Do you mean to say that you decided that you wanted to become religious, and you done research on all the major religions of our modern time, and you found Christianity most convincing, and that's why you follow the ways of Jesus?
I understand the point you are trying to make, and I intend to read both books you have suggested. But why do you choose Christianity over any other popular religion in our society? Because many religions have the same type of evidence that you do. That should say something about the evidence. I never meant to imply earlier that you had blind faith, but surely faith is the deciding factor of which religion to choose, you have faith in one and not others.
@Povvels I have actually studied other religions and they don't present the same kind of evidence. I have faith because of the evidence....and the evidence points towards jesus Christ.....He really is the difference....
But the resurrection happened over 2,000 years ago, it has been recorded in the bible, but even this source of information is second hand. The is not incontrovertible evidence. By that reasoning we can say that all religions have evidence, so why is it that we choose Christianity? We believe that christ was resurrected by god, and that convinces us of his existence. Isn't this faith rather than proof? Could you please offer some of these other evidences?
@Povvels Because something happened a long time ago does not mean it cannot be used as evidence. And most sources of information are second hand.. Again that does not preclude the evidence. There is plenty evidence for the Resurrection and for other parts of the Bible....too much to put down in a soundbite....have a look at Josh McDowell 'Evidence that demands a verdict' or my own 'The Dawkins Letters' for a list of ten that I consider substatnial....
Hello, I would like to ask a question about faith. I was always under the impression that to have faith was to believe without evidence. Doesn't the bible encourage us, by the word of our god, to believe in him and not ask for evidence of his existence? To open our hearts to him through faith, and not logic?
@Povvels I am sorry but your impression is wrong. Faith without evidence is stupid and unbiblical. God does not just tell us to believe - he provides us with the reasons for believing. For example he demonstrated that Christ was the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead....there are many other evidences.
Your argument has been deconstruced piece by piece I hope you enjoyed, if there is anything you didn't understand fell free to comment. Other wise, thank you for reading and, hopefully, thinking.
@AugustusTheEmperor Thanks....too much to reply to in this but will answer some of your questions in future fleabytes. However let me simply point out that to say 'faith is defined as belief without evidence' is simply wrong. It is only defined as such by atheists - certainly not by the Bible or any Christian theologian. I find it quite intriguing that atheists seem to enjoy arguing against themselves- rather than dealing with what their oppenents actually say!
@theweeflea Faith: "strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof" Oxforde English Dictionary, im afraid as far as english is concerned Faith means what I stated it to mean. But im interested, what is your defintion of faith, according to the bible or christian theological studies. Also, every point I made was a response to ones made in your video.
@AugustusTheEmperor Ah - the good old practice of cherry picking.....that of course is not the only definition - it is one that some people (notably atheists) have. If you are going to argue against Christian faith then you need to use not your own definition, but what we actually believe. The Christian position is that it is stupid to believe without evidence. Faith is not blind. It is in a person - Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
@theweeflea well what you call cherry picking is what I call selecting the most relevant definiton, and its not my definiton, its Oxfords. So if it is stupid to believe without evidence where is your empirical evidence. I must stress feelings are not evidence, as you seem to think: "It is in a person..." I just asked for a definiton you are acceptable with, so I can argue against it, if you want to just circum locute withourself fine, but please just inform me so I can stop wasteing my time.
The OED says this "Faith 1.Complete trust or confidence in someone or something. 2. Strong belief in a religion. 3. a system of religious belief. " (OED 2005 p.358). So I am curious, where do you get the bit "based on spiritual conviction rather than proof'? Which version of the OED are you using? Could you please reference it - because that is a definition I cannot find in any English dictionary - except the atheist Alice-in Wonderland version!
@theweeflea Its the oxford english dictionary online edition, Oxford University Press 2010. Additionally "Faith: 2(b) firm belief in something for which there is no proof" Webster and Marriam's online English Dictionary, copyright 2010. Also, I will state again, im willing to accept you are using another dfiniton of Faith. Just tell me what yur emperical evidence is. you get that: I ACCPET YOUR DEFINITON IS ALSO VALID, even if i dont think it is relevant: therefore, where is ou evidence.
Firstly you have proved the cherry picking bit - a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God. Is the part you did not mention.
Secondly that definition of faith is an absurd one and just shows how atheist fundamentalism corrupts everything. Neither the OED print - nor any other print edition I have uses such a patently absurd and biased definition. For example Chambers has the primary definition of faith as 'trust or confidence'.
Here is a challenge - give me one example of anyone other than an atheist using faith in the sense of 'belief without or contrary to proof'.
As for your request for evidence - that is simple There is plenty evidence both for God, Jesus, the Bible etc. Before you pronounce on it - you have to examine it. Can I suggest you start with the Gospel of Luke or of John...All the best...
your really hung up on the definiton thing. The word has multiple meanings in differnet contexts. hows about "I have faith that the water is deep enough to save me if I jump"
Intersting, i asked for emperical evidence, you respond by giving an example of a book that was edited and written by man. And i've read large swathes of the bible (King James vers. / Gidion vers.), Job i found very interesting, how god basically made a bet with satan and started killing Jobs family and cattle etc.
