Spirituality
13 Apr 12
18 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitWell Dawkins refuses to debate Craig. So any comments of Craig on Dawkins will be kind of one sided.
I'll try to watch this when I get home [no youtube at work]. Hopefully this will be better than William Lane Craig. 😞
I think they are still perceptive comments by Craig, but Dawkins is not around to respond of his OWN decision.
He's TOO BUSY, he says. Hmmm.
18 Apr 12
Originally posted by jaywillI really can't say why Dawkins won't debate Craig, especially if the topic is "Did God sanction genocide?" That should be an easy one to win.
Well Dawkins refuses to debate Craig. So any comments of Craig on Dawkins will be kind of one sided.
I think they are still perceptive comments by Craig, but Dawkins is not around to respond of his OWN decision.
He's TOO BUSY, he says. Hmmm.
But for Craig to deny his own self-promoting aims was ridiculous in its own right. That whole stunt with the 'empty chair' on stage 'should Dawkins manage to show up in the next hour' shows it.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
18 Apr 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"...in fact one can see that the Greek term in Exodus (translated from the
the idea of jealousy in a Biblical context can be determined from looking at its
usage,
for example,
(Exodus 20:5) . . .You must not bow down to them nor be induced to serve them,
because I Jehovah your God am a God exacting exclusive devotion*, bringing
punishment for the error of fathers upon sons, upon the third generation and upon ...[text shortened]... e wouldn't have uttered his statement.
Thanks for the Clarke commentary, it was interesting.
Septuagint) is the same one we derive zeal from, which is quite different from the
Greek word for envy (phthonos). Sigh if only Mr Dawkins had known the difference
he wouldn't have uttered his statement. "
It's not clear to me that Dawkins conflated jealousy with envy, or that even if he had, it would have significantly affected his statement.
19 Apr 12
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywillOK, finally got a chance to watch this. I didn't fully agree with either one of them, but at least it was better than William Lane Craig. 😛
[quote] 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"
d Dawkins verses Mathematician John Lenox:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBbBenCTTwE
I didn't buy Lennox's argument that atheism undercuts science. To me, science is simply about finding out how things work in the physical universe. This is driven more by our natural curiosity than theistic belief or lack thereof. In other words, even if God exists, and created the universe, we would still want to know how he did it. It is not enough to say that atheism is somehow at odds with the idea that the universe is 'rationally intelligible'. He needed to do more to substantiate this claim. He mentioned Einstein, perhaps forgetting that Einstein was likely a pantheist [i.e. 'God' is just the totality of everything in the universe], which frankly is little different than atheism in its opposition to any agent-god. It is essentially taking it as axiomatic that the universe is governed by laws and equations that we can discover.
There is only trouble when religion overreaches into the scientific realm - for example, if you assume the Genesis creation account is literal fact. Again, the scientific theist ought to be more interested in how God actually created the universe, rather than torturing the evidence to conform to his religious beliefs.
I think Dawkins was over-optimistic about science as the Answer to All Questions. I do not think science is capable of ruling out the existence of God. No matter what is discovered, the theist can say that this is just how God operates.
I would say it's fair to point out that religion has been forced to give ground to science over the years.
I note that WLC is not a young-earther, and claims evolution is compatible with a creator-God. I would be interested in seeing if other Christian philosophers like Plantinga or Dallas Willard are willing to defend the young-earth theory.
19 Apr 12
3 edits
Originally posted by SwissGambitThanks for watching the video.
I really can't say why Dawkins won't debate Craig, especially if the topic is "Did God sanction genocide?" That should be an easy one to win.
But for Craig to deny his own self-promoting aims was ridiculous in its own right. That whole stunt with the 'empty chair' on stage 'should Dawkins manage to show up in the next hour' shows it.
You seem to have it out for WLC. And each reason you give always sounds a bit hollow to me.
Self promoting ? I am not sure if that is just another way of saying you wish he would just go away and not talk. No real surprise there.
Craig says he is not SEEKING a debate with Dawkins. It is the promoters of such debates who are SEEKING an encounter between the two men. And why not ? I'd like to see it.
Craig also says that he is not seeking the debate because the expectations on him would be so high. That is not because of his "Self promoting". That is because of the eager societies and clubs which arrange such debates.
So while Craig is not chasing Dawkins, he is willing to debate him.
I don't know why you have it in for William Lane Craig so much, other than just your atheist's dislike of his defenses of theism. I can't see it as being much more.
Anyway, thanks for checking the link.
19 Apr 12
Originally posted by jaywillThese atheists have it in for anyone who stands up for the truth that God really
Thanks for watching the video.
You seem to have it out for WLC. And each reason you give always sounds a bit hollow to me.
Self promoting ? I am not sure if that is just another way of saying you wish he would just go away and not talk. No real surprise there.
