Science is based on reason and measurements and observable facts. Therefore it may be used as a critical base.
Next up: Apples versus oranges. The winner? Purple.
Which is to say that theology is more on the philosophical than the empirical side of the spectrum. Which is to say neither faith nor logic can 'prove' or 'disprove' the other.
Theology critisising this with unprovable unmeasurable unsubstaniated ideas is only as qualified as philosophy to do this.
Yes. Because it's an entirely different field.
I will clarify that it's my beleif that Human control mechanisms, many and varied as they are, invented religion. It is perhaps the earliest of such mechanisms perhaps only after the father's wooden club and throwing rocks at the tribes failures.
Okay.
The Ubermenche isnt the deity. The Ubermench is the Saved, the salvated, the chosen people, the blessed, the beleivers, the residents of national-socialist paradise.
So, rather than religion per se, your dispute (among others) is with the concept of the Chosen People, wherever and however it manifests, because of its ease of abuse?
You can disobay Gods law if you wish to be burned at a stake,imprisoned, beheaded or cast out from your society.
You can disobey man's law if you wish to be executed, incarcerated or sued into the poor house.
There are consequences to breaking rules. Those who are particularly good at it manage to avoid the consequences, whether the rules are said to be divine or man-made.
Hard though some things may be consitutionally to amend, they can be amended. You cant "amend" the Koran, it dosnt need amending.
Ever.
Apart from the odd abrogation here and there in its early history. But now, it does not need amending. Same as the American Constitution, as it stands, does not need amending. Or the Magna Carta. Does that mean some will never
attempt to amend it, however misguidedly? Who can say?
Sorry if I diddnt address it: Hitler and Stalin diddnt claim to be Gods. Their people would have expected miracles in an age of Photography and radio.
They made themselves Gods on earth in the eyes of their people by the age old methods of religion.
So, when we have two non-religious, arguably atheistic tyrants, their vile methods are only condemned with qualifications? 'Yes, what they did was bad, but they were only following the template set by religious people!'
That is what I object to. That sort of scapegoating or buck-passing. I don't care if you claim to be Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh or atheist, we all agree the oppression of innocents is wrong, and if you indulge in it, we will condemn you.
Baney, If I have jumped to the wrong conclusion, as I am wont to do, I do apologise.
Dawkins gets up theists noses so much because of the force of his agruements.
As opposed to the strength of them.
It's hard to battle measurable fact with fanciful ideation.
Except that Dawkins himself believes in the concept of an overlording master intelligence. He just doesn't like the term 'God' because it implies something supernatural.
Given that, I find Mr Dawkins' personal dispute with religion rather puzzling. It needn't be framed in confrontation for one thing.
If he really was talking rubbish, he wouldnt get the response from theists that he does.
What kind of argument is that?
In the information age,
anyone can get a response. Just visit YouTube. The mere
existence of a response does not imply the strengths or weaknesses of the initial argument. That's rather circular. That's like saying, 'If God didn't exist, we wouldn't be on an Islamic forum debating His existence, would we? Hmm?'
