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?