there is a God? The great illusion of religion. By Richard Dawkins from English: Adi Marcuse-Hess, Attic Books Publishing and Yediot Books
dismantle "The Roots of Religion" From the book "Is there God?" By Richard Dawkins.
"Imagine a world without exploding suicide bombers, without 11.9/7.7, without XNUMX/XNUMX, without crusades, without witch hunts, without Gunpowder Night, without the partition of India, without Israel-Palestine wars, without massacres between Serbs, Croats and Muslims, without persecution of Jews" Horigi Jesus', no riots in Northern Ireland, no murders 'in the name of family honor', no evangelical TV preachers in shiny suits and greased hairstyles, cleaning the audience of their foolish followers of all their assets. Imagine that there is no Taliban to blow up ancient statues; There is no public beheading of those who defame Shem Shem; There is no flogging of female skin for the sin of exposing an inch of it..."
The new and controversial book "Is there God?" What Richard Dawkins wrote addresses not only all the people who walk around the world and were brought up within one religion or another and are not happy with it, do not believe in it, or are disturbed by the injustices done in its name. In his book, Dawkins seeks to raise awareness - awareness of the fact that it is possible to be an atheist who is also a happy, balanced, moral person who enjoys intellectual satisfaction. He seeks to raise awareness of all those 'explanatory levers' that could help our understanding of the universe itself. He seeks to raise awareness that opposes the immediate attachment of every child to religion and he speaks in praise of atheistic pride: "There is no reason to apologize for being an atheist."
In an impassioned writing, which has received worldwide countless references, enthusiastic reviews and harsh reviews, Dawkins does not hesitate to deal with this explosive material that examines the existence of God.
In his book, the well-known biologist deals with the "hypothesis about the word of God" as a scientific hypothesis about the universe and he subjects it to analysis with the same degree of skepticism as any other hypothesis. He writes about the very weak arguments for the existence of God and refers to the appearance of design in the living world explained with great parsimony and stunning elegance by Darwin's natural selection.
Prof. Dawkins appeals to those who think there must be a god or several gods because anthropologists and historians say that in every human culture the believers have the most influence. He explains why religious belief is so common throughout the world and what it actually comes to justify and does not hesitate to present to the reader the ugly sides of religion. The book clearly presents the artificial connection between religion and childhood according to which each child receives an immediate definition of his religion instead of saying that he is the son of parents who belong to one religion or another. According to Dawkins, a child is too young to know for himself which religion he belongs to.
Richard Dawkins appeals in his book to all free souls, religious and atheist alike, to better understand some of the things that many of us take for granted. He does not hesitate to challenge, refute and use countless examples from everyday life to explain in clear and fluid language the great illusion of religion.
"there is a God?" (The God Delusion) is the biggest bestseller in the last two years of the non-fiction books. In Turkey there was a struggle to ban its distribution and its publication sparked a wave of books dealing with atheism and the book sparked waves of support and protest wherever it was published.
Richard Dawkins is a biologist, professor of public science at the University of Oxford in England. He won many awards for his writing. Among his books: The Selfish Garden, The Blind Watchmaker, Climbing the Improbable Mountain. there is a God? It was published in 2006 and immediately became a global bestseller.
The book Is There a God? Roa Or in the Philosophy and Science series edited by Dr. Yehuda Meltzer.
95 תגובות
I have a problem with God. I tried to talk to him in all kinds of forums. He does not respond and does not answer. It is likely that he is dead.
live:
Whoever says that there is no atheistic way to establish morality implies that there is another way and of course - that this way is God.
Of course, these are nonsense and that's what I also said in my previous response (and I explained to fatigue in other responses in the past).
There is an atheistic way to establish morality and in fact there is no other way to do it!
Even if you look at a religious person, when he makes such stupid claims to secular people, on what does he base his assumption that when he says "morals" they even knew what he was talking about?!
He bases this on the fact that in his heart he knows that everyone knows what morality is and therefore he knows that even a secular person will agree with him that a commandment like "Thou shalt not kill" is a moral commandment.
In other words - this whole idiotic argument is based on the fact that they both know what morality is even without any connection to faith!
More than that: since the religion is a book of laws that was enacted thousands of years ago by people who, compared to our contemporaries, were ignorant, chauvinistic and uncivilized - it contains all kinds of laws that are clearly immoral such as "murder those who break the Sabbath", "murder the homosexuals" and the like.
Therefore, if there is something in the field of morality that religion establishes, these are precisely immoral, depriving and murderous actions.
The fact that the sense of morality was ingrained in us during evolution has many confirmations in studies - both on animals and on toddlers who have not yet learned anything (and certainly not religious studies).
Your ignoring of these facts and your support of the false propaganda of the religion categorizes you - as far as I'm concerned - as "religious" - even if you claim that you are not.
I did not say that you are a criminal, assuming that there is such a thing, you can say that he is not a criminal. Rather, I sought to establish morals in a principled and sensible manner, any type of morality that would guide you on how to lead a life and determine positions (again, assuming you have the ability to choose). Believe me, I'm really not stubborn, that's why I say that if a situation happens to me, someone will prove to me satisfactorily in my opinion (as Uri Zohar claimed happened to him) that there is a God, I will not regret it. A criminal is also a question of definition. There are those who will say that if you are Israeli (with or without occupation) you are a criminal, if you eat meat you sin against the animals and if you are a vegetarian then against the plants etc...
live:
Your words are baseless and it has been explained here and in many other places quite a bit so if you are still making your false claims it is probably due to stubbornness and not understanding.
Therefore, I will not repeat all the explanations and will only ask you if in your opinion, if it were not for religion, you would have become a murderer and a rapist and how do you explain that I - who do not believe in any of this nonsense - am not a criminal.
I must say that most of the comments on the site are beautifully written and at a high level. It's funny to me that they call a higher power father, I don't comment on such things. In addition, I think that most of the people commenting here are relatively young, with age they learn to be more forgiving of people with the exception of academics like Dawkins who, if he does not offer an extreme opinion, the sales of his books will decrease. And finally, there is no atheistic way to establish morality of any kind, I heard he said it was genetic so a strong enough person would ignore it. There was an Israeli academic by the name of Moshe Kroy and his obsession with establishing a worldview for him brought him to a very serious disgrace. And for myself I wish that what happened to Uri Zohar would happen to me and prove to me that there is a God for the world and that he cares about people because I do not believe much in scientific ability for all its achievements.
No, why would I? I am not ashamed of my name. The relatively few responses, because I would like to write much more, but I prefer to use this time to translate another interesting piece of news.
Obviously there is only one God!
And of course the flying spaghetti monster!
http://www.venganza.org/
The main thing is that we learned from the above negotiations. We had a mature discussion of people who grasp the truth honestly.
We didn't fight just to prove our points. We were attentive to criticism. We were happy when we realized our mistakes and turned around
us to be less dark. And we even promoted others to the truth with sincere concern for the other.
Indeed I am proud of us.
Avi:
Are the rumors true that you hide under a different name sometimes to answer without filters for the sake of politeness?
