im confused , i take it by the "have you ever read the bible cover to cover" , you have? ..and no i haven't i am not from a religious upbrining , my family in the past were Quaker : quite an unintrusive religios sect
so i will ask have you ever read the Qu'ran for that matter or maybe the Veda ? or maybe the scripts of the Jedi ? (j/k) ...but i dont see how that matters in the slightest ... i didnt know this was a thread about a religion , and more about religion in the wholistic sense? (obviously examples are used)
but you are taking Dawkins views and degenerating them into thoughtless attacks on people who follow religion aswell as the religion as a whole .. damning everone and anything that does not follow your set of views/lifestyle (which tbh is much like a religion in itself).It doesnt help the scope of this thread , instead it riles people, and admitedly me, into discussions about proving right or wrong , when you cant do either.
My friend and I , had a chat about this thread and came to a conclusion ( i can't take credit ) that religion is not "wrong ", but slightly redundant in this day and age , as many of the religious based morals are imbedded into what we call "laws" and therefore alot of the good that religion ( granted this is highly aimed at christianity) has brought has been used and adapted to modern morals- enforced by laws- derived from religion: we see this in every country.
Here comes the " we would have morals regardless of religion" from TheeAlex , yeah we would but they wouldnt be the same necessarily , studies exist which try to understand if morals are innate or not:
like this
It is intersting in this case, that although he doesnt support that religion directly controls morals , he does identify that morals are not innate and are developed around the inputs of our environment, which i agree with, but I do think that religion was a way someone chose to control how morals are formed, a way to stop those who were in group (a): the murdering ravenous community , from murdering and stealing , although it would still occur it allowed the idea of punishment for your sins/lawbreaking and possibly make you think twice about it with the impending punishment but if group (a) had no religion/laws and in fact if group (b) didnt have them either then you would have to murder and steal to survive as there is no controlling factor , particularly as Morals are not innate, so if they are not innate they are controlled by your environment , but wheres the starting point.
i am going to stop here because i am tired i am actually not even sure if this example makes any sense anymore .. it does to me , but then i know where i am coming from
enjoy.