It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

An Experiment for Brave Christians

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 06:37 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



i just want to see responses to the arguments. this is more about how we all perceive a notion differently.


That is true. Though I am not sure we mean in the same sense.
What it all is about REALLY in my opinion, is our preconceived notions.

Case in point, based on my perception of Dawkin's, he is a think he knows it all loudmouth that seems to feel since he can't really prove his belief system seeks to classify those that disagree with him as crazy. Which of course, doesn't fill me with the urge to read his book. Which is what a great many of the zealots of any other belief system is want to do, you know you have heard the crap, "I have the truth.", "Those believers are crazy/delusional/deniers of the truth etc" (you get the idea). Which of course is largely silly at best. We both have simular backgrounds in dealing with this junk I am sure.

You on the other hand kinda agree with him (not completely as you state and after that u2u I am more to inclined to believe you now) and will look at his book in the best light. Where I see nothing but vitriolic self-righteous spew.

But any rate I would like you and well everyone here to take a open minded view of at a book I recently read and enjoyed immensely, "The Race for God" by Brian Herbert. It's fiction and kinda in the vein of satire but I think it makes some rather good points on this whole mess and how the whole damn thing isn't really about "Gawd" or "Gawd"'s lack. But people.

But basically all that aside, we tend to seek to exclusively reinforce our own preconceived notions, often bending information this way and that to achieve that end. Can you agree?

I hope I managed to make some sense.



[edit on 16-4-2008 by WraothAscendant]




posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   
MIM, I've been perusing the book, and just wanted to give an initial response to your opening question (-more to come):


if you don't want to take up this challenge, i'd like to see why.


Although I obtained the book, I just can't take the author half as seriously as I'd expected. There are so many holes in his claims its making me wince. Is this really supposed to be some pinnacle of intellectual achievement? I think I'd fallen into the trap of assuming a hot-selling book would at least be peppered with brilliance. (These are sincere comments, not just rhetoric.)

Let's just taste the quality of some of Dawkin's prowess:


as things stand... all available evidence (and there is a vast amount of it) favours evolution
Source: p.19

The man is an ignoramus. About twenty five years ago I attended a lecture on the creation/evolution debate. The main speaker (advocating creation) was, from memory, a professor of physics at Oxford or Cambridge University.

The event took place in a large regional concert hall, and much of the space normally reserved for a vast choir (behind the orchestra) was taken up by a very large number of scientists who believe in six-day creation - just from the local area. At the time I was very interested in paleontology, and had been immersed in the ideas of evolution from childhood. The presentation blew my mind, and it really set me thinking. It was the evidence that opened my mind to rethink my beliefs in this area.

Twenty-five years of reading and thinking later, it is the evidence that has persuaded me that evolution is based on ideas, not evidence, whereas creation is overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence. The fact that I have come to this position will not change anyone's mind, but it does show the breathtaking ignorance of Richard Dawkins.

I count hospital consultants, doctors, PhD and research scientists, a research mathemetician, lawyers, etc. among my personal friends who have also concluded that the evidence favours special creation. Among my former acquaintances who have reached the same conclusion are a world-renowned professor of archeology, a not-world renowned professor of archeology, a top-level engineer, etc., etc. Around the world countless thousands of people of the same calibre have examined the evidence and come to the same conclusion. This does not prove that they are right, but it does show that Dawkins is staggeringly ignorant.

On the same page that the author makes his revealing assertion, he quotes a creationist who said he would believe in creationism even if all the evidence were against it, then triumphantly states that the difference between passionate biblical fundamentalism and a true scientist is the latter's passionate commitment to evidence. I can only describe the force of his argument as pathetic: take a silly comment from a protagonist of the other viewpoint, expose it as illogical, and - hey presto(!) - come out on top.

Not only does he come across as a pseudo-intellectual, he again reveals his complete ignorance of the existence of countless thousands/millions of highly-educated professionals and serious thinkers who are both passionate believers in the Bible and passionately committed to the evidence.

Oh dear Mr. Dawkins. Your words are full of triumphalism. Your logic and awareness of evidence are found wanting. No wonder you are so convinced. You only know about evidence that supports your view!

Finally, to back up my statement that evidence exists, here's a starter:

www.answersingenesis.org...

The site provides a wide range of online articles, books and media on a huge array of scientific subjects for all types of reader. (And this is just one site.) Maybe explore a bit and see if you think R.D. knows what he's talking about...



