An interview with Richard Dawkins, was most revealing. It illustrates admirably the importance of analysing the 'ethics' and moral values which are connected with a set of ideas.

We all know the phrase "Religion causes all wars" and untrue as it might be, it is still accepted by many. I've tried to point out on many occasion that the CRUCIAL point in evaluating a religioun, is to examine what the requirements of the Deity are for the followers.

"I am the Lord your God, you shall/shall not......." such and such.. we all know enough about the 10 commandments. Then the words of Jesus, "By this shall all men know, you are my disciples.. that you have love, one for another" (on this statement alone, it could be argued that Christians can enjoy a love-fest among themselves, while hating the guts of every non believer) but the Parables of Jesus are abundantly clear, that God is reaching out in love and compassion to the lost, and portrays Himself in Christ as 'The Good shepherd' who will leave the safe 99 and go looking for the 1 gone astray.

I've contrasted this with other religions, one major religion in particular.

Back to Dawkins.

The reader will need to hear this debate, to verify Dawkins words "I hate...all religions".
http://www.bethinking.org/download.php?MediaID=865&Player=WindowsMediaPlayer

Now..'hate' is an emotion, not an argument. It should be added, that Dawkins field of expertise is not 'science' in the physics sense, but BEHAVIOR ism.. he studied the "selective pecking of domestic chickens"

Yep..that really qualifies him to make definitive pronouncements about 2000 yr old events....?

Most of what Dawkins says is 'opinion' and 'assertion' and all that in turn is based on his 'presuppositions' "I hate all religions".

Not only is he 'un' scientific, he is openly biased, and one might say even 'bigoted' in his scientism fundamentalism.

He is honest enough to admit he is in reality an 'agnostic'.

CONCLUSION. For those who use Dr Dawkins as some kind of debating baseball bat against we 'gullible Christians'.. I suggest a re-think of who should be your idol :)

David
Little Buddy. Look if you want to serve the Lord thats wonderful. However please remember the first book was written seventy years after- and then in greek!
No apart from translations we are left with a few fact. They are in those days if somebody was sick they thought they were possed by the devil because they didnt understand disease. Likewise if somebody was mentally ill it was thought they were in the devils hands.
You cant argue somethings that been proven wrong. The world is not flat and our space ships have not flown off into a brick wall either.

Unless the christian leaders modernise their religion it will die.

If you and others want to be good desciples start working with the real world and stop expecting us to read that rubbish all the time.

You really put everybody off when you post that pre historic stuff that been proved untrue.

Why not work towards a better leadeship so people these days can relate to it.

You have good fountain to work with because a long time ago there walked the Son of God on earth and his name was Jesus.

He had great love for his people and I believe his creatures equally.

Only "he knows" what he said David Not the mumbo jumbo in all these books

What we DO know he would want people like you to carry his! message to people in todays age.

I believe if he were here today he would probably rock up looking a bit like Elvis with a huge grin on his face because they got his words so wrong.
Forget the book and just go out and spread love and good will and for pity safe come back to year 2007.
He would like that.
You can start by stop telling women what to do with their bodies because thats the same as saying sick people are with the devil.
I cant make it any more clear than that and if people dont wake up there wont be a Church left

Has evolution become a religion?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/evolution-become-religion.html

South Park did a good sendup of Dawkins.

freediver,

No, its a theory supported by the available evidence. Yup there are problems with it, thats what makes it a theory and not a "fact". However the theory of evolution matches the available data a lot better than Creationism(and please don't drag up Intelligent Design).

Wait a minute, you dragged up creationism, why shouldn't others drag up ID. After all, you are the one who mentioned it first.

Shouldn't the theory be judged on it's own merits rather than comparing to a theory from a different paradigm? It's not even possible to compare theories from different paradigms without comparing the paradigms themselves.

This theory fits the available evidence better:

The theory of sufficient genetic potential

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/theory-sufficient-genetic-potential.html

Hi Team
the point I'm making is not that there is no evidence for a scientific view of things.. of course there is.
But Dr Dawkins has made a very profitable career out of 'bagging' "the Church" along with every other religion, and so, some scrutiny of his position is quite justified.

