Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation Despotism 2nd Dark Age until Bible is destroyed
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
being a passionate atheists is as unreasonable as being a passionate religious person, but it's the only way you can bring either side off their high horse and try and meet in the agnostic stance.
personally I'm an atheist.
I went from christian, to agnostic (nothing can be proven to everyone, clearly) to atheist (why assume something exists that cannot be shown to exist, like the undetectable dragon in my garage)
Wouldn't it be funny if Richard Dawkins died and then went into the after life......and Buddha, Mohammad, and Zeus are standing there (looking VERY pissed off) and tell him "Yeah...We got yo ass NOW bitch....Whats this bullshit about being a Delusion?.....We are gonna get Medieval on yo Ass ..."
for me, the atheïst answer would be 'because I want to have some tea' - while having the knowledge of how water boils, but not being busy to much with it at the moment, because I just want tea - and the christian answer would be something like 'because God made me do it'.
I know that's not fair at all, but neither is your remark.
When I see all these religious nuts citing the bible etc, I'm glad I live in a country where I need to look very hard to find someone who actually belives in God.
Dale Neumann, 47, was convicted in the March 23, 2008, death of his daughter, Madeline, from undiagnosed diabetes. Prosecutors contended he should have rushed the girl to a hospital because she couldn't walk, talk, eat or drink. Instead, Madeline died on the floor of the family's rural Weston home as people surrounded her and prayed. Someone called 911 when she stopped breathing.
wel,religion isnt outlawed because of its obvious dangers now is it?yet companies have to put warnings on toys for children that contain small pieces or theyll be sued.wtf...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I do not believe in religion. Your right about about that, religion is man made and false hope, but Jesus Christ and His word is real and i believe in Him 100%
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Freedom of speech does not require dgrees. John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Genisis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Psalms 14:1 The FOOL saith in his heart; There is no GOD..... Proverbs 14:9 FOOLS make a mock at sin: but among the righteous there is favour.
Psalms 14:1 makes me think of the story "The Emperor's New Cloths." Everyone is Fooled into saying that they can see the Emperor's cloths because they are told that only a "FOOL" can't see this special fabric. In reality the cloths don't exist and he is in fact naked. Psalms 14:1, to me, is attempting to do the same thing, exept in this case GOD is the invisible, non-existent fabric.
you quote religion, and mistake it for creation, unknowable, religion = human arogance, we know nothing, the bible, koran ,or any other religious text,gives us nothing but false hope. Poor sad beings relying on man made shadows, it is a human conception to compensate for the fear of death,no more no less. Do not be so arrogant as to believe you know the origin of what is.
biomanwin, that is a ridiculous statement with strong implications that no one but a scientist can be the presenter of scientific information.
Of course, it is highly unlikely that Strobel himself did any of the calculations he speaks about? He is presenting information found through research or provided to him by scientists. Does that make anything invalid which he presents?
I happen to have seen this video. And there are many things invalid with what he presents as he starts with a pressuposition and cherry picks evidence to suit it. Also he insists on making rediculous probability calculations which would require knowledge current science doesn't have and insists on using a giant ruler as an analogy for something which has infinite possibilities. You can't put an infinite quantitiy into a finite distance thats just common sense.
Well his pressuposition is that there is a God and that he designed something. The very existence of a presupposition which can be neither tested nor verified takes all scientific credibility out of this video.
I agree that there is nothing wrong with condensing the length of your video, there is something dishonest however in pretending that the evidence you present is the only evidence or the best evidence.
The presupposition that man evolved from some kind of primordial slime can neither be tested nor verified but yet is presented as "scientific" fact.
Whether Strobel starts with a presupposition of God's existence or not is immaterial to the probability statements he makes in his presentation. The probability statements just happen to strongly support the far-fetched idea of God and design/creation.
Also one inaccuracy is to say that if you "slightly alter" the gravitational constant there is absolutely no possibility of life.
That is to incorrectly assume two things. The first being that there is more than one way for the fundemental forces to have existed, which at the moment we have no way of knowing. And the second being the assumption that there is only one possible way for life to exist, which we are also unable to verify at this time. Basically these are pointless speculation.
You said, "One inaccuracy is to say that if you "slightly alter" the gravitational constant there is absolutely no possibility of life." Are you sure about that?
I'm sure since Strobel is just a lawyer, he got his information from scientists!
You are correct in saying that people other than scientists can present scientific information; however, Lee Strobel is unbelievably biased....and for someone who claims to have been a skeptic all of his life, his books only show the creationist/christian points of view and does not present the opposite view. There is no objectivity. Most of the ppl that Strobel interviews are either A) Unbelievable biased (Jonathan Wells for example) B) Don't have degrees on the subject that they discuss.
Did you actually listen to Lee Strobel lecture? I doubt it. You are probably not really interested in truth, but interested in finding excuses to reject the truth that Strobel speaks of.
I watched the first two segments of it. ALL it is is special pleading. He says that these fundamental constants must have been "fine Tuned" to their perfect values in order for life to be able to exist. First of all, There is NO reason to believe that these values were "fine tuned". It is very likely that the constants are what they are because they could not have been any other way. This is not evidence for God, it is a Creationist's crude attempt to justify his non-sensical belief! GARBAGE!!!
He speaks of no truth at all. He speaks of baseless assumptions and logical fallacy. I don't "find excuses to reject the truth" quite the contrary my friend. But I do reject things that defy logic and reasoning. I do discard these warrant-less claims which Strobel tries to justify with no real evidence of any kind.
What he says has NOTHING to do with astrology....just more lies to hide the truth....because you don't seek truth....you seek excuses to reject the truth.
Furthermore TheLostRealist1985, you don't want the truth because you don't want to contemplate the fact that you will give account to the creator of the universe in a coming day! To think about that fact might cramp your style and hamper your "freedom."
Not at all my friend, it is just that I have heard this type of ranting before. It's just likt in the movie Expelled. Nothing but one special pleading after another.
Look, I am in search of the truth. And if that truth has a Creator so be it!
But right now there is no good reason what so ever to believe that such a being does or ever did exist!
I loved the movie Expelled....it illustrates the point that you dare not suggest a creator as a POSSIBILITY within a "scientific" academic environment for the existence of the universe....or you WILL be ostracized.
When it fact, it is the ONLY logical conclusion possible that an all-powerful God who always existed put it there.
I figured you would love that movie AND I figured that you would have absolutely no idea what a logical conclusion. "My imaginary friend with magical powers is the ONLY logical conclusion" LMAO!!!
The Astrology thing I put in there was just to emphasize the total pseudoscientific nature of Mr. Strobel. It was a cheap shot I must admit, however his arguments are a joke. Were you really able to watch that video with a straight face? Be honest.
That just didn't make sense and no primates are not the second most intelligent animal in the world. You've gone from saying that logic changes if we change our brains which is simply stupid. Then you say there are no other soceties than our own thus proving what? seriously i wonder if it is you that doesn't understand my posts or if your brain is simply damaged.
Atheism cannot deny to God because cannot deny to the intelligence. If the random movement of cerebral subatomic particles determines our thoughts, really we can decide and be conscious beings?. Atheism is a kind of faith because is based on an assumption not verifiable. Richard says: God no exists, but he is based on idea not verifiable. Due to this, he is lying. My evidence is the people, the persons do science. The subatomic particles moves by Design and these let us be objectives.
Leivinn20, Me and other atheists have answered your question at least a hundred times. No atheist will ever tell you i can disprove god. If i told you there's a chinese teapot orbiting around mars too small to be seen by any telescope and ask you can you disprove it, your answer would be no. Meaning there probably is a chinese teapot orbiting around mars?
Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof! If you claim the sky is made of chocolate it is up to you to prove it not us to disprove it.
What or who determines your answer?, - the movement of particles, the nature, or you decide it?, Is your process of reasoning autonomous?, yes or not?, to be or not to be?. If you deny the self-control of your mind (human spirit), and say: it is only an effect of the movement of particles, I cannot present proof to you. Second question: how was the beginning of natural laws?, or in the beginning, how ware the natural laws?. The atheism is a kind of faith.