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by pause4thought
 


hm...

well, i'd like to address the evolution thing, but i'll just redirect you to a thread of mine in the O&C forum so we don't derail this and make it yet another offtopic thread discussing evolution.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

why do i direct you there?
well, between myself and other pro-evolution posters, we've probably refuted everything from answers in genesis (which isn't that hard, a person with a high school science education probably wouldn't have too much trouble with it)

as to your point, the problem is that you're calling Dawkins ignorant because some people disagree that the evidence doesn't point to evolution
...those people are most likely the ignorant ones as there is absolutely no scientific basis for disagreeing with evolutionary theory

it's also the logical fallacy of argument ad populum

ah, just clicked on the link... it's the flagellum motor!
been addressed time and time again on here. look through posts by the user melatonin in O&C, he's gone in depth on it

all i can say is...well, it's not irreducibly complex. there's another mechanism that contains some of those parts that still functions properly, an injection mechanism in certain cells.

but go to the thread if you want to keep on this discussion.

oh, and here's a great site that entirely refutes each and every argument for "design"
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 4/16/08 by madnessinmysoul]



posted on Apr, 16 2008 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by WraothAscendant
 


no, i read the review. i just wanted to know what your specific thoughts were

now, dawkins only calls certain aspects of the belief in a deity delusional. the title is a catch all, it's meant to be controversial to sell books. if you'd just bother opening it up, you'll see what i mean.

he is more specifically referring to some people that feign a belief in a deity, or have very heavy doubts about its existence and just keep going for the sake of their culture, some sort of indoctrination, or other reasons that would involve not being honest to one's self.

and i understand what you mean. i far from 100% agree with dawkins (and have never stated otherwise), but i'm just wondering at the responses.

i'd also suggest hitchens' work god is not great, though that one may be a bit harsh...

i just want to see responses to the arguments. this is more about how we all perceive a notion differently.


Oh dear Madness, why must all we fools who believe in God, and even be so delusional as to believe that Jesus died for us...why why why, can't we just chalk this all up to indoctrination??? I mean, most of us would never, ever think of thinking for ourselves, like you do! And if we did, we could never ever come to the conclusion that God exists! If we did, we would most certainly be delusional, paranoid, schizophrenic, bi-polar or something! Maybe even CRAZY!

See??? No I'm afraid you don't, but thank you all for proving my point that the man is a narcissist. And Madness, you're just supporting yourself for that kind of (oh my goodness, dare I say it?)...THINKING???

I mean, I'm an uneducated, indoctrinated fool. So, what do I know???

Thank you very much,

I_R



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


well, i'd like to address the evolution thing, but i'll just redirect you to a thread of mine... so we don't derail this and make it yet another offtopic thread discussing evolution

You have missed my point entirely. You are derailing the discussion by making creation vs. evolution the basis of your response.

What you have said is but a knee-jerk reaction. Can you not follow a clear line of argument, or does its force perhaps embarrass you? I repeat my point as simply as I can: Dawkins is a good 35-40 years behind. His claim that all the evidence favours evolution only serves to reinforce the view of many educated people prepared to think for themselves, that many advocates of evolution hold onto their beliefs through sheer bloody-mindedness, unwilling to admit evidence for creation exists.


as to your point, the problem is that you're calling Dawkins ignorant because some people disagree that the evidence doesn't point to evolution

No, you have again failed to understand the direction of my argument. Either I do not write clearly or you respond to an argument without thinking about it carefully.

Just take a moment to consider what 'evidence' means. It is information presented to support an argument. As a case is built up some evidence is discarded, some is retained. It does not have to constitute conclusive proof in order to be evidence. In a court of law certain evidence may convince some people; others remain unmoved or feel the evidence is insufficient to reach a conclusion. It is still evidence.

With respect to creation vs. evolution, one side says 'this is our evidence', the other says 'this is ours'. If Dawkins is saying he only classes information as evidence for creation if it constitutes conclusive proof, he is admitting a priori that he is unwilling to give a fair hearing to any interpretation of the facts other than his own: i.e. he is unable to think 'outside the box'. Only thus could he deny what is blatently true: scientific evidence for creation is vast, and has been advocated by huge numbers of serious thinkers for decades.

This suggests Dawkins remains willfully ignorant - 'Unless you show me conclusive proof I won't consider it evidence; I discount it.'


well, between myself and other pro-evolution posters, we've probably refuted everything from answers in genesis (which isn't that hard, a person with a high school science education probably wouldn't have too much trouble with it)

Do you not consider that the content of your refutations may not always convince? Or is it only those who do not attain to the heights of your achievements who are not convinced, as the poor fools (PhD & research-level scientists, professors, etc.) don't understand your points? Or are you charitable, and grant that they would change their minds if only they read your posts?..

Your condescending comment about high-school-level arguments is empty wind. Try "Testing the Hydrothermal Fluid Transport Model for Polonium Radiohalo Formation" - one of the first articles I found here:

www.answersingenesis.org...
taken from the 'Answers Research Journal'

or perhaps the 'Origin of Life' review here:
creationontheweb.com...
taken from the 'Journal of Creation'

Your patronizing comment does you no favours and leaves you open to the very same accusation as Dawkins: exhibition of staggering ignorance of evidence in favour of creation. Actually, looking back you said:

there is absolutely no scientific basis for disagreeing with evolutionary theory

What more need be said?

