- Sep 25, 2013
- 1,830
- 114
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
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.
From the OP article:
"When the debate is with someone like a Young Earth creationist, as the late Stephen Gould pointed out they've won the moment you agree to have a debate at all. Because what they want is the oxygen of respectability," Dawkins told Seth Andrews of "The Thinking Atheist" in a recently-published interview about his latest book, An Appetite for Wonder.
"They want to be seen on a platform with a real scientist, because that conveys the idea that here is a genuine argument between scientists," Dawkins continued. "They may not win the argument in fact, they will not win the argument, but it makes it look like there really is an argument to be had."
Richard Dawkins has a point.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Robert and Eric who?Richard does not debate them. Robert and Eric will.
He is already seen as winning. That is the motivation of the young earth creationists, to be recognized as having something of significance. Richard says they don't. I agree.Richard can never win no matter how many books he wrote.
I would say to the young earth creationists, first demonstrate that you can bring more to the fight that just your religion.I would say to Richard: Chicken! Stand up and fight.
Richard Dawkins on Young Earth Creationists - YouTube
Dawkins also believes teaching religion to children is the equivalent of child abuse.
This may give you an idea why Dawkins feels as he does about YEC's.
Richard Dawkins Interviews Creationist Wendy Wright (Part 1/7) - YouTube
It sounds like arrogance and bigotry cloaked behind the appearance of doing a service to the advancement of science.
It does not sound much different to me than Rush Limbaugh advising conservatives to not even talk to liberals.
To be sure, I did not listen to / view the video. I am going by what people here have written.
I'm surprised there wasn't a package video here where we could go from the first installment unto the next and so forth and to the end.I you have time, I would urge you to watch the video, it is enlightening.
The basic premise of atheism is that there is no God; that we live in a purely physical world where nothing ever happens which does not conform to natural laws. It requires a special combination of ignorance and arrogance that 85% of American's lack.
For example, though the verbose and arrogant 15% claim that there are no such thing as miracles, nearly twice that number have actually experienced them. Many such miracles are detailed in threads on this website.
The thing about atheism is that it's an all-or-nothing proposition. Either God exists or He doesn't. If He doesn't exist, then every recorded miracle; every spiritual encounter; and every revelation from God absolutely positively has to be a lie.
Think about the encounters you've had in your life. If you're a child of God it's almost a certainty that you've experienced the presence of the Lord and possibly even a demonic presence. As Christians, we wrestle not with flesh and blood but with principalities. We know these things are real. The atheist knows nothing of the kind. Because he rejects God, he pretends that God doesn't exist; that miracles never happen; and that all God's people are liars. The dumbest of the saved who have experienced the presence of God have a knowledge superior to the most brilliant atheist who wallows forever in his own ignorance.
Atheists know that evolution friendly publications print evolution friendly articles and that creation friendly publications print creation friendly articles. Yet, though all scientists have access to the same data, they insist that in arguments we ONLY post the conclusions of people who had those conclusions published on evolution friendly websites. Talk about stacking the deck! When we ask them to cite articles published on sites like Answers in Genesis they proclaim that those people aren't real scientists; despite the fact that they also have the same degrees and the same data as their heroes from other publications. This is, of course, a lie. A research biologist who believes that God created the world in six days is no less a scientist than the one who claims that everything came form one magical Frankencell millions of years ago. However, when they can't debate the argument they debase the source. It's a typical and common tactic of theirs.
One thing that works in their favor is that God cannot be physically proved to exist, and He doesn't reveal Himself to the unholy. Grace requires that we come to God through faith in Him and the acceptance of Jesus Christ as our lord and savior. It's the only requirement for salvation. Since that IS a requirement, if God were to reveal Himself and prove Himself to the unsaved they would have no chance of salvation. They would know that God is real just as all who have stood before Him in the past and have been sent to Hell by their rejection of Christ. They may demand conclusive proof, but they aren't going to get it.