Lol.
Noa: An argument for the existence of a superior force in the name of the prevalence and cultural assimilation of the idea ("it is clear and known") is the same platform that leads people to define populist garbage as culture. At least Britney Spears fans aren't trying to massacre Leonard Cohen listeners, or worse: force listening to what unfortunates have managed in a depressing and cowardly process to call her music.
In any case, the point that people, atheists or religious (and as this writer also portrays), tend to miss is that religion is only an external and institutionalized expression of human nature: the need to belong to a group, the comfort of being led by another, the mental and emotional comfort of assigning a predetermined or rational meaning to the events of life the various, the tendency to violence, self-destruction and plain old stupidity.
No, I haven't read the book, simply because I don't need explanations based on more than basic clear logical thinking. However, something with which I agree with the author and hope that he receives the attention he deserves, is the education of children without prior religious influence: the nightmare that a child from a religious home has to go through alone in order to disconnect from a worldview that does not suit him according to his personal judgment and not that of his parents, After all, it is unnecessary and deserves to be extinct even and especially for the most religious families; and let's not mention all the intellectual benefits, partly because I have no desire to waste additional time or energy on an argument that is already lost and partly because if logic had any connection and importance to people of faith, then this book would not have been Written.
David:
I agree with your opinion on most things, but I do not agree with your request that you come back to us after reading the book.
I estimate that she will not understand him at all and will continue to try to trash even after reading, so it is better not to come back at all.
Noah, your arguments are 200 years old and are so Jewish that they were invented by Reverend Paley in the early 19th century. There are a lot of holes in the clock argument. And as for the similarity between the Torah and mathematics? Oh well. How much did the study of the Torah (not the study of the Torah, which is an academic subject) help the Israeli TLJ, compared to how much the study of mathematics helped.
DA you are wrong and misleading! Zeus is the right god!
Where reason ends, faith begins, DA Noa, the argument you present is simply ridiculous and far-fetched. I recommend you read Richard Dawkins' book and then come back to us :)
How can you say that God does not exist? If you walk down the street and find a clock, will you think that he alone was created? no huh!? And the world, which is a whole lot more complicated (cells in the human body, atoms, etc.) is it possible that it was created like this for nothing? After all, it is clear and known that someone is responsible for creation, some kind of higher power. I won't believe you if you tell me that you don't feel G-d at least once in your life. After all, he exists. Father exists and he gives freedom of choice! He is waiting for us who is really waiting... there is a lot of confusion and it is difficult to see the divine reality but it exists. God scatters signs to everyone, just open your eyes and see that all this empty philosophy is actually a lie. A lie that hides Father from us. People, please be alarmed, just as I will not come to a great man in mathematics and invalidate his entire speech, you also do not invalidate the Torah, it is so deep that you must investigate it before speaking. If you really want to know what God is, why were you created? what is your purpose And questions that really only exist in the Torah... there is the Shofar website - you can write in Google, or values, roots! So many organizations. Come on, I believe in you, if you had the strength to read a book like the one above, inside you would have the strength for something deeper, wouldn't you?
With Israel you are strong
I believe with complete faith in the coming of the Messiah, and even if he delays, I will wait for him every day he comes, I will wait for him every day he comes, every day I come!
The people of Israel live, the people of Israel live, the people of Israel, the people of Israel, the people of Israel live!!
We are believers, children of believers, and we have no one to lean on... but our Father, our Father in Heaven!
Father I love you and you exist I know it.. I feel you here with me
This book is not recommended
He teaches many lies
Write it there again and I'll delete it from here
4/1/2009 correction (the war affects...sorry)
Avi,
Response 73 belongs to the article about Dawkins' book from 4/1/2008 in connection with the conversation between me and Michael Responses 152-153 Ibid.
(Regarding the illusion of God), it would be correct if you transfer there. Thank you.
Hugin:
From your response I conclude that you wanted to say something.
Why don't you say that?
Michael, 'God: lungs.. bubbles and bubbles..' and us?" Bubbles of thoughts swell and burst.."
The name of the 'hallucinatory game': which bubbles last longer, which 'aggregation states' they can reach and what is their chaining ability...
Nir:
You're such an idiot it's just a pleasure.
I read very carefully all the learned responses and it should be noted that they are quite eloquent…..says in short the greatest disaster of the universe is "religion" period.
It was Georg Cantor and not Hilbert who tried to construct views within mathematical logic
22
scientifically informed belief.
Atheism is a religion for everything, not as extreme as monotheistic religions, but still a religion.
Atheism requires proofs for its existence. These proofs amount to doubts due to the fact that the human being is limited in his knowledge and ability and due to the fact that he is in uncertainty.
Every theory ends at a point which is belief.
My opinion on evolution is this:
If you tell a physicist that string theory (or any other theory) is the correct theory and anyone who thinks otherwise is mindless, a monkey or undeveloped (quotes from the comments here), he will throw you out of his office.
If you tell an astronomer that the universe is static and there is no doubting this claim - he will tell you that this claim was true until recently (see the value of the cosmological constant) and that now it appears that the universe is expanding and the speed of expansion of the universe is accelerating, it may also be that this is not true either.
But if you tell a biologist, who is unable to solve a simple equation and the uncertainty with him is much greater than with a physicist, that it is possible that the theory of evolution is wrong, he will call you mindless, a monkey, undeveloped, primitive, etc.
Evolution has already moved to the stage of religion - it cannot be doubted and there is no other theory that is better.
The religion of evolution has scriptures (the origin of man), fanatical believers (Michael, Hitler and Stalin) and anyone who opposes it will be sent to the Inquisition (well, then he will just be fired and his cool will be destroyed)
"And yet, evolution is wrong."
A group of Israeli atheists on Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=20521790282
A group of Israeli atheists on Facebook
Atheist Israelis Israeli atheists
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=20521790282
Jean,
I looked through the book, and it is full of distortions and distortions of existing and proven scientific facts and theories.
An article about Zamir Cohen and his claims: http://www.hofesh.org.il/religion_merchants/claims/tora_from_heaven/1.html
Jean:
We read and read
I have read all your disputes and the best chance is for all of you to read Rabbi Zamir Cohen's transformative book and then we will see if your opinion remains the same... all the best and good luck
Of course, after the creation of religion, it underwent a certain evolution, but this evolution is not the essence of religion.
Score:
The mechanism you describe helps religion maintain itself but does not create religion.
The only thing it can create is a disorganized collection of superstitions/superstitions.
Organization is necessary for the formation of an organized religion and it is no wonder that every religion has its founder.
Regarding the monotheistic religions - unlike in biology, I think the creationist approach is correct - someone created the religion and it was not created in an evolutionary process.
Something to think about:
I understand very well what is being read and you, you probably shouldn't be a children's author or any other type because you write in a way that cannot be properly understood.
The discussion is about the damage of religion.
In response to claims that religion causes wars, you say that it is science that has caused the lethality of wars.