Your patronizing response to the flagellum motor again shows a) you don't listen - it was but a starting point, and b) here + in your final comment + elsewhere you tend to kid yourself all can be or is already resolved!



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by idle_rocker
 


...i never said that all theists are indoctrinated
neither did dawkins

in fact, you've yet to prove that he is narcissistic, all you've proven is that you're quite good at twisting words.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by pause4thought
You have missed my point entirely. You are derailing the discussion by making creation vs. evolution the basis of your response.


actually, i'm not. i'm just avoiding your condescension.



What you have said is but a knee-jerk reaction. Can you not follow a clear line of argument, or does its force perhaps embarrass you?


i can, i just failed to see one. your line of argument followed from a logical fallacy.

here's your quote

but it does show that Dawkins is staggeringly ignorant.


now, what shows that...

your own words betray a logical fallacy.


I count hospital consultants, doctors, PhD and research scientists, a research mathemetician, lawyers, etc. among my personal friends who have also concluded that the evidence favours special creation. Among my former acquaintances who have reached the same conclusion are a world-renowned professor of archeology, a not-world renowned professor of archeology, a top-level engineer, etc., etc. Around the world countless thousands of people of the same calibre have examined the evidence and come to the same conclusion. This does not prove that they are right,


...because people disagree with him, he's ignorant to say all of the evidence points towards evolution

hmm
here's the difference. he can give you a theoretical framework.



I repeat my point as simply as I can: Dawkins is a good 35-40 years behind.


here's where i'm expected to say "all i can say is that you're stuck in the bronze age"

we could fling around these petty statements all day, but you're further diverting this into a discussion about evolution.



His claim that all the evidence favours evolution only serves to reinforce the view of many educated people prepared to think for themselves, that many advocates of evolution hold onto their beliefs through sheer bloody-mindedness, unwilling to admit evidence for creation exists.


...evidence for creation doesn't exist.
demonstrate it.



No, you have again failed to understand the direction of my argument. Either I do not write clearly or you respond to an argument without thinking about it carefully.


how about this, treat me as a small child. spell it out with words that don't use many letters or syllables.



Just take a moment to consider what 'evidence' means. It is information presented to support an argument. As a case is built up some evidence is discarded, some is retained. It does not have to constitute conclusive proof in order to be evidence. In a court of law certain evidence may convince some people; others remain unmoved or feel the evidence is insufficient to reach a conclusion. It is still evidence.


...ok, but there still isn't any evidence that supports creationism...
oddly enough, creationism is a far more extensive theory than evolution, seeing as it deals with the creation of the universe and everything in it while evolution deals with the single issue of how life progressed after it arose...



With respect to creation vs. evolution, one side says 'this is our evidence', the other says 'this is ours'.


except that the "evidence" for creation doesn't exist
it's not a valid scientific theory.

it lacks several key aspects
i can just shoot it down with 1: it makes 0 predictions.



If Dawkins is saying he only classes information as evidence for creation if it constitutes conclusive proof, he is admitting a priori that he is unwilling to give a fair hearing to any interpretation of the facts other than his own:


except that he isn't. he is simply pointing out the fact that there is absolutely no scientific evidence for creationism.



i.e. he is unable to think 'outside the box'. Only thus could he deny what is blatently true: scientific evidence for creation is vast,


...except that there is absolutely no evidence for it...
and even if there was any evidence for it, it is still not a scientific theory, as it fails to fit the definition of a scientific theory.



and has been advocated by huge numbers of serious thinkers for decades.


...huge numbers?
i actually had to muffle a laugh

for 2 reasons: it's a logical fallacy to bring it into the discussion. it doesn't matter is everyone in the world is wrong, they're still wrong.


also, there are more scientists named steve (or a variation of steve) that support evolution than there are scientists that support creationism...



This suggests Dawkins remains willfully ignorant - 'Unless you show me conclusive proof I won't consider it evidence; I discount it.'


faking quotes will get you no where...



Do you not consider that the content of your refutations may not always convince?


considering that



Or is it only those who do not attain to the heights of your achievements who are not convinced, as the poor fools (PhD & research-level scientists, professors, etc.) don't understand your points?


now you're participating in a thinly veiled ad hom attack and an appeal to emotion.

you're also creating a straw man.

...3 logical fallacies in one.

all i can say is, i don't know why they disagree with me, they just do
and, so far as the science is concerned, they are incredibly wrong.

oh, and argument from authority, making it 4 (can't believe i missed that)



Or are you charitable, and grant that they would change their minds if only they read your posts?..