Atheists attack us for believing in something we can't prove, but they do exactly the same thing because they can't prove the non existence of God. If they simply don't know, then they're not an atheist, they're an agnostic. An atheist is someone who KNOWS there is no God. In other words, he "knows absolutely" something which cannot be proved absolutely that nearly any Christian can refute by personal experience. That's not exactly my definition of intelligence.
The mind of God could very well conceive of a universe in incredible detail, decide exactly what state would be perfect to sustain human life and create it in its perfect state. Despite claims by atheists, there is nothing in regards to natural law which can disprove the creation of a mature world in a perfect state by a perfect God. It boils do to the fact that they have no argument but their own incredulity. Their claims of great age are meaningless. God could create another world like this one tomorrow, complete with people who would claim it was billions of years old. God has no limitations. The finite mind of man is not capable on fully understanding this.
The basic premise of atheism is that there is no God; that we live in a purely physical world where nothing ever happens which does not conform to natural laws.
It requires a special combination of ignorance and arrogance that 85% of American's lack.
The thing about atheism is that it's an all-or-nothing proposition. Either God exists or He doesn't. If He doesn't exist, then every recorded miracle; every spiritual encounter; and every revelation from God absolutely positively has to be a lie.
The dumbest of the saved who have experienced the presence of God have a knowledge superior to the most brilliant atheist who wallows forever in his own ignorance.
One thing that works in their favor is that God cannot be physically proved to exist, and He doesn't reveal Himself to the unholy.
Atheists attack us for believing in something we can't prove, but they do exactly the same thing because they can't prove the non existence of God.
An atheist is someone who KNOWS there is no God.
Despite claims by atheists, there is nothing in regards to natural law which can disprove the creation of a mature world in a perfect state by a perfect God.
The basic premise of atheism is that there is no God; that we live in a purely physical world where nothing ever happens which does not conform to natural laws. It requires a special combination of ignorance and arrogance that 85% of American's lack. For example, though the verbose and arrogant 15% claim that there are no such thing as miracles, nearly twice that number have actually experienced them. Many such miracles are detailed in threads on this website. The thing about atheism is that it's an all-or-nothing proposition. Either God exists or He doesn't. If He doesn't exist, then every recorded miracle; every spiritual encounter; and every revelation from God absolutely positively has to be a lie. Think about the encounters you've had in your life. If you're a child of God it's almost a certainty that you've experienced the presence of the Lord and possibly even a demonic presence. As Christians, we wrestle not with flesh and blood but with principalities. We know these things are real. The atheist knows nothing of the kind. Because he rejects God, he pretends that God doesn't exist; that miracles never happen; and that all God's people are liars. The dumbest of the saved who have experienced the presence of God have a knowledge superior to the most brilliant atheist who wallows forever in his own ignorance.
Is there one - just one - biologist that can provide testable, falsifiable evidence for the existence of their particular deity? There isn't, is there?Atheists know that evolution friendly publications print evolution friendly articles and that creation friendly publications print creation friendly articles. Yet, though all scientists have access to the same data, they insist that in arguments we ONLY post the conclusions of people who had those conclusions published on evolution friendly websites. Talk about stacking the deck! When we ask them to cite articles published on sites like Answers in Genesis they proclaim that those people aren't real scientists; despite the fact that they also have the same degrees and the same data as their heroes from other publications. This is, of course, a lie. A research biologist who believes that God created the world in six days is no less a scientist than the one who claims that everything came form one magical Frankencell millions of years ago. However, when they can't debate the argument they debase the source. It's a typical and common tactic of theirs.
I am not asking for conclusive proof, just something testable, falsifiable.One thing that works in their favor is that God cannot be physically proved to exist, and He doesn't reveal Himself to the unholy. Grace requires that we come to God through faith in Him and the acceptance of Jesus Christ as our lord and savior. It's the only requirement for salvation. Since that IS a requirement, if God were to reveal Himself and prove Himself to the unsaved they would have no chance of salvation. They would know that God is real just as all who have stood before Him in the past and have been sent to Hell by their rejection of Christ. They may demand conclusive proof, but they aren't going to get it.
