Richard Dawkins Explains Why He Doesn't Debate Young Earth Creationists

[KWCrazy]

I can also post totally random and unattributed graphs and make totally unsupported claims just like you!

You like posting false accusations don't you? I didn't source the graph because anyone can right click on it and source it.

The stats were sourced.

 

[madaz]

Obviously, God never tells people to murder anyone (though He did with the ancient enemies of Israel).

Please excuse me for butting here but if you dont mind me asking-

How do you know God told people to murder the ancient enemies of Israel?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That depends. If they are knowingly and deliberately trying to undermine the faith of others, then yes, they can be. If they teach that in accordance with natural law a man can't walk on the water, there is nothing specifically wrong with that because none of the miracles in the Bible happened in accordance with natural law. One has to understand natural law to truly understand a miracle. Science properly taught is a study of the physical world around us. The supernatural and non-physical is a discussion for religion. The truly wise understands that the natural and the supernatural are very different. The laws that affect one do not affect the other.

And if they teach the theory of evolution?

Convinced by whom; by what entity and for what reason?

From my own post:
That evening, while sitting near a doorway in front of a long hall that ran the length of an addition we had added to our home, I noticed two shadows traveling the length of the hallway. The light colored paneling made them plainly visible. They were perhaps three feet tall and looked like any other shadows, except that the lighting was overhead and there was nobody who could have cast the shadows. I knew then I was looking at demons. After making a trip up and down the hallway they entered the first bedroom on the right, in which my younger brother lay in his crib. I excitedly told everyone of this, but nobody believed me.

In the interests of time I won't go into all the details of what the baby did over the next couple of weeks. I will say that though he had just said his first words, he was able to whisper what sounded like a long string of profanities. If you put a Bible in his crib he screamed it terror. Finally we had an evangelist my uncle knew perform an exorcism. It wasn't a formal affair like you see in the movies. It was more that he put his hands on the baby's head and commanded by the blood of Jesus Christ that the demons release their hold over the baby and that they depart. The profanity stopped, the strange behavior stopped, and once more the baby didn't know the Bible from any other book.

The possibilities are:
It happened. I'm telling you what happened.
It didn't happen. I'm lying about it.

I'll let you make up your own mind.

You seem to be missing the most obvious possibility: that you have imbued this experience with religious significance. No one here thinks you are lying about it.

If you're going to pose the question and frame the answer, what do you need me for? You're asking if something is possible so you can then frame it as an absolute; delusion is possible in one case and so is the fact of every case. Sorry, not buying into it.

The fact is, 35% of Americans say they have seen or experienced a miracle. In rough numbers, that's 108,000,000 people. If 90% of them are mistaken, that still leaves over 10,000,000 people who have seen something that can't be explained by science. Your insinuation that all of them are delusional is nothing more than a childish denial. Among the very religious to whom God has revealed Himself, the number of people who have experienced miracles swells to 59%. In other words, for every two devout Christians you talk with, one knows by first hand that you couldn't possibly be more wrong.

I'm confused about what you think the significance of this finding is. Many people go to faith healers and, having squandered their money, they leave with the impression that they've witnessed miracles being performed.

 

[KWCrazy]

Please excuse me for butting here but if you dont mind me asking-
How do you know God told people to murder the ancient enemies of Israel?

Actually, murder is not the correct word. He said to kill them. For example, this is in Deuteronomy 7:
When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you— 2 and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally.[a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. 3 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4 for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. 5 This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. 6 For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.

The enemies of God were considered unclean and had to be driven from the land. This was an admonition against taking prisoners or intermingling with the enemy. Beyond that, God warned about taking their pagan religions to heart and worshipping their false gods.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Actually, murder is not the correct word. He said to kill them. For example, this is in Deuteronomy 7:
When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you— 2 and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally.[a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. 3 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4 for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. 5 This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. 6 For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.

The enemies of God were considered unclean and had to be driven from the land. This was an admonition against taking prisoners or intermingling with the enemy. Beyond that, God warned about taking their pagan religions to heart and worshipping their false gods.

So every man, woman and child was to be killed because they worshipped a different deity? Whenever conservative Christians tell me that the US was founded on "Christian principles" I often wonder how they reconcile the concept of freedom of religion with Biblical verses such as these.

 

[KWCrazy]

And if they teach the theory of evolution?

