Richard Dawkins is a super coward

reply to post by Wertdagf


I've discussed why this is an invalid excuse ad nauseum. Read earlier posts and come back.

reply to post by Pinke

There is nothing productive about running rings around a scientist after training like Rocky for years upon years in timed debating techniques. I'd be more genuinely impressed if two individuals decided to spend years researching, discussing, and working together towards some genuinely useful insights rather than orchestrating macho verbal wrestling matches.

People who attack and attempt to organize a movement against a whole group of people while being completely ignorant should be called out.

Hillbillies had every right to be called out for their racist viewpoints that were based off of complete ignorance.

Especially if these hillbillies were out selling books bashing black people while spewing nothing but ignorant remarks.

I would love it if somebody called out Westborough Baptist...........they deserve it!!

reply to post by sdb93awd

If God exists then I'm quite sure that everything he does is fine

This is not a reason for why its an invalid criticism.

You are really slipping.

sdb93awd
reply to post by Pinke

 

People who attack and attempt to organize a movement against a whole group of people while being completely ignorant should be called out.

Atheists were systematically silenced and attacked over thousands of years to the point where the word at one time was an insult, and in many countries it still is.

The Atheist movement has been comparatively benign in comparison to religious counterparts. I'd also question Dawkins being 'completely ignorant'.

Especially if these hillbillies were out selling books bashing black people while spewing nothing but ignorant remarks.

The Selfish Gene did far more than simply spew ignorant remarks. If you delve deeply into Dawkin's work, he can be harsh but is often quite patient and someone to learn from at the very least if you want to understand people.

Any ignorance presented by Dawkins is over shadowed by the solid parts of the person's work.

I would love it if somebody called out Westborough Baptist

Is this a troll comment? O.o ahaha

reply to post by Wertdagf

This is not a reason for why its an invalid criticism.

Just to clear things up for your simple mind: It isn't a valid excuse because Dawkins won't hesitate to debate and speak with prominent clergymen or young earth creationists. This totally invalidates his "excuse".

reply to post by Pinke


I'm with you on the attack of organized religion. It has done more damage to the gospel of Jesus Christ than anything.

However, organized religion cannot be correlated with true Christianity because Jesus himself warned agains the "religious". Religion has primarily been a means to economic and political gain.

Dawkins simply attacks young earthers and religion, throws in some facts about darwinism, and then champions a case for atheism.

He never seems to understand that organized religion and young earth creationism DO NOT define the gospel of Christ or Christian people in general.


You all can't keep attacking man made religion and pretend that it's from God.

We are warned against the religious and we are also told to be prepared to have answers for our detractors.

The argument you make just proves more truths in the Bible about human psychology. The Catholic religion was prophecied about and it isn't pretty.

The Selfish Gene did far more than simply spew ignorant remarks. If you delve deeply into Dawkin's work, he can be harsh but is often quite patient and someone to learn from at the very least if you want to understand people.

The issue is not with Dawkins' knowledge of Darwinism. The issue is his ignorance on TRUE Christianity. You know, the type that is scriptural.

I'm quite sure all of his points about religion are completely justified. But those RELIGIONS do not display true Christian beliefs and therefore he is ignorant about SCRIPTURAL beliefs.

sdb93awd
reply to post by Pinke

 

Dawkins simply attacks young earthers and religion, throws in some facts about darwinism, and then champions a case for atheism.

Dawkins and other New Atheists have addressed this multiple times in interviews. Might be worth having a google, no offence intended but it's a common query.

The issue is not with Dawkins' knowledge of Darwinism. The issue is his ignorance on TRUE Christianity. You know, the type that is scriptural.

Dawkins probably hasn't read in Greek or Hebrew whilst studying and comparing to historical sources, but nor have most.

Still, it again reaffirms that the debates are pointless. William Lane Craig isn't a biologist nor does he want to be, and Richard Dawkins is not a theology professor or historian, nor does he want to be. So I stand by my feeling that such a debate would be pointless.

reply to post by sdb93awd

The issue is his ignorance on TRUE Christianity.

Which of the 40,000 or so Christian sects represents "TRUE Christianity", in your opinion?

reply to post by iterationzero


Well, it's not as simple as naming sects.........

True Christian ideals are from the Bible and the Bible only.

Catholicism, for example, preaches a gospel that isn't even remotely scriptural.