The most important thing to scrutinize is 'his presuppositions' which determine the shape of what he presents. "I hate all religion"

From this, we need to ask, "how many people are being influenced by an articulate person who's theories and attitudes are based on....'hate'" ?

Personally, I'd rather have something like 'Honest enquiry' at the foundation of a movement which sought my attention.

I should in fairness point out, that Dawkins himself does not exude 'hate' in his personal manner, and is quite warm hearted in his approach, which is good for us all.

I don't find the same thing in the manner or methods of some other media favorites.

Check this out :) Dawkins..'stumped, fidgiting, grasping for words'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fo_KIRTa7jI

bless him.

The big, big difference Boaz, is this.

I can disagree with your christian-centric view of the universe AND disagree with Dawkins bitterness at religion in general without being at all inconsistent.

You see, being an atheist means that you don't need a thought-leader. I can accept that some people - Dawkins, Hitchens etc. - feel strongly about the impact of religion on the world that they occasionally allow emotion to overcome rationality. But because atheism is an absence of belief in a deity, it also carries with it a responsibility not to replace that absence with a presence of some kind.

Evolution is not a religion, it is a theory. And as such, it is constantly being tested, and constantly expands our knowledge as it does. There is absolutely no chance that we will ever discover everything there is to know about our history - we simply don't have the time, or the mental capacity.

But where you need to replace this absence of certainty with some form of emotional support, I don't. Nor do I have to support Dawkins' view - it is just another viewpoint, among many viewpoints whose only connection is the fact that they don't constantly refer to an artificial emotional and spiritual construct as their justification.

Um, criticising one point of view doesn't automatically prove another view is correct.
Maybe both views are wrong.

Yeah, I watched that video Boazy. It is unfortunate that Dawkins is not fully educated in molecular evolution and mechanisms, but then again, he a behaviourist eh? Oh well, we all have our little mental blanks don't we? There is an answer to the question though.

I tend to think that persons like Dawkins are trying to make a stand for science against the rising tide of religious fundamentalism. That they themselves come across as fundamentalists themselves will happen I suppose, but it's better than the alternative. :)

All responses thus far can be described as balanced and valid, from each persons worldview.. excellent :) thats how discussion/debate should be right ?

Pericles.. actually rather well said.. I am having a 'bash' at Dawkins mainly because he puts himself out there rather.. and is very high profile. At the last Australia day celebrations, there was a prayer meeting set up in Festival Hall (Melb) by Catch the Fire Ministries, and while the 1000s of people were entering, there was a little dutiful delegation of Atheists handing out 'The God Delusion' to all and sundry and engaging Christians in 'sidewalk psychotherapy' to release us from our bondage :) I rather commend them for this step of adventure, because they are quite safe in Christian hands, no one will 'bash' them with anything other than a few well chosesn verses of scripture.

Rache.. agreed. No argument with that, the weakness of one view does not prove another, but may I say the weakness of one view which is criticizing another specific view, does lend more credibility to the other view, while not proving it.

Bugsy.. feel free to expand on the molecular theories, but may I suggest a listen to this before you do?

http://www.bethinking.org/categories.php?CategoryID=1
Look up the 'advanced level' for "Has science eliminated God" by Alistair McGrath (former Atheist) now Christian (but who is criticized by some Christians for his 'strange' views on some aspects)
http://undergroundreformation.wordpress.com/2007/07/03/alistair-mcgrath-and-carrying-the-torch-of-bad-theology/

McGrath is not my 'chunk of 2 x 4' with which to beat the daylights out of atheists, he is just one of many thinkers who seems to have the science behind him to make intelligent comment (unlike myself in that field)

DAWKINS IS RIGHT on one issue for sure. He highlights the unusual thinking which would 'praise God' for the one child saved from an earthquake, in which 1000s of people died. To me this is like praising God for the nice spring weather, but silence in the winter gloom.

