The development I'm talking about was an evolution of Christian thought in the Enlightenment Era. Just like how slavery came to be seen as antithetical to Christian values, so did killing each other over religion.
Nowadays you have a very atheistic Europe filled with people who pride themselves on being tolerant, and able to act according to the Judeo-Christian code of ethics, while not believing in God. It's very strange if you think about it. Why would you be proud to follow an ethical code of a God you mock?
Unless there is indeed something to those ethics, I suppose, eh?
>>Eh? The Vikins had religion, not sure what it was but they had it.
That's what I get for writing at 4AM.
I'm talking about the Christian religion in particular, not religion in general. Sorry about that.
>>Now the Christian religion might have been better than religions it replaced, but there's little truly reliable data on that subject.
There's actually extensive data in the Vatican (the last time I looked at the subject) on the missions to the vikings. (Fun fact: based on the Northmen's reports of elves and giants in the wilds there, they actually posed the question to the Pope if they could be baptized and converted. Answer: sure, why not?)
If I remember the story correctly, the Vikings butchered wave after wave of missionaries to them until they began to suspect that if all these people were willing to die for their faith, there might be something to it.
>>Please define "outside of time". To me that is a meaningless statement.
Yikes, there's no easy way to summarize that whole debate. Try this thought on for size: God is immanent in every moment at every place and views everything as an eternal present.
And if that doesn't make sense, I apologize. If you want to stretch your brain, try reading through this: http://www.iep.utm.edu/god-time/
I also have some good physics books on space and time if you're interested.
>>This is of course why science looks for the simplest theory that is sufficient to explain the evidence, and leaves claims of necessity to philosophers and divines.
The great fallacy of the 20th century was the rise and predominance of positive materialism, which essentially came to mean that anything that can't be proven by science does not exist. This is the basis for most atheists "proof" that God doesn't exist, in fact, and will use Occam's Razor as if it carries evidential weight in establishing existence or non-existence. (Don't believe me? Look through this very thread.)
This notion is prima facie false - nearly any fact established in history cannot be proved using the scientific method. We can gather archeological and DNA evidence to support one side or the other, but it is impossible to go through the process of hypothesis generation and testing with anything in history. Therefore, no historical fact exists.
>>The only way your assertion that athiests believe "nothing" created the universe makes any sense is if you mean that there is no general consensus among atheists as to why the universe exists
Indulge my bit of hyperbole. It's much easier to say they believe in nothing than to say they have no belief and are completely adamant that everyone else is wrong.
>>Theology is the study of how quite intelligent people can make incisive and compelling logical arguments, but still never settle anything except the logical inconsistencies of their opponents position.
As an Obsessive Maths Freak, it can be quite annoying not being able to get an adequate proof, is it not?
But real life is rarely like that. Literature studies, law, theology, philosophy (except the purely logical arguments), ethics etc., all produce logical arguments which the listener weighs based on the preponderance of the evidence.
The issue with Dawkins is that he doesn't have the necessary background to enter the arena, and as a result sounds like a guy who read a website this one time trying to argue why he doesn't need to pay income taxes before the Supreme Court.
Indeed. Something had to exist outside of time that spawned the creation of the universe.
That's all the First Cause argument says conclusively.
Moving from there and saying whether or not you find it more plausible the universe sort of popped out of nowhere or was created involves your thoughts on things like the Anthropic Principle and the various other issues on the topic. I find it more plausible that God exists; you might disagree.
But the atheist who says there's no logical reason to believe in God is simply wrong (or more likely uninformed of the various debates on the issue).
>>Therefore, you must think that all the other, conflicting religions are wrong, meaning that the people firmly believing in those other religions are "delusional".
Hardly. I think there's something to a lot of different religions, though some are indeed a lot more nonsensical than others. While I disagree to a greater or lesser extent with all religions/denominations (I'm including Christian ones here, as well - no denomination really matches my thinking), I wouldn't call, say, a Buddhist delusional, because I think several of their points about attachment to material things to be valid ones. The stuff about the universe being eternal though, I do disagree with.