Half of your questions are pretty silly. If i say 1+1=2 does that make any difference wether i think it with a human brain, a computer, or some sentient being that is outside the universe? I'm sorry pal but logic is logic no matter why or how we think it. We think therefore we exist and our thoughts are universal. Any brain even if it isn't made of particles will think about them in the same exact way. And no. Atheism is the standard position until proven otherwise. You a-teapotist!!! XD
Your example is wrong, the PC can resolve mathematical operation, but the PC cannot developer civilizations, it`s not self-conscious being. I`m sorry, the first step of scientific method always will be the observation, and this step depend on ours self-conscious process, our process of reasoning determines the movement of cerebral particles. This is the real position standard. You must present a PC o mutated animals capable developer civilizations; not primates in the rain forest.
Well look up the brain on wikipedia at this point, for everything you stated on our brain is simply wrong.
Oh right btw I'll let you in on a simple thing about science. It studies reality, meaning if you want to argue that we must scientifically admit there is something above reality then we need to see proof. The standard position on anything is disbelief till proven otherwise. Atheists have no faith by definition.
The atomics model is a result from our study of the nature (self-conscious observation process), It`s impossible resolve the dilemma, you are trying to resolve the dilemma using circular `logic`. This our creationist premise: the scientific process begins our consciousness. Wikipedia is encyclopedia; other is Encarta We are ethics, these are falsifiable experiments: You must present a computer or animal capable develop civilizations; not primates in the rain forest.
The primates lived in the rainforest thousands of years ago as in the present, not more, not less, always as in the present. It`s verifiable. If the primates develop a civilization, this no resolve the dilemma, both experiment are proof our ethics. Gog bless you, bay
Our consciousness made the science, and after the science explained our consciousness???, do you can see the dilemma?, the creationist believe this: our consciousness is autonomous (The information theory) . God bless you, bye. No more debate.
No i do can see not for i can't understand what you're saying. You mean our conciuness made the law of gravity? can you not see how ridiculous that is?
Oh and no more debate... what? afraid that your brain actually connects right for once and sees the big contraddiction you call faith?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
without excuse for what? lack of belief in jesus? lack of worship? if we are here for his entertainment why cant we just live our lives. why do we have to dance also. The suffering we bare is not enough? Howabout he is an enity but not the creator of all, just a deity. A thing that gave us the intelligent design. But not god, and not even close. Divine to us, Full of flaws to its god.
Since it doesn't seem to be obvious to some of you, here is my own paraphrase of Romans 1:20 just to make the meaning more obvious:
God's eternal power and deity have been so clearly seen in His creation of the universe that men will stand before Him without any excuse for having rejected Him.
all that other crap you put with the paraphrase is just gonna get you thumbs down. Idk why you replied to me, your statement has nothing to do with mine. Romans 1:20 meaning is the "intelligent design" argument for creationism.
The relationship between men and trees is one between men and lumber. The trees that enjoy the orderliness of the orchard will evolve traits that are attractive to lumberjacks & saw mills: minimal branching; thinner barks; fewer knots, etc.
Belief in an all-knowing, all-powerful supreme cosmic dictator who created the universe is not only very childish and illogical, it's simply ridiculous and highly embarrassing for any serious adult to admit.
The clear cognitive dissonance displayed by followers of organised religion is currently the world's most pressing mental health challenge.
For those ready to seek help, the book The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins may be a good place to start.
Shame on you for believing that contrary to the evidence! How on earth does your brain deal with all the PhDs out there who are theists? Maybe you're just blissfully unaware they exist.
And 'The God Delusion' is not a serious book on theology. It has been refutted a number of times. The errors in it make him look worse than a first year undergraduate in the subject. There's nothing in that book to worry a theist in the slightest.
1/2: Richard Swinburne Robert M. Adams Brian Leftow Alvin Plantinga Keith Ward Keith Yandell Ronald Nash Douglas Geivett Anthony Flew!! Gary Habermas Stephen Davis Paul Helm
1) Unfortunately, a dubious list of unscientifically educated nobodies, wannabes, mavericks and charlatans holds no water whatsoever in criticism of the global scientific consensus and best-selling
novels by world renowned distinguished scientists.
Philosophy is not a scientific discipline, it is mere conjecture and a hobby for those with the luxury of time. Epistemological arguments do not change the objective nature of physical reality.
1. You state that's a "dubious" list yet you give NO REASON as to why it is! It remains a list of top flight PhDs in Philosophy [which happens to be a subject universally regarded as one of the most academic]. You're comments about them are AD HOMINEM attacks which everybody with an education knows is = to no response at all.
Science depends on philosophy to do it's work. Most scientists are realists philosophically speaking for a start.
2) The well established scientific fact is that everything in our universe points towards there being no need for a God and nothing in this universe suggests any valid evidence for any such being ever having existed or being capable of even existing in the first place.
Theology is also only academic in the way that study of any other kind of literature is. One may wish to equally debate whether Narnia exists, or whether that is also a delusion.
The God Delusion has been completely annihilated in academic philosophy reviews. The ATHEIST philosopher, Michael Ruse wrote of it:
"It makes me embarrassed to be an atheist."
Alvin Plantinga destroys it in an online review. Alister McGrath has done so in print. So has the philosopher Keith Ward in his book 'Why there almost certainly IS a God'. He reveals the utter neivity of Dawkins when trying to write philosophical theology. Also Anthony Flew has shown the book to have lied about him.
I'm sorry to tell you that he does not even properly reply to the briefest of reviews there, let alone, the books which have been written in response. Neither is he likely to since it is widely accepted that as a philosopher/theologian [and make no mistake that's what he's pretending to be here!] he fails badly.
2) "The well established scientific fact is that everything in our universe points towards there being no need for a God and nothing in this universe suggests any valid evidence for any such being ever having existed or being capable of even existing in the first place."
That may well be YOUR OPINION but science itself does not suggest that. Science deals with what we can physically encounter so if you're asking for empirical evidence of a non-physical being that's a category error!!
1) I'm sorry, but if you seriously believe that there is any plausible scientific evidence to support the existence of an invisible, imaginary, supernatural, all-knowing, all-powerful supreme cosmic dictator who created the universe and all life within it, then there is clearly something wrong with your education. All known science actually suggests the opposite and the reasons why are clearly explained in the following series:
1] There is NOTHING in science whatsoever which suggests that God does not exist. I have already pointed out that looking for direct physical evidence of a non-material being is a category error. Please don't make me repeat myself. You of all people ought to know where to look for evidence! A true scientist would not talk of closure on the question of a God especially where science currently is after Popper and Heisenberg et. al.
1) Unfortunately, this is where you have exposed yourself.
How can you have read The God Delusion and catastrophically failed to understand that the subject that Dawkins is referring to throughout is the concept of a theistic/biblical god rather than a deistic/pantheistic god? He states this very clearly in the book.
1] I know which 'God' Dawkins is referring to. He's picking on the monotheistic God but even then he fails to adhere to orthodox formulations of the concept. He creates strawmen. This is what he does. He cannot be bothered to understand classical theism and this shows up all over his work [hence his category error with the Flying Spaghetti Monster analogy which you also give an ammended form of and therefore follow him blindly in his erroneous understanding].
2) There is an overwhelming amount of science that makes nonsense of theological claims such as the universe being created in 7 days, the Earth being only 6000 years old, the story of Adam & Eve, the story of Noah's Ark, and other archaic mythological claptrap. The four documentaries that I linked earlier on the geological history of this planet are only a mere sample of that.
2] Here we go. You can only play with North American fundamentalism can't you?! The orthodox interpretation for millennia has been that the Bible is not talking about literal 'days' since the Hebrew word [and the context] clearly indicates otherwise. You don't get literalism until Bishop Usher! Orthodox Christianity is perfectly accepting of the age of the universe and the earth. There is NO BIBLICAL age of the earth. No date is given.
"There is NO BIBLICAL age of the earth. No date is given."
well then Dawkins isn't addressing YOUR perception of the book is he? No He's addressing that of people who take the position regardless what you think the bible says. Surely that's not too hard for one of your astute capabilities to ken.
But, as you well know, The God Delusion is not aimed merely at Young-Earth Creationists. Yes, fundies get the majority of his time and effort [which in itself is an academic travesty] but he does not stop with them if you read the book.
Well, at least I have formal qualifications in the subject. Dawkins, academically speaking, is a layman. He has infact noted this himself. Shame it does not appear to influence his hubris!
