With all due respect ... I wish they'd had this discussion without Dennett. He brings next to nothing to the table and actually interrupts some potentially great trains of thought.
@EchoCosmic I'd have to disagree. In this part, for instance, is comparison of religious psychology to a con man is wonderful. Not as wonderful as Sam Harris' description of spiritual experiences, but still wonderful.
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
Isn't if funny that the 2 religions their are trying to disprove are Christianity and Islam? They never once say anything about Jews in a negative way!
@dippey120 - Yes. I know a Reform Jewish Rabbi who supports science education, and even he says that Creationism has no business in a school science class, and he's also against all attempts to insert Creationism, or so-called "Intelligent Design" into school science textbooks. That's why I have more respect for Jews than for Christians. They don't force their religion on other people.
@piffNkush456 Actually youtube has lots of videos of each of them debating with Rabbis. Watch Dawkins' "Root of All Evil" and you'll see Dawkins' quite firmly challenging a Rabbi.
Oh dear, interpreting Genesis as 'true metaphor' is a response to the 'hammer blows' of science, really Mr. Harris? Strange then that Augustine was offering precisely this take in the 4th century. 'Science' in modern sense, didn't exist then. The science of the day while ground breaking and admirable in certain areas of the world, had nothing to say on such matters. That would be that little criticism debunked.
I feel a bit sorry for Dawkins. His views about religion have always been unbalanced and obsessive and it is sad that he begins to look more ridiculous as he gets older. He had an admirable scientific reputation and surely made enough money out of sales of the ridiculous The God Delusion to wannabe intellectuals without making himself a total fool in public.
@fromwilliams So what? Unbalanced views about religion? Hasn't commented on homosexuality? Obsessed? Wow, the level of love, compassion and forgiveness that you demonstrate is truly astonishing. You must feel SO blessed, indeed you probably are. The sooner THE WORLD'S obsession with the juvenile witterings of Iron age men is recognised as the anachronistic rubbish it is, the better. Get a life
@fromwilliams In other words, like most of his critics who like to pretend they know him, you've read hardly a thing of his, yet you seem to spew all the same talking pints as creationists.
• Dawkin's is a disgrace to science - he has become nothing but and ignorant demagogue and ideologue. He has abused and corrupted his Simyoni "chair" whic is supposed to be for the "public understanding of SCIENCE" and turned it into the Throne of the Self-Appointed Pope of SCIENTISM. Scientism is not science; it is just an ideology like any other - and Dawkins its High-Priest.
Morally insane Hitchens & his sorry ilk are not in agreement with decent thinking people. …evil-minds are busy subverting and perverting youth in the name of ‘gay’ rights, but Bitchens & Dawkins are strangely silent on this subject. What does ‘gay’ behavior really 'encompASS" anyway? All of the following: sodomy, lesbianism, bestiality, pedophilia, pederasty, coprophilia, fetishism, sadomasochism, rape, & murder. In short, everything unnatural,socially destructive,bent,criminal,& abhorrent.
Very true. The ridiculous postulates in religion aren't irreducibly complex bullshit - just highly evolved bullshit with a long history of adaptation and selection. Very picky selection.
Dawkins, brilliant and a tried-and-true atheist for sure, looks uncomfortable here. I still think he's simply much more of a scientist detoured into atheist (he's obviously an atheist, but I think he would be more at peace with science). Everyone at the table is heading in the same direction (away from religion, toward science) but the ways the other quote things and whatnot they do it calmly. Dawkins has micro-expressions of anger. His books are unfathomably fantastic though.
Even if I disagreed with Dawkins, I don't, I could listen to the lilting timbre of his voice, and the crisp and careful enunciation of his silvery British accent all day.
@Brahmsfourth Sorry for being Peter pedantic, but it's a pet hate of mine (and many others) when our American cousins refer to an English accent as 'British'..while the same people often refer to our brothers/sisters North of the border as Scottish!
Jesus freaks and right wing facist simpletons are already touting that god gave Hitchens throat cancer to stop his condemnation of the church and christianity. I despise all religious people. Fuck your god!
@AegeanKing "Totally. You can listen to his voice all day while you suck his cock you fucking dawkins groupie." - AegeanKing
I find it delightfully ironic that you berate Brahmsfourth for being a fan of a scientist who speaks against God, while your attitude and language are not characteristic (or are they?) of a believer. Whose side are you on, anyhow?
Why does Hitchens grant any validity to the 'who would make up such shit' camp?
It's not like one person made up all the shit. Shit A had to be reconciled with real-world data B, which gave birth to Shit C, which had to be reconciled with real-world data D, and so on through the ages.
In the end, we end up with a load of shit no individual would've made up, but so what? That fact just points to religion's absurd history of rationalization.
@sgtmcwallace They do. Dawkins had the selfish gene. Dennett has the "intentional stance." Hitchens has written scathing books about historical figures. Harris is beginning a career in neuroscience.
It's pointless discussing how to argue rationally with irrational people. If you think you are Napoleon then society says you need a psychiatrist, but society tolerates certain other irrational behaviour such as belief in a sky god. Also, people think that if the Catholic Church (for example) ceased to exist it would create a moral vacuum. Secularists have to demonstrate that human ethical values do function outside religion. We have to point out the problems caused by irrational belief.
This is going to sound ridiculous, mad and stupid (and I'd agree lol), but although I read the title, it has taken me until part three to realise that that is Daniel Dennett, and not James Randi. However I think Mr.Randi would be a great addition to the table.
@ThePsydome Perhaps your right, not sure he would be out of his depth however. I've heard Randi talk on scepticism and the like, completely articulate and intelligent, however even he, may be out of his depth. However, personally (I love all four here and Dawkins was the first of the four I discovered) I think Hitchens puts the other three out of there depth generally. Perhaps not on this subject, although I believe he slightly is too, but the way he presents his arguments, and his referencing.
@cooperjc8 I sort of agree. I don't think Randi would be completely out of this depth on the matters of Atheism and deception but maybe once it started getting political. Randi is far more clever than people think but to his great benefit, he is incredibly modest as well and would humble himself to a degree in heated debate with his peers.
@BrokenBard Yep that's true. Talking of being humble, when I came across Dawkins, who was the first of the four I discovered, I initially thought he was being fairly vicious, until I discovered Hitchens, Then I realised in conversation, how Dawkins, when talking to silly creationists, he always keeps his cool, always, and that, I have got to give to him, because I couldn't. Although Hitchens never really gets angry either, but certainly more aggressive, which I like as well.
i dont believe in religion! a god? i cant see or talk to or feel so to my knowledge i cant believe in it! they might be one but im not going to say yeah there is a god! no one knows
The best way to fight religoius arguments are proving other religions as true using the same tactics. One hsa to play by the same rules as the one starting the argument. it wont help to only say "You are using false logic." The many muslims I've debated always run away after you tell them they are going against the quran themselves. Porn is against islam, and if you would never chop off the head and fingertips off of anyone etc, then you cannot be a muslim.
"The enlightment of religion came from outside religion". That is not entirely true, the reformation is part of the enlightment of religion and that come from religion itself by translating the bible. The inspiration for that first important step in a new understanding of religion was inspired by Jezus Himself. It was also very usefull for science. Important works of Gallieo are published in the reformed (and thus for the time liberal) Netherlands for example.
If only I could resurrect Georg Hamann, Dostoevsky, Kierkegaard and Joseph Campbell and have them walk into the room at the end of this piece and take a seat, smile, and have Kierkegaard, speaking for the group say "gentlemen! do you have anything to say?" Now that would be a video.
Ok, as a student of comparative religion, 1:50 in Harris says something COMPLETELY FALSE. There exist a thing that any 101 class in religion teaches called "universalism", not to be confused with Unitarian Universalism, which is a church in and of it's self. It is the opinion that all roads lead to God and all religions are equally valid, and this opinion exist in Hinduism, Sihkish, Bahas, Wiccans etc. So no, actually, not all religion refuse every other religion. Speak what you know, Harris
@mysticresistence Good point but the universalism diminishes the point of those in particular who think that their God is the only one. It almost seems like a contradiction on the part of believers to think all paths lead to the same God because of the methods to get there and how they oppose one another. Christianity frowns upon cheating whereas Islam doesn't. Well, from what I've experienced in real life. I could be wrong.
@DarkAnima696 As a student of Comparative religion, I agree that there are religions that believe that they are the one true religion, but Harris says "EVERY RELIGIOUS PERSON", which is simply 100% false & proves that neither he nor any of the other 4 unicyclists here know what they are talking about. None of them have every studied religion at a university & they are about as qualified to talk about religious doctrines as they are to be the next Iron Chef.
You have a point. They don't know religion very well at all. When pressed, Hitchens says "Well, I just know what the holy books say." Fine. But that's different from understanding what religious people actually believe and why. But on the other hand, they don't NEED to understand religion to reject supernatural claims. It would be like saying that a person needs to have strong knowledge of fabrics, fashion and style to conclude that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes.
@hazydavey The question then becomes this: is the emperor naked as we think of it or, as the Sadhus of India who practice Digambar or the pagans do. So is the Emperor nude, or his he SKYCLAD? Same thing, but with different meanings. So is the scripture "real"? Real metaphorically, or real literally or real something in between? That is the problem w/ these guys: they take things to literally. As Joseph Campbell said,"Indeed, the scriptures are true, but they should be read as poetry & not prose"
"Indeed, the scriptures are true, but they should be read as poetry & not prose"
Is the Pope aware of this? Are most Mullahs, Rabbis and Preachers? They need to hear this far more urgently than the 4 horsemen do. It's all well and good to point out the variety of religious experiences & to urge a non-literal approach to holy texts. But there's a sufficient number of religious authorities (& followers) in the U.S. & around the globe who insist otherwise. The 4 horsemen aren't wrong about that.
@44SuperShredder If by "preconcluded reasoning" you mean an education on what religion actually means, them I'm guilty as charged. I laugh at these clowns and their half understanding of religion the same way Dawkins laughs at the idiotic Young Earth Creationists.
@mysticresistence Stating that the true meaning of religion can be found through education is an oxymoron within itself if you ask me, I think Origin is a more appropriate word. This discussion is far from a circus sideshow and I think Harris is more concerned with the fundamentalist sects that mean harm or death to anyone outside their belief. I agree that they are NOT religious scholars, but i dont see them pretending to be like many young earthers pretend to know science.
@44SuperShredder I never said "the true meaning" which would be something deeply personal that no education could teach. What I mean is that they do not understand the sociological, historical, and psychological dimensions of religion. They make claims about religion while having no idea what they are talking about like the Creationists make claims about science when they clearly are not scientists.
No one in this room is a Joseph Campbell or a Elaine Pagels...