Do you construct these straw-man arguments to comfort you with your own doubts?Atheists attack us for believing in something we can't prove, but they do exactly the same thing because they can't prove the non existence of God. If they simply don't know, then they're not an atheist, they're an agnostic. An atheist is someone who KNOWS there is no God. In other words, he "knows absolutely" something which cannot be proved absolutely that nearly any Christian can refute by personal experience. That's not exactly my definition of intelligence.
Despite claims by theists, there is nothing in regards to theology which can falsify the scientific observations of a world that appears to be a product of natural processes. It boils down to the fact that they have no argument but their own incredulity. Their claims of young age, gap age, or last Thursdayism are without scientific significance.The mind of God could very well conceive of a universe in incredible detail, decide exactly what state would be perfect to sustain human life and create it in its perfect state. Despite claims by atheists, there is nothing in regards to natural law which can disprove the creation of a mature world in a perfect state by a perfect God. It boils do to the fact that they have no argument but their own incredulity. Their claims of great age are meaningless. God could create another world like this one tomorrow, complete with people who would claim it was billions of years old. God has no limitations. The finite mind of man is not capable on fully understanding this.
The basic premise of atheism is that there is no God; that we live in a purely physical world where nothing ever happens which does not conform to natural laws.
The basic premise of atheism is that there is no God;
that we live in a purely physical world where nothing ever happens which does not conform to natural laws.
It requires a special combination of ignorance and arrogance that 85% of American's lack.
For example, though the verbose and arrogant 15% claim that there are no such thing as miracles, nearly twice that number have actually experienced them. Many such miracles are detailed in threads on this website. The thing about atheism is that it's an all-or-nothing proposition. Either God exists or He doesn't. If He doesn't exist, then every recorded miracle; every spiritual encounter; and every revelation from God absolutely positively has to be a lie. Think about the encounters you've had in your life. If you're a child of God it's almost a certainty that you've experienced the presence of the Lord and possibly even a demonic presence. As Christians, we wrestle not with flesh and blood but with principalities. We know these things are real. The atheist knows nothing of the kind. Because he rejects God, he pretends that God doesn't exist; that miracles never happen; and that all God's people are liars. The dumbest of the saved who have experienced the presence of God have a knowledge superior to the most brilliant atheist who wallows forever in his own ignorance.
Atheists know that evolution friendly publications print evolution friendly articles and that creation friendly publications print creation friendly articles. Yet, though all scientists have access to the same data, they insist that in arguments we ONLY post the conclusions of people who had those conclusions published on evolution friendly websites. Talk about stacking the deck! When we ask them to cite articles published on sites like Answers in Genesis they proclaim that those people aren't real scientists; despite the fact that they also have the same degrees and the same data as their heroes from other publications. This is, of course, a lie. A research biologist who believes that God created the world in six days is no less a scientist than the one who claims that everything came form one magical Frankencell millions of years ago. However, when they can't debate the argument they debase the source. It's a typical and common tactic of theirs.
One thing that works in their favor is that God cannot be physically proved to exist, and He doesn't reveal Himself to the unholy. Grace requires that we come to God through faith in Him and the acceptance of Jesus Christ as our lord and savior. It's the only requirement for salvation. Since that IS a requirement, if God were to reveal Himself and prove Himself to the unsaved they would have no chance of salvation. They would know that God is real just as all who have stood before Him in the past and have been sent to Hell by their rejection of Christ. They may demand conclusive proof, but they aren't going to get it.
Atheists attack us for believing in something we can't prove, but they do exactly the same thing because they can't prove the non existence of God.
If they simply don't know, then they're not an atheist, they're an agnostic. An atheist is someone who KNOWS there is no God.
The mind of God could very well conceive of a universe in incredible detail, decide exactly what state would be perfect to sustain human life and create it in its perfect state. Despite claims by atheists, there is nothing in regards to natural law which can disprove the creation of a mature world in a perfect state by a perfect God. It boils do to the fact that they have no argument but their own incredulity.
Their claims of great age are meaningless. God could create another world like this one tomorrow, complete with people who would claim it was billions of years old. God has no limitations. The finite mind of man is not capable on fully understanding this.
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?