Sign in with Facebook
Andrew Rilstone’s Followers (3)
Andrew Rilstone
|
The Viewer's Tale
—
published
2010
—
2 editions
|
|
|
Fish Custard
—
published
2011
—
3 editions
|
|
|
Where Dawkins Went Wrong
—
published
2010
—
2 editions
|
|
|
Do Balrogs Have Wings?
—
published
2012
—
3 editions
|
|
|
The Viewer's Complete Tale
—
published
2014
—
2 editions
|
|
|
George and Joe and Jack and Bob
—
published
2012
—
3 editions
|
|
|
Mark's Version: Andrew Rilstone Takes A Walk Through The Oldest Version of the Story of Jesus
|
|
|
One Hundred and Forty Characters in Search of an Argument
|
|
|
Hello I Must Be Going
|
|
|
Mark's Version: A Walk Through The Oldest Version of the Story of Jesus
|
|
“Books—all books—are complicated things, muttering at us in different contradictory voices, refusing to stay the same when we go back to them. Tying them down too much robs of them of the magic.”
―
―
“Slow down. The Taliban were religious, in the sense that in their opinion a being called Allah really designed and created the world and everything in it, including them. They were also a cultus in that they believed that you should pray five times a day, study the Koran, fast during Ramadan, give a tenth of your income to the poor and visit Mecca at least once in your lifetime. It is a matter of record that they had the ancient statues at Bamyan destroyed.
But Professor, who put up the statues? Buddhist monks, that's who. Possibly the monks were not religious, in the sense that they didn't believe in a designer-God but they were certainly part of a cultus and they had lots and lots of supernatural beliefs which you would think were Bad Things. So what you should have said is "Imagine no Taliban to blow up ancient statues. Imagine no ancient statues for the Taliban to blow up." This is absolutely emblematic of your confused attitude. When a religious organisation does something which annoys you, you take it for granted that it was Caused By Religion. But when a religious organisation does something which you quite like you don't think that "religion" had anything to do with it. You hardly spot that there was any religion involved at all.”
― Where Dawkins Went Wrong
But Professor, who put up the statues? Buddhist monks, that's who. Possibly the monks were not religious, in the sense that they didn't believe in a designer-God but they were certainly part of a cultus and they had lots and lots of supernatural beliefs which you would think were Bad Things. So what you should have said is "Imagine no Taliban to blow up ancient statues. Imagine no ancient statues for the Taliban to blow up." This is absolutely emblematic of your confused attitude. When a religious organisation does something which annoys you, you take it for granted that it was Caused By Religion. But when a religious organisation does something which you quite like you don't think that "religion" had anything to do with it. You hardly spot that there was any religion involved at all.”
― Where Dawkins Went Wrong
“Actually, it meant a great deal: a very great deal. You don't have to believe that God exists to see that a story in which God takes on human form is a very different story from one in which God creates a messenger and tells that messenger to take on human form. The Passion of the Christ is a different movie depending on whether you think the person being eviscerated is God or just some guy. Athanasius thought that it was God who hung on a cross for the world; Arius thought that it was a created being who was not God. This is not very little; this is very big. Granted, the Creeds put it in terms of Aristotelian theories about "substance" and "essence": but there isn't much sense in complaining that technical documents are written in technical language if you are not prepared to pick up a standard work and look up what the words mean.”
― Where Dawkins Went Wrong
― Where Dawkins Went Wrong
Is this you? Let us know. If not, help out and invite Andrew to Goodreads.