@SirKickz In "God is not Great," Hitchens says that the Sethian Gnostics believed that Jesus was an incarnation of Seth. This is false, they actually believed Jesus was just a descent of Seth. He also claims that Nichiren Buddhism helped Japanese imperialism in WWII, when actually, the largest Nichiren Buddhist org. today, SGI, was founded by Josei Toda, a man who spent years in prison for protesting WWII out of cause of his Buddhist ethics.
@SirKickz Hitchens also claims that the Sri Lankan civil war was a religious conflict, i.e., Hindu vs Buddhist, this is not the case, as their are Hindus in the Sri Lankan army and atheists in the Tamil Tigers. It is an ethnic conflict, not a religious one. He also claims that if the Gnostics ever gained control they would have oppressed the orthodox Christians. This is also false as southern France was controlled by the Gnostic Cathars and they had a policy of freedom of religion
@SirKickz Dawkins claims that any allegorical interpretation of religious doctrine betrays "both reason and faith," well, that would be news to the old testament prophet Hosea who used allegorical, non-literal interpretation of Jacob's struggle with the angels, saying it was a metaphor for a struggle in prayer. Clearly, he knows nothing about religion and should shut up and go back to being a biologist & only mention religion when denouncing the oxymoron of "creation science,"
Alright. Was that claim made in this video or in some other? Give me a time indication or a link. I suspect that the point Dawkins was trying to make is that it is unreasonable to arbitrarily declare that some points of a holy text are to be taken literally while others are metaphors for something. It also betrays faith, because when you do that, you aren't following the word of God, you're just believing whatever you want, and calling it the word of God.
@SirKickz Dawkins says that in "The Root of all Evil?" To make the huge claim that allegorical interpretation betrays faith would require one to know A LOT about theology and religion, both subjects Dawkins has only a laymen's understanding of. All religions have allegorical interpretations of myths, and that interpretation has been taught for centuries. What it means is that God(s)/the divine or what ever used metaphor to teach a deeper meaning.
@SirKickz Joseph Campbell, a man who spent a lifetime studying religion and mythology & is for the field of comparative religion what Einstein was for physics and Darwin was for biology has said that religious scripture is best understood metaphorically, because to do otherwise would be to "read what was meant to be poetry as if it was prose." So who should I listen to on this subject, the all time authority on Comparative religion & the interpretation of myth...or an evolutionary biologist?
So then, the next question that follows is, on what basis does Campbell claim that scripture is meant to be read metaphorically? If Campbell is as smart as you say, what grounds does he have for making that claim? He might be a very learned man, I'm not doubting that, but, unless he has sound evidence to support his conclusion, it's just another arbitrary declaration of, "this is how the bible is supposed to be read."
@SirKickz Joseph Campbell has his opinion after decades of studying the religions of the world and his experiences with countless clerics and other scholars. Like I said, allegorical interpretation goes back to the Book of Hosea and Plato, and as for the Christian religion, Jesus himself said "I will speak in parables to explain things hidden since the creation of the world" (matt 13:35) So either the OT prophet Hosea and Jesus were against God, or the book was meant to be read as metaphor.
Also, in defense of Dawkins, I do want to point out that, while his career is that of an evolutionary biologist, the subject of religion matters very much to him, and he does his research. He has read the bible, and I wouldn't sell him short.
By the way, I didn't miss that you declined to give me a link or time slot where Dawkins made this claim. I'm not saying it didn't happen (that is something he would say), but I have a suspicion that you took his words out of context.
@SirKickz Stephen J. Gould, great paleontologist & agnostic, as repeatedly pointed out that as long as no one is imposing a literalist understanding of creation myths over the sciences, science really cannot comment on religion. As for Dawkins comment, watch "The Root of all Evil?" Part 2, (4/4) when he interviews a moderate Anglican Bishop, at about 2:40 in he says exactly what I said he says.
@SirKickz Also, reading the Bible alone makes you about as qualified to argue the bible as reading "The Origin of Species" makes you qualified to argue evolution. Overwhelming majority of Christians do not believe in sola scriptura and even those that do read it differently. To be able to really understand it the Dawkins claims to one has to spend years studying it and attending a university to understand religion, its history, its customs, it sociology, its psychology etc.
Dawkins hasn't just read the bible. He's traveled the world and interviewed many of the smartest minds he could find on the topic of religion, from many different faiths. He has done his homework. Now, alright, let's assume that it's meant to be read metaphorically. The next question is, what is it a metaphor for? I doubt that there has ever been two people in the entire world who have both interpreted the words of the bible in the same way.
@SirKickz What if a professor of English literature traveled the world doing interviews with biologists and read Charles Darwin, & came out with a book explaining how evolution is a fraud? You would probably wonder how a professor of English could say that & be more interested in what a professor of biology would say. At the same time, if you want to know about religion, try reading a professor of comparative religion, like Huston Smith, Elaine Pagels or Joseph Campbell.
The meaning of the words in the bible is so incredibly vague that you can plaster whatever interpretation of the metaphor that it makes that you want, and so you can use the bible as justification for doing just about everything you can think of. Why do you think there's all these religious fanatics running about? Why do you think the catholics and protestants in Ireland are still killing eachother left and right? Everyone thinks their interpretation is the 'right' one.
@SirKickz Most of the moral teachings in the Christian scriptures are pretty cut & dry, i.e. love your enemy, love 1 another, don't seek revenge, help the poor, etc. It's only the mythology that is interpreted differently from person to person, which is why religion is so wonderful because it allows for individual interpretation while science is monolithic & non-personal. A acid & base create a neutral, no room for personal opinion, but the sound of 1 hand clapping? up to you to decide.
@SirKickz As for religious violence, if you look in history you will see that it is only the literalists who commit acts of genocide. Those who believe that a scripture is metaphor rarely if ever commit violence, it is only, ironically, those who read the bible the way Dawkins does, i.e. literally, who commit the violence. It is only those with a literalist interpretation who commit violence & hence the problem isn't religion, it's literalism.
Science's goal is simply to understand the world, and to shape your beliefs based on your observations of how it works. Humanity and morality in our culture has advanced as far as it has mostly because of science. And also mostly despite religion. I highly, highly doubt that EVERYONE who's commited violence for religious reasons is a "literalist."
@SirKickz Science can only comment on the empirical, like how many chromosomes a rat has or something like that & can make no claim about beauty, morality, ethics, faith etc as proven by Dr. Stephen Jay Gould w/his concept of non-overlapping magisteria. Science is not morality & if it wasn't for religion we would never of had the civil rights movement, the abolitionist movement, pacifism, & 90% of the world's charities. Show me one liberal religious leader who inspired religious violence...
I'm not going to answer that question, because I'm sure that you will simply label whoever I might name a 'literalist' and dismiss it. Actually, you need to look at morality in a scientific manner in order to establish any sort of communal values. Think about it. You can't have everyone having their own opinions about what is right or wrong, because eventually someone will do something innocent that someone else thinks is evil, and then you have a fight, or maybe a murder.
@SirKickz Science has nothing to do with morality. We, the homosapiens, wiped out the neanderthals & thus, evolution was served. Now, does that mean it's ok to commit murder? Scientifically speaking, the Tuskegee Experiment was justified, as there were plenty of poor black men & the data was valuable. Only morality in & of its self is correct, & science exist outside of morality.
You are just not getting what I'm saying, are you? In order for morality to be preserved, the members of our community need to be able to agree on what morality means. If you allow everyone to have their own personal opinion by letting morality be ambiguous, there are going to be people who think it's ok to murder. If you define morality in a specific, empirical manner, everyone knows that it's wrong to murder, and there's no confusion. Morality is -not- art.
@SirKickz I agree, morality is concrete & that is why every religion has the same general concepts of morality (after the cultural codes are removed) Morality is concrete & that is not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that religious myths don't provide communal morality nor are they meant to, they are there to provide meaning, while religious morality isn't metaphorical but pretty straight forward.
Science can't provide morality, as the Tuskegee Experiment & the Eugenics movement proved
But you can't say that morality is concrete, and then teach it through metaphor. That's exactly the problem. When you use metaphor to teach, ambiguity is inevitable, especially considering how impossibly vague holy scripture is. The Tuskegee experiments were wrong, but you know what? Since then science has grown and made itself better: something religion, steeped in tradition and based on an ancient text, cannot do.
@SirKickz Like I keep saying, religion DOESN'T teach morality through metaphor. In every religious text I've read the morality is always spelled out while the creation stories, stories of the founder, etc are where the metaphors dominate.
The Tuskegee Experiment was completely scientifically valid, & still is today. It is only through something unscientific (morality) that we know the Tuskegee Experiment was wrong. Religion has morality by its nature, science doesn't
@mysticresistence I take it that you can't be bothered doing any actual reading on the subject, if it's not approved by whatever religion you subscribe to, and isn't obviously in favor of your viewpoint.
How about you learn a bit of honesty, little mister righteous.
@cinesimonj I've read Dawkins, Hitchens & Dennet's books and found them all rather absurd. I have a BA in Comparative Religion, and therefore know more about the subject than all four of these jokers combined.
@cinesimonj You claimed I don't know what I'm talking about, and I said I do because I have a BA in comparative Religion, compared to Dawkin's Phd in Biology, Dennet's general education, Harris the neurologist and Hitchens the...the...well, an alleged journalist.
Dawkins is a genius biologist, I agree, but when it comes to religion he is simply a layman.
Well, then the question is. If you do have this great experience in comparative religion. Is what they are saying factually wrong? On what point are they mistaken? But nor is this about religion. It's about why one has non belief. And why one does not accept the claims of theology.
@Muthsera80 Who said anything about facts? Religion is not all about facts & is mostly about metaphors, symbolism etc. Look at it this way: if these guys looked at loved songs the way they look at religion, than they would say "My Girl" by The Temptations is a lie, after all, it is FACTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE for a girl to be "sunshine on a cloudy day". Sunshine is light generated by our star, & a girl can't be literal light. Now, does that mean the song was a load of bull? No, it was a metaphor.
Excuse me. But your simply being selective now. If religion simply confined itself with metaphors and lose symbolism then we all be better off. The problem is my good friend. Is that it doesn't simply confine itself with these questions. They also make grand assertions of the natural world. Like the pope saying that prevention is detrimental. It isn't. They make grand assertions of how the world was made, completely without evidence. Etc, etc, etc. It isn't only metaphors.
@Muthsera80 What religions make such claims? Buddhism, the 4th largest religion, makes no claims about the origin of the world. Hinduism, the 3rd largest religion, makes it clear that its creation myths are just that, MYTHS that are not literally true. Wicca,one of the fastest, if not THE the fastest growing religions in America also makes no claims about the origins of the Earth or believe that their deities are little beings.
I'm guessing that when Buddhists say that Buddha experienced transcendence it's just metaphorical. And if you meditate you can experience this as well. This is not a metaphorical statement. It's a factual statement.
