God vs. science: Can religion stand up to the test?

[GUNWOUNDS]

This sounds good i might have to pick this issue up...... i also provided the text from the link... and bolded a few sentences i thought to be very intriguing...basically people want both.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/05/cover.story/index.html

Fromt TIME Magazine:

It's a debate that long predates Darwin, but the anti-religion position is being promoted with increasing insistence by scientists angered by intelligent design and excited, perhaps intoxicated, by their disciplines' increasing ability to map, quantify and change the nature of human experience.

Brain imaging illustrates -- in color -- the physical seat of the will and the passions, challenging the religious concept of a soul independent of glands and gristle. Brain chemists track imbalances that could account for the ecstatic states of visionary saints or, some suggest, of Jesus.

Catholicism's Christoph Cardinal Sch

[GUNWOUNDS]

His summer best seller, "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief" (Free Press), laid out some of the arguments he brought to bear in the 90-minute debate Time arranged between Dawkins and Collins in our offices at the Time & Life Building on September 30. Some excerpts from their spirited exchange are featured in this week's Time cover story.

I cant wait to read this debate..... i am gonna grab this issue ASAP ! ...  Dawkins vs Collins ... thats got to be a hell of a read!

[Anathema]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmNjfpoRZpE

Dawkins versus creationst creep.

[GUNWOUNDS]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmNjfpoRZpE

Dawkins versus creationst creep.

Awesome video..... i must admit tho... Dawkins got schooled by haggard on the part about arrogance.  I'm no Haggard fan ... but Haggard did put Dawkins in his place in terms of being intellectually arrogant.... and did you see the look on Dawkins face when Haggard said "your great grandchildren in the future might laugh at you".  Dawkins went ape-shit!  ahahahahah.

[Anathema]

He didn't went ape-shit I think...he just said "wanna bet?" (my personal bet is on Dawkins)

Or Haggard "...then you can be great like me"

I'm starting another thread on Haggard...this was in preparation but I felt it was on topic.

[GUNWOUNDS]

He didn't went ape-shit I think...he just said "wanna bet?" (my personal bet is on Dawkins)

Or Haggard "...then you can be great like me"

I'm starting another thread on Haggard...this was in preparation but I felt it was on topic.

yea he went ape-shit... Dawkins face turned beet red and he look like he was gonna cry when Haggard was lecturing him on arrogance.  The part about "great like me"  was Haggard showing how he felt Dawkins was arrogant.

To be honest i thought Dawkins was tougher than that... at times in the office arguement Dawkins seemed timid and uncertain what to say, as well as very angry and speechless.  It seemed as if Dawkins had never considered that his arrogance might be offensive to others.  It seemed to me that Dawkins had never been put in "his place" like that before.

Extremely interesting video.........

[Anathema]

Intellectual arrogance is the reason why people like you have a difficult problem with people with faith. I don't communicate an air of superiority over the people because I know so much more, and if you only read the books that I know, and if only you knew the scientists I knew, then you would be great like me.

Sounds like someone who thinks his own farts are divine winds.

Dawkins blinked a lot at that point, and he seems moved, but that's about it as I've seen it.

I also don't see how he was put in his place.

Dawkins is a pretty arrogant man but I don't think that's apparent from this video (possibly because he himself edited out some bits)

[Andrew]

There's actually 2 part movie based on that youtube video.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1501157684453512889&q=root+of+all+evil

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1808651100501597451&q=root+of+all+evil

(that video is popular on digg today)

[Acriku]

I've seen Root of all Evil, it's pretty good stuff. In my opinion, I think Dawkins comes across as being a bit arrogant (and he probably is), but that has nothing to do with his arguments. His arguments are pretty well laid out, as in his latest book: God: The Delusion. I love the man, his books are pretty good (I've only read Blind Watchmaker and Selfish Gene, though).

Also, he doesn't go ape-shit after that comment. He's clearly flustered at the idiotic statements coming out of Haggart's mouth, and he's probably been staring at the creepy smile the entire interview (enough to make me a bit flustered and on edge, I would say).