...not my posts, it's more the resources i tend to give with my posts that they need to read.

most of the people that have "examined the evidence" have done so from the answers in genesis point of view, not an objective one.



Your condescending comment about high-school-level arguments is empty wind. Try "Testing the Hydrothermal Fluid Transport Model for Polonium Radiohalo Formation" - one of the first articles I found here:

www.answersingenesis.org...
taken from the 'Answers Research Journal'


...that doesn't count. we're talking creationism, that's flood theory. they are two separate things. flood theory deals with complexly convoluted geology that would require post high school education to refute
...though that entire paper doesn't matter two hoots if they can't explain where the water came from...

the arguments regarding evolution tend to be inane and easily refuted.




or perhaps the 'Origin of Life' review here:
creationontheweb.com...
taken from the 'Journal of Creation'


...origin of life?
i thought we were talking about evolution...

oh, i forgot that most creationists tend to equate evolution with some sort of scientific explanation for the origin of life...

...and the link takes me to a subscription page.



Your patronizing comment does you no favours and leaves you open to the very same accusation as Dawkins: exhibition of staggering ignorance of evidence in favour of creation.


i know all of the evidence that's "in favor" of creationism is bunk.
to paraphrase the movie "my cousin vinny"

they'll try to make a piece of paper look like a solid block, but all you have to do is look at the sides.



What more need be said?


you could possibly provide a scientific basis for disagreeing with evolution. it might even be helpful if you could provide me with evidence of an alternative theory that doesn't come from someone with a religious spin in their idea...

go over to the thread i linked you to and we can do a few rounds of intellectual sparring and see what happens.



Your patronizing response to the flagellum motor again shows a) you don't listen - it was but a starting point, and b) here + in your final comment + elsewhere you tend to kid yourself all can be or is already resolved!


...i do listen. the flagellum motor just irks me to the point that i have to call shenanigans whenever someone brings it up. it's been thoroughly debunked as an IC part.



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by idle_rocker
 


...i never said that all theists are indoctrinated
neither did dawkins

in fact, you've yet to prove that he is narcissistic, all you've proven is that you're quite good at twisting words.


You know, I'm going to have to respond personally to this:

No, Madness, you once again have it exactly backwards. I haven't twisted any words...don't need to. You don't seem to realize that you're in the same boat as Dawkins so you could never realize exactly what constitutes the man. It would be like looking in the mirror I suppose. So, I'll just leave Dawkins behind in the dust I'm shaking off my feet as I go forward...knowing you are quite young and still have much time to form even more opinions of the rest of the world, but especially of yourself.

You are a bright boy and I reel at the haughtiness with which you express it. Hopefully one day you will see that brightness, knowledge, and thought processing are free to all of us, and most of us use it. And yes there are those who use it just as well as you and many who use it even better. Hopefully one day you will realize that the way you come across is so blatantly arrogant, it does disservice to your cause. Hopefully one day you will realize that you are not only seeking something better, but proudly and unabashedly seeking to understand your own lofty expression of yourself.

Perhaps you are bored, but there is absolutely no excuse for using the sort of attitude you do against those of us who don't agree with you. And I will gladly take a Mod warning and point deduction to see that if just one word someone said to you would make you become all you could truly be. If only you would show compassion. If only you could show compassion to those who disagree. Instead all we see is the pride you feel for yourself and the disdain you feel for anyone in disagreement with your logic.

Yes, it is a bitter pill to swallow. It is so very evident, Mad.

Try using your intellectual gifts for good things. You would not be harmed and you might even find it alarmingly fun to give something to someone else. How about giving someone a good day? There is quite a deal more to life that intellectual sparring.


[edit on 4/17/08 by idle_rocker]



posted on Apr, 17 2008 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by pause4thought
 


Just try not to give him any more fodder, Pause. Hint, hint, some tend to go into tirades about the same things over and over again. If we put those ones on ignore, it will probably be better for all of us. Speaking honestly here. I've seen enough myself and I've only been here since Feb. Imagine those that have been around a while, eh?

All I can say is...brother...

[edit on 4/17/08 by idle_rocker]



posted on Apr, 18 2008 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by idle_rocker
You know, I'm going to have to respond personally to this:


yes, you're quite adept at avoiding the issue.

you misrepresented what i had said in order to denigrate my point...you've actually done this many times before.



No, Madness, you once again have it exactly backwards. I haven't twisted any words...don't need to.


oh really? i said that some theists may doubt the whole "god" thing and are only staying in their religion due to indoctrination or other reasons

your response to that statement was:


Oh dear Madness, why must all we fools who believe in God, and even be so delusional as to believe that Jesus died for us...why why why, can't we just chalk this all up to indoctrination??? I mean, most of us would never, ever think of thinking for ourselves, like you do! And if we did, we could never ever come to the conclusion that God exists! If we did, we would most certainly be delusional, paranoid, schizophrenic, bi-polar or something! Maybe even CRAZY!


hmm

yeah, not twisting anything at all.



You don't seem to realize that you're in the same boat as Dawkins so you could never realize exactly what constitutes the man. It would be like looking in the mirror I suppose.


...you don't even know the first thing about myself or dawkins...
so you go into a diatribe about how i'm just like him
he's narcissistic, right?
you keep using that word...i don't think it means what you think it means

narcissism (noun)



1. Excessive love or admiration of oneself. See synonyms at conceit.


hm...i don't really love myself too much and think i'm just...well...me. (the lines under my name saying "Atheist Superstar and modest too" are just a joke revolving around people proclaiming themselves to be both great and modest)



2. A psychological condition characterized by self-preoccupation, lack of empathy, and unconscious deficits in self-esteem.


...lack of empathy?
eh, i've been accused of the opposite. gots me a bleeding heart i do



3. Erotic pleasure derived from contemplation or admiration of one's own body or self, especially as a fixation on or a regression to an infantile stage of development.


...definitely not me.



4. The attribute of the human psyche charactized by admiration of oneself but within normal limits.


well, i guess that's something we all have.

by definition 4, i guess you're right. but that would be you're just as narcissistic as dawkins or myself.



So, I'll just leave Dawkins behind in the dust I'm shaking off my feet as I go forward...knowing you are quite young and still have much time to form even more opinions of the rest of the world, but especially of yourself.


ohhh, the age bigotry angle. what fun.



You are a bright boy


...man. legal adult (and then some)

don't demean me because i don't have that many years on my life.



and I reel at the haughtiness with which you express it. Hopefully one day you will see that brightness, knowledge, and thought processing are free to all of us, and most of us use it.


eh, my misanthropic tendencies would disagree. most of us (myself included) don't tend to use their reason most of the time. if we did we'd be spending all of our time contemplating decisions instead of making them



And yes there are those who use it just as well as you and many who use it even better.


i'd sure hope so.



Hopefully one day you will realize that the way you come across is so blatantly arrogant, it does disservice to your cause.


arrogant?
if i were arrogant i'd be saying that i'm certain
there's a certain set of people who claim certainty, but i'm sure i'm not one of them (you probably see where i'm going here)



Hopefully one day you will realize that you are not only seeking something better, but proudly and unabashedly seeking to understand your own lofty expression of yourself.


...lofty expression of myself?
i'm a guy at a keyboard in a room on a small island that's trying to kill time between classes by attempting to participate in rational discourse and an open exchange of ideas.



Perhaps you are bored, but there is absolutely no excuse for using the sort of attitude you do against those of us who don't agree with you.


...it isn't to people who don't agree with me. example: JungleJake, i don't agree with him that often on these matters. actually i don't agree with him ever. but i respect him and treat him with respect. the attitude i take isn't to those i don't agree with, it's those who participate in certain tactics



If only you would show compassion. If only you could show compassion to those who disagree.


...my 2 closest friends who are like brothers to me, my girlfriend, my mother, my grandparents, my aunt, uncle, little cousin, and many other members of my family are those who disagree with me, i show them compassion

most of the people i encounter every day are those who disagree with me.
most of the people i helped out at that catholic run shelter were those who disagreed with me

i show plenty of compassion, but not in a discussion with the person who says "evolution is a big fat lie" and insults a decent man with a string of insults because he's an atheist asserting his rights.

i'm actually showing you quite a bit of respect. you're a very rational individual from what i can take, you just tend to avoid the issue at times. that really frustrates me because i think i could have a helluva discussion with you over stuff.



Instead all we see is the pride you feel for yourself



and the disdain you feel for anyone in disagreement with your logic.


no, i have a problem with a lack of logic. you can make two contradicting statements that are equally logical. i would acknowledge that someone's point makes sense from a logical standpoint even if i disagreed with it.
the problem is that so many people rattle off logical fallacies or just entirely lack logic on here

there is a motto around here that many seem to forget so often

DENY IGNORANCE



Try using your intellectual gifts for good things.


already on that.



You would not be harmed and you might even find it alarmingly fun to give something to someone else.


...this is repugnantly condescending.



How about giving someone a good day?


oh, i do that plenty. but that's my personal life and really not too much of your business

all i'll say is that, at the very least, i'll be giving my girlfriend a lovely night in about 7 hours.



There is quite a deal more to life that intellectual sparring.


of course there is. however, there's also more to life than eating. you still have to eat. i have to engage my mind or i lose it

you know, lose it. go crazy, nuts, insane, bonzo, no longer in possession of one's faculties, three fries short of a happy meal, WACKO!