This implies the guilt of science (you didn't bother to mention any other activity we do. For example, if we didn't talk to each other, it wouldn't be possible to organize a war).
When in such a discussion an accusation is raised against a certain activity, it implies (even if you did not intend it to be implied) a recommendation to stop this activity.
My problem is that I can only read what you write and not your intentions, so when you write something you must take into account how it will be understood and try to avoid misunderstanding. You didn't do that and therefore you weren't understood, but that's not the reader's problem.
All human knowledge is a reflection of the way of thinking of the human mind.
The human brain is built from an analysis of return and rotation. The perfection of this mechanism created a preference for those who were intelligent and knew how to analyze events around them, and use them to their advantage.
The human mind, being subjected to this pattern, finds it difficult to deal with essentially statistical events. How can you deal with the death of a baby? Why didn't it rain this year? Then providence was invented, the divinity of sorts. And as said by Joel above, it calmed the mind thirsty for reason. Why is there no rain, because I didn't do something that Providence wanted.
The baby died, as above.
Michael,
Although you have a fertile and creative imagination (perhaps you should consider becoming a children's author), I suggest you take a course in reading comprehension, instead of imagining things I said (or wrote) and then inventing unrelated analogies for them...
On the subject of interest:
My words are true as true today from a completely objective point of view.
In order to help you, this time I will clarify my words:
Following the claim that came up in the comment thread here, which says as follows: "All or most of the wars in the world are because of religions", I commented (and I hope I also enlightened) that even if religions are the cause of most wars, then modern weapons are a product of science.
I never said nor was it implied from my words that this is why it is forbidden or better not to engage in science.
My argument (which is simple to understand) is this: "The creation of modern weapons was made possible because of science".
Do you disagree with me? I mean do you think we could have made guns, grenades, tanks, missiles, nuclear and chemical weapons (and the list goes on) without science? So why didn't the people of the Stone Age use tanks, and didn't hunt their food with an M16 rifle?!?
If you want an analogy, it would be this: "If there was no science, there would be fewer murders, most of the murders would be committed with the hands". point. "And therefore it would have been better to cut off everyone's hands." - I didn't say. The "most murders would have been committed with the hands" part is easy to understand and I hope even you don't need an explanation. The "if there was no science there would be less murders" part is also pretty obvious, yet I'll explain it because you left it out of your (twisted) analogy.
And the explanation: if there was no science, weapons of mass destruction would not exist, therefore people would not be able to use weapons of mass destruction (this is because... well, it did not exist) and therefore there would be fewer murders (gas chambers, for example, would not exist if it were not for science) .
clarification
Despite what is written above, I do think that it is necessary to engage in science, and science is the field that I also intend to enter.
I'm just commenting that science also has a part in wars, and not just religions.
With the blessing of easy and pleasant understanding,
Something to think about.
for June-
Again, in order:
* Blind spot has _no_ compensation mechanism. This is a relatively small point, and the brain 'ignores' the lack of information." - And what is this "ignoring" mechanism?
Why does the point not interfere with my vision?
You are invited to get an impression of its existence in
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/blindspot1.html"-I know the site.
I admit, your explanation is not clear to me. Are you claiming that he was an intelligent planner, and he occasionally makes (basic) mistakes?"-
Like what exactly?
Or according to you, it's not a mistake, and then - isn't it wiser to send the nerve back?" I told you. Try to move it back and we'll see if you see better.
You are welcome to browse here-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter7.asp
"Actually, this configuration, in which "the electric cables pass through the walls and not through the center of the room" is found in the squids, and they really do not have a blind spot." - read here -
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/eye.asp
The "intelligent design" is the one that claims that there cannot be 'design flaws'. If someone were to sit and design man, he would surely design him without a coccyx," - try walking without that bone and see what happens. Furthermore... does intelligent design claim that diseases will not exist? Are diseases also "defects in design"?
No "loop" in Recurrent Laryngeal, no blind spot.
But what can we do, we are the descendants of the first vertebrates, and they have a "loop", there is a blind spot, and there is a tail" - not accurate, see above.
You are also welcome to browse here-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch1-development.asp
Something to think about:
Your words are baseless.
This is roughly equivalent to the claim that if there was no science, most murders would be committed with the hands and therefore it would be better to cut off everyone's hands.
The truth is that if it weren't for science there wouldn't be life on earth until its last day the number of people living on it today.
to ermac
Again, in order:
* Blind spot has _no_ compensation mechanism. This is a relatively small point, and the mind 'ignores' the lack of information.
You are invited to get an impression of its existence in
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/blindspot1.html
I admit, your explanation is not clear to me. Are you claiming that he was an intelligent planner, and he occasionally makes (basic) mistakes?
Or according to you it's not a mistake, then - isn't it wiser to send the sadness back? If you invited an electrician to your home, and he would run *all* the electrical cables from all the sockets in the wall through the center of the living room to a hole in the door of your house and from there to the electrical panel - you wouldn't say to him "Why don't you run them through the walls?"
In fact, this configuration, in which "the electrical cables pass through the walls and not through the center of the room" is found in squids, and they really do not have a Blind Spot.
* The nerve irritates the bottom of the larynx (throat), and is not related to vision.
If you meant it - it sounds like you do support evolution. It is clear that the case *doesn't* bother the giraffe (otherwise evolution would have filtered it out a long time ago), just as it is clear that the tailbone does not bother a person, and that the Blind Spot is small enough that it does not bother a person.
The "intelligent design" is the one that claims that there cannot be 'design flaws'. If someone were to sit down and plan the person, they would certainly plan him without a coccyx, without a "loop" in Recurrent Laryngeal, without a blind spot.
But what can we do, we are the descendants of the first vertebrates, and they have a "loop", there is a Blind Spot, and there is a tail...
Leonie and Joel-
A bit of order on the subject of nerves -
* The optic nerve exits from all the reception cells towards *inside* the eye, converges towards a single point (Optic Disk, commonly known as the "Blind spot") and exits the eye. From here it goes directly to the brain.
This is probably what you meant by "poor planning" - a smarter planner would have caused the nerve to exit the eye backwards, towards the brain, and not forward, into the eye." - Ha, no. The fact is that there is a covering mechanism for the blind spot, as expected from an intelligent planner who makes sure that the eye functions properly .
* The nerve you mentioned, the one that makes a "loop" in the neck is the Left Recurrent Laryngeal.
It goes down to the arch of the aorta (in the chest), makes a turn around the arch, and returns to innervate the bottom of the larynx.
With us (humans) the poor planning is small, "all U-turn" of 8 cm, plus or minus.
With the giraffe, on the other hand... here there is a serious mistake" - have you ever been in the place of a giraffe, in order to confirm that he does not see well? Does he not get along with his vision?
to Joel-
"Circular claims are of the essence of religion. The fact that the end of a person's ability is a certain figure does not mean that it is a successful/correct/efficient arrangement and in our case the result of intelligent planning. Nature offers better things, science too. The vision is also baffling." - Not really, oh above. Don't you see planning in the car?