Craig says he is not SEEKING a debate with Dawkins. It is the [b]promoters ...[text shortened]... s of theism. I can't see it as being much more.
Anyway, thanks for checking the link.[/b]
does exist.
19 Apr 12
4 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsOne thing is for sure to me. As long as one side trots out educated, smart, intelligent, eloquent people, the other side will put forward their champions just as much.
These atheists have it in for anyone who stands up for the truth that God really
does exist.
We believers can match them -
eloquence for eloquence,
wit for wit,
education for education,
brains for brains.
For centuries or more if atheists want to parade out their heavy intellectual minds Christians will match them every time. And for every Bertrand Russell or Christopher Hitchens or Daniel Dennett atheists throw at believers, Christians will ALWAYS be able to match them - mind for mind.
I think this matter of knowing God does not solely or only in the realm of how smart one is. But if they want to tout good arguments we will ALWAYS be able to meet them on that ground.
God desires all men to be saved and to come to the full knowledge of the truth.
[b] Denish DSouza takes on the New Atheists on what he says are their strongest (not weakest) points:
&feature=related
19 Apr 12
Originally posted by jaywillI didn't buy WLC's defense/denial of OT genocide at all. I thought it was so bad that he shouldn't have even bothered.
Thanks for watching the video.
You seem to have it out for WLC. And each reason you give always sounds a bit hollow to me.
Self promoting ? I am not sure if that is just another way of saying you wish he would just go away and not talk. No real surprise there.
Craig says he is not SEEKING a debate with Dawkins. It is the [b]promoters ...[text shortened]... s of theism. I can't see it as being much more.
Anyway, thanks for checking the link.[/b]
Do note that I gave him credit for not believing the young-earth theory and not denying evolution, however.
I have watched other debates like Harris-Craig and Hitchens-Craig and I thought WLC did much better in those. Harris/Hitchens clearly are not philosophers in the academic sense and were unable to keep up with WLC on such argumentation. WLC, on the other hand, is pretty good at remembering the opponent's arguments and ticking them off one by one, along with his objections.
I would love to substitute someone like bbarr or LJ on here vs. WLC on the topic of say, Objective Moral Values. Would make for a much better debate.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
19 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillWhen it is the intelligence and eloquence of 'champions' that carries the day in an argument, it means that the substance of the argument is not adequate in itself.
One thing is for sure to me. As long as one side trots out educated, smart, intelligent, eloquent people, the other side will put forward their champions just as much.
We believers can match them -
eloquence for eloquence,
wit for wit,
education for education,
brains for brains.
For centuries or more if atheists want to parade out thei ...[text shortened]... est [/i] (not weakest) points:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNhf140H42s&feature=related
There are some arguments for which neither side can rely on substance. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin, may be of no substance, until an orthodoxy gains power and is prepared to harshly treat heretics on the subject. Instead of arguing the wispy substance of that issue, we should spend our time arguing the basic rights of humans to live free of harsh treatment on the basis of their beliefs about such things.
So, worship cows? Believe the dead shall rise again? Those who argue such points are wasting any intelligence they have -- and are not showing much of it to begin with. Harm disbelievers on such things? To be argued; to be resisted.
19 Apr 12
6 edits
Originally posted by SwissGambitWell, you have every right to be under convinced of WLC response to Dawkins.
I didn't buy WLC's defense/denial of OT genocide at all. I thought it was so bad that he shouldn't have even bothered.
Do note that I gave him credit for not believing the young-earth theory and not denying evolution, however.
I have watched other debates like Harris-Craig and Hitchens-Craig and I thought WLC did much better in those. Harris/Hitche re vs. WLC on the topic of say, Objective Moral Values. Would make for a much better debate.
I don't see why Dawkins wrote that parargraph in his silly book The God Delusion. Other than to be sensational, other than to say "Come and fight with me all you Bible Christians!", I don't see WHY he would write such warped nonsense.
I mean granted, God in the Old Testament is not Barny the Dinosaur. But he can't see any mercy, longsuffering, love, patience, forgiveness in all of the Old Testament ?
There are 150 Psalms in the Old Testament. When I first began to read the Bible I distinctly remember my impression of the book of Psalms. And it was something like this:
"This is really interesting. It seems most of the time the one calling out to God for help is in trouble because of his own foolish behavior. Yet it records him calling out for God's help - and his praises for God's help."
I got the distinct impression that the God of the Bible is a God who is there to have merciful aid to the ones who are in trouble because of NOT LISTENING TO HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Now some fresh faced atheist like Richard Dawkins wants to tell me that the God of the OT is a "control freak, petty" ?
Mr. Dawkins - The God you DON't believe in is not the God I believe in.
