Richard Dawkins...

[deanrobertsnet]

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!

 

[Life2Christ]

I think Dawkins gets so many invitations for debates that he just simply has to turn them down. He probably does not want to be known as a debator since he does have a real job of being a teacher/scientist.

 

[brightmorningstar]

He doesnt come out very well in debates for three reasons, his thinking is weak and gets exposed, he usually shows his anger at God, and he usually gets the neutrals against him with comments of such dismissive arrogance.
He is a lightweight and a poor scientist too, focused on the philosophy of science which he thinks can disprove God. Didnt he get into a corner with Ben Stiller? or someone, yes there could be a higher force as long as its not God?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g
This does 'smell' of being an edited video, but listen to what Richard Dawkins says uninterupted. He seems to be saying if one was there 300 million years ago one would expect to see a fish come out on land and walk around which would be the first land animal. I agree with him that an evolutionist would expect that but no-one has seen that except perhaps God. Tiktaalic couldnt walk around, though it could probably breath, as Dawkins implies we dont know we cant compare it with modern lobbed finned fish, and I cant see how if it cant walk around and eat it, it can know how to evolve to do that as a fish.

 

[BloodyRachel]

Richard Dawkins is so angry. He needs the love of Christ in him.

 

[Jase]

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!

Intelligent biologist, but his militant atheism gets on my nerves. I don't like extremism of any kind, being it Christian, Muslim, Atheist, etc. and he seems to define extremism among atheists.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Richard Dawkins is so angry. He needs the love of Christ in him.

Amen and he may be closer than most think, certainly I would say his anger shows he is challenged. I pray for him, I pray against any unacceptable hostility towards him, and of course a Damascus road type of experience for him.

 

[Life2Christ]

Amen and he may be closer than most think, certainly I would say his anger shows he is challenged. I pray for him, I pray against any unacceptable hostility towards him, and of course a Damascus road type of experience for him.

I hope that what you write is true. This is why we as Christians should never write someone off as "evil" or "hopeless".

 

[56Bluesman]

I've read a number of his books including ' The God Delusion ' and to be honest, while I find him to be very adept at explaining concepts of modern Darwinism well enough, though he and the late Stephen Jay Gould didn't agree on everything in regards to evolutionary history in the fossil records, he champions his incremental brand of Darwinism with gusto. However as a philosopher he hasn't really brought anything new to the philosophical arguments that atheists bring to the table constantly.

 

[Jazer]

He's recently refused to debate with a Christian Professor over God.

Why should he? If it is not going to sell his books or help him accomplish his purpose then what is in it for him?

 

[wannabeadesigirl]

I don't like Dawkins because his debates turn from intelligent conversations to him inevitably calling anyone who believes in any God dilusional. Basically it's an ad hominem attack, something that any college freshman is told not to do in any debate or logic class.

 

[BloodyRachel]

I don't like Dawkins because his debates turn from intelligent conversations to him inevitably calling anyone who believes in any God dilusional. Basically it's an ad hominem attack, something that any college freshman is told not to do in any debate or logic class.

It's funny because atheists are always accusing Christians of ad hominem attacks.

 

[LP1]

He's just bitter

 

[wannabeadesigirl]

It's funny because atheists are always accusing Christians of ad hominem attacks.

I have a friend who is an atheist, and I told him that he cannot prove to me that God doesn't exist, just as I cannot prove to him God does exist. Therefore, since the concept is so strong in both minds, it's kind of pointless arguing the point. Keeps debates short, simple, and civilized.
Richard Dawkins just drives me crazy simply because someone who claims to be level headed and down to earth says that religion should be completely obliterated, never mind the good things that it has done for humanity.

 

[WorshipLife]

He doesnt come out very well in debates for three reasons, his thinking is weak and gets exposed, he usually shows his anger at God, and he usually gets the neutrals against him with comments of such dismissive arrogance.
He is a lightweight and a poor scientist too, ..

I agree with you entirely. I remember listening to him on a BBC documentary on the issue of 'miracles' when I was doing my Masters programme and was convinced he will get nothing more than 30% mark on his research, presentation and submission if that was a Masters project.
I was baffled how an academic of his calibre can be so focused on his hate and anger at "the God of the Bible" that he could present such low quality documentary to the world. Real shame!

I pray his salvation will get as much publicity when it eventually comes.

 

[brightmorningstar]

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.

 

[al_man]

As the article states I am one of the poeple who think's he is showing a lot of “cowardice” by doing this,if he is so adamant that god does not exist then why doesn't he show us the proof, if athiests and such continue to ask us for the proof of existence then why don't they show us the proof that he doesn't by say creating a universe and every living thing in it, but that won't disprove god at all come to think of it as he would have just created life and an entire universe therefor making him a creator... hmm what proof could they possibly show us as god does not exist, in my opinion non.

 

[Varicose Brains]

As the article states I am one of the poeple who think's he is showing a lot of “cowardice” by doing this,if he is so adamant that god does not exist then why doesn't he show us the proof, if athiests and such continue to ask us for the proof of existence then why don't they show us the proof that he doesn't by say creating a universe and every living thing in it, but that won't disprove god at all come to think of it as he would have just created life and an entire universe therefor making him a creator... hmm what proof could they possibly show us as god does not exist, in my opinion non.

An atheist would argue with you that the burden on proof lies with the one who believes God exists. It's impossible to prove something doesn't exist. Science cannot prove something does not exist simply because there is no means to. So the burden of proof is on the theist to show why their God is real. Of course, this argument keeps going back and forth in that the theist would then say that, no, the burden of proof is on the atheist rather than the theist to prove the non-existence of God.

As far as Dawkin's not going to this debate is concerned, I don't see why this is a problem and don't see it as cowardice. He's actually writing a book for children right now and, being 70, I can perfectly understand why he doesn't feel like attending every debate.

 

[wannabeadesigirl]

Even though the burden of proof is on a theist you still can't prove God exists. For one thing scientists have taught themselves how to analyze data using the senses. Since God is a spirit you cannot prove him with those senses. Even things like miracles and the complexity of science can be explained away as coincidences and beneficial mutations.
I find it's a better use of time in a theological debate to simply state why you believe what you believe, admit that what you believe could(and probably does) sound insane to your counterpart, and leave it at that.

 

[sniperelite7]

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.

 

[WorshipLife]

Even though the burden of proof is on a theist you still can't prove God exists.

I will prefer to say that you can not 'prove to the atheist' that God exists. First and foremost, the universe (and its vastness) is enough proof that a Super being(s) who has an oversight over it all exists.
The Bible (its origin through hundreds of years, its unique 'singular message' (i.e. Christ) through out its hundred years origin, its fulfilled prophecy) is, to me, another sure proof that God exists.

However, I agree with you that an argument about God's existence to an atheist is pointless... unless God has prepared the atheist's heart for the truth.