@AugustusTheEmperor Then again im probally "Cherry Picking", but i guess id just expect an all loving god to you know, love people all of the time. Then again if there was no fear of horrible things happening the Church wouldn't have much power I guess, not really God's fault, poor girl was just misunderstood and taken out of context.
@AugustusTheEmperor How do you know an all loving God does not love people? How do you define love? And what power do you think the Church has? The irony is that you are moaning about fear....when it is precisely 'the fear of horrible things happening' that Dawkisn uses to stir up hatred against Christianity. 'Watch out -they are coming to murder you!'....
@theweeflea I use my poor relativists concet of love and good, by which I conlude ETERANL punishment is not something an all loving god does, allowing tsunamis to hit the coast of Africa is not something an all loving god does, etc On the fear mongering, but why is Dawkins method so wrong, have people not used religon as an excuse gor war, indeed has it not often been the reason people accept that war is neccesary. Not fear im complain about, its Gods apparent cruelty and evil. Still no evidence
correction: i meant to say Asia not africa but yu get the picture. Still Africa serves as a good demonstration of the power of the church, certainly not as powerful as it used to be but they can still condem millions to death by declaring condoms to be unholy and evil.
@AugustusTheEmperor Interesting. On the one hand you complain about Christians 'fear mongering' on the other you commend it when Dawkins does so. Shuerly shome mistake?!
As for condoms in Africa I would suggest you get your facts right. The most sucessful anti-aids cmapaign in the world has been the Ugandan ABC approach (Abstinence, Be Faithful, Condoms). An approach condemned by our 'liberals' who, in order to protect their ideology, are prepared to let millions die!
@theweeflea Fine here is the difference, religious Fear mongering is used to force people in to a certain way of action. Dawkins uses examples to illustrate the damage that religion can and has done to mankind.Its a fine line I agree but there is a differnce. and i dont really care to go into the particulars. I dont 100% agree with Dawkins, as a liberal I think people should belive what they want, and practice, in private, what ever they want.
so.. Here is an experiment. I conceed your point 100% on the ABC approach, it save millions and liberals absouloutly hate for some undefined reason, which im sure has nothing to do with the practicality or methodd of implementation. What happens now. Do yu try to respond to my arguments based against the existance of god or do you continue with this line regardless. Anyway, just interested to see what would happen.
@AugustusTheEmperor Not sure what you mean. So far you have not produced any arguments against the existence of God. You just presuppose that he does not. I look forward to hearing a reasoned argument...
@theweeflea my argument is reasonably simple. Its called the burden of proof, and it falls to you. If you dont agree then I challenge you to disprove my magic cancer cureing sandwhich, to borrow from donexodus.
@AugustusTheEmperor I assume this means then that you see no need to justify or evidence your beliefs and yet you ask me to evidence mine? There is plenty proof (and I list it in my book 'The Dawkins Letters')...As for you rmagic cancer curing sandwich it really is quite easy to disprove....just show me the people who have been cured by it.....
@theweeflea Every one who has ever been saved from cancer has been cured by the magic sandwhich, i thought that was obvious. I dont have a belief, I have a lack of belief. It s a simple point. Basicly, as far as logical argument goes, no I dont have a need to prove my lack of belief.. For instance you reject that Zeus exists, yet his existance is supported by the same evidence as the judeo chrsistian god. (By that I mean, there is no solid evidence.)
@AugustusTheEmperor You are really struggling. First of all it can be demonstrated that the magic sandwich did not cure. Secondly there was no claim that it did. Thirdly you do have a need to logically prove your lack of belief in God - because it depends what that lack is based on .....at the moment it just seems as though it is prejudice and ignorance. Of which is your last statement. There is no evidence for Zeus - there is plenty for Christ. Keep trying...
Hardly, it is you that is unable to see the similarities betwween my magic sandwhich and what you believe. It can be demstrobaly proven that the miracles and actions attributed to ogod have been fabricated or are easly explained as natural phenomenon. My magic sandwhich, zeus (and ra, thor, allah, etc) all exist on the same level of proof as christ does. That is my evidence: she is unneeded, has no convincing evidence to support her existance and by ockhams razor is removed as unnecessary.
@AugustusTheEmperor I know that you think this is a clever argument (gleaned from your 'atheist book of smart things to say to Christians', but it fails at every point. Not least in your incredible assertion that every miracle in the Bible have been fabricated! And if you still insist that your magic sandwich is on the same level as Christ (for whom we have clear historical evidence) then you are really struggling. Your 'evidence' seems to consist of 'I believe' so leave me alone!
No they really do exist on the same level. Think about it, we have plenty of evidence a man called jesus exists, you can hardly deny that sandwhiches exist. You assert: however this man had magical abilities. I assert that my particular sandwhich has magical abilities. I am not saying that miracles are fabricated, simply that they may be exaggerated and/or have naturalistic causes which were not known at the time but are easy to deduce know.
@AugustusTheEmperor Bizarre.....it's really difficult trying to have a rational argument with someone who can't work out the difference between a sandwich and a man! And who is such a chronilogical snob that he thinks he can easily deduce now what happened 2,000 years ago!
well its really bizarre that someone can assume to know exactly what happened 2000 based on a single, demonstrbly edited source, but ad hominine attacks will get us nowehre will they. I n=know the difference beteween them, but they are not relevant for this argument, unless you want to show me how it is. As i said I would be perfectly capable of swapping snadwhich with another term you would fell more comfortable with.