Haggart says accepting that the Earth is 4 billion or so years old, and not 10,000 or so is simply going along with a select view that a select part of the scientific community believes. what he says is constructed to make you think that only a few people believe it in the scientific community. That couldn't be further from the truth. And bringing up the irreducible complexity of the eye just makes me laugh, since it has been debunked and is reducible. Irreducible complexity is a laughable argument anyway, since it "supposes" that something is so complex that it could not have been gradually evolved. Just like ID theory "supposes" that everything is so complex that things could not have evolved without an intelligent creator.

Anyway, on the topic at hand, I look forward to this debate. Will it be able online, or only in Time magazines?

[Edric O]

I wish I could have a conversation with Dawkins. He is clearly a very intelligent person, but suffers from one of the inevitable weaknesses of modern science: specialization. Our body of knowledge has grown so vast that no single individual can be an expert in it all. Therefore, we must specialize, each learning only about his own narrow field. Dawkins may be a brilliant biologist, but his knowledge of religion and especially philosophy is woefully inadequate. He's trying to get out of his narrow field, but ends up sounding like an arrogant asshole who doesn't know what he's talking about (not in this video; in his books). On top of that, it seems rather weak of him to be going for the straw man by attacking televangelists. Let's see him challenge a serious theologian.

Intellectual arrogance is the reason why people like you have a difficult problem with people with faith. I don't communicate an air of superiority over the people because I know so much more, and if you only read the books that I know, and if only you knew the scientists I knew, then you would be great like me.

Sounds like someone who thinks his own farts are divine winds.

Small correction: Haggard was actually putting words in Dawkins' mouth rather than talking about himself. What he meant was: 'Unlike you, I don't say "I know so much more, and if you only read the books that I know, and if only you knew the scientists I knew, then you would be great like me."'

P.S. I found it very amusing when Haggard obviously missed the point about the Nurnberg rallies. :)

[Acriku]

Yeah, that one went over his head... Probably exemplifying American intelligence...  ;)

[Egeides]

Tiring to get much "science OR religion" debates/debaters, promoting only that there is no coherence possibilities whatsoever. It shows only extremes as being fine, which are anti-science Christianity and a-spiritual Atheism. Let me guess... technical scientists are over-represented compared to fundamental ones?

As EdricO, I would propose to send a real theologian. Or fundamental researchers. While I noticed "technical" science has having more Atheists (engineers...), it seems to be the opposite among non-technical scientists (fundamental research). Actually, someone I know hangs with theoretical physicians and he met... ZERO Atheists up to now and they were all solid believers. That is a much more believers than in the same population at large.

[Acriku]

Tiring to get much "science OR religion" debates/debaters, promoting only that there is no coherence possibilities whatsoever. It shows only extremes as being fine, which are anti-science Christianity and a-spiritual Atheism. Let me guess... technical scientists are over-represented compared to fundamental ones?

As EdricO, I would propose to send a real theologian. Or fundamental researchers. While I noticed "technical" science has having more Atheists (engineers...), it seems to be the opposite among non-technical scientists (fundamental research). Actually, someone I know hangs with theoretical physicians and he met... ZERO Atheists up to now and they were all solid believers. That is a much more believers than in the same population at large.

Counting how many people are in my cool club or in yours makes no difference. People have personal reasons and demons, it does not stand that this has any significance on the field they practice in.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Counting how many people are in my cool club or in yours makes no difference. People have personal reasons and demons, it does not stand that this has any significance on the field they practice in.

that's not the point..... the point is that Dawkins intentionally sought out people that were intellectually inferior to him and then paraded them around as idiots and proclaimed their religion false.  This is evident when Dawkins attacks Haggard for not fully understanding evolution concepts to the degree that he does.

It would have been a much better debate to have Dawkins go head to head with someone AS intelligent and specialized as himself and who also has a firm grasp of theology.  Dawkins would get smacked down.  Simply because the Biological theologian would be able to match Dawkins biological facts and then bring on theological and philosophical arguments where Dawkins is weak.

