. Maybe you can get your fellow believers to pat you on the back, but I am not going to contribute to your inflated sense of self-righteousness. I am not stirred by your faith, and I am not inclined to share in your delusion. And you will have to have to live with that fact; live knowing that some people see your faith as a tragic joke—just as I have to live with people who believe I am damned to hell. Expressing your indignation to me is not going to get you anywhere, and it will certainly not validate your case. I am not interested in helping you make it easier on yourself to live with your ignorance.

[GreenGannon]

We are all ignorant, Sentenal.

Some more than others.

But some of us make it easier on ourselves to live with, by believing what we want rather than what is warranted. If you feel insulted by being called on your ignorance, then you are guilty of pride as well.

I think that there's more than one guilty party here.

You yourself would agree that none of us are born in wisdom, and yet your religion speaks of divine truths that stand above all worldly, measurable truths. If you claim faith in God, you are claiming to have mastered an extraordinary sort of wisdom. That is ignorance to an extraordinary sort of degree.

Claiming to have mastered? Not at all. Claiming to have been dictated truths and guidelines which it is our duty to master is more accurate.

“Question” your beliefs all you like; it’s a kangaroo court. I have seen people like you testify to the excellence and diligence of their own critical faculties.

I've also seen people like you ascribe to two extremes, glorifying one and demonizing the other with no possible place to fall between. Fraud.

 

I am not stirred by your faith, and I am not inclined to share in your delusion.

Nor am I inclined to take your "stirring and convincing" post seriously. Your own arrogance is more amusing than anything.

[Lord J Esq]

I can tell I've hit a nerve when I get a reply like that. Attack is all you people are interested in doing. Personal growth is never on the agenda.

You might want to edit your post. As it is now, all of your replies to me look as though I was the one speaking them.