Also, you still have not convinced me that you have evidence to suggest that zeus or ra exists. They arguably have more evidence than my symbolic magic sandwhcih. If it helps would yu like me to change magic sandwhich to one of these ancient dieties, ra seems most fitting as it was his relgious symbol whcih eventually became the christian cross, and of course he was the first pharoh: whom we also have evidence of his existance.
@AugustusTheEmperor I have no evidence that Ra or Zeus existed as gods. Do you? Besides which, as anyone who knows anything about history, theology or philosophy would know, there are significant differences between Jesus and Zeus or RA. The biggest one of course is that Jesus lives!
Sorry, i mistyped i meant to say "zeus or ra do not exist" My apoologies. And if you knew anything about history you would know that Ra wasalso the first pharoh of upper (or greater) egypt, and to make that explicit Ra was alive! Perhaps horus fits better after all he was believed to be the second pharoh and was the child of the virgin Isis, that story sounds somewhat familiar doesn't it.
But id like to get back to the sandwhich, Where is your evidence that my magic sandwhich does not exist.
as a side note, the magic sandwhich works in mysterious ways, it may seem to have a natural explanation, but in reallity it was not the chemotherapy that destroyed the cancer, it was the magic sandwhich.
"Im a scientist and I believe there is a contradiction between religion and science"
His argument from authority is nothing more than I'm a scientist and I think science and religion are opposed, why do I think this, based on my experiance as a scientist and my reaserch into religion. Not an argument from authority, just a statement of source of evidence.
Interesting how you bash his so called "argument from authority" and then procced to list numerous scientists who believe in the Judeo/Christian god. Well played, hypocracy mean anything to you. But then to go on to assert Dawkins isnt a scientist, I think the comments below deal with this sufficiently enough so im gonna pass on this one.
elegance is relative. People can create art withut thinking about it, (so im told) The universe is elegant because we percieve it to be, it is in no way a proof of creator, divine hand nor "fine tuning" in the lay-mans sense. The sunset appears betuifull yes, yet it is merely an affect, caused by the rotation of out planet and the diffusion of white light by the atmosphere at its thickest, relative, point.
"taking one group out of one massives religion, and extrapolating that..."
lets see, Christian terrorists well there is the IRA, National Liberation Front of Tripura, Lord's Resistance Army, anti-abortion in the USA.
what about the hindu/muslim war in India, or the jewsih "Crusade" in the lebannon. True these are still minorities compared to the whole but you can not deny the respective reliogions activly encourage this thinking and action.
@AugustusTheEmperor Our civilised values are based on Chritisanity." That would be the ten commandments then, though shalt not covet thy neighbours wife nor his ox and what not, lest ye be killed. Or are you talking about the more indepth moral teachings, like the skin of a pigis unclean, working on the sabbath shall be punishable by death , or the laws of slavery as laid down in Leviticus.
morals are objective and can change, very few christians today practice "Christian" morals.
If your a relavitist you belive in the values of the time, relative to the time. As a relativist is kind of compeled to actually exist in the present he has every right to make judgments on what is right and wrong.
@AugustusTheEmperor "I think and I believe" I just dont know how to respond to this it is soo rife with logical fallacy and misinterpretation. FAITH is defined as belief without evidence. You can think about it all the hell you want, but you cant assert anything as more than personal belief without evidence. Doing so is what Dawkins was getting at, peple who assert, without evidence, that there belief is true and demands the full enshrinment of law.
@theweeflea "Clinton Richard Dawkins, FRS, FRSL is a British ethologist, evolutionary biologist and popular science author. He was formerly Professor for Public Understanding of Science at Oxford and was a fellow of New College, Oxford." As far as I'm aware, to answer the question: "What kind of scientist are you?" he is a fairly well qualified one. Note the fact you refer to him as 'Professor' Richard Dawkins. You just contradicted yourself in one sentence. Fail arguement.
@PvtRainbow See my response to Graeme below. Because someone is a Professor does not tell us what kind of scientist they are. Or are we back to the argument from authority - I am a professor so you had better believe me? In that case what about Professor John Lennox or Professor Alistair McGarth, both of the University of Oxford - who are both committed Christians and scientists?
@Graemelamont Graeme please note that I did not say that Dawkiins was not a scientist. Of course he is a scientist and a very good scientific writer. And that is acknowledged. I asked simply what kind of scientist he was. Why? Because he continually asserts that real science is done, not by people with PhD's but those who publish peer reviewed papers. My question was simply when did he last publish such a paper? That is surely a fair question?
@theweeflea I'd say "What kind of scientist are you?" and "When did you last produce a peer review paper? Many, many years ago." combined with the fact that your whole point in this arguement seems to be to lessen his authority and his knowledge of the subject shows that it is strongly insinuated that he is not a credible scientist.
@Graemelamont Graeme - thanks....But please note that asking 'What kind of scientist are you?" is not the same as arguing that Dawkins is not a scientist. It is always best when you are discussing, especially as a Christian, not to misrepresent the position of those you are discussing with.
