- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Looks like I've found my summer read…
Thanks for that video stu. I really enjoyed it.
It humbles me that I could not begin hold my own in a discussion with either one of
those extremely intelligent gentlemen.I have to admit that I agreed mostly with Mr. Dawkins though,
and I kept wanting to help Mr. McGrath hold his head up straight.Tim
I think the key to keeping up with McGrath hinges on deciphering his convoluted language and exposing its logical fallacies. He spends a lot of time agreeing that Dawkins has good questions but he hasn't actually got intellectually adequate answers for them. He asserts the properties of the god he believes in by piece, dodging any kind of consistent view of it. Do you thing he gives strong support to his assertion that christianity is a rational belief?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Nov. 11 2012,23:13) I think the key to keeping up with McGrath hinges on deciphering his convoluted language and exposing its logical fallacies. He spends a lot of time agreeing that Dawkins has good questions but he hasn't actually got intellectually adequate answers for them. He asserts the properties of the god he believes in by piece, dodging any kind of consistent view of it. Do you thing he gives strong support to his assertion that christianity is a rational belief? Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Nov. 11 2012,23:13) Do you thing he gives strong support to his assertion that christianity is a rational belief? Stuart
Hi stu,No I don't but that is further proof to me that all religions destroy a persons ability to think logically, no matter how intelligent they are.
Dawkins brings up the issue of evolution and according to a recent Gallup poll survey, still half of the Christians in USA are creationists. McGrath responds that Christianity is a very rational faith.
Note he doesn't say that Christianity is a rational belief, he says that Christianity is a very rational faith.I think that faith, as defined by Christians, is irrational to begin with. McGrath goes on to say that Faith is rational because it tries to make the best possible sense of things, but when it goes beyond the evidence it may be irrational.
In my opinion, denying evolution goes beyond the evidence,
so by his own definition, is irrational.Tim
Hi Tim,
Here's a funny video you might enjoy.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgGood one ED;you call that the dawkins delusion.
I dont think there is a dawkins; no one can proof to me that there is a dawkins,I have never seen a dawkins.Those so called books of dawkins are not created by dawkins,they are just scrambled letters that has evolved for millions of years.It started with a simple A then B,and so on
And eventualy it has evolved into books.To believe in dawkins is a delusion.
wakeup.
Quote (Wakeup @ Nov. 13 2012,09:00) Good one ED;you call that the dawkins delusion.
I dont think there is a dawkins; no one can proof to me that there is a dawkins,I have never seen a dawkins.Those so called books of dawkins are not created by dawkins,they are just scrambled letters that has evolved for millions of years.It started with a simple A then B,and so on
And eventualy it has evolved into books.To believe in dawkins is a delusion.
wakeup.
I've seen Dawkins.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Nov. 12 2012,02:13) I think the key to keeping up with McGrath hinges on deciphering his convoluted language and exposing its logical fallacies. He spends a lot of time agreeing that Dawkins has good questions but he hasn't actually got intellectually adequate answers for them. He asserts the properties of the god he believes in by piece, dodging any kind of consistent view of it. Do you thing he gives strong support to his assertion that christianity is a rational belief? Stuart
Oh here we go. Stu is pretending to be intelligent again.
But the truth is he ran away when I offered to debate him on the existence of God. And when I asked him to send an Atheist about 8 times more intelligent than him to debate me, no one turned up.Quote (Stu @ Nov. 11 2012,21:58) Have you checked out Dawkins's discussions with McGrath on YoutTube? Stuart
Stu, Dawkins is blind.Something had to be infinite to explain all the finites we see. If not, then it came from nothing and if that was the case, then there would be nothing now.
This necessary infinite thing ultimately produced life and consciousness, as well as laws that govern what we see.
Let's see, that is an infinite, conscious, life giver, and law giver.
Guess what God is.
You see Dawkins sits on Evolution as the be all and end all. That is lame and inadequate.
Evolution doesn't explain at all the appearance of the universe and consciousness.
However, because he is blind, and can only see with his limited mental vision, then he considers himself intelligent.
As it is written: “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,” And “The fool has said in his heart, there is no God”.
Dawkins is exactly the sort of person who is described in these biblical verses
Quote (TimothyVI @ Nov. 14 2012,00:06) ^^^ There is no one 8 times more intelligent than stu. Tim
I find that very hard to believe. What about 3 times then.Quote (TimothyVI @ Nov. 12 2012,07:47) No I don't but that is further proof to me that all religions destroy a persons ability to think logically, no matter how intelligent they are.
The belief that there is no God is completely irrational. That religion also does what you describe.God is infinite.
No God equals 0.Now try and get any number from zero. You can't.
Try the same thing with infinity. You can.
What do we observe. Nothing or heaps of things.Maths is very rational. Atheism fails.
Quote (t8 @ Nov. 13 2012,21:40) Quote (TimothyVI @ Nov. 12 2012,07:47) No I don't but that is further proof to me that all religions destroy a persons ability to think logically, no matter how intelligent they are.
The belief that there is no God is completely irrational.
1. No god believer has ever produced unambiguous evidence for the existence or supposed effects of his god.2. It is a provisional scientific conclusion therefore that those claimed gods don't actually exist. More to the point, as Dawkins and McGrath both agree, it is a matter of determining the probability of whether gods exist. They also agree that gods are very improbable.
That seems entirely rational to me.
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Nov. 13 2012,21:18) Evolution doesn't explain at all the appearance of the universe
Strawman arguments are logical fallacies.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Nov. 14 2012,15:46)
No god believer has ever produced unambiguous evidence for the existence or supposed effects of his god.Stuart
Hi Stu,I have, but you now say you are not interested in seeing it?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Stu @ Nov. 14 2012,18:46) 1. No god believer has ever produced unambiguous evidence for the existence or supposed effects of his god.
What a joke.I open again a challenge to you in the form of a debate between you and me.
I will lay my cards on the table and you to.
I will argue for the existence of God and you will argue against that.
If you chicken out, then you are obviously a chicken.
Is that an okay or another cluck?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
