A Question of Christian Theology (1 Viewer)

[dieburndie]

Hitchens is a Dickwad... he's an angry, alcoholic ex-Trotskyist who supports the legalising of Marijuana

Those are hardly valid criticisms.

 

[ad infinitum]

Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett are much more worthy of attention as academics and thinkers... Richard Dawkins maybe, but I really think he takes the whole thing MUCH too personally, and a lot of Non-Christians agree.

?He takes what personally? The death threats? The accusation that he is immoral, going to hell and dishonest? The dismissal of his lifes work? I think he does a fantastic job of staying polite and impersonal, however you obviously haven't even read anything he has wrote...your to busy reading your 'Jesus History' books.

 

[SylviaB]

Hitchens is a Dickwad... he's an angry, alcoholic ex-Trotskyist who supports the legalising of Marijuana, defends George Bush's Foreign Policy post 9/11

1. Hitchens is raging awesome you cunt :O :O

2. why exactly shouldn't marijuana be legal you fucking dolt.

and doesn't attack criticisms of his arguments, but attempts to discredit the people making the criticisms...

isn't that EXACTLY what you're doing to him right now?

 

[Teclis]

?He takes what personally? The death threats? The accusation that he is immoral, going to hell and dishonest? The dismissal of his lifes work? I think he does a fantastic job of staying polite and impersonal, however you obviously haven't even read anything he has wrote...your to busy reading your 'Jesus History' books.

I PERSONALLY think Dawkins is a brilliant Biologist... and that the people who send him death threats and say nasty things about him need to get over themselves.

I was referring to that fact that particularly recently he has come out swinging. Margaret Somerville (who from my understanding is most definately NOT a Christian) puts it quite nicely in saying "he overstates the case against religion". Basically Richard Dawkins' defenders are just as bad as those religious people who say "You just don't/can't understand it"

Also the negativety (the same that you exude ad infinitum) that says "I won't debate you on this issue because you're inherently wrong, and I KNOW this, therefore there is no point giving your argument credibility with debate. In reference to "The God Delusion" He even admits himself to only using sources that attempt to prove the existence of God... then when he's criticising the philosophies and beliefs of all the Abrahamic Religion, makes no reference to ANY scholarly texts on the Subject.

I have a lot of respect for the man as a Scientist. Although I believe his attempts at Philosophy are somewhat impotent...

I didn't say his arguments are invalid... I just think someone who says he drinks "because it makes other people less boring". His work yes (some of it anyways), his personage, no.

 

[ad infinitum]

I PERSONALLY think Dawkins is a brilliant Biologist... and that the people who send him death threats and say nasty things about him need to get over themselves.

I was referring to that fact that particularly recently he has come out swinging. Margaret Somerville (who from my understanding is most definately NOT a Christian) puts it quite nicely in saying "he overstates the case against religion". Basically Richard Dawkins' defenders are just as bad as those religious people who say "You just don't/can't understand it"

Also the negativety (the same that you exude ad infinitum) that says "I won't debate you on this issue because you're inherently wrong, and I KNOW this, therefore there is no point giving your argument credibility with debate. In reference to "The God Delusion" He even admits himself to only using sources that attempt to prove the existence of God... then when he's criticising the philosophies and beliefs of all the Abrahamic Religion, makes no reference to ANY scholarly texts on the Subject.

I have a lot of respect for the man as a Scientist. Although I believe his attempts at Philosophy are somewhat impotent...

I didn't say his arguments are invalid... I just think someone who says he drinks "because it makes other people less boring". His work yes (some of it anyways), his personage, no.

Do not commend Harris, Dennet or Dawkins. You have no right to. You either disagree with them or agree with them. As Sam Harris says at the end of one of his articles; 'You have either found a fatal flaw in my reasoning or you have ceased to believe in god'. 'His attempts at Philosophy are impotent'....you do realize he treats the existence of God as a scientific hypothesis (as does Harris and Dennet.....)....oh my.......Do not speak of 'respect' as if you do not wish to see them burn in hell as your grotesque dogmas demand.

 

[Teclis]

Do not commend Harris, Dennet or Dawkins. You have no right to. You either disagree with them or agree with them. As Sam Harris says at the end of one of his articles; 'You have either found a fatal flaw in my reasoning or you have ceased to believe in god'. 'His attempts at Philosophy are impotent'....you do realize he treats the existence of God as a scientific hypothesis (as does Harris and Dennet.....)....oh my.......Do not speak of 'respect' as if you do not wish to see them burn in hell as your grotesque dogmas demand.

No I think I WILL commend them as academics. I disagree with them, doesn't mean that I don't see their point of view, and most definately doesn't mean I can't respect them as Incredibly smart men. THAT is what tolerance is you pea-brained elitist.