The important facets of belief are definitely still taught to a large percentage of Christians though. I'd say most "sects" have the correct belief about salvation......and that's what's important. Also, the Bible makes it as clear as day.

reply to post by Pinke

Dawkins probably hasn't read in Greek or Hebrew whilst studying and comparing to historical sources, but nor have most.

The truth of the Gospel is very clear and does not require an in depth look at the different interpretations. The main points of the Gospel are not up for debate, and they certainly are not something that should be attacked from an ignorant atheist. The whole point is love for one another. Can you imagine how much the human race could accomplish if all we did was embrace love for one another? That instruction to love everyone makes religious "laws" obsolete. It fulfills the "laws", as prophecied, but it also takes them to a whole new level without the need for "religious" types.

Things up for debate due to differences in historical documents would be: the flood, the vague creation account, and various stories in the Old testament. The historical evidence for the Old Testament is there, but some of the "stories" fall into different genres.

Interpretive differences are never significant to the main concepts of the Bible.

The 5 sentence creation account, obviously, can be taken in many differing ways. The creation account means next to nothing to a Christian. It is not the reason anybody becomes a Christian. Nobody becomes a Christian because they are just so completely enamored with the creation account.

There are much more important things discussed in the Book.

Dawkins and other New Atheists have addressed this multiple times in interviews. Might be worth having a google, no offence intended but it's a common query.

Could you show me something that explains their reasoning behind this?

I really like Alan Watt, and he had very interesting things to say about Dawkins and the guru industry.

sdb93awd
The truth of the Gospel is very clear and does not require an in depth look at the different interpretations. The main points of the Gospel are not up for debate, and they certainly are not something that should be attacked from an ignorant atheist.

1 Corinthians 7:17-24
Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. Even if you can gain your freedom, make use of your present condition now more than ever.

Alternatively:

Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.)

Our understanding of the bible is relative to our modern lives when it should be relative to historical understanding. Some theorists go as far to say that bible translations are biased since many biblical scholars are predisposed to an idea of what the bible should say.

This passage isn't that bad, but there are multiple versions of the text with parts omitted, words altered, and potential multiple interpretations before translations even begin.

Things up for debate due to differences in historical documents would be:

Interpretive differences are never significant to the main concepts of the Bible.

If you're ever up for a discussion on that topic I'd enjoy it. It's fascinating. We could use the debate forum I suppose. I think debates can be good learning experiences, so I enjoy them but I don't think they actually answer the important questions in the long run. I just like learning.

Regarding the debating targets of Dawkins et al, I really think its best you get their opinions directly from them because they are unique to each. Dawkins focuses on Creationists and ID is because it impacts his field. William Lane Craig has had zero impact on the study of biology.

If you get really stuck U2U me and I can show you were to find some of Sam Harris and Dawkins comments on these types of things.

reply to post by Pinke


There are definitely certain passages in the Bible that have become more ambiguous with newer translations. The main aspects of the Gospel of Christ, however, are the exact same in each translation. There is no debate as to what the New Testament is portraying: that Jesus is God and he is the way to salvation. His words are the instructions of our creator and if you read and follow what he says, the world would be a beautiful place. Free from every form of human evil.

Love is always the answer. If you are being mistreated, LOVE your enemy.

If you forgive someone, forgive them a million times and LOVE them.

Being hateful is akin to murder in the Bible.

Even imagining cheating on your wife is akin to adultery because you are supposed to LOVE your spouse and not betray them.

It's all about LOVE and that's why it's so unnerving to hear of folks who are actually AFRAID of Christians. There are people who think Christianity causes problems. There are people who believe that Christians should be ashamed and humiliated.

I will never be ashamed of my God who instructs me to love everybody. The God who tells me to perservere in love until the bitter end, even if it makes me have to pray for my enemies who ridicule me.

We are prepared for the mistreatment that will surely find us. People hate us more and more and ignorant people are leading the charge.

Mr Dawkins is an alien, promoting the fact that there is no God, no deity... nothing!!! We all appeared out of nothing by accident ... as you do!!
Now the issue for me is this. Doe's it really matter where we come from? Also, if we find comfort in believing in a God, whoever he might be, what is wrong with that? If I believe my wooden spoon has magical powers, so be it. Be happy for me! As long as I don't go around hitting people with it.
If you carry on telling people there is no God, eventually we will all become dehumanised... numb. We will be unable to share for one thing as there will be nothing of interest to share with anyone. Dreams will be stifled and progress will be slow. Our daydreams won't mean anything anymore, because we will have been programmed that daydreams are connected to religion and with that comes the Almighty and our aspirations will mean jack.

