Why does Atheist Richard Dawkins sound religious? After all he agrees with most religions on Jesus?

Originally posted by eight bits
I am thankful to live in a free democracy, where a voter may bring to the voting booth any belief or perspective he or she likes.

You didn't quite understand what i meant. Voting is fine and dandy, vote for your favorite religious candidate instead of the important issues if you prefer. However religion has no place for example to ban stem cell research, holding back cures and treatments and basically holding back the human race in doing this. The two subjects are supposed to be separate. Politics also, isn't there in the USA a seperation of church and state? Yet i see religion used a whole lot there.

In the UK we sadly have the queen as the head of state, a sorry case but still religion has it's place and it is not within science or politics and we seem pretty ok really. Individual voters can vote however they like but government should not be using religion to halt scientific progress nor garner support, because in the end it amounts to propoganda.

Originally posted by eight bits
Science owes much of its origin to scepticism about the fitness of wealthy and powerful people to impose their views about how other people should make their choices, private and collective. It will be interesting to see, as science becomes ever more wealthy and powerful, how much better scientists do than the warrior popes, or the tribal wazoo.

How can science be wealthy? There is no true central organisation like a church has. Even the fragmented, small churches keep all of the money for their own gain. Scientists bitterly fight over funding like you cannot believe and they do it not for personal, material gain like churches but because they desperately want to discover something, cure something, fix something that will truly help people.

Originally posted by eight bits
It takes virtue to respect the rights of those for whom you have contempt, than whom you just know you are better. There is nothing about science that would make its devotees morally superior to anybody else, as your easy dismissal of the political freedom of others illustrates only too well.

Err hang on i wasn't talking about rights of the individual voter. I respect anynoes view to believe what they want, why don't you respect my view to think religion is rubbish? You see i can think it's rubbish but respect their right to believe it.

Where have i said science would make anyone morally superior? Please dont' put words in my mouth and again i wasn't dismissing the political freedoms of individuals, only governments stepping beyond their bounds, implementing religious policies over science. Maybe i should have made it clearer.

I had hoped i could stay out of this thread but when someone says something utterly incorrect like "just not your kind of evidence" i couldn't resist. Oh well.

[edit on 9-12-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]

You didn't quite understand what i meant.

You write that a lot. Is it possible that the difficulty does not reside entirely with me?

However religion has no place for example to ban stem cell research, holding back cures and treatments and basically holding back the human race in doing this.

Well, if someone wishes the United States to pay for an activity, then one can hardly complain that the voters of the United States get to say whether or not they will pay for it, basing their decision on any criteria they like.

In the event, the current American administration is pro-stem cell. Perhaps the next one will be, too. Or maybe it won't be. We'll find out in 2012. Such are the impositions on all who feed at the public trough.

Smart money says the human race will persevere and progress either way.

isn't there in the USA a seperation of church and state?

Americans enjoy freedom from an established church, and face no religious test for holding public office. Everything else is negotiable, and in the event of conflict with other rights, the negotiation may be ugly. Some conflict is almost inevitable, since the free exercise of religion is guaranteed as well.

why don't you respect my view to think religion is rubbish?

Oh, I do. My post was about the right of voters not to "keep your dogma out of science and keep it well away from politics." I figure scientists can handle any stray dogma that might wander in on their professional concerns, so I stood up for voter sovreignity.

Thinking ill of the fellow who votes the wrong way is a common thing in a democracy. Good to remember, I think, that the right to vote the wrong way ought to be cherished.

Where have i said science would make anyone morally superior?

You didn't. You did, however, instruct those for whom you have visible contempt how to conduct themselves in the political arena. "Moral superiority" came up in the context of it being a virtue to respect the political rights of those for whom one feels contempt. That is difficult for anybody, scientist or non-.

something utterly incorrect like "just not your kind of evidence"

For what it is worth, I think I do have an inkling of what ewok was writing about.

In any case, you yourself had introduced a distinction between what you described as scientific versus what you described as philosophical approaches to evidentiary reasoning. And you had identified those as your kind of approach and my kind, respectively.

I don't think that ewok's phrase "[your] kind of evidence" was so inappropriate in that context.

[edit on 9-12-2009 by eight bits]

Originally posted by eight bits

Religious doctrine, metaphysical, philosophical, and subjective value findings fall outside the scope of any field of science.

Psychology and neuroscience notwithstanding.

Religious doctrine, metaphysical, philosophical, and subjective value findings fall outside the scope of any field of science.

Psychology and neuroscience notwithstanding.

Yes, psychology and neuroscience notwithstanding.

If you wish to put in a plug for their usefulness in furnishing perspective, then have at it, but look to someone else for rebuttal. Doctrine and findings, not perspective, were the subjects of my remark.

Originally posted by eight bits
You write that a lot. Is it possible that the difficulty does not reside entirely with me?

I think i've written it twice haven't i? Is that a lot? And the guy admitted he misread it but i was polite and said maybe it was my fault. Now i've had to correct that because you decide to take a cheap shot.

Not bothering to reply to the rest of it because that really was a cheap shot.

Now i've had to correct that because you decide to take a cheap shot.

Too bad you took it that way. It wasn't a cheap shot, it was an observation. And a truthful one.

When it suited your purpose, you repeatedly slammed away at my supposed inability to understand. You did it in order to marginalize my arguments and to disparage me personally. You were enthusiastic enough about discussing it then:

I'm afraid you're just not quite getting this are you and you're not being logical at all.

You're kind of missing the point aren't you,

This kind of proves you don't understand the debate you're trying to have.

Still missing the point.

again you miss the point.

Ahh see you don't quite get it again, how you miss this so much i'm not sure.

That however is the point you will forever miss

and, of course, the instance upon which I commented:

You didn't quite understand what i meant.

Now, the subject is taboo. Your feelings are too bruised for you to rebut other points in my post.

Uh huh. Got it.

reply to post by eight bits


Using the words "missing the pont" is not because i didn't explain something well. I don't usually have trouble but when dealing with religious folk they tend to view things in a particular light and read things very wrong, hence them missing the point and me saying that. A point can be made explicitly but if someone has a certain world view they tend to think you're saying something else pretty damn often.

But hey continue your personal assault and no it wasn't a truthful point you are just twisting it. I'm going to stop saying "you're missing the point" so it can't be skewed as you have done because tbh when i say "missing the point" that's my polite way of moving someone on to something in a different light. Next time i won't use those words.

I'm going to stop saying "you're missing the point"

Then community benefit has come of our exchange.

Being in agreement, let us part in peace.