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.
I have prayed and declared over the lives of some of the biggest known Atheist in modern times and Richard was one of them. Mark my words, he WILL be a living testimony to the saving power of Christ and it will be a glorious day for God.
Allen, no offense, but I'm sure well-meaning Christians made the same claims about Hitchens and look at how far it got them.
I have prayed and declared over the lives of some of the biggest known Atheist in modern times and Richard was one of them. Mark my words, he WILL be a living testimony to the saving power of Christ and it will be a glorious day for God.
Name it and claim it, brutha!
But be careful what you ask for. If it doesn't come to pass, the only possible explanation is that you didn't have enough faith, or "asked amiss". Well, there is one face-saving possibility -- god said "no".
But be careful what you ask for. If it doesn't come to pass, the only possible explanation is that you didn't have enough faith, or "asked amiss". Well, there is one face-saving possibility -- god said "no".
For good enough reasons. I had a look at Deepak Chophra's article, swiping at Dawkins and his easy-to -attack outspokenness. Dawkins has not lost his battle with God - or the god -delusion, rather, but Deepak has lost his battle with credibility. His argument is the sad one that, if a lot of people have feelings about experiencing God, then we must accept the bandar log (look it up).
One might equally argue that the biologist has lost the battle who stridently argues that the mind is the seat of feeling, not the heart, because the 'heart' is still referenced for deep feelings. He hasn't, because the facts are known, quite apart from popular muddle - headedness.
Deepak then goes on to argue with Dawkins on cosmic origins, leaning heavily on what we don't know. Here again he loses the battle with logical and evidential credibility, never mind that those who want to believe that a cosmic mind is the only possible answer will agree with him. In fact Dawkins knows that a case can be made for cosmic origins. It is Mr Chopra who is out on a limb by his insistence that no serious case can be made for the other view.
He ought to be aware that a case is being made, right down to something from nothing as a feasible suggestion and the gap for God is now very small. Not that he will care so long as thousands will applaud him and buy his book, unless they return it ask for a refund upon learning that he has no more time for religion that Dawkins does.
Interesting, too, how a horde of Moderator cut: deleted always show up at atheist Free Thought conventions shouting prayers and Bible verses while holding their stupid signs. But you don't see atheists doing that to anyone's church.
Well, your first paragraph is wrong, and I say this because I was going to a Unitarian Church for a few years, and if I said anything spiritual or if anyone else did, we were put down by those who read books by these New Atheists. These New Atheists also get on these forums and try to debate with Christians, which is why the Christian forum here was formed and atheists were not allowed on it, but I think that has changed, as I believe I read of their recent complaints. I don't think that Christians should be trying to convert others any more than I do atheists.
Recently I read a book by a scientist to see what was going on here, and then I wrote a review on it and posted it today on Goodreads. Here is that review on the book, "Why Science Does Not Disprove God":
I have been around atheists much of my life, but never were they as aggressive and mocking as what I have had to listen to in the last several years in the Fellowship where I once attended. I wondered why the change, why the mocking, the put-downs, the aggression, etc.? So I looked for a book that would explain these things; I found it.
This book by Aczel is not biased. He is a scientist and a physicist who has a resume from Harvard and U.C. Berkeley, and I believe from reading one statement that he made that he believes in God but not in organized religion. (Dawkins would have you believe that no scientist believes in God, but many do, they just don't believe in organized religion, while there are also those that do.)
The New Atheists that Aczel mentions are those who began writing books after 911. The attack by the jihad has caused them to decide to try to destroy all religion. These New Atheists believe that they should not tolerate religion any longer and so when they can get their foot in the door, they will attack. (You can even find them on the religious forums.) Sam Harris began arguing then that “faith-indeed, organized religion of any kind-has no place in the modern world, and that it brings only evil and destruction.” Dawkins has added: “Religion is not only bad but also stupid. Religious people deserve no respect from the rest of society.”
Who are these New Atheists? One is Richard Dawkins, who misuses concepts from mathematic, statistics, and science to try to prove his points, which are accepted by those who don't know well any better. And then there is Stephen Hawking, Christopher Hitchens, Krauss, and Sam Harris to name a few. I have tried to read their books but never finished them. I have also listened to them on Bill Maher, but I don’t always agree with what they have to say.
Now this book by Aczel is hard to understand when he is explaining physics, but there is enough information in it that is really good and can be understood by anyone, including me.
Aczel wrote this book because, as he says: “Integrity of science has been compromised by some New Atheist writers.” I read it because I wanted to know how to counteract what these New Atheists were saying, now I just don’t care.
If you want a book that speaks against evolution, this is no it. If you want a book that claims that organized religion is all wonderful, this is not it. This book only combats the wrong science that is used by these New Atheists as well as its putting more holes in the theory of evolution. Aczel believes that science will never be able to prove there is a God, nor will it be able to prove that there isn’t. But replacing gravity with a creator, like the New Atheists do, doesn’t cut it either. There is always the question: "Who created gravity?"
