As a recent convert to Richard Dawkins I think that the idea of an Atheist monument still gives credence to the idea of a god. So read some Richard Dawkins with an open mind and read journalists as having agenda. Dawkins says seeing someone as an Atheist means having an inherent belief in god…..
Up until about 15 minutes ago (a lie) I still believed in supernatural beings, ghosts, mediums, astrology, crystals, tarot cards and distance healing. (By the way I am lying, I have been thinking about this for some time….)
About 12 years ago I went to a weekend event about psychic ability and how to develop it. The most vociferous adherent of this was the man running the event, backed up by the most pale and weak looking of the participants who described his experience with a UFO and it’s inhabitants.
Having spent more than 2 pence on this weekend I was keen to see something positive, but when I left after the first day I realised that I had left behind my sleeping bag (don’t ask) and so I went back to the venue – to the very room where I and others had been *advised* by someone who had greater psychic powers that I did – when I went back into the room I was greeted by a sheepish looking man, a down-trodden looking woman (his wife) and three slightly taken-aback young women (all participants in the weekend workshop). Hmmmm. The most vocal of the participants so far had been the pale and weak looking young man – he was no-where to be seen………..
After more than 10 years of *trying things out* I can honestly say that Richard Dawkins seems to speak the most sense.
If Darwin was correct then there is no Creator. If there is no Creator then there is no other supernatural being. Jung had a hold of something, but it would seem to be that he had a hold of an idea that Dawkins has been able to describe a little more easily…..the ideas that seem to *us* to describe our view of the wider world…..
I have no problem with a temple that articulates our human and widening response to what we and (separately from us) biology can achieve…..