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.
GCSTroop I have tried to reply with quote to you, but a message has come up on both occasions saying the 'message is too short'...I added a few well thought out words but it was still rejected.
I am not a scientist. Are you? That means we both read, absorb and understand the same evidence, but come to different conclusions.
That man did not answer my questions because he could not.
You don't have to make a living out of science to be a scientist. Science is practical in everyday life, and I'm sure even you use it. Ever experimented with cooking, or maybe fixing something in the house? If you make a guess about something, then test it, then review the results (and draw a conclusion), well that's the scientific method.
Faith is drawing a conclusion while skipping the test. You can't test whether the bible is true, because you can't read the minds of those who wrote it. You can't even read God's mind, as he "works in mysterious ways," so you have no idea if he meant for you to be Christian, just as Muslims and Jews don't.
His latest book The God Delusion has made him unpopular with even his own colleagues.
The above is part of your original post on this topic we're talking about. Just because a few colleagues or people have issues with Dawkins, doesn't mean he is unpopular with the rest of the world. Your also talking about a book that is extremely popular. I think us atheist would have a better understanding of his popularity.
Sorry Brian, but you must be seeing something that I cannot! I haven't put anything in bold?!
You are on speaking terms with 90% of our population? I can understand you wishing to ignore the fact that some of Dawkins' colleagues have disowned him. It doesn't quite fit, does it? Someone (technobarbie, I think) said The God Delusion was a best seller. Well, Brian, you and I know the Sun newspaper is THE bestseller. So?
Of course Dawkins has made enemies, anyone who rocks the comfortable boat of wishy-washy thinking is bound to create waves. Did you see him recently on tv interviewing the Archbishop of Canterbury on his beliefs? It was almost embarrassingly easy, simply to allow Rowan Williams make a laughing stock of himself just by letting him waffle some typically inconsequential answers to Dawkins' straightforward questions.
As Dawkins' disingenuous rejoinder made clear, Williams merely went off on one of his famous flights of poetic fantasy, which, as Dawkins, pointed out, meant absolutely nothing, but still sounded beautiful, (if rather silly).
This ability Dawkins has of cutting through to the heart of religious waffle, exposing it as the empty sham it invariably is, is his trademark. But he's always courteous, and makes his point, as in the case of the Archbishop quoted above, by asking the right awkward questions, to which there is usually no credible answer, only more waffle and hot air.
He doesn't need to know all there is to know about theology to be able to highlight the weaknesses in the religious argument either - it mostly boils down to just common sense, and doesn't require chapter and verse to make the point. He's unpopular in many circles on account of his uncompromising directness, of course, but that's no handicap if it serves to highlight all kinds of absurdities that pass for accepted wisdom.
If Dawkins' book 'The God Delusion' (you should read it, Elizabeth) - is a best seller, there's a very good reason. For a start, it wouldn't be read by the average Sun reader, as it's a serious book that requires an attention span of more than three minutes to read, so your perky comparison to that tabloid is a little lame.
Also, it doesn't need the sort of blind leap of faith that the bible does to be relevant, and the reader's intelligence is not in danger of being insulted at any point (and you can't say that about the bible, even with the best will in the world). Controversial and thought-provoking, yes, definitely, but Dawkins' reasoning never departs from the known scientific facts, and that's good enough for me.
I don't see that you have to actually like the man in order to give him credit for his bold stance on religion, because again, the facts speak for themselves. So where's this slight madness you detect? If the definition of sanity is being in touch with reality, then I would ask you, Elizabeth, who is away with the fairies - Dawkins or our eccentric Archbishop?
Moving on, I have to say that it's becoming increasingly obvious to me, reading all your posts, that you are showing some clear signs of wanting to cross the fence into the world of us rationalists, even though this thought may be refusing to enter your conscious mind?
Why? ... because anyone who has an enquiring mind (take that as a rare complement), is in danger of receiving a flash of enlightenment at some stage, when the scales of delusion start to fall from their eyes, and there is no looking back to superstition, no matter how comforting, for invisible support. But think of the freedom!
I've observed this quite often in people like the former Bishop of Durham, David Jenkins, who started off questioning absurdities like the Virgin Birth, and progressed to the improbability of the Resurrection of Jesus itself. You could feel the struggle this intelligent man was going through, trying to reconcile religious doctrine with the more humane side of his nature.
The moral seems to be - DONT START ASKING QUESTIONS - when it comes to your faith, because to do so may lead you in a direction you may not wish to go in. - An inevitable progression, I would say... so BEWARE...
Of course Dawkins has made enemies, anyone who rocks the comfortable boat of wishy-washy thinking is bound to create waves. Did you see him recently on tv interviewing the Archbishop of Canterbury on his beliefs? It was almost embarrassingly easy, simply to allow Rowan Williams make a laughing stock of himself just by letting him waffle some typically inconsequential answers to Dawkins' straightforward questions.
As Dawkins' disingenuous rejoinder made clear, Williams merely went off on one of his famous flights of poetic fantasy, which, as Dawkins, pointed out, meant absolutely nothing, but still sounded beautiful, (if rather silly).