Given the way you phrase your question it is clear that you do not want your mind changed. Your not open to the evidence so it does not matter what is placed before you you will reject it out of hand. That is not a debate. It's just the pretence of one. Try Richard Swkinburne's 'The Existence of God' book.
I've read the Bible, I'm fairly familiar with the god of the Koran. Basically I've found these monotheistic gods to be maniac assholes. Why should I believe in them even if they exist? Sure, accept their existence, but I accept the existence of Hitler and still don't believe in him.
And why Jehova? You are an atheist in relation to every single god except one, and it's been selected for you by pure chance. Why any god in particular?
Well, I don't think it's fair to judge how someone came to the view they did till you ask them. Luckily you then do.
I don't think the truth about God lies just in one religion. I think the truth of the matter is closer to the Hindu idea that they all have elements that are true to this being we call God but in many other ways religions are just cultural expressions of that belief. I think all theistic religions are ways to God.
But that just skirts around the edges of my objection. The scientific evidence and the facts that forms the basis of my outlook on the world doesn't change with time and culture, at most our knowledge of them does.
As for religion, it does not matter if you found god at two or seventy, it's still pure coincidence what religions happened to be available to you.
There's no practical need for a god, so why waste time trying to find one?
Well, not coincidence no. Because you're still assuming there's no God it seems, to you, as if it's just coincidence. But it may be providence IF there really is a God. God always permits freedom and in the West we are obsessed with interpreting this individually but more broadly than that too. God permits different cultures and ways of thinking. All diverse and cultural. Even a religion today will not be what it was 200 years ago. They all 'evolve'. God uses this.
He uses it? The bloody bastard uses it? Religion lies at the core of so much suffering and death and he actively uses it. Well, at least that goes well with how he's described in the bible.
There's no consistency in his creed, one second we can only find salvation through Jesus, the next it doesn't matter what culture we're brought up in. He simply doesn't appear worthy of my trust.
And, I think that claming people only believe what their culture does in terms of religion is bad psychology. Maybe for some but many not. So many people today have access to other cultures and ways of thinking [unless you live in North Korea!]. I grew up in an atheist country with an atheist family and atheist teachers. But I rejected the worldview I was raised in. I rejected it for logical reasons.
And if you're implying that science does not change then you really need to read a book on the history of science to see how it is always changing by definition.
Why do you read the inside of your own head instead of what I write? I said that the scientific evidence and facts do not change, because it does not matter if it' s an Indian two thousand years ago or me discovering it - the fact remains the same.
My safety line, so to speak, is that when new evidence comes to light, I have the option of changing my views and opinions. But it still does not matter who or when it was discovered.
"The scientific evidence and the facts that forms the basis of my outlook on the world doesn't change with time and culture, at most our knowledge of them does."
That's just plain naive. All good scientists recognise and promote the idea that science makes moves on. Theories evolve, change and sometimes get consigned to history. Talk of 'facts' is absurd after you have read anything on the history of science. There are no such things.
Sure, but why do you insist on answering what you think I'm saying instead of what's in plain writing before you? You just repeated exactly what I said, with the difference that you cut my statement in half and made a half assed attempt at retorting from that. Childish and dishonest.
3) Nonetheless, even if you do choose to believe in a deistic/pantheistic god there is no scientifically rational or reasonable reason to do so. It is just as valid and meaningless as believing that a time-travelling leprechaun riding a pink unicorn created the universe.
3] Comparing a non-material creator to a leprechaun is a category error for a start. You need to read some philosophical theology to understand the error of your ways. You cannot even justify 'rational' thinking without a rational cause of the universe. At best 'rationality' is just some survival heuristic devise if the unverse is random. So for you to talk about 'scientific rationality' is absurd. Rationality cannot be justified by empirical science only philosophy can do that.
On page 101 Dawkins thinks he has 'answered' the first three of Aquinas's Five Proofs. His arguments?
a] There's no reason to apply the properties ascribed to God to the First Cause.
No big revelation there. Cosmological arguments are not trying to establish that in the first place! So he's criticising the argument for not establishing something it's not trying to establish in the first place. Sad.
Yes it does when you use something as analogous it should be analogous. The FSM is a silly sheap shot at the concept of God. The physicality of the FSM alone rules itself out as anything other than a joke. This was in fact its original intention - it's just that some non-philosophical atheists have decided to take it seriously [whoops].
Given that you, yourself, have also failed to name a single "error" in The God Delusion it is becoming increasingly obvious that you have never actually read the book.
2] There are TOO MANY to name!! Haha. He lies about Swinburnes academic credentials calling him a 'theologian' when he is a philosopher. He says that materialism = the scientific method which is fallacious. Materialism is a minority philosophical stance. He also describes Aquinas' 'Five Proofs' wrongly. He misinterprets the Ontological argument. He makes the infinite regress fallacy as his 'best' argument against God! etc. etc. etc. I'm worried whether you've read it!
2) "Theology is also only academic in the way that study of any other kind of literature is. One may wish to equally debate whether Narnia exists, or whether that is also a delusion."
Again your opinion. Perhaps you should point that contradiction out to Dawkins since he's now more interested in writing books on theology than books on science!!
1) That's a strange thing to say, because Dawkins is currently writing a book on the evidence for the fact of evolution entitled "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution" scheduled for release in September 2009. No doubt that it will also automatically become a best-seller.
You may also be unaware that in 2006 he founded the non-profit "Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (RDFRS)" for which he is an active trustee.
THANK GOODNESS he's going to talk about evolution! I welcome that. I subject he at least has some qualifications in. I readily will listen to an expert in their field. I will not, however, take seriously a man who enters an academic field with such emotional baggage and lack of research. All philosophers agree that is where Dawkins is at. Even his philosophy groupies.
2) Also, continuing a long-standing partnership with Channel 4 in the UK, in 2010 Dawkins is set to present part of the upcoming five-part television series The Genius of Britain.
b] That 'logicians' have problems over the compatibility of omniscience and omnipotence.
Firstly, this is just leading on from the error of the first criticism. It is not a reply to ANY kind of Cosmological argument! Haha. Very basic philosophy but I'll forgive him since he himself admits "I'm a scientist not a philosopher" - aw bless. Also 'logicians' who had a problem with these atributes have been silenced by Swinburne of late but, not being a philosopher, he is blissfully unaware!!
Given that you appear to be insistently determined in demonstrating how you are so much more wiser and more educated than Prof. Dawkins in the subjects of philosophy and theology, can you please then explain what exactly is your rationale and logic in believing that an invisible, supernatural, all-knowing, all-powerful supreme cosmic dictator created the universe and all life within it?
Personally, I find the idea absurd. Perhaps you can change my mind?
And I love how you think giving a 'thumbs-down' to lists of distinguished philosophy professors and then calling them names discredits them. Shows how petty and desperate atheists get when facing the realisation that it's not just north-american fundies who believe in God. Really, it's so pathetic. It's akin to claiming that Stalin was an atheists therefore all atheists are mass-murderers!!
And just to set the record straight on your pseudo-psychology I am certainly not worried about Dawkins. I, in fact welcome his book. I wish everyone on the planet would read it because it reveals just how superficial the new atheism really is. Fortunately, and precisely because I have studied good atheist philosophers whilst doing philosophical THEOLOGY, I know that not all atheists are so superficial in their understanding.
And anyone who BEGINS a conversation with cliches like "Game, set and match" cannot be taken seriously. You cannot be much of an investigative journalist if you apply your behaviour here to that realm!?
Besides, "theology" is a bogus area of true academic study. It's no different to "Harry Potter Studies", or being a Trekkie.
I, myself, could proclaim to be an behavioural expert on the mating rituals of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or the psychology of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I'd worry more though about all those PhD students who claim to be Jedi Knights.
John Haldane Eleanor Stump Merald Westphal James Moreland William Lane Craig Thomas Flint C. Stephen Evans Robert Audi Linda Zagzebski William Wainwright Del Ratzsch Peter van Inwagen Dallas Willard Francis Beckwith And that's just a few that come to mind. All of these are Philosophy PhDs btw [since you fallaciously want to rule theology out as an academic discipline contrary to ALL the great universities in the world!!!].