Or as Dawkins said-, if there is anyone among the readers who thinks that such a degree of complex design in nature does not sound preachy, I raise my hands."
By the way... how do you think the story about the exodus from Egypt was created. Do you think it can be faked?
Even if it is true that most wars in the world are caused by religions, without science, they would be on a much smaller scale and less deadly. That is, all modern weapons, from the simplest guns to nuclear or chemical weapons, would not be possible without science. So maybe It is true that religions incite strife and discord (of course this is a gross generalization, Buddhism, an aggressive religion...?) but what is certain without a shadow of a doubt, is that science provides religions with the deadly weapons.
So maybe science isn't all blue and white?
Oh, and one more thing: evolution does not explain planning (because there is none) and I did not write such a thing. It is you who translates this type of process into concepts from another content world.
Circular claims are of the essence of religion. The fact that the end of a person's ability is a certain figure does not mean that it is a successful/correct/efficient arrangement and in our case the result of intelligent planning. Nature offers better things, science too. The sight is also baffling.
To say about something given that it is successful by virtue of being such is a very weak claim. The deviation of the line of sight - not to mention the blunder of the crane - and hundreds of other planning blunders (yes, including the twisting, the tail bone and more) says Darshani. The fact that Hotseftan is not dangerous usually does not refer to the failure of the divine plan.
The argument that the story is true precisely because it has two conflicting stories is, as we said, somewhat problematic. To understand how this happens easily, you need to know about the formation of myths and stories and the process of putting them in writing.
In the four gospels about Jesus in the New Testament there are often contradictions regarding the same things. Does this make the story that is different from itself and contradicts itself four times into a historical document? By the way, it says there that Jesus is the Son of God. You surely get it; It is written and billions believe it. Not like that, Isaac?
Now, before you continue looking for intelligent planning, two things: a. This is a Christian matter, not a Jewish one. After all, Tsavot repents (I consoled) and repeats it and is generally subject to human manipulations for the most part (check dialogues with Moshe). B. Read Ridley's Genome.
To Ermac / Joel:
A bit of order on the subject of nerves -
* The optic nerve exits from all the reception cells towards *inside* the eye, converges towards a single point (Optic Disk, commonly known as the "Blind spot") and exits the eye. From here it goes directly to the brain.
This is probably what you meant by "poor planning" - a smarter planner would have caused the nerve to exit the eye backwards, towards the brain, and not forward, into the eye.
* The nerve you mentioned, the one that makes a "loop" in the neck is the Left Recurrent Laryngeal.
It goes down to the arch of the aorta (in the chest), makes a turn around the arch, and returns to innervate the bottom of the larynx.
With us (humans) the poor planning is small, "all U-turn" of 8 cm, plus or minus.
With the giraffe, on the other hand... there is a serious mistake here 🙂
to Joel-
For camre, the fact that you "see perfectly" is not relevant to the matter." - definitely relevant. If we didn't see clearly or blurry enough, you would still be able to understand you. But even when there are all the chips and tricks in the eye (I don't need to expand on all the patents her) and also the fact that my eyesight is good enough to distinguish between an F15 and an F16 plane when they are at an altitude of 10000 feet, this fact speaks volumes.
A. You see many limitations, and there are many beings who see better than you. The excellent vision also fails us. So?" - let them see better. I have enough eyesight. Are you sure you would like, eyesight that would be enough for you to find a worm in a field from a kilometer high? What would that give you?
B. That was not the argument. The course of the optic nerve from the eye to the neck and from there to the brain above does not indicate a successful planning," - a fact that the eye works correctly. Do you think that another planning would be better? You are welcome to try your luck.
"Essentially all planning (but well explained by evolution). "- Planning has never been explained by evolution. The claim is that it takes millions of years (to produce a gene complex). However, claims are separate and reality is separate.
"Examples abound (including the unemployed-but-dangerous appendix, deadly sensitivity to too many things, etc.)." - It's a fact that most people have no risk from the appendix. I also heard that in the past they used to take it out in certain places and now they've stopped doing it. Furthermore.... Search this site for the word appendix and you will see an article claiming that it has a role in preventing infections.
You smell really bad, but you accept that as a given.” - you mean 500 olfactory receptors?
Since the only place that claims this is in Genesis 7 and 2 and the text there is a failure by any standard - including two completely different stories about man, his creation and who did it and how - and against this there is a tremendous body of knowledge that claims otherwise, not much of it really remains. "-We weren't talking about religion but about science. But just a small question - how do you think Chazal knew about the splitting of the continents?" One land literally released the water and XNUMX continents were formed from it. , since no writer would have bothered to seemingly contradict himself at the very beginning, if he wanted his book to be believed.
And Michael. I think I don't know all these theories? Do you see how everything works out in evolution? They will always find an interpretation for it. By the way...even a 10 percent beneficial mutation is not able to take over the population. This is because of diploid extinction rates.
Aerox:
There are many possible scenarios. One of them - probably the most explained of them - is that it is the degeneration of wings that could fly due to a change in the environment, the way of life and the ostrich itself.
Imagine, for example, a situation where a series of mutations increased the ostrich's legs and thus increased its survival (for example, because it no longer had to run away from those who competed with it for food because it could kick it). Imagine, however, that due to the growth of legs, the wings could no longer take off effectively (and perhaps there was no need to take off either, partly because there was no need to escape). In such a situation, the wings become a burden and there is definitely a possibility that a mutation that reduced them gave the ostrich an advantage.
What, you really couldn't think of that on your own?
For Camre, the fact that you "see perfectly" is irrelevant to the matter.
A. You see many limitations, and there are many beings who see better than you. The excellent vision also fails us. So?
B. That was not the argument. The course of the optic nerve from the eye to the neck and from there to the brain above does not indicate successful planning, any planning in fact (but well explained by evolution). And this is one example of poor initial planning of the human body (and others); Examples abound (including the unemployed-but-dangerous appendix, deadly sensitivity to too many things, etc.). You smell really bad, but you accept that as a given. If you do not accept, God's wisdom will collapse here as well.
You trade between what is and what is possible. If this is what the almighty created - either he failed in the task or he is not almighty. If he meant to ingeniously create something flawed in the first place…
Since the only place that claims this is in Genesis XNUMX and XNUMX and the text there is a failure by any standard - including two completely different stories about man, his creation and who did it and how - and against this there is a huge body of knowledge that claims otherwise, not much of it really remains.
By the way, if you read carefully, you will find out that Zebot did not even create the water. They were there at the beginning, together with him (that's why he didn't say "because it's good" on Monday).
The Tanach is an amazing book, but its factual value, certainly its scientific value, will not be its glory. And this also includes the claim of God's existence, something that should have been as clear and understandable as the sun at noon, but was left to man's decision.
The creator of the universe and man as a function of man's decision and on the basis of these texts? May God have mercy.
Just a note about the ostrich wings - I did not claim that they are for beauty (and maybe they are, like the peacock feathers that attract women?). Maybe it is for better running for short distances or something. In any case, you tell me - if the ostrich wings have no value, why did the imaginary evolution choose them? Or were the wings active and then degenerated? Why was the mutation found to degenerate the wings?
