The great and all powerful religion thread!

[AchrisK]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

Funny...after posting my question, that is exactly where I went, and I have been reading it.

This is very interesting. Dawkins seems to regularly clash with just about everyone around him to some degree.

I'm gonna read the Gould bio as well.

Wikipediea is pretty awesome with all the links to terms which allow you to check the definition as you go along. I am not entirely new to Wikipedia or anything, but I think I can see its usefulness in these more complex articles more than those about music and whatnot.

 

[CAIRATH]

Yeah I love Wikipedia. The way it works makes it kind of unsuitable as a reliable academic reference, but for just casual expansion of knowledge it is awesome. Half the time I look up anything on it I'll be reading an entirely unrelated article 20 minutes later because I followed a series of links that seemed interesting.

But yeah, whether you agree with his ideas or not, Dawkins is an interesting character. He is intelligent, witty and very passionate, outspoken and unapologetic about his views which is what tends to cause the clashing. Many scientists share his general views on religion but simply avoid confrontation with religion out of respect (an example of that is Stephen Jay Goulds' propsed Non-Overlapping Magisteria). It is that automatic respect that Dawkins generally scoffs at. His wit and his tendency to state his views clearly without trying to sugarcoat them is what makes his works interesting to read to me. At the same time, like I said in the other thread, I also feel it greatly reduces his target audience and is somewhat self-defeating to his cause.

This video of astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson questioning that very aspect of Dawkins' method of discourse always makes me laugh. The Oxford English accent somehow makes it funnier.

 

[AchrisK]

Yeah I love Wikipedia. The way it works makes it kind of unsuitable as a reliable academic reference, but for just casual expansion of knowledge it is awesome. Half the time I look up anything on it I'll be reading an entirely unrelated article 20 minutes later because I followed a series of links that seemed interesting.

Totally! It's almost inevitable.

 

[cookiecutter]

Me and my friends played a game called Wikipedia tag at the end of last school year. You had to go from two unrelated things in 5 clicks or less. Only links in the page counted. It was surprisingly easy. I went from the dead sea to Down Syndrome in 4 I think.

 

[zoidberg]

question.

people say that jesus was jewish, but if he really beleived in what he was teaching, wouldnt that make him a christian.

and also, im saying he was jewish as a religion, im not talking about him being semitic

 

[cookiecutter]

He was Jewish and after his followers made up a church around him and called it Christianity. That is of course if he existed

 

[A8]

dont they have solid proof jesus did exist?

 

[zoidberg]

dont they have solid proof jesus did exist?

yes they do, even the roman govener of Judea at the time wrote about him. but there is debate whether he is the son of god or not.

 

[cookiecutter]

It's not really a debate, since one side has no arguments.

 

[ivry91]

yes they do, even the roman govener of Judea at the time wrote about him. but there is debate whether he is the son of god or not.

You since you mentioned that source...he alos wrote he was son of a Roman soldier which was killed aswell for having sex with a captive.

 

[AchrisK]

He was Jewish and after his followers made up a church around him and called it Christianity. That is of course if he existed

He claimed to be who and what his followers said they believed him to be.

 

[cookiecutter]

So say his followers

 

[Matt]

It's not really a debate, since one side has no arguments.

There's no way to prove anything. You sound like you're absolutely sure that you're right

 

[zoidberg]

It's not really a debate, since one side has no arguments.

you take your own denial way to far, denying that christ even existed, and then saying these people dont have an arguement, even though there are a billion bibles out there, each one of them filled with the arguement. and just because they arent based on cold hard facts (which is I assume the reason you dont belive) doesnt mean that it is not the arguement.


for the record im probally an agnostic. but i dont believe in the idea of agnostics, nor do i practice a religion, so i call myself an atheist.

You since you mentioned that source...he alos wrote he was son of a Roman soldier which was killed aswell for having sex with a captive

sosa babble talk is the fun im not alone to be on here now!

 

[AchrisK]

question.

people say that jesus was jewish, but if he really beleived in what he was teaching, wouldnt that make him a christian.

and also, im saying he was jewish as a religion, im not talking about him being semitic

He is the focal point for the Christian religion, and it didn't really exist until he taught it, and then died, and resurrected from the dead. So he is a unique individual within the belief system, and it is not appropriate to identify him as a "Christian". He is the Messaih (Christ). A Christian is a follower of Christ.

 

[zoidberg]

thank you achrisk! holy shit, you people!

 

[cookiecutter]

There's no way to prove anything. You sound like you're absolutely sure that you're right

Something is wrong until it is shown to be right. You are sure that Leprechauns don't exist, and there is an equal amount of evidence for Leprechauns as there is for Christianity. Since there is no way to prove anything you shouldn't believe anything. I don't really know how I can be any clearer.

you take your own denial way to far, denying that christ even existed, and then saying these people dont have an arguement, even though there are a billion bibles out there, each one of them filled with the arguement. and just because they arent based on cold hard facts (which is I assume the reason you dont belive) doesnt mean that it is not the arguement.

I'm going to back down from this, as I am not aware of all the facts. However, there is DEFINITELY no evidence for the divinity of Jesus.

 

[zoidberg]

I'm going to back down from this, as I am not aware of all the facts. However, there is DEFINITELY no solid proof for the divinity of Jesus.

fixed. again, the evidence is in the bible. but i think we can both agree, that the bible is probally not the most credible of sources.

 

[AchrisK]

So say his followers

Well, if you read his own recorded words, then that's what he said.

 

[cookiecutter]

The Bible is the exact opposite of solid proof. It is blatantly wrong in many areas, often contradictory and often morally reprehensible. And using it as proof is like using Return of the Jedi as proof that Chewbacca exists.

Edit: AchrisK: His followers wrote the Bible after his death, often decades later. Is it inconceivable that they embellished or created it? And even if he did actually say that he was the Son of God or that he wanted to create a new religion, that doesn't make it true. There are plenty of cult leaders today that do the same thing.