Richard Dawkins...

[WorshipLife]

Yes, ...
and his approach, which listens for a bit to the argument but ultimately dismisses any other argument as not worth addressing, is typical of secular liberalism today. This can be seen in a number of areas where whatever argument is put against abortion, evolution, homosexual relations etc, even if it is put by people with the same qualifications in the subject, is dismissed as loonacy if it doesnt match the secular liberal viewpoint or particularly if the person making the criticism has faith in God.

Its a spiritual blindness.

Very well observed brightmorningstar, It always baffles me too that any argument that has its basis on the scripture (no matter how tight) is dismissed with the wave of the hand, while arguments that support liberal views, no matter how weak, is applauded. It is indeed spiritual blindness and an indication of how much the society has fallen.

 

[Phaedros]

"It's impossible to prove something doesn't exist."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52XsW6jD4eg&feature=relmfu

 

[Walter Kovacs]

I was going to post that video.

'YOU CANT PROVE A NEGATIVE!!!!!11"


Nonsense. Utter nonsense.

 

[wannabeadesigirl]

WorshipLife,
Yes, ...
and his approach, which listens for a bit to the argument but ultimately dismisses any other argument as not worth addressing, is typical of secular liberalism today. This can be seen in a number of areas where whatever argument is put against abortion, evolution, homosexual relations etc, even if it is put by people with the same qualifications in the subject, is dismissed as loonacy if it doesnt match the secular liberal viewpoint or particularly if the person making the criticism has faith in God.

Its a spiritual blindness.

Well yeah. That's his standpoint. Anyone who says to him "homosexuality is wrong because God says so" is immediately going to be dismissed because he doesn't believe in God.
The goal isn't to prove God exists, cause like worshiplife and I said it's pointless because you can't prove him to an atheist. The goal is to show that life, believing in a specific deity, has a point beyond the great beyond.

Meaning if we lived our lives caring for other people in the here and now instead of worrying about heaven (another nonproof) atheists would probably be more likely to pay attention to our words and not dismiss them as the words of hypocritical fanatics.

 

[Tergle]

Hello all

Just wondering what you think of Richard Dawkins in relation to the article on my blog, which you can find in my signature, and you should find it on the main page (I'm not allowed to post links yet!)

He's getting a lot of attention here in the uk! He's recently refused to debate with a Christian Professor over God. Though you'll have to read the full article to get the whole picture!

Dawkins gets turned to hamburger by any half-way decent Christian scholar. He is the most pitiful of the so-called new atheists. (New Boss, same as the Old Boss).

Watch the Dawkins versus Lennox debate and see what a full-fledge and capable Christian scholar does to Dawkins.

The God Delusion Debate (Dawkins-Lennox)

Nothing to fear from these "new" atheists, that we haven't dealt with for two-thousand years. Even throwing in Darwinism to the mix, atheism is little more than emotionalism of a hysterical nature.

 

[Tergle]

Well yeah. That's his standpoint. Anyone who says to him "homosexuality is wrong because God says so" is immediately going to be dismissed because he doesn't believe in God.

Then show him a photo of a rectum or throat. Anatomy proves how "wrong" homosexuality is. Although deviant behavior is the right of man, it does not get to enter normality. Not without a stand against that.

The goal isn't to prove God exists, cause like worshiplife and I said it's pointless because you can't prove him to an atheist. The goal is to show that life, believing in a specific deity, has a point beyond the great beyond.

Every single Christian is an atheist towards any other deity but the God of Abraham, Issac and and Jacob.

Meaning if we lived our lives caring for other people in the here and now instead of worrying about heaven (another nonproof) atheists would probably be more likely to pay attention to our words and not dismiss them as the words of hypocritical fanatics.

Jesus says not to address atheists at all. Dust off and move on. We do not need to engage these people to live fulfilled lives. Let them spin through this life as they choose. Just oppose them trying to implement atheism as a political power structure. That is, if you live in a democratic society.

Take some time and read Jonh Locke's A Letter Concerning Toleration.

His views on atheism and atheists take in the history of mankind.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

John Lennox is brilliant.

 

[angelstain]

I am .... amused

 

[Candide]

The final nail in the coffin for my opinion as Dawkins as a credible intellectual was when I watched some clips from a documentary that he made(?), hosted(?) called "The Enemies of Reason". Arrogant to the extreme.

He can turn down a debate if he wants.

Doesn't one have to be unreasonable to be religious though? I mean the entire concept of 'having faith' is believing in something you can't see. Which is unreasonable. Why is it a bad thing to be called an enemy of reason? I am a Christian, and I do not disagree with much of what Dawkins says.

 

[brightmorningstar]

What a great thread and amazing posts.
DeanRoberts your blog is superb!!

The problem with secular liberalism is it is relativist. Its ok for the Secular Liberal to dismiss an argument which is God based because they dont believe in God, except that we can do the same in reverse by dissmissing secular liberal views because they dont believe in God. The problem with secular liberal is it doesnt accept that, which means it is closed to anything outside its framework. So it will say its for inclusivity whilst excluding anything that it doesnt see as inclusive. Thats because inclusivity doesnt exist, you cant have dark and light at the same time.
These people are convinced they are right, highly qualified and intelligent but actually in la-la land.