...kudos to those who get the reference.

if you look at things, i don't spend too much time with the intellectual sparring. i'm only on ATS when i'm particularly bored or procrastinating.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 02:05 AM
link   




I was just reading some of wraoths new posts, I like his writing and I came across this thread. I sure hope you got an applause for this post.

It is just beautiful and well composed answering one of the most perplexing questions regarding the spirit filled Bible reader and the Secular Atheist just looking to find the contradictions he can use to confuse people with.

Thank you for posting this and If you wouldn't mind I would like to save this with your permission crediting your name to others asking questions I think this well written post would answer.

- Con



[edit on 19-4-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 02:25 AM
link   



WoW!!!!! A Christian who can write like logic is his lyrics and his message his music. I am truly humbled by your post and that isn't something this Christian says loosely much less that often.



I'm sure I'll live to regret this post.


On the contrary,, May God Bless you for that post,

you got a gift there guy

yeah you do

- Con



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by pause4thought


Although I obtained the book, I just can't take the author half as seriously as I'd expected. There are so many holes in his claims its making me wince. Is this really supposed to be some pinnacle of intellectual achievement? I think I'd fallen into the trap of assuming a hot-selling book would at least be peppered with brilliance. (These are sincere comments, not just rhetoric.)

Let's just taste the quality of some of Dawkin's prowess:


as things stand... all available evidence (and there is a vast amount of it) favours evolution
Source: p.19

The man is an ignoramus. About twenty five years ago I attended a lecture on the creation/evolution debate. The main speaker (advocating creation) was, from memory, a professor of physics at Oxford or Cambridge University.

The event took place in a large regional concert hall, and much of the space normally reserved for a vast choir (behind the orchestra) was taken up by a very large number of scientists who believe in six-day creation - just from the local area. At the time I was very interested in paleontology, and had been immersed in the ideas of evolution from childhood. The presentation blew my mind, and it really set me thinking. It was the evidence that opened my mind to rethink my beliefs in this area.

Twenty-five years of reading and thinking later, it is the evidence that has persuaded me that evolution is based on ideas, not evidence, whereas creation is overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence. The fact that I have come to this position will not change anyone's mind, but it does show the breathtaking ignorance of Richard Dawkins.

I count hospital consultants, doctors, PhD and research scientists, a research mathemetician, lawyers, etc. among my personal friends who have also concluded that the evidence favours special creation. Among my former acquaintances who have reached the same conclusion are a world-renowned professor of archeology, a not-world renowned professor of archeology, a top-level engineer, etc., etc. Around the world countless thousands of people of the same calibre have examined the evidence and come to the same conclusion. This does not prove that they are right, but it does show that Dawkins is staggeringly ignorant.



Yeah bought the book when it first came out and Ill admit I was afraid to read it. The first thing I noticed is his use of circular semantics. I have a software program for writers. It is about 600 megs and you can use many addon programs to taylor the corrective properties in your writing from writing a cover letter to a thesis to findings for peer review. It has one for lawyers, Doctors, Science writers and Business.

I would copy paste Paragraphs of Dawkins writing to the program where it would look for things like circular logic, syntax, context, vocabulary alternatives, spelling, grade level reading and readability.

Most intelligent people having a better command of the English language, can and should take complex ideas and break them down into easy to understand explanations. Dawkins it would seem, does just the opposite.

Invariably, his writing would indicate an average grade level 21, meaning he is very smart. Where it got weird is on many of the statistics it revealed a zero readability suggesting superfluous use of wording, circular logic and obfuscation.

The conclusion "This writer is practising deception"

I thought to myself

Ya Think!

- Con



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 04:07 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 04:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Erm Con........ I feel I need to chime in here...........


Why are you being dis honest Madd, you don't believe in the moral teachings of Jesus. Either you believe he is morally right where then you have to believe what he said and who sent him, OR you believe he was a liar. Was it you who questioned whether he even existed?


Isn't this rather like saying one disproven bit of information invalidates an entire book of various bits of nondependent information?

Rather like what say atheists say about your faith's bible?

Case in point I think from a moral stand point Jesus's teachings are GREAT. But I do not accept the parts that seem to me to be well for lack of a better terms added for the betterment of the church rather than things he truly said. Which I summrely disregard.
But by no means does that mean I don't agree with his moral teachings of love thy neighbor, treat others as you would like to be treated, judge not lest ye be judged and etc.

Don't it seem here your holding Madness to an uneven standard man?



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
That is true. Though I am not sure we mean in the same sense.
What it all is about REALLY in my opinion, is our preconceived notions.


hmm i shall continue reading to see where you're going with this.



Case in point, based on my perception of Dawkin's, he is a think he knows it all loudmouth that seems to feel since he can't really prove his belief system seeks to classify those that disagree with him as crazy.


hmm...i can see how you might get that perception from dawkins, but you might want to try to look at his works more closely.

just to make a point, he clarifies his use of the word "delusion" in the title of his book and states that he isn't calling believers crazy.



