Melvyn Bragg puts Richard Dawkins in his place!!

[Non sequitur]

....that's the trolling I previously mentioned...

Have you or Dawkins or any other atheist realised the irony of your supposed "argument" regarding the nature of the Christian God - you know, the one you claim doesn't actually exist?

And isn't it interesting that this assessment of God comes from a Christian text?

I mean, have you ever considered why Christianity/ Judaism would it paint such (seemingly) negative picture of it's own God?
Do you not think a bit of discreet censorship/ editing might have made things a bit easier from a PR point of view?

It's also interesting that you are seemingly more than happy to except this view of God as based on fact. Is it because it portrays Christianity, or at least the God of Christianity in a seemingly negative light?

Are you so excepting of (the many) other accounts of God's nature that are a less bitter pill to swallow? Or is it just the negative ones you'll be happy to accept as true?

Answer me this!

So... theoretically entertaining the idea, so one can debate the concept, is somehow ironic, now?

 

[Nabobalis]

....that's the trolling I previously mentioned...

Have you or Dawkins or any other atheist realised the irony of your supposed "argument" regarding the nature of the Christian God - you know, the one you claim doesn't actually exist?

You claim he exist and the bible describes your god. Therefore from that we can make claims about him. We don't have to accept that your god exists.

And isn't it interesting that this assessment of God comes from a Christian text?

Well where else would it come from? It is your god, we are not talking about any other god. If I wanted to understand Islam - I read the Quran not the bible.

I mean, have you ever considered why Christianity/ Judaism would it paint such (seemingly) negative picture of it's own God?
Do you not think a bit of discreet censorship/ editing might have made things a bit easier from a PR point of view?

Well personally I'm not a PR man but as they say, even bad publicity is good publicly.

It's also interesting that you are seemingly more than happy to except this view of God as based on fact. Is it because it portrays Christianity, or at least the God of Christianity in a seemingly negative light?

This isn't my view, it is Craig's view which you seem to support. You seem to like a guy who is pro-genocide.

Are you so excepting of (the many) other accounts of God's nature that are a less bitter pill to swallow? Or is it just the negative ones you'll be happy to accept as true?

Answer me this!

I find it odd that you like a man who supports genocide because his god command hims and blames the victims.

Most Christians gloss over the old testament because god is horrible in it, not many Christians will apply he laws laid down in the old testament unless it supports their position.

There are many accounts of god being nice and well Jesus makes up the vast majority of that. But you can't brush over genocide that easily - genocide is wrong no matter who orders it, even god.

 

[Nabobalis]

So... theoretically entertaining the idea, so one can debate the concept, is somehow ironic, now?

You have to accept that god exists to debate him. You know, like how English literature students have to accept every fictional character exists before they can discuss the book and its characters.

 

[Non sequitur]

You have to accept that god exists to debate him. You know, like how English literature students have to accept every fictional character exists before they can discuss the book and its characters.

Lol.

I re-read that 3 times thinking, "This..doesn't make sense... I mean, if they think they were based on... what am I missi-OH"

 

[Bish bash bosh]

like how English literature students have to accept every fictional character exists before they can discuss the book and its characters.

Bish

 

[ianb321red]

You claim he exist and the bible describes your god. Therefore from that we can make claims about him. We don't have to accept that your god exists.

So you'll make claims about something that you believe actually doesn't exist in the first place? That's illogical my friend.

Well where else would it come from? It is your god, we are not talking about any other god. If I wanted to understand Islam - I read the Quran not the bible.

That's the whole point I'm making - you're drawing a conclusion from a source you've already rejected as being false - and then claiming it's a true conclusion.
That's nonsense.
That's like me as a Christian saying that I believe the Qu'ran is completely false, but then drawing conclusions from the Qu'ran regarding the nature and character of Allah, and claiming these conclusions to be true. If I've firstly said that my source is false, it is illogical therefore to draw a truthful conclusion from a false source isn't it?

Well personally I'm not a PR man but as they say, even bad publicity is good publicly.

Ok - not one of your greatest answers!

This isn't my view, it is Craig's view which you seem to support. You seem to like a guy who is pro-genocide.

Again - this alleged genocide is from a source you've deemed as false. So neither you nor Dawkins can make a true conclusion from it.

Now you both either back track and say, "no, actually The Bible is actually true after all" - then you've believed in a source (text) as being true and accurate.
And then you can start to comment with some sort of dignity.

But until you reach that point you're in an impossible position as an atheist to comment on anything written in The Bible, simply because you've rejected it's authenticity and deemed it as a false source to be begin with.

Now what was I about to say about those flying spaghetti monsters again .....?

 

[Nabobalis]

So you'll make claims about something that you believe actually doesn't exist in the first place? That's illogical my friend.

You don't have to believe a book to discuss the source material - otherwise no one would ever analyze a book or play unless it was factual.

That's the whole point I'm making - you're drawing a conclusion from a source you've already rejected as being false - and then claiming it's a true conclusion.
That's nonsense.
That's like me as a Christian saying that I believe the Qu'ran is completely false, but then drawing conclusions from the Qu'ran regarding the nature and character of Allah, and claiming these conclusions to be true. If I've firstly said that my source is false, it is illogical therefore to draw a truthful conclusion from a false source isn't it?