@theweeflea I'm afraid you are failing to understand my point. If you think he is a credible scientist then you would not have made an arguement based on the fact he is not a credible scientist. If you ask questions casting doubt on his scientific efforts based how recently he has published peer review papers then you are argueing he is not a scientist. Take your pick.
Also, you seem to know the answer to this question so why bother asking if you are not making the point he is not a scientist?
@Graemelamont Ok - I will give it one more try and please forgive me for not being clear. I am NOT saying he is not a scientist. I am saying that using his own standards (real science is conducted by people who publish papers which are then reviewed by other scientists), he has not done much real science for many years. He has been so distracted by his propaganda campaign against Christianity, that he has left off doing science...whilst actually claiming its authority.
@theweeflea Ok, fair enough... I just think that you shouldn't sit and make sarcastic remarks and digs against the person you are arguing with especially if it is a public debate/video. It seems to be a bad witness to those whom you oppose to act in such a way. Watch how you come across from the point of view of those you are arguing with and maybe you will see that the abuse you recieve is somewhat justified.
You may choose to disagree with this but it genuinely seems this way to me.
@Graemelamont Thanks...much appreciated. I will take on board what you say. However I think that both Elijah (on Mount Carmel) and more importantly Jesus, were quite happy to use sarcasm to point out the ridiculousness of those who oppose God. Can you use sarcasm in love?!
@theweeflea However, fair enough if what you're saying just now is true: that your point was that you yourself don't know what kind of scientist he is then I hope PvtRainbow's comment has been of use in enlightening you. But that would make it a bit of a non point.
You have said 2 things: firstly that "he is a scientist", and then that he hasn't published a paper for a while (thus follows that he isn't a scientist - as this is indeed the intent of the question otherwise it would be nonsensical)
@Graemelamont again thanks. I know what kind of scientist Dawkins is. I have read some of his scientific books (excellent by the way). I don't need to lift things off Wikipedia! Your second point does not make sense - there are scientists who have not published peer reviewed papers for some time. When Dawkins is faced with ID or creationists with science PhD's - he always asks about their peer reviewed work. I was just asking when he last did one?
@Graemelamont He didn't say Dawkins wasn't a scientist. He said that Dawkins used his position as a scientist to give him the authority to make truth claims, which is a right he denies to the non-scientist. You have submitted your mind to the authority of Dawkins and/or science and are just as guilty as those who put their faith in God.
Science is good, but it still relies on faith claims for it's most basic assumptions.
@kibadanghi I love it....no sooner do we post a video which talks about some atheists being intolerant and abusive, without engaging in rational arguement, than up pops one who proves us right. Gracias!
@WalkingthrotheShadow Sorry - again you will have to argue against what is said. I did not say nor do I believe that anyone with a differing view is automatically an intolerant, abusive atheist. I did say that there are people like that - the kind of people who post on MB's "stupid..not worth a smart comment' or 'what an idiot' or the numerous other abuse that I receive. I repeat...I did not say this of everyone. Thankfully it is only true of a few...
Hi ichallam....welcome back. I see that you are bringing up the top ten questions from the Atheist Guide to Witnessing to Christians!
The God we are talking about is the Creator God - the one from whom all things come....not provincial tribal 'gods'. By definition God is uncreated and Almighty.
Having said that I love it when atheists discuss theology - bit like Dundee fans discussing football!
@theweeflea But you forget that wigulupus" by definition makes all gods impossible. therefore god cant exist, becuase my definiton of the word forbids it :P
"The root of all evil is the rejection of the god who provides the purpose and meaning, and rationality, and beauty of this universe, and of mine and your life"
Which god are we talking about at the moment? Maybe Woden? Perhaps Zeus or El? Possibly you're refering to one of the many Hindu deities? Can you please clarify? Thx
Bollocks!!!! Richard Dawkins is god!! my god the god of reason and rationality science is king!! woo hoo put that in thi pipe n smoke it! muppets
Stefandures 1 year ago
@Stefandures - is that what you call reason and rationality? Just curious!
theweeflea 1 year ago
Do you mean to say that you decided that you wanted to become religious, and you done research on all the major religions of our modern time, and you found Christianity most convincing, and that's why you follow the ways of Jesus?
Povvels 1 year ago
I understand the point you are trying to make, and I intend to read both books you have suggested. But why do you choose Christianity over any other popular religion in our society? Because many religions have the same type of evidence that you do. That should say something about the evidence. I never meant to imply earlier that you had blind faith, but surely faith is the deciding factor of which religion to choose, you have faith in one and not others.
Povvels 1 year ago
@Povvels I have actually studied other religions and they don't present the same kind of evidence. I have faith because of the evidence....and the evidence points towards jesus Christ.....He really is the difference....
theweeflea 1 year ago
But the resurrection happened over 2,000 years ago, it has been recorded in the bible, but even this source of information is second hand. The is not incontrovertible evidence. By that reasoning we can say that all religions have evidence, so why is it that we choose Christianity? We believe that christ was resurrected by god, and that convinces us of his existence. Isn't this faith rather than proof? Could you please offer some of these other evidences?
