No, if they had no fear they wouldn’t have worked for peace, because they wouldn’t have feared war.
They wouldn’t have accomplished anything else, either; they would have just sat around drinking, screwing and otherwise indulging themselves, because they wouldn’t have feared the consequences of indiscriminate self indulgence. For themselves or anyone else.
No. He is a mentally defective individual who as far as anyone knows can’t be changed barring some sort of technique that does not yet exist. A psychopath exposed to love isn’t going to see it as anything other than an easy handle to exploit. Love isn’t magic, no matter how much you wish it to be.
Self indulgences is another fear that was imposed by man, a lot through religious orders, which can be overcome in Jesus.
So now you’ve no true scotsman’d away everyone who didn’t actually die by being run over by a tank?
Look, I get what you’re trying to do - you’re taking the exclusive case where the specific problem is that a tyrranical force is subjugating a population by fear and where if the population would just stand up and passively/violently resist their oppressors they would be able to inspire the people and bring forth a new era of peace - or at least subjucation by new oppressors. And then you’re taking this tiny group of inspirational people as an example that shows that we should stand fearlessly up to cars and the like the same way - living in fear of nothing, and dying young and horribly with the glorious pride that you knew it was stupid, but by gum you did it anyway!
Strangely though, even though I’m aware of your argument, I’m not feeling overly compelled by it.
On preview: And self indulgence isn’t fear, no matter how conveneint it would be for you if words didn’t mean things.
Can you please take this to another thread? It’s not relevant and getting old already.
ETA: Same request to everybody else.
:rolleyes: The consequences of self indulgence are imposed by the nature of reality and humanity. If I eat too much, I’ll get fat; if drink too much I’ll damage my liver; if I give away everything I own for sex and drugs today, I’ll have nothing tomorrow. Jesus won’t help you with that in the slightest, even if he wasn’t just dust.
EDIT: Um, you were actually trying to equate self indulgence and fear? That’s just bizarre; will you claim that bears are screwdrivers next?
If that person could be turned around, due to being shown Love, that person can make a difference in other lives, even the people left behind from his homicides can take comfort and be able to move on much easier. This person may not be able to undo what he did, but he can help heal the damage he caused, which is a great benefit and can set people free of the pain he inflicted on them.
I’m not saying that inflicting pain on someone then removing it and expecting to be praised should be expected, but turning around so that they person can see closure is very helpful to society and can be used to get rid of anger that a person harbors.
Less anger in this world is a good thing
kanicbird, if you want to share your theories on religion and the human spirit, start a new thread. I recognize that some discussion of the nature of religion is unavoidable here, but this stuff is not relevant to the topic at hand.
I didn’t bring this up, just responding, please make the request of that person.
Your responses are not wanted in this thread. Unless you can stay on topic, take your comments elsewhere. And anyone who has questions about whatever you are saying should also post them in another thread.
This was a extreme example, but that can be used in every form of conflict, from small organizations to tyrannical governments, but that takes overcoming fear to make a positive difference which from these posts Dawkins does not seem to posses. This IMHO makes him ‘dangerous’. He appears to use fear and other negativity to divide.
Well, he did evolve six-hundred and sixty-six children into newts, which makes him pretty dang dangerous.
For your information I am not going to perpetuate this hijack in this thread any further. Apologies to all for what I’ve done of it to this point.
Edit: Decided not to take part in kanicbird’s thread hijacking.
So I’ve been a little preoccupied, but I wanted comment on the guy that dying young in a heroic act is stupid… I call BS.
There is nothing stupid in cases where people have sacrificed themselves to save the life of others. I’ve heard of stories where brave soldiers have jumped on grenades so that their nearby comrades wouldn’t be maimed in the explosion.
Ending your life early so that others might go on is a very complex issue…
What would dawkins do?
Think dawkins would sacrifice himself so that 2 others might live. Or jump in front of a bullet to save a child.
Does religion dictate emotional decisions? Would an atheist be just as likely?
To be honest I think most atheists are cowards
I assume that you’re basing your statements about Dawkins’s behavior on citable cases where he has refrained to take bullets for people.
Let’s suppose for a moment that, unlike ALL RELIGIOUS PEOPLE EVERYWHERE who will all instantly sacrifice themselves to save others, that Dawkins is indeed a “coward”. The question is though, does this make him dangerous?
Forget Dawkins, I’ve not even seen Jesus sacrifice himself to save others. And Jesus was out there kicking people out of temples and was killed for blasphemy.
It seems to me like you are casting aspersions upon Dawkin’s character because you can’t effectively attack his message. I have no idea whether Dawkin’s would sacrifice himself to save others. Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn’t. I have no way of knowing for sure and neither do you. But even if he is a coward, that has nothing to do with the validity of his message.
I greatly respect Dawkins, but he’s not the final word on my personal morality. In fact, no single source serves that function for me.
I don’t ask myself “What would Dawkins do?” in the same way that some Christian’s ask “What Would Jesus Do?” He’s not a messiah figure to me. He’s just a cool guy who’s written some good books.
Sacrificing one’s life is not necesarily a virtue. The 9/11 hijackers also sacrificed their lives for what they considered a greater cause.
What if nobody wanted to sacrifice their life anymore? All wars would cease. I don’t regard that as a bad thing.
And you know for a fact all these people were churchgoers?
Dawkins’ character as nothing to do with the merits of his arguments about religion or anything else. He may be very charitable and live a very ethical life, or he might be a tax-cheating philanderer. I have no idea and it has no bearing on this.
I suppose belief in an afterlife might encourage bodily self-sacrifice, although that has a positive side and a negative side (suicide bombers). But all things considered the personality of the individual is the important thing here, not their views on religion.
To be honest, I think you have personal issues with Dawkins and atheists that stem from your own issues, whatever they may be, and not with their behavior.