Airwax.
Regarding the two - I asked before I wrote.
Regarding the brain - the disagreement between us about the quality of your brain is well known and you are still welcome to answer the challenge I posed to you and disprove my hypotheses.
In relation to the ostrich…..???? Do you still think wings are for beauty?
to Michael-
"By the way, every second doctor knows how to create two better ones than these" - allow me to disagree with you. You are welcome to ask any dentist.
And Microsoft has created a better brain than yours."-
in dreams
Roy Tsezana:
"And a smiling note from me: you can find in many places the holy books of the monotheistic religions (the Bible, Islam and the New Testament), for exactly zero shekels. I think it's appropriate."
Islam is a religion and not a book. Islam has a holy book - the Koran...
Aerox:
"To the land of madness he soars on the wings of an ostrich" - reminds you of something?
By the way, every second doctor knows how to create two better than those created by God and Microsoft created a better brain than yours.
What about answering the challenge I put before you?
Are you going to organize the game? You should - this way you too can contribute to the fight against the deterioration of the planet!
To Sharon and Yoel - "Biology and clocks on the path in the garden are two completely different things, this analogy is particularly bad and indicates a built-in, innate unwillingness to understand basic biological processes that are not complicated to understand.
What is a "new gene complex"? A living creature with a different genome? You are, for example, a new gene complex. A completely whimsical statement" - I probably need to shed some light on the theory of evolution. Evolution claims that complex and designed systems are created gradually. It has never proven this and those who believe in it believe In it even without evidence. A gene complex is a certain function that requires several DNA sequences for its activation (like the blood coagulation system for example) There are millions of such systems in the living world and we have never seen a single one like this. All the laws of probability and logic do not allow this.
To Joel-"On the wisdom of the great watchmaker: please check the course of the optic nerve from the eye to the brain."-I checked and I can see perfectly. You don't? Are you or anyone else capable of creating a better eye? Why doesn't anyone do this? What is the difficulty? Do you think you would see better in another arrangement? What arrangement do you propose?
"Mistakes in the planning of the human body exist in commercial quantities." - Like what for example? Give an example that is common to all the people of the world.
"Unqualified technicians are fired for less than that" - it is a fact that all the world's scientists together are unable to create a membrane from a dead bacterium.
Happy birthday, and enjoy the book again.
*Going out dancing and dancing*
Today I received the book as a gift from my brother and sisters. Perfect gift for my 18th birthday.
good week.
Ido:
I feel that there is almost no point in answering you because the answers to most of your claims have already come up even in this discussion.
What do you think of the sentence "There is nothing wrong with drugs because people are the ones who commit the crimes under their influence and therefore the problem is with the people and not with the drugs!" This is nonsense, of course, and it is the same as the nonsense you said in section 1.
As I have already mentioned, religion is a (significant and large) part of a whole family of doctrines that favor faith over critical thought. Nazism is another member of that group. If you wander around here on the site, you must have seen how a person called Leba is trying to bring scientific discoveries as proof of the correctness of Islam. All the preachers of all religions (and the preachers of Nazism in general) knew how to perform demagogic manipulations on the discoveries of science and the problem is that the masses (and pointing out Nazism as based on science shows that you are one of them) eagerly swallow without understanding.
It is a fact that the vast majority of organized killing is the result of faith that has replaced critical thinking and another fact is that religion is a significant part of all this killing. What do you think about the action of someone who manages to cancel, say, 20 percent of the wars? Do you object to someone doing this?
The fact that you say that something "maybe" has a connection to something else does not create this connection and the example of the connection you gave is simply a joke - one of the most famous is that religion is connected to a bad socio-economic situation (and actually leads to this situation) Take the ultra-orthodox as one example and the entire Muslim culture as an example Otherwise and later you might also read here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/2275614130/
Religion, as I have said here many times, contradicts science, a fundamental contradiction because the very belief is a concept that is contrary to the scientific concept. How many times does it have to be explained before people understand?! All the other contradictions - whether it is the opposition of the religious to evolution and whether it is their opposition to the claim that the earth is not the center of the world - are nothing more than private manifestations of this rule.
It is clear from your words that not only have you not read the book about which they are debating here, but that you have not even read the comments written here.
The action that connects man and God is faith, not knowledge. The fact that the cause of the physical existence of the universe for the creation of man is a matter for discussion and is not self-evident and comes from the ancient world of ignorance adds a lot of its own.
The only written source about God is the Bible, and his universal actions such as the creation of the world and man are in the first two chapters. Beyond a fantastic amount of internal contradictions, competing stories, inconsistency with reality, etc., this text stands alone against a tremendous and proven body of knowledge.
The point is that science does not give a person personal comfort, its findings do not relate to his troubles and cannot give a personal meaning to what happened to him or his group. Belief in God can, so this is a better solution for many even when the knowledge is old. When the current knowledge wasn't there, the option didn't even exist.
Religion is the institution of belief and the need for it, and like any institution it took care of its interests and those of its people. This concern also includes harming competitors from other religions or from the same religion who do not follow suit. Religion did not invent war but sanctified it and caused many of it. The Jewish religion, what to do, invented the genocide.
Nazism and Stalinist Communism were certainly formulated "like science" but the foundations were contrary to its basic principles. Hitler, by the way, spoke of God and the Supreme Providence.
On the wisdom of the great watchmaker: Please check the course of the optic nerve from the eye to the brain. Mistakes in the design of the human body abound. If God planned it in advance, he came to the project without serious knowledge. Unqualified technicians are fired for less than that.
And just as God failed in planning and building, so his morality is fundamentally flawed and the historical activity attributed to him is bloody. The Jewish people in particular owe him a debt of gratitude.
Ido,
Let's start by saying that there is no real connection between race theory and natural selection. The lion is also developed and strong, but the small insects are among the most numerous creatures on the planet. You could say they are the real rulers here.
The theory of evolution and natural selection has never stated that by virtue of strength, intelligence, level of development or any other standard, a certain species should dominate other species.
I agree with you that people kill and not religions. Indeed, people kill in every society. Now the question is what do people do because a certain religion tells them to do, or excuses their actions. And the answer is: they do bad things. Examples are the early Muslim Crusades and Jihad and the Spanish Inquisition. Some would say that even the wars between the Jews and the Arabs nowadays are closely related to religion.
Another problem, perhaps equally serious, is that religion often limits man's ability and desire to analyze the universe in a balanced way. If Galileo had obeyed the laws of religion, he would not have come up with the idea of the sun at the center, and it is quite possible that the laws of gravity would not have been discovered. If Darwin had ignored the commandments of religion at the time, he would not have come up with the theory of evolution, which explains all biology that exists today in a good and reliable way (when Stalin ordered scientists in the USSR not to consider evolution, he prevented real research in biology for all the years of his rule).
The harmful power of religion is expressed in its ability to control people's opinions, and we can see from the conflicts between religion and science throughout history what would happen if religion were victorious: a world without the laws of gravity and an understanding of physics and without the theory of evolution and the understanding of biology.