Povvels 1 year ago
@Povvels Because something happened a long time ago does not mean it cannot be used as evidence. And most sources of information are second hand.. Again that does not preclude the evidence. There is plenty evidence for the Resurrection and for other parts of the Bible....too much to put down in a soundbite....have a look at Josh McDowell 'Evidence that demands a verdict' or my own 'The Dawkins Letters' for a list of ten that I consider substatnial....
theweeflea 1 year ago
Hello, I would like to ask a question about faith. I was always under the impression that to have faith was to believe without evidence. Doesn't the bible encourage us, by the word of our god, to believe in him and not ask for evidence of his existence? To open our hearts to him through faith, and not logic?
Povvels 1 year ago
@Povvels I am sorry but your impression is wrong. Faith without evidence is stupid and unbiblical. God does not just tell us to believe - he provides us with the reasons for believing. For example he demonstrated that Christ was the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead....there are many other evidences.
theweeflea 1 year ago
Your argument has been deconstruced piece by piece I hope you enjoyed, if there is anything you didn't understand fell free to comment. Other wise, thank you for reading and, hopefully, thinking.
AugustusTheEmperor 1 year ago
@AugustusTheEmperor Thanks....too much to reply to in this but will answer some of your questions in future fleabytes. However let me simply point out that to say 'faith is defined as belief without evidence' is simply wrong. It is only defined as such by atheists - certainly not by the Bible or any Christian theologian. I find it quite intriguing that atheists seem to enjoy arguing against themselves- rather than dealing with what their oppenents actually say!
theweeflea 1 year ago
@theweeflea Faith: "strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof" Oxforde English Dictionary, im afraid as far as english is concerned Faith means what I stated it to mean. But im interested, what is your defintion of faith, according to the bible or christian theological studies. Also, every point I made was a response to ones made in your video.
AugustusTheEmperor 1 year ago
@AugustusTheEmperor Ah - the good old practice of cherry picking.....that of course is not the only definition - it is one that some people (notably atheists) have. If you are going to argue against Christian faith then you need to use not your own definition, but what we actually believe. The Christian position is that it is stupid to believe without evidence. Faith is not blind. It is in a person - Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
theweeflea 1 year ago
@theweeflea well what you call cherry picking is what I call selecting the most relevant definiton, and its not my definiton, its Oxfords. So if it is stupid to believe without evidence where is your empirical evidence. I must stress feelings are not evidence, as you seem to think: "It is in a person..." I just asked for a definiton you are acceptable with, so I can argue against it, if you want to just circum locute withourself fine, but please just inform me so I can stop wasteing my time.
AugustusTheEmperor 1 year ago
@AugustusTheEmperor
The OED says this "Faith 1.Complete trust or confidence in someone or something. 2. Strong belief in a religion. 3. a system of religious belief. " (OED 2005 p.358). So I am curious, where do you get the bit "based on spiritual conviction rather than proof'? Which version of the OED are you using? Could you please reference it - because that is a definition I cannot find in any English dictionary - except the atheist Alice-in Wonderland version!
theweeflea 1 year ago
@theweeflea Its the oxford english dictionary online edition, Oxford University Press 2010. Additionally "Faith: 2(b) firm belief in something for which there is no proof" Webster and Marriam's online English Dictionary, copyright 2010. Also, I will state again, im willing to accept you are using another dfiniton of Faith. Just tell me what yur emperical evidence is. you get that: I ACCPET YOUR DEFINITON IS ALSO VALID, even if i dont think it is relevant: therefore, where is ou evidence.
AugustusTheEmperor 1 year ago
@AugustusTheEmperor Fascinating...
Firstly you have proved the cherry picking bit - a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God. Is the part you did not mention.
Secondly that definition of faith is an absurd one and just shows how atheist fundamentalism corrupts everything. Neither the OED print - nor any other print edition I have uses such a patently absurd and biased definition. For example Chambers has the primary definition of faith as 'trust or confidence'.
theweeflea 1 year ago
Here is a challenge - give me one example of anyone other than an atheist using faith in the sense of 'belief without or contrary to proof'.
As for your request for evidence - that is simple There is plenty evidence both for God, Jesus, the Bible etc. Before you pronounce on it - you have to examine it. Can I suggest you start with the Gospel of Luke or of John...All the best...
theweeflea 1 year ago
your really hung up on the definiton thing. The word has multiple meanings in differnet contexts. hows about "I have faith that the water is deep enough to save me if I jump"
Intersting, i asked for emperical evidence, you respond by giving an example of a book that was edited and written by man. And i've read large swathes of the bible (King James vers. / Gidion vers.), Job i found very interesting, how god basically made a bet with satan and started killing Jobs family and cattle etc.
AugustusTheEmperor 1 year ago
@AugustusTheEmperor Then again im probally "Cherry Picking", but i guess id just expect an all loving god to you know, love people all of the time. Then again if there was no fear of horrible things happening the Church wouldn't have much power I guess, not really God's fault, poor girl was just misunderstood and taken out of context.