I addressed that. As I said, it's a matter of intent. Evolution, like all great lies, has its share of truth. Species have changed since the great flood and speciation does happen in accordance with each multiplying on the earth. When it gets into theories of origin and original progenitors, it runs out of truth and delves into the unprovable. Evolution claims that man and daffodils share a common ancestor since they share 25% of the same DNA. The Scriptures tell us that man was created in his mature state, like everything else including the stars and planets. Teaching a theory as a theory is acceptable in a science class because people need to understand at least the observable processes of nature. Teaching that the theory of origins proves the Bible wrong is not acceptable. Origination can never be proved. Properly understood, all that is known in biology supports the Scriptural account of creation.

You seem to be missing the most obvious possibility: that you have imbued this experience with religious significance. No one here thinks you are lying about it.

One does not see demons and witness demonic possession without seeing the obvious religious significance. The demons were not cast out by praying to Darwin. Amazingly, this experience is not particularly unique. Others have had similar experiences.

Many people go to faith healers and, having squandered their money, they leave with the impression that they've witnessed miracles being performed.

If they are healed, was their money squandered?

I don't have a lot of confidence in supposed faith healers because they are much like a traveling show selling hope to those without it for a fee. A true healer doesn't ask for money. He shouldn't have to.

If you want to see who is real and who is not, just look at how they promote themselves. Faith healing comes from God. If the supposed healer is promoting his own name and not the name of Jesus, he's probably a huckster. From a purely natural perspective, faith healing works on conversion reactions and would be effective whether the man was a fraud or not so long as the one healed believed. Remember, Jesus said if you had the faith of a grain of mustard seed you could move mountains in His name. You could certainly cure a disease if it was God's will.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I addressed that. As I said, it's a matter of intent. Evolution, like all great lies, has its share of truth. Species have changed since the great flood and speciation does happen in accordance with each multiplying on the earth. When it gets into theories of origin and original progenitors, it runs out of truth and delves into the unprovable. Evolution claims that man and daffodils share a common ancestor since they share 25% of the same DNA. The Scriptures tell us that man was created in his mature state, like everything else including the stars and planets. Teaching a theory as a theory is acceptable in a science class because people need to understand at least the observable processes of nature. Teaching that the theory of origins proves the Bible wrong is not acceptable. Origination can never be proved. Properly understood, all that is known in biology supports the Scriptural account of creation.

The intent is to provide children with a comprehensible and excellent science education. The content does not cohere with a literal reading of Scripture.

One does not see demons and witness demonic possession without seeing the obvious religious significance. The demons were not cast out by praying to Darwin. Amazingly, this experience is not particularly unique. Others have had similar experiences.

Indeed they have. Including many former believers.

If they are healed, was their money squandered?

I don't have a lot of confidence in supposed faith healers because they are much like a traveling show selling hope to those without it for a fee. A true healer doesn't ask for money. He shouldn't have to.

If you want to see who is real and who is not, just look at how they promote themselves. Faith healing comes from God. If the supposed healer is promoting his own name and not the name of Jesus, he's probably a huckster. From a purely natural perspective, faith healing works on conversion reactions and would be effective whether the man was a fraud or not so long as the one healed believed. Remember, Jesus said if you had the faith of a grain of mustard seed you could move mountains in His name. You could certainly cure a disease if it was God's will.

I don't even know where to begin in addressing this. Faith healing is a scam and its chief proponents have been exposed as charlatans. In exchange for their money, the best that people receive in return is a moderate dose of placebo. At worst, they throw away their actual medicine and find themselves in ill health later.

 

[KWCrazy]

So every man, woman and child was to be killed because they worshipped a different deity?

The wages of sin are death. Under the law at the time, the penalty for idolatry was death. The enemies of Israel would have killed them to the last person if they had the chance. Such was the nature of the times. However, the intent was to drive the others from the land, as has been discussed here.

Whenever conservative Christians tell me that the US was founded on "Christian principles" I often wonder how they reconcile the concept of freedom of religion with Biblical verses such as these.

Aren't you the one who said you used to attend church regularly? How is it you understand so little about the Scriptures; or history for that matter? Before man could be saved by grace, he lived under the law. The law was a very strict code of conduct that included things like "an eye for an eye" because the threat of a harsh punishment made it less likely for people to do evil to each other. The resurrection of Christ issued in the New Covenant whereby man could be saved through Grace; everyone including the Gentiles. In no place does Jesus advocate the kind of judgment that existed before because now all men had a path of forgiveness. He was the blood sacrifice for the sins of man.

