This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← Religion gets away with what no political party could

Rich Wiltshir's Avatar Jump to comment 20 by Rich Wiltshir

Re Comment 18 by Archadia

Very well put!

To claim authorship of those concepts and disciplines (which we refer to as morals and ethics) is, essentially unethical and imoral. It's a typical behaviour or institutions, the oldest of which are religious by nature. The heirarchies of these organisations are populated by people who've been perceptive and intelligent in the application of their understanding. I see no necessity for a senior religoon to believe in the messages of (her)his employer. Perhaps it won't surprise you that the relationship between my distrust of, and the status of a religoon is directly proportionate?

There are many organised sports played on this little blue dot. They've each grown from a small to a large following; a process that requires organisation and cooperation, rules and consequences. Why don't religions step in and claim authorship of their rule books?

Religion is no more necessary in sport than it is in society. But Religoon is panicking: now that their grip's is failing, history and other data is available, reasoned thinking is virally expanding.

Theism is a negative number - atheism brings us up to zero - Science and Reason show us all the positives. Aint life, the universe and everything beautiful? (Sorry to paraphrase the uncredited guy from the audience a Hitchens or Dawkins talk).

Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:21:15 UTC | #898855