AugustusTheEmperor 1 year ago
@AugustusTheEmperor How do you know an all loving God does not love people? How do you define love? And what power do you think the Church has? The irony is that you are moaning about fear....when it is precisely 'the fear of horrible things happening' that Dawkisn uses to stir up hatred against Christianity. 'Watch out -they are coming to murder you!'....
theweeflea 1 year ago
@theweeflea I use my poor relativists concet of love and good, by which I conlude ETERANL punishment is not something an all loving god does, allowing tsunamis to hit the coast of Africa is not something an all loving god does, etc On the fear mongering, but why is Dawkins method so wrong, have people not used religon as an excuse gor war, indeed has it not often been the reason people accept that war is neccesary. Not fear im complain about, its Gods apparent cruelty and evil. Still no evidence
AugustusTheEmperor 1 year ago
correction: i meant to say Asia not africa but yu get the picture. Still Africa serves as a good demonstration of the power of the church, certainly not as powerful as it used to be but they can still condem millions to death by declaring condoms to be unholy and evil.
AugustusTheEmperor 1 year ago
@AugustusTheEmperor Interesting. On the one hand you complain about Christians 'fear mongering' on the other you commend it when Dawkins does so. Shuerly shome mistake?!
As for condoms in Africa I would suggest you get your facts right. The most sucessful anti-aids cmapaign in the world has been the Ugandan ABC approach (Abstinence, Be Faithful, Condoms). An approach condemned by our 'liberals' who, in order to protect their ideology, are prepared to let millions die!
theweeflea 1 year ago
@theweeflea Fine here is the difference, religious Fear mongering is used to force people in to a certain way of action. Dawkins uses examples to illustrate the damage that religion can and has done to mankind.Its a fine line I agree but there is a differnce. and i dont really care to go into the particulars. I dont 100% agree with Dawkins, as a liberal I think people should belive what they want, and practice, in private, what ever they want.
AugustusTheEmperor 1 year ago
so.. Here is an experiment. I conceed your point 100% on the ABC approach, it save millions and liberals absouloutly hate for some undefined reason, which im sure has nothing to do with the practicality or methodd of implementation. What happens now. Do yu try to respond to my arguments based against the existance of god or do you continue with this line regardless. Anyway, just interested to see what would happen.
AugustusTheEmperor 1 year ago
@AugustusTheEmperor Not sure what you mean. So far you have not produced any arguments against the existence of God. You just presuppose that he does not. I look forward to hearing a reasoned argument...
theweeflea 1 year ago
@theweeflea my argument is reasonably simple. Its called the burden of proof, and it falls to you. If you dont agree then I challenge you to disprove my magic cancer cureing sandwhich, to borrow from donexodus.
AugustusTheEmperor 1 year ago
@AugustusTheEmperor I assume this means then that you see no need to justify or evidence your beliefs and yet you ask me to evidence mine? There is plenty proof (and I list it in my book 'The Dawkins Letters')...As for you rmagic cancer curing sandwich it really is quite easy to disprove....just show me the people who have been cured by it.....
theweeflea 1 year ago
@theweeflea Every one who has ever been saved from cancer has been cured by the magic sandwhich, i thought that was obvious. I dont have a belief, I have a lack of belief. It s a simple point. Basicly, as far as logical argument goes, no I dont have a need to prove my lack of belief.. For instance you reject that Zeus exists, yet his existance is supported by the same evidence as the judeo chrsistian god. (By that I mean, there is no solid evidence.)
AugustusTheEmperor 1 year ago
@AugustusTheEmperor You are really struggling. First of all it can be demonstrated that the magic sandwich did not cure. Secondly there was no claim that it did. Thirdly you do have a need to logically prove your lack of belief in God - because it depends what that lack is based on .....at the moment it just seems as though it is prejudice and ignorance. Of which is your last statement. There is no evidence for Zeus - there is plenty for Christ. Keep trying...
theweeflea 1 year ago
Hardly, it is you that is unable to see the similarities betwween my magic sandwhich and what you believe. It can be demstrobaly proven that the miracles and actions attributed to ogod have been fabricated or are easly explained as natural phenomenon. My magic sandwhich, zeus (and ra, thor, allah, etc) all exist on the same level of proof as christ does. That is my evidence: she is unneeded, has no convincing evidence to support her existance and by ockhams razor is removed as unnecessary.
AugustusTheEmperor 1 year ago
@AugustusTheEmperor I know that you think this is a clever argument (gleaned from your 'atheist book of smart things to say to Christians', but it fails at every point. Not least in your incredible assertion that every miracle in the Bible have been fabricated! And if you still insist that your magic sandwich is on the same level as Christ (for whom we have clear historical evidence) then you are really struggling. Your 'evidence' seems to consist of 'I believe' so leave me alone!
theweeflea 1 year ago
No they really do exist on the same level. Think about it, we have plenty of evidence a man called jesus exists, you can hardly deny that sandwhiches exist. You assert: however this man had magical abilities. I assert that my particular sandwhich has magical abilities. I am not saying that miracles are fabricated, simply that they may be exaggerated and/or have naturalistic causes which were not known at the time but are easy to deduce know.
AugustusTheEmperor 1 year ago
@AugustusTheEmperor Bizarre.....it's really difficult trying to have a rational argument with someone who can't work out the difference between a sandwich and a man! And who is such a chronilogical snob that he thinks he can easily deduce now what happened 2,000 years ago!
theweeflea 1 year ago
well its really bizarre that someone can assume to know exactly what happened 2000 based on a single, demonstrbly edited source, but ad hominine attacks will get us nowehre will they. I n=know the difference beteween them, but they are not relevant for this argument, unless you want to show me how it is. As i said I would be perfectly capable of swapping snadwhich with another term you would fell more comfortable with.