>>Atheism just takes it one step further and says that ALL religions are wrong, not just "all religions except mine".
In other words, "We don't know the ultimate nature of reality, but we're absolutely convinced that everyone else is wrong."
>>So, in a real sense, my religion is being taxed to benefit your religion. That's hardly equal handed.
Indeed. That's actually the logic the founding fathers used when they gave religion tax exempt status, and forbade the establishment of religion. The tradition to that point was to tax other religions to pay for the state religion. They didn't like the injustice of that.
>>Those with large centralized organizations. Individual and small group religious actions (i.e., independent of a centralized religious organization) don't receive any such benefit.
You simply need to apply for a 501c3, just like all the other religious groups. I've done so myself, for a non-profit I helped. It's not hard, and the barrier to entry is very very low.
>>Christians are atheists about most gods that we have dreamed up.
Common Hitchensism, and is a good example of his nonsense that people apparently believe in.
At a certain level, we all are forced to pick a religion for ourselves. Refusing to choose any (i.e. atheism) is a very distinct difference than choosing one.
>>No he's saying if god could have existed all along without being created then the universe could have existed all along without needing to be created.
Right. I understand the structure of his argument - except it's wrong.
Our universe has a one-dimensional timeline (as far as we can tell). God is hypothesized to exist outside of time. The universe needs an origin. God does not.
The wikipedia summary is not very good. The original Kalam argument basically went as thus:
1) Time cannot have started an infinite amount of time ago, because adding a finite amount of time to a negative inifnity will never result in the present day. 2) Therefore the universe cannot be infinitely old 3) Therefore it had a starting moment 4) Therefore it is more likely it was created than not.
The fact that they reasoned this from pure logic what science would confirm hundreds of years later still amazes me, really.
We're all just individuals in the end, really. If you disagree with the rhetorical stylings of Dawkins and Hitchens, feel free to do so. If you like them, then feel free to say you like them.
I can't revoke a Westboro Baptist's "Christian Card" either, you know. (Though I wish I could. =)
The Aztec empire is not just your imagination, and is a case in point, actually, of a developed society that wasn't based on Judeo-Christian values.
Believe it or not, I'm actually familiar with the evolutionary argument for cooperation. You're missing my point: that you can sort of argue anything from evolution. It's like modern-day magic. You could argue that Religion is just the result of some "God Gene" that we have (I think it was Dawkins who argued this, but Collins did a pretty good job disproving it). Or you could argue that Religion is an evolutionary disadvantage. Or you could argue that Religion is unnecessary. So on and so forth.
Something that can explain everything explains nothing, and I never take much note of those arguments these days unless the evidence is really quite clear. It's very trendy to make such arguments, with evolution more or less substituting for a lot of hand waving.
>>How can we know how things would be without religion?
As I said elsewhere in the thread, you have to use natural experiments where you can, such as the introduction of Christianity to the Vikings. They stopped being quite such vicious bastards, but they did go and conquer Normandy (Northman-dy) and from there to England in 1066, but I'd say it was overall a change for the better. Unless you were a Saxon, I suppose.
Since Christianity has spread around the world, there's actually quite a lot of evidence to gather and analyze on the subject.
>>Hammurabi would beg the differ. Christians didn't invent morals and moralistic laws
Didn't claim they did. It would be a very silly claim to make.
I was specifically talking about the notion of Universal Charity. Pretty much all human societies have a concept of Charity, which (besides being one of Glen Beck's three favorite words) basically means being nice to people, taking care of the needy, and so forth. Jesus said you should do all that, sure, but do it to *everyone*. This is the key and radical difference between Jesus' message and everything else. On one hand, we live in a Judeo-Christian society, so we don't even think about the fact we give free health care to prisoners on death row, or any of the thousand other ways the Christian ethic has permeated our society. Fish and the ocean and all that.