BOAZ_David is correct in his comments about Richard Dawkin’s: “I hate ... all religions”. Dawkins sounds neither scientific nor adult in stating this, and most will admit, it is trite and ignorant to state that “religion causes all wars”.

I have no problem with any religion as long as it does not preach hatred of another ...
and here Dawkins puts himself right out on a limb by doing the very thing he condemns religions do.

I find both “intelligent design” and “creationism” to be ludicrous; I would have thought that evolution would be seen as magnificent by all religious groups. It is apparently not so.

I suspect that people, whether or not members of a religious group espousing “creationism” or “intelligent design”, would adopt these ideas anyway, or be off with the “flat earthers” or other fairy groups.

Yet science has also proven not infallible, theories have necessarily changed, and science also has been used and, indeed, developed for inhumane purposes. People have been experimented upon in the name of science, with appalling consequences. Many scientists themselves state animals are often subjected to inhumane experiments, when other methods would be better used. Science, like religion, indeed any system, can be used for good or for bad.

I agree again with BOAZ_David in his insightful comment about Dawkins’ “scientific fundamentalism”. Fundamentalism of any kind is the product of lazy thinking.

Dawkin is as passionate about his beliefs as religious people are devout about their religion. One would not blame Dawkin’s “I hate all religion” if one sees where he is coming from.

There are about 1.4 billion Muslims who believe that the Koran is the very word of Allah and it is 100% accurate in all matters including the science, geology, astronomy, etc.

(a) The Koran teaches that the sun sets in a spring of murky water. (Koran) Surah 18:86

“To early Muslims, the Qur’an taught them that this literally occurs. The early Muslim historian al-Tabari vol.1 p.234 shows this. As a second example, "[Dhu al-Qarnaiyn] witnessed the setting of the sun in its resting place into a pool of black and foetid slime." according to al-Tabari vol.5 p.173-174. Dul Qarnain [Zul Qarnain] is also in al-Tabari vol.1 p.371.

(b) The Koran and Hadith teaches that the sun then literally goes to a resting place at night. More specifically, it prostrates itself under Allah’s throne for the night and then asks permission to rise again until doom’s day. (Koran) Sura 36:37-40; (Hadith) Bukhari vol.4 book 54 ch.4 no.441 p.283. Sahih Muslim vol.1 book 1 ch.73 no.297-300 p.95-96

(part 1)

c'td

Here is what Mohammed explained, according to both Bukhari and al-Tabari.
"Narrated Abu Dhar : The Prophet asked me at sunset, ‘Do you know where the sun goes (at the time of sunset)?’ I replied, ‘Allah and His Apostle know better.’ He said, ‘It goes (i.e. travels) till it prostrates itself underneath the Throne, and takes the permission to rise again, and it is permitted and them ( a time will come when) it will be about to prostrate itself but its prostration will not be accepted,…’" Bukhari vol.4 book 54 ch.4 no.441 p.283. Sahih Muslim vol.1 book 1 ch.73 no.297-300 p.95-96 also has a lot of detail on this conversation with Mohammed and Abu Dharr.

Muslims back then believed the sun rested and took everything stated in the Koran to be literally true. Hopefully, today we know that there are many things taught in the Koran that has many errors.

Taken literally, the Christian bible teaches that the earth is square (Rev. 7:1).

Hi Dannielle... and Philip...

I think Dawkins has made the fatal error of 'universally' hating religion, without distinguishing the various benfits and weaknesses of each.
Regarding Christians and Creationism, an important point is this. We may well believe God created as per Genesis, but anyone who mocks, disagrees, opposes or confronts this idea, is simply welcome to do so without fear of any kind of physical retribution. This would NOT be the case where a 'Theocracy' existed, and as history has shown, when "The Church" (i.e. Roman Catholic) was much more closely connected to the affairs of state, there might have been a very real danger of such.

That is where Dawkins makes his major mistake. He goes from the 'historic manifestation' of Christianity in its worst and most unbliblical form, and then generalizes to all manifestations, for all time.