2. It is likely that this is a statistic that is exposed to additional influencing factors besides religion, but this is a marginal point. The really interesting thing is that not believing in God does not necessarily lead to the negation of human morality, and you can see this in other studies as well.
3. I don't care if religion does not -=necessarily=- contradict science in certain places. What I care about is when she -=yes=- contradicts science.
Speaking of glasses, did you know that the inventor of the glasses was practically exiled from the community because he "denied God the right to determine who will go blind and who will not"? If we had left the decision to religion at that time, there is no doubt that the glasses would not have come into use.
And what about Newton's laws of physics? What about evolution? What about the smallpox vaccine, which churches refused to approve because it denied the divine right to choose whom to kill?
I'll say it again - I don't care if religion allows people to use glasses for some reason. All religions have good mitzvahs that can and are pleasant to obey. What I care about is when the religion -=forbids=- people to use technology or think in some way that is contrary to the commandments of the religion... and all religions also have such commandments. As a result, religion hinders human progress and in many cases exacts human sacrifices out of the resulting ignorance. Suffice it to say that if the smallpox vaccine had indeed been banned by the church, then millions of people would have continued to die every year. The laws of physics did not exist. Biology would have remained where it was a century ago. Man was not advanced. We would stay put until the next asteroid hit, then give way to the next species, like all our predecessors. No progress, no change, no possibility to control our destiny.
This is the real evil in the mental closure that religion imposes.
Roy.
Roy,
as an addition to the social hierarchy that religion provides. Going as far as governments and antiquity.
3 monkeys in a cage, born in captivity, show a clear social hierarchy led by the alpha male.
Sharon
Witness, people kill in the name of religious belief. The basis for a large part of the conflicts are on religious grounds, certainly not all of them.
I have not yet heard of a war that broke out because of a different perception of scientific matters in this or that field (precisely because of a football game a war broke out once)
Are you claiming a connection to the financial situation for those of faith? excellent A connection between economic status and education is known. So if you put the things together the conclusion can be unpleasant for some listeners.
Religion does not necessarily contradict science. When it deals with matters of personal faith, way of life, morality, commandments, science has nothing to say about it. When she tries to explain the world, to describe its development, the development of life, she is absolutely contradictory, a contradiction that cannot be reconciled in many cases. Some will surely say "that everything is already written in the Bible" all the information that science reveals in a process that lasts for hundreds of years is already written there, it should be read simply. Blessed is the believer.
Sharon.
Ido - and you write all this on Shabbat?
1) People kill, not religions. Finding a way to kill is not a problem (race theory is based on Darwin - we are the most developed, strongest... and need to rule)
Are there no wars or murders that are not on religious grounds? Or a son of the same religion?
Just for money or power?
2) Regarding the claim that in the USA crime is greater among people of faith: maybe it has something to do with the economic situation or the type of crimes for which they go to prison?
3) Religion does not necessarily contradict science (there are many examples of this) like some people don't use glasses because apparently God didn't want them to see, some people want glasses to read the scriptures or just to see better.
Nice discussion, in part.
Anyway, I'm running to buy. I have already read it in English, but we will try again in Hebrew. We'll see if I enjoy it as much.
Thank you very much for the update!
Michael, the word Adeist does exist. strength
good evening.
Sharon
Jacob ben Shaul:
An atheist is someone who does not accept religion. Although they didn't invent a special word for someone who doesn't believe in the existence of God of any kind, but if they did invent such a word it would be "Adeist" - Adeist.
Dawkins' main claims are against religion and since no religion talks about an apathetic God he doesn't talk about him either.
A God who does not interfere in reality is simply not interesting and just as he is indifferent to us so are we (including Dawkins) to him.
Fibonacci:
I guess it's convenient for you to ignore my words because all your arguments have been answered in them.
what's the idea Keep asking the same questions until people get tired of giving you the same answers and then you can lie to yourself and others that the questions remain unanswered?
Roy
Sorry, I wasn't talking about religion but about faith as faith. without attaching any labeling to it. You need faith to make your case on any subject. Faith is the back of the infinite turtles or elephants or the knowing demon. It is from a black hole if you will that can produce any opinion. You have your preferences to use faith for the needs you see and others have other preferences. Because it is an identityless starting point for each person. There is no priority or advantage of one way over another. And when it comes to comparing advantages, I'm actually talking about different ways in science that are based on the beliefs of scientists and according to which they build theories. Take for example string theory, it's all pure theory based on a belief that this is the way to build physics. And there are enough examples in different fields and areas. In large time spans the advantages and disadvantages become clear. The priority of one over the other is always temporary.
To Yaakov Ben Shaul - is the fact that he is a "born atheist" a derogatory word? Billions of people in the world are believers from birth, without any possibility to doubt, think, explore the principles of the faith into which they were born against their will, they are captives to the principles of their parents' faith. I am a staunch atheist, I was never raised to be one, common sense (or crooked in the eyes of others) brought me to such a worldview and it will remain my lot forever. The difference between me and those who believe in God, at least some of them, is that I had the right to choose, I could just as easily be a religious person or a believer, no close person would ostracize or burn me because of my faith. This is an important difference.
An agnostic sits on the fence without an opinion. In fact, some agnostics do not believe in other Gods of other cultures and societies throughout history, do not believe in pagans, in Greek or Roman mythology or otherwise, they are rationalists in many ways. So why do they have no opinion about the god of the religion of the society they live in? Why are they sitting on the fence?
CAMRE- Biology and clocks on the path in the garden are two completely different things, this analogy is particularly bad and indicates a built-in, innate unwillingness to understand basic biological processes that are not complicated to understand.
What is a "new gene complex"? A living being with a different genome? You, for example, are a new gene complex. A completely bizarre statement.
Sharon.
fibonacci,
Science is indeed not built on a foundation of final and absolute truth, but on a series of truths that prove themselves in certain and well-defined situations. What is surprising is that the laws that are discovered are also valid beyond the laboratory experiments.
When you say that evidence is irrelevant you are effectively ruling out any way of competition between opposing views, such as religion and science. But let's assume for a moment that proofs -=yes=- are relevant, and examine what science has brought to the world, and what religion has brought to the world. We will call it 'Elijah's test for the prophets of Baal'. He had a good head, Elijah. He knew that the only thing that matters is the result test. Let's adopt his method and examine what science has brought to the world, and what religion has brought to the world:
Science increased the average life expectancy to over 70 years, brought us to the moon, caused an almost complete stop to the infectious diseases of man, provided us with tools with which we can communicate instantly even over a distance of thousands of kilometers, allowed us to cross thousands of kilometers of continents and seas while A few hours on planes, saved the lives of millions of toddlers every year and so on and so forth.
All of this was possible from a considered review of physical evidence and finding the laws behind them, something that religion does not always allow (according to Galileo).
And now for religion.
Some will say that religion provides a social hierarchy, but we find such a hierarchy even without connection to religion (for example, governments in modern times and in ancient times).
