oh someone just watched Charles Dawkins. Boring......
2006-08-20 14:23:02
·
answer #1
·
answered by malisimo 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
I pretty much agree with Karen Armstrong (a very intellectual writer on spirituality) who describes the problems of both religious fundamentalists and secular fundamentalists. I think Steven would fit the latter, in that he's dismissed religion based upon sole consideration of the fundamentalist flavor. Karen points out that religion - without the fundamentalist response - is a spiritual training to reduce the ego/self and to develop compassion. This is a religious endeavor, regardless of whether it's theistic or atheistic. I think Mr. Weinberg should avoid the narrow perspective of religion and realize that there are religious/spiritual atheists who, for example, engage themselves in full ritual and practice of Zen Buddhism (note: this doesn't mean that Zen denies a god; it just means that it's a red herring and that, when a god concept is used, it's typically non-theistic).
2006-08-20 21:24:51
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Not true. Religion is created by men, maybe is an insult maybe not. A lot of terrible things are done by good and bad people, it has nothing to do with religion.
Mr Weinberg writes one of those great excuses, to avoid paying the price. He does not have the guts to do what it takes, so he launches his missiles in this direction.
2006-08-20 21:22:31
·
answer #3
·
answered by Marco 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Not all religions deny human dignity. Religion at its best supplies a moral compass to guide one through life. The evil comes from the belief that only your compass knows True North.
2006-08-20 21:23:35
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think that your question need refrazing.
Religion is just as bad as politics.
It was forced upon humanity by the greed's of some idiots to control the masses. They preach that (GOD) is god and kind and forgive all sins, that we should do the same, Then they themselves do just the opposite. call for wars kill anyone that do,s not believe in they right to rule. It is therefore ironic that so many people through out the world trust the word of the church leaders or political leaders. I put it to you that the books that these so called leaders put forward as proof have been changed that many time that they are nothing like the truth.
eg (This do,s not fit our needs so drop it.)
2006-08-20 21:44:21
·
answer #5
·
answered by aiddogs5 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
When you say 'bad things' are you talking about the things done by Mao (no religion), Stalin (no religion), Hitler (no religion), Pol Pot (no religion)?
You're looking at 100 MILLION people murdered by people not influenced by any religion.
Also, Buddhism for one gave peace to a part of the world that was known for its tremendous brutality.
2006-08-20 21:25:59
·
answer #6
·
answered by Bad Buddhist 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I agree. Religion facilitates people to be brainwashed, and to lay blame on other things. The world would be a war free place without it.
2006-08-20 21:35:04
·
answer #7
·
answered by Aussie Chick 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
What i would like to know is where he gets his value of good and bad. I mean, did he read the definition of "bad" somewhere, or does he just instinctively know that torturing innocent babies is wrong?
Different religions have different views of good and bad. So where is he getting his definitions??? Webster's? Bible? Quran? Upanishads? the Gita? The Oxford Dictionary?
2006-08-20 21:25:11
·
answer #8
·
answered by extremelyradicalman 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
But how would you define good and evil? Without religion, its all relative. The quote makes no sense.
2006-08-20 21:18:48
·
answer #9
·
answered by Privratnik 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
Lame
2006-08-20 21:18:24
·
answer #10
·
answered by Snappy 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Depends upon whether it's God's religion or man's religion.
2006-08-20 21:19:54
·
answer #11
·
answered by Ninizi 3
·
1⤊
0⤋