So he bends like a reed in the current?

I've never read the book, but does he really "make God out to be a tyrant" ? I didn't think he believed in God. I always thought he was one of those miltant atheists. Maybe I should read it.

freediver wrote on Feb 26^th, 2008 at 2:59pm:

Yes it is, Freed. the straw man argument in this case is in setting up a hypothesis of (Dawkins') own making, attributing it to opponents of his own hypothesis, and then demolishing it to lend weight to his own argument. That is a classic example of the straw man argument.

The explicitly straw man part of his argument is the challenge (supposing it was ever mounted) to his interpretation of evolution theory: namely that a moth is drawn to its own specie's detriment to a candle flame. The hypothesis itself is silly; and his demolishment even sillier. Moths and other insects are drawn to light for a reason consistent with evolution theory, and there has been firelight in the world far longer than there have been either moths or candles. Nature, God, whatever, is demonstrably profligate, not micro-efficient.

The Pender comment to which I alluded is to the effect that those who have been exposed to Holy writ and have chosen not to accept it deserve all the suffering coming to them. I would have thought my comment clear enough, in the context of what Pender wrote, which is there for anyone to read. Cluttering up posts with multiple quotes doesn't appeal to me, so I won't be doing that.

Ray_A wrote on Feb 27^th, 2008 at 7:29am:


OK. In other words, he's talking about the character of God as portrayed in the Old Testament.  I guess it sells books, but it seems a bit over the top. There is no need to insult other people's religion.

Ah, I get it now. Thanks. I thought the candle argument was Dawkins', which I guess doesn't make sense anyway.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 27^th, 2008 at 1:05pm:


One should be permitted to, sure. The problem is that it's faith. I don't see why Christianity (and recently Islam) should be the only religions to be criticised. There are thousands of other faith based religions, including one that worships Prince Phillip. The way I look at it, people should be given space to practice their religion as they see fit, unless it engages in human sacrifice or other harmful activities.

You just can't use a logical argument against faith, just as you can't use a logical argument against love. You can have two people who are totally unsuited for each other, but they are in love. Nothing anyone says will break that bond. If anything it will grow stronger.

Even Martin Luther made the famous comment -  "To be a Christian, you must "pluck out the eye of reason"

and;

"Reason is the Devil's greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom ... Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism... She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets."
Martin Luther, Erlangen Edition v. 16, pp. 142-148

So Dawkins is basically wasting his time. I have a concern that religion will become endangered in years to come. In my view, religion is a resource that needs to be conserved. It's a link with the past, and it enrichens our cultural heritage. (That might seem strange coming from a person who doesn't believe in the supernatural, but I think we need religious people to keep on the tradition.)

I read somewhere that Dawkins makes the comment that faith is basically belief without evidence, and then focusses on the negative aspects of action without supporting evidence. That may be strictly true, but it doesn't make it a bad thing. I know from life and sporting activities that when you're trying to achieve a personal goal, the last thing you want is evidence that says that you just can't do it. As another example, many cancer patients have totally refuted medical evidence that the are going to die in six months, and have gone into remission as a result of 'faith' either in themselves or their religions. So faith can be a very positive thing.

To me, it's the mind at work, but even if I'm right and it's just that, the mind is extremely powerful.

How would you prove that elation exists in another person? - or depression for that matter?

Substitute God. Exactly the same deal - you'd have to take their word for it.

Maybe God is like a recession. All it takes is to believe. 

Revenant wrote on Oct 17^th, 2008 at 12:52pm:






Revenant,

Believers [in God] are at a tremendous disadvantage.
.....the material world is apparent to all.
.....but the spirit world is not apparent to the material world.

Also, science [rightly] says,
......"If something is not apparent, then it does not exist. That is science!"




Yet those dumb Christians,
.....they still believe in God.

Duh!



Why?

I am certain that some believe, because they read the bible, and it just makes sense to them, and they have come to trust in God [and his existence].

Some believe, because he has revealed his presence to them.
[...theme from, 'The Twilight Zone', plays in the background]

Can these ppl prove this experience to others?

No.

Why not?

It is, 'the nature of the beast' [i.e. the spirit world is unprovable, in the material world].



In my experience, there is much more 'going on' in our lives, than what we can 'plainly' see.

For me, is my 'imaginary friend' [i.e. God] real?

I say, "Absolutely!"



++++++

Example.....

For some reason God revealed himself to this woman...
....[and my own experience leads me to believe her account here.]


Search for Yasmin's name in this timesonline news article.

And, don't Yasmin's *circumstances*, demonstrate her conviction, in relating this account?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article510589.ece




Hebrews 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.