Some would argue that religion provides moral rules along the lines of the Ten Commandments. But we also find such rules in societies that have never heard that religion dictates moral rules. Moreover, we know according to the statistics in the USA that atheists are less criminals than religious people.
So maybe religion gives Likud social cohesion? Definitely yes! But such a Likud can be achieved today also through nationalism, and it is no less powerful in many cases.
If so, what is the advantage that religion provides?
The answer is grim. Religion does not grant anything today that cannot be achieved in other ways that are less limiting to those who follow their path.
In short, the religion failed miserably in the outcome test. And if you still insist that 'in long periods of time there are always surprises'... well, what can I say to you? After all, it's a matter of pure faith, and you have the right to believe whatever you want. But if you try to follow the path of examining a claim and drawing a conclusion, you will find that so far it has not happened that religion has surprised. Meanwhile, only science is advancing. Religion remains sprawled in its place.
Shabbat Shalom,
Roy.
Roy
Science in its upper layer is placed on a platform of observational proofs, etc. But on what is this substrate placed in turn. I'm guessing maybe on the back of a large turtle and he is in turn on another turtle in short turtles all the way down. If science was built on a foundation of final and absolute truth, the above discussion would be unnecessary. You ultimately need to believe what you say. Faith is a fundamental element in applying the will to do things in one way or another. Therefore proofs are not relevant in this field. Therefore, there is no reason to say that one way has an advantage over the other. When measuring advantage over long periods of time there are always surprises. So there is no point in being sure in a certain way.
camera:
Has anyone seen the movie "Return of the Irwax"?
"Squaria Lesh and Bush" Terrace Ta Har and Shim
Camre is right. Watches are not created by chance.
God makes them.
"What is special about life forms is that they change from generation to generation" - and when was the front in the creation of a new gene complex?. Nada.
"There are no generations in a watch manufacturing factory! All watches are produced by one device according to exact instructions that are not meant to change just like that!" - And if you haven't seen the production of the watch, will you conclude that it was created by itself?
"What is the relationship between life forms and clocks?" - both have id characteristics.
"This is the only explanation for the strange phenomenon that you represent when you say that you have never heard of such a thing and further brings up the story with the clock that has been trodden countless times on this site and that Dawkins wrote an entire book about." - Shaikh encyclopedia.
No one has yet shown how gene complex systems are formed gradually.
No one has yet shown how self-replication+encoding occurs.
Conclusion - the analogy is correct.
Or in the sentence that sums up the evolutionary process-"There was material that replicated->>it began to accumulate changes->>it created complexity like a clock"=complexity like a clock was created by itself. Really?
camera:
You probably haven't evolved yet and remain not just a monkey but the monkey that unites two of the three monkeys: your ears and eyes are covered. This is the only explanation for the strange phenomenon that you represent when you say that you have never heard of such a thing and further brings up the story with the clock that has been trodden countless times on this site and that Dawkins wrote an entire book about.
I won't try to explain everything to you about "A" because you are in a situation where I need to explain to you what "A" is
camre you idiot! What is the relationship between life forms and clocks?
Have you ever seen a watch that fucks a watch and comes out with a child's watch that looks like its parents????
You make me think the theory of evolution is wrong! How can it be that there is a stupid creature like you that did not become extinct because of excessive stupidity??
What is special about life forms is that they change from generation to generation (without being blind or some universal idiot).
There are no generations in a watch factory! All watches are produced by one device according to exact instructions that are not intended to change just like that!
"And refers to the appearance of planning in the living world which is explained with great parsimony and stunning elegance by Darwin's natural selection." - such a thing I have never heard. Is there no evidence of planning in the world? Is blind chance capable of creating clocks?
to Fibonacci
Your response from 2008-05-30 at 11:13 suffers from a fundamental internal contradiction that actually knocks it down and makes it patently incorrect.
Your final sentence is:
"No theory can be created if it does not have incomplete components at its roots".(*)
This sentence in itself is a "theory". Now, if it is true? After all, there is at least one theory (it's your theory) that doesn't have incomplete components at its roots, and your theory falls flat. If it is not true? So it is not true.
At the same time, please allow me to tell you that in my opinion Keith also failed in the formulation of your theory.
I will offer a wording that I think is more accurate (although longer):
"No theory can be formulated that is completely coherent and that does not have at least one point where the theory is not well defined or one situation for which the theory
is without a fundamental internal contradiction"
My response was formulated, of course, before reading Fibonacci's last two responses and it refers to his classification of atheism as a religion.
Regarding the penultimate comment - it is not Roy who confuses proof with belief, but you.
If faith is something to which the believer attributes absolute certainty, then those who follow the scientific doctrine do not believe in a thing! He doubts each and every claim - instead of a true or false value, he assigns a probability to truths and a probability to falsehoods.
The scientist "believes" - out of choice - only in what his ability to observe in reality would not exist without him or the very formulation of his sentences and statements would not be possible without him. Therefore he "believes" that there is a connection between the input of the senses and reality and that the laws of logic are valid. Everything else is open to experimental examination and refutation.
The fact that someone "needs" something does not make that something - if it is a claim - a true claim.
I also disbelieve in your claim that humans need faith. Maybe there are those who need it but there are clearly those who don't.
In any case - the fact that someone really feels compelled to believe that the sun is shining outside never made the sun shine.
The people you describe - those who try to create absolute certainty - do not believe in the sanctity of science because these people do not understand what science is at all.
Mishpat Gadel is part of the scientific enterprise and is not part of any religion.
Its results (which some scientists would prefer the world to be without, but unlike you, they know that their will does not create reality) are what make the ridiculous phenomenon of the "God of Gaps" possible.
There is a serious problem with the font settings on the website.
Letter sizes change uncontrollably.
I refer to the use of the Windows 98 system
Thanks for the correction.
Rymar Dawkins is almost a 'born atheist', actually since 1976 when he interpreted evolution and explained that only biological-chemical processes exist and there is no intelligent management of our lives. 'there is a God?' is another stretch of the idea, in expected atheist terms. It's a shame that the book doesn't appeal more in an agnostic direction. An agnostic is indifferent to the existence of God, without the need to deny him or explain that he was probably invented by humans. An agnostic is content with denying God's involvement in any management, from everyday life to the entire universe. Indifferent to religion goes against the religious apparatus and indifferent to God himself, who of course no religion has the ability to communicate with him or speak on his behalf.
Danish:
Read my previous comments and see what I think is the correct approach to the matter.
The real war is between rational and responsible thinking and blind faith and placing the responsibility on an external party.
The fact that there are people who blaspheme the name of science and treat Maoism or Marxism over science does not change this just as it does not change the fact that science cannot be a reason for war because it merely discusses ways to discover the truth.
fibonacci,
The foundations of faith that science contains are always based on proofs and evidence. In comparison, religion bases its laws and determinations on much more problematic axioms - whether in books, eyewitnesses or general feelings.