It's a lot more noticeable when you're in countries with out the same tradition.
In any event, I really enjoy debating people in real life, so I actually enjoy those sorts of confrontations. I'm not really a fan of the counter-protest things that TFA was talking about.
I've kept door-to-door Jehovah's Witnesses in my house for hours some times, until they give up. It's fun.
As I said, the wikipedia article is okay, but Peter Kreeft has a much better compilation with analysis available. I'm not sure there's a free copy online, but you could probably track one down if you're interested. I've read other books with compilations of arguments for an exist (some even done in debate format, which was very interesting), but the names elude me.
You do know that the notion that religious people probably shouldn't kill each other over religion... is a Christian idea, don't you? It is typically attributed to atheism, but is the result of a lot of the ostensibly religious wars we had in Europe back in the day.
>>Imagine for a moment what would happen if religion today got its hands on a real weapon.
As far as I know, all of our presidents have been Christian, and we've yet to turn the rest of the world into a radioactive parking lot. Perhaps you'd like to try a better excuse? When you compare our Christian presidents with, say, Kim Jong Il (who would probably love to nuke South Korea if he could) your argument makes rather the opposite point.
>>Ad homimum.
Not really. Well, except for the frothing moron part, I guess.
>>Ancient Greece: The world's first democracy, and the origin of much of the world's non-contemporary philosophy. "Jesus" wasn't even born then.
Case in point. The Ancient Greeks had many practices that are abhorrent to the modern day Christian and atheist (who has mostly inherited the Christian system of ethics).
>>The United States of America: Sure, there were christians there, but the constitution is based on religion being separate from the state, yet Christians argue that you can't have morals without religion.
Amazing. Again, you are revealing a complete lack of knowledge about history.
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." -George Washington
But, you know, don't let 'facts' get in the way of your precious factless beliefs. I'm not even saying I agree with George Washington - just that your notions are completely contrary to reality.
Here's one more:
"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. -- Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."
Hop over to your nearest bookstore and start reading about Enlightenment Philosophy and the founding fathers.
If Dawkins didn't actually make arguments involving theology, I'd be relatively more fine with him turning up his nose at all things "delusional".
But when he enters the field and demonstrates his complete and utter newbishness, and then uses it to bash on other people, I'll take him to task for it.
While I dislike the Dream of Red Mansions immensely, I won't pretend to be a Redologist in order to bash on it. When Dawkins does so, he's being fundamentally dishonest, misportraying others' beliefs.
>>I'm sorry, but it *is* offensive to tell others that you believe in a 2000 year old magician who was sent here by god to instruct us how to live.
It's fine if you disagree with my beliefs. But the very fact that I believe that Jesus, who was an amazing pioneer of a lot of really good philosophical ideas, might in fact be divine actively *offends* you?
>>His argument is that it has been evolutionary beneficial for humans to be nice to eachother so thus the argument that we need religion to behave is false.
Arguments from evolution are nearly as bad as arguments "...because God told me so." You can prove nearly anything using evolution - road rage? Why, that's territorial ape-man behavior!
Again, he's completely ignorant of history. You can conduct natural experiments, as it were, by comparing and contrasting the evolution of societies with and without the Abrahamic God, and also how culture change after missionaries enter their culture. It's a fascinating study, and one that is at complete odds with his theory.
Humans are actually very good at being very bad to anyone outside their immediate family.
Slashdot Mirror
Quoting the patriarchs, eh?
The development I'm talking about was an evolution of Christian thought in the Enlightenment Era. Just like how slavery came to be seen as antithetical to Christian values, so did killing each other over religion.
Nowadays you have a very atheistic Europe filled with people who pride themselves on being tolerant, and able to act according to the Judeo-Christian code of ethics, while not believing in God. It's very strange if you think about it. Why would you be proud to follow an ethical code of a God you mock?