Which of course, doesn't fill me with the urge to read his book.


understandable enough.

[quite]
Which is what a great many of the zealots of any other belief system is want to do, you know you have heard the crap, "I have the truth.", "Those believers are crazy/delusional/deniers of the truth etc" (you get the idea). Which of course is largely silly at best. We both have simular backgrounds in dealing with this junk I am sure.


well, yeah. but the thing is that dawkins is more providing something that's catered to people who are doubting their religious beliefs or have been doubting their beliefs for a long time and are staying with their religious for the sake of some reason or another instead of going with what they personally feel.



You on the other hand kinda agree with him (not completely as you state and after that u2u I am more to inclined to believe you now) and will look at his book in the best light. Where I see nothing but vitriolic self-righteous spew.


cliche time: don't judge a book by its cover

try reading a bit of it. i know you're not motivated to particularly, but you might want to read just the first chapter or so to see how it goes.



But any rate I would like you and well everyone here to take a open minded view of at a book I recently read and enjoyed immensely, "The Race for God" by Brian Herbert. It's fiction and kinda in the vein of satire but I think it makes some rather good points on this whole mess and how the whole damn thing isn't really about "Gawd" or "Gawd"'s lack. But people.


ah, dawkins in a way makes a similar point. however, he does state that sometimes religion (just like any other unchallenged belief, eg communism) can lead to great evil



But basically all that aside, we tend to seek to exclusively reinforce our own preconceived notions, often bending information this way and that to achieve that end. Can you agree?


wholeheartedly.



I hope I managed to make some sense.


don't worry, you often tend to without realizing it, let alone when you try.

reply to post by WraothAscendant
 


i'm going to second the opinions of the teachings of jesus here. like dawkins, i'm an "atheist for jesus" (he even has a tshirt saying it that some fan of his books gave him)
though i guess con wouldn't agree with that, but that's his problem. if he can't open his mind enough to say that you can take part of a book without taking the whole thing, it's a bit sad.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
........ I feel I need to chime in here...........

Why are you being dis honest Madd, you don't believe in the moral teachings of Jesus. Either you believe he is morally right where then you have to believe what he said and who sent him, OR you believe he was a liar. Was it you who questioned whether he even existed?


No, I think it is inconsistent with his testimony if you look at the context he says this in answer to. You can agree that someone is good then what he says is moral and right. Then fine, but it doesn't ring true to say you believe in the moral teachings of jesus in the context he agrees with it when his actions since knowing him have been to disuade people from his teachings.

The Bible is the stable datum of Christian truth, if you believe one thing about the teachings of Jesus and his was truth, then that truth he taught was that he IS the truth incarnate.

He said he is the truth the way and the life, that no one gets to the father but by me. This isn't added by a church this is the church adding it to doctrine

- Con



[edit on 19-4-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
*snip*


ah, the good old "out of context quotes personal attack" gif

...what the hell does that have to do with anything on here?



Do you REALLY want to know Madd or are you just saying this to test our damn reflexes again?


...well, i'd like to see a philosophical argument.



Do you! Would YOU read something that makes the likes of Dawkins pale in intelligent comparison? Would you?


...wow, the arrogance is overflowing.



This is the 6th time I have given you this link and I KNOW there is no way you have read it for it answers in the most compelling and comprehensive argument, one I don't think you can bear the truth about.

plato.stanford.edu...


i've read it
but there's a thing about philosophy, we can disagree so long as we're both logically sound...doesn't say a damn thing as to who is right and who is wrong.





Do you REALLY want to know Madd or are you just saying this to test our damn reflexes again?


you're repeating yourself, con.




Do you! Would YOU read something that makes the likes of Dawkins pale in intelligent comparison? Would you?


yeah, you are repeating yourself



This is the 6th time I have given you this link and I KNOW there is no way you have read it for it answers in the most compelling and comprehensive argument, one I don't think you can bear the truth about.

plato.stanford.edu...


...doesn't address natural evils. things like earthquakes, hurricanes, ebola, etc.

and you hold a position on this that's far too high.


3: each deity has sent down representatives
3a: why haven't we had any in any recent time?


Thought you said you read the bible three times? I guess you didn't

Read it again, for the first time.


...for the fourth...and no, i've had it up to here (motions to slightly above his neck) with that book.

you didn't address the argument, you just deflected.



Do you REALLY want to know Madd or are you just saying this to test our damn reflexes again? Do you! Would YOU read something that makes the likes of Dawkins pale in intelligent comparison? Would you?