1984 springs to mind! Careful what you wish for!!
At the end of the day, don't knock your neighbour for his/her religious believes. It is your believes that make you human. Wake up everyone.... pleaseee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! .... WAKE up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

hx

reply to post by sdb93awd

Well, it's not as simple as naming sects.........

Let me put it another way then, what percentage of self identified Christians are "TRUE Christians"?

True Christian ideals are from the Bible and the Bible only.

See "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

Catholicism, for example, preaches a gospel that isn't even remotely scriptural.

Does that stop them from being considered "TRUE Christians"?

The important facets of belief are definitely still taught to a large percentage of Christians though. I'd say most "sects" have the correct belief about salvation......and that's what's important. Also, the Bible makes it as clear as day.

If it were "clear as day", there wouldn't be 40,000 sects of Christianity. Particularly given your disregard for Catholicism, which is the single largest sect of Christianity by a wide margin given that there are about 1.2B Catholics out of about 2.1B Christians globally.

reply to post by iterationzero

Let me put it another way then, what percentage of self identified Christians are "TRUE Christians"?

I don't know. Whichever ones believe that being saved is a gift of grace rather than based off of human "works". If I had to guess I'd say 56%

See "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

That does not apply to anything that I've said. Not even close.

Does that stop them from being considered "TRUE Christians"?

The teachings of the Vatican are not concurrent with the scriptural gospel of Jesus Christ. That's not to say that some individual members aren't Christians, but the actual Vatican teachings are not the true gospel. Catholicism teaches good works and religious tradition as a way to reach heaven. This is the exact opposite of "true Christianity", which teaches that salvation is the free gift of God offered unto humans.

Eph 2:8,9
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast.


The Catholic religion has historically banned members from attempting to read scipture and has even sold tickets to heaven. They keep their members in the dark and promote their Vatican agenda($$$$ and power). I've never run into a Catholic person who even knew the basic stories in the Bible. It's sad.

If it were "clear as day", there wouldn't be 40,000 sects of Christianity. Particularly given your disregard for Catholicism, which is the single largest sect of Christianity by a wide margin given that there are about 1.2B Catholics out of about 2.1B Christians globally.

Like I've already said, most of those "sects" probably do teach the true scriptural gospel; which is all that matters.

The Catholic teachings are completely unscriptural and the deeds done by that church have been nothing short of horrifying. They are a political and financial institution based off of a false gospel. That isn't the fault of the actual scriptures themselves and the Catholic church is clearly spoken of in end times Bible prophecy. They have done more harm to the true gospel of Jesus Christ than anything.

reply to post by sdb93awd

I don't know. Whichever ones believe that being saved is a gift of grace rather than based off of human "works". If I had to guess I'd say 56%

How did you arrive at that number? Is it based on something or just a complete guess?

That does not apply to anything that I've said. Not even close.

Yes, it absolutely applies. A simple rendition of your argument would be this:

Person A: "No TRUE Christian believes that being saved is based on human works."
Person B: "I am a Christian and believe that being saved is based on human works."
Person A: "Then you are not a TRUE Christian."

By your own estimation, nearly half of all Christians aren't TRUE Christians. So how can you assert, as you did in this post that:

The issue is his ignorance on TRUE Christianity.

when, by your own estimation, nearly half of all Christians aren't even TRUE Christians? When approximately 1B people who self-identify as Christian are, in your mind, also ignorant of what constitutes TRUE Christianity, then I'd say the issue isn't that Dawkins is ignorant of TRUE Christianity.

The Catholic teachings are completely unscriptural and the deeds done by that church have been nothing short of horrifying. They are a political and financial institution based off of a false gospel. That isn't the fault of the actual scriptures themselves and the Catholic church is clearly spoken of in end times Bible prophecy. They have done more harm to the true gospel of Jesus Christ than anything.

If it's so clear, then why are there still Catholics?

reply to post by iterationzero

How did you arrive at that number? Is it based on something or just a complete guess?

Sarcasm. Kind of a pointless question.

Yes, it absolutely applies. A simple rendition of your argument would be this:

Your rendition is far too simple for what I'm saying. Also, a TRUE Christian has a definition and is therefore not subjective by nature. There is no subjectivity when it comes to the written gospel so in that case a TRUE Christian can be 100% identified by their belief of salvation. Catholics are kept well in the dark and they believe a lie that was created by an incredibly powerful and dangerous institution.