He could have simply picked up the New Testament, introduced himself to the Lord Jesus, become familiar with the mood and tone of his life and teaching, and 'seen the peaceful light' so to speak.

Looking at messy history there are PLENTY of grounds to be critical of 'The Church', but no grounds to criticize the Lord Himself. Unless of course one has a problem with "Blessed are the meek, Blessed are the peacemakers" etc..

Philip, the Bible has some passage about the "pillars of the earth" where I imagine some huge greek temple kind of deal, but it is definitely anthropomorphic in nature, not scientific.
Muslims seems desperate to find 'scientific credibility' in the Quran (because of the absence of much else to look at in Mohammad's life) but I don't feel that need for the Bible.

I don't have the exact statistics on this, Philip Tang - and I doubt that you do either - but I strongly suspect that your assertion:

>>There are about 1.4 billion Muslims who believe that the Koran is the very word of Allah and it is 100% accurate in all matters including the science, geology, astronomy, etc.<<

...could be more accurately expressed as:

"There are about 1.4 billion Muslims in the world. Among them is a percentage who believe that the Koran is the very word of Allah and it is 100% accurate in all matters including the science, geology, astronomy, etc. This percentage is likely, given the nature of mankind, to be similar to that among Christians who believe that the Bible is 100% accurate in all matters including the science, geology, astronomy, etc."

Boaz describes:

>>a little dutiful delegation of Atheists handing out 'The God Delusion' to all and sundry and engaging Christians in 'sidewalk psychotherapy' to release us from our bondage :) I rather commend them for this step of adventure, because they are quite safe in Christian hands, no one will 'bash' them with anything other than a few well chosesn verses of scripture.<<

Surely, Boaz, even you are not suggesting that "a dutiful delegation" of Christians outside an atheists meeting (despite the unlikelihood of such an event) would be "bashed" by the attending atheists?

So what is your point?

Would it not be better for both Philip and Boaz to accept that the ordinary person's use of religion is fundamentally, radically peaceful? And that it only becomes dangerous when rabble rousers use it to foment emotion against people who are in direct political competition with their own religion.

Incidentally, I'd appreciate a working link to where Dawkins actually says "I hate religion", so that I can put some kind of context around it. Anyone?

Pericles: "Incidentally, I'd appreciate a working link to where Dawkins actually says 'I hate religion',"

Yes, I'd like one too. Given our experience of Boazy's rubbery notion of what constitutes truth and facts, I don't think this thread is worth wasting time on unless he can provide that.

It's not beyond Boazy to make up quotes and attribute them to people with whom he disagrees. Remember his various rants about Bob Brown, based on what Bob didn't say, as it turned out?

Hehe BD! Have you read any of his books? Quite frankly in
intellectual terms, Dawkins makes you look like a schoolboy
in short pants and his fly undone :)

You religious warriors haven't a hope! Trying to shoot
the messenger just won't work, even if trying to, makes
you feel a bit better.

Next you'll be telling us that the shining lights of
Christian fundamentalism, like Robertson and Falwell,
can actually walk and chew gum at the same time.

Danielle said: "I agree again with BOAZ_David in his insightful comment about Dawkins’ “scientific fundamentalism”. Fundamentalism of any kind is the product of lazy thinking."

By "scientific fundamentalism", I think you mean philosophical naturalism. Such naturalism is not a result of empirical scientific inquiry, but a presupposition of science. In the case of Darwinism, an a priori commitment to atheistic naturalism precludes all possibility of supernatural intervention in the cosmos. This philosophical bias has far-reaching implications for how scientific theories on the origin of life and the universe are evaluted. Considering the bias toward philosophical naturalism, it is understandable why intelligent design caused such a fuss, and why most of those who opposed intelligent design did so for theological reasons, rather than on empirically-based grounds.

As for Dawkins, his latest book is nothing more than a dogmatic, anti-religious diatribe. His hatred for any kind of theism (Christianity in particular) has clouded his judgement to the point that he is trying to critique something that he obviously has no clue about. Most rational minds would understand that such pugnacious atheist fundamentalism is not grounded in objective reasoning.