Unless there is indeed something to those ethics, I suppose, eh?
>>Eh? The Vikins had religion, not sure what it was but they had it.
That's what I get for writing at 4AM.
I'm talking about the Christian religion in particular, not religion in general. Sorry about that.
>>Now the Christian religion might have been better than religions it replaced, but there's little truly reliable data on that subject.
There's actually extensive data in the Vatican (the last time I looked at the subject) on the missions to the vikings. (Fun fact: based on the Northmen's reports of elves and giants in the wilds there, they actually posed the question to the Pope if they could be baptized and converted. Answer: sure, why not?)
If I remember the story correctly, the Vikings butchered wave after wave of missionaries to them until they began to suspect that if all these people were willing to die for their faith, there might be something to it.
Cut down on depredations greatly.
>>Please define "outside of time". To me that is a meaningless statement.
Yikes, there's no easy way to summarize that whole debate. Try this thought on for size: God is immanent in every moment at every place and views everything as an eternal present.
And if that doesn't make sense, I apologize. If you want to stretch your brain, try reading through this:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/god-time/
I also have some good physics books on space and time if you're interested.
>>Citation? Explanation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
>>This is of course why science looks for the simplest theory that is sufficient to explain the evidence, and leaves claims of necessity to philosophers and divines.
The great fallacy of the 20th century was the rise and predominance of positive materialism, which essentially came to mean that anything that can't be proven by science does not exist. This is the basis for most atheists "proof" that God doesn't exist, in fact, and will use Occam's Razor as if it carries evidential weight in establishing existence or non-existence. (Don't believe me? Look through this very thread.)
This notion is prima facie false - nearly any fact established in history cannot be proved using the scientific method. We can gather archeological and DNA evidence to support one side or the other, but it is impossible to go through the process of hypothesis generation and testing with anything in history. Therefore, no historical fact exists.
>>The only way your assertion that athiests believe "nothing" created the universe makes any sense is if you mean that there is no general consensus among atheists as to why the universe exists
Indulge my bit of hyperbole. It's much easier to say they believe in nothing than to say they have no belief and are completely adamant that everyone else is wrong.
>>He is also polite to people who don't share his opinion.
You've obviously never seen him speak. Or, you know, read his entirely polite and respectful book, "The God Delusion".
>>Theology is the study of how quite intelligent people can make incisive and compelling logical arguments, but still never settle anything except the logical inconsistencies of their opponents position.
As an Obsessive Maths Freak, it can be quite annoying not being able to get an adequate proof, is it not?
But real life is rarely like that. Literature studies, law, theology, philosophy (except the purely logical arguments), ethics etc., all produce logical arguments which the listener weighs based on the preponderance of the evidence.
The issue with Dawkins is that he doesn't have the necessary background to enter the arena, and as a result sounds like a guy who read a website this one time trying to argue why he doesn't need to pay income taxes before the Supreme Court.
Indeed. Something had to exist outside of time that spawned the creation of the universe.
That's all the First Cause argument says conclusively.
Moving from there and saying whether or not you find it more plausible the universe sort of popped out of nowhere or was created involves your thoughts on things like the Anthropic Principle and the various other issues on the topic. I find it more plausible that God exists; you might disagree.
But the atheist who says there's no logical reason to believe in God is simply wrong (or more likely uninformed of the various debates on the issue).
>>Therefore, you must think that all the other, conflicting religions are wrong, meaning that the people firmly believing in those other religions are "delusional".
Hardly. I think there's something to a lot of different religions, though some are indeed a lot more nonsensical than others. While I disagree to a greater or lesser extent with all religions/denominations (I'm including Christian ones here, as well - no denomination really matches my thinking), I wouldn't call, say, a Buddhist delusional, because I think several of their points about attachment to material things to be valid ones. The stuff about the universe being eternal though, I do disagree with.
>>Atheism just takes it one step further and says that ALL religions are wrong, not just "all religions except mine".
