Plenty of Jews could have been considered well-off in the 1920s/1930s AND oppressed. Oppressed here does not mean incapable to gain wealth necessarily. I believe he was addressing specifically the inability of atheists to hold any sort of office. He contends that trying to be an atheist and run for office is as difficult today in America as it was for a homosexual before the Gay Pride movement. I suppose he's not the first person to bring up this point. I've read accounts of political leaders after they've held office saying they had to emphasize their 'religiousness' during their campaigns in order to obtain office.
just like giving you the answer of fire..it burns..most people don't want you to seek the truth and MAYBE end up in a hospital.. :bravo:try me try me!
I like this theory and ascribe to it myself. I also believe that at times God has meddled with God's creations. Then at some point God recognized that God was as close to God's intended outcome that the meddling became less. Then there was the perfect being and it's mission. Then God becmae largely hands off with his creation. Bascially Old testament was God's version of Gramar school for the humans race with New Testament being Highschool and college rolled into one. Now that we have what God wanted us to have it was time to step back and leave us alone. I can see how atheist would laugh at such a concept. How they would deride me for believing is something i cannot see, measure, touch, weigh, smell, taste, or hear. I don;t hate them. I pity them. For them there will never be anything more than this world. They have nothing to look forward to, ever.
THIS is how God wanted us? WHAT a mad muddled mess! Save your pity for yourself. That is your delusion.
If that's the reason that most people don't want you to seek the truth, then most people seem to be cowards. It would hurt (or even burn) to know your wife/husband is cheating on you, but I think most people would still want to know. But this is not directly addressing the point anyway. If religion explains some sort of natural phenomenon with God, then religion is no longer (if it ever was) fostering an environment for discovery. I don't recall precisely, but Dawkins has some examples which illustrate this point (John E Jones with Brehe and Miller over the bacterial flagellar motor in 2005; the Dover case as it was portrayed in the media). But if you're really sincere about having a discussion on atheism and not just push your point of view, then go read some books. I'd suggest starting with at least one that takes the opposite stance from what you currently have, and simply consider the argument(s) made. The points you've brought up so far are among the first and simplest you'll see in the literature. You'll come across far more complicated arguments and I think you'll enjoy them if given a fair viewing. I am of course assuming you'd be able to read an entire book on something you probably find offensive.
WHY I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN, a collection of essays, by Bertrand Russell, written very clearly yet simply.
So you're coming to this forum to find answers to these questions, which seems fair. But there are groups of people who actually write books on this , people who have spent the necessary time and done the necessary research to answer some of the difficult questions (of which yours is not). If you're sincerely looking for answers in this or any forum, it's at best a nice start and at worst, intellectually lazy.
Go right ahead. Feel free to refute Dawkins at your convenience. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You mean they are surprised that the people want representatives who represent them? Gee, how...odd :bugeye:
Yah cuz religion has totally been guilt free you know the Crusades...The Dark Ages...Iraq War...none of that really means much. ....why don't you argue the argument instead.
You're free to wallow in myth and superstition and attempt to rationalize it with your 'holier than thou' attitude of pity, but you're also free to demonstrate that the fantasy world you believe in offers anything different than what the world offers anyone else. You can't, ever. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I already have. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=88540 Or if you don't want to go through that ^^ torture, ask the long suffering atheists here. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Odd indeed. The Guardian, world fact files: ~16% self-identified atheists or non-religious/agnostic in the US, and at the federal level, 1 congressman atheist. "Legal and social discrimination against atheists in some places may lead some to deny or conceal their atheism due to fears of persecution. A 2006 study by researchers at the University of Minnesota involving a poll of 2,000 households in the United States found atheists to be the most distrusted of minorities, more so than Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians, and other groups. Many of the respondents associated atheism with immorality, including criminal behaviour [sic], extreme materialism, and elitism. However, the same study also reported that, “The researchers also found acceptance or rejection of atheists is related not only to personal religiosity, but also to one’s exposure to diversity, education and political orientation — with more educated, East and West Coast Americans more accepting of atheists than their Southern counterparts.” ^ a b "Atheists identified as America’s most distrusted minority, according to new U of M study". UMN News. http://www.ur.umn.edu/FMPro?-db=rel...ewsreleases/releasesdetail.html&ID=2816&-Find. Retrieved on 2006-03-22.
Politicians? Either my memory fails me (very possible), he didn't actually say this, or he said it outside God Delusion (which you would need to qualify).
It was in one of his interviews: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html Of course, he is biased by his assumption that highly intelligent people are 'mostly' athiests. Which if applied retrospectively puts paid to a lot of his theories on the history of 'religious' violence. Ironically, Dawkins is quite comfortable with the notion that highly intelligent atheists lie to get into office.
Really? Where does he state that? Oh yes, he doesn't. That's just your propaganda agenda peeking out again.
Right here babe, shudh angrezi mein likha hai : Dawkins looks forward to the day when the first US politician is honest about being an atheist