"and why most of those who opposed intelligent design did so for theological reasons, rather than on empirically-based grounds."

Nope Dresdener, as any skeptic will tell you, its for lack
of substantiated evidence. The alleged Almighty is free to
write his rules on the face of the moon, for us all to see and
take note! He's never bothered....

Hello, i think like Dawkins a lot. I am not an agnostic though, i just do not believe in any form of religion. I feel that it is an accepted form of madness, and it is also a very dangerous comodity, as proven by the current holy wars.
If someone is suffering an acute psychotic episode, and having delusions of a religious nature, they are deemed to be insane, by those who have no understanding of the illness.
When people congregate in a church or individually anywhere else, talking to someone from above, i consider these people no different, as i think they are not rational or in touch with reality.
These people are echoing the same superstisions, fears, and ignorance of people who lacked education thousands of years ago.
They are easily led and live their lives riddled with guilt and fear, they are also obsessive and habitual as a result.
Politicians have jumped in on the act, by doing the "me too, hillsongs" or any other money seeking rat bag orginisations, to use fear to gain the hearts and minds of people, for their own self interested political ambitions.
Religion is big business and it has merged with corporate and political partys to confuse and instill fear in the masses, they also display hate and intolerance toward their detractors

Pericles and CJ.. regarding the link, sorry if it didn't work, it did work for me... but his position is well known and documented anyway.. cf Dresdeners point about his latest book.

Sarah101.. welcome :) even though you call me a loony.... I have bitten you a few times, so I guess a return bite is to be expected.
You said:

"They are easily led and live their lives riddled with guilt and fear, they are also obsessive and habitual as a result."

err...not quite. riddled with guilt ? Only when we have grieved the Holy Spirit by sinning.... and then, we can restore things through confession and repentance.. which, by the way is a life process not just a 'one of' thing. If we didn't feel the occasional twinge of guilt, we would not be able to enjoy the true joy and peace that comes from knowing Christ.

Your comment would be true about some.. agreed.. but
a) not me
b) Your comment does not describe the Biblical condition for a Christian.

Yabby.. Dawkins would make me look an intellectual dwarf ? :) heck mate...YOU would probably do the same.. with all that brain power going there.. I comfort myself with the truth of a "simple Gospel for a sinful world" :

I do not use the term looney, i have too much respect for people with a mental illness, and i do pardon your ignorance.
It is my experience that people with a mental illness are more genuine than most people, especially those people who have never experienced suffering.
The madness i see, is the misguided inhumane believers who accept the unjust killing of people, and accept the punishing of asylum seekers and Aboriginals.

"I comfort myself with the truth of a "simple Gospel for a sinful world" "

Which is exactly why the concept of religion, makes so much
evolutionary sense. Homeostasis of the human brain is critical
for healthy mind function. Stressed, anxious people are not
happy people.

How you feel, is thus critical to your wellbeing. Clearly
religion gives you that comfort, as you admit. Your perceived
truth matters hugely to you, for your happiness.

Wether its really true or not is another issue altogether.
Religion makes you feel good, thats why you believe so
strongly.

All quite simple really :)

Yabby, If you need a crutch in life, use crutches.
Some of us do not need crutches.
Marx said religion is the opium of the masses, i agree, corporate and political advertising is intertwined with religion, and it has worked so well, in winning the hearts and minds of so many who seemingly, are unable to think for themselves, and many actually comforted by the constant messages they receive via media sources.
We are all equal, but some are more equal than others, [Orwell] it was true in the old communist system, and it is true in the new capitalist system.
I have experienced the best and worst of people, i treat everyone as equal, regardless of who or what they are, social values and morals have become weasel words, in todays climate of greed and dishonesty.

annnd...a happy good morning to you Sarah101... up early I see.

You said:

"i treat everyone as equal"

Ummmm... but you call me a 'loony' :) hmmmm I'm not sure if that equates to 'equality' mate.