America was founded on Christian principles, though like all people and all nations we have not always lived up to the morality we espouse. Until this last president, however, we always considered ourselves a Christian nation and tried to help others. No nation has done more to help other nations then the US. Love him or hate him, no president has saved more lives than George W Bush with his unprecedented push to stem the tide of AIDS in Africa. What America did to its own native population is appalling. However, had the westward expansion hot happened and had the industrial age not kicked off when it did, Europe would still be under the heel of the Nazi's. The Indians were a proud nation, but doomed by their anachronistic lifestyle. Had America stopped at the Mississippi, Japan would have taken the West. Sometimes good can arise from evil. We have to continuously work and pray for the good, despite the fact that many are dragging this country into a moral abyss.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The wages of sin are death. Under the law at the time, the penalty for idolatry was death. The enemies of Israel would have killed them to the last person if they had the chance. Such was the nature of the times. However, the intent was to drive the others from the land, as has been discussed here.

The intent seems to be the destruction of an entire people; a command that is difficult to reconcile with the concept of a 'morally perfect' deity.

America was founded on Christian principles, <snip>

Which 'Christian principles' specifically?

 

[Gadarene]

The intent seems to be the destruction of an entire people; a command that is difficult to reconcile with the concept of a 'morally perfect' deity.

Which 'Christian principles' specifically?

Destruction of an entire people, apparently

 

[Eudaimonist]

America was founded on Christian principles, though like all people and all nations we have not always lived up to the morality we espouse.

American law was founded on Roman legal principles, combined with Enlightenment Era philosophy. True, John Locke believed in some sort of God, but his thoughts followed his own direction. There is astonishingly little that is Christian in the foundational principles of America.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KWCrazy]

The intent is to provide children with a comprehensible and excellent science education. The content does not cohere with a literal reading of Scripture.

Your education isn't excellent in the least if it doesn't begin with a basic understanding of science; specifically what science can study and what it cannot. Your idea of excellence apparently involves lying to students and telling them that evolution is right and their Bible is wrong. True excellence would explain that science studies the natural and religion addresses the supernatural.

Faith healing is a scam and its chief proponents have been exposed as charlatans.

Mark 5:
25 And a certain woman, which had an issue of blood twelve years,
26 And had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse,
27 When she had heard of Jesus, came in the press behind, and touched his garment.
28 For she said, If I may touch but his clothes, I shall be whole.
29 And straightway the fountain of her blood was dried up; and she felt in her body that she was healed of that plague.
30 And Jesus, immediately knowing in himself that virtue had gone out of him, turned him about in the press, and said, Who touched my clothes?
31 And his disciples said unto him, Thou seest the multitude thronging thee, and sayest thou, Who touched me?
32 And he looked round about to see her that had done this thing.
33 But the woman fearing and trembling, knowing what was done in her, came and fell down before him, and told him all the truth.
34 And he said unto her, Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace, and be whole of thy plague.

Your statement is false. Faith healing is real. Are many faith healers actually scam artists? Absolutely. That doesn't mean that people aren't still healed by faith. The fact is that God DOES answer prayers, but sometimes we don't get the answers we want. The key element is faith. No faith = no healing. No human can lay hands on another and heal them. Only by praying to God and giving glory to God can the healing actually happen. There are no holy men and no righteous men; only sinners. False healers are using the Lord's name in vain.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Your education isn't excellent in the least if it doesn't begin with a basic understanding of science; specifically what science can study and what it cannot. Your idea of excellence apparently involves lying to students and telling them that evolution is right and their Bible is wrong. True excellence would explain that science studies the natural and religion addresses the supernatural.

You're broadly right, but not for the reasons you think. By studying the natural world we have found that many of the claims made through a literal reading of the Bible are not true. The world is older than 6000 years, there was no global Flood, and vegetation wasn't created before the sun and stars existed. You can't give students an excellent education if you tell them that we know all this by studying the natural world but that they should ignore it because what the Bible says is literally true.

Your statement is false. Faith healing is real. Are many faith healers actually scam artists? Absolutely. That doesn't mean that people aren't still healed by faith. The fact is that God DOES answer prayers, but sometimes we don't get the answers we want. The key element is faith. No faith = no healing.

No faith = no healing is exactly what the charlatans say to their victims. "Oh, you've experienced a relapse of MS? That's because you didn't have enough faith."

 

[KWCrazy]

By studying the natural world we have found that many of the claims made through a literal reading of the Bible are not true.

False. We've found that they don't fit with the laws of science, but then we knew that already.

The world is older than 6000 years,

By your interpretation of the data. Others have a different opinion based on the exact same evidence.

there was no global Flood,

By your interpretation of the data. Others have a different opinion based on the exact same evidence.

and vegetation wasn't created before the sun and stars existed.

