Mocking people's beliefs.

[Renton 21980]

Did anyone say anything akin to the statement about women dressing like whores?

 

My point was countless times I've seen him bang on about how stupid or comical it is someone makes a point, even when it's nothing to do with him and certainly not to him.

 

He should go have a bit more fun in life than rewrite books. Any more intelligent Christian just looks down on his book and laughs at his ridiculous obsession, yet there is a view from the atheist camp that they're all frightened of reading his books as if he's some superhuman who will make them atheist just by writing a book.

 

Also with regards to debates, for another theologian he refused to attend a debate because "it might like good on his CV but not mine". Tough in cheek maybe, but obviously arrogance and dare I say, delusion.

 

The Muslim (who used to be a jew) accused of him of not being able to talk about morality as british women all dressed like whores. He replied "I don't tell them how to dress" - "You should, that is your failing" was the reply.

 

I have read dozens of reviews and replies to TGD - most don't read it and reply to what they think he said and those that do cannot answer any of his points without the usual goal post shifting (that's not my god he's talking about" etc, etc. That applies to "geniuses" like McGrath especially as they think they are clever enough to be able to move the goalposts and "win" - they aren't.

 

 

 

 

 

He didn't aim the book at staunch believers - he aimed it at people who are only "weddings and funerals" christians who have an open mind.

 

Talking of arrogant, I have had the misfortune to read "the Dawkins Delusion" by McGrath (now I wonder who is obsessed there.....). He answers about 5 of the less relevant and more debatable points on TGD (not to my satisfaction I might add, and not points that particularly interested me either), then, incredibly arrogantly, states that because he answered those points he has proved the whole GD is nonsense and he doesn't want to bore his readers by answering the rest, which he could easily, if he wanted to.

 

Personally, I just don't recognise Dawkins remotely as the person the Inspiration describes.

[NJS 4411]

Personally, I just don't recognise Dawkins remotely as the person the Inspiration describes.

 

Now if he meant Hitchens......

 

 

Just finishing God is not great - its a bit "dense" in that the amount of information he presents is a bit overwhelming but on the whole some new angles to support my view.

 

For example I never new about the Vatican's extensive role in promoting fascism in the 20th century and more recently its role in protecting and covering up priests and bishops who were directly involved in the genocide in Rwanda.

 

He also answers the "Hitler was an atheist" argument with a view I'd not read before - again how much the churches were involved which undermines any moral high ground.

Edited September 5, 2007 by NJS

[Lazarus 0]

Once upon a time, the bible was taken to be literal.

 

Now, its stories are metaphorical.

 

What will it be in the future?

[NJS 4411]

Once upon a time, the bible was taken to be literal.

 

Now, its stories are metaphorical.

 

What will it be in the future?

 

Consigned to the myths section along with stories of Zeus, Ra, Thor and the rest.

[TheInspiration 1]

Did anyone say anything akin to the statement about women dressing like whores?

 

My point was countless times I've seen him bang on about how stupid or comical it is someone makes a point, even when it's nothing to do with him and certainly not to him.

 

He should go have a bit more fun in life than rewrite books. Any more intelligent Christian just looks down on his book and laughs at his ridiculous obsession, yet there is a view from the atheist camp that they're all frightened of reading his books as if he's some superhuman who will make them atheist just by writing a book.

 

Also with regards to debates, for another theologian he refused to attend a debate because "it might like good on his CV but not mine". Tough in cheek maybe, but obviously arrogance and dare I say, delusion.

 

The Muslim (who used to be a jew) accused of him of not being able to talk about morality as british women all dressed like whores. He replied "I don't tell them how to dress" - "You should, that is your failing" was the reply.

 

I have read dozens of reviews and replies to TGD - most don't read it and reply to what they think he said and those that do cannot answer any of his points without the usual goal post shifting (that's not my god he's talking about" etc, etc. That applies to "geniuses" like McGrath especially as they think they are clever enough to be able to move the goalposts and "win" - they aren't.

 

 

 

 

 

He didn't aim the book at staunch believers - he aimed it at people who are only "weddings and funerals" christians who have an open mind.

Well I must say I agree with him on what he said to the Muslim - gets what they deserve.

 

That said, it is my view from reading Dawkin's points about God that it isn't the Christian God he's talking about as he clearly lacks knwoeldge of Christian faith and a personal God and instead decides he can use facts and figures to argue against a belief, and that simply doesn't work.

[TheInspiration 1]

Once upon a time, the bible was taken to be literal.

 

Now, its stories are metaphorical.

 

What will it be in the future?

