The human susceptibility to what Richard Dawkins calls the "god delusion"

[MNBrewer]

will kill us all if it survives much longer, and humoring those who have succumbed to it is actively harmful.

[RandomThoughts]

1. Yea that delusion is really bad.

Better to know that I am due beer and travel money.

Thats how I think on it, many have various god delusions that allow for loss of empathy, and thoughts of superiority.

[aquart]

2. Well, isn't he a self-worshipping ass.

And he knows damn all about the workings of the human mind or human history.

Or has he figured out why we are the only animals with religion?

[Mumble]

3. The Pope said...

...animals don't have souls.

[InvisibleTouch]

4. The pope is an idiot.

Either *all* species have souls, or none do.

[Orrex]

6. Yeah! Either *all* species have functioning gills, or none do.

:eyes:

However, I must admit that I agree with the latter half of your either/or construction.

[InvisibleTouch]

11. A soul, if it exists, is not an evolutionary adaptation...

...so the analogy doesn't quite work. If we define a "soul" as an immortal element of an individual's consciousness (and granted there are other ways to define it), it would be something so basic to living beings that either all would have it, or none would have it. It's the "special human privilege" crap, so often espoused by the religiously inclined, that never fails to piss me off.

[Orrex]

12. Well, your original either:or forumulation likewise doesn't work

If we're positing that the "soul" is not an evolutionary trait but is an immortal element of an individual's consciousness, then there's no basis for concluding that all animals must have it or no animals can have it. Why couldn't it be an element of a single species? Or a select group of species? Or select individuals within one or several species?

By what reasoning do you determine that it must be an "all or none" scenario, when "all or none or some" is at least equally plausible.


If "plausible" is the word to use when discussing the nature of the soul, of course.

[Auntie Bush]

10. I believe animals have souls

I have my own personal proofs/experiences to prove it to myself.

[Liquorice]

13. I've always thought they did too. All you have to do is love one to know it. nt

[WhiteTara]

7. And pedophilia in the 70s was a long time ago,

and who cares now. And being a Brown Shirt was even longer ago than that, so STFU (says the Pope)

[PurityOfEssence]

15. How do you know that we're the only animals with religion?

There are some rather sharp species out there with very sophisticated social structures. How do you know that Elephants don't? They remember their dead and have very strong emotions.

At least Dawkins uses scientific method instead of making flat pronouncements like this that are to be treated as fact. We're also not the only animals that murder: our relatives the chimpanzees do.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

18. Other pretty much have, actually.

As far as we know, humans are the only animals with the ability to look ahead to the future and contemplate their own deaths. That, plus a few other brain quirks that are so far unique to homo sapiens, is what led to the first proto-religions.

Possibly there are other animals -- particular species of dolphin or whale would be likely candidates -- that share the same or analogous mental quirks, and so might have developed their own religions as well, if we know what to look for.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[darkstar3]

22. Weren't you one of the ones saying we shouldn't dance on bin Laden's grave?

Nice...

[laconicsax]

23. There's that famous Christian Compassion!

"I don't like what they're saying, so kill 'em."

[handmade34]

5. rec

having been raised by a fundamentalist, I can attest to the reality of your statement...

[and-justice-for-all]

8. RD, always on target...nt

[LanternWaste]

9. I imagine that also applies to many imaginary constructs...

I imagine that also applies to many imaginary constructs... nationalism, economics, philosophies, etc... which have also each caused a great amount of deaths, sufferings, and traumas.

Which leads me to believe that most individuals can interpret a construct to better suit their own agendas rather than the tenets of the imaginary constructs.

[rug]

14. Is this in reference to anything in particular?

[Lucian]

16. +1

Religion is a disease, a virus, and the only cure is science and reason.

[roguevalley]

20. science and reason. like Japan right now. How's that reason going

for you? I love science. I love reason. I love logic. but I don't turn a blind eye to stoopid. you can find that everywhere.

[Lucian]

21. What an idiotic response.

[laconicsax]

24. Aren't you the one who believes in an omnipotent god?

So wonderful of Him to bestow the people of Japan with His Benevolence?

:eyes:

[Silent3]

25. Not more cowbell? n/t

[FLPanhandle]

17. Recommend

Especially the idea of humoring it.

[Silent3]

26. In a lot of ways I concur, but...

...I don't see the value of a flat-out pronouncement of this sort without some effort to explain where you're coming from and a bit more explication. Otherwise this just comes across as taunting or flamebait to me. I say this as someone who doesn't often hesitate to be pretty hard on religion. Context matters.

[dimbear]

27. Try to imagine a world where every single individual is a Quaker.

Quakers with a god delusion. That would be, well, actually not too bad.

[Ninjaneer]

28. Are you in support of organized atheism in order to fight the intellectual war against religion?

I ask because most atheists I know are against any form of organizing. I can understand the sentiment, but on the other hand, how can you fight something as established as organized religion divided?

I have mixed feelings on the matter.

Edit: before anyone jumps all over me, I mean't "fight" in a strictly non-violent sense.