"You might say that some of his [Dawkin's] forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside), many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class."
Philosopher Alvin Plantinga
"...when Dawkins talks about theology, he is, on his own admission, talking about a subject that does not exist."
In all honesty, failing a philosophy class does in no way indicate that you are unable to offer deep and worthwhile thoughts; a depressingly large portion of the field of philosophy is nothing more than a waste of time and paper.
So, you'll concede his point then? Theology is, in fact, nothing more than spending a lot of time talking about any imaginary friend of your choice?
Well, yes, I do have given the field of philosophy a close scrutiny, and while I found for example Plato interesting, all in all it was a lot of words and little workshop, to freely translate an old proverb.
You think and you think, hardly relevant in this case. Sure, there are grains of gold, but also a whole lot of sand to sift through.
Hardly grandiose, you're just feeling offended at my not agreeing with you and so get all strung up over the least little detail. I've read more books than I honestly wish, in hindsight, that I had wasted my time on in the field of philosophy, enough to feel rather disillusionised with the whole thing.
I obviously did get the point. The point is plain as day, and fallacious in and of itself. One does not need to delve into the entirety of philosophy to be able to make a judgment about it.
"So, you'll concede his point then? Theology is, in fact, nothing more than spending a lot of time talking about any imaginary friend of your choice?"
Absolutely not! This is a self-defeating claim. In order to refute theology you must DO some theology. Your "imaginary friend" is a terribly simplistic piece of rhetoric devised by comediens - not academics. I can't take someone so ignorant seriously. Just go and watch Maher videos because that's the level you're at.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
To "Munkatten"
Jesus does love you. Man does not go to Hell due to a lack of evidence but due to his wickedness (sin) and sense of pride.
All you have to do is believe in Jesus and ask him to forgive your sins. Be humble and ask him into your life. Your faith will be counted for righteousness. It could not be easier. Even in the face of proof, would you believe?
Besides, why should Almighty God report to you, a mere man? Satan had similar thoughts.
What do you believe? As evolution has not been proven the logical alternative is God. Even a holographic universe would require a source of projection beyond the physical realm.
Due to the absence of an alternative absolute and proven truth, you too are a sheep, only a blind one without a shepherd. Would it not be wiser to put your faith in something for which there is a wealth of evidence and which promotes good will to others until disproven?
I am a big fan of Richard Dawkins
spareld 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation Despotism 2nd Dark Age until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
I for the life of me can't figure out why introduction lecturers think they're wanted to be heard for so long.
TheMasterfulcreator 4 months ago
wow long intro...it almost never come to an end...
quuanttum 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
is amused by all the dislikes :p
kafata1 8 months ago in playlist Richard Dawkins Debates/Lectures
This has been flagged as spam show
God does exist !!!
1. Living God-bread of life like Jesus promised in Bible
Eucharistic miracles of Naju !
2. Manopello veil of Veronica and Jesus face,
3.Fatima 1917, Zeitoun 1968-70, etc
4.Eucharistic Miracle Lanciano, Italy 8th Century A.D.
5. Uncorrupted bodies of catholic’s saints
6.Calanda, Spain in 1640, a young farmer’s leg was restored to him after having been amputated two and a half years earlier
7. Hiroshima 1945, untouched house,even grass outside, where rosary was prayed!
JezusSlave 1 year ago
google Doe's Account.
seekfears 1 year ago
damn.
I live there and missed this...
being a passionate atheists is as unreasonable as being a passionate religious person, but it's the only way you can bring either side off their high horse and try and meet in the agnostic stance.
personally I'm an atheist.
I went from christian, to agnostic (nothing can be proven to everyone, clearly) to atheist (why assume something exists that cannot be shown to exist, like the undetectable dragon in my garage)
gavsmith1980 1 year ago 5
Skip to part 2 in order to get to the meat & potatoes, as it were, of this discussion.
TheBlackLagooner 2 years ago 23
This has been flagged as spam show
Wouldn't it be funny if Richard Dawkins died and then went into the after life......and Buddha, Mohammad, and Zeus are standing there (looking VERY pissed off) and tell him "Yeah...We got yo ass NOW bitch....Whats this bullshit about being a Delusion?.....We are gonna get Medieval on yo Ass ..."
KariPhilias 2 years ago
@KariPhilias No. Now go die.
TheTeutonicOrder 2 years ago
@TheBlackLagooner Thank you.
conormmmm 1 year ago
Comment removed
entehrend 1 year ago
@TheBlackLagooner Amen. I hate it when Hitch says, "Thank you for that suspiciously terse introduction." These intros take up all the time.
sulljoh1 1 year ago
@sulljoh1 hahah I will it though soooooo goood Hitch :D
joinjoyjoy 1 year ago
That guy at the start really needs to stop talking. Nobody cares, just get RD on the stage!!
visitplanetmike 2 years ago
What a brilliant event. I recommend watching all parts - 1 to 12.
nickclarkuk 2 years ago 14
This has been flagged as spam show
Question: Why is the kettle boiling?
Atheist answer: Because the water's been heated to 100 degrees centigrade resulting in a change in state from liquid to gas.
Christian answer: Because I want to have some tea.
For more about how Atheists and Christians interpret evidence very differently, check out my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago 2
that's sort of wittish, I suppose...
for me, the atheïst answer would be 'because I want to have some tea' - while having the knowledge of how water boils, but not being busy to much with it at the moment, because I just want tea - and the christian answer would be something like 'because God made me do it'.
I know that's not fair at all, but neither is your remark.
ErSchTsp 2 years ago
When I see all these religious nuts citing the bible etc, I'm glad I live in a country where I need to look very hard to find someone who actually belives in God.
pantag 2 years ago 5
You are very lucky.
May Odin smile down upon you ;-)
FLUSEM666 2 years ago
must be nice
logfio 2 years ago
where do you live? i might just move there.
lucasiskewl 2 years ago
sure,rub it in our faces..haha
TLSlayer 2 years ago
i hear ya,believing by the book and not by the brain,very fraudulent.
TLSlayer 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
God is invisible, but he does exist, but dont take my word for it, find out yourself by reading the KJV bible
TheFoolforChrist 2 years ago
Are you taking the piss?
GeorgesBarras 2 years ago
lol.....
Rcee01 2 years ago
Invisiable but kills kids.
Dale Neumann, 47, was convicted in the March 23, 2008, death of his daughter, Madeline, from undiagnosed diabetes. Prosecutors contended he should have rushed the girl to a hospital because she couldn't walk, talk, eat or drink. Instead, Madeline died on the floor of the family's rural Weston home as people surrounded her and prayed. Someone called 911 when she stopped breathing.
FLUSEM666 2 years ago 3
That is very sad :-( should society prosecute the family for manslaughter? they denied her the medical help that could have saved her life...
seacoastofbohemia 2 years ago
I'm sorry, yes they were prosecuted ...
seacoastofbohemia 2 years ago
religion should be held responsible but i think we know why it isnt.
TLSlayer 2 years ago 2
Really? Why? I'd love to understand.
DasKrabbe 2 years ago
wel,religion isnt outlawed because of its obvious dangers now is it?yet companies have to put warnings on toys for children that contain small pieces or theyll be sued.wtf...
understand yet??
TLSlayer 2 years ago
Lord of the rings is invisible, but exists. but don't take my word for it, find out yourself by reading JRR tolkien's lord of the rings
shunt19 2 years ago 3
AHhahahh :D I laughed
darkmanddk 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I do not believe in religion. Your right about about that, religion is man made and false hope, but Jesus Christ and His word is real and i believe in Him 100%
TheFoolforChrist 2 years ago
Then it's true. You are indeed a fool.
FLUSEM666 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Freedom of speech does not require dgrees. John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Genisis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Psalms 14:1 The FOOL saith in his heart; There is no GOD..... Proverbs 14:9 FOOLS make a mock at sin: but among the righteous there is favour.