 

Consigned to the myths section along with stories of Zeus, Ra, Thor and the rest.

Completely disagree - people have reasons to believe in God and to believe the Bible isn't just fairy tales. Not sure about "Zeus, Ra, Thor and the rest" though.

[Jimbo 175]

Once upon a time, the bible was taken to be literal.

 

Now, its stories are metaphorical.

 

What will it be in the future?

 

Consigned to the myths section along with stories of Zeus, Ra, Thor and the rest.

Completely disagree - people have reasons to believe in God and to believe the Bible isn't just fairy tales. Not sure about "Zeus, Ra, Thor and the rest" though.

 

 

an honest question, do you believe the bible word for word in its litteral sense or do you think its metaphor to be interpreted by the individual ?

[NJS 4411]

Once upon a time, the bible was taken to be literal.

 

Now, its stories are metaphorical.

 

What will it be in the future?

 

Consigned to the myths section along with stories of Zeus, Ra, Thor and the rest.

Completely disagree - people have reasons to believe in God and to believe the Bible isn't just fairy tales. Not sure about "Zeus, Ra, Thor and the rest" though.

 

Can you explain the differnce between your God and Thor or Zeus or the Hindu Gods? Why do you dismiss them as man-made myths yet insist yours is real? Is there more evidence? Are their holy books more dismissable? If so why?

 

Genuine questions - I think its one of the main ones that believers don't ask of themselves.

[Renton 21980]

Once upon a time, the bible was taken to be literal.

 

Now, its stories are metaphorical.

 

What will it be in the future?

 

Consigned to the myths section along with stories of Zeus, Ra, Thor and the rest.

Completely disagree - people have reasons to believe in God and to believe the Bible isn't just fairy tales. Not sure about "Zeus, Ra, Thor and the rest" though.

 

Can you explain the differnce between your God and Thor or Zeus or the Hindu Gods? Why do you dismiss them as man-made myths yet insist yours is real? Is there more evidence? Are their holy books more dismissable? If so why?

 

Genuine questions - I think its one of the main ones that believers don't ask of themselves.

 

Perhaps TheInspiration feels it OK to criticise, even mock, other people's beliefs but not his own? Like I said, I don't see a great deal of difference between the goat sacrificers and christians, from an objective point of view they strike me as equally absurd.

 

Of course it was ironic that South Park showed religious hypocrisy up for what it is not only in its excellent scripts, but also by the behaviour of Isaac Hayes. I reckon TI might be doing the same thing.

[NJS 4411]

Perhaps TheInspiration feels it OK to criticise, even mock, other people's beliefs but not his own? Like I said, I don't see a great deal of difference between the goat sacrificers and christians, from an objective point of view they strike me as equally absurd.

 

Its strongly linked to your point about locational fluke - I get the impression TI went looking for something and found it in the bible (nothing wrong in principal) - a choice determined by his location. If this was India, China or Saudi he would have looked for it in a different book and been convinced of that deity/deities.

 

I think an overview taking this into consideration is the key to realising the origin of all of them.

[Gemmill 46016]

As for Dawkins, he's just a scientist who is a little bitter maybe because he had a prayer not answered as a kid.

 

[TheInspiration 1]

Once upon a time, the bible was taken to be literal.

 

Now, its stories are metaphorical.

 

What will it be in the future?

 

Consigned to the myths section along with stories of Zeus, Ra, Thor and the rest.

Completely disagree - people have reasons to believe in God and to believe the Bible isn't just fairy tales. Not sure about "Zeus, Ra, Thor and the rest" though.

 

 

an honest question, do you believe the bible word for word in its litteral sense or do you think its metaphor to be interpreted by the individual ?

Mostly literally though I do think there are parts which appear metaphorical. The creation story I reckon could be a combination of metaphorical and literal.

[TheInspiration 1]

Once upon a time, the bible was taken to be literal.

 

Now, its stories are metaphorical.

 

What will it be in the future?

 

Consigned to the myths section along with stories of Zeus, Ra, Thor and the rest.

Completely disagree - people have reasons to believe in God and to believe the Bible isn't just fairy tales. Not sure about "Zeus, Ra, Thor and the rest" though.

 

Can you explain the differnce between your God and Thor or Zeus or the Hindu Gods? Why do you dismiss them as man-made myths yet insist yours is real? Is there more evidence? Are their holy books more dismissable? If so why?

 

Genuine questions - I think its one of the main ones that believers don't ask of themselves.

Firstly there is evidence for the reliability and Christ. Secondly, experience of God through a personal relationship. Thirdly, the beliefs aren't that stupid anyway.