I would have loved to see Dawkins vs C.S. Lewis .... or Dawkins vs Mike Behe.... or Dawkins vs Collins. 

Thankfully  the Dawkins vs Collins debate DID HAPPEN.  Which is why i am excited.  Finally Dawkins debating with someone of his own caliber who wont be intimidated or made to look like a fool.

One thing that pisses me off tho... is that Dawkins asks people if they really think the universe is 10,000 years old.  Then when they pause and think.... he puts on this huge arrogant smirk and says "haha fool i hath conquered thee".   Dawkins thinks himself so f**cking clever that he believes in a universe billions of years old while people of faith may believe in a 10,000 year old universe.

What Dipsh!t Dawkins doesn't understand and what goes screaming over his head is that the universe can be both billions of years old and 10,000 years old AT THE SAME TIME.

How?

Think about it.... when God made Adam... Adam was not a baby... he was a full grown man.  But yet he was only 1 minute old.  So Adam had the body of a 30 yr old but he was really only 1 minute old.  If God could make Adam so that he was both 30 years old and 1 minute old...basically making him fully mature instantly..... then God could have made the universe fully mature from the beginning.  The universe could have been created in a fully mature state (15 billion years old)... and AT The SAME TIME be only 1 minute old.  Its perfectly practical for a God to have created the universe fully mature and then placed man on the earth.  This would explain why the universe could be billions of years old and why man perceives it as only 10k yrs old.  Both ideas reconcile.  It also goes with the Jews version of creation.... when they say that God "spoke" and it came into existence.  Think about it.... when God creates something... it is similar to when you think about something in your mind.  If i ask you to imagine a skyscraper.... does the skyscraper image instantly pop into your head?  Of course it does... you dont sit there in your mind and think about how each brick was laid and how each light fixture was installed and how each of the bathroom tiles were caulked in place...etc..etc.

The Jewish description of creation is God saying "Let there be..."  and then it was.  Of course since he is God the atomic structure and molecules and biochemistry and physics are all there... so its better than when we just think about something.... when we just think about something, we are just imagining the exterior picture.... when God says "Let there be..." the item is created fully and completely with his laws already accounted for.

Nema asked me one time... "Well why wouldn't God have just made things from time point zero?"... WEll I think simply because he doesn't have to.  As men, if we want a tomato we must plant the seed and grow it... then we must wait... and then harvest it.  If God wants a tomato he simply says let there be a tomato and it exists.  The atoms are in the correct positions to form the correct physical structure of a tomato and the correct chemistry so that it tastes like a tomato.  God doesn't have to create dirt... create a seed... plant the seed.... etc, etc,

Another thing.... Dawkins criticized God for being jealous, arrogant, etc... but we're talking about a GOD.. God doesn't have to be humble!  He's God !  On an episode of Star Trek the "Q" were criticized for being arrogant.... and the "Q" would argue that an omnipotent being has every right to be arrogant!  Altho arrogant is a poor term that should only be reserved for humans... because arrogance means having an air of superiority while overstepping your bounds.  It is impossible for a God to overstep bounds...but He has every right to act superior and demand respect.  Many will question whether God deserves worship.... but you know... it doesn't matter if He wasn't really perfect... the fact that He gave us this spark of conscience that Dawkins says we are so "Grotesquely Lucky to Have" is mere reason enough to show respect and homage.  And we have no right to question Him.  Dawkins' notion of us Evolving our morality and even being so moral as to judge a God is just absurd.  Barking Mad, as he would say.  He needs to not quit his day job as a biologist and keep his evolution terms in his own field.  Dawkins should remember that evolution simply means to change (regardless for better or worse).... it has no meaning of moving intentionally towards something "better".  In addition, to think that a God could create something more moral than himself is lunacy.  Dawkins also does a great job of taking every single biblical story out of context...dramatizing it... and then showing how totally oblivious he is to the philosophical tenets of what it means to be THE God.  Not just a God.