TheFoolforChrist 2 years ago
Psalms 14:1 makes me think of the story "The Emperor's New Cloths." Everyone is Fooled into saying that they can see the Emperor's cloths because they are told that only a "FOOL" can't see this special fabric. In reality the cloths don't exist and he is in fact naked. Psalms 14:1, to me, is attempting to do the same thing, exept in this case GOD is the invisible, non-existent fabric.
sickJLSrecords 2 years ago
you quote religion, and mistake it for creation, unknowable, religion = human arogance, we know nothing, the bible, koran ,or any other religious text,gives us nothing but false hope. Poor sad beings relying on man made shadows, it is a human conception to compensate for the fear of death,no more no less. Do not be so arrogant as to believe you know the origin of what is.
mikatile 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The God Debate" is on my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
Wow,his life goes on for abit,wat a hero mr dawkins is
cashellaella 2 years ago 3
Folks - listen to:
Evidence for God from Physics & Astronomy_Lee Strobel
on Youtube
markpianoman 2 years ago
Lee strobel is a lawyer, with no scientific education whatsoever. As such his arguements on physics and astronomy have no merit at all.
biomanwin 2 years ago 4
biomanwin, that is a ridiculous statement with strong implications that no one but a scientist can be the presenter of scientific information.
Of course, it is highly unlikely that Strobel himself did any of the calculations he speaks about? He is presenting information found through research or provided to him by scientists. Does that make anything invalid which he presents?
markpianoman 2 years ago
I happen to have seen this video. And there are many things invalid with what he presents as he starts with a pressuposition and cherry picks evidence to suit it. Also he insists on making rediculous probability calculations which would require knowledge current science doesn't have and insists on using a giant ruler as an analogy for something which has infinite possibilities. You can't put an infinite quantitiy into a finite distance thats just common sense.
biomanwin 2 years ago
And what is the "presupposition" Strobel starts with?
There is nothing wrong with "cherry picking" when you only have one hour to present something.
So what exactly is inaccurate about what Strobel says?
His probability statements are to support the very evident evidence for God and design.
markpianoman 2 years ago
Well his pressuposition is that there is a God and that he designed something. The very existence of a presupposition which can be neither tested nor verified takes all scientific credibility out of this video.
I agree that there is nothing wrong with condensing the length of your video, there is something dishonest however in pretending that the evidence you present is the only evidence or the best evidence.
biomanwin 2 years ago 2
The presupposition that man evolved from some kind of primordial slime can neither be tested nor verified but yet is presented as "scientific" fact.
Whether Strobel starts with a presupposition of God's existence or not is immaterial to the probability statements he makes in his presentation. The probability statements just happen to strongly support the far-fetched idea of God and design/creation.
markpianoman 2 years ago
Also one inaccuracy is to say that if you "slightly alter" the gravitational constant there is absolutely no possibility of life.
That is to incorrectly assume two things. The first being that there is more than one way for the fundemental forces to have existed, which at the moment we have no way of knowing. And the second being the assumption that there is only one possible way for life to exist, which we are also unable to verify at this time. Basically these are pointless speculation.
biomanwin 2 years ago
biomanwin,
You said, "One inaccuracy is to say that if you "slightly alter" the gravitational constant there is absolutely no possibility of life." Are you sure about that?
I'm sure since Strobel is just a lawyer, he got his information from scientists!
markpianoman 2 years ago
I'm sure no scientist has published that since we have no way of confirming it, that would just be bad science.
biomanwin 2 years ago
You are correct in saying that people other than scientists can present scientific information; however, Lee Strobel is unbelievably biased....and for someone who claims to have been a skeptic all of his life, his books only show the creationist/christian points of view and does not present the opposite view. There is no objectivity. Most of the ppl that Strobel interviews are either A) Unbelievable biased (Jonathan Wells for example) B) Don't have degrees on the subject that they discuss.
tylercjbradshaw 2 years ago
Folks - listen to:
Evidence for God from Physics & Astronomy_Lee Strobel
on Youtube
markpianoman 2 years ago
that creationist video is total garbage
TheLostRealist1985 2 years ago
Did you actually listen to Lee Strobel lecture? I doubt it. You are probably not really interested in truth, but interested in finding excuses to reject the truth that Strobel speaks of.
markpianoman 2 years ago
I watched the first two segments of it. ALL it is is special pleading. He says that these fundamental constants must have been "fine Tuned" to their perfect values in order for life to be able to exist. First of all, There is NO reason to believe that these values were "fine tuned". It is very likely that the constants are what they are because they could not have been any other way. This is not evidence for God, it is a Creationist's crude attempt to justify his non-sensical belief! GARBAGE!!!
TheLostRealist1985 2 years ago
He speaks of no truth at all. He speaks of baseless assumptions and logical fallacy. I don't "find excuses to reject the truth" quite the contrary my friend. But I do reject things that defy logic and reasoning. I do discard these warrant-less claims which Strobel tries to justify with no real evidence of any kind.
TheLostRealist1985 2 years ago
TheLost...you must not have listened very well.
What he says has NOTHING to do with astrology....just more lies to hide the truth....because you don't seek truth....you seek excuses to reject the truth.
markpianoman 2 years ago
Furthermore TheLostRealist1985, you don't want the truth because you don't want to contemplate the fact that you will give account to the creator of the universe in a coming day! To think about that fact might cramp your style and hamper your "freedom."
markpianoman 2 years ago
Not at all my friend, it is just that I have heard this type of ranting before. It's just likt in the movie Expelled. Nothing but one special pleading after another.
Look, I am in search of the truth. And if that truth has a Creator so be it!
But right now there is no good reason what so ever to believe that such a being does or ever did exist!
TheLostRealist1985 2 years ago
I loved the movie Expelled....it illustrates the point that you dare not suggest a creator as a POSSIBILITY within a "scientific" academic environment for the existence of the universe....or you WILL be ostracized.
When it fact, it is the ONLY logical conclusion possible that an all-powerful God who always existed put it there.
markpianoman 2 years ago
I figured you would love that movie AND I figured that you would have absolutely no idea what a logical conclusion. "My imaginary friend with magical powers is the ONLY logical conclusion" LMAO!!!
TheLostRealist1985 2 years ago
That movie is a joke and so is your logic.
TheLostRealist1985 2 years ago
The Astrology thing I put in there was just to emphasize the total pseudoscientific nature of Mr. Strobel. It was a cheap shot I must admit, however his arguments are a joke. Were you really able to watch that video with a straight face? Be honest.
TheLostRealist1985 2 years ago
God from Physics & Astronomy
It should be "God from pseudoscience and AstroLOGY
TheLostRealist1985 2 years ago
That just didn't make sense and no primates are not the second most intelligent animal in the world. You've gone from saying that logic changes if we change our brains which is simply stupid. Then you say there are no other soceties than our own thus proving what? seriously i wonder if it is you that doesn't understand my posts or if your brain is simply damaged.
kyagh 2 years ago
Atheism cannot deny to God because cannot deny to the intelligence. If the random movement of cerebral subatomic particles determines our thoughts, really we can decide and be conscious beings?. Atheism is a kind of faith because is based on an assumption not verifiable. Richard says: God no exists, but he is based on idea not verifiable. Due to this, he is lying. My evidence is the people, the persons do science. The subatomic particles moves by Design and these let us be objectives.
Leivinn20 2 years ago
is English not your first language?
Peanutbutterbucket 2 years ago
You are Wright. I understand some phrases of a conversation, but I understand the written English very well.
Leivinn20 2 years ago
Do you can resolve the dilemma?, do you can respond me?...
Leivinn20 2 years ago
Idiot! Ha ha ha ha
FLUSEM666 2 years ago
I not offend idiots, that is idiot.
Leivinn20 2 years ago
Leivinn20, Me and other atheists have answered your question at least a hundred times. No atheist will ever tell you i can disprove god. If i told you there's a chinese teapot orbiting around mars too small to be seen by any telescope and ask you can you disprove it, your answer would be no. Meaning there probably is a chinese teapot orbiting around mars?
Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof! If you claim the sky is made of chocolate it is up to you to prove it not us to disprove it.
kyagh 2 years ago
What or who determines your answer?, - the movement of particles, the nature, or you decide it?, Is your process of reasoning autonomous?, yes or not?, to be or not to be?. If you deny the self-control of your mind (human spirit), and say: it is only an effect of the movement of particles, I cannot present proof to you. Second question: how was the beginning of natural laws?, or in the beginning, how ware the natural laws?. The atheism is a kind of faith.