19 Apr 12
Originally posted by jaywillI haven't bought the God Delusion and I hesitate to do so because it seems to be consensus amongst philosophers that some of the arguments in the book are just plain bad. However, I may end up buying it anyway out of sheer morbid curiosity just to see how 'bad' they really are.
Well, you have every right to be under convinced of WLC response to Dawkins.
I don't see why Dawkins wrote that parargraph in his silly book The God Delusion. Other than to be sensational, other than to say "Come and fight with me all you Bible Christians!", I don't see WHY he would write such warped nonsense.
I mean granted, God in the Old Testam ...[text shortened]...
Mr. Dawkins - The God you DON't believe in is not the God I [b]believe in.[/b]
I believe there are some refutations of Dawkins' arguments on WLC's site, but I am reluctant to use the site as my primary source. There is always the possibility of WLC selectively quoting Dawkins. I would prefer to read Dawkins first, draw my own conclusions, then compare them to what WLC says.
19 Apr 12
2 edits
Originally posted by SwissGambitI think in the spirit of avoiding selective quotes for a biased view, you might also read the Old Testament first.
I haven't bought the God Delusion and I hesitate to do so because it seems to be consensus amongst philosophers that some of the arguments in the book are just plain bad. However, I may end up buying it anyway out of sheer morbid curiosity just to see how 'bad' they really are.
I believe there are some refutations of Dawkins' arguments on WLC's ...[text shortened]... prefer to read Dawkins first, draw my own conclusions, then compare them to what WLC says.
Tell me. PLEASE tell me. What is the FIRST thing we see God telling man to do when He creates man ?
How low to prostrate himself into the ground to worship ?
How to worship ?
How to grovel in the dust and repent ?
Find the FIRST recorded words of God to man His creation. The first words set a principle about the relationship I think.
God told man to be fruitful and multiply and subdue and have DOMINION - to rule, to reign, to be a kind of deputy authority.
The first principles of the relationship between God and man is that God wanted man to be LIKE Himself. So He created man in His own image according to His own likeness.
First principles are important. And Dawkins caricature of man's relationship with God is far from holistic. It is warped and tells me more about Dawkins than about God.
This famous paragraph of Dawkins was pure HYPE and SENSATIONALISM. This is pop philosophy for the younger kids with impressionable minds.
Athiesm = Science and
Religion = superstition
19 Apr 12
Originally posted by jaywillI did read the Old Testament first. Before basically anything else. Cover to cover. At least 50 times. I'm not kidding. I was raised as a Christian and home-schooled - there was no avoiding it. I was a Christian for the first 21 years of life. I was not allowed to read any serious skeptical writings. I was not taught anything about evolution. The most I ever heard about it was from certain guest speakers at church who loved to set up evolutionary strawmen and knock them down for an audience that was in agreement with them from the start.
I think in the spirit of avoiding selective quotes for a biased view, you might also read the Old Testament first.
Tell me. PLEASE tell me. What is the FIRST thing we see God telling man to do when He creates man ?
How low to prostrate himself into the ground to worship ?
How to worship ?
How to grovel in the dust and repent ?
Find the F ...[text shortened]... unger kids with impressionable minds.
Athiesm = Science and
Religion = superstition
OK, back to your question. I actually think you've got the first words of God to man wrong. Look at Gen 2 as well as Gen 1, and try to sequence them. I came up with:
1) God creates man out of dust. [Gen 2:7]
2) God places the man in the Garden of Eden and tells the man he can eat of any tree in the garden except for one. If he eats of the one, he shall surely die. This is the first communication of God to man that is recorded. [Gen 2:16-17]
3) God observes that it is not good for the man to be alone and creates a woman to help the man. [Gen 2:22]
4) God blesses them [i.e., the man AND the woman, indicating that this happens AFTER the events in Gen 2 above] and tells them to multiply and take dominion over the earth. [Gen 1:28]
The first principle is that man must not do a certain thing, or face a consequence he has not experienced in any way, and cannot possibly understand.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
19 Apr 12
Originally posted by jaywillYou do seem to have a liking for bigoted morons to argue your points for you.
[b]Denish DSouza takes on the New Atheists on what he says are their strongest points:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNhf140H42s&feature=related[/b]
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/04/dinesh_dsouza_is_a_contemptibl.php
http://freethoughtblogs.com/singham/2007/04/20/reacting-to-other-peoples-tragedies/
http://freethoughtblogs.com/axp/2007/04/20/words-of-comfort/
http://freethoughtblogs.com/singham/2008/05/16/the-end-of-god-13-the-new-apologetics-same-as-the-old/
Neither Denish DSouza nor WLC have anything new or interesting to say on the subject of belief or morality.
They are desperately trying to defend ideas from a millennia ago against the realities and truths discovered
since.