YABBY...... I see I still have a bit of work left with you :)

*crutch* ? whether 'it' is true or not..... my goodness.

Well.. its very hard to convince a marxist that 'religion is the opiate of the masses' is a very sloppy statement, because they hold that view dogmatically. Just so, it is difficult to convince one like perhaps you and sarah of the truth of Christ.

In reality, its a matter of balance of probabilities humanly speaking.
I seriously doubt that either of you have done even a fraction of the needed study and research on the origins of Christianity to be qualified to make such a statement about its truthfulness or otherwise.. buttt.....I could be wrong :)
I can't see how a serious study of the beginnings of the faith can lead to any other conclusion than that He who said "I am the Way" is in fact.....the Way.

Speaking of research, Boazy - I note that you still haven't been able to provide a reference for the purported quote upon which you based this thread. You know, where he saya 'I hate religion'.

Is this another case of Boazy making claims on the basis of what he thought someone might say?

BOAZ
By posting your topic, you invited comment, it is no good letting your ego overtake you, when you get comments you do not approve of.
I hate religion, and what it does to people's minds. I experienced the full force of an evil universal church, as a child.
You put up a bait for people to take, it seems your bait has stuck in your own gullet and i do not think you are capable or able to remove it.

It was pretty tedious, CJ, but the quote is actually deep inside the audio. You have to wade through the delightfully lightweight Melvin Tinker to get there, but the quote actually comes from another interview entirely, where Dawkins says "I have no hatred of Christians, I hate all religions".

It was a spontaneous and clearly unscripted offering to the interviewer, and is of course internally illogical.

If Dawkins "hates all religions", and Christianity is a religion, he must by definition hate Christianity. Why then does he preface his remark with the statement of exactly the opposite?

The answer, when you think of it, is patently obvious. He misspoke "religion" as "religions".

This is consistent with his books, his speeches and his public persona, where he frequently asserts that "religion leads to evil". Not religions; religion.

[Note also, that he doesn't say "religion always leads to evil", or "religion alone leads to evil"]

However, the careless placement of the letter "s" will no doubt be used against him in many contexts and for many purposes.

But fair go, I am grateful to Boaz for pointing out the Melvin Tinker lecture. It is always good to be reassured that if this is the level of argument against atheism, religion is likely to continue to become less relevant as time goes by.

Which is, in a world where we learn more every day to grow and develop our critical faculties, just as it should be.

Pericles.. "delightfully lightweight" ? :) ohhhh... maybe you should skip to the 'advanced' column... anyway... you might like to listen some time to Alistair McGrath...
http://resources.theology.ox.ac.uk/staff.phtml?lecturer_code=Amcgrath
In fact..you can even write to him on that web page and tell him he is 'lightweight'.... but I think he holds to some kind of 'theistic evolution' view.. so he is not entirely my cuppa..

Sarah... I am noticing a common theme among the more passionate Anti-Religion mob.. and its "Bitter Experience of the Church" syndrome....
I feel sad for you and others in that boat, because I have as much reason to be that way as most I think... but I had the sense to recognize that the 'Christians' I encountered who gave me a bitter pill, were not Jesus, and they were not the whole Church.

I hope you will truly seek... read the Gospels and forget about any personal bad experience.. Jesus would condemn those things right alongside of you I'm sure.
But don't deny yourself the chance of emotional and spiritual healing.
Isaiah the prophet says (Ch 53)

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

The healing referred to here, is that which goes to the core of our being. By being "In Christ" we will indeed experience healing of the heart and mind.
cheers

Oops.. CJ.. *Points to Pericles comment about the statement*

Gee.. I was right.. phew.

"Yabby, If you need a crutch in life, use crutches.
Some of us do not need crutches."

Sarah, I fully agree with you. No crutches for
me either lol. But the more I study as to how
the human mind works and what we know about it,
the more I realise that the thinking bits are
only a small part of it all.