In other words, "We don't know the ultimate nature of reality, but we're absolutely convinced that everyone else is wrong."
>>So, in a real sense, my religion is being taxed to benefit your religion. That's hardly equal handed.
Indeed. That's actually the logic the founding fathers used when they gave religion tax exempt status, and forbade the establishment of religion. The tradition to that point was to tax other religions to pay for the state religion. They didn't like the injustice of that.
>>Those with large centralized organizations. Individual and small group religious actions (i.e., independent of a centralized religious organization) don't receive any such benefit.
You simply need to apply for a 501c3, just like all the other religious groups. I've done so myself, for a non-profit I helped. It's not hard, and the barrier to entry is very very low.
>>Christians are atheists about most gods that we have dreamed up.
Common Hitchensism, and is a good example of his nonsense that people apparently believe in.
At a certain level, we all are forced to pick a religion for ourselves. Refusing to choose any (i.e. atheism) is a very distinct difference than choosing one.
To put it another way, it is impossible to get to the present from an infinitely distant past.
>>No he's saying if god could have existed all along without being created then the universe could have existed all along without needing to be created.
Right. I understand the structure of his argument - except it's wrong.
Our universe has a one-dimensional timeline (as far as we can tell). God is hypothesized to exist outside of time. The universe needs an origin. God does not.
The wikipedia summary is not very good. The original Kalam argument basically went as thus:
1) Time cannot have started an infinite amount of time ago, because adding a finite amount of time to a negative inifnity will never result in the present day.
2) Therefore the universe cannot be infinitely old
3) Therefore it had a starting moment
4) Therefore it is more likely it was created than not.
The fact that they reasoned this from pure logic what science would confirm hundreds of years later still amazes me, really.
Cheers.
>>Who would disown them exactly?
We're all just individuals in the end, really. If you disagree with the rhetorical stylings of Dawkins and Hitchens, feel free to do so. If you like them, then feel free to say you like them.
I can't revoke a Westboro Baptist's "Christian Card" either, you know. (Though I wish I could. =)
The Aztec empire is not just your imagination, and is a case in point, actually, of a developed society that wasn't based on Judeo-Christian values.
Believe it or not, I'm actually familiar with the evolutionary argument for cooperation. You're missing my point: that you can sort of argue anything from evolution. It's like modern-day magic. You could argue that Religion is just the result of some "God Gene" that we have (I think it was Dawkins who argued this, but Collins did a pretty good job disproving it). Or you could argue that Religion is an evolutionary disadvantage. Or you could argue that Religion is unnecessary. So on and so forth.
Something that can explain everything explains nothing, and I never take much note of those arguments these days unless the evidence is really quite clear. It's very trendy to make such arguments, with evolution more or less substituting for a lot of hand waving.
>>How can we know how things would be without religion?
As I said elsewhere in the thread, you have to use natural experiments where you can, such as the introduction of Christianity to the Vikings. They stopped being quite such vicious bastards, but they did go and conquer Normandy (Northman-dy) and from there to England in 1066, but I'd say it was overall a change for the better. Unless you were a Saxon, I suppose.
Since Christianity has spread around the world, there's actually quite a lot of evidence to gather and analyze on the subject.
>>Hammurabi would beg the differ. Christians didn't invent morals and moralistic laws
Didn't claim they did. It would be a very silly claim to make.
I was specifically talking about the notion of Universal Charity. Pretty much all human societies have a concept of Charity, which (besides being one of Glen Beck's three favorite words) basically means being nice to people, taking care of the needy, and so forth. Jesus said you should do all that, sure, but do it to *everyone*. This is the key and radical difference between Jesus' message and everything else. On one hand, we live in a Judeo-Christian society, so we don't even think about the fact we give free health care to prisoners on death row, or any of the thousand other ways the Christian ethic has permeated our society. Fish and the ocean and all that.
