|
|
Post by vs on Jun 21, 2009 23:13:44 GMT -6
Who was it here that claimed Dawkins only dealt with the Abrahamic faiths and didn't take into account other religions (thereby painting all religions with one brush)? Here's a link for you richarddawkins.net/article,2014,Hinduism-and-Buddhism-offer-much-more-sophisticated-worldviews-or-philosophies-and-I-see-nothing-wrong-with-these-religions,RichardDawkinsnet And I've been picturing this guy everytime Dawkins' name was mentioned; www.yvonnefoong.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/hawkings.jpgJust shows you how out of the loop I am!  aradhyo bhagavati brishabhanu tanayaas tad dham radha kundam!!! |
|
|
|
Post by ST on Jun 22, 2009 7:31:30 GMT -6
He didn't. Only more recently he has added those two cents on those other religions - Hindusism and Buddhism. And of course those two cents had to be of the approval kind: The fact that he approves of Hinduism and Buddhism does indeed prove that he started off without them.
His entire campaign against God was built on the Christian concept of creation, his qualm was with creationism: oriental religions do not relate to creationism. Were Dawkins acquainted with the oriental religions from the start, he would know there is not really a case to built on creationism. His recent approval of the "other" religions indeed shows just how lame his case actually is. But, a lame fellow still has got one leg, so, even though a half-equipped dancer, he still amuses some people.
But, as Gaudiya Vaisnavas, we know this: we know that even the most complete academic understanding of a religion does not qualify one to fully speak for the experience. One has to be a devotee, a practicioner; has to know from the experience itself. Hence, in our religion, the stress is on diksha.
|
|
|
|
Post by ST on Jun 22, 2009 7:33:56 GMT -6
One has to be a devotee, a practicioner; has to know from the experience itself. Hence, in our religion, the stress is on diksha.
And that is another thing Dawkins does not know.
|
|
zvs
New Member
Posts: 40
|
Post by zvs on Jun 22, 2009 7:59:43 GMT -6
I've been picturing this:  |
|
|
|
Post by Goodwill on Jun 22, 2009 8:25:44 GMT -6
Really, a real scientist would be much sobberer than be seen lauching a public campaign that says: "There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life". As if all worries in life come from believing in God... As if lovers of God don't enjoy life, and even more so. Has Dawkins's own life been worry free? He does not seem to be able to carry on a relationship, for one thing. Take a look at his face, the man is NOT happy. Yet he lectures everyone on "enjoying life". He's dam right to specify, "enjoy your life." Because he well knows his own life is a pathetic blunder. Trying to be happy at the expense of others: "my life is shit therefore everyone's lives must become shit too, this way I am not alone in Shitland, the only land I know". Dawkins is not concerned about the negatives of fundamentalism in the world. He is concerned with his own inability to see in more than two dimensions. He is a selfish poor emotionally unevolved of a devil.
Sorry sir, thank you, I am not ridding on your bus.
|
|