We can go on to christianity, judaism and islam that all hold the Abraham creation myth. These are factual statements. And it's true, that many in these religions don't take it literally. But many do. Instead they proclaim other unproven assertions. Like *cont*
@Muthsera80 "transcendence" isn't supernatural in Buddhism. "Samadhi" is what its called & it refers to a pure state of mind in which the mind is no longer phased by the external world & one forgets oneself in meditative bliss. As for the Abrahamic religion, again, the Myths were NEVER meant to be taken literally.
@Muthsera80 How oh how is it that if someone can sit down and be clear of purposeful thoughts, like not worrying abut the rent or not being elated that his daughter is getting married, "supernatural"? "Not being phased by the external world" is just that, NOT BEING PHASED. As in one no longer has any opinion on the world around him/her, if even for one brief moment of meditation. Saying that is "supernatural" is absurd.
@Muthsera80 Being "phased" by the external world is not being "unaffected" by the external world. "Phased", at least in American English, means state of mind, as in "yeah, she called me a name, but it doesn't phase me." If someone is shot while in Samadhi, they will die, of course. But if someone broke up with their girlfriend an hour before meditation and they reached Samadhi, they wouldn't be phased by the breakup for the duration of Samadhi.
That is clearly not true. That is simply the everyday affirmation of it. Transcendence means beyond. Your simply bending the definition to suit your purpose. It also means that you have reached a state of enlightenment. And this is clearly what the story of Buddha tells us.
@Muthsera80 "Transcendence" IS AN EVERYDAY THING! THAT'S THE POINT! One can attain enlightenment through sitting meditation (Zazen) walking meditation (Kinhin) & working meditation...forget the Japanese word for it. In Zen Buddhism, we are taught that enlightenment isn't something magic but is something everyday, hence it is profound. If you don't believe me read Shunryu Suzuki...or does he not know anything about Buddhism?
@Muthsera80 Where in the Abrahamic scripture is it written that Genesis MUST be taken literally? It doesn't. From the beginning, going all the way back to Hosea IN THE BIBLE itself there have been allegorical interpretations of scripture. Even Jesus himself said "I speak in parables" (mat 13:34) So if he says his words aren't meant to be taken literally & people still do, whose fault is it, his words or the person who takes it literally?
It is gospel. It is the decedent word of god. Of course it is meant to be factual. Or it wouldn't be there.
If it's not meant to be taken as factual it's just a fable. And the bible makes clear that these are commandments, the teachings of god. If it wasn't, you would take it as atheists do. A part of human history. Like Descartes, Mary Shelley, Plato or Homer. Your basically saying that their religion is non-sense. I agree. But still.
@Muthsera80 "It is gospel. It is the decedent word of god. Of course it is meant to be factual. Or it wouldn't be there." Where does it say that? It doesn't. People like Dawkins like to think religion has to take its myths literal because if it doesn't, his arguments are instantly rendered moot.
Of course it must mean that. It isn't meant to be taken as one mans teaching. It's meant as revelation of a divine origin. If it was simply meant as philosophy, then we would teach it alongside that of Kant.
@Muthsera80 Why must religious text be taken literally? Again, if they were meant to be taken literally it wouldn't have prophets who took the Myths as metaphors or early teachers taking it as metaphor or MESSIAHS saying "I speak in parables." Countless churches follow a non-literal understanding of scriptures, & than you have whole religions, like Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism & Wicca who don't take there Myths literally at all.
Ok, try to understand this. Jesus didn't say that it was up for interpretation what his teachings where. It clearly isn't. Your simply picking a small piece of the bible and interpreting it the way you want it to. The new testament is full of teachings Jesus made clear was not optional.
@Muthsera80 "Not optional" no, but clearly NOT LITERAL. Example: if a father said to his son "at the prom I want you to behave like a perfect knight. This isn't optional." Now, if the son takes a sword to the prom and challenged someone to a duel and goes jousting through a window in the limo, & his father gets angry when he finds out, whose fault is it? The Father, or the boy? And was his father being optional in his order to his son, or was it his son just being thick skulled & not getting it?
Well, he behaved as the perfect knight. His father was not optional. He lended other meanings to the word knight than his son who actually knew what the real behavior of a knight was. This is why teachings as this is nonsense. Because your being metaphorical.
@Muthsera80 Only people who don't understand what a metaphor means would call a lesson taught as metaphor "nonsensical." It makes sense if you do the work of figuring out the meaning of the metaphor. That's why religion is hard to study. Science is just left to write, everything says what it means. Religion, on the other hand, is full of symbolism, cultural meanings that can easily be lost to someone of a different culture, linguistic challenges etc. It takes work to understand the metaphors
What complete nonsense. The reason why religion is hard to study is because it's full of illogical and situational interpretations, outright fallacies that followers try to twist and bend into a comprehensive thought than can explain these outright false claims. Instead they use words like "metaphor" and "spiritual". Ie, another word for "assertion" "speculation" "unfounded". But yet, somehow these unfounded claims should be respected. No, show me the evidence. Or shut up.
@Muthsera80 Religion is hard to study because, unlike science, it requires interpretation of metaphor. Much like people with severe Autism can't understand figures of speech yet are human calculators, people like Dawkins might be experts in science but just can't understand religion. As for "evidence", look up "metaphor" in the dictionary, it's there. Hence, religion works as its Myths are metaphors for the human condition, as Jung & Joseph Campbell explain.
*cont* virgin births, divine inspiration, miracle cures, transcendent knowledge, etc, etc, etc. Such as the earth goes around the sun. The firmament exist on which the stars sits. The sun goes around the earth. Man being descendent from one man and one woman. Many we have disproved as false. Yet people still believe this. Despite evidence. And no factual evidence you show them can change their minds. That is fundamentally dishonest.
@Muthsera80 The dishonest thing is for these four men, NONE OF WHOM have actually studied religion to make claims that religions take their Myths literally. Sure, some people do, but many others don't. Literalism is actually a modern heresy in Christianity. Again, since the beginning, a metaphoric understanding of Mythology has been widespread. If any of these four studied religion & its history they would know that.
When the now bishop of Canterbury said that the floods where due to homosexual sin. Is that not a literal statement? Now good my good sir. Do not be so blatantly dishonest and say that is not a literal statement.
@Muthsera80 The Bishop of Canterbury is a old idiot whom no one should take seriously. I NEVER said all religious people were great or even all churches are good. I have about as much good to say about people like him as Richard Dawkins has good to say about the scientists who performed The Tuskegee Experiment.
No, you said that religion was supposed to be metaphoric. I stated that we're right as Atheists to point out the fallacies in the assertions of religious people. Don't attack me for it. Attack these people for making these retarded statements.
@Muthsera80 I NEVER said religion was metaphoric. I said MYTHOLOGY & SCRIPTURE is metaphor, but religion is real: if you go to a church you will see LITERAL people LITERALLY worshiping, singing etc. & I do point out to literalists that they are false in their ideas...However, I would never make an ad hominem attack & call someone "retarded". I save such attacks for people who clearly deserve it, like that Bishop of Cantebarry.
Now your just being silly. Either Religion is a truthful account of events. Or it isn't religion. You cannot have it both ways. Now, you can say that your spiritual. But that isn't the same as being religious now is it? You can read the scriptures allegorical all you like. But it simply means that your picking the bits you like, discarding the ones you don't like, chose what way you want to view it and act accordingly. Well, I'm sorry but that is what atheist do as well.
@Muthsera80 I have a BA in Comparative Religion, and I have studied religions that DON'T take their Myths literally but still function as religions. Huston Smith, the greatest living scholar on religion, also says that religion can function as religion without taking its myths literally. Go to school & study religion first, than you will understand.
@Muthsera80 Common fallacy of the new-atheists: when you see a religion you can't easily refute, say its really atheism and walk away. Of course its a religion. There are self proclaimed Christian atheists, does that mean Christianity isn't a religion?
Look. I can happily admit that I'll be a happy camper if every religion took it's scripture as metaphors and used it like you do. I think the world would be a much better place as a result. But that doesn't not mean that Atheists and non believers like myself are justified in being assertive in pointing out the factual problems with it.
@Muthsera80 Again, I can prove that a girl can't literally be "sunshine on a cloudy day". Does that mean that "My Girl" by the Temptations is false, or that it speaks in metaphors about something that certainly is true (love)? Same with religious Mythology.
Now your just reverting back to your original argument. Simply because you hold this belief. Or rather. That "some" might hold this belief. Does not mean there are not others who hold it literally. Now, I don't believe that is true however. That these books are metaphors. When the bible says: Honor thy father and thy mother. It isn't meant literal? Or. You are to have no other gods before me. Is not literal? Now, don't be dishonest with us.
@Muthsera80 Those are STATEMENTS OF ETHICS, not MYTHOLOGY. The Mythology isn't meant to be taken literally but the statement of ethics are. You can usually tell the difference by one being a story and the other just being a statement. Any confusion between the two stems from having not studied religion & mythology.
If the majority are literalists (which they aren't) that still doesn't mean an allegorical understanding isn't the correct one. That would be Argumentum Ad Populum, a common fallacy.
Now, this is simply not true. Take the story of Abraham. Sacrificing his son to god. Which is clearly meant as a moral statement of ethics. Your telling me that it was not meant to be take literal? That Abraham never did this? That this story was never a portrayal of truth? And an occurrence?
@Muthsera80 Maybe it was. Again, in the Bible Hosea interprets the struggle between Jacob & the angel as a struggle in prayer. If the prophets of the Bible take the as metaphor, than how can it be wrong to take the Bible as metaphor?
Better to look at what the MEANING of the story is, rather than the facts of the story. Mythology is the telling or absolute truths through metaphors & stories. If you take the Myths literally you miss the point & can't see the forest for the trees.
And I take it was meant as metaphorical when god sent his angel down to destroy sodom and gomorrah?
I'm sorry, either these story happened or they are fictional. And we can take them as human teachings. And they no longer become religions. Take your pick. Either way, your argument is flawed.
@Muthsera80 Again, either a girl literally changed into rays of sunshine on a cloudy day or its fictional & the Temptations are full of it, take your pick.
It was a MYTH, as in a story that tells a universal truth about the human condition through metaphors. Just as debating whether or not a girl can be "sunshine on a cloudy day" misses the point of an obvious metaphor debating if sodom was actually destroyed also misses the point & the message.
In what way does this message give any teachings? Your simply just trowing around lyrics. Now, say that some lived by these words. And took them to heart. Then that would be religion. Did it make them any more truthful than other words and lyrics? No, then why pick these over others?
@Muthsera80 Because those words have stood the test of time & people have actually lived by them and they have shaped cultures, civilization and even language.
@Muthsera80 No, the English Empire was in one time & one place, while religion is universal to the human condition. If you were to find some people somewhere in the Amazon or something that never saw anyone from the outside, you can be guaranteed they would have a spoken language, a family structure, some kind of shelter, a way of gathering food & a religion. Religion is universal to the human condition, hence it warrants study & scholarship.