Here are two quotes that I really liked, mainly the last one:
1. "The New Atheists love to bring up the question: 'If God made the universe, who made God?' It's a fair question to ask, but we obviously don't know the answer. And just because this question can't be answered doesn't mean that by asking it they somehow prove that God doesn't exist. It simply shows that God's existence and what, if anything, 'created God' are well outside the realm of questions that science and mathematics can answer...What we do know is that the universe did no come out of the void all by itself: something preceded the Big Bang, and that 'something' is unreachable to our science and may well remain so forever."
And my favorite: "Our minds are based on essentials that go beyond the mechanistic and the evolutionary: they have something extra that allows them to do amazing things that computers, and dogs and monkeys, cannot. I believe this mysterious extra element inside our brains-such as the ability Cantor possessed for dealing with the immense concept of infinity is related to the divine."
Last edited by Mattie Jo; 11-26-2014 at 03:45 PM..
Well, your first paragraph is wrong, and I say this because I was going to a Unitarian Church for a few years, and if I said anything spiritual or if anyone else did, we were put down by those who read books by these New Atheists. These New Atheists also get on these forums and try to debate with Christians, which is why the Christian forum here was formed and atheists were not allowed on it, but I think that has changed, as I believe I read of their recent complaints. I don't think that Christians should be trying to convert others any more than I do atheists.
...snipped for brevity....
I look forward to responses from new, middle-aged and elderly atheists.
When I was an atheist I came across Dawkins and read a couple of his books. I also watched some videos of him talking about religion and soon realized what a pompous idiot he was.
When he wrote his 2006 best-seller, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins expected to accomplish two aims that have proved to be remarkable failures. The first aim was social. He wanted to attract a horde of doubters, fence-sitters, and agnostics to gather their courage and join the atheist ranks. This never happened. There has been a quiet, steady decline in church attendance for at least fifty years in the US and Western Europe, and recently a noticeable bump in self-described atheists has occurred. At the same time, around 10% of declared atheists go to church, usually for reasons of community or for their children.
What has decidedly not happened is the success of Dawkins' agenda. As a militant movement, his brand of noisy public atheism remains a splinter group. It has had no effect on national politics, laws, the judicial system, education, etc. Whether a person believes in God or not remains a largely private matter. As for Dawkins himself, he has become an embarrassment to the atheist movement, largely for his cranky, arrogant tweets--the godless don't want to be seen with him anymore.
Let's say that thousands of people claim to have seen a ghost. Their experience isn't disproved by arguing that the universe is made of atoms and molecules, rendering non-physical entities impossible. The actual experience of seeing a ghost must be met on its own terms. The same holds true for the millions of people across the centuries who claim to have an experience of God, heaven, the soul, the afterlife, and so on. Telling them that life evolved from one-celled microorganisms doesn't say anything about their experience, which is why Dawkins, a canny propagandist, resorts to disdain and ridicule to demolish religious belief, adding a healthy dose of accusations against the evils produced by organized religion (which are undeniable but again don't address people's genuine spiritual experiences).
But that's his charm ashley...that he's the KING of Fundie Atheist pompous idiots. His blowhole spew is some of the best ever...and throw in the Brit accent and it adds to the richness of it! Certainly a cut above the rest of the crowd.
He hangs with any of the Fundie Religious in his ability to spew forth with some really great stuff. He is soooooo biased and prejudice it is amusing in its pureness as a brilliant fools rant. All the top Fundies on either side are like that...they are such fools, they don't even know they are fools. I love 'em for that! They crack me up!
Well, your first paragraph is wrong, and I say this because I was going to a Unitarian Church for a few years, and if I said anything spiritual or if anyone else did, we were put down by those who read books by these New Atheists. These New Atheists also get on these forums and try to debate with Christians, which is why the Christian forum here was formed and atheists were not allowed on it, but I think that has changed, as I believe I read of their recent complaints. I don't think that Christians should be trying to convert others any more than I do atheists.
Recently I read a book by a scientist to see what was going on here, and then I wrote a review on it and posted it today on Goodreads. Here is that review on the book, "Why Science Does Not Disprove God":
I have been around atheists much of my life, but never were they as aggressive and mocking as what I have had to listen to in the last several years in the Fellowship where I once attended. I wondered why the change, why the mocking, the put-downs, the aggression, etc.? So I looked for a book that would explain these things; I found it.
This book by Aczel is not biased. He is a scientist and a physicist who has a resume from Harvard and U.C. Berkeley, and I believe from reading one statement that he made that he believes in God but not in organized religion. (Dawkins would have you believe that no scientist believes in God, but many do, they just don't believe in organized religion, while there are also those that do.)
The New Atheists that Aczel mentions are those who began writing books after 911. The attack by the jihad has caused them to decide to try to destroy all religion. These New Atheists believe that they should not tolerate religion any longer and so when they can get their foot in the door, they will attack. (You can even find them on the religious forums.) Sam Harris began arguing then that “faith-indeed, organized religion of any kind-has no place in the modern world, and that it brings only evil and destruction.” Dawkins has added: “Religion is not only bad but also stupid. Religious people deserve no respect from the rest of society.”