There is really not much of a debate when it comes to the Gospel of Christ. It is clear.

when, by your own estimation, nearly half of all Christians aren't even TRUE Christians? When approximately 1B people who self-identify as Christian are, in your mind, also ignorant of what constitutes TRUE Christianity, then I'd say the issue isn't that Dawkins is ignorant of TRUE Christianity

A lot of them are equally as ignorant as Dawkins. They subscribe to institutional policies and that is why that religion can get away with what it does. They do not promote personal reading of scripture. That is how they maintain control. The funny thing is that these are the people that Dawkins targets. It's pure ignorance vs. pure ignorance, and the innocent bystander is the scripturally sound Christian.

If it's so clear, then why are there still Catholics?

Human institutions are very good at manipulation and control tactics.

See: Democrat v. Republican and all the idiocy that ensues and all the misinformation that is perceived to be true

reply to post by sdb93awd

Sarcasm. Kind of a pointless question.

Not intended to be, it's just that 56% seemed like a very specific number. I was expecting something a response more like "a quarter" or "a half". I'm a scientist, so when I see a number that exact when asking for an approximation, I automatically question how it was arrived at. Sorry if it came off as sarcastic, but I was genuinely interested if you had done some kind of calculation to arrive at it.

Your rendition is far too simple for what I'm saying. Also, a TRUE Christian has a definition and is therefore not subjective by nature. There is no subjectivity when it comes to the written gospel so in that case a TRUE Christian can be 100% identified by their belief of salvation. Catholics are kept well in the dark and they believe a lie that was created by an incredibly powerful and dangerous institution.

This is the argument given by everyone who has ever engaged in a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. It doesn't make your reasoning of what constitutes a TRUE Christian any less fallacious or your estimation of what constitutes a TRUE Christian any more objective.

There is really not much of a debate when it comes to the Gospel of Christ. It is clear.

If it is clear, then why are there 40,000 sects that self identify as Christianity? If it is clear, then why, in your own estimation, are there about a billion Christians on this planet right now that aren't really Christians? If it is clear, then why can't you simply point the unTRUE Christians to a part of the Bible, have them read it, and convert them to TRUE Christians?

A lot of them are equally as ignorant as Dawkins. They subscribe to institutional policies and that is why that religion can get away with what it does. They do not promote personal reading of scripture. That is how they maintain control. The funny thing is that these are the people that Dawkins targets. It's pure ignorance vs. pure ignorance, and the innocent bystander is the scripturally sound Christian.

Given that there's no consensus of what is and what is not a scripturally sound Christian, even amongst Christians, the claim that there's any such thing as an "innocent bystander" in the debate rings hollow.

See: Democrat v. Republican and all the idiocy that ensues and all the misinformation that is perceived to be true

Ah, but there are clear ideological differences between Democrats and Republicans on issues of social policy, fiscal policy, foreign policy, etc. There is no scripture for Democrats and Republicans to fall back on and proclaim as the truth. They at least admit (for the most part) that their ideology and dogma are man made.

sdb93awd
reply to post by Pinke

 

There is no debate as to what the New Testament is portraying: that Jesus is God and he is the way to salvation. His words are the instructions of our creator and if you read and follow what he says, the world would be a beautiful place. Free from every form of human evil.

Are you seriously saying that the New Testament is the key to world peace?

“I praise you for being faithful in remembering me. I also praise you for staying true to all my teachings, just as I gave them to you. Now I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ. The head of the woman is the man. And the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered brings shame on his head. 5 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered brings shame on her head. It is just as if her head were shaved. What if a woman does not cover her head? She should have her hair cut off. But it is shameful for her to cut her hair or shave it off. So she should cover her head. A man should not cover his head. He is the likeness and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man. 8 The man did not come from the woman. The woman came from the man. Also, the man was not created for the woman. The woman was created for the man. 10 That's why a woman should have her head covered. It shows that she is under authority. She should also cover her head because of the angels. “....

I Corinthians 11

I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

1 Timothy 2:12

Matthew 5

29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.

1 Corinthians 7

27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife.

Matthew 6

34 “Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.

Clear as ay, right?

Not debatable?

Not up for argument?

Do I get to be a "TRUE Christian" only if I'm a massochistic, woman-hating, sexually repressed headcase with zero ambition? Sounds like the prelude to a seriously disturbing rape story to me. "TRUE Christians" are into some weird sh*t, I guess. And they claim the gays are the sexually defective ones. Sigh.