 

I don't see how people can go round calling Christianity ridiculous, even when there are plenty of cases in this world for a creator - removing the creator means you have to find other far more plausible explanations. Cosmology obviously a big issue.

[TheInspiration 1]

Once upon a time, the bible was taken to be literal.

 

Now, its stories are metaphorical.

 

What will it be in the future?

 

Consigned to the myths section along with stories of Zeus, Ra, Thor and the rest.

Completely disagree - people have reasons to believe in God and to believe the Bible isn't just fairy tales. Not sure about "Zeus, Ra, Thor and the rest" though.

 

Can you explain the differnce between your God and Thor or Zeus or the Hindu Gods? Why do you dismiss them as man-made myths yet insist yours is real? Is there more evidence? Are their holy books more dismissable? If so why?

 

Genuine questions - I think its one of the main ones that believers don't ask of themselves.

 

Perhaps TheInspiration feels it OK to criticise, even mock, other people's beliefs but not his own? Like I said, I don't see a great deal of difference between the goat sacrificers and christians, from an objective point of view they strike me as equally absurd.

 

Of course it was ironic that South Park showed religious hypocrisy up for what it is not only in its excellent scripts, but also by the behaviour of Isaac Hayes. I reckon TI might be doing the same thing.

Don't think I've criticised/mocked anyone's beliefs here - certainly you shouldn't be telling anyone off for that. What I said about goat sacrificers was that it's a shame that religion always has to be as equally absurd as each other - as if they are all wrong. I don't know if there's any truth in Hinduism but I respect the belief (and find the religion interesting also), however I and many others agree that there is truth in Christianity.

[NJS 4411]

Firstly there is evidence for the reliability and Christ. Secondly, experience of God through a personal relationship. Thirdly, the beliefs aren't that stupid anyway.

 

I don't see how people can go round calling Christianity ridiculous, even when there are plenty of cases in this world for a creator - removing the creator means you have to find other far more plausible explanations. Cosmology obviously a big issue.

 

No more than for Mithras or other cults form the same period.

 

Can you describe your personal relationship? (if thats not too personal a question).

 

I don't consider chrsitianity more or less ridiculous than the rest - I'm more aware/.knowledgebale of it but I don't see any basic difference between them.

 

When you mention "truth in christianity" I would accept that there are good morals in there somewhere (though the source is open to question) but I don't see that much "truth" elsewhere - for example whether Christ existed or was resurrected is a moot point for me compared with the morality taught in general - the whole package of morality I think is flawed (eg homosexuality) .

 

If you mean the whole promise of eternal life then this goes back to a core question - do you believe your God is more concerned with how "good" a life a person leads or whether they acknowledge and worship him? - If its the latter then he's a very vain and petty being imo.

Edited September 7, 2007 by NJS

[Park Life 71]

They were still dunking witches In England a 100 or so years ago....

[Jimbo 175]

Firstly there is evidence for the reliability and Christ. Secondly, experience of God through a personal relationship. Thirdly, the beliefs aren't that stupid anyway.

 

I don't see how people can go round calling Christianity ridiculous, even when there are plenty of cases in this world for a creator - removing the creator means you have to find other far more plausible explanations. Cosmology obviously a big issue.

 

do you believe your God is more concerned with how "good" a life a person leads or whether they acknowledge and worship him? - If its the latter then he's a very vain and petty being imo.

 

Thats the biggest problem I have with "Christians", and I've had this argument before with them, and its the biggest flaw in my opinion, in that a person could lead a "Christ-like" life, IE full of loving, caring, forgiveness, self sacrifice yet would burn in hell if they didn't believe in christ or god.

[Park Life 71]

Firstly there is evidence for the reliability and Christ. Secondly, experience of God through a personal relationship. Thirdly, the beliefs aren't that stupid anyway.

 

I don't see how people can go round calling Christianity ridiculous, even when there are plenty of cases in this world for a creator - removing the creator means you have to find other far more plausible explanations. Cosmology obviously a big issue.

 

do you believe your God is more concerned with how "good" a life a person leads or whether they acknowledge and worship him? - If its the latter then he's a very vain and petty being imo.

 

Thats the biggest problem I have with "Christians", and I've had this argument before with them, and its the biggest flaw in my opinion, in that a person could lead a "Christ-like" life, IE full of loving, caring, forgiveness, self sacrifice yet would burn in hell if they didn't believe in christ or god.

 

 

You'd be better off as a Buddhist then Jim.

[Jimbo 175]

Firstly there is evidence for the reliability and Christ. Secondly, experience of God through a personal relationship. Thirdly, the beliefs aren't that stupid anyway.