"while religion is universal to the human condition"
I'm human, so is CH, SH, DD and RD. Do we have a religion? No, we don't. Religion is not universal to the human condition. Your assertion is false. You may claim that we find it in every culture. But we claim instead that religion is peoples attempt to understand the world in which they have yet no evidence for to know for sure what is factual.
@Muthsera80 That is EXACTLY WHAT I MEAN. Every culture has religion. And spare me, SPARE ME the old tired "they only believe it because they don't have scientific understanding" fallacy. Dr. Francis Collins, Phd, MD, chairmen of the Human Genome Project & current head of the National Institute of Health & considered by many to be the greatest geneticist alive is a born again Christian. So, does he not understand what is factual?
Right, because when the Aztec cut open the gut of a poor victim and rip out the still beating heart to make the sun come up the next day, they did it because they had such great understanding of the natural world. As did the indians who sat around the campfire puffing weed and doing a dance to make it rain, they did it because they knew it would have an effect. No my good friend. If your going to claim it for all, your going to own it for all.
@Muthsera80 To compare post-modern theology to human sacrifice hundreds of years ago makes as much sense as comparing Dawkin's scientific work to the science of nazi scientists during WWII or the scientists who committed the Tuskegee Experiments.
Anyway, the Aztecs, like the modern fundies, had a literalist understanding, which is what I've been saying I'm against this whole time. I never said ALL religious people didn't take it literally, just saying that a bunch don't.
What, because they took the consequences of their own beliefs they are wrong? Don't be silly. Why is it that they are wrong, and you are not? If your not going to live by your beliefs, then what good are your beliefs? You can just as well be without them. They are of no consequences to you.
@Muthsera80 No, because they TOOK THEIR MYTHOLOGY LITERALLY. I've been nothing but consistent this whole time in saying religious Mythology shouldn't be taken literally. There is a big difference between NOT TAKING IT LITERALLY & NOT TAKING IT SERIOUSLY: example, if someone in the 1940s US joins the army, do you REALLY think they believe their uncle Sam, Red White & Blue costume & all, wants them to join? No, they understand it's a metaphor for the US government, i.e, they take it SERIOUSLY
@Muthsera80 Now are you talking about BELIEF or about TAKING A MYTH LITERALLY? Two different things. Just as a soldier who doesn't take the existence of Uncle Sam literally still believes in what that symbol means & is willing to die for it & believer can understand that their Mythology isn't literal but can still live & die for what it represents. I would rather die than harm someone unless it's in self defense, & I don't even harm insects or eat meat, yet I get that Buddha may be "only" a Myth
@Muthsera80 Oh, and if religion is the product of the primate mind as you claim, than how the hell did Wicca appear in the 20TH CENTURY? What, did Gerald Gardner not notice the modern age? The moment you understand creation Myths are all metaphors is the moment you'll see that there is no reason why belief & practice of a religion is in no way incompatible with an understanding of how the world works. Anti-theists understand that that takes the wind out of their arguments & hence they ignore it.
Well, that is because even today, they can ignore what we actually know. They put all that to the side and just completely ignore it. To live in their own fantasy. Are you really going to claim that the wiccans really are justifying in claiming they are slaying deamons at the behalf of the world? You want to give them a medal as well?
@Muthsera80 What do we know? We know that Genesis didn't literally happen. Big deal Dr. Collins doesn't take the creation Myth literally. Again, the moment a theist stops taking the Mythology literally is the moment you really have no scientific basis to object to religion. Can God be disproven by science? It can't. Can it be proven by science? No, but neither can the hottness of Emma Watson or the deliciousness of cheesecake or the beauty of sunsets. So should we abandon them as well?
You can't prove a negative. You really need to start taken arguments to heed if your going to discuss philosophies. You can't just take heed to just the ones you like. And thats why it's YOUR obligation when you state the positive. To provide the evidence. Not mine. I simply have to confine myself to providing evidence why your evidence is inaccurate. And if your evidence is refuted, you can't simply just ignore that and state the same thing over.
@Muthsera80 I'm NOT SAYING to prove a negative. I'm saying this: you claim that reality exist. I am asking you to show me evidence for the existence of the external world. Can you prove to me that I am actually in the world? Oh, & you can't use the external world to prove the external world, that's arguing in a circle, like using a Bible verse to prove the Bible. If you can't prove the existence of the external world, in which all of your precious science takes place in, than your arguments FAIL
@Muthsera80 As for Wiccans, they don't claim to slay demons. Again, it appears that you don't know what you're talking about. I have met Wiccans who say that their deities exist only as personifications (archetypes) aspects of the human psyche & that all their rituals & religion is about is working with those symbols for their psyche. So, either the human mind doesn't exist, or the nature of Wiccan deities, in that sense at least, is proven. Which one is it?
Actually, they do. Look it up. Not all, but some do. Wiccan have less of a religion than they have general superstition. Neither has any foundation. Well, their not alone in that. But hey, I'm an equal opportunist anti-theist.
@Muthsera80 I've known a bunch of Wiccans, met Raymond Buckland & Selena Fox, & studied Wicca extensively. They DON'T believe in demons. "They have no foundation"? Oh, so Gerald Gardner didn't really exist? "They don't have a religion"? Oh, so the US government, the US military, the governments of Ireland, UK, New Zealand, Australia & South Africa as well as comparative Religious scholars are all wrong in calling it a religion? Professor Ronald Hutton, historian on paganism old & neo, is wrong?
@Muthsera80 You said, quote "Wiccan have less of a religion than they have general superstition." & I showed that they have as valid a religion as any other. As for "true", what is the "it" which is true? For the third time, if Wiccans say that their deities are metaphors for parts of the human psyche, & if "metaphor" does exist as a word as does the human psyche, than how is that not true? You can disagree, say it aint for you, fine, but you look silly saying a metaphor is untrue
No, Buddhists, Muslims and Christians do not experience the same things. Not at all. What the Dalai Lama goes threw is not what I do.
desasterz 2 days ago
oh hi there charles darwin
kingkonghitme 1 week ago
religion: the longest con.
HelFKiernan 1 month ago in playlist The Four Horsemen: Dawkins, Dennett, Harris & Hitchens 5
With all due respect ... I wish they'd had this discussion without Dennett. He brings next to nothing to the table and actually interrupts some potentially great trains of thought.
EchoCosmic 1 month ago
@EchoCosmic -- but he has a fantastic beard :-)
imbaluris 1 month ago
@EchoCosmic I'd have to disagree. In this part, for instance, is comparison of religious psychology to a con man is wonderful. Not as wonderful as Sam Harris' description of spiritual experiences, but still wonderful.
abasslinelow 1 month ago
Comment removed
RegularSmith 1 month ago
LOL 4:15 - nearly an awkward silence.
nice save dawkins
bluexepnos 2 months ago
ahh that cigarette, the bane of hitchens :(
cantforgetthis 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
You can just see the rapport in their body language. Imagine there was a creationist in the room, how that would change.
MrSmashman1981 3 months ago
Isn't if funny that the 2 religions their are trying to disprove are Christianity and Islam? They never once say anything about Jews in a negative way!
These guys are just like the mainstream media!
piffNkush456 4 months ago
@piffNkush456 I think thats because jews dont try to prosthelytize (convert) people.
dippey120 3 months ago in playlist More videos from PiroNiro
@dippey120 - Yes. I know a Reform Jewish Rabbi who supports science education, and even he says that Creationism has no business in a school science class, and he's also against all attempts to insert Creationism, or so-called "Intelligent Design" into school science textbooks. That's why I have more respect for Jews than for Christians. They don't force their religion on other people.
BigFatHeretic 2 months ago
@piffNkush456 Actually youtube has lots of videos of each of them debating with Rabbis. Watch Dawkins' "Root of All Evil" and you'll see Dawkins' quite firmly challenging a Rabbi.
Prenna23 3 months ago
These guys are all heroes
sonykroket 4 months ago 33
Hey Dennet shut up!
ThorFan4Life 5 months ago
Oh dear, interpreting Genesis as 'true metaphor' is a response to the 'hammer blows' of science, really Mr. Harris? Strange then that Augustine was offering precisely this take in the 4th century. 'Science' in modern sense, didn't exist then. The science of the day while ground breaking and admirable in certain areas of the world, had nothing to say on such matters. That would be that little criticism debunked.
MrWildbill20056 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 6 months ago
Why has no one mentioned the fact that the last 5 minutes are silent :(
IWantAll99s 6 months ago
@IWantAll99s
maybe because no one bothered to watch to the end...
fromwilliams 6 months ago
I feel a bit sorry for Dawkins. His views about religion have always been unbalanced and obsessive and it is sad that he begins to look more ridiculous as he gets older. He had an admirable scientific reputation and surely made enough money out of sales of the ridiculous The God Delusion to wannabe intellectuals without making himself a total fool in public.
fromwilliams 7 months ago
@fromwilliams So what? Unbalanced views about religion? Hasn't commented on homosexuality? Obsessed? Wow, the level of love, compassion and forgiveness that you demonstrate is truly astonishing. You must feel SO blessed, indeed you probably are. The sooner THE WORLD'S obsession with the juvenile witterings of Iron age men is recognised as the anachronistic rubbish it is, the better. Get a life
andsarf 6 months ago
@fromwilliams Why not find some use for your sorry self, spambot.
Jornev 6 months ago
@fromwilliams In other words, like most of his critics who like to pretend they know him, you've read hardly a thing of his, yet you seem to spew all the same talking pints as creationists.
Your critique is juvenile and cliched.
cinesimonj 5 months ago
• Dawkin's is a disgrace to science - he has become nothing but and ignorant demagogue and ideologue. He has abused and corrupted his Simyoni "chair" whic is supposed to be for the "public understanding of SCIENCE" and turned it into the Throne of the Self-Appointed Pope of SCIENTISM. Scientism is not science; it is just an ideology like any other - and Dawkins its High-Priest.
fromwilliams 7 months ago
@fromwilliams Funny how actual scientists disagree with you, while laughing quite heartily in your face, of course.
cinesimonj 5 months ago
Morally insane Hitchens & his sorry ilk are not in agreement with decent thinking people. …evil-minds are busy subverting and perverting youth in the name of ‘gay’ rights, but Bitchens & Dawkins are strangely silent on this subject. What does ‘gay’ behavior really 'encompASS" anyway? All of the following: sodomy, lesbianism, bestiality, pedophilia, pederasty, coprophilia, fetishism, sadomasochism, rape, & murder. In short, everything unnatural,socially destructive,bent,criminal,& abhorrent.
fromwilliams 7 months ago
@drunkagnostic
Very true. The ridiculous postulates in religion aren't irreducibly complex bullshit - just highly evolved bullshit with a long history of adaptation and selection. Very picky selection.
taicleis 10 months ago
These guys all want to get their points in, and kinda interupt each other now and then.
