The Dawkins Delusion (page 4)

Chalam

Richard Dawkins explains his involvement in Expelled

Thanks for posting LWT, Dawkins digs an even deeper hole for himself!

Blessings,

Stephen

Dagney

I'm going to a lecture he is giving with TastingFreedom in a few weeks. He has read some of his books, I have not. I'm pretty interested to hear what he has to say.

hamsterbait

Atheists who do bad things are doing it because they are bad. They do not claim an invisible being told them to do it.

Of course you can read about the massacres of non-jewish peoples by the people of The God, and say they are GOOD because GOD told them to do it. (Proof please?)

HB

sabastious

Thanks for posting LWT, Dawkins digs an even deeper hole for himself!

You're not usually one to poke fun at anyone.

Uncharacteristic post? Or do you usually laugh at the expense of other people's hard work?

-Sab

leavingwt

This is a good example of how all belief is based upon a "unique interpretation":

Thanks for posting LWT, Dawkins digs an even deeper hole for himself!

My interpretation of the 2nd Dawkins video was, "Shame on Ben Stein."

Ding

BD,

For a viewpoint opposite Dawkins', you might find Lee Stobel's The Case for a Creator interesting.

If that's out for some reason, you might try Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box, which criticizes Darwin's theory from biochemical evidence. Behe isn't arguing for Christianity there. He's arguing against Darwin's delivery mechanisms.

brotherdan

Come on, Hamster. Really? The ONLY reason people do bad things is because of religion? Seriously? You really think that? There are some people that do bad things in the name of religion. True. But that cannot be said to be the end all solution to the worlds problems. Makes no sense. True Christians do not preach hate but preach love. They do not claim that God has told them to do bad things. If they do claim this or do bad things in the name of Christ, they are not really Christians.

unshackled

I've read the God Delusion a couple times and do not agree that Dawkins was being intellectually dishonest. His use of the word faith is accurate with the dictionary meaning of the word: "strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof."

He systematically went thru all the arguments for a god and supplied reasoning for why they are false. In effect, debunking the supposed evidence for a god. So then in turn, his definition of faith is in line with his entire argument, which is: there is no evidence of a god and those with "faith" believe because they want to believe. They believe in belief.

What evidence is there for a god? What is this god you believe in...how would you describe him/her/it? What proof or justifications do you have for describing god in that way? I think the suggestion is simply you couldn't possibly KNOW there is a god, let alone begin to describe exactly what this god is. Fact is if you believe we were created by a higher intelligence, the default answer is not a god that resembles us, or god of the bible. IT could just as easily be a higher intelligent alien race that has existed before us by millions of years. Your "god" you want to believe in may just be aliens and we are their petri dish. "God" doesn't seem like such a cuddly idea if that were the case.

zoiks

I will say, BD, that you have a knack for creating busy threads

hamsterbait

Is THE god somebody elses god?

If you refuse to worship THE God, or prefer to worship some other imaginary being (all other "gods not existing), then I will believe you when you say you are not arguing for the existence of YOUR god.

Otherwise you are being disingenuous or a LIAR (and we all know that those who serve THE GOD -whoever that is- never lie)

HB

The Dawkins Delusion

Share this