It can be said that the only axiom of science is that an experiment conducted under controlled conditions will yield the same results time and time again. This axiom confirms itself again and again in today's experiments. We have not yet discovered the place where belief in God has proven itself to be justified in explaining the results of an experiment. This is also the reason why there is no need to believe in God - we manage to explain the world around us well enough even without him.
And on a smiling note from my proverb: you can find the holy books of the monotheistic religions (the Bible, Islam and the New Testament) in many places, for exactly zero shekels. Seems appropriate to me.
to David,
You claimed that science brought about the holocaust. You should know that Hitler did not follow Darwin's scientific theory but twisted and distorted it to his needs. In doing so, he turned it, in practice, into a religion that ignores reality and existing scientific theories.
If you can explain why science brought about the holocaust, I would love to hear it.
Roy.
The reason for wars lies in the violent nature of man, the fruit of evolution.
To attribute the wars to religion is demagogic and contradicts very simple facts.
Hitler and the Nazis acted in the name of a secular ideology that even relied on the science of the time in a distorted way, on the study of races.
Stalin acted in the name of communism, which relied on economic science, Marx's writings are scientific, as is Mao.
And I am secular and do not believe.
For convenience - here is another link to Sam Harris' lecture:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1232718550543562442&hl=en
Fibonacci:
exactly!
And avoiding drugs is also a kind of drug. And that you decided not to be a thief is a form of theft.
How can you even formulate such rambling gibberish.
Pay attention to the structure of the word: Atheism, which means the negation of religion.
I could just as well have invented the word a-tahism - the denial of tea and then you would say that those who take this approach actually drink tea.
The truth is that I am also not completely satisfied with Roy's answer and the reason is that actually comparing (certain) religion to atheism is not possible and I will explain why.
Religion is an ordered doctrine according to which man is commanded to lead his life.
Atheism is… what? Of course he doesn't explain to us how to behave in every situation in our lives - he simply says that we don't accept religion. There are many ways to be an atheist. It is possible to be an atheist who accepts the scientific method as a way to strive for the truth (this is the atheism that Roy was referring to in his response) and it is possible to be an atheist who is actually completely religious but whose religion he believes in has not been declared a religion (perhaps for the reason that it does not refer to God but to the supremacy of the race as a sacred thing that should not be criticized) .
This confusion that elevates atheism to the level of a doctrine that dictates a way of life is the one behind the question/statement that often comes up even from the mouths of people who do not define themselves as religious: "It should be religious! What, you'd rather he smoke drugs and go to wild sex parties?" As if that is what defines atheism.
Therefore - as Sam Harris points out in the lecture whose link I have already uploaded here, the very definition of the word atheism is perhaps a mistake because this word - instead of helping people think - confuses them.
I recommend atheism but not any kind of atheism but the one Roy talked about.
The division of people into religious versus atheists is not significant because as mentioned there are atheists who should be defined as religious but people did not notice the fact that their doctrine is simply an unofficial religion.
David goes even further and claims that the great troubles came to humanity from science. It's basically the same confusion only exaggerated. He already identifies atheism with science - nonsense whose monstrosity is difficult to exaggerate.
On the other hand, he also makes many other mistakes, such as ignoring the fact that in the name of Judaism and God's mitzvah, the first ever recorded genocide was committed here, and that in fact all monotheistic religions include many instructions for the murder of human beings.
You will be surprised - David - but there is no teaching of this kind in science (as if you didn't know! But the religious - who starts lying to himself, does not see anything wrong with saying a lie to others).
In science there is actually no teaching except for critical thinking and relying on the experimental findings when determining what is true and what is not.
The truth is that everything I said and many other things appear in the book in one form or another and the main reason why I was happy about the release of the book is the possibility that it gave me the opportunity to refer people to it instead of starting to explain to them their mistakes over and over again but this hope that I had in the book was largely disappointed and here it is already in the discussion This is what we see people enjoying arguing with without having read it.
To Roy
Comment in a smiling tone if Dawkins' book belongs to the Shekel second book sale. Seems appropriate to me.
Roy
You should not mix proof with belief. The science you so cherish contains in its infrastructure many elements of faith. The observations that confirm the theoretical development resulting from those axioms do not definitively confirm a certain truth. Hilbert at his time already tried to create a mathematical certainty whose goal was the ultimate truth. Until he grew up and turned the bowl upside down. In the broadest sense, it has been proven that all theories are incomplete and self-contained for sure. Uncertainty is an integral part of any theory in fact. Humans including scientists need faith and hope that they will always find new solutions to the same old problems. Without these beliefs there would certainly be no point in anyone engaging in research and science. Those who try to create absolute certainty and believe in the sanctity of science are simply dropping the ground from under their feet. What remains now is to prove the converse law of incompleteness. That is to say that no theory can be created if it does not have incomplete components at its roots.
The problem is that the most heinous crime committed by humanity came from "science" and not religion, the Holocaust. People would find something to fight about and something to kill for, regardless of their religious background.
The Christian religion commands to love everyone, everyone is equal before God.
Judaism commands to love the Hagar.
Islam commands to respect the other sons of Abraham.
In short, humans are to blame, not religions.
If he was serious, he would look for and examine the human responsibility for these crimes, and not blame so sweepingly.
Some Comments :
1. You can buy the book at a bookshop as part of the 'Second book in a shekel' sale. warmly recommended.
2. Dawkins is a radical atheist, and I fear that he occasionally chooses to blame religion for crimes that are not its own (I do not believe that all wars are the result of religion. Some are just the result of authoritative people in the religious establishment. Others, such as the Philoponic Wars and the ancient world as a whole, are not related to religion at all). Despite this, it is hard not to agree with many of his arguments about the problems that religion causes.
3. Contrary to Fibonacci, atheism is not a religious belief, but a lack of religious belief. There is a big difference between the two. Religious belief requires belief without proof. Atheism requires proof to believe. Quite logically, all humans were supposed to be atheists. But we are not really logical creatures…
Atheism is a religious belief no less orthodox than the traditional religions. All in all, an approach that sanctifies the freedom of private belief due to the private ego. It has missionaries trying to recruit more believers and this is exactly what the author is trying to do. There is no truth or untruth in matters of faith and debate is pointless. Those who believe in free choice recognize the right of everyone to believe what their heart desires.
I expect action and intellectual discourse in the comments here, or actually this is an impossible contrast, from
Believing in something that has not been proven to exist absolutely (and even intuitively)
indicates a damaged intellectual honesty, and a lack of objective judgment in the perception of reality,
Therefore, there will be a discussion here, but far from being intellectual
The short, my God!!! How shallow people are
I read the book in its English version and it is highly recommended.
Important chapters not mentioned in the article deal with the relationship between religion and morality and the evolution of religion.
All the logical arguments presented in the book were already familiar to me before I read it, but some of the examples were an interesting novelty for me. I especially enjoyed the description of the development process of the cargo cults (I don't know if this is how the term Cargo cult was translated into the Hebrew version) in New Guinea - a process that the researchers who discovered New Guinea could have anticipated because they were its heroes.