AugustusTheEmperor 1 year ago
Also, you still have not convinced me that you have evidence to suggest that zeus or ra exists. They arguably have more evidence than my symbolic magic sandwhcih. If it helps would yu like me to change magic sandwhich to one of these ancient dieties, ra seems most fitting as it was his relgious symbol whcih eventually became the christian cross, and of course he was the first pharoh: whom we also have evidence of his existance.
AugustusTheEmperor 1 year ago
@AugustusTheEmperor I have no evidence that Ra or Zeus existed as gods. Do you? Besides which, as anyone who knows anything about history, theology or philosophy would know, there are significant differences between Jesus and Zeus or RA. The biggest one of course is that Jesus lives!
theweeflea 1 year ago
Sorry, i mistyped i meant to say "zeus or ra do not exist" My apoologies. And if you knew anything about history you would know that Ra wasalso the first pharoh of upper (or greater) egypt, and to make that explicit Ra was alive! Perhaps horus fits better after all he was believed to be the second pharoh and was the child of the virgin Isis, that story sounds somewhat familiar doesn't it.
But id like to get back to the sandwhich, Where is your evidence that my magic sandwhich does not exist.
AugustusTheEmperor 1 year ago
as a side note, the magic sandwhich works in mysterious ways, it may seem to have a natural explanation, but in reallity it was not the chemotherapy that destroyed the cancer, it was the magic sandwhich.
AugustusTheEmperor 1 year ago
"Im a scientist and I believe there is a contradiction between religion and science"
His argument from authority is nothing more than I'm a scientist and I think science and religion are opposed, why do I think this, based on my experiance as a scientist and my reaserch into religion. Not an argument from authority, just a statement of source of evidence.
AugustusTheEmperor 1 year ago
Interesting how you bash his so called "argument from authority" and then procced to list numerous scientists who believe in the Judeo/Christian god. Well played, hypocracy mean anything to you. But then to go on to assert Dawkins isnt a scientist, I think the comments below deal with this sufficiently enough so im gonna pass on this one.
AugustusTheEmperor 1 year ago
elegance is relative. People can create art withut thinking about it, (so im told) The universe is elegant because we percieve it to be, it is in no way a proof of creator, divine hand nor "fine tuning" in the lay-mans sense. The sunset appears betuifull yes, yet it is merely an affect, caused by the rotation of out planet and the diffusion of white light by the atmosphere at its thickest, relative, point.
AugustusTheEmperor 1 year ago
"taking one group out of one massives religion, and extrapolating that..."
lets see, Christian terrorists well there is the IRA, National Liberation Front of Tripura, Lord's Resistance Army, anti-abortion in the USA.
what about the hindu/muslim war in India, or the jewsih "Crusade" in the lebannon. True these are still minorities compared to the whole but you can not deny the respective reliogions activly encourage this thinking and action.
AugustusTheEmperor 1 year ago
@AugustusTheEmperor Our civilised values are based on Chritisanity." That would be the ten commandments then, though shalt not covet thy neighbours wife nor his ox and what not, lest ye be killed. Or are you talking about the more indepth moral teachings, like the skin of a pigis unclean, working on the sabbath shall be punishable by death , or the laws of slavery as laid down in Leviticus.
morals are objective and can change, very few christians today practice "Christian" morals.
AugustusTheEmperor 1 year ago
If your a relavitist you belive in the values of the time, relative to the time. As a relativist is kind of compeled to actually exist in the present he has every right to make judgments on what is right and wrong.
AugustusTheEmperor 1 year ago
@AugustusTheEmperor "I think and I believe" I just dont know how to respond to this it is soo rife with logical fallacy and misinterpretation. FAITH is defined as belief without evidence. You can think about it all the hell you want, but you cant assert anything as more than personal belief without evidence. Doing so is what Dawkins was getting at, peple who assert, without evidence, that there belief is true and demands the full enshrinment of law.
AugustusTheEmperor 1 year ago
@theweeflea "Clinton Richard Dawkins, FRS, FRSL is a British ethologist, evolutionary biologist and popular science author. He was formerly Professor for Public Understanding of Science at Oxford and was a fellow of New College, Oxford." As far as I'm aware, to answer the question: "What kind of scientist are you?" he is a fairly well qualified one. Note the fact you refer to him as 'Professor' Richard Dawkins. You just contradicted yourself in one sentence. Fail arguement.
PvtRainbow 1 year ago 5
@PvtRainbow See my response to Graeme below. Because someone is a Professor does not tell us what kind of scientist they are. Or are we back to the argument from authority - I am a professor so you had better believe me? In that case what about Professor John Lennox or Professor Alistair McGarth, both of the University of Oxford - who are both committed Christians and scientists?
theweeflea 1 year ago
as a christian i would like to say that this is ridiculous. you're stooping really low to argue that Dawkins isn't a scientist...
Graemelamont 1 year ago 5
@Graemelamont Graeme please note that I did not say that Dawkiins was not a scientist. Of course he is a scientist and a very good scientific writer. And that is acknowledged. I asked simply what kind of scientist he was. Why? Because he continually asserts that real science is done, not by people with PhD's but those who publish peer reviewed papers. My question was simply when did he last publish such a paper? That is surely a fair question?
theweeflea 1 year ago
@theweeflea I'd say "What kind of scientist are you?" and "When did you last produce a peer review paper? Many, many years ago." combined with the fact that your whole point in this arguement seems to be to lessen his authority and his knowledge of the subject shows that it is strongly insinuated that he is not a credible scientist.
Continued in next comment...
Graemelamont 1 year ago
@Graemelamont Graeme - thanks....But please note that asking 'What kind of scientist are you?" is not the same as arguing that Dawkins is not a scientist. It is always best when you are discussing, especially as a Christian, not to misrepresent the position of those you are discussing with.
theweeflea 1 year ago
@theweeflea I'm afraid you are failing to understand my point. If you think he is a credible scientist then you would not have made an arguement based on the fact he is not a credible scientist. If you ask questions casting doubt on his scientific efforts based how recently he has published peer review papers then you are argueing he is not a scientist. Take your pick.
Also, you seem to know the answer to this question so why bother asking if you are not making the point he is not a scientist?
Graemelamont 1 year ago
@Graemelamont Ok - I will give it one more try and please forgive me for not being clear. I am NOT saying he is not a scientist. I am saying that using his own standards (real science is conducted by people who publish papers which are then reviewed by other scientists), he has not done much real science for many years. He has been so distracted by his propaganda campaign against Christianity, that he has left off doing science...whilst actually claiming its authority.
theweeflea 1 year ago
@theweeflea Ok, fair enough... I just think that you shouldn't sit and make sarcastic remarks and digs against the person you are arguing with especially if it is a public debate/video. It seems to be a bad witness to those whom you oppose to act in such a way. Watch how you come across from the point of view of those you are arguing with and maybe you will see that the abuse you recieve is somewhat justified.
You may choose to disagree with this but it genuinely seems this way to me.
Graemelamont 1 year ago
@Graemelamont Thanks...much appreciated. I will take on board what you say. However I think that both Elijah (on Mount Carmel) and more importantly Jesus, were quite happy to use sarcasm to point out the ridiculousness of those who oppose God. Can you use sarcasm in love?!
theweeflea 1 year ago
@theweeflea However, fair enough if what you're saying just now is true: that your point was that you yourself don't know what kind of scientist he is then I hope PvtRainbow's comment has been of use in enlightening you. But that would make it a bit of a non point.
You have said 2 things: firstly that "he is a scientist", and then that he hasn't published a paper for a while (thus follows that he isn't a scientist - as this is indeed the intent of the question otherwise it would be nonsensical)
Graemelamont 1 year ago
@Graemelamont again thanks. I know what kind of scientist Dawkins is. I have read some of his scientific books (excellent by the way). I don't need to lift things off Wikipedia! Your second point does not make sense - there are scientists who have not published peer reviewed papers for some time. When Dawkins is faced with ID or creationists with science PhD's - he always asks about their peer reviewed work. I was just asking when he last did one?
theweeflea 1 year ago
@Graemelamont He didn't say Dawkins wasn't a scientist. He said that Dawkins used his position as a scientist to give him the authority to make truth claims, which is a right he denies to the non-scientist. You have submitted your mind to the authority of Dawkins and/or science and are just as guilty as those who put their faith in God.
Science is good, but it still relies on faith claims for it's most basic assumptions.
walueg62 1 year ago
Stupid, not worth a smart comment...
kibadanghi 1 year ago 7
@kibadanghi I love it....no sooner do we post a video which talks about some atheists being intolerant and abusive, without engaging in rational arguement, than up pops one who proves us right. Gracias!
theweeflea 1 year ago
@theweeflea your comment makes absolutely no sense
kibadanghi 1 year ago 2
@theweeflea Why is it assumed that someone with a differing view to YOU is automatically a intolerant, abusive atheist?
WalkingthrotheShadow 1 year ago 3
@WalkingthrotheShadow Sorry - again you will have to argue against what is said. I did not say nor do I believe that anyone with a differing view is automatically an intolerant, abusive atheist. I did say that there are people like that - the kind of people who post on MB's "stupid..not worth a smart comment' or 'what an idiot' or the numerous other abuse that I receive. I repeat...I did not say this of everyone. Thankfully it is only true of a few...
theweeflea 1 year ago
Hi ichallam....welcome back. I see that you are bringing up the top ten questions from the Atheist Guide to Witnessing to Christians!
The God we are talking about is the Creator God - the one from whom all things come....not provincial tribal 'gods'. By definition God is uncreated and Almighty.
Having said that I love it when atheists discuss theology - bit like Dundee fans discussing football!
theweeflea 1 year ago
@theweeflea But you forget that wigulupus" by definition makes all gods impossible. therefore god cant exist, becuase my definiton of the word forbids it :P
AugustusTheEmperor 1 year ago
"The root of all evil is the rejection of the god who provides the purpose and meaning, and rationality, and beauty of this universe, and of mine and your life"
Which god are we talking about at the moment? Maybe Woden? Perhaps Zeus or El? Possibly you're refering to one of the many Hindu deities? Can you please clarify? Thx
tchallam 1 year ago