Richard Dawkins - On Education (Part 2 of 2)
Top Comments
All Comments (55)
-
Richard... always the poet! love it love it love it, he's my consoler in bad times, we have Richard to teach us, who needs a god???
-
I also feel that saying "I am not an atheist or agnostic" doesn't mean you are a theist. This may seem like a paradox, but of course we are dealing with loaded terminology. 'God' is often assumed to mean the god of the bible, but god can mean many things. It is possible to shun the idea of creationism, accept evolution, not be 'religious', yet not be an atheist. Call it agnosticism, call it ambiguity. If theism never existed, could atheism exist? We need to get past this battle to see clearly.
-
If there were people who believed a pink elephant created the universe, it would seem unnecessary to call yourself an 'anti-pink-elephantist' simply because you thought the pink elephant theory was ridiculous. I feel the term 'atheist' is a product of a loaded question (do you believe in god?) with an expected binary outcome - yes or no. The seemingly bottomless mystery of the universe and our consciousness should not be subject to such side-taking. And thus the term 'igtheist' was born.
-
Dawkins makes me feel so excited about science!
-
2 ppl think the world is less than 10,000 years old!!!
-
@0aks0liver so Psalms 90 then. so i have read. 89, 90 & 91. so in 85 separate verses, that god is 'everlasting' is mentioned once (90:2) and it is just 'said' no explanation or anything. it mentions nothing about being outside of natural law or anything so interpretation is open. But lets say i concede the mean... without explanation why would any thinking person believe it?
BTW, nice demonstration of your god omnibenevolence in these chapters.
-
@0aks0liver with respect, i dont think you do understand the difference. if you post is any indication of you comprehension.
it is a case if reasonable doubt, you (or the religious) make a claim that god exists. i have rejected that claim as the evidence does not support it. i DO NOT make the claim that god does not exist, because there is no evidence for that either. I will (and do) accept things that come with evidence that amounts to proof. i make a 2nd post about Psalm 90:2
-
@0aks0liver Thanks for your replies, my posts were directed towards user alaris1247 as part of a series, but i will answer your points anyway.
You reply to my challenge(which was not mine but epicurus' of course) is lack lustre, circular and non sense, as well as not actually answering it. you assert the three qualities i challenged including omnibenevolent and then quote scripture to show him being malevolent... attempt at humor?
and why should i be asking you about the problem of good?
-
Oh, don't get me started on suffering! :)
Yes, God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. But what makes evil bad? It can only be considered such in contrast with good. So why does God allow good to happen? God is just as well as merciful, so why does He give us any good in the first place? Having sinned against God (Romans 3:23), we all deserve Hell.
If everything we do is dictated by chemical processes, then you should be asking me about the "problem of good" not of evil.
-
I understand that they aren't exactly the same. But you do believe that God does not exist, right? Your worldview cannot rest on simply the denial of God. Your worldview in reference to God has to be either a denial of Him, or an affirmation of Him.
Psalm 90:2 says that God is everlasting. We know he is not bound by natural law because such laws are inherently bound to the material world. It is apparent that laws which govern creation don't bind the one that created them.
you can see the illusion of design. so you have the dellusion of a designer.
riddle me this, if you truely believe in god. he made everything? so who made him? and please dont be one of these god squad cop-outs who insist that natral law applies to everything except god.
erin321321 3 years ago 32
thank god for richard dawkins.....uh never mind...
newtonslogic 2 years ago 29