BlckSbthMan 11 months ago
Dawkins, brilliant and a tried-and-true atheist for sure, looks uncomfortable here. I still think he's simply much more of a scientist detoured into atheist (he's obviously an atheist, but I think he would be more at peace with science). Everyone at the table is heading in the same direction (away from religion, toward science) but the ways the other quote things and whatnot they do it calmly. Dawkins has micro-expressions of anger. His books are unfathomably fantastic though.
johntkooz 11 months ago
Even if I disagreed with Dawkins, I don't, I could listen to the lilting timbre of his voice, and the crisp and careful enunciation of his silvery British accent all day.
Brahmsfourth 11 months ago 43
@Brahmsfourth Sorry for being Peter pedantic, but it's a pet hate of mine (and many others) when our American cousins refer to an English accent as 'British'..while the same people often refer to our brothers/sisters North of the border as Scottish!
Right, rant over...back to the vid.
comanchio1976 10 months ago
@Brahmsfourth HAHAHA
tamu77095 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Jesus freaks and right wing facist simpletons are already touting that god gave Hitchens throat cancer to stop his condemnation of the church and christianity. I despise all religious people. Fuck your god!
scotttebben 7 months ago
@Brahmsfourth Totally. You can listen to his voice all day while you suck his cock you fucking dawkins groupie.
AegeanKing 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AegeanKing "Totally. You can listen to his voice all day while you suck his cock you fucking dawkins groupie." - AegeanKing
I find it delightfully ironic that you berate Brahmsfourth for being a fan of a scientist who speaks against God, while your attitude and language are not characteristic (or are they?) of a believer. Whose side are you on, anyhow?
themediocrenontheist 6 months ago
@Brahmsfourth "Silvery"? How can a sound be "silvery"? I like it, though.
frankmademedoit 6 months ago
Why does Hitchens grant any validity to the 'who would make up such shit' camp?
It's not like one person made up all the shit. Shit A had to be reconciled with real-world data B, which gave birth to Shit C, which had to be reconciled with real-world data D, and so on through the ages.
In the end, we end up with a load of shit no individual would've made up, but so what? That fact just points to religion's absurd history of rationalization.
drunkagnostic 1 year ago
Santa is making some good points in this one.
cyasi 1 year ago 45
if these four men had the opportunities to apply their intellects to problems outside of religion just imagine
sgtmcwallace 1 year ago
@sgtmcwallace They do. Dawkins had the selfish gene. Dennett has the "intentional stance." Hitchens has written scathing books about historical figures. Harris is beginning a career in neuroscience.
PapaWilk 11 months ago
It's pointless discussing how to argue rationally with irrational people. If you think you are Napoleon then society says you need a psychiatrist, but society tolerates certain other irrational behaviour such as belief in a sky god. Also, people think that if the Catholic Church (for example) ceased to exist it would create a moral vacuum. Secularists have to demonstrate that human ethical values do function outside religion. We have to point out the problems caused by irrational belief.
cTgo5VMW 1 year ago
There are cavemen in heavon.
DrWeaselBadger 1 year ago
@DrWeaselBadger duhh
Nick7690 1 year ago
I wish Chris wasn't smoking. My fellow Atheists will enjoy "Religious Fanatic tries to convert Atheist" on my channel.
Sweence 1 year ago
whats funny is you cant get a christian, muslim, jew, and buddhist having sucha conversation like these gentlemen.
seeing that they believe in some form of divine intervention to get the homo sapiens we see today...
buktomsin 1 year ago
This is going to sound ridiculous, mad and stupid (and I'd agree lol), but although I read the title, it has taken me until part three to realise that that is Daniel Dennett, and not James Randi. However I think Mr.Randi would be a great addition to the table.
cooperjc8 1 year ago 2
@cooperjc8 As much as Randi is a great advocate for skepticism. He would be dwarfed at this table.
ThePsydome 1 year ago
@ThePsydome Perhaps your right, not sure he would be out of his depth however. I've heard Randi talk on scepticism and the like, completely articulate and intelligent, however even he, may be out of his depth. However, personally (I love all four here and Dawkins was the first of the four I discovered) I think Hitchens puts the other three out of there depth generally. Perhaps not on this subject, although I believe he slightly is too, but the way he presents his arguments, and his referencing.
cooperjc8 1 year ago 2
@cooperjc8 I sort of agree. I don't think Randi would be completely out of this depth on the matters of Atheism and deception but maybe once it started getting political. Randi is far more clever than people think but to his great benefit, he is incredibly modest as well and would humble himself to a degree in heated debate with his peers.
BrokenBard 1 year ago
@BrokenBard Yep that's true. Talking of being humble, when I came across Dawkins, who was the first of the four I discovered, I initially thought he was being fairly vicious, until I discovered Hitchens, Then I realised in conversation, how Dawkins, when talking to silly creationists, he always keeps his cool, always, and that, I have got to give to him, because I couldn't. Although Hitchens never really gets angry either, but certainly more aggressive, which I like as well.
cooperjc8 1 year ago
I think they should have had a talking stick. I don't like hearing people interrupting and talking over each other lol
Forseti6288 1 year ago
@Forseti6288 Yeah, I personally dislike seeing someone interrupted because when that happens to me I generally forget what I was going to say :P
PopeSnowball 1 year ago
259 enemies of Reason disliked this video
skippydeenice 1 year ago 5
i dont believe in religion! a god? i cant see or talk to or feel so to my knowledge i cant believe in it! they might be one but im not going to say yeah there is a god! no one knows
loose809 1 year ago
Hitch always glows in these debates because he is media. The other guys are as strrong but do not have his charisma.
Daz555Daz 1 year ago
Its epic how they all waited at 4:15 for Dawkins to speak, like subconsciously acknowledging it was his turn.
Smood47 1 year ago
@Smood47 ya i noticed that, this looks a bit coordinated
Freethinker12341 1 year ago
The best way to fight religoius arguments are proving other religions as true using the same tactics. One hsa to play by the same rules as the one starting the argument. it wont help to only say "You are using false logic." The many muslims I've debated always run away after you tell them they are going against the quran themselves. Porn is against islam, and if you would never chop off the head and fingertips off of anyone etc, then you cannot be a muslim.
Kan2209 1 year ago
"The enlightment of religion came from outside religion". That is not entirely true, the reformation is part of the enlightment of religion and that come from religion itself by translating the bible. The inspiration for that first important step in a new understanding of religion was inspired by Jezus Himself. It was also very usefull for science. Important works of Gallieo are published in the reformed (and thus for the time liberal) Netherlands for example.
Math2Anton 1 year ago
So nice to see them communing with their own kind rather than their fight or flight stances with the true believers
MrCuntyballs2U 1 year ago
@MrCuntyballs2U So nice to see a username like yours hoping to gain credibility.
ViolentRunning 1 year ago
If only I could resurrect Georg Hamann, Dostoevsky, Kierkegaard and Joseph Campbell and have them walk into the room at the end of this piece and take a seat, smile, and have Kierkegaard, speaking for the group say "gentlemen! do you have anything to say?" Now that would be a video.
mysticresistence 1 year ago
Ok, as a student of comparative religion, 1:50 in Harris says something COMPLETELY FALSE. There exist a thing that any 101 class in religion teaches called "universalism", not to be confused with Unitarian Universalism, which is a church in and of it's self. It is the opinion that all roads lead to God and all religions are equally valid, and this opinion exist in Hinduism, Sihkish, Bahas, Wiccans etc. So no, actually, not all religion refuse every other religion. Speak what you know, Harris
mysticresistence 1 year ago
@mysticresistence Good point but the universalism diminishes the point of those in particular who think that their God is the only one. It almost seems like a contradiction on the part of believers to think all paths lead to the same God because of the methods to get there and how they oppose one another. Christianity frowns upon cheating whereas Islam doesn't. Well, from what I've experienced in real life. I could be wrong.
DarkAnima696 1 year ago
@DarkAnima696 As a student of Comparative religion, I agree that there are religions that believe that they are the one true religion, but Harris says "EVERY RELIGIOUS PERSON", which is simply 100% false & proves that neither he nor any of the other 4 unicyclists here know what they are talking about. None of them have every studied religion at a university & they are about as qualified to talk about religious doctrines as they are to be the next Iron Chef.
mysticresistence 1 year ago
@mysticresistence
You have a point. They don't know religion very well at all. When pressed, Hitchens says "Well, I just know what the holy books say." Fine. But that's different from understanding what religious people actually believe and why. But on the other hand, they don't NEED to understand religion to reject supernatural claims. It would be like saying that a person needs to have strong knowledge of fabrics, fashion and style to conclude that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes.
hazydavey 1 year ago 3
@hazydavey The question then becomes this: is the emperor naked as we think of it or, as the Sadhus of India who practice Digambar or the pagans do. So is the Emperor nude, or his he SKYCLAD? Same thing, but with different meanings. So is the scripture "real"? Real metaphorically, or real literally or real something in between? That is the problem w/ these guys: they take things to literally. As Joseph Campbell said,"Indeed, the scriptures are true, but they should be read as poetry & not prose"
mysticresistence 1 year ago
"Indeed, the scriptures are true, but they should be read as poetry & not prose"
Is the Pope aware of this? Are most Mullahs, Rabbis and Preachers? They need to hear this far more urgently than the 4 horsemen do. It's all well and good to point out the variety of religious experiences & to urge a non-literal approach to holy texts. But there's a sufficient number of religious authorities (& followers) in the U.S. & around the globe who insist otherwise. The 4 horsemen aren't wrong about that.
hazydavey 1 year ago
@mysticresistence Im sorry, but your preconcluded reasoning has blinded you of his obvious point.
44SuperShredder 9 months ago
@44SuperShredder If by "preconcluded reasoning" you mean an education on what religion actually means, them I'm guilty as charged. I laugh at these clowns and their half understanding of religion the same way Dawkins laughs at the idiotic Young Earth Creationists.
mysticresistence 9 months ago
@mysticresistence Stating that the true meaning of religion can be found through education is an oxymoron within itself if you ask me, I think Origin is a more appropriate word. This discussion is far from a circus sideshow and I think Harris is more concerned with the fundamentalist sects that mean harm or death to anyone outside their belief. I agree that they are NOT religious scholars, but i dont see them pretending to be like many young earthers pretend to know science.
44SuperShredder 9 months ago
@44SuperShredder I never said "the true meaning" which would be something deeply personal that no education could teach. What I mean is that they do not understand the sociological, historical, and psychological dimensions of religion. They make claims about religion while having no idea what they are talking about like the Creationists make claims about science when they clearly are not scientists.
