Dick Dawkins
Posted on: March 2, 2007 - 12:04pm
Offline
Dick Dawkins
H. Allen Orr wrote, “[Dawkins] has a preordained set of conclusions at which he’s determined to arrive. Consequently, [he] uses any argument, however feeble, that seems to get him there.” In other words, he sees just what he wants to see. It’s ironic—that’s what he accuses believers of doing.
http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=6192"If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are."
- Login to post comments
Of course he'll say that to avoid any dialog with him in the future.
Haha, it's funny how all of these people (whether religious or non-religious) try to say we are just as bad. They try to dress up skepticism with dogmatism by any means. Including all of those silly arguments that we use faith to assume our reason. Blah blah blah.
"Every true faith is infallible -- It performs what the believing person hopes to find in it. But it does not offer the least support for the establishing of an objective truth. Here the ways of men divide. If you want to achieve peace of mind and happiness, have faith. If you want to be a disciple of truth, then search." - Nietzsche
This coming from someone who yesterday claimed that the rules of the cosmos had changed to make the resurrection of Jesus possible. Please. Pot, meet kettle.
Edit: This guy seems like a spammer, since all he's done is post two ridiculous claims and not return to defend either.
It's only the fairy tales they believe.
rexlunae wrote: As for the video, I've watched it, and it cannot amount to anything more than an argument from ignorance. It certainly doesn't support Christianity
The point I was making with the video was that science cannot predict the behavior of the cosmos all of the time, thus resurrection is possible behavior.
"If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are."
"Edit: This guy seems like a spammer, since all he's done is post two ridiculous claims and not return to defend either."--rexlunae
Like I've said in a previous post, rexlunae, we shouldn't come to such quick conclusions. LOL...obviously since I haven't returned to defend my "ridiculous claims" it must follow that the only possibility is that I'm a spammer. Talk about ridiculous.
"If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are."
And like I've said in my previous post, you should really learn and think more before you post.
That's what a spammer does: hits with unwanted messages then runs away.
Trust me, I have no intention to talk about you.
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
Rigor_OMortis said--
"Trust me, I have no intention to talk about you."
I don't trust you, but I'll trust your narcissism. So let's talk about you and admire how smart you think you are!
"If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are."
OK, let's.
Please start. You have opened the subject, go ahead. I'm listening.
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
I was being sarcastic and I'm pretty sure you knew I was too. I'd rather engage in a more meaningful discussion. It's taboo to ask difficult questions among Christians which is why I'm here; to get a balanced perspective on belief systems. Right now I have my set of beliefs and I'm hoping this environment will help challenge my beliefs and thus growth will occur.
"If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are."
Yes, you are right. The whole matter of this thread might be concentrated in the "Atheist vs. Theist" section, your post on how the Universe changes.
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
If you're going to start multiple threads, it doesn't really make sense to then drag responses to the topic of one thread to another thread about something else entirely.
As for your argument, it is just an argument from ignorance. The fact that science has some holes in its understanding does not justify ignoring what is well-supported scientifically, and I don't really see how anything at the quantum level could allow for the resurrection as described in the Bible. Could you explain how this would work?
It's only the fairy tales they believe.
You are over analyzing my analogy and thus overlooking the idea I'm communicating.
Perhaps you could tell us what, exactly, you are trying to communicate.
It's only the fairy tales they believe.
Actually, we know exactly what you're saying. We just know why it's illogical.
No, we can't predict absolutely everything. That does not somehow make it possible for somebody to be resurrected.
Some things are just not possible. Period.
I have two comments regarding this article.
1. The author misses the point by Dawkins and doesn't understand there there are various type of abuse, and Dawkins is talking about the abuse of the suppression of thought and the abuse of labeling. I don't think Dawkins makes any claims about kids who are religious growing up to develop panic attacks and depression.
2. The study he presents, which I haven't read, is likely to be full of multiple confounding variables. Most studies of this nature, which are correlational not causal do not control for other factors. My suscpicion is that the variable of interest is parental involvement and monitoring. Hence, most devoted relgious children have parents who are actively involved in their lives thus leading to positive behaviors. This does not suggest that Atheist parents are involved. What is suggests is that uninvolved parents don't force any belief systems on their children and therefore they consider themselve disengaged. If further reserach was done they are probably disengaged from everything. Further confounds are that most children in the U.S. grow up with some religion, so most people do not come to atheists beliefs until a later age. So, it is highly likely that parental involvement is the variable, not religious beliefs.
Also wanted to note that some of the behaivors measured are only considered negative from a certain point of view. (i.e., action video games???).
"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."
The problem with Dawkins. His last book generated a lot of hype and sold many-a-book. Atheists seem to be under the impression that this means is message is getting and people are deconverting. But heres another best selling book: The Redneck Dictionary. Do people take that seriously or did they buy it for entertainment value? You decide.....
[MOD EDIT - fixed quotes]
"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis
So what's stopping you? Put up or shut up.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.