Yes I DO realise Dawkins treats the existence of God as a scientific hypothesis numbskull... I have read a lot of Dawkins work. His science is impeccable... his philosophy of Science is also reasoned in the way he argues for the fact that we should look at the wonder of the world in its beauty and not have to assume a higher hand. His "blind watchmaker" argument etc etc etc... I am familiar with his thoughts on the matter

Dennett and Harris' philosophical arguments while I disagree with them are valid questions and arguments and are taken seriously by other Philosophers (at least that's my understand). Dawkin's use of Philosophy isn't taken seriously by some of the philosophers he quotes.

Dennett himself, along with Anthony Flew, Alvin Platinga... bla bla bla... noted philosophers many... have criticised some of his use of Philosophy.

 

[ad infinitum]

No I think I WILL commend them as academics. I disagree with them, doesn't mean that I don't see their point of view, and most definately doesn't mean I can't respect them as Incredibly smart men. THAT is what tolerance is you pea-brained elitist.

What hollow notions of respect and tolerance you must espouse.

Yes I DO realise Dawkins treats the existence of God as a scientific hypothesis numbskull... I have read a lot of Dawkins work. His science is impeccable... his philosophy of Science is also reasoned in the way he argues for the fact that we should look at the wonder of the world in its beauty and not have to assume a higher hand. His "blind watchmaker" argument etc etc etc... I am familiar with his thoughts on the matter

If he is a 'brilliant' scientist then his conclusions on God (which he treats as scientific) must cohere to your own. Obviously they don't. Quit sucking up to these people and trying to associate yourself with them. They disagree with you. The laugh at you.

Dennett and Harris' philosophical arguments while I disagree with them are valid questions and arguments and are taken seriously by other Philosophers (at least that's my understand). Dawkin's use of Philosophy isn't taken seriously by some of the philosophers he quotes.

They are valid arguments, yet you have no valid response, but you still, with great hubris, exclaim your contrary view as truth. You obviously don't take their arguments seriously in any meaningful sense of the word, otherwise you wouldn't believe in god. Basically your trying to suck up and fawn upon them to appear as if your opinions are more thoughtful than theirs.

Dennett himself, along with Anthony Flew, Alvin Platinga... bla bla bla... noted philosophers many... have criticised some of his use of Philosophy.

[/quote]

......You do realize Dennet is an Atheist...? Enough with this obscure name dropping.....and perhaps respond to my previous post..

 

[Ayatollah]

The laugh at you.

HAHA Please refrain from embarrasing yourself with you poor english.....
I BELIEVE THE CORRECT SPELLING IS 'THEY"
Mabye if you didnt spend all your time blindly worshiping your militant fundementalists athiest satan gods, you could learn to spell.
It is you sir who requires faith, it is you sir who claims science is the ultimate truth, it is you sir who denies gods unremmiting love.
God has spoken to me and teclis and Iron, we have our divine commands, and our only missions is one of peace, respect and grace. You cannot stand the fact that God is the force for good, and that jesus, who is of the same substance, but not at one with God, who is apart of the holy trinity, whose equalateral triganglur form is of two thirds God and 45 degree flesh with divine patronage and holy matter. And if you sir deny the grace and beauty of god, he who manifestly transends logic and evidence, I ask you, what evidence do you have that there is no god, what absurd athiest dogma logic can u use to justify everyting just 'being alive' as a matter of 'chance'.
It is you sir, who takes the bible literally, you are a fundamentalist to the religion that there is no god, and your just here to interbulate god childrens, who only wish to serve the good lord. You hate charity and that's why your here, to hide the fact that God is in your heart, and to hide the crimes you have commited in God view alone. Science can co-exist with religion and you want to hide this, I've done factual research (see books below), looking at good evidence and using true science, and I can tell you that the logic is God is fact, and he transends any of your evidence or 'proof', because the search for the lord within our heart has nothing to do with research or facts, or evidence, only love.

What Really Happened To The Dinosaurs? - Ken Ham
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Ben Stein

 

[murphyad]

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed Movie Reviews, Pictures - Rotten Tomatoes

Turns out film critics can't see the truth either.

But seriously, I think you should stop posting.

 

[Planck]

Hey, I have difficulty understanding, how God, almighty, ubiquitious etc is also human (Jesus). You are essentially worshipping a human being who ate, slept, excreted etc - how does imperfect man pose as perfect God?

Just wanted to know...feel free to answer my query.

*Muslim detected*

 

[Teclis]

What hollow notions of respect and tolerance you must espouse.

What is Tolerance then? Define it for me... because I'm pretty sure the word means 'a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.' I can still disagree with someone and respect their opinions on a matter If I disagree with someone.

If he is a 'brilliant' scientist then his conclusions on God (which he treats as scientific) must cohere to your own. Obviously they don't. Quit sucking up to these people and trying to associate yourself with them. They disagree with you. The laugh at you.

His SCIENTIFIC conclusions on God prove nothing that hasn't been said already. Evolution exists, I already knew that, and the world wasn't made in 6 days 8000 years ago... I already knew that as well. The world is a beautiful place without trying to say "there must be a God"... I also knew that.

They are valid arguments, yet you have no valid response, but you still, with great hubris, exclaim your contrary view as truth. You obviously don't take their arguments seriously in any meaningful sense of the word, otherwise you wouldn't believe in god. Basically your trying to suck up and fawn upon them to appear as if your opinions are more thoughtful than theirs.

wtf? I'm not going to deal with the massive collective works of Dennett, Harris, Dawson and Hitchens on a freakin Forum... it would take me a year just to respond to every argument in The God Delusion, let alone "God is not Great"... let alone the rest of all of their extensive outputs.

So you think to take a rational argument seriously MUST result in a belief that that argument is the truth?

......You do realize Dennet is an Atheist...? Enough with this obscure name dropping.....and perhaps respond to my previous post..

1) THAT is why I referenced his name. He as an Atheist and a noted Philosopher disagrees with Dawkins criticism of Religion saying that he takes it too far.

2) They are not obscure, they are highly respected members of their fields nimwit... what did/are you studying again?

3) It's not worth my time or effort seeing as everything I say you take out of context, misconstrue and use as an argument against me, call me a dog, don't take Philosophers and Historians respected by the academic community seriously, copy paste your Biblical evidence obviously without reading any evidence, commentary's or learned tomes of Philosophy of Religion on the matter (and the Courtiers reply doesn't apply if you're talking about the nature of the text itself)... so YOU are not worth taking seriously. You have obviously only read ONE side of the argument (or maybe both from one perspective), I have read BOTH sides from both perspectives... so to call me an idiot is to lessen yourself to something MUCH worse... an uneducated bigot. And I believe that most if not ALL philosophers believe arguing with such is a waste of time...so back to dealing with dieburndie's question...

 

[Ayatollah]

It's not worth my time or effort seeing as everything I say you take out of context, misconstrue and use as an argument against me, call me a dog, don't take Philosophers and Historians respected by the academic community seriously, copy paste your Biblical evidence obviously without reading any evidence, commentary's or learned tomes of Philosophy of Religion on the matter (and the Courtiers reply doesn't apply if you're talking about the nature of the text itself)... so YOU are not worth taking seriously. You have obviously only read ONE side of the argument (or maybe both from one perspective), I have read BOTH sides from both perspectives... so to call me an idiot is to lessen yourself to something MUCH worse... an uneducated bigot. And I believe that most if not ALL philosophers believe arguing with such is a waste of time...so back to dealing with dieburndie's question...

Brother, it's good to see a fellow worshiper familar with Hubbards 'fair game' tactics. Indeed, your correct in saying that it is HIM who is evading the evidence, for he is not aware of God tests. God has tested us, he put the bones in the rocks to test our faith, and brother, we have passed, and it is us alone who will be raptured up to heaven under the silver wing of arch-angel gabriel, it will be us alone upon the lap of neptune, looking DOWN upon he who called us 'a dog' burn in mephisto's hellfire. Like you say, Dawkins and Dennet et al are great scientist and philophers, but they can only answer questions about evidence and reason, it is us who have researched BOTH sides of the debate, for we know the mind of the father him self, who, being alike, but not of the same substance as Jesus, speaks to us not though just books, but through our souls. We have had true experiences that PROVE, beyond doubt, that god is with us, and uneducated bigots like ad infintum cannot see the light because they deny God in the heart of their hearts, they dont accept his divine logic, becuase the have not done the real READINGS. Him calling us idiotic proves it is US alone who can sit back and way up the evidence THAT MATTERS, like THE BIBLE, and the SECRET MESSAGES God sends us when we PRAY. Obviously HE HAS not DONE the READING by TRUE ACADEMIC RESEARCHERS, he TAKES the BIBLE out OF conTEXT, because if ONE does NOT quote THE BIBLE through LOvE, IT IS NOT CHANNELLING the SOUL of JESUS and THE FATHER, AND is therefor UNWORTHY of REFUTATION, LIKE ALL HIS arguMENT, its UNWORtHY OF REFUTATION BECAUSE HE HASNT READ KEN HAM.

 

[ad infinitum]

You can't both take Evolution and Christianity as true. Evolution by definition is a completely blind, natural and unaided process. Whilst Christianity explicitly claims that God created life (in specific forms i.e Birds, Lizards, Humans, etc). They are completely contrary truth claims and one cannot hold both in any logical coherence.

So either you accept Evolution or Christianity. Which is it? Don't say both or you lose.

 

[Iron]

What did life evolve from? Why is there something rather than nothing?

 

[Ayatollah]

You can't both take Evolution and Christianity as true. Evolution by definition is a completely blind, natural and unaided process. Whilst Christianity explicitly claims that God created life (in specific forms i.e Birds, Lizards, Humans, etc). There are completely contrary truth claims and one cannot hold both in any logical coherence.

So either you accept Evolution or Christianity. Which is it? Don't say both or you lose.

excuse me sir, but I believe it's called THE THEORY of evolution, i.e. it's not the fact of evolution is it, if you knew the biologists I knew, then you would realise that no scientist claims darwinism is absolute truth, and that their are gaps is the theory, Just like there are gaps in the theory of the faked moon landing.
But science and religion DO NOT conflict, becuase science cannot answer the big questions, religion gives answers as to what happend at the big bang, why humans can have emotions like love, why miracles happen (which are historical facts, like jesus's death and resurection).
No real scientists can claim otherwise..and your just an arrogant fundementalist

 

[ectobiologist]

excuse me sir, but I believe it's called THE THEORY of evolution, i.e. it's not the fact of evolution is it, if you knew the biologists I knew, then you would realise that no scientist claims darwinism is absolute truth, and that their are gaps is the theory, Just like there are gaps in the theory of the faked moon landing.

Item #16.

 

[murphyad]

excuse me sir, but I believe it's called THE THEORY of evolution, i.e. it's not the fact of evolution is it, if you knew the biologists I knew, then you would realise that no scientist claims darwinism is absolute truth, and that their are gaps is the theory, Just like there are gaps in the theory of the faked moon landing.
But science and religion DO NOT conflict, becuase science cannot answer the big questions, religion gives answers as to what happend at the big bang, why humans can have emotions like love, why miracles happen (which are historical facts, like jesus's death and resurection).
No real scientists can claim otherwise..and your just an arrogant fundementalist

OMGOMGOMGOMG I'm pretty sure it's spelt HAPPENED.

But yeah. It's not that science doesn't have answers for these things. It's that you're a narrow-minded bigot who doesn't have a clue what to believe and are afraid of empirical fact, which is why you choose to argue in this shallow way.
Religion does not offer answers for the things you discuss. They might be answers for you, but that fact demonstrates why you are so ill-informed on other areas, such as evolution, which has actually been confirmed to have occurred in various species, and your suggestion that if science cannot provide the answers then religion can is absolutely fallacious. It is you who is the arrogant fundamentalist.

Basically, stop posting.

 

[Teclis]

You can't both take Evolution and Christianity as true. Evolution by definition is a completely blind, natural and unaided process. Whilst Christianity explicitly claims that God created life (in specific forms i.e Birds, Lizards, Humans, etc). They are completely contrary truth claims and one cannot hold both in any logical coherence.

So either you accept Evolution or Christianity. Which is it? Don't say both or you lose.

Why are they mutually exclusive... Genesis deals with the fact that God created the Universe in Poetry... not the specific order of the atoms that fell into place and the evolutionary timeline of how a bird evolved. The ENTIRE point of the first Chapter of Genesis is "God created the world" Not "This is HOW God created the world..."

Evolution is the change in genetic material from one generation to the next. It is NOT Blind by definition... that is purely speculative.

Blind Chance destroys order, not creates it.

 

[Teclis]

Item #16.

7, 8, and 10 are the best.

 

[Teclis]

I said they aren't necessarily immoral, meaning sexual desire and selfishness are entirely compatible with a moral position. They are also compatible with immoral acts, as in the examples you mentioned.

This is true. I just think they tend to lead towards immoral acts more than moral ones

An extremely small minority frequently display violent tendencies. Do you honestly believe that the remainder are merely suppressing their violent urges?

No I think my point was supposed to be that they do have those tendencies within them, It's just that they need much greater triggers than men do... It was that long ago and I was probably that tired...

To an extent that's true, but it is an oversimplification. Humans are capable of empathy, and acting upon hedonistic desires can be easily be limited to what doesn't cause harm to others.

That's true, but that still has to be told to us to be wrong. I think you just have to look at the atheistic regimes such as Stalin's Russia... under which men were executed for being too efficient farmers or businessmen, where all the leaders of the army were executed just for winning, where all the priests of the Church were executed just for being Priests, where anyone for any reason could be executed without any moral justification otherwise.