Who are these New Atheists? One is Richard Dawkins, who misuses concepts from mathematic, statistics, and science to try to prove his points, which are accepted by those who don't know well any better. And then there is Stephen Hawking, Christopher Hitchens, Krauss, and Sam Harris to name a few. I have tried to read their books but never finished them. I have also listened to them on Bill Maher, but I don’t always agree with what they have to say.
Now this book by Aczel is hard to understand when he is explaining physics, but there is enough information in it that is really good and can be understood by anyone, including me.
Aczel wrote this book because, as he says: “Integrity of science has been compromised by some New Atheist writers.” I read it because I wanted to know how to counteract what these New Atheists were saying, now I just don’t care.
If you want a book that speaks against evolution, this is no it. If you want a book that claims that organized religion is all wonderful, this is not it. This book only combats the wrong science that is used by these New Atheists as well as its putting more holes in the theory of evolution. Aczel believes that science will never be able to prove there is a God, nor will it be able to prove that there isn’t. But replacing gravity with a creator, like the New Atheists do, doesn’t cut it either. There is always the question: "Who created gravity?"
Here are two quotes that I really liked, mainly the last one:
1. "The New Atheists love to bring up the question: 'If God made the universe, who made God?' It's a fair question to ask, but we obviously don't know the answer. And just because this question can't be answered doesn't mean that by asking it they somehow prove that God doesn't exist. It simply shows that God's existence and what, if anything, 'created God' are well outside the realm of questions that science and mathematics can answer...What we do know is that the universe did no come out of the void all by itself: something preceded the Big Bang, and that 'something' is unreachable to our science and may well remain so forever."
And my favorite: "Our minds are based on essentials that go beyond the mechanistic and the evolutionary: they have something extra that allows them to do amazing things that computers, and dogs and monkeys, cannot. I believe this mysterious extra element inside our brains-such as the ability Cantor possessed for dealing with the immense concept of infinity is related to the divine."
I'm skeptical about your claim that you've read books from these non-believers because I don't recall any disrespect from any of them toward religious people, only their religions and their ideals, which are legitimate targets, much like Nazism, the KKK, and any other unhealthy dogmas. Dawkins, as far as I know, has never claimed that no scientists believe in God, but that the ones in the science fields that deal with biology, astrophysics, geology, and other physical sciences shouldn't be theists. BTW, I believe Aczel is primarily a mathematician. The "New Atheists" as you call them have come about primarily because of the amount of religious dogma that has crept into our lives, not only from Christianity but particularly from the Muslim community. Up until just recently gays were prohibited the same marriage recognition as hetero couples simply for religious reasons, a woman's choice to have an abortion has been opposed purely for religious beliefs, and still in 9 states political office holders who don't believe in the Christian God are prohibited. Some Muslims threaten to kill those who denigrate their prophets, which includes only drawing their pictures. Still others announce their intentions to turn western nations into Islamic states by force, killing innocent civilians if necessary.
We've become a bit emboldened recently because more younger people are realizing the dangers of religions and are starting to turn away from the antiquated thinking of their parents and are starting to pay attention to alternatives. With speakers like Dawkins, Harris, Seth Andrews (whom I believe you'd like), and others, we have a means of reaching large groups of people in order to demonstrate that they aren't alone in their disillusionment of religion.
When I was an atheist I came across Dawkins and read a couple of his books. I also watched some videos of him talking about religion and soon realized what a pompous idiot he was.
Insults demean only the insulter, never the target, ever. You demean no one but yourself from starting your rant off in this fashion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ashleynj
This never happened.
Simply not true I am afraid. Atheism in places like the US have constantly been remarked as being the fastest growing minority in the country at the moment. Atheist literature and debates and lectures and websites and associations are at an all time high.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ashleynj
deepakchopra.]
Ah that would be the reason for your error. You are using an extremely biggoted and biased source. And a source that, himself, believes that the moon does not exist unless someone is looking at it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim_a49
actually Dawkins is still highly respected, wherever did you get the idea otherwise.
That is true. I think the religious forget that Atheism do not have personality cults around ideas of people like Jesus and Mohammad. Rather we realize that atheism is a number of voices, of which Dawkins is only one, and we do not worship them as perfect. Rather, like every person on the planet, there are things they say we agree with, and things they say we disagree with.
Dawkins is not special. He says things many people agree with, and things many people do not. I agree with most of what he has said about religion and biology. But not all. I disagree with a lot about what he has said about sexism and sexual abuse. But not all.
It really is that simple. He is not some Pope that we hang on every word he says. But a voice in a crowd that we can agree with and disagree with at will.
This concept is alien to many religion people I guess. Religious people who think Jesus perfect, or the pope infallible, or Mo to be someone we should emulate in every way. Atheism and atheists simply do not work that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ashleynj
Dawkins I can not stand for some reason. It is not because I think Dawkins does not have anything interesting to say, it is the way he chooses to say it.
That is the power of the atheist movement. There is a wide range of diversity in the voices in that crowd. Tone and delivery changes from person to person to person. It is not one uniform voice you can simply reject out of hand, rather if one voice displeases you, simply go to the next like Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett.
But at the end of the day if his tone displeases you that is fine. Nothing wrong with that. But realize the problem lies with you, not him, and multitudes of people simply do not share your concerns. Even a little.
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.