 

I don't see how people can go round calling Christianity ridiculous, even when there are plenty of cases in this world for a creator - removing the creator means you have to find other far more plausible explanations. Cosmology obviously a big issue.

 

do you believe your God is more concerned with how "good" a life a person leads or whether they acknowledge and worship him? - If its the latter then he's a very vain and petty being imo.

 

Thats the biggest problem I have with "Christians", and I've had this argument before with them, and its the biggest flaw in my opinion, in that a person could lead a "Christ-like" life, IE full of loving, caring, forgiveness, self sacrifice yet would burn in hell if they didn't believe in christ or god.

 

 

You'd be better off as a Buddhist then Jim.

 

Agreed.

[Renton 21980]

Once upon a time, the bible was taken to be literal.

 

Now, its stories are metaphorical.

 

What will it be in the future?

 

Consigned to the myths section along with stories of Zeus, Ra, Thor and the rest.

Completely disagree - people have reasons to believe in God and to believe the Bible isn't just fairy tales. Not sure about "Zeus, Ra, Thor and the rest" though.

 

Can you explain the differnce between your God and Thor or Zeus or the Hindu Gods? Why do you dismiss them as man-made myths yet insist yours is real? Is there more evidence? Are their holy books more dismissable? If so why?

 

Genuine questions - I think its one of the main ones that believers don't ask of themselves.

 

Perhaps TheInspiration feels it OK to criticise, even mock, other people's beliefs but not his own? Like I said, I don't see a great deal of difference between the goat sacrificers and christians, from an objective point of view they strike me as equally absurd.

 

Of course it was ironic that South Park showed religious hypocrisy up for what it is not only in its excellent scripts, but also by the behaviour of Isaac Hayes. I reckon TI might be doing the same thing.

Don't think I've criticised/mocked anyone's beliefs here - certainly you shouldn't be telling anyone off for that. What I said about goat sacrificers was that it's a shame that religion always has to be as equally absurd as each other - as if they are all wrong. I don't know if there's any truth in Hinduism but I respect the belief (and find the religion interesting also), however I and many others agree that there is truth in Christianity.

 

Tbf TI, I think you do have some respect for other people's beliefs but at the end of the day, you still think you are right, and they are wrong, based purely on the place you were born (I do not believe you would be a christian if you were born and raised by a muslim family in Iran, whatever 'personal' relationship you claim to have with Jesus). You will/can never accept this point, but there are still millions of muslim versions of you out there saying pretty much the same thing, but reversed, and you can't explain that one away.

 

Still, I respect that you do at least engage in these dialogues which a lot of religious people don't, for whatever reason. Although I also think you have Dawkins wrong. At the end of the day, you just don't like your beliefs being challenged, and he's one of the few people in public willing to do that, so you ridicule and villify him, without basis, imo. Doesn't his (my) 'belief' also deserve respect?

[The Fish 10963]

that's one thing I've never understood, the "personal relationship with God/Jesus/Casper"....

 

does it mean HE/IT/THEM comes round for a BBQ with a six pack, some weed and Twister?

 

Or is it just that you have a self confidence borne upon years and years of indoctrination into a lifestyle that claims that an invisible intangible father figure has your back.. all you have to do is blindly trust this absent landlord?

[TheInspiration 1]

Firstly there is evidence for the reliability and Christ. Secondly, experience of God through a personal relationship. Thirdly, the beliefs aren't that stupid anyway.

 

I don't see how people can go round calling Christianity ridiculous, even when there are plenty of cases in this world for a creator - removing the creator means you have to find other far more plausible explanations. Cosmology obviously a big issue.

 

No more than for Mithras or other cults form the same period.

 

Can you describe your personal relationship? (if thats not too personal a question).

 

I don't consider chrsitianity more or less ridiculous than the rest - I'm more aware/.knowledgebale of it but I don't see any basic difference between them.

 

When you mention "truth in christianity" I would accept that there are good morals in there somewhere (though the source is open to question) but I don't see that much "truth" elsewhere - for example whether Christ existed or was resurrected is a moot point for me compared with the morality taught in general - the whole package of morality I think is flawed (eg homosexuality) .

 

If you mean the whole promise of eternal life then this goes back to a core question - do you believe your God is more concerned with how "good" a life a person leads or whether they acknowledge and worship him? - If its the latter then he's a very vain and petty being imo.