Some people just can't help themselves, they need
all sorts of crutches to feel ok. I've had long
debates with some of the new agers. Alot of the
stuff that these people believe, is just as whacky
as the old religions. They are just as convinced
about all their voodoo stuff as BD is convinced of
his religious voodoo stuff.

I take a fairly tolerant attitude to all this.
Believe whatever you like, live how you like.
Its when the true believers become political
and try to force us to live by their voodoo
influenced legislation, that I spit the dummy
big time

Thanks Pericles - and I acknowledge Boazy's right to question the extremity of Dawkins' language in the interview. I've read a bit of Dawkins' stuff, and it's usually admirably dispassionate.

But whether he hates religion or religions, that is certainly more intense an emotion than I would use about it/them. For me, while expressions of fundamentalism are usually more amusing than annoying, when they impinge potentially on my life (e.g. via legislation, censorship, terrorism etc) I resist them.

Otherwise, I recognise that religion/s perform a generally positive social function for those who need that kind of thing. People should be able to observe their religion/s freely, as long as that doesn't conflict with the rights of others.

I agree with you Yabby about believing what we like, the problem is when someone tries to influence or push others with their own beliefs it is bad manners, and at best offensive.
I spent ten years, from the age of five, inside religious institutions, and i can assure you it was not a loving or caring environment, these places were hell holes, without heating in a cold place, not enough to eat, no personal effects, no contact with the outside world, total isolation. It was like doing time in a prison.
I am more than qualified to critisise what was done to me and others. it was a life experience i would not wish on anyone. The brain cleansing was not the drip method, it was a deluge, and it was punishing and abusive, i received the whole spectrum of abuse.
The single thing that i learnt most, was the worst bits of the human condition, and also eventually to think for myself, and i have never put anyone on a pedestal.
I do not normally publicly tell my story, as it is difficult for people to put themselves in my shoes, it is beyond most people's comprehension.
I would get involved on any forum to do with religion, as i truly hate religion of any kind, for most of my working life i was a nurse, in all areas, including prisons, and i have a good knowledge of the human condition, the best and worst of it. I am a humanist and advocate for the rights of people, especially the under dogs of society.

CJ... 'balance' in one of your posts ? :) this is almost too much.

err.. just for the record, I'm not down on dawkins over his comment about hate for religion/s.... I'm simply pointing out a possible source of imbalance and bias in what he says..based on his emotional condition re religions. I specifically pick him, because:

a) He is high profile.
b) He is influential.

As far as I am concerned, he is just as much a lost sheep as any non Christians is, and is viewed by God with compassion and love and has the offer of salvation up to the moment of his death.

SARAH.... the things which happened to you are sad, regrettable, and awful.

Your experience was not that of all people.. please look at this account of the Bristol Ophanages and how they began.

BIO
George Müller was born in 1805 and until his conversion to the Christian faith in 1825, there was, on his own admission, hardly a sin into which he had not fallen.

He had become an habitual thief, liar, gambler and a cheat, devising cunning and devious methods to fulfil his evil desires. Besides his immoral ways it was George Müller's need for alcoholic drink that caused many of his problems. Even when his mother lay dying he was found roaming the streets in a drunken state.

COMMENT

From that man.... came orphanages caring for 1000s.

http://www.mullers.org/history.html#ORPHANHOMES

Now.. no matter how well intentioned George Meuller was, I guarantee that of all the staff needed for such an enterprise, SOME of doubtful character would have slipped into the system.

Don't let those 'some' determine the rest of your life mate.

BOAZ Thank you for your kind comment. I do not need to read about other peoples stories, though i understand where you are coming from, as i have had to deal with and heal my own person, which is ongoing.
I identify very closely with the Aboriginal stolen generations, and i am aware about so many people's experience of a lost childhood.
I am more outgoing than i used to be, and i have more trust in people, and i have even got self esteem, due to creating an identity for myself.
I feel that gaining more positives in a day, than negative ones, the world is a much better place, even though it is,nt.
I realise emotions can run a bit hot when discussing things that effects one personally, but we are all human, and we are all students of life itself.
Thank you for your understanding response. Peace.