You don't know this because origination, in any form, is explainable. there was light and darkness on day one, by the way. Didn't you learn that in church?

No faith = no healing is exactly what the charlatans say to their victims.

So your contention is that NOBODY is ever healed by faith? So if I find a SINGLE case of someone actually being healed you will apologize for disparaging the power of faith? Hint: I can name people who post on this website, so choose your answer carefully.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Others have a different opinion based on the exact same evidence.

No, by selectively ignoring evidence that doesn't support their preconceived views.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KWCrazy]

No, by selectively ignoring evidence that doesn't support their preconceived views.

Like their pre-conceived view that there has to be a natural cause for the origination of life because the alternative it to accept the existence of God? How about the unfounded idea that the observable, physical world is the ONLY reality because that's the only thing we can observe? Denying the existence of the supernatural just because you can't reliably test it is exactly why your post complains about.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

False. We've found that they don't fit with the laws of science, but then we knew that already.

By your interpretation of the data. Others have a different opinion based on the exact same evidence.

By your interpretation of the data. Others have a different opinion based on the exact same evidence.

By "others" you mean Creationists and by "opinion" you mean unsubstantiated assertion that contradicts what we've learnt about the world.

You don't give children an excellent education in science by telling them to repeat "Well, others have a different opinion based on the exact same evidence." Because it isn't true. The others you refer to have a dogma.

You don't know this because origination, in any form, is explainable. there was light and darkness on day one, by the way. Didn't you learn that in church?

The assertion that vegetation preceded the sun and stars is asinine. Read literally, Genesis assumes that the heavier elements comprising the Earth existed prior to, or alongside, the lighter elements that formed the first generation of stars. The Hubble Deep Field captures galaxies that are as far away as 12 billion light years, which is older than the estimated age of the Earth, much less life on the Earth.

So your contention is that NOBODY is ever healed by faith? So if I find a SINGLE case of someone actually being healed you will apologize for disparaging the power of faith? Hint: I can name people who post on this website, so choose your answer carefully.

So you're going to provide me with a plethora of anecdotal evidence?

 

[EnemyOfReason]

Like their pre-conceived view that there has to be a natural cause for the origination of life because the alternative it to accept the existence of God? How about the unfounded idea that the observable, physical world is the ONLY reality because that's the only thing we can observe? Denying the existence of the supernatural just because you can't reliably test it is exactly why your post complains about.

You have to provide evidence that god had a role in the origins of life. Stating something did an action with no proof is illogical obviously.

Denying the supernatural because one cannot test it also means to deny it because it cannot be felt, touched, smelled, heard, tasted nor seen. It means it practically does not exist. Everything we cannot see or hear all has a mark upon natural existence like wind or gravity yet demons, angels and fairies have none.


One one has accepted the supernatural and something he or she cannot validate then one should also accept fairies ordered mass murder, that Jews were killed by the hands of Satan and blame for evil or good can be shifted upon a delusion.

Why deny devi? Why deny Jinn? Why deny everything else not in your book if we are to all accept the so called rational opinion of the supernatural.

Your seriously fail at logic here and are only using confirmation bias.

 

[EnemyOfReason]

The assertion that vegetation preceded the sun and stars is asinine. Read literally, Genesis assumes that the heavier elements comprising the Earth existed prior to, or alongside, the lighter elements that formed the first generation of stars. The Hubble Deep Field captures galaxies that are as far away as 12 billion light years, which is older than the estimated age of the Earth, much less life on the Earth.

Vegetation did preceed the sun and stars, a little something called magic

 

[bhsmte]

If you're going to pose the question and frame the answer, what do you need me for? You're asking if something is possible so you can then frame it as an absolute; delusion is possible in one case and so is the fact of every case. Sorry, not buying into it.

The fact is, 35% of Americans say they have seen or experienced a miracle. In rough numbers, that's 108,000,000 people. If 90% of them are mistaken, that still leaves over 10,000,000 people who have seen something that can't be explained by science. Your insinuation that all of them are delusional is nothing more than a childish denial. Among the very religious to whom God has revealed Himself, the number of people who have experienced miracles swells to 59%. In other words, for every two devout Christians you talk with, one knows by first hand that you couldn't possibly be more wrong.

According to an individuals own mind, they think they genuinely experienced a lot of things. Whether those experiences correlate with reality outside of that person's own mind, is another matter.

It has been well established, that the mind can generate all sorts of experiences that don't jive with reality and some people are more prone to this phenomenon, depending on their individual psychological needs and life's experiences.