I am currently reading " The GOD delusion" by Richard Dawkins and would appreciate comments from those who have read it,pro &con.

by smiddy 64 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Perry
    Perry
    The biggest pro-god arguments are summed up as: “ontological argument” , “ontological argument”, “design argument”

    OTWO,

    IMO, the most effective pro-god argument is a person's personal testimony regarding what God did for him after coming to a saving faith in Christ Alone.

    My life changed from a drug addicted, cigarette-chain-smoking, burned-out rage-a-holic to a drug-free, peace-loving family-man. I can't take credit for this. God literally saved my life and possibly others as well.

    Jehovah's Witnesses are not fundamental christians because they have no testimony of God actually living inside of them. It's all socialization and will-power. But quite apart from socialization and any will power of my own....God works inside me.

    I was an unbeliever for a very long time, so I know how sappy that sounds to some, but it is true. And by the way, there is no other way to cross the chasm from agnosticism to knowing and experiencing first hand the presence of God except through Grace (on God's part) and faith in Christ Alone (on our part). It is a mutual collaboration of decision-making.

  • cofty
    cofty

    Perry I already said...

    "Anybody who claims they can prove there is no god is as illogical as you are."

    I have never come across an atheist who claimed to be able to prove there is no god. So what's your point?

    Are you interested in communicating or childish point-scoring?

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    Any comments we make about God, from either side, are simply opinions and can't be proven.

  • xchange
    xchange

    I don't have an opinion of god.

  • cofty
    cofty

    I don't have an opinion of god. - xchange

    Now that's an agnostic!

  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut

    Perry, you are totally inappropriate in preaching your sermon here which is off-topic. I won't comment here on what you said. But I sure miss you and your unique fantastical way of feeling without thinking.

    Good to hear from you.

  • xchange
    xchange

    Cofty - Now that's an agnostic!

    Well, I should qualify that. I don't have an opinion on any god because no theist has been able to explain to me in satisfactory way that such a god actually exists. Therefore, I have no opinion of any god because I don't have anything of substance to comment on or go on. (other than their personal experience and I don't sway easily)

    It's like having an opinion or comment on the purple leperchaun that my neighbor insists that they think is real in the community garden we share. I just haven't met the bloke. ;)

  • atrapado
    atrapado

    Perry I would put it this way if you like math. When would you consider a very small number to be 0? 1e-100? For all purposes 1e-100 is zero. If you want to be dogmatic about it then is not zero but for most practical purposes is zero.

    When it comes to agnostics vs atheism where do you draw the line. Sure if you want to be dogmatic and you allow for any small possibility that there is a god you are technically agnostic. So I think most atheist want to make the destinction that there are as close as possible to atheism as logically possible. So with only two things agnostics vs atheism how can you make it clear? How do you make the distinction? Should they give an essay everytime they define why they consider themselves atheist?

  • Finkelstein
    Finkelstein

    a-moral = without morals

    a-belief = without belief

    a-theist = without god (theist is from theos : a believer in god)

    So then that would make Perry ... A-pathetic = without empathy or moral justification

  • smiddy
    smiddy

    I thank all of you who have responded to my post ,as I said I am interested in you veiws, whether they are pro or con , the reason being, you may bring up something that I would never have thought of . Not that you would influence me one way or the other ,but i do beleive two heads are better than one so surely 20?or so heads must be better than one ,if you get my drift . I dont have the patience,perserverance or youth to reply to every post but to you NewChapter i will .I`m not worried , I`m an old hand , I`m not swayed by this argument or that argument , i just wanted to get other peoples perspective of his book .I think you misunderstood where I`m coming from .No offence .And thank you for the other posts who suggested other literature to read Eg: Hitchens books I will look forward to reading them.

    smiddy

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit