Comment on Richard Dawkins. by AAtheist
"Tell me, what would you consider proof of god to be?"
There are many aspects to this question in itself, so I'll identify a few proofs as best I can.
A proof could be things or events of a miraculous nature; further proven by having this said object or event tailored specifically to the intent or inquiries of the person who is seeking the answer or proof. On a personal level, this makes the proof individually subjective, but the nature of the miracle itself is what makes it objective--at least, on a mass scale. An example of a miracle that may act as evidence for the existence of a higher power (drawing an example from the Bible) is the conception of Christ in Mary. The fact that she was a virgin and conceived falls well outside of any explainable, scientific phenomenon.
That said, let's address another issue with your statement (since you are apparently a child of semantics). To say there is "proof" of anything (in any matter--whether it be legal, religious, etc.) is a fallacy. As the question relies on the most accurate interpretation of a human experience, and the evidence given by that experience. That said, the question is not as simple as a mathematics equation, any miraculous event, no matter how convincing, baffling, or resonating it may be, is not a proof of God's existence, but simply acts as evidence for His existence. In the end, the decision of whether someone is going to believe in God or any sort of faith relies on their choice.
There is an exception to this, however, and may act as an definite proof (on an individual or mass scale): If God himself came before the person. However, the difference is also the scaling of the event. If God were to appear before a single person, the event would probably call into question the sanity of that person and this is understandable, as skepticism does hold it's place in any case of proving an event or axiom, but there is a difference between reasonable skepticism and outright denial. That is my point. To say someone is a "fundamentalist" is simply an educated way of calling someone a zealot or denialist. Dawkins is, by all accounts (including his own) a denialist. He will deny the existence of God or the truth of a faith (especially the Christian faith) from here until the end of time. Even if God were to appear in front of him.
"I agree not all religious people are rigid in their beliefs, unfortunately the ones who are not so rigid do not get enough recognition to get into a position where they would be a viable person to debate with on any kind of coverage. This is because they simply do not agree with much of what the leaders of their religion say. They do not get the backing necessary to get to a point where they can say something new." I'm Mormon and I can confidently say that I agree with my leaders with every aspect of my Church's doctrine. To say that positions such as mine are not common or "are not covered" is simply false... that said, you may want to research the works of prominent apologists and Professors such as Zacharias, Hart, McGrath, or (in my specific case) the works of the Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research. These are all well-publicized and reasonable apologists and people with whom Dawkins refuses to debate with.
"Indeed if they DO manage to get to a position where they can debate with the likes of Richard Dawkins--" I stopped reading that paragraph about there.
1. Dawkins REFUSES to debate with prominent or reasonable theologians. In this case, he is referring to theologians who wish to debate with him on the topic of creationism vs. evolution: "what they seek is the oxygen of respectability", and doing so would "give them this oxygen by the mere act of engaging with them at all". He suggests that creationists "don't mind being beaten in an argument. What matters is that we give them recognition by bothering to argue with them in public."
2. What you are implying is that Dawkins has been the "extending hand" here, which (as the overwhelming evidence of his behavior CLEARLY suggests) is not the case. If anything, he has propagated his asinine, denialist behavior.
"I often wonder why people think that semantics are unimportant, they are in fact exceptionally important..."
There is a definite importance to formal, lexical, and conceptual semantics, but what you are referring to is the importance for a party to shift their semantics in a formal argument so that their position is caught in a more favorable light. This isn't a behavior that should be encouraged. It is asinine, and makes debating with the opposing party nearly impossible. I've already stated that isn't the way this is gonna go down, cupcake. If you try to shift Dawkins actual position, I will call you out on it.
"Unless you are very careful in how you phrase your arguments you can end up arguing a completely different position to the one that you hold, take another look at the quote. We are not talking about theology in general, we are talking, very specifically, about the actions asserted to be taken by God in the OT. And in the actions he takes, he shows to have pretty much all the traits that Richard Dawkins stated in this quote."
Semantics only gets complicated when you are trying to shift your party's actual position. He said "Christian theology" which means ALL aspects of the Christian faith. If he said, "God and the Old Testament are a non-subject, vacuous, etc." then your argument would hold water, but he didn't say that. He was making a gross generalization and outright false statements. But for the sake of an honest debate, I'll humor you. Let's break down Dawkins' gaffe, shall we?
"Yes, I have, of course, met this point before..." Surprise, surprise... he has been called out on his ignorance of Christian theology before. This is pretty straight forward.
"It sounds superficially fair. But it presupposes that there is something in Christian theology to be ignorant about." Translation: "This sounds fair on the surface, but the accusation is made under the assumption that there is anything about Christian Theology to be ignorant about." One can only draw two conclusions from this: Either Dawkins is an expert on the subject of Christian theology, or he is implying that Christian theology is so shallow and empty that there is nothing to be ignorant about. Both are granduerous implications that demand equally granduerous evidence for his claim. So what does he say next?
"The entire thrust of my position is that Christian theology is a non-subject. It is empty. Vacuous. Devoid of coherence or content..." O...kay...? Yes, we know you have a disdain for faith--Christianity specifically. Now, what is your proof of this outrageous claim?
"...I imagine that McGrath would join me in expressing disbelief in fairies, astrology and Thor's hammer. How would he respond if a fairyologist, astrologer or Viking accused him of ignorance of their respective subjects?" Wait... so... your "proof" of Christian theology being a "non-subject" is an non-conclusive assumption of what McGrath would do in regards to knowledge of other faiths? First off, McGrath is a College theologian--a professor in the field of religion. Which means, his job is to collect information about other faiths and their perception of all things material and non-material. Second, how can what McGrath would personally agree or disagree with with in regards to "fairies, astrology, and Thor's hammer" be considered an academic proof to his claim of knowing for a FACT that Christian theology (meaning every. single. aspect. of the Christian faith) has no substance or no "coherence?" The short answer is HE CAN'T! Dawkins argument makes no fucking sense.
Now, if Dawkins were to say, "Well, McGrath doesn't know anything about genes, memes, evolution, etc." THEN his argument, MIGHT hold water on the condition that he can provide concrete evidence of McGrath's ignorance, but no... he didn't do that. He made an appeal to consequence, an appeal to emotion, and ad hominem all at once by basically saying, "McGrath is a doo-doo head because he disagrees with fairies, astrology, and Thor's hammer." That is a strawman: He is misrepresenting McGrath in an attempt to discredit the simple point that Dawkins does not know what the fuck he is talking about in regards to Christian theology.
"I am also sorry that you appear to be completely mistaking the reason for why he wishes the KJV to be studied. He is not endorsing the religion, he is not saying that the things it says are to be taken as fact, he is instead saying that it can, and should, be taken as a literary work of art in it's own right, regardless of your stance on what it expounds."
Ya know, for supposedly understanding the ins-and-outs of semantics, you sure can't read well. I never said he was endorsing religion. I simply said that if he was encouraging the KJV of the bible to be read and understood, I agree with him. I never said anything about endorsing or encouraging faith (even though those are my overall goals). I do recognize that if a person is not interested in acquiring faith, or believing in God, that reading the KJV can be informative in regards to theology and English literature.
"As for whether he will actually entertain the existence of God, I honestly think he has a position very similar to my own. He has spoken to many people who claim that there is evidence of God's existence, and yet he has always seen flaws in their reasoning, has always found holes in their evidence, and upon examining the world around him he has come to believe that there is simply no evidence suggesting that the god many people believe in exists, further in a case like this he also believes that absence of evidence is evidence of absence."
Human experience is not as simple as a mathematic equation. If a person develops an axiom, has faith that axiom is true, and then has that axiom proven or disproven by way of progressive evidence, then you can have people led to a different conclusion. But again, what is getting mired in Dawkins' head is the difference between proofs and evidence. To search for God by means outlined by rigid scientific method is possible, but incomplete because it only covers that which is observable. And to say the human experience is only limited to that which is observable is not only fallacious, but shallow.
"In other words he has often said, and I agree, that if the God of peoples faith existed, then we would not be living in the world as it exists now..." Correction: The world would not exists how he perceives it.
"He does not, and to my knowledge has never said, that God cannot exist," Have you read "The God Delusion?"
"He says instead that the specific version of god being debated at that point in time cannot exist," This is an axiom that he assumes to be true.
"..and yes these are mere semantics, but the difference in position is crucial and considerable." Every argument has a measure of semantics. However, I do appreciate that you have not expressed a shift in semantics.
There are many aspects to this question in itself, so I'll identify a few proofs as best I can.
A proof could be things or events of a miraculous nature; further proven by having this said object or event tailored specifically to the intent or inquiries of the person who is seeking the answer or proof. On a personal level, this makes the proof individually subjective, but the nature of the miracle itself is what makes it objective--at least, on a mass scale. An example of a miracle that may act as evidence for the existence of a higher power (drawing an example from the Bible) is the conception of Christ in Mary. The fact that she was a virgin and conceived falls well outside of any explainable, scientific phenomenon.
That said, let's address another issue with your statement (since you are apparently a child of semantics). To say there is "proof" of anything (in any matter--whether it be legal, religious, etc.) is a fallacy. As the question relies on the most accurate interpretation of a human experience, and the evidence given by that experience. That said, the question is not as simple as a mathematics equation, any miraculous event, no matter how convincing, baffling, or resonating it may be, is not a proof of God's existence, but simply acts as evidence for His existence. In the end, the decision of whether someone is going to believe in God or any sort of faith relies on their choice.
There is an exception to this, however, and may act as an definite proof (on an individual or mass scale): If God himself came before the person. However, the difference is also the scaling of the event. If God were to appear before a single person, the event would probably call into question the sanity of that person and this is understandable, as skepticism does hold it's place in any case of proving an event or axiom, but there is a difference between reasonable skepticism and outright denial. That is my point. To say someone is a "fundamentalist" is simply an educated way of calling someone a zealot or denialist. Dawkins is, by all accounts (including his own) a denialist. He will deny the existence of God or the truth of a faith (especially the Christian faith) from here until the end of time. Even if God were to appear in front of him.
"I agree not all religious people are rigid in their beliefs, unfortunately the ones who are not so rigid do not get enough recognition to get into a position where they would be a viable person to debate with on any kind of coverage. This is because they simply do not agree with much of what the leaders of their religion say. They do not get the backing necessary to get to a point where they can say something new." I'm Mormon and I can confidently say that I agree with my leaders with every aspect of my Church's doctrine. To say that positions such as mine are not common or "are not covered" is simply false... that said, you may want to research the works of prominent apologists and Professors such as Zacharias, Hart, McGrath, or (in my specific case) the works of the Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research. These are all well-publicized and reasonable apologists and people with whom Dawkins refuses to debate with.
"Indeed if they DO manage to get to a position where they can debate with the likes of Richard Dawkins--" I stopped reading that paragraph about there.
1. Dawkins REFUSES to debate with prominent or reasonable theologians. In this case, he is referring to theologians who wish to debate with him on the topic of creationism vs. evolution: "what they seek is the oxygen of respectability", and doing so would "give them this oxygen by the mere act of engaging with them at all". He suggests that creationists "don't mind being beaten in an argument. What matters is that we give them recognition by bothering to argue with them in public."
2. What you are implying is that Dawkins has been the "extending hand" here, which (as the overwhelming evidence of his behavior CLEARLY suggests) is not the case. If anything, he has propagated his asinine, denialist behavior.
"I often wonder why people think that semantics are unimportant, they are in fact exceptionally important..."
There is a definite importance to formal, lexical, and conceptual semantics, but what you are referring to is the importance for a party to shift their semantics in a formal argument so that their position is caught in a more favorable light. This isn't a behavior that should be encouraged. It is asinine, and makes debating with the opposing party nearly impossible. I've already stated that isn't the way this is gonna go down, cupcake. If you try to shift Dawkins actual position, I will call you out on it.
"Unless you are very careful in how you phrase your arguments you can end up arguing a completely different position to the one that you hold, take another look at the quote. We are not talking about theology in general, we are talking, very specifically, about the actions asserted to be taken by God in the OT. And in the actions he takes, he shows to have pretty much all the traits that Richard Dawkins stated in this quote."
Semantics only gets complicated when you are trying to shift your party's actual position. He said "Christian theology" which means ALL aspects of the Christian faith. If he said, "God and the Old Testament are a non-subject, vacuous, etc." then your argument would hold water, but he didn't say that. He was making a gross generalization and outright false statements. But for the sake of an honest debate, I'll humor you. Let's break down Dawkins' gaffe, shall we?
"Yes, I have, of course, met this point before..." Surprise, surprise... he has been called out on his ignorance of Christian theology before. This is pretty straight forward.
"It sounds superficially fair. But it presupposes that there is something in Christian theology to be ignorant about." Translation: "This sounds fair on the surface, but the accusation is made under the assumption that there is anything about Christian Theology to be ignorant about." One can only draw two conclusions from this: Either Dawkins is an expert on the subject of Christian theology, or he is implying that Christian theology is so shallow and empty that there is nothing to be ignorant about. Both are granduerous implications that demand equally granduerous evidence for his claim. So what does he say next?
"The entire thrust of my position is that Christian theology is a non-subject. It is empty. Vacuous. Devoid of coherence or content..." O...kay...? Yes, we know you have a disdain for faith--Christianity specifically. Now, what is your proof of this outrageous claim?
"...I imagine that McGrath would join me in expressing disbelief in fairies, astrology and Thor's hammer. How would he respond if a fairyologist, astrologer or Viking accused him of ignorance of their respective subjects?" Wait... so... your "proof" of Christian theology being a "non-subject" is an non-conclusive assumption of what McGrath would do in regards to knowledge of other faiths? First off, McGrath is a College theologian--a professor in the field of religion. Which means, his job is to collect information about other faiths and their perception of all things material and non-material. Second, how can what McGrath would personally agree or disagree with with in regards to "fairies, astrology, and Thor's hammer" be considered an academic proof to his claim of knowing for a FACT that Christian theology (meaning every. single. aspect. of the Christian faith) has no substance or no "coherence?" The short answer is HE CAN'T! Dawkins argument makes no fucking sense.
Now, if Dawkins were to say, "Well, McGrath doesn't know anything about genes, memes, evolution, etc." THEN his argument, MIGHT hold water on the condition that he can provide concrete evidence of McGrath's ignorance, but no... he didn't do that. He made an appeal to consequence, an appeal to emotion, and ad hominem all at once by basically saying, "McGrath is a doo-doo head because he disagrees with fairies, astrology, and Thor's hammer." That is a strawman: He is misrepresenting McGrath in an attempt to discredit the simple point that Dawkins does not know what the fuck he is talking about in regards to Christian theology.
"I am also sorry that you appear to be completely mistaking the reason for why he wishes the KJV to be studied. He is not endorsing the religion, he is not saying that the things it says are to be taken as fact, he is instead saying that it can, and should, be taken as a literary work of art in it's own right, regardless of your stance on what it expounds."
Ya know, for supposedly understanding the ins-and-outs of semantics, you sure can't read well. I never said he was endorsing religion. I simply said that if he was encouraging the KJV of the bible to be read and understood, I agree with him. I never said anything about endorsing or encouraging faith (even though those are my overall goals). I do recognize that if a person is not interested in acquiring faith, or believing in God, that reading the KJV can be informative in regards to theology and English literature.
"As for whether he will actually entertain the existence of God, I honestly think he has a position very similar to my own. He has spoken to many people who claim that there is evidence of God's existence, and yet he has always seen flaws in their reasoning, has always found holes in their evidence, and upon examining the world around him he has come to believe that there is simply no evidence suggesting that the god many people believe in exists, further in a case like this he also believes that absence of evidence is evidence of absence."
Human experience is not as simple as a mathematic equation. If a person develops an axiom, has faith that axiom is true, and then has that axiom proven or disproven by way of progressive evidence, then you can have people led to a different conclusion. But again, what is getting mired in Dawkins' head is the difference between proofs and evidence. To search for God by means outlined by rigid scientific method is possible, but incomplete because it only covers that which is observable. And to say the human experience is only limited to that which is observable is not only fallacious, but shallow.
"In other words he has often said, and I agree, that if the God of peoples faith existed, then we would not be living in the world as it exists now..." Correction: The world would not exists how he perceives it.
"He does not, and to my knowledge has never said, that God cannot exist," Have you read "The God Delusion?"
"He says instead that the specific version of god being debated at that point in time cannot exist," This is an axiom that he assumes to be true.
"..and yes these are mere semantics, but the difference in position is crucial and considerable." Every argument has a measure of semantics. However, I do appreciate that you have not expressed a shift in semantics.
You have a well defined view of what a "proof" of God would be, unfortunately there are no examples of your idea of proof that stand up to scientific study. There are certainly things that we do not understand, but these do not necessarily constitute evidence of God. God has certainly never appeared before a large enough multitude of people to be regarded as evidence.
Zacharius waffles. He talks endlessly in circles until you forget the question he was asked, or apparently he does, and he answers a question he was never asked. He further uses many ad hominem attacks on atheists, saying they are immoral and/or have no purpose in life. He is eloquent and well spoken, but his arguments rarely have any interesting content. You yourself are certainly a much better debater than he will ever be.
Who exactly do you mean by Hart?
Richard Dawkins HAS debated McGraff and the debates are incredibly easy to find.
Fairmormon, is unfortunately, incredibly biased. I have read things written by them before and they simply cannot look at things in an impartial manner.
You stopped reading a paragraph after I said "Indeed if they DO manage to get to a position where they can debate with the likes of Richard Dawkins--" and then went on to complain that Richard Dawkins refuses to debate with people.
1. He certainly does now, but this has not always been the case, again there are only so many times you can hear the same argument and not get ideological about the response.
2. I said, and I quote, "the likes of". This implies that I am not talking solely about Richard Dawkins, there are many other people that they can attempt to debate including Laurence Krauss, until a few years ago Christopher Hitchens, and most recently Bill Nye. Making an entirely separate point about the fact that Richard Dawkins refuses to debate people is pointless. I know this, that is why I used the phraseology I did. The point has been raised separately in your answers before and I have answered that point, I have not refuted it and I agree that he does so, it is irrelevant to the point being made at hand and simply clouds the issue. It is something that you appear to do a lot, it is irritating and does not in any way help to change people minds about their position. It simply makes them stop paying attention.
"Cupcake"
Continue to be condescending and I will simply ignore you.
You unfortunately seem to have made a similar mistake to Zacharius. You have forgotten the original question. After I said that we are discussing Richard Dawkins comments specifically on the actions of the God of the Old Testament you said you would break down his gaff, and then started with "Yes, I have, of course, met this point before..."
You appear to have forgotten that this is not the point we are debating. We are in fact talking about Richard Dawkins comments about the actions taken by God in the Old Testament, and the attributes the actions bestow upon him. Here is the quote again in full.
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
This entire debate was spawned by your comment.
"Believing Dawkin's is some sort of expert on the old testament is like believing that a plumber should be some sort of consultant in philosophy.
For all of Dawkin's bluster, he is unwilling to debate with accredited philosophers/theologians all while being a fundamentalist himself.
How ironic."
And I have been attempting to explain to you that the original quote from Richard Dawkins is in fact not about Theology, although it certainly has many implications for it, but about the literary attributes of God in the Old Testament. He is not saying that the God that Christians believe in is actually everything said in the quote above, and the God that Christians believe in certainly is not, however just because they believe in a loving God does not mean that is how he is depicted in the literature of the Old Testament. I would like to draw your attention to the very first line in the original quote from Dawkins. "The God of the Old Testament".
I would not try to claim that Dawkins is an expert on Christian Theology, although despite his quote that you seem to be so fond of he certainly knows more about it than the average person. When you have a habit of debating people like cardinal George Pell it is simply impossible to not learn something about it.
Also your own ad homenim attacks on Richard Dawkins are getting worse. For example saying that he was trying to call McGraff a "doodoo head" because he said that in all likely hood McGraff does not believe in fairies, is frankly ridiculous. He was simply saying that he personally believes Christian Theology has as much logical content as Fairielogy does. Whether he is correct or not is a separate matter, and I do think he was oversimplifying Christian theology beyond having a valid point. However he is not in any way attempting to attack McGraff with this point and is not saying that McGraff is in any way worthy of denigrating because he does not believe in Thor's hammer.
Also, "Dawkins does not know what the fuck he is talking about in regards to Christian theology."
You do not appear to be taking this in a non biased way at all, in fact it appears that your opinion of Richard Dawkins is colouring your responses rather badly.
"Ya know, for supposedly understanding the ins-and-outs of semantics, you sure can't read well. I never said he was endorsing religion. I simply said that if he was encouraging the KJV of the bible to be read and understood, I agree with him...I do recognize that if a person is not interested in acquiring faith, or believing in God, that reading the KJV can be informative in regards to theology and English literature."
Really? So why would endorsing reading the full KJV involve the full study and understanding of Christian theology? Indeed what exactly has it got to do with Dawkins stance on religion or the concept of a deity?
"...if Dawkins is actually encouraging the full study and understanding of Christian theology (including the OT) then I agree with him. However, surely you can understand my suspicion of this supposed recommendation when Dawkins has done nothing but demonized religion (or at the very least the concept of deity) as a whole."
Also, again, continue to be this condescending and I will ignore you.
You say that human experience is not limited to what is observable, depending on your definition of observable, I do not believe this is the case. Everything we know exists is observable in some manner, even if it is by the indirect effects it has rather than observing whatever it is itself. We cannot observe gravity directly, but I would be very surprised if you do not agree that it exists, this is because we can observe its effects, despite never being able to actually see it. If you disagree, please give me an example of something that you believe exists, but is not in some manner observable.
'"In other words he has often said, and I agree, that if the God of peoples faith existed, then we would not be living in the world as it exists now..." Correction: The world would not exists how he perceives it.' Again this is a pointless comment. You are arguing about personal perception, which is an un-winnable argument in any direction.
Yes, I certainly have read the God Delusion. He very specifically says that there is no possible way to say that a deity of some description cannot exist. In fact he addressed this very accusation in his debate against the Archbishop of Canterbury www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfk7tW…
And no, I do not believe that it is simply an axiom that cannot be true. Every persons belief in God gives that God certain characteristics. if those characteristics do not match the universe that we are in then that god cannot exist. Not every bodies version of god can be disproved, but I believe, and he believes, that the probability of any god existing is so close to nil that we can consider it to not exist until we find compelling evidence that it does in fact exist, he has obviously never found any compelling evidence and I certainly have not.
Zacharius waffles. He talks endlessly in circles until you forget the question he was asked, or apparently he does, and he answers a question he was never asked. He further uses many ad hominem attacks on atheists, saying they are immoral and/or have no purpose in life. He is eloquent and well spoken, but his arguments rarely have any interesting content. You yourself are certainly a much better debater than he will ever be.
Who exactly do you mean by Hart?
Richard Dawkins HAS debated McGraff and the debates are incredibly easy to find.
Fairmormon, is unfortunately, incredibly biased. I have read things written by them before and they simply cannot look at things in an impartial manner.
You stopped reading a paragraph after I said "Indeed if they DO manage to get to a position where they can debate with the likes of Richard Dawkins--" and then went on to complain that Richard Dawkins refuses to debate with people.
1. He certainly does now, but this has not always been the case, again there are only so many times you can hear the same argument and not get ideological about the response.
2. I said, and I quote, "the likes of". This implies that I am not talking solely about Richard Dawkins, there are many other people that they can attempt to debate including Laurence Krauss, until a few years ago Christopher Hitchens, and most recently Bill Nye. Making an entirely separate point about the fact that Richard Dawkins refuses to debate people is pointless. I know this, that is why I used the phraseology I did. The point has been raised separately in your answers before and I have answered that point, I have not refuted it and I agree that he does so, it is irrelevant to the point being made at hand and simply clouds the issue. It is something that you appear to do a lot, it is irritating and does not in any way help to change people minds about their position. It simply makes them stop paying attention.
"Cupcake"
Continue to be condescending and I will simply ignore you.
You unfortunately seem to have made a similar mistake to Zacharius. You have forgotten the original question. After I said that we are discussing Richard Dawkins comments specifically on the actions of the God of the Old Testament you said you would break down his gaff, and then started with "Yes, I have, of course, met this point before..."
You appear to have forgotten that this is not the point we are debating. We are in fact talking about Richard Dawkins comments about the actions taken by God in the Old Testament, and the attributes the actions bestow upon him. Here is the quote again in full.
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
This entire debate was spawned by your comment.
"Believing Dawkin's is some sort of expert on the old testament is like believing that a plumber should be some sort of consultant in philosophy.
For all of Dawkin's bluster, he is unwilling to debate with accredited philosophers/theologians all while being a fundamentalist himself.
How ironic."
And I have been attempting to explain to you that the original quote from Richard Dawkins is in fact not about Theology, although it certainly has many implications for it, but about the literary attributes of God in the Old Testament. He is not saying that the God that Christians believe in is actually everything said in the quote above, and the God that Christians believe in certainly is not, however just because they believe in a loving God does not mean that is how he is depicted in the literature of the Old Testament. I would like to draw your attention to the very first line in the original quote from Dawkins. "The God of the Old Testament".
I would not try to claim that Dawkins is an expert on Christian Theology, although despite his quote that you seem to be so fond of he certainly knows more about it than the average person. When you have a habit of debating people like cardinal George Pell it is simply impossible to not learn something about it.
Also your own ad homenim attacks on Richard Dawkins are getting worse. For example saying that he was trying to call McGraff a "doodoo head" because he said that in all likely hood McGraff does not believe in fairies, is frankly ridiculous. He was simply saying that he personally believes Christian Theology has as much logical content as Fairielogy does. Whether he is correct or not is a separate matter, and I do think he was oversimplifying Christian theology beyond having a valid point. However he is not in any way attempting to attack McGraff with this point and is not saying that McGraff is in any way worthy of denigrating because he does not believe in Thor's hammer.
Also, "Dawkins does not know what the fuck he is talking about in regards to Christian theology."
You do not appear to be taking this in a non biased way at all, in fact it appears that your opinion of Richard Dawkins is colouring your responses rather badly.
"Ya know, for supposedly understanding the ins-and-outs of semantics, you sure can't read well. I never said he was endorsing religion. I simply said that if he was encouraging the KJV of the bible to be read and understood, I agree with him...I do recognize that if a person is not interested in acquiring faith, or believing in God, that reading the KJV can be informative in regards to theology and English literature."
Really? So why would endorsing reading the full KJV involve the full study and understanding of Christian theology? Indeed what exactly has it got to do with Dawkins stance on religion or the concept of a deity?
"...if Dawkins is actually encouraging the full study and understanding of Christian theology (including the OT) then I agree with him. However, surely you can understand my suspicion of this supposed recommendation when Dawkins has done nothing but demonized religion (or at the very least the concept of deity) as a whole."
Also, again, continue to be this condescending and I will ignore you.
You say that human experience is not limited to what is observable, depending on your definition of observable, I do not believe this is the case. Everything we know exists is observable in some manner, even if it is by the indirect effects it has rather than observing whatever it is itself. We cannot observe gravity directly, but I would be very surprised if you do not agree that it exists, this is because we can observe its effects, despite never being able to actually see it. If you disagree, please give me an example of something that you believe exists, but is not in some manner observable.
'"In other words he has often said, and I agree, that if the God of peoples faith existed, then we would not be living in the world as it exists now..." Correction: The world would not exists how he perceives it.' Again this is a pointless comment. You are arguing about personal perception, which is an un-winnable argument in any direction.
Yes, I certainly have read the God Delusion. He very specifically says that there is no possible way to say that a deity of some description cannot exist. In fact he addressed this very accusation in his debate against the Archbishop of Canterbury www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfk7tW…
And no, I do not believe that it is simply an axiom that cannot be true. Every persons belief in God gives that God certain characteristics. if those characteristics do not match the universe that we are in then that god cannot exist. Not every bodies version of god can be disproved, but I believe, and he believes, that the probability of any god existing is so close to nil that we can consider it to not exist until we find compelling evidence that it does in fact exist, he has obviously never found any compelling evidence and I certainly have not.
"You have a well defined view of what a "proof" of God would be, unfortunately there are no examples of your idea of proof that stand up to scientific study. There are certainly things that we do not understand, but these do not necessarily constitute evidence of God. God has certainly never appeared before a large enough multitude of people to be regarded as evidence."
Implying that Atheists get to decide what classifies as evidence and what does not? You may want rephrase that statement.
"Zacharius waffles. He talks endlessly in circles until you forget the question he was asked, or apparently he does, and he answers a question he was never asked." Give me a concrete example of this, and I might buy it. Otherwise, the reason you are probably interpreting what he says as a "waffle" is because you are not understanding the implication or context of the question asked--nor are you understanding the context of the answer. Yes, Ravi does get a little wordy in his explanations, but I've never known him to give nonsensical answers.
"He further uses many ad hominem attacks on atheists, saying they are immoral and/or have no purpose in life."
In regards to the moral and ethical aspect of Atheism OF COURSE he is going to say Atheists (discounting spiritual atheists) are immoral and are purposeless. This does not make his arguments any less valid. In fact, if you follow or believe Dawkins' bile stated in "The Selfish Gene" you probably believe that there is an overwhelming truth Malthusianism, which, morally speaking, is an overly negative and pessimistic view of humanity that is ill deserved. Ravi and even other spiritual leaders outside of the Christian faith are trying to establish that Moral Relativism (as in, a complete removal of knowing or being willing to stand for concepts of good and evil) is not only unhealthy for a person, but completely destructive for a society as a whole. In a way, this point also goes back to my point about an Atheists value of skepticism except with a change in stipulations regarding morality: To be question proofs or evidence is fine, but to "question" morality and deny the importance of standing for that which is good or that which is evil are two different things that not many Atheists seem to recognize and many anti-theists seem to outright deny. This is tantamount to being evil in itself and represents an individual's obvious want to remove responsibility from his/her actions.
"Who exactly do you mean by Hart?"
David Bentley Hart
"Richard Dawkins HAS debated McGraff and the debates are incredibly easy to find."
Then he is a hypocrite (as I've previously established).
"Fairmormon, is unfortunately, incredibly biased. I have read things written by them before and they simply cannot look at things in an impartial manner."
If by "impartial" you mean a "moral relativist" view, then of course they are bias. They are not going to discard upstanding morals to please people who follow a certain ideology. In regards to academic information about the bible and our faith, however, they are actually quite informative. If you have issues with the academic information they provide, then you may want to provide an example and allow me to explain that example. I am a member of F.A.I.R., after all.
"You stopped reading a paragraph after I said "Indeed if they DO manage to get to a position where they can debate with the likes of Richard Dawkins--" and then went on to complain that Richard Dawkins refuses to debate with people.
1. He certainly does now, but this has not always been the case, again there are only so many times you can hear the same argument and not get ideological about the response."
There is a difference between getting "ideological" and being fallacious or absurd.
"2. I said, and I quote, "the likes of". This implies that I am not talking solely about Richard Dawkins, there are many other people that they can attempt to debate including Laurence Krauss, until a few years ago Christopher Hitchens, and most recently Bill Nye. Making an entirely separate point about the fact that Richard Dawkins refuses to debate people is pointless. I know this, that is why I used the phraseology I did. The point has been raised separately in your answers before and I have answered that point, I have not refuted it and I agree that he does so, it is irrelevant to the point being made at hand and simply clouds the issue. It is something that you appear to do a lot, it is irritating and does not in any way help to change people minds about their position. It simply makes them stop paying attention."
You have been chronic in your habit of simultaneously defending a position while disagreeing with it... if you want to talk about "clouding an issue" then you may want to simply say "I agree" while clearly explaining any stipulations you may have. It not only confuses the other party, but removes a measure of trust or understanding on the other party's part. Being ambiguous in your semantics and speech is what truly clouds an issue.
"Also your own ad homenim attacks on Richard Dawkins are getting worse. For example saying that he was trying to call McGraff a "doodoo head" because he said that in all likely hood McGraff does not believe in fairies, is frankly ridiculous. He was simply saying that he personally believes Christian Theology has as much logical content as Fairielogy does. Whether he is correct or not is a separate matter, and I do think he was oversimplifying Christian theology beyond having a valid point. However he is not in any way attempting to attack McGraff with this point and is not saying that McGraff is in any way worthy of denigrating because he does not believe in Thor's hammer."
You are missing the point... he is attempting to discredit McGraff by misrepresenting his position. That is a textbook definition of a strawman. And if he is saying that "he personally believes Christian Theology has as much logical content as Fairielogy does" then he should say that rather then saying something else entirely.
"However he is not in any way attempting to attack McGraff with this point and is not saying that McGraff is in any way worthy of denigrating because he does not believe in Thor's hammer."
-sigh- Yes. He was. He was using his assumption as a proof. Not by what McGrath believes, but by his action. That is what Dawkins' point was.
Honestly, he could have said, "Yes, I have, of course, met this point before. It sounds superficially fair. But it presupposes that there is something in Christian theology to be ignorant about. The entire thrust of my position is that Christian theology is a non-subject. It is empty. Vacuous. Devoid of coherence or content. I imagine that McGrath would join me in expressing disbelief in < "X" Non-christian faith >. How would he respond if a < "X" religion expert > accused him of ignorance of (his/her) respective subjects?" AND IT WOULD MEAN THE SAME DAMN THING. He is using the false assumption that McGrath would pontificate as a point that McGrath has no right to talk. That is not only fallacious, but it's asinine.
"'Cupcake'
Continue to be condescending and I will simply ignore you."
I am a veteran--I served in Uncle Sam's military. I speak roughly, and I dish out as good as I take. If something is bullshit, I will call it out and check the person who spouted said bullshit off. If you don't like that, then ignore me. I could honestly care less.
"You do not appear to be taking this in a non biased way at all, in fact it appears that your opinion of Richard Dawkins is colouring your responses rather badly."
If you want me to take this in a "non-biased way" then Dawkins' needs to stop being an unreasonable, ideological hack. And no. That doesn't mean converting to Christianity. I know a lot of reasonable atheists and agnostics. Dawkins is DEFINITELY not one of them.
"Really? So why would endorsing reading the full KJV involve the full study and understanding of Christian theology? Indeed what exactly has it got to do with Dawkins stance on religion or the concept of a deity?"
Believe it or not, there is a difference between "endorsement" and "encouragement."
"Also, again, continue to be this condescending and I will ignore you."
Refer to my statement above.
"You say that human experience is not limited to what is observable, depending on your definition of observable, I do not believe this is the case. Everything we know exists is observable in some manner, even if it is by the indirect effects it has rather than observing whatever it is itself. We cannot observe gravity directly, but I would be very surprised if you do not agree that it exists, this is because we can observe its effects, despite never being able to actually see it. If you disagree, please give me an example of something that you believe exists, but is not in some manner observable."
Gee, how about God or (something you may be more familiar with) quantum physics? Even someone as dumb as me knows about cognitive denial, dude. If you choose not to believe something, then you won't believe it especially if your personal experience has led you to believe the contrary or something else entirely.
'"In other words he has often said, and I agree, that if the God of peoples faith existed, then we would not be living in the world as it exists now..." Correction: The world would not exists how he perceives it.' Again this is a pointless comment. You are arguing about personal perception, which is an un-winnable argument in any direction."
...and yet you are defending Dawkins personal perception. This comment wasn't pointless, dude. I'll let you figure that one out.
"Yes, I certainly have read the God Delusion. He very specifically says that there is no possible way to say that a deity of some description cannot exist. In fact he addressed this very accusation in his debate against the Archbishop of Canterbury www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfk7tW…"
Then, again, Dawkins is a hypocrite.
"And no, I do not believe that it is simply an axiom that cannot be true. Every persons belief in God gives that God certain characteristics. if those characteristics do not match the universe that we are in then that god cannot exist."
This runs under the assumption that any human being knows all of the characteristics of this universe indefinitely--which is impossible.
"Not every bodies version of god can be disproved, but I believe, and he believes, that the probability of any god existing is so close to nil that we can consider it to not exist until we find compelling evidence that it does in fact exist, he has obviously never found any compelling evidence and I certainly have not."
Then it may behoove you to assume a neutral position on the existence of God or the truth of faith until those topics have been explored, researched, and thoroughly pondered, don't you think? I do not think it is wise (in any case) to view a negative proof as an excuse for outright denial of an axiom or question.
Implying that Atheists get to decide what classifies as evidence and what does not? You may want rephrase that statement.
"Zacharius waffles. He talks endlessly in circles until you forget the question he was asked, or apparently he does, and he answers a question he was never asked." Give me a concrete example of this, and I might buy it. Otherwise, the reason you are probably interpreting what he says as a "waffle" is because you are not understanding the implication or context of the question asked--nor are you understanding the context of the answer. Yes, Ravi does get a little wordy in his explanations, but I've never known him to give nonsensical answers.
"He further uses many ad hominem attacks on atheists, saying they are immoral and/or have no purpose in life."
In regards to the moral and ethical aspect of Atheism OF COURSE he is going to say Atheists (discounting spiritual atheists) are immoral and are purposeless. This does not make his arguments any less valid. In fact, if you follow or believe Dawkins' bile stated in "The Selfish Gene" you probably believe that there is an overwhelming truth Malthusianism, which, morally speaking, is an overly negative and pessimistic view of humanity that is ill deserved. Ravi and even other spiritual leaders outside of the Christian faith are trying to establish that Moral Relativism (as in, a complete removal of knowing or being willing to stand for concepts of good and evil) is not only unhealthy for a person, but completely destructive for a society as a whole. In a way, this point also goes back to my point about an Atheists value of skepticism except with a change in stipulations regarding morality: To be question proofs or evidence is fine, but to "question" morality and deny the importance of standing for that which is good or that which is evil are two different things that not many Atheists seem to recognize and many anti-theists seem to outright deny. This is tantamount to being evil in itself and represents an individual's obvious want to remove responsibility from his/her actions.
"Who exactly do you mean by Hart?"
David Bentley Hart
"Richard Dawkins HAS debated McGraff and the debates are incredibly easy to find."
Then he is a hypocrite (as I've previously established).
"Fairmormon, is unfortunately, incredibly biased. I have read things written by them before and they simply cannot look at things in an impartial manner."
If by "impartial" you mean a "moral relativist" view, then of course they are bias. They are not going to discard upstanding morals to please people who follow a certain ideology. In regards to academic information about the bible and our faith, however, they are actually quite informative. If you have issues with the academic information they provide, then you may want to provide an example and allow me to explain that example. I am a member of F.A.I.R., after all.
"You stopped reading a paragraph after I said "Indeed if they DO manage to get to a position where they can debate with the likes of Richard Dawkins--" and then went on to complain that Richard Dawkins refuses to debate with people.
1. He certainly does now, but this has not always been the case, again there are only so many times you can hear the same argument and not get ideological about the response."
There is a difference between getting "ideological" and being fallacious or absurd.
"2. I said, and I quote, "the likes of". This implies that I am not talking solely about Richard Dawkins, there are many other people that they can attempt to debate including Laurence Krauss, until a few years ago Christopher Hitchens, and most recently Bill Nye. Making an entirely separate point about the fact that Richard Dawkins refuses to debate people is pointless. I know this, that is why I used the phraseology I did. The point has been raised separately in your answers before and I have answered that point, I have not refuted it and I agree that he does so, it is irrelevant to the point being made at hand and simply clouds the issue. It is something that you appear to do a lot, it is irritating and does not in any way help to change people minds about their position. It simply makes them stop paying attention."
You have been chronic in your habit of simultaneously defending a position while disagreeing with it... if you want to talk about "clouding an issue" then you may want to simply say "I agree" while clearly explaining any stipulations you may have. It not only confuses the other party, but removes a measure of trust or understanding on the other party's part. Being ambiguous in your semantics and speech is what truly clouds an issue.
"Also your own ad homenim attacks on Richard Dawkins are getting worse. For example saying that he was trying to call McGraff a "doodoo head" because he said that in all likely hood McGraff does not believe in fairies, is frankly ridiculous. He was simply saying that he personally believes Christian Theology has as much logical content as Fairielogy does. Whether he is correct or not is a separate matter, and I do think he was oversimplifying Christian theology beyond having a valid point. However he is not in any way attempting to attack McGraff with this point and is not saying that McGraff is in any way worthy of denigrating because he does not believe in Thor's hammer."
You are missing the point... he is attempting to discredit McGraff by misrepresenting his position. That is a textbook definition of a strawman. And if he is saying that "he personally believes Christian Theology has as much logical content as Fairielogy does" then he should say that rather then saying something else entirely.
"However he is not in any way attempting to attack McGraff with this point and is not saying that McGraff is in any way worthy of denigrating because he does not believe in Thor's hammer."
-sigh- Yes. He was. He was using his assumption as a proof. Not by what McGrath believes, but by his action. That is what Dawkins' point was.
Honestly, he could have said, "Yes, I have, of course, met this point before. It sounds superficially fair. But it presupposes that there is something in Christian theology to be ignorant about. The entire thrust of my position is that Christian theology is a non-subject. It is empty. Vacuous. Devoid of coherence or content. I imagine that McGrath would join me in expressing disbelief in < "X" Non-christian faith >. How would he respond if a < "X" religion expert > accused him of ignorance of (his/her) respective subjects?" AND IT WOULD MEAN THE SAME DAMN THING. He is using the false assumption that McGrath would pontificate as a point that McGrath has no right to talk. That is not only fallacious, but it's asinine.
"'Cupcake'
Continue to be condescending and I will simply ignore you."
I am a veteran--I served in Uncle Sam's military. I speak roughly, and I dish out as good as I take. If something is bullshit, I will call it out and check the person who spouted said bullshit off. If you don't like that, then ignore me. I could honestly care less.
"You do not appear to be taking this in a non biased way at all, in fact it appears that your opinion of Richard Dawkins is colouring your responses rather badly."
If you want me to take this in a "non-biased way" then Dawkins' needs to stop being an unreasonable, ideological hack. And no. That doesn't mean converting to Christianity. I know a lot of reasonable atheists and agnostics. Dawkins is DEFINITELY not one of them.
"Really? So why would endorsing reading the full KJV involve the full study and understanding of Christian theology? Indeed what exactly has it got to do with Dawkins stance on religion or the concept of a deity?"
Believe it or not, there is a difference between "endorsement" and "encouragement."
"Also, again, continue to be this condescending and I will ignore you."
Refer to my statement above.
"You say that human experience is not limited to what is observable, depending on your definition of observable, I do not believe this is the case. Everything we know exists is observable in some manner, even if it is by the indirect effects it has rather than observing whatever it is itself. We cannot observe gravity directly, but I would be very surprised if you do not agree that it exists, this is because we can observe its effects, despite never being able to actually see it. If you disagree, please give me an example of something that you believe exists, but is not in some manner observable."
Gee, how about God or (something you may be more familiar with) quantum physics? Even someone as dumb as me knows about cognitive denial, dude. If you choose not to believe something, then you won't believe it especially if your personal experience has led you to believe the contrary or something else entirely.
'"In other words he has often said, and I agree, that if the God of peoples faith existed, then we would not be living in the world as it exists now..." Correction: The world would not exists how he perceives it.' Again this is a pointless comment. You are arguing about personal perception, which is an un-winnable argument in any direction."
...and yet you are defending Dawkins personal perception. This comment wasn't pointless, dude. I'll let you figure that one out.
"Yes, I certainly have read the God Delusion. He very specifically says that there is no possible way to say that a deity of some description cannot exist. In fact he addressed this very accusation in his debate against the Archbishop of Canterbury www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfk7tW…"
Then, again, Dawkins is a hypocrite.
"And no, I do not believe that it is simply an axiom that cannot be true. Every persons belief in God gives that God certain characteristics. if those characteristics do not match the universe that we are in then that god cannot exist."
This runs under the assumption that any human being knows all of the characteristics of this universe indefinitely--which is impossible.
"Not every bodies version of god can be disproved, but I believe, and he believes, that the probability of any god existing is so close to nil that we can consider it to not exist until we find compelling evidence that it does in fact exist, he has obviously never found any compelling evidence and I certainly have not."
Then it may behoove you to assume a neutral position on the existence of God or the truth of faith until those topics have been explored, researched, and thoroughly pondered, don't you think? I do not think it is wise (in any case) to view a negative proof as an excuse for outright denial of an axiom or question.
If you do not wish to be reasonable in your expression of your opinions I have no reason to continue to talk to you. Suffice to say I think you are wrong, You are also one of the most biased people I have come across and you appear to be incapable of seeing something that disagrees with your view of life without believing that it is also a personal attack. I am really not surprised that you are a member of FAIR at all. Like I said, they are one of the most biased organisations I have ever come across.
A good day to you sir.
A good day to you sir.
So now you're raising the "your bias" flag as an excuse to escape an opponent who is offering reasonable questions and rebuttals?
So what is it that makes me bias?
The fact that I made a strong case on the importance of upholding moral prerogative and standards while remaining neutral in regards to an academic sources? Is it the fact that I've also made a strong case against moral relativism? Or is it the fact that I was asking for a source in regards to Ravi's supposed "waffling?" Or maybe it is because I was suggesting that you follow a neutral position in regards to God's existence and the truth of faith as opposed to using the fallacy of a "negative proof" to justify or "prove" your beliefs?
To say that I "do not wish to be reasonable" is a hypocritical statement coming from you. You addressed none of my counter-rebuttals to your claims. In fact, you defaulted to a fallacious "your bias" flag to back out of an argument for reasons I can't really fathom; reasons that I'm honestly trying to understand. Especially since you carry yourself as a "reasonable person."
We all have some kind of bias, dude. To assume that someone can tackle an issue without some kind of experience, morality, ethics, or some other intangible mental concept weighing in on that person's interpretation of evidence or events is not just a fallacious assumption, but is completely idiotic assumption. I agree that it is important you remain as neutral as possible in regards to raw data or information, but what you fail to understand is that to adopt neutrality, or a relativistic view on ethics or morality is very unhealthy--and has been proven to be unhealthy by Professional in the fields of theology, psychology, sociology and medicine.
Hypothetically speaking, if you go through your life continuing to be a denialist in regards to evidence for faith and God, regardless of the evidence that is given or the experiences you go through, that isn't a mentality that is reasonable--in fact, any denialist mentality should not even be propagated because it stunts the growth of one's knowledge. If that is going to be the case for you, then I pity you.
No. I do not believe what you and people who adopt similar views to be some sort of personal attack. I do, however (as I would hope any Christian would) consider this fundamentalist or denialist attitude to be concerning because it stunts our growth as people and leads us into the trap of thinking we know everything there is to know about this universe, and that there are things that are simply impossible.
The universe is simply too big and our knowledge is simply growing too much to believe that reason STOPS where an Atheist (or any belief system, for that matter) says it stops. I agree that there are absolutes, laws, and constants in this universe and I believe God is one of those constants, but you can't imagine a universe with a God in it because someone postulated a "reasonable" axiom that resonated with you. Whereas my perspective on the universe was one that was not just shaped by the axioms and perspectives of others, but the experiences in my life that allow me to know, without a single doubt, that there is a God, he loves us and the laws set forth by him through the gospel are absolutely true.
Now... going back to how this thread originally began, it began with a question of Dawkins credentials in Christian theology and his intellectual right and ability to do so. The entire point to my claims and my counter-rebuttals to your defense of Dawkins was this: He has very little (if any) credibility when it comes to Christian theology. And his credibility reaches virtually zip when he attempts to criticize God. A God, I might add, that he grievously fails to understand.
Stay reasonable, AAtheist. This world has enough cancerous denialism and fundamentalism.
So what is it that makes me bias?
The fact that I made a strong case on the importance of upholding moral prerogative and standards while remaining neutral in regards to an academic sources? Is it the fact that I've also made a strong case against moral relativism? Or is it the fact that I was asking for a source in regards to Ravi's supposed "waffling?" Or maybe it is because I was suggesting that you follow a neutral position in regards to God's existence and the truth of faith as opposed to using the fallacy of a "negative proof" to justify or "prove" your beliefs?
To say that I "do not wish to be reasonable" is a hypocritical statement coming from you. You addressed none of my counter-rebuttals to your claims. In fact, you defaulted to a fallacious "your bias" flag to back out of an argument for reasons I can't really fathom; reasons that I'm honestly trying to understand. Especially since you carry yourself as a "reasonable person."
We all have some kind of bias, dude. To assume that someone can tackle an issue without some kind of experience, morality, ethics, or some other intangible mental concept weighing in on that person's interpretation of evidence or events is not just a fallacious assumption, but is completely idiotic assumption. I agree that it is important you remain as neutral as possible in regards to raw data or information, but what you fail to understand is that to adopt neutrality, or a relativistic view on ethics or morality is very unhealthy--and has been proven to be unhealthy by Professional in the fields of theology, psychology, sociology and medicine.
Hypothetically speaking, if you go through your life continuing to be a denialist in regards to evidence for faith and God, regardless of the evidence that is given or the experiences you go through, that isn't a mentality that is reasonable--in fact, any denialist mentality should not even be propagated because it stunts the growth of one's knowledge. If that is going to be the case for you, then I pity you.
No. I do not believe what you and people who adopt similar views to be some sort of personal attack. I do, however (as I would hope any Christian would) consider this fundamentalist or denialist attitude to be concerning because it stunts our growth as people and leads us into the trap of thinking we know everything there is to know about this universe, and that there are things that are simply impossible.
The universe is simply too big and our knowledge is simply growing too much to believe that reason STOPS where an Atheist (or any belief system, for that matter) says it stops. I agree that there are absolutes, laws, and constants in this universe and I believe God is one of those constants, but you can't imagine a universe with a God in it because someone postulated a "reasonable" axiom that resonated with you. Whereas my perspective on the universe was one that was not just shaped by the axioms and perspectives of others, but the experiences in my life that allow me to know, without a single doubt, that there is a God, he loves us and the laws set forth by him through the gospel are absolutely true.
Now... going back to how this thread originally began, it began with a question of Dawkins credentials in Christian theology and his intellectual right and ability to do so. The entire point to my claims and my counter-rebuttals to your defense of Dawkins was this: He has very little (if any) credibility when it comes to Christian theology. And his credibility reaches virtually zip when he attempts to criticize God. A God, I might add, that he grievously fails to understand.
Stay reasonable, AAtheist. This world has enough cancerous denialism and fundamentalism.
If you are biased to the point where you don't bother to try to understand the other persons viewpoint, which you certainly don't, there is absolutely no point in debating with you. You will certainly never change you mind.
"If you are biased to the point where you don't bother to try to understand the other persons viewpoint, which you certainly don't, there is absolutely no point in debating with you."
You have not disclosed with me the reasons or experiences that have shaped your beliefs. I cannot empathize with the party I'm debating with if I have no information regarding their perspective. All I have are the conclusions that I draw from the information in the debate itself, which, I will concede, are asinine assumptions, at best.
"You will certainly never change you mind."
I question my beliefs all the time, AAtheist. As I've said, the universe is too big to assume that I know everything. My question is, are you willing to do the same and, if so, what perspective is this introspection coming from?
You have not disclosed with me the reasons or experiences that have shaped your beliefs. I cannot empathize with the party I'm debating with if I have no information regarding their perspective. All I have are the conclusions that I draw from the information in the debate itself, which, I will concede, are asinine assumptions, at best.
"You will certainly never change you mind."
I question my beliefs all the time, AAtheist. As I've said, the universe is too big to assume that I know everything. My question is, are you willing to do the same and, if so, what perspective is this introspection coming from?