Leivinn20 2 years ago
Half of your questions are pretty silly. If i say 1+1=2 does that make any difference wether i think it with a human brain, a computer, or some sentient being that is outside the universe? I'm sorry pal but logic is logic no matter why or how we think it. We think therefore we exist and our thoughts are universal. Any brain even if it isn't made of particles will think about them in the same exact way. And no. Atheism is the standard position until proven otherwise. You a-teapotist!!! XD
kyagh 2 years ago
Your example is wrong, the PC can resolve mathematical operation, but the PC cannot developer civilizations, it`s not self-conscious being. I`m sorry, the first step of scientific method always will be the observation, and this step depend on ours self-conscious process, our process of reasoning determines the movement of cerebral particles. This is the real position standard. You must present a PC o mutated animals capable developer civilizations; not primates in the rain forest.
Leivinn20 2 years ago
correct phrase is: ... mutated animals capable develop civilizations..
Leivinn20 2 years ago
Well look up the brain on wikipedia at this point, for everything you stated on our brain is simply wrong.
Oh right btw I'll let you in on a simple thing about science. It studies reality, meaning if you want to argue that we must scientifically admit there is something above reality then we need to see proof. The standard position on anything is disbelief till proven otherwise. Atheists have no faith by definition.
kyagh 2 years ago
oh and who do you think is the second smartest animal in the world? I'll give you a couple of interesting numbers if you answer wrong ;)
kyagh 2 years ago
The atomics model is a result from our study of the nature (self-conscious observation process), It`s impossible resolve the dilemma, you are trying to resolve the dilemma using circular `logic`. This our creationist premise: the scientific process begins our consciousness. Wikipedia is encyclopedia; other is Encarta We are ethics, these are falsifiable experiments: You must present a computer or animal capable develop civilizations; not primates in the rain forest.
Leivinn20 2 years ago
The primates lived in the rainforest thousands of years ago as in the present, not more, not less, always as in the present. It`s verifiable. If the primates develop a civilization, this no resolve the dilemma, both experiment are proof our ethics. Gog bless you, bay
Leivinn20 2 years ago
Oh and may the flying spaghetti monster save you from the boiling pot
kyagh 2 years ago
Our consciousness made the science, and after the science explained our consciousness???, do you can see the dilemma?, the creationist believe this: our consciousness is autonomous (The information theory) . God bless you, bye. No more debate.
Leivinn20 2 years ago
No i do can see not for i can't understand what you're saying. You mean our conciuness made the law of gravity? can you not see how ridiculous that is?
Oh and no more debate... what? afraid that your brain actually connects right for once and sees the big contraddiction you call faith?
May his noodly appendage reach you.
kyagh 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
markpianoman 2 years ago
but what about those who truely seek "His eternal power and divine nature" and do not find him? Has God just given up on them?
sulljoh1 2 years ago
without excuse for what? lack of belief in jesus? lack of worship? if we are here for his entertainment why cant we just live our lives. why do we have to dance also. The suffering we bare is not enough? Howabout he is an enity but not the creator of all, just a deity. A thing that gave us the intelligent design. But not god, and not even close. Divine to us, Full of flaws to its god.
kendjo 2 years ago
Since it doesn't seem to be obvious to some of you, here is my own paraphrase of Romans 1:20 just to make the meaning more obvious:
God's eternal power and deity have been so clearly seen in His creation of the universe that men will stand before Him without any excuse for having rejected Him.
markpianoman 2 years ago
all that other crap you put with the paraphrase is just gonna get you thumbs down. Idk why you replied to me, your statement has nothing to do with mine. Romans 1:20 meaning is the "intelligent design" argument for creationism.
kendjo 2 years ago
The relationship between men and trees is one between men and lumber. The trees that enjoy the orderliness of the orchard will evolve traits that are attractive to lumberjacks & saw mills: minimal branching; thinner barks; fewer knots, etc.
KenyanObama 2 years ago
cos God's mum was too fat.... hahahaha
pubuman 2 years ago
Belief in an all-knowing, all-powerful supreme cosmic dictator who created the universe is not only very childish and illogical, it's simply ridiculous and highly embarrassing for any serious adult to admit.
The clear cognitive dissonance displayed by followers of organised religion is currently the world's most pressing mental health challenge.
For those ready to seek help, the book The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins may be a good place to start.
HumanistWikitopian 2 years ago 2
Shame on you for believing that contrary to the evidence! How on earth does your brain deal with all the PhDs out there who are theists? Maybe you're just blissfully unaware they exist.
And 'The God Delusion' is not a serious book on theology. It has been refutted a number of times. The errors in it make him look worse than a first year undergraduate in the subject. There's nothing in that book to worry a theist in the slightest.
dooyeweerd 2 years ago
lmao, wut
cflf1337 2 years ago
1) What evidence?
2) Which PhD's?
3) Refuted by whom?
4) Which errors?
5) Why do you seem so worried yourself and feel the need to make ridiculous vacuous baseless claims?
Game, Set & Match.
HumanistWikitopian 2 years ago
dooyeweerd 2 years ago
1) Unfortunately, a dubious list of unscientifically educated nobodies, wannabes, mavericks and charlatans holds no water whatsoever in criticism of the global scientific consensus and best-selling
novels by world renowned distinguished scientists.
Philosophy is not a scientific discipline, it is mere conjecture and a hobby for those with the luxury of time. Epistemological arguments do not change the objective nature of physical reality.
(Cont..)
HumanistWikitopian 2 years ago
1. You state that's a "dubious" list yet you give NO REASON as to why it is! It remains a list of top flight PhDs in Philosophy [which happens to be a subject universally regarded as one of the most academic]. You're comments about them are AD HOMINEM attacks which everybody with an education knows is = to no response at all.
Science depends on philosophy to do it's work. Most scientists are realists philosophically speaking for a start.
dooyeweerd 2 years ago
2) The well established scientific fact is that everything in our universe points towards there being no need for a God and nothing in this universe suggests any valid evidence for any such being ever having existed or being capable of even existing in the first place.
Theology is also only academic in the way that study of any other kind of literature is. One may wish to equally debate whether Narnia exists, or whether that is also a delusion.
HumanistWikitopian 2 years ago
The God Delusion has been completely annihilated in academic philosophy reviews. The ATHEIST philosopher, Michael Ruse wrote of it:
"It makes me embarrassed to be an atheist."
Alvin Plantinga destroys it in an online review. Alister McGrath has done so in print. So has the philosopher Keith Ward in his book 'Why there almost certainly IS a God'. He reveals the utter neivity of Dawkins when trying to write philosophical theology. Also Anthony Flew has shown the book to have lied about him.
dooyeweerd 2 years ago
A sound rebuttal by Richard Dawkins of these ridiculous criticisms of The God Delusion can also be found here:
/watch?v=NBaAJcv7Vxg
HumanistWikitopian 2 years ago
I'm sorry to tell you that he does not even properly reply to the briefest of reviews there, let alone, the books which have been written in response. Neither is he likely to since it is widely accepted that as a philosopher/theologian [and make no mistake that's what he's pretending to be here!] he fails badly.
dooyeweerd 2 years ago
2) "The well established scientific fact is that everything in our universe points towards there being no need for a God and nothing in this universe suggests any valid evidence for any such being ever having existed or being capable of even existing in the first place."
That may well be YOUR OPINION but science itself does not suggest that. Science deals with what we can physically encounter so if you're asking for empirical evidence of a non-physical being that's a category error!!
dooyeweerd 2 years ago
1) I'm sorry, but if you seriously believe that there is any plausible scientific evidence to support the existence of an invisible, imaginary, supernatural, all-knowing, all-powerful supreme cosmic dictator who created the universe and all life within it, then there is clearly something wrong with your education. All known science actually suggests the opposite and the reasons why are clearly explained in the following series:
/watch?v=f7wKVXX1U2o
/watch?v=bVTbKSHweLg
/watch?v=WSTAeaS5fh8
HumanistWikitopian 2 years ago
1] There is NOTHING in science whatsoever which suggests that God does not exist. I have already pointed out that looking for direct physical evidence of a non-material being is a category error. Please don't make me repeat myself. You of all people ought to know where to look for evidence! A true scientist would not talk of closure on the question of a God especially where science currently is after Popper and Heisenberg et. al.
dooyeweerd 2 years ago
1) Unfortunately, this is where you have exposed yourself.
How can you have read The God Delusion and catastrophically failed to understand that the subject that Dawkins is referring to throughout is the concept of a theistic/biblical god rather than a deistic/pantheistic god? He states this very clearly in the book.
(Cont...)
HumanistWikitopian 2 years ago
1] I know which 'God' Dawkins is referring to. He's picking on the monotheistic God but even then he fails to adhere to orthodox formulations of the concept. He creates strawmen. This is what he does. He cannot be bothered to understand classical theism and this shows up all over his work [hence his category error with the Flying Spaghetti Monster analogy which you also give an ammended form of and therefore follow him blindly in his erroneous understanding].
dooyeweerd 2 years ago
2) There is an overwhelming amount of science that makes nonsense of theological claims such as the universe being created in 7 days, the Earth being only 6000 years old, the story of Adam & Eve, the story of Noah's Ark, and other archaic mythological claptrap. The four documentaries that I linked earlier on the geological history of this planet are only a mere sample of that.
(Cont...)
HumanistWikitopian 2 years ago
2] Here we go. You can only play with North American fundamentalism can't you?! The orthodox interpretation for millennia has been that the Bible is not talking about literal 'days' since the Hebrew word [and the context] clearly indicates otherwise. You don't get literalism until Bishop Usher! Orthodox Christianity is perfectly accepting of the age of the universe and the earth. There is NO BIBLICAL age of the earth. No date is given.
dooyeweerd 2 years ago
"There is NO BIBLICAL age of the earth. No date is given."
well then Dawkins isn't addressing YOUR perception of the book is he? No He's addressing that of people who take the position regardless what you think the bible says. Surely that's not too hard for one of your astute capabilities to ken.
ExtantFrodo 2 years ago
But, as you well know, The God Delusion is not aimed merely at Young-Earth Creationists. Yes, fundies get the majority of his time and effort [which in itself is an academic travesty] but he does not stop with them if you read the book.
dooyeweerd 2 years ago
But he has made it clear again and again that he will not debate young earth creationists so he has then contradicted himself.
dooyeweerd 2 years ago
Well, at least I have formal qualifications in the subject. Dawkins, academically speaking, is a layman. He has infact noted this himself. Shame it does not appear to influence his hubris!
Given the way you phrase your question it is clear that you do not want your mind changed. Your not open to the evidence so it does not matter what is placed before you you will reject it out of hand. That is not a debate. It's just the pretence of one. Try Richard Swkinburne's 'The Existence of God' book.
dooyeweerd 2 years ago
OR:
'Why there almost certainly IS a God' by Keith Ward
'The Language of God' by Francis Collins
'Does God Exist?' ed. Stan Wallace
'God, reason and theistic proofs' by Stephen Davis
'The Meditations' by Descartes
'God, freedom and evil' by Alvin Plantinga
Previous post should have read - Richard Swinburne
dooyeweerd 2 years ago
Have you ever done that yourself?
kyagh 2 years ago
Done what myself? Read those books? Of course. How else could I recommend a book I have to already read?
dooyeweerd 2 years ago
But I STILL want the answer to two questions:
I've read the Bible, I'm fairly familiar with the god of the Koran. Basically I've found these monotheistic gods to be maniac assholes. Why should I believe in them even if they exist? Sure, accept their existence, but I accept the existence of Hitler and still don't believe in him.
And why Jehova? You are an atheist in relation to every single god except one, and it's been selected for you by pure chance. Why any god in particular?
Scurmicurv 2 years ago
"selected by pure chance."
Well, I don't think it's fair to judge how someone came to the view they did till you ask them. Luckily you then do.
I don't think the truth about God lies just in one religion. I think the truth of the matter is closer to the Hindu idea that they all have elements that are true to this being we call God but in many other ways religions are just cultural expressions of that belief. I think all theistic religions are ways to God.
dooyeweerd 2 years ago
But that just skirts around the edges of my objection. The scientific evidence and the facts that forms the basis of my outlook on the world doesn't change with time and culture, at most our knowledge of them does.
As for religion, it does not matter if you found god at two or seventy, it's still pure coincidence what religions happened to be available to you.
There's no practical need for a god, so why waste time trying to find one?
Scurmicurv 2 years ago
Well, not coincidence no. Because you're still assuming there's no God it seems, to you, as if it's just coincidence. But it may be providence IF there really is a God. God always permits freedom and in the West we are obsessed with interpreting this individually but more broadly than that too. God permits different cultures and ways of thinking. All diverse and cultural. Even a religion today will not be what it was 200 years ago. They all 'evolve'. God uses this.
dooyeweerd 2 years ago
He uses it? The bloody bastard uses it? Religion lies at the core of so much suffering and death and he actively uses it. Well, at least that goes well with how he's described in the bible.
There's no consistency in his creed, one second we can only find salvation through Jesus, the next it doesn't matter what culture we're brought up in. He simply doesn't appear worthy of my trust.
Scurmicurv 2 years ago
"There's no consistency in his creed..."
Who is "his"?
dooyeweerd 2 years ago
Why, god's of course. Who else?
Scurmicurv 2 years ago
And, I think that claming people only believe what their culture does in terms of religion is bad psychology. Maybe for some but many not. So many people today have access to other cultures and ways of thinking [unless you live in North Korea!]. I grew up in an atheist country with an atheist family and atheist teachers. But I rejected the worldview I was raised in. I rejected it for logical reasons.
dooyeweerd 2 years ago
Many people have claimed that, yet despite asking for it countless times I've never seen such logical reasons.
Scurmicurv 2 years ago
And if you're implying that science does not change then you really need to read a book on the history of science to see how it is always changing by definition.
dooyeweerd 2 years ago
Why do you read the inside of your own head instead of what I write? I said that the scientific evidence and facts do not change, because it does not matter if it' s an Indian two thousand years ago or me discovering it - the fact remains the same.
My safety line, so to speak, is that when new evidence comes to light, I have the option of changing my views and opinions. But it still does not matter who or when it was discovered.
Scurmicurv 2 years ago
"The scientific evidence and the facts that forms the basis of my outlook on the world doesn't change with time and culture, at most our knowledge of them does."
That's just plain naive. All good scientists recognise and promote the idea that science makes moves on. Theories evolve, change and sometimes get consigned to history. Talk of 'facts' is absurd after you have read anything on the history of science. There are no such things.
dooyeweerd 2 years ago
Sure, but why do you insist on answering what you think I'm saying instead of what's in plain writing before you? You just repeated exactly what I said, with the difference that you cut my statement in half and made a half assed attempt at retorting from that. Childish and dishonest.
Scurmicurv 2 years ago
3) Nonetheless, even if you do choose to believe in a deistic/pantheistic god there is no scientifically rational or reasonable reason to do so. It is just as valid and meaningless as believing that a time-travelling leprechaun riding a pink unicorn created the universe.
HumanistWikitopian 2 years ago
3] Comparing a non-material creator to a leprechaun is a category error for a start. You need to read some philosophical theology to understand the error of your ways. You cannot even justify 'rational' thinking without a rational cause of the universe. At best 'rationality' is just some survival heuristic devise if the unverse is random. So for you to talk about 'scientific rationality' is absurd. Rationality cannot be justified by empirical science only philosophy can do that.
dooyeweerd 2 years ago
Let's take an example shall we?
On page 101 Dawkins thinks he has 'answered' the first three of Aquinas's Five Proofs. His arguments?
a] There's no reason to apply the properties ascribed to God to the First Cause.
No big revelation there. Cosmological arguments are not trying to establish that in the first place! So he's criticising the argument for not establishing something it's not trying to establish in the first place. Sad.
dooyeweerd 2 years ago
"Comparing a non-material creator to a leprechaun is a category error"
oh? Does it really make that much of a difference how many powers or capabilities you bestow upon your fiction?
ExtantFrodo 2 years ago
Yes it does when you use something as analogous it should be analogous. The FSM is a silly sheap shot at the concept of God. The physicality of the FSM alone rules itself out as anything other than a joke. This was in fact its original intention - it's just that some non-philosophical atheists have decided to take it seriously [whoops].
dooyeweerd 2 years ago
it does?
I'm quite amused. THANK YOU.