This is the 6th time I have given you this link and I KNOW there is no way you have read it for it answers in the most compelling and comprehensive argument, one I don't think you can bear the truth about.

plato.stanford.edu...


this has no way of acknowledging anything i just said. i asked why wasn't jesus sent to a population center. there are probably an infinite number of ways that the christian religion could have become even more prominent than it is today with jesus being placed in a different area





I have been around the world twice Madd and everywhere I went they knew who Jesus was so where you get that bunk from Ill never know.


...i said never heard about him
past tense
not "have not heard about him"
but that's the thing about taking everything i say out of context.

i meant that the majority of people after jesus



Why are you being dis honest Madd, you don't believe in the moral teachings of Jesus. Either you believe he is morally right where then you have to believe what he said and who sent him, OR you believe he was a liar. Was it you who questioned whether he even existed?


wraoth already addressed this hypocrisy.



PLease share with me Madd because I already know what you said and just want to see if you are going to continue with your inconsistent testimony so we can all know whether we are wasting our time listening to you any more or not. Please Madd share with us your best recollection.


ugh

can you tell me why you're attempting to derail my thread with a massive personal attack?





What did I just say

Case Closed:

- Con




hooray for being a dishonest *self snip* thread derailer.
you know, you just created a paradox.

you say to accept jesus on his moral teachings is to accept his divinity or else i'm being dishonest.

jesus and buddha share many moral teachings.

but you disagree with the buddha's enlightenment, yet accept the moral teachings that he came up with 300 years prior to jesus

thus you'd be just as dishonest as i.



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul


ah, the good old "out of context quotes personal attack" gif

...what the hell does that have to do with anything on here?


You better look up the meaning of context
You asked for an example of atheist pride or arrogance, so I showed you your own. Don't like it? Let me make this clear, you are my adversary, I don't like you and I don't respect you. That isn't an ad-hom that is my honest opinion predicated on the many attacks you have been the center of and cause of to Christianity.

When I see you attempt to confuse and antagonize other Christians, I will do my best to stop you from doing that. Fortunatley, that has been an easy task.



...well, i'd like to see a philosophical argument.


I gave them to you



...wow, the arrogance is overflowing.


That isn't arrogance that is the frustration of seeing you yet again make the same arguments when yet again I have had to link those arguments to someone or some resource that can answer them better than I can.

Why?

Because I am humble enough to know I am not as smart as the writer I was attempting to send you to.

So what was that you were saying about arrogance?


you're repeating yourself, con.




yeah, you are repeating yourself



Seems we both are.



...doesn't address natural evils. things like earthquakes, hurricanes, ebola, etc.

and you hold a position on this that's far too high.


It's in there if you need me to point it out



...for the fourth...and no, i've had it up to here (motions to slightly above his neck) with that book.

you didn't address the argument, you just deflected.


I beg your pardon?




this has no way of acknowledging anything i just said. i asked why wasn't jesus sent to a population center. there are probably an infinite number of ways that the christian religion could have become even more prominent than it is today with jesus being placed in a different area


Yeah jesus didn't know what he was doing.




...i said never heard about him past tense
not "have not heard about him"
but that's the thing about taking everything i say out of context.


Here tell me the difference. "what about people that have never heard about Jesus" "what about people that never "hear" about jesus"

Now you tell me madd does my answer not handle that?



i meant that the majority of people after jesus


Ok



wraoth already addressed this hypocrisy.


I don't care what he said, I'm talking to you about what YOU have said




ugh

can you tell me why you're attempting to derail my thread with a massive personal attack?



I don't see the personal attack and have been very candid just where you stand with me. If I have made a personal attack madd this post would have been a lot more colorfull.



but you disagree with the buddha's enlightenment, yet accept the moral teachings that he came up with 300 years prior to jesus


I never said any such thing. Show me madd, please share with us my quote about buddah. Please share with us why again I am to ask you why you are being so dishonest.



- Con



[edit on 19-4-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Apr, 19 2008 @ 06:19 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



i asked why wasn't jesus sent to a population center. there are probably an infinite number of ways that the christian religion could have become even more prominent than it is today with jesus being placed in a different area

Jesus himself answered your question:


"...salvation is from the Jews."

(John4:22)

God prepared the Jewish nation as the vehicle for revealing his message and his Son, both of which can be summarised as 'salvation', meaning rescue or deliverance from moral corruption and its consequences - condemnation and separation from God.

(Note: 'Jesus' means 'Yahweh is salvation', Yahweh being God's name revealed in the Old Testament, meaning I AM.)

A bit off topic, but you did mention it.

Perhaps as an antedote to the prevalent climate in this thread of late (-heat-) readers might enjoy a few moments' quiet reflection. Just take a few minutes to read the account from which the above quote is drawn: John chapter 4 verses 1-42.

I find it breathtakingly beautiful. Someone who has completely lost their way discovers that God is not against them. Rather he waits to unleash an avalanche of self-sacrificial forgiveness and blessing...

God is not only real. He is wonderful.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join