This ability Dawkins has of cutting through to the heart of religious waffle, exposing it as the empty sham it invariably is, is his trademark. But he's always courteous, and makes his point, as in the case of the Archbishop quoted above, by asking the right awkward questions, to which there is usually no credible answer, only more waffle and hot air.
He doesn't need to know all there is to know about theology to be able to highlight the weaknesses in the religious argument either - it mostly boils down to just common sense, and doesn't require chapter and verse to make the point. He's unpopular in many circles on account of his uncompromising directness, of course, but that's no handicap if it serves to highlight all kinds of absurdities that pass for accepted wisdom.
If Dawkins' book 'The God Delusion' (you should read it, Elizabeth) - is a best seller, there's a very good reason. For a start, it wouldn't be read by the average Sun reader, as it's a serious book that requires an attention span of more than three minutes to read, so your perky comparison to that tabloid is a little lame.
Also, it doesn't need the sort of blind leap of faith that the bible does to be relevant, and the reader's intelligence is not in danger of being insulted at any point (and you can't say that about the bible, even with the best will in the world). Controversial and thought-provoking, yes, definitely, but Dawkins' reasoning never departs from the known scientific facts, and that's good enough for me.
I don't see that you have to actually like the man in order to give him credit for his bold stance on religion, because again, the facts speak for themselves. So where's this slight madness you detect? If the definition of sanity is being in touch with reality, then I would ask you, Elizabeth, who is away with the fairies - Dawkins or our eccentric Archbishop?
Moving on, I have to say that it's becoming increasingly obvious to me, reading all your posts, that you are showing some clear signs of wanting to cross the fence into the world of us rationalists, even though this thought may be refusing to enter your conscious mind?
Why? ... because anyone who has an enquiring mind (take that as a rare complement), is in danger of receiving a flash of enlightenment at some stage, when the scales of delusion start to fall from their eyes, and there is no looking back to superstition, no matter how comforting, for invisible support. But think of the freedom!
I've observed this quite often in people like the former Bishop of Durham, David Jenkins, who started off questioning absurdities like the Virgin Birth, and progressed to the improbability of the Resurrection of Jesus itself. You could feel the struggle this intelligent man was going through, trying to reconcile religious doctrine with the more humane side of his nature.
The moral seems to be - DONT START ASKING QUESTIONS - when it comes to your faith, because to do so may lead you in a direction you may not wish to go in. - An inevitable progression, I would say... so BEWARE...
I was unaware that Dawkins had 'interviewed' Dr Rowan Williams. How embarrassing is that??!! The Archbishop of Canterbury is as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike when it comes to actually defending his faith.
He is as soggy and wet as the soggiest, wettest old dish cloth.
The Church of England is NOT the best representative of the living God.
I would have given Dawkins a better run for his money!
What an easy target for the eminent Professor, though. He very rarely debates with a biologist/scientist who has an opposing view. He usually comes off the worst for it. In fact, I think Kirsty (somebody or other) on TV had him on the ropes a few months ago. That would have been fun to watch..but unfortunately I missed it.
Of course i don't disparage science, Brian, the world would be a poorer place without it. But it still has its limitations. Evolution cannot be proved because we weren't there to see it. And if homosapiens have been around for as long as evolutionists would have us believe, then the population of the earth (with all the permutations) would vaster than the six billion at which it now stands.
As I have stated somewhere else, the more I learn of the miracle which is our bodies, and that most mysterious of body parts...the brain...the more I see the hand of a Master Designer.
I would have given Dawkins a better run for his money!
You are not giving us forum dwellers a run for our money. Elevating yourself to a ringside match with Dawkins tells me you might want to consult with a Psychological professional.
Oh I see. So when you called him a bigot, you weren't trying to mislead us into thinking he was a racially prejudiced individual.
You were trying to say he was intolerant to certain things, such as religion.
Dawkins, like many other Atheists are intolerant to religions that don't play nicely with other people. This would include attempting to erect a pseudo-theocracy and forcing religious values on non-religious people, or visiting horrors such as Islamic or Old Testament atrocities on the rest of the world.
In that sense, we should all be "bigoted" towards those institutions.
Religion, in its purest sense, does not consist of biblical passages that so horrify you. Religion has also been a great force for good throughout the ages. True Christianity is noble and self sacrificing. It turns the other cheek and seeks only that which is good and kind.
Professor Dawkins is on a mission. He won't succeed, of course. His hatred of Christianity and all religions, and his insufferable bigotry, only serve to strenghten the resolve of his enemies.
What gives me great pleasure, John, is knowing that when you, me and Mr Dawkins are pushing up daisies, the vast majority of the world will still have faith and belief in the living God. Mission Failed.
You are not giving us forum dwellers a run for our money. Elevating yourself to a ringside match with Dawkins tells me you might want to consult with a Psychological professional.
True Christianity is noble and self sacrificing. It turns the other cheek and seeks only that which is good and kind.
This was SUCH a nice thing to read and so nice to know that some people feel this way.