ExtantFrodo 2 years ago
Glad you backed down. No, thank YOU.
dooyeweerd 2 years ago
"Glad you backed down."
I do that when people shoot themselves in the head.
ExtantFrodo 2 years ago
"Does it really make that much of a difference..."
Not if you are happy to be completely unphilosophical about your argument - no!!
dooyeweerd 2 years ago
the philosophical difference between the extent of the powers of Batman vrs Superman? Not much. Sorry, I just don't buy it.
ExtantFrodo 2 years ago
2) /watch?v=HRVV2qFeKjY
Given that you, yourself, have also failed to name a single "error" in The God Delusion it is becoming increasingly obvious that you have never actually read the book.
HumanistWikitopian 2 years ago
2] There are TOO MANY to name!! Haha. He lies about Swinburnes academic credentials calling him a 'theologian' when he is a philosopher. He says that materialism = the scientific method which is fallacious. Materialism is a minority philosophical stance. He also describes Aquinas' 'Five Proofs' wrongly. He misinterprets the Ontological argument. He makes the infinite regress fallacy as his 'best' argument against God! etc. etc. etc. I'm worried whether you've read it!
dooyeweerd 2 years ago
2) "Theology is also only academic in the way that study of any other kind of literature is. One may wish to equally debate whether Narnia exists, or whether that is also a delusion."
Again your opinion. Perhaps you should point that contradiction out to Dawkins since he's now more interested in writing books on theology than books on science!!
dooyeweerd 2 years ago
1) That's a strange thing to say, because Dawkins is currently writing a book on the evidence for the fact of evolution entitled "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution" scheduled for release in September 2009. No doubt that it will also automatically become a best-seller.
You may also be unaware that in 2006 he founded the non-profit "Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (RDFRS)" for which he is an active trustee.
(Cont...)
HumanistWikitopian 2 years ago
Channel 4 - say no more!
THANK GOODNESS he's going to talk about evolution! I welcome that. I subject he at least has some qualifications in. I readily will listen to an expert in their field. I will not, however, take seriously a man who enters an academic field with such emotional baggage and lack of research. All philosophers agree that is where Dawkins is at. Even his philosophy groupies.
dooyeweerd 2 years ago
2) Also, continuing a long-standing partnership with Channel 4 in the UK, in 2010 Dawkins is set to present part of the upcoming five-part television series The Genius of Britain.
HumanistWikitopian 2 years ago
b] That 'logicians' have problems over the compatibility of omniscience and omnipotence.
Firstly, this is just leading on from the error of the first criticism. It is not a reply to ANY kind of Cosmological argument! Haha. Very basic philosophy but I'll forgive him since he himself admits "I'm a scientist not a philosopher" - aw bless. Also 'logicians' who had a problem with these atributes have been silenced by Swinburne of late but, not being a philosopher, he is blissfully unaware!!
dooyeweerd 2 years ago
Given that you appear to be insistently determined in demonstrating how you are so much more wiser and more educated than Prof. Dawkins in the subjects of philosophy and theology, can you please then explain what exactly is your rationale and logic in believing that an invisible, supernatural, all-knowing, all-powerful supreme cosmic dictator created the universe and all life within it?
Personally, I find the idea absurd. Perhaps you can change my mind?
HumanistWikitopian 2 years ago
That is becuase you are an idiot!
zorba81674 2 years ago
You are not doing a very good job of your argument here...
And you know, if you're ironic, the internet is a dangerous place for that kind of humour!
Scurmicurv 2 years ago
You are not even worth responding to in any depth! Go away!
zorba81674 2 years ago
And I love how you think giving a 'thumbs-down' to lists of distinguished philosophy professors and then calling them names discredits them. Shows how petty and desperate atheists get when facing the realisation that it's not just north-american fundies who believe in God. Really, it's so pathetic. It's akin to claiming that Stalin was an atheists therefore all atheists are mass-murderers!!
dooyeweerd 2 years ago
And just to set the record straight on your pseudo-psychology I am certainly not worried about Dawkins. I, in fact welcome his book. I wish everyone on the planet would read it because it reveals just how superficial the new atheism really is. Fortunately, and precisely because I have studied good atheist philosophers whilst doing philosophical THEOLOGY, I know that not all atheists are so superficial in their understanding.
dooyeweerd 2 years ago
And anyone who BEGINS a conversation with cliches like "Game, set and match" cannot be taken seriously. You cannot be much of an investigative journalist if you apply your behaviour here to that realm!?
dooyeweerd 2 years ago
Besides, "theology" is a bogus area of true academic study. It's no different to "Harry Potter Studies", or being a Trekkie.
I, myself, could proclaim to be an behavioural expert on the mating rituals of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or the psychology of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I'd worry more though about all those PhD students who claim to be Jedi Knights.
HumanistWikitopian 2 years ago
dooyeweerd 2 years ago
Just to give you a brief taster...
"You might say that some of his [Dawkin's] forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside), many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class."
Philosopher Alvin Plantinga
"...when Dawkins talks about theology, he is, on his own admission, talking about a subject that does not exist."
Philosopher Keith Ward
dooyeweerd 2 years ago
In all honesty, failing a philosophy class does in no way indicate that you are unable to offer deep and worthwhile thoughts; a depressingly large portion of the field of philosophy is nothing more than a waste of time and paper.
So, you'll concede his point then? Theology is, in fact, nothing more than spending a lot of time talking about any imaginary friend of your choice?
Scurmicurv 2 years ago
"In all honesty, failing a philosophy class does in no way indicate that you are unable to offer deep and worthwhile thoughts.."
Are you speaking from personal experience here because if you are I think you are empirical evidence to the contrary!
dooyeweerd 2 years ago
Well, yes, I do have given the field of philosophy a close scrutiny, and while I found for example Plato interesting, all in all it was a lot of words and little workshop, to freely translate an old proverb.
You think and you think, hardly relevant in this case. Sure, there are grains of gold, but also a whole lot of sand to sift through.
Scurmicurv 2 years ago
"...a depressingly large portion of the field of philosophy is nothing more than a waste of time and paper."
So you must have read a lot on the subject in order to make that grandiose claim then? You must be a doctor of philosophy?
dooyeweerd 2 years ago
Hardly grandiose, you're just feeling offended at my not agreeing with you and so get all strung up over the least little detail. I've read more books than I honestly wish, in hindsight, that I had wasted my time on in the field of philosophy, enough to feel rather disillusionised with the whole thing.
Scurmicurv 2 years ago
You don't have to jump into an ocean to see it's made of water.
LeLimeLine 2 years ago
Your analogy is fallacious. Sorry. Also trite and pointless and misses the point.
dooyeweerd 2 years ago
I obviously did get the point. The point is plain as day, and fallacious in and of itself. One does not need to delve into the entirety of philosophy to be able to make a judgment about it.
LeLimeLine 2 years ago
"So, you'll concede his point then? Theology is, in fact, nothing more than spending a lot of time talking about any imaginary friend of your choice?"
Absolutely not! This is a self-defeating claim. In order to refute theology you must DO some theology. Your "imaginary friend" is a terribly simplistic piece of rhetoric devised by comediens - not academics. I can't take someone so ignorant seriously. Just go and watch Maher videos because that's the level you're at.
dooyeweerd 2 years ago
Alaniusone has apparently watched too many christian pseudo-science videos on youtube.
NoPlanB616 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
To "Munkatten"
Jesus does love you. Man does not go to Hell due to a lack of evidence but due to his wickedness (sin) and sense of pride.
All you have to do is believe in Jesus and ask him to forgive your sins. Be humble and ask him into your life. Your faith will be counted for righteousness. It could not be easier. Even in the face of proof, would you believe?
Besides, why should Almighty God report to you, a mere man? Satan had similar thoughts.
Alaniusone 2 years ago
Comment removed
Alaniusone 2 years ago
To "ForThe LoveOfAnimals2"
What do you believe? As evolution has not been proven the logical alternative is God. Even a holographic universe would require a source of projection beyond the physical realm.
Due to the absence of an alternative absolute and proven truth, you too are a sheep, only a blind one without a shepherd. Would it not be wiser to put your faith in something for which there is a wealth of evidence and which promotes good will to others until disproven?
Alaniusone 2 years ago