But what can you say?  People will go towards what they desire.  If people are truly interested in an afterlife they will gorge themselves on theology till they burst.  If someone is truly interested in biology they will gorge themselves on biology until they pop.  If Dawkins isn't interested in the notion of an afterlife or a God...and rather takes pleasure in being a pompus ass full of biological data that very few others know about....then that's what he'll do.

Also i have a big problem with what he said at the end of his video.  He said.... atheism isn't despair.....people say "there must be more than this... there must be more than this life"  ... and then Dawkins says " BUT WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT?"  "THE NUMBER OF OTHER PEOPLE WHO COULD BE IN MY PLACE OUTNUMBERS THE SANDS IN THE SAHARA... WE ARE SO GROTESQUELY LUCKY TO BE HERE !"   "WE ARE PRIVILEGED TO DIE BECAUSE OTHERS WONT DIE...BECAUSE THEY WILL NEVER BE BORN!"  "LIVE THIS LIFE AND EXPLORE"

TO me this only affirms that there is a God.  Dawkins is stating how crazy it is that he is sitting there on that grassy hill speaking to a camera.  Yea it is crazy.... it is wild... so why blame others for believing there's something else?  Why call their beliefs a virus?  Dawkins admits how awesome and unbelievable this world is and yet he is basically saying.... deny spirituality.. just live for the now... and then DIE!  Because we're lucky to DIE.. Woo hoo!

What a nutcase....  One thing people dont understand is that the probability of this world  existing on its own without any Intelligent force constructing is so astronomical.  Furthermore, it would make sense that given infinite time and infinite matter and space, and whatever else.. that we would eventually exist.  Except that there isn't infinite time.  There isn't infinite matter.  Everything in this universe is finite.  That means you have less numbers to play with.  That's something that people never realize.  This universe hasn't been around forever.. its been around for a finite amount of time.  And even 15 billion years is minuscule compared to an infinite time frame.

Now i know Acriku's response is that.... Well if you say there universe is complex and needs a creator.... then something even more complex like God must certainly have a creator.  And if you say God doesn't need a creator... then the universe doesn't need one either.  Well hold on there.  I perfectly understand that loop.  The fact is this.... You can only go back so far...before the only logical conclusion is that something had no beginning.  So you are left with either the uncreated item being a huge black vacuum with energy/matter that originated from a supernatural expanding of space/time like a balloon.... what was it expanding in tho? (4th dimension?).... or  an intelligent being (God) that resides in the Dimension that the space/time balloon was expanding in.

Since we are talking about space/time balloons and big bangs and crazy ass sh!t like that... i fail to see how believing in God is so wacky.  I see no problems with placing my bets on the uncreated item being the Intelligent entity existing in the realm that our universe expanded in....and if He exists outside of our space/time material continuum that means that death (material decay) which is a feature of our world is something that can we can overcome if He has given us a connection to Him (i.e. a spirit)

Dawkins Debunked.

Thats all folks!

Ah well sorry for the big rant.... i just felt like emptying my head.  ;)

Guns

[GUNWOUNDS]

I do agree with Dawkins that we should do Good things because it is the right thing to do...and not because we fear God.  I see no problem with that... and i think thats what God would want anyways...hence the reason He doesnt reveal Himself and destroy our free will.  However i see nothing wrong with someone doing good deeds because it is the right thing to do AND giving thanks and praise to God for giving them life thereby allowing them to partake in doing what is good and right.  And even lifting up their hands and saying ... "God i do this because i want to glorify you....thank you for giving me life and loving me... I do these good deeds because they are the right thing to do and because its my small way of saying thanks for this spark of conscienceness that i am so grotesquely lucky to have"

Dawkins says that would be "sucking up to God"... but i disagree... to me its like a NFL Football Receiver catching a game winning pass and then saying "I love you MOM!"  The Receiver caught the ball...not because he wanted to suck up to his mom....but because it was the right thing to do to win the game.  But there is nothing wrong with the player (after catching the pass, doing the right thing, & winning the game...) saying "I love you MOM! I couldnt have done this without you!" (after all she gave birth to him).  The player did the right thing and gave thanks and praise to his mother.  Thats not sucking up.  Just like i can do the right (because its the right thing to do) and then say "Thanks God, I love you God, I couldnt have done this without you God".