I reject the source as false, but you don't. That is important. People read the bible and can analyze your god who you accept. There is nothing illogical about this.

Ok - not one of your greatest answers!

Well the sensible answer is that the old testament was used/preached to strike fear into people and what else is more fearful? Getting killed by the people who's opinion/god you don't accept.

Again - this alleged genocide is from a source you've deemed as false. So neither you nor Dawkins can make a true conclusion from it.

You claim it is real and that's besides the point. A genocide whether real or fake is nothing to be taken lightly. Even accepting a fake genocide is appalling.

Now you both either back track and say, "no, actually The Bible is actually true after all" - then you've believed in a source (text) as being true and accurate.
And then you can start to comment with some sort of dignity.

Again, you don't have to accept the source material is true to analyse the text. Just ask anyone who does literature.

But until you reach that point you're in an impossible position as an atheist to comment on anything written in The Bible, simply because you've rejected it's authenticity and deemed it as a false source to be begin with.

Again, you accept the bible and we can read the bible and analyse the characters in it. Accepting if the source is true or not doesn't change anything.

Now what was I about to say about those flying spaghetti monsters again .....?

I don't know. I don't believe in any flying spaghetti monsters.

 

[ianb321red]

I reject the source as false, but you don't. That is important. People read the bible and can analyze your god who you accept. There is nothing illogical about this.

I disagree.
You cannot draw out a valid argument from a false source or from false information.

How can you analyse something that you don't believe actually exists?

For example, I could read the Vedas - I could become aware of Brahman, but since I don't actually believe Brahman really exists then logically I cannot make any sort of definite statement about something I firmly believe does not exists in anyway, shape or form..

 

[Nabobalis]

I disagree.
You cannot draw out a valid argument from a false source or from false information.

Yes you can. You can draw a valid argument from a false premise.

How can you analyse something that you don't believe actually exists?

Ask any English literature student? They do it all the time. You don't have to believe the book is real to analyse it.

For example, I could read the Vedas - I could become aware of Brahman, but since I don't actually believe Brahman really exists then logically I cannot make any sort of definite statement about something I firmly believe does not exists in anyway, shape or form..

You can make a definte statement of Brahman directly from the Vedas. I can make a statement about Dante, accepting the source is the truth and historical does not come into it.

 

[ianb321red]

Ask any English literature student? They do it all the time. You don't have to believe the book is real to analyse it.



You can make a definte statement of Brahman directly from the Vedas. I can make a statement about Dante, accepting the source is the truth and historical does not come into it.

Not quite - we're talking about 2 different things here.

You're talking about the concept of something (God in this instance), not the reality of something.

Of course you can comment on the concept of God from The Bible, but therefore logically it is only a concept of genocide he can be guilty of (in your mind).

The only way you know about God is from The Bible. But you reject this as false. You don't believe God exists.
What does exist is that other people believe in God and accept The Bible as truth.
But for an atheist this is a false belief.
Therefore the accusation of genocide, like God is imaginary for the atheist..

So logically, if God does not exist he cannot have committed genocide.
Either that, or God does exist and he has committed genocide in the past.

You can't have it both ways. You can't argue that something doesn't exist, but then argue that this something (which doesn't exist) has perpetrated something awful (like genocide) and that this perpetration does exist in the sense that it actually happened!

 

[Nabobalis]

Not quite - we're talking about 2 different things here.

I don't think we are.

You're talking about the concept of something (God in this instance), not the reality of something.

We are talking about god as he appears in the bible.

Of course you can comment on the concept of God from The Bible, but therefore logically it is only a concept of genocide he can be guilty of (in your mind).

Well assuming that the genocide is only mentioned in the bible and not in recorded history, then the genocide is imaginary. However that doesn't excuse someone defending that genocide. To defend a genocide whether it is real or imaginary shows a massive lack of morals and ethics.

The only way you know about God is from The Bible. But you reject this as false. You don't believe God exists.
What does exist is that other people believe in God and accept The Bible as truth.
But for an atheist this is a false belief.
Therefore the accusation of genocide, like God is imaginary for the atheist..

Like I said, you don't have to accept the material to be true in order to discuss the characters and the events in the book.

We started this talking about Craig and how he defends genocide as long as his god demands it.

So logically, if God does not exist he cannot have committed genocide.
Either that, or God does exist and he has committed genocide in the past.

You are getting hung on the issue of if the genocide happened or not. That wasn't the original issue.

You can't have it both ways. You can't argue that something doesn't exist, but then argue that this something (which doesn't exist) has perpetrated something awful (like genocide) and that this perpetration does exist in the sense that it actually happened!

Again, we started this about Craig and how he will defend a genocide ordered by his god. The issue was about the stunning lack of morals/ethics that he displayed and that you for some reason liked him.

 

[MorkandMindy]

I appreciate that you are not from these shores, but can assure you that Bragg has a lot more credibility here than Dawkins!!

Prof. Dawkins is a World famous Evolutionary Biologist who made a major contribution toward undestanding the behaviour of individuals in evolutionary terms (The Selfish Gene). He is a Fellow of the Royal Society and was the Charles Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science.


I'm not sure who the other guy is, maybe because I don't have a TV.