No one in this room is a Joseph Campbell or a Elaine Pagels...
mysticresistence 9 months ago
@mysticresistence
I contend that they very much have an idea of what they're talking about. Can you give an example of a claim they make about religion that is untrue?
SirKickz 8 months ago
@SirKickz In "God is not Great," Hitchens says that the Sethian Gnostics believed that Jesus was an incarnation of Seth. This is false, they actually believed Jesus was just a descent of Seth. He also claims that Nichiren Buddhism helped Japanese imperialism in WWII, when actually, the largest Nichiren Buddhist org. today, SGI, was founded by Josei Toda, a man who spent years in prison for protesting WWII out of cause of his Buddhist ethics.
mysticresistence 8 months ago
@SirKickz Hitchens also claims that the Sri Lankan civil war was a religious conflict, i.e., Hindu vs Buddhist, this is not the case, as their are Hindus in the Sri Lankan army and atheists in the Tamil Tigers. It is an ethnic conflict, not a religious one. He also claims that if the Gnostics ever gained control they would have oppressed the orthodox Christians. This is also false as southern France was controlled by the Gnostic Cathars and they had a policy of freedom of religion
mysticresistence 8 months ago
@SirKickz Dawkins claims that any allegorical interpretation of religious doctrine betrays "both reason and faith," well, that would be news to the old testament prophet Hosea who used allegorical, non-literal interpretation of Jacob's struggle with the angels, saying it was a metaphor for a struggle in prayer. Clearly, he knows nothing about religion and should shut up and go back to being a biologist & only mention religion when denouncing the oxymoron of "creation science,"
mysticresistence 8 months ago
@mysticresistence
Alright. Was that claim made in this video or in some other? Give me a time indication or a link. I suspect that the point Dawkins was trying to make is that it is unreasonable to arbitrarily declare that some points of a holy text are to be taken literally while others are metaphors for something. It also betrays faith, because when you do that, you aren't following the word of God, you're just believing whatever you want, and calling it the word of God.
SirKickz 8 months ago
@SirKickz Dawkins says that in "The Root of all Evil?" To make the huge claim that allegorical interpretation betrays faith would require one to know A LOT about theology and religion, both subjects Dawkins has only a laymen's understanding of. All religions have allegorical interpretations of myths, and that interpretation has been taught for centuries. What it means is that God(s)/the divine or what ever used metaphor to teach a deeper meaning.
mysticresistence 8 months ago
@SirKickz Joseph Campbell, a man who spent a lifetime studying religion and mythology & is for the field of comparative religion what Einstein was for physics and Darwin was for biology has said that religious scripture is best understood metaphorically, because to do otherwise would be to "read what was meant to be poetry as if it was prose." So who should I listen to on this subject, the all time authority on Comparative religion & the interpretation of myth...or an evolutionary biologist?
mysticresistence 8 months ago
@mysticresistence
So then, the next question that follows is, on what basis does Campbell claim that scripture is meant to be read metaphorically? If Campbell is as smart as you say, what grounds does he have for making that claim? He might be a very learned man, I'm not doubting that, but, unless he has sound evidence to support his conclusion, it's just another arbitrary declaration of, "this is how the bible is supposed to be read."
SirKickz 8 months ago
@SirKickz Joseph Campbell has his opinion after decades of studying the religions of the world and his experiences with countless clerics and other scholars. Like I said, allegorical interpretation goes back to the Book of Hosea and Plato, and as for the Christian religion, Jesus himself said "I will speak in parables to explain things hidden since the creation of the world" (matt 13:35) So either the OT prophet Hosea and Jesus were against God, or the book was meant to be read as metaphor.
mysticresistence 8 months ago
@mysticresistence
Also, in defense of Dawkins, I do want to point out that, while his career is that of an evolutionary biologist, the subject of religion matters very much to him, and he does his research. He has read the bible, and I wouldn't sell him short.
By the way, I didn't miss that you declined to give me a link or time slot where Dawkins made this claim. I'm not saying it didn't happen (that is something he would say), but I have a suspicion that you took his words out of context.
SirKickz 8 months ago
@SirKickz Stephen J. Gould, great paleontologist & agnostic, as repeatedly pointed out that as long as no one is imposing a literalist understanding of creation myths over the sciences, science really cannot comment on religion. As for Dawkins comment, watch "The Root of all Evil?" Part 2, (4/4) when he interviews a moderate Anglican Bishop, at about 2:40 in he says exactly what I said he says.
mysticresistence 8 months ago
@SirKickz Also, reading the Bible alone makes you about as qualified to argue the bible as reading "The Origin of Species" makes you qualified to argue evolution. Overwhelming majority of Christians do not believe in sola scriptura and even those that do read it differently. To be able to really understand it the Dawkins claims to one has to spend years studying it and attending a university to understand religion, its history, its customs, it sociology, its psychology etc.
mysticresistence 8 months ago
@mysticresistence
Dawkins hasn't just read the bible. He's traveled the world and interviewed many of the smartest minds he could find on the topic of religion, from many different faiths. He has done his homework. Now, alright, let's assume that it's meant to be read metaphorically. The next question is, what is it a metaphor for? I doubt that there has ever been two people in the entire world who have both interpreted the words of the bible in the same way.
SirKickz 8 months ago
@SirKickz What if a professor of English literature traveled the world doing interviews with biologists and read Charles Darwin, & came out with a book explaining how evolution is a fraud? You would probably wonder how a professor of English could say that & be more interested in what a professor of biology would say. At the same time, if you want to know about religion, try reading a professor of comparative religion, like Huston Smith, Elaine Pagels or Joseph Campbell.
mysticresistence 8 months ago
@mysticresistence
The meaning of the words in the bible is so incredibly vague that you can plaster whatever interpretation of the metaphor that it makes that you want, and so you can use the bible as justification for doing just about everything you can think of. Why do you think there's all these religious fanatics running about? Why do you think the catholics and protestants in Ireland are still killing eachother left and right? Everyone thinks their interpretation is the 'right' one.
SirKickz 8 months ago
@SirKickz Most of the moral teachings in the Christian scriptures are pretty cut & dry, i.e. love your enemy, love 1 another, don't seek revenge, help the poor, etc. It's only the mythology that is interpreted differently from person to person, which is why religion is so wonderful because it allows for individual interpretation while science is monolithic & non-personal. A acid & base create a neutral, no room for personal opinion, but the sound of 1 hand clapping? up to you to decide.
mysticresistence 8 months ago
@SirKickz As for religious violence, if you look in history you will see that it is only the literalists who commit acts of genocide. Those who believe that a scripture is metaphor rarely if ever commit violence, it is only, ironically, those who read the bible the way Dawkins does, i.e. literally, who commit the violence. It is only those with a literalist interpretation who commit violence & hence the problem isn't religion, it's literalism.
mysticresistence 8 months ago
@mysticresistence
Science's goal is simply to understand the world, and to shape your beliefs based on your observations of how it works. Humanity and morality in our culture has advanced as far as it has mostly because of science. And also mostly despite religion. I highly, highly doubt that EVERYONE who's commited violence for religious reasons is a "literalist."
SirKickz 8 months ago
@SirKickz Science can only comment on the empirical, like how many chromosomes a rat has or something like that & can make no claim about beauty, morality, ethics, faith etc as proven by Dr. Stephen Jay Gould w/his concept of non-overlapping magisteria. Science is not morality & if it wasn't for religion we would never of had the civil rights movement, the abolitionist movement, pacifism, & 90% of the world's charities. Show me one liberal religious leader who inspired religious violence...
mysticresistence 8 months ago
@mysticresistence
I'm not going to answer that question, because I'm sure that you will simply label whoever I might name a 'literalist' and dismiss it. Actually, you need to look at morality in a scientific manner in order to establish any sort of communal values. Think about it. You can't have everyone having their own opinions about what is right or wrong, because eventually someone will do something innocent that someone else thinks is evil, and then you have a fight, or maybe a murder.
SirKickz 8 months ago
@SirKickz Science has nothing to do with morality. We, the homosapiens, wiped out the neanderthals & thus, evolution was served. Now, does that mean it's ok to commit murder? Scientifically speaking, the Tuskegee Experiment was justified, as there were plenty of poor black men & the data was valuable. Only morality in & of its self is correct, & science exist outside of morality.
mysticresistence 8 months ago
@mysticresistence
You are just not getting what I'm saying, are you? In order for morality to be preserved, the members of our community need to be able to agree on what morality means. If you allow everyone to have their own personal opinion by letting morality be ambiguous, there are going to be people who think it's ok to murder. If you define morality in a specific, empirical manner, everyone knows that it's wrong to murder, and there's no confusion. Morality is -not- art.
SirKickz 8 months ago
@SirKickz I agree, morality is concrete & that is why every religion has the same general concepts of morality (after the cultural codes are removed) Morality is concrete & that is not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that religious myths don't provide communal morality nor are they meant to, they are there to provide meaning, while religious morality isn't metaphorical but pretty straight forward.
Science can't provide morality, as the Tuskegee Experiment & the Eugenics movement proved
mysticresistence 8 months ago
@mysticresistence
But you can't say that morality is concrete, and then teach it through metaphor. That's exactly the problem. When you use metaphor to teach, ambiguity is inevitable, especially considering how impossibly vague holy scripture is. The Tuskegee experiments were wrong, but you know what? Since then science has grown and made itself better: something religion, steeped in tradition and based on an ancient text, cannot do.
SirKickz 8 months ago
@SirKickz Like I keep saying, religion DOESN'T teach morality through metaphor. In every religious text I've read the morality is always spelled out while the creation stories, stories of the founder, etc are where the metaphors dominate.
The Tuskegee Experiment was completely scientifically valid, & still is today. It is only through something unscientific (morality) that we know the Tuskegee Experiment was wrong. Religion has morality by its nature, science doesn't
mysticresistence 8 months ago
@mysticresistence I take it that you can't be bothered doing any actual reading on the subject, if it's not approved by whatever religion you subscribe to, and isn't obviously in favor of your viewpoint.
How about you learn a bit of honesty, little mister righteous.
cinesimonj 5 months ago
@cinesimonj I've read Dawkins, Hitchens & Dennet's books and found them all rather absurd. I have a BA in Comparative Religion, and therefore know more about the subject than all four of these jokers combined.
mysticresistence 5 months ago
@mysticresistence You really don't have any idea just how bizarre and childish your comment is, do you?
I just hope you are a child - because an adult who thinks like you do doesn't have much of a chance at surviving outside of an institution.
cinesimonj 5 months ago
@cinesimonj You claimed I don't know what I'm talking about, and I said I do because I have a BA in comparative Religion, compared to Dawkin's Phd in Biology, Dennet's general education, Harris the neurologist and Hitchens the...the...well, an alleged journalist.