It's a lot more noticeable when you're in countries with out the same tradition.
>>You really like insulting, don't you?
Yep. =)
>>Please do not feed the real-life trolls.
Hmm. I'm not sure they see themselves as trolls.
In any event, I really enjoy debating people in real life, so I actually enjoy those sorts of confrontations. I'm not really a fan of the counter-protest things that TFA was talking about.
I've kept door-to-door Jehovah's Witnesses in my house for hours some times, until they give up. It's fun.
>>There really are none, don't even try: All your possible arguments for a Christian god also apply to the FSM.
Is there a historic FSM? No.
Is there a historic Jesus. Yes.
Sorry, you lose. Try again next week and you get a free Slurpee with your bad philosophical argument!
As I said, the wikipedia article is okay, but Peter Kreeft has a much better compilation with analysis available. I'm not sure there's a free copy online, but you could probably track one down if you're interested. I've read other books with compilations of arguments for an exist (some even done in debate format, which was very interesting), but the names elude me.
You do know that the notion that religious people probably shouldn't kill each other over religion... is a Christian idea, don't you? It is typically attributed to atheism, but is the result of a lot of the ostensibly religious wars we had in Europe back in the day.
>>Imagine for a moment what would happen if religion today got its hands on a real weapon.
As far as I know, all of our presidents have been Christian, and we've yet to turn the rest of the world into a radioactive parking lot. Perhaps you'd like to try a better excuse? When you compare our Christian presidents with, say, Kim Jong Il (who would probably love to nuke South Korea if he could) your argument makes rather the opposite point.
>>Ad homimum.
Not really. Well, except for the frothing moron part, I guess.
>>Please stop with the ad hominem attacks.
Nah! They're too much fun. =)
>>Ancient Greece: The world's first democracy, and the origin of much of the world's non-contemporary philosophy. "Jesus" wasn't even born then.
Case in point. The Ancient Greeks had many practices that are abhorrent to the modern day Christian and atheist (who has mostly inherited the Christian system of ethics).
>>The United States of America: Sure, there were christians there, but the constitution is based on religion being separate from the state, yet Christians argue that you can't have morals without religion.
Amazing. Again, you are revealing a complete lack of knowledge about history.
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." -George Washington
But, you know, don't let 'facts' get in the way of your precious factless beliefs. I'm not even saying I agree with George Washington - just that your notions are completely contrary to reality.
Here's one more:
"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. -- Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."
Hop over to your nearest bookstore and start reading about Enlightenment Philosophy and the founding fathers.
>>You, sir, need to read The Courtier's Reply :
If Dawkins didn't actually make arguments involving theology, I'd be relatively more fine with him turning up his nose at all things "delusional".
But when he enters the field and demonstrates his complete and utter newbishness, and then uses it to bash on other people, I'll take him to task for it.
While I dislike the Dream of Red Mansions immensely, I won't pretend to be a Redologist in order to bash on it. When Dawkins does so, he's being fundamentally dishonest, misportraying others' beliefs.
>>I'm sorry, but it *is* offensive to tell others that you believe in a 2000 year old magician who was sent here by god to instruct us how to live.
It's fine if you disagree with my beliefs. But the very fact that I believe that Jesus, who was an amazing pioneer of a lot of really good philosophical ideas, might in fact be divine actively *offends* you?
Cry me a fucking river, bitch.
>>His argument is that it has been evolutionary beneficial for humans to be nice to eachother so thus the argument that we need religion to behave is false.
Arguments from evolution are nearly as bad as arguments "...because God told me so." You can prove nearly anything using evolution - road rage? Why, that's territorial ape-man behavior!
Again, he's completely ignorant of history. You can conduct natural experiments, as it were, by comparing and contrasting the evolution of societies with and without the Abrahamic God, and also how culture change after missionaries enter their culture. It's a fascinating study, and one that is at complete odds with his theory.
Humans are actually very good at being very bad to anyone outside their immediate family.