Richard Dawkins & Alister McGrath Debate part 3/7

Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath's Debate at The Oxford Literary Festival

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Richard
• Dawkins
• Atheist
• Atheism
• Christianity
• Alister
• McGrath

[xtriager]

@xtriager No, the "founding fathers" excluded religion, enacting the separation of church and state to ensure first and foremost that the church would not be influenced by the state, as it was in the countries of origin. Second, to ensure that there would be no marriage of church and state which has historically been a bastardization of both and corrupting as well as corruptible. Religion is not necessarily married to politics and there are plenty of examples.

[ritchloui]

Chrisians and Muslims, aside from condemning eachother as heretical, want it every which way. If the universe is comprehensible this is proof that God exists. If it is incomprehensible this is proof God exists. Each religion regards itself as duty bound to spread its own doctrines and to regard those who don't accept them as hell bound.

[ritchloui]

@xtriager Do you really think religious beliefs are not political? You don't see any political implications of doctrines that insist unbelievers are destined for hell and must be 'saved' ie converted or killed? This is why the Founding Fathers went to such lengths explicitly EXCLUDE religious doctrines from being favoured above any others by Government. Not so much to provide freedom OF religion but freedom FROM religion. Religions claim to be about love, in fact they are tyrannical dogmas.

[xtriager]

@plonk220a So you're abandoning the "Christian tradition" argument and making it a primate argument. OK. I would say it's more of a political argument. As soon as beliefs become political they seem to become a new monster, no matter the belief. I would argue it has everything to do with power. The "Christian tradition" you refer to has very little to do with the faithfulness to Jesus' teachings.

[plonk220a]

@xtriager Yes Stalin's Russia was maintained on religious fantasies. But you know the religious and the aethists are simply people and all are capable of morality and evil; it is our nature as primates.

[xtriager]

Dawkins is critical of religious people producing weak and facile arguments, but that seems to be very similar to his followers (those who ascribe to Atheist fundamentalism). They simply parrot what he and others spout, with little if any thought of their own. If you look at religious message boards you'll see all the same arguments over and over.

[xtriager]

@plonk220a Another great example that confirms your point is Stalin... arguably murdered more people in his slaughters than all great genocides preceding him put together!

[plonk220a]

@plonk220a Less likely given the christian tradition e.g. rusades, inquisition, persecutuon of Jews, persecution of women, forced conversion of South American peoples, African Slave Trade, supression of Hitler's persecution, prayers said for Hitler's birthdays by Vatican, rape of children in every corner of the earth, offical anti-semitism, refusal to allow condoms, Aids, street children living in sewers. Religion long ago lost the argument that Aethists don't have morals.

[danwhittle]

Same question to you, but with a crazy atheist instead of religious fundamentalists.

[plonk220a]

Does McGarth deny, for one single moment, that if some fundamental Muslim or American redneck Christian got hold of a nuclear device they wouldnt use it. McGrath is the Bishop Wilberforce of the 21st century.