It's very subjective and tough to answer but here goes - personal relationship basically deals with various forms of experience (hard to describe really), talking from God to you or through others, visions, dreams (Muslims being converted through dreams involving Jesus is a common occurence might I add). There may well be others. Basically the Bible states if you come to God he will respond, and I think that is how so many Christians have such a strong faith and love for God. I honestly don't think it would be the same if it were a case of Jesus dying for our sins being the only reason to pray.

 

I admit I don't know everything, but www.bethinking.org is a very interesting apologetics site, which can provide a lot of answers for you from some very intelligent people.

 

As for your final question, it's obviously a combination of the two. However I don't consider wishing to be worshipped as vain and petty - it's in order to be granted eternal life, so we are led to believe.

[TheInspiration 1]

Once upon a time, the bible was taken to be literal.

 

Now, its stories are metaphorical.

 

What will it be in the future?

 

Consigned to the myths section along with stories of Zeus, Ra, Thor and the rest.

Completely disagree - people have reasons to believe in God and to believe the Bible isn't just fairy tales. Not sure about "Zeus, Ra, Thor and the rest" though.

 

Can you explain the differnce between your God and Thor or Zeus or the Hindu Gods? Why do you dismiss them as man-made myths yet insist yours is real? Is there more evidence? Are their holy books more dismissable? If so why?

 

Genuine questions - I think its one of the main ones that believers don't ask of themselves.

 

Perhaps TheInspiration feels it OK to criticise, even mock, other people's beliefs but not his own? Like I said, I don't see a great deal of difference between the goat sacrificers and christians, from an objective point of view they strike me as equally absurd.

 

Of course it was ironic that South Park showed religious hypocrisy up for what it is not only in its excellent scripts, but also by the behaviour of Isaac Hayes. I reckon TI might be doing the same thing.

Don't think I've criticised/mocked anyone's beliefs here - certainly you shouldn't be telling anyone off for that. What I said about goat sacrificers was that it's a shame that religion always has to be as equally absurd as each other - as if they are all wrong. I don't know if there's any truth in Hinduism but I respect the belief (and find the religion interesting also), however I and many others agree that there is truth in Christianity.

 

Tbf TI, I think you do have some respect for other people's beliefs but at the end of the day, you still think you are right, and they are wrong, based purely on the place you were born (I do not believe you would be a christian if you were born and raised by a muslim family in Iran, whatever 'personal' relationship you claim to have with Jesus). You will/can never accept this point, but there are still millions of muslim versions of you out there saying pretty much the same thing, but reversed, and you can't explain that one away.

 

Still, I respect that you do at least engage in these dialogues which a lot of religious people don't, for whatever reason. Although I also think you have Dawkins wrong. At the end of the day, you just don't like your beliefs being challenged, and he's one of the few people in public willing to do that, so you ridicule and villify him, without basis, imo. Doesn't his (my) 'belief' also deserve respect?

Apologies if I am wrong, I've never heard any people talking about a personal relationship with Allah, whereas it is a frequent occurence in Christianity. Muslims aren't supposed to experience their god - there is no hinting he is a god of love for starters.

 

And yes your belief does deserve respect. I've never ridiculed or villified atheistic beliefs. I'm more concerned with many atheists as people - attack the behaviour of Christians when they're very immoral people themselves. I respect Dawkins brilliant writing/communication skills, but as a person I don't have that much respect for him.

Edited September 9, 2007 by TheInspiration

[NJS 4411]

As for your final question, it's obviously a combination of the two. However I don't consider wishing to be worshipped as vain and petty - it's in order to be granted eternal life, so we are led to believe.

 

So bowing down to him is in your view as important (or more so) than leading a good life?

 

If the morality is just a part of it, why doesn't he just ask for the worship and not care how we act?

 

Does someone who is very religious but "evil" - for example a mafia don deserve a place more than someone who never does anything major wrong but can't bring themselves to believe?

 

What about people who never hear the message - the pope recently implied that the native people of South America "needed christianity" to obtain redemption - would they deserve to be damned simply for living an ocean away from Europe?

 

These questions apply whether the more recent twisting whereby the saved get heaven and the rest get nothing or whether the rest are off to hell.

[adios 717]

It's very subjective and tough to answer but here goes - personal relationship basically deals with various forms of experience (hard to describe really), talking from God to you or through others, visions, dreams (Muslims being converted through dreams involving Jesus is a common occurence might I add). There may well be others. Basically the Bible states if you come to God he will respond, and I think that is how so many Christians have such a strong faith and love for God. I honestly don't think it would be the same if it were a case of Jesus dying for our sins being the only reason to pray.

 

How do you differentiate between people with a genuine relationship with God, and people with Schizophrenia?