Dawkins is a genius biologist, I agree, but when it comes to religion he is simply a layman.
mysticresistence 5 months ago
@mysticresistence
Well, then the question is. If you do have this great experience in comparative religion. Is what they are saying factually wrong? On what point are they mistaken? But nor is this about religion. It's about why one has non belief. And why one does not accept the claims of theology.
Muthsera80 4 months ago
@Muthsera80 Who said anything about facts? Religion is not all about facts & is mostly about metaphors, symbolism etc. Look at it this way: if these guys looked at loved songs the way they look at religion, than they would say "My Girl" by The Temptations is a lie, after all, it is FACTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE for a girl to be "sunshine on a cloudy day". Sunshine is light generated by our star, & a girl can't be literal light. Now, does that mean the song was a load of bull? No, it was a metaphor.
mysticresistence 4 months ago
@mysticresistence
Excuse me. But your simply being selective now. If religion simply confined itself with metaphors and lose symbolism then we all be better off. The problem is my good friend. Is that it doesn't simply confine itself with these questions. They also make grand assertions of the natural world. Like the pope saying that prevention is detrimental. It isn't. They make grand assertions of how the world was made, completely without evidence. Etc, etc, etc. It isn't only metaphors.
Muthsera80 4 months ago
@Muthsera80 What religions make such claims? Buddhism, the 4th largest religion, makes no claims about the origin of the world. Hinduism, the 3rd largest religion, makes it clear that its creation myths are just that, MYTHS that are not literally true. Wicca,one of the fastest, if not THE the fastest growing religions in America also makes no claims about the origins of the Earth or believe that their deities are little beings.
mysticresistence 4 months ago
@mysticresistence
I'm guessing that when Buddhists say that Buddha experienced transcendence it's just metaphorical. And if you meditate you can experience this as well. This is not a metaphorical statement. It's a factual statement.
We can go on to christianity, judaism and islam that all hold the Abraham creation myth. These are factual statements. And it's true, that many in these religions don't take it literally. But many do. Instead they proclaim other unproven assertions. Like *cont*
Muthsera80 4 months ago
@Muthsera80 "transcendence" isn't supernatural in Buddhism. "Samadhi" is what its called & it refers to a pure state of mind in which the mind is no longer phased by the external world & one forgets oneself in meditative bliss. As for the Abrahamic religion, again, the Myths were NEVER meant to be taken literally.
mysticresistence 4 months ago
@mysticresistence
"no longer phased by the external world" Well, my good friend. That is supernatural by definition.
And how do you know the Abrahamic religions where never meant to take it's creation-story as factual? Can you kindly point me to a source?
Muthsera80 4 months ago
@Muthsera80 How oh how is it that if someone can sit down and be clear of purposeful thoughts, like not worrying abut the rent or not being elated that his daughter is getting married, "supernatural"? "Not being phased by the external world" is just that, NOT BEING PHASED. As in one no longer has any opinion on the world around him/her, if even for one brief moment of meditation. Saying that is "supernatural" is absurd.
mysticresistence 4 months ago
@mysticresistence
Now good sir. I did not say that supernatural was the same as clear of purposeful thoughts. Did I?
You said, and let me quote: "a pure state of mind in which the mind is no longer phased by the external world"
I said that no longer phased by the external world is by definition supernatural. That is not the same as clear thoughts now is it?
Muthsera80 4 months ago
@Muthsera80 Being "phased" by the external world is not being "unaffected" by the external world. "Phased", at least in American English, means state of mind, as in "yeah, she called me a name, but it doesn't phase me." If someone is shot while in Samadhi, they will die, of course. But if someone broke up with their girlfriend an hour before meditation and they reached Samadhi, they wouldn't be phased by the breakup for the duration of Samadhi.
mysticresistence 4 months ago
@mysticresistence
That is clearly not true. That is simply the everyday affirmation of it. Transcendence means beyond. Your simply bending the definition to suit your purpose. It also means that you have reached a state of enlightenment. And this is clearly what the story of Buddha tells us.
Muthsera80 4 months ago
@Muthsera80 "Transcendence" IS AN EVERYDAY THING! THAT'S THE POINT! One can attain enlightenment through sitting meditation (Zazen) walking meditation (Kinhin) & working meditation...forget the Japanese word for it. In Zen Buddhism, we are taught that enlightenment isn't something magic but is something everyday, hence it is profound. If you don't believe me read Shunryu Suzuki...or does he not know anything about Buddhism?
mysticresistence 4 months ago
@Muthsera80 Where in the Abrahamic scripture is it written that Genesis MUST be taken literally? It doesn't. From the beginning, going all the way back to Hosea IN THE BIBLE itself there have been allegorical interpretations of scripture. Even Jesus himself said "I speak in parables" (mat 13:34) So if he says his words aren't meant to be taken literally & people still do, whose fault is it, his words or the person who takes it literally?
mysticresistence 4 months ago
@mysticresistence
It is gospel. It is the decedent word of god. Of course it is meant to be factual. Or it wouldn't be there.
If it's not meant to be taken as factual it's just a fable. And the bible makes clear that these are commandments, the teachings of god. If it wasn't, you would take it as atheists do. A part of human history. Like Descartes, Mary Shelley, Plato or Homer. Your basically saying that their religion is non-sense. I agree. But still.
Muthsera80 4 months ago
@Muthsera80 "It is gospel. It is the decedent word of god. Of course it is meant to be factual. Or it wouldn't be there." Where does it say that? It doesn't. People like Dawkins like to think religion has to take its myths literal because if it doesn't, his arguments are instantly rendered moot.
mysticresistence 4 months ago
@mysticresistence
Of course it must mean that. It isn't meant to be taken as one mans teaching. It's meant as revelation of a divine origin. If it was simply meant as philosophy, then we would teach it alongside that of Kant.
Muthsera80 4 months ago
@Muthsera80 Why must religious text be taken literally? Again, if they were meant to be taken literally it wouldn't have prophets who took the Myths as metaphors or early teachers taking it as metaphor or MESSIAHS saying "I speak in parables." Countless churches follow a non-literal understanding of scriptures, & than you have whole religions, like Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism & Wicca who don't take there Myths literally at all.
mysticresistence 4 months ago
@mysticresistence
Ok, try to understand this. Jesus didn't say that it was up for interpretation what his teachings where. It clearly isn't. Your simply picking a small piece of the bible and interpreting it the way you want it to. The new testament is full of teachings Jesus made clear was not optional.
Muthsera80 4 months ago
@Muthsera80 "Not optional" no, but clearly NOT LITERAL. Example: if a father said to his son "at the prom I want you to behave like a perfect knight. This isn't optional." Now, if the son takes a sword to the prom and challenged someone to a duel and goes jousting through a window in the limo, & his father gets angry when he finds out, whose fault is it? The Father, or the boy? And was his father being optional in his order to his son, or was it his son just being thick skulled & not getting it?
mysticresistence 4 months ago
@mysticresistence
Well, he behaved as the perfect knight. His father was not optional. He lended other meanings to the word knight than his son who actually knew what the real behavior of a knight was. This is why teachings as this is nonsense. Because your being metaphorical.
Muthsera80 4 months ago
@Muthsera80 Only people who don't understand what a metaphor means would call a lesson taught as metaphor "nonsensical." It makes sense if you do the work of figuring out the meaning of the metaphor. That's why religion is hard to study. Science is just left to write, everything says what it means. Religion, on the other hand, is full of symbolism, cultural meanings that can easily be lost to someone of a different culture, linguistic challenges etc. It takes work to understand the metaphors
mysticresistence 4 months ago
@mysticresistence
What complete nonsense. The reason why religion is hard to study is because it's full of illogical and situational interpretations, outright fallacies that followers try to twist and bend into a comprehensive thought than can explain these outright false claims. Instead they use words like "metaphor" and "spiritual". Ie, another word for "assertion" "speculation" "unfounded". But yet, somehow these unfounded claims should be respected. No, show me the evidence. Or shut up.
Muthsera80 4 months ago
@Muthsera80 Religion is hard to study because, unlike science, it requires interpretation of metaphor. Much like people with severe Autism can't understand figures of speech yet are human calculators, people like Dawkins might be experts in science but just can't understand religion. As for "evidence", look up "metaphor" in the dictionary, it's there. Hence, religion works as its Myths are metaphors for the human condition, as Jung & Joseph Campbell explain.
mysticresistence 4 months ago
@mysticresistence
*cont* virgin births, divine inspiration, miracle cures, transcendent knowledge, etc, etc, etc. Such as the earth goes around the sun. The firmament exist on which the stars sits. The sun goes around the earth. Man being descendent from one man and one woman. Many we have disproved as false. Yet people still believe this. Despite evidence. And no factual evidence you show them can change their minds. That is fundamentally dishonest.
Muthsera80 4 months ago
@Muthsera80 The dishonest thing is for these four men, NONE OF WHOM have actually studied religion to make claims that religions take their Myths literally. Sure, some people do, but many others don't. Literalism is actually a modern heresy in Christianity. Again, since the beginning, a metaphoric understanding of Mythology has been widespread. If any of these four studied religion & its history they would know that.
mysticresistence 4 months ago
@mysticresistence
When the now bishop of Canterbury said that the floods where due to homosexual sin. Is that not a literal statement? Now good my good sir. Do not be so blatantly dishonest and say that is not a literal statement.
Muthsera80 4 months ago
@Muthsera80 The Bishop of Canterbury is a old idiot whom no one should take seriously. I NEVER said all religious people were great or even all churches are good. I have about as much good to say about people like him as Richard Dawkins has good to say about the scientists who performed The Tuskegee Experiment.
mysticresistence 4 months ago
@mysticresistence
No, you said that religion was supposed to be metaphoric. I stated that we're right as Atheists to point out the fallacies in the assertions of religious people. Don't attack me for it. Attack these people for making these retarded statements.
Muthsera80 4 months ago
@Muthsera80 I NEVER said religion was metaphoric. I said MYTHOLOGY & SCRIPTURE is metaphor, but religion is real: if you go to a church you will see LITERAL people LITERALLY worshiping, singing etc. & I do point out to literalists that they are false in their ideas...However, I would never make an ad hominem attack & call someone "retarded". I save such attacks for people who clearly deserve it, like that Bishop of Cantebarry.
mysticresistence 4 months ago
@mysticresistence
Now your just being silly. Either Religion is a truthful account of events. Or it isn't religion. You cannot have it both ways. Now, you can say that your spiritual. But that isn't the same as being religious now is it? You can read the scriptures allegorical all you like. But it simply means that your picking the bits you like, discarding the ones you don't like, chose what way you want to view it and act accordingly. Well, I'm sorry but that is what atheist do as well.
