Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He might be a good biologist, but Dawkins is simply not a good mind, theologically. His book, The God Delusion, consists basically of him just ripping the idea, with no real argument--other than that he just doesn't like religion.
Hey look, more vague accusations with no specific objections.
I'm sorry, I really haven't seen that play out that way with you or your peers on this board. In discussions of abiogenesis and evolution, Christians are not take seriously, despite making valid arguments.
Really? You mean, in order for us to let Christian mythology and mis-information go completely unquestioned, so you "win"? In order to be taken seriously, one has to present at least one, if not several, of a Christian's pet ideas, along with the proofs or at least some good evidence, for those points.
About that, what are we to assume? Your usual "It's in my bible, so it MUST be so!" "argument" is hardly a cogent presentation, now is it? What else you got, Vizio? I mean of a substantive nature, like repeatable studies that would be at the level of, say, a good in-lab demo of evolution, sediment-count aging, DNA genome mapping and lineage tracking, etc., all of which in fact you fully dismiss out of hand without any further consideration.
You do know someone in very debate has to lose, right? Why should it always be us, given the growing accumulation of masses of documented and easily repeatable proofs based on demonstrable natural evidence, unlike tribal mysticism, so easily proven time and again.
Face it, you guys are now officially on the short end of the facts stick!
So again, what have you got to debate here? And have you EVER actually asked for just such an honest and open-minded debate? When? On what topics? And... are you willing to admit, if it happens to logically go that way, that your ideas are, in fact, no longer valid?
Are you going to answer this one? Or not? If not, do not blame us. It's you who has to hide from the established facts that you just mindlessly then automatically deny!
Dawkins has made a name for himself by misquoting and teaching a flawed understanding of what Christianity is. Do you condone that?
Not on the face of it, but it would depend on your definition of "misquoting" and "flawed understanding" and "what Christianity is". Christianity is not just your dogma, it is a lot of conflicting dogma over a couple of millennia. Disagreement with your understanding is not automatically "flawed understanding". "Misquoting" is perhaps the most objectively evaluable of these claims, so may I suggest we start with that? What do you consider the most egregious example of Dawkins misquoting a Christian teaching?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
I'm sorry, I really haven't seen that play out that way with you or your peers on this board. In discussions of abiogenesis and evolution, Christians are not taken seriously, despite making valid arguments.
Again, it depends on your definition of "valid arguments". Abiogenesis and evolution are scientific claims about which one must make scientifically valid arguments. "It can't be that way" or "must be some other way" because it doesn't seem right to you, contradicts your dogma, or contradicts your holy book, is not a scientifically valid argument. Mischaracterizing the science and the claims of the science because you don't understand it or don't accept it is not a valid argument. Then there are philosophical and logical arguments -- those also must be valid, philosophically and logically, in order to earn any respect and credence, and that is true whether or not the arguments are coming from a theist. Arguments from incredulity or authority are not valid logical arguments, for example.
What is it that makes Richard Dawkins some kind of an expert on anything except the field that he has a degree in?
Why do so many people place so much stock in his idiotic ramblings?
We see this all the time with other supposed experts that have degrees in non-religious fields and they are only too quick to tell us all about what we believe and why we're wrong. Yet, when we attempt to point out a flaw in a scientific theory, our opinion is rejected?
Especially with Christianity, one doesn't need to have attended seminary to be an expert, if one follows what the Bible states and follows the teachings by the Holy Spirit.
However, Dawkins can be considered an expert in debunking religions, especially the Abrahamic god religions, because much of it contradicts what is his expertise, Biological Science. As he so eloquently defends evolution and other scientific theories and law, he also provides the necessary evidence to disprove the attributes of God and religious dogma.
He might be a good biologist, but Dawkins is simply not a good mind, theologically. His book, The God Delusion, consists basically of him just ripping the idea, with no real argument--other than that he just doesn't like religion. I'm really not sure why his fanboys think he's so great.
rifleman....if you're reading this, please note I don't mean to ignore your post above where you quoted me, but to be honest, it's a bit jumbled. You've quoted several people and I'm not sure what are your words and others. Is there a question you have for me specifically?
Do you hold a degree in theology from a creditable university or college?
Could be, but he is consistent with the output of places like Dallas Theological Seminary and many others where one can spend greater amounts of $$ and time for roughly the same result.
What is it that makes Richard Dawkins some kind of an expert on anything except the field that he has a degree in?
Why do so many people place so much stock in his idiotic ramblings?
We see this all the time with other supposed experts that have degrees in non-religious fields and they are only too quick to tell us all about what we believe and why we're wrong. Yet, when we attempt to point out a flaw in a scientific theory, our opinion is rejected?
Right off the bat, the title of the thread is invalid: "Why does a degree in science make one an expert in religion?" as having a degree in science doesn't make one an expert in religion.
Can you provide an example of being rejected by pointing out a flaw in a scientific theory?
If this is true, I'm sure you'll have no issues quoting specific instances of this happening.
Hmm, no answer. The internet must have been turned off for the weekend or something, because we all know a Christian preacher wouldn't make up disparaging remarks about a non-believer and then be unable to substantiate them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