Please know, Elizabeth, that the probable reason people (including myself at times) are so concerned about the details of Biblical beliefs is because so few seem to stop their Christian ideology at the above. The evangelizing gets wearing, and even that wouldn't be so bad if the idea weren't that because we don't believe exactly what the person is saying, we will wind up in hell.
Because Christianity is so closed about other religions, it tends to make us non-Christians defensive. And of course we wish to point out why we don't believe, and the fact is that we have a right to that. Just as you have a right to believe.
The difference is that neither I nor Jew nor any Hindu, etc., will pull you aside at any time to tell you that you must drop your beliefs which you hold dear because you're secretly worshiping Satan, you are misguided and you're going to burn in hell and obviously aren't "willing" to "accept" God, etc. Imagine if you did hear that? What's your gut reaction to that?
Yup. Mine too.
I have lost friends over "refusing" to be Christian. I just had this happen not all that long ago. And I notice here on this forum, I'm occasionally semi-stalked by people who now are disgusted by me because of my religion. Trust me when I tell you Christianity is not the persecuted religion in this part of the globe.
It doesn't stop with us heathens, though. Christians even argue with other Christians...about what the "right" kind of Christianity is. About what the "right" beliefs are. That gets every bit as heated as the, for example, paganism v. Christianity threads. It's unbelievable. In many ways, Christianity seems to be the religion of dissent. It seems to invite quibbling...even among fellow Christians. Why? The inherently judgmental nature of it. "If you don't believe as I do, well, fine. It's your soul that will burn in hell." JWs get this a lot, I see...and so even do Catholics! I've seen them called "idol worshipers" and worse. Yeah, I know. Jesus said he'd be the sword, etc. Or supposedly said it. Again, that's your belief. But not mine. My God doesn't want people to separate from each other, particularly with violence or anger. That's my belief. Yet I don't feel you'll burn in hell for believing Jesus said that. That's the difference. I don't believe I MUST "convert" you and make you give up the God you do love or else your soul will perish. That fact is always out there. It's the underlying theme of Christianity: Believe Jesus was the son of God (oh wait...or WAS God...I notice there's a divisive thread going on right now about that very question), or rot. Tell me that wouldn't invoke emotion in you? Many of us were Christians at one time, too.
You can have your beliefs, no belief is ever required to be 100% logical (mine isn't), but for those of us who don't believe, we express why. We're expressing why here.
I however loved what you said above. I wish every Christian I knew felt that way. The world would be a better place...for everybody. Kudos to you for having an open heart.
This was SUCH a nice thing to read and so nice to know that some people feel this way.
Please know, Elizabeth, that the probable reason people (including myself at times) are so concerned about the details of Biblical beliefs is because so few seem to stop their Christian ideology at the above. The evangelizing gets wearing, and even that wouldn't be so bad if the idea weren't that because we don't believe exactly what the person is saying, we will wind up in hell.
Because Christianity is so closed about other religions, it tends to make us non-Christians defensive. And of course we wish to point out why we don't believe, and the fact is that we have a right to that. Just as you have a right to believe.
The difference is that neither I nor Jew nor any Hindu, etc., will pull you aside at any time to tell you that you must drop your beliefs which you hold dear because you're secretly worshiping Satan, you are misguided and you're going to burn in hell and obviously aren't "willing" to "accept" God, etc. Imagine if you did hear that? What's your gut reaction to that?
Yup. Mine too.
I have lost friends over "refusing" to be Christian. I just had this happen not all that long ago. And I notice here on this forum, I'm occasionally semi-stalked by people who now are disgusted by me because of my religion. Trust me when I tell you Christianity is not the persecuted religion in this part of the globe.
It doesn't stop with us heathens, though. Christians even argue with other Christians...about what the "right" kind of Christianity is. About what the "right" beliefs are. That gets every bit as heated as the, for example, paganism v. Christianity threads. It's unbelievable. In many ways, Christianity seems to be the religion of dissent. It seems to invite quibbling...even among fellow Christians. Why? The inherently judgmental nature of it. "If you don't believe as I do, well, fine. It's your soul that will burn in hell." JWs get this a lot, I see...and so even do Catholics! I've seen them called "idol worshipers" and worse. Yeah, I know. Jesus said he'd be the sword, etc. Or supposedly said it. Again, that's your belief. But not mine. My God doesn't want people to separate from each other, particularly with violence or anger. That's my belief. Yet I don't feel you'll burn in hell for believing Jesus said that. That's the difference. I don't believe I MUST "convert" you and make you give up the God you do love or else your soul will perish. That fact is always out there. It's the underlying theme of Christianity: Believe Jesus was the son of God (oh wait...or WAS God...I notice there's a divisive thread going on right now about that very question), or rot. Tell me that wouldn't invoke emotion in you? Many of us were Christians at one time, too.
You can have your beliefs, no belief is ever required to be 100% logical (mine isn't), but for those of us who don't believe, we express why. We're expressing why here.
I however loved what you said above. I wish every Christian I knew felt that way. The world would be a better place...for everybody. Kudos to you for having an open heart.
Thank you, JerZ for your kind words. I could not agree more with the live and let live attitude. A true Christian must not cast judgement on anyone else. I don't believe it is our right to do so.
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.
