Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
How about you guys? Any books you like to read or science you like to study, or philosophy you like to learn?
Oh, you poor thing... good luck.I'm reading "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins
Hey, me tooI'm reading "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins
God DOES exist. That IS The Truth. God is so gracious.Hey, me tooI'm only on chapter 3 ('Arguments for the existance of God'), but it's a fascinating read.
Why? Because you say so? drifter5, why should we believe you?God DOES exist. That IS The Truth.
I'll pass.God is so gracious.PRAISE HIS NAME !
Why not? Nothing in the book is a lie, as far as I can tell. The book does not conclude that there is no God , but rather that there almost certainly is no God. If you have any actual criticism of the book, let us discuss it.I do not think that God approves of that book ! - (that is , the God delusion, by Richard Dawkins).
Why not? Nothing in the book is a lie, as far as I can tell. The book does not conclude that there is no God , but rather that there almost certainly is no God. If you have any actual criticism of the book, let us discuss it.
Richard Dawkins writing on religion is a bit like reading Lee Strobel on biology- heavy on rhetoric (not bad rhetoric exactly, but rhetoric) and not so much on actual research; his analysis of non-Christian theists in particular is about as thorough as your average fundie polemicist could produce. I wrote a thorough dismantling of the first two chapters of The God Delusion at one point, I can try and hunt that down if you're curious. But this is probably a topic for another thread. Suffice it to say that, like Strobel, Richard Dawkins is most convincing to those who already agree with him, and to those who know little about the topic. Most educated theologians don't even bother to comment, so you won't find many refutations floating around, except from the conservative crowd.And anyway - Richard Dawkins continually stresses throughout the work that this is what "he thinks" - not "this is the truth".
He makes a continuous conscious effort to objectively verify and back up, with reasons and logic, his opinions on the matter.
Where's your reasoning?
Why? Because you say so? drifter5, why should we believe you?
I'll pass.
Why not? Nothing in the book is a lie, as far as I can tell. The book does not conclude that there is no God , but rather that there almost certainly is no God. If you have any actual criticism of the book, let us discuss it.
Correct. That is why I am asking drifter5 for her critique.And yet the book is not the "Be All, End All" of arguments, is it?
You could write the opposite, but it would not be convincing, for the reasons detailed in Dawkins' The God Delusion.One could write the opposite of what that book argues and make a very convincing argument that proves God "almost certainly" exists, correct? This is possible, wouldn't you agree?
That makes no logical sense because if we can know such a thing a priori then by definition we can rule it out altogether.I feel that we can know apostori there is no God, all though we can't rule him out all together.
DoubtingThomas said:I feel that a person can't believe religion is man mad and still believe there is a God. There maybe a remote chance that there is a creator, but really a God would have to be one we could have a personal relationship with and he would have to be all loving and all powerful, which obviously isn't the case when you look at the evidence.
That also makes no logical sense, to rephrase what you said.....DoubtingThomas said:This is how I know there is no God, I look at all the religions that have ever existed, and I know all those religions were just stories that people were making up. I don't see how christianity isn't just a different story, given the fact we can't prove God exists and therefore we can't prove any of Jesus miracles actually happened. So God and the Leprchan fall into the same category, we can't prove Leprchans exist and we can't prove God exist, so there you go the two are one in the same, just about. There is not much difference between the two.
DoubtingThomas said:So, if we know Mohammed din't listen to an angle in a cave, and we also know that christianity was an oppressed cult for over two hundred years, which does mean we have no good reason to believe Jesus came back from the dead. Then there is half of the believing world right there rejected, the other half pretty much is just made up too, in my opinion.
DoubtingThomas said:So there you go if you know religion is man made, then you know God does not exist, the one follows the other.
We know this apostori by looking at religious claims and all those religions and denominations that are out there.
DoubtingThomas said:So what are your thoughts?
DoubtingThomas said:I am just basically looking for a philosophical debate where we can agree to disagree, but still have a little fun performing mental exercises about how do we know things, either apostori or apriori about the claim of the existance of God, and how do we know different things too. So if you want to jump in and tell me why you don't believe Islam, or why you don't believe Hinduism then we could talk about that too. The debate should be fun for everybody, try not to get offended. Religious beliefes should be just an opinion pretty much.
If someone wanted to believe their dog made the universe, what is wrong with that? Nothing not a thing, obviously we couldn't take him seriously the way we have to with people who are hindu or muslim, but still it is okay to have weird belief like that. If you wanted to think a Leperchan made the universe and he lives in the woods somewhere, there is nothing wrong with that. It is weird, but there is nothing wrong with it.
So what are your thoughts on all this?
Who says we don't?God would have to be one we could have a personal relationship with
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?