Muthsera80 4 months ago
@Muthsera80 I have a BA in Comparative Religion, and I have studied religions that DON'T take their Myths literally but still function as religions. Huston Smith, the greatest living scholar on religion, also says that religion can function as religion without taking its myths literally. Go to school & study religion first, than you will understand.
mysticresistence 4 months ago
@mysticresistence
Well, we know that some buddhists and hinduists are atheists in all but name. They have rituals and symbols. But are they really religions?
Muthsera80 4 months ago
@Muthsera80 Common fallacy of the new-atheists: when you see a religion you can't easily refute, say its really atheism and walk away. Of course its a religion. There are self proclaimed Christian atheists, does that mean Christianity isn't a religion?
mysticresistence 4 months ago
@mysticresistence
Look. I can happily admit that I'll be a happy camper if every religion took it's scripture as metaphors and used it like you do. I think the world would be a much better place as a result. But that doesn't not mean that Atheists and non believers like myself are justified in being assertive in pointing out the factual problems with it.
Muthsera80 4 months ago
@Muthsera80 Again, I can prove that a girl can't literally be "sunshine on a cloudy day". Does that mean that "My Girl" by the Temptations is false, or that it speaks in metaphors about something that certainly is true (love)? Same with religious Mythology.
mysticresistence 4 months ago
@mysticresistence
Now your just reverting back to your original argument. Simply because you hold this belief. Or rather. That "some" might hold this belief. Does not mean there are not others who hold it literally. Now, I don't believe that is true however. That these books are metaphors. When the bible says: Honor thy father and thy mother. It isn't meant literal? Or. You are to have no other gods before me. Is not literal? Now, don't be dishonest with us.
Muthsera80 4 months ago
@Muthsera80 Those are STATEMENTS OF ETHICS, not MYTHOLOGY. The Mythology isn't meant to be taken literally but the statement of ethics are. You can usually tell the difference by one being a story and the other just being a statement. Any confusion between the two stems from having not studied religion & mythology.
If the majority are literalists (which they aren't) that still doesn't mean an allegorical understanding isn't the correct one. That would be Argumentum Ad Populum, a common fallacy.
mysticresistence 4 months ago
@mysticresistence
Now, this is simply not true. Take the story of Abraham. Sacrificing his son to god. Which is clearly meant as a moral statement of ethics. Your telling me that it was not meant to be take literal? That Abraham never did this? That this story was never a portrayal of truth? And an occurrence?
Muthsera80 4 months ago
@Muthsera80 Maybe it was. Again, in the Bible Hosea interprets the struggle between Jacob & the angel as a struggle in prayer. If the prophets of the Bible take the as metaphor, than how can it be wrong to take the Bible as metaphor?
Better to look at what the MEANING of the story is, rather than the facts of the story. Mythology is the telling or absolute truths through metaphors & stories. If you take the Myths literally you miss the point & can't see the forest for the trees.
mysticresistence 4 months ago
@mysticresistence
And I take it was meant as metaphorical when god sent his angel down to destroy sodom and gomorrah?
I'm sorry, either these story happened or they are fictional. And we can take them as human teachings. And they no longer become religions. Take your pick. Either way, your argument is flawed.
Muthsera80 4 months ago
@Muthsera80 Again, either a girl literally changed into rays of sunshine on a cloudy day or its fictional & the Temptations are full of it, take your pick.
It was a MYTH, as in a story that tells a universal truth about the human condition through metaphors. Just as debating whether or not a girl can be "sunshine on a cloudy day" misses the point of an obvious metaphor debating if sodom was actually destroyed also misses the point & the message.
mysticresistence 4 months ago
@mysticresistence
In what way does this message give any teachings? Your simply just trowing around lyrics. Now, say that some lived by these words. And took them to heart. Then that would be religion. Did it make them any more truthful than other words and lyrics? No, then why pick these over others?
Muthsera80 4 months ago
@Muthsera80 Because those words have stood the test of time & people have actually lived by them and they have shaped cultures, civilization and even language.
mysticresistence 4 months ago
@mysticresistence
Thats is like saying that English have shaped cultures and civilization. Your talking gibberish.
Muthsera80 4 months ago
@Muthsera80 No, the English Empire was in one time & one place, while religion is universal to the human condition. If you were to find some people somewhere in the Amazon or something that never saw anyone from the outside, you can be guaranteed they would have a spoken language, a family structure, some kind of shelter, a way of gathering food & a religion. Religion is universal to the human condition, hence it warrants study & scholarship.
mysticresistence 4 months ago
@mysticresistence
"while religion is universal to the human condition"
I'm human, so is CH, SH, DD and RD. Do we have a religion? No, we don't. Religion is not universal to the human condition. Your assertion is false. You may claim that we find it in every culture. But we claim instead that religion is peoples attempt to understand the world in which they have yet no evidence for to know for sure what is factual.
Muthsera80 4 months ago
@Muthsera80 That is EXACTLY WHAT I MEAN. Every culture has religion. And spare me, SPARE ME the old tired "they only believe it because they don't have scientific understanding" fallacy. Dr. Francis Collins, Phd, MD, chairmen of the Human Genome Project & current head of the National Institute of Health & considered by many to be the greatest geneticist alive is a born again Christian. So, does he not understand what is factual?
mysticresistence 4 months ago
@mysticresistence
Right, because when the Aztec cut open the gut of a poor victim and rip out the still beating heart to make the sun come up the next day, they did it because they had such great understanding of the natural world. As did the indians who sat around the campfire puffing weed and doing a dance to make it rain, they did it because they knew it would have an effect. No my good friend. If your going to claim it for all, your going to own it for all.
Muthsera80 4 months ago
@Muthsera80 To compare post-modern theology to human sacrifice hundreds of years ago makes as much sense as comparing Dawkin's scientific work to the science of nazi scientists during WWII or the scientists who committed the Tuskegee Experiments.
Anyway, the Aztecs, like the modern fundies, had a literalist understanding, which is what I've been saying I'm against this whole time. I never said ALL religious people didn't take it literally, just saying that a bunch don't.
mysticresistence 4 months ago
@mysticresistence
What, because they took the consequences of their own beliefs they are wrong? Don't be silly. Why is it that they are wrong, and you are not? If your not going to live by your beliefs, then what good are your beliefs? You can just as well be without them. They are of no consequences to you.
Muthsera80 4 months ago
@Muthsera80 No, because they TOOK THEIR MYTHOLOGY LITERALLY. I've been nothing but consistent this whole time in saying religious Mythology shouldn't be taken literally. There is a big difference between NOT TAKING IT LITERALLY & NOT TAKING IT SERIOUSLY: example, if someone in the 1940s US joins the army, do you REALLY think they believe their uncle Sam, Red White & Blue costume & all, wants them to join? No, they understand it's a metaphor for the US government, i.e, they take it SERIOUSLY
mysticresistence 4 months ago
@Muthsera80 Now are you talking about BELIEF or about TAKING A MYTH LITERALLY? Two different things. Just as a soldier who doesn't take the existence of Uncle Sam literally still believes in what that symbol means & is willing to die for it & believer can understand that their Mythology isn't literal but can still live & die for what it represents. I would rather die than harm someone unless it's in self defense, & I don't even harm insects or eat meat, yet I get that Buddha may be "only" a Myth
mysticresistence 4 months ago
@Muthsera80 Oh, and if religion is the product of the primate mind as you claim, than how the hell did Wicca appear in the 20TH CENTURY? What, did Gerald Gardner not notice the modern age? The moment you understand creation Myths are all metaphors is the moment you'll see that there is no reason why belief & practice of a religion is in no way incompatible with an understanding of how the world works. Anti-theists understand that that takes the wind out of their arguments & hence they ignore it.
mysticresistence 4 months ago
@mysticresistence
Well, that is because even today, they can ignore what we actually know. They put all that to the side and just completely ignore it. To live in their own fantasy. Are you really going to claim that the wiccans really are justifying in claiming they are slaying deamons at the behalf of the world? You want to give them a medal as well?
Muthsera80 4 months ago
@Muthsera80 What do we know? We know that Genesis didn't literally happen. Big deal Dr. Collins doesn't take the creation Myth literally. Again, the moment a theist stops taking the Mythology literally is the moment you really have no scientific basis to object to religion. Can God be disproven by science? It can't. Can it be proven by science? No, but neither can the hottness of Emma Watson or the deliciousness of cheesecake or the beauty of sunsets. So should we abandon them as well?
mysticresistence 4 months ago
@mysticresistence
You can't prove a negative. You really need to start taken arguments to heed if your going to discuss philosophies. You can't just take heed to just the ones you like. And thats why it's YOUR obligation when you state the positive. To provide the evidence. Not mine. I simply have to confine myself to providing evidence why your evidence is inaccurate. And if your evidence is refuted, you can't simply just ignore that and state the same thing over.
Muthsera80 4 months ago
@Muthsera80 I'm NOT SAYING to prove a negative. I'm saying this: you claim that reality exist. I am asking you to show me evidence for the existence of the external world. Can you prove to me that I am actually in the world? Oh, & you can't use the external world to prove the external world, that's arguing in a circle, like using a Bible verse to prove the Bible. If you can't prove the existence of the external world, in which all of your precious science takes place in, than your arguments FAIL
mysticresistence 4 months ago
@Muthsera80 As for Wiccans, they don't claim to slay demons. Again, it appears that you don't know what you're talking about. I have met Wiccans who say that their deities exist only as personifications (archetypes) aspects of the human psyche & that all their rituals & religion is about is working with those symbols for their psyche. So, either the human mind doesn't exist, or the nature of Wiccan deities, in that sense at least, is proven. Which one is it?
mysticresistence 4 months ago
@mysticresistence
Actually, they do. Look it up. Not all, but some do. Wiccan have less of a religion than they have general superstition. Neither has any foundation. Well, their not alone in that. But hey, I'm an equal opportunist anti-theist.
Muthsera80 4 months ago
@Muthsera80 I've known a bunch of Wiccans, met Raymond Buckland & Selena Fox, & studied Wicca extensively. They DON'T believe in demons. "They have no foundation"? Oh, so Gerald Gardner didn't really exist? "They don't have a religion"? Oh, so the US government, the US military, the governments of Ireland, UK, New Zealand, Australia & South Africa as well as comparative Religious scholars are all wrong in calling it a religion? Professor Ronald Hutton, historian on paganism old & neo, is wrong?
mysticresistence 4 months ago
@mysticresistence
Read what I said again before you get your knickers in a twist. Did I ever say it was not a religion?
And if it is a religion, does it make it anymore true?
Muthsera80 4 months ago
@Muthsera80 You said, quote "Wiccan have less of a religion than they have general superstition." & I showed that they have as valid a religion as any other. As for "true", what is the "it" which is true? For the third time, if Wiccans say that their deities are metaphors for parts of the human psyche, & if "metaphor" does exist as a word as does the human psyche, than how is that not true? You can disagree, say it aint for you, fine, but you look silly saying a metaphor is untrue
mysticresistence 4 months ago