Dawkins Debunked.

=)

Guns

[Acriku]

that's not the point..... the point is that Dawkins intentionally sought out people that were intellectually inferior to him and then paraded them around as idiots and proclaimed their religion false.  This is evident when Dawkins attacks Haggard for not fully understanding evolution concepts to the degree that he does.

The fault for that is laid upon Haggard's success. He is one of the most out-spoken Christians in America, so why not interview him? The same formula can be repeated throughout the Southern churches. The most outspoken, and popular, Christians are not that intelligent in theology. Dawkins attacks the mainstream thinking, what most people believe and why they believe it being the mainstream. And does it well.

It would have been a much better debate to have Dawkins go head to head with someone AS intelligent and specialized as himself and who also has a firm grasp of theology.  Dawkins would get smacked down.  Simply because the Biological theologian would be able to match Dawkins biological facts and then bring on theological and philosophical arguments where Dawkins is weak.

I would have loved to see Dawkins vs C.S. Lewis .... or Dawkins vs Mike Behe.... or Dawkins vs Collins. 

I would've loved for those debates, too. However, Haggard wasn't a debate as it was more of an interview for a documentary.

Thankfully  the Dawkins vs Collins debate DID HAPPEN.  Which is why i am excited.  Finally Dawkins debating with someone of his own caliber who wont be intimidated or made to look like a fool.

One thing that pisses me off tho... is that Dawkins asks people if they really think the universe is 10,000 years old.  Then when they pause and think.... he puts on this huge arrogant smirk and says "haha fool i hath conquered thee".  Dawkins thinks himself so f**cking clever that he believes in a universe billions of years old while people of faith may believe in a 10,000 year old universe.

What Dipsh!t Dawkins doesn't understand and what goes screaming over his head is that the universe can be both billions of years old and 10,000 years old AT THE SAME TIME.

How?

Think about it.... when God made Adam... Adam was not a baby... he was a full grown man.  But yet he was only 1 minute old.  So Adam had the body of a 30 yr old but he was really only 1 minute old.  If God could make Adam so that he was both 30 years old and 1 minute old...basically making him fully mature instantly..... then God could have made the universe fully mature from the beginning.  The universe could have been created in a fully mature state (15 billion years old)... and AT The SAME TIME be only 1 minute old.  Its perfectly practical for a God to have created the universe fully mature and then placed man on the earth.  This would explain why the universe could be billions of years old and why man perceives it as only 10k yrs old.  Both ideas reconcile.  It also goes with the Jews version of creation.... when they say that God "spoke" and it came into existence.  Think about it.... when God creates something... it is similar to when you think about something in your mind.  If i ask you to imagine a skyscraper.... does the skyscraper image instantly pop into your head?  Of course it does... you dont sit there in your mind and think about how each brick was laid and how each light fixture was installed and how each of the bathroom tiles were caulked in place...etc..etc.

The Jewish description of creation is God saying "Let there be..."  and then it was.  Of course since he is God the atomic structure and molecules and biochemistry and physics are all there... so its better than when we just think about something.... when we just think about something, we are just imagining the exterior picture.... when God says "Let there be..." the item is created fully and completely with his laws already accounted for.

This is really stretching to fill in the gaps. As for your supposition, it makes no sense. There'd be no reason to make the universe in t = 15 billion years later (or whatever old the universe is). This is just mind-games to make archaic religion fit into reality. We are currently getting light waves from millions of light-years away, are you saying that what we are seeing never happened and is made up by God to form the reality of a billions-of-years-old universe? Simply mind-games.

Nema asked me one time... "Well why wouldn't God have just made things from time point zero?"... WEll I think simply because he doesn't have to.  As men, if we want a tomato we must plant the seed and grow it... then we must wait... and then harvest it.  If God wants a tomato he simply says let there be a tomato and it exists.  The atoms are in the correct positions to form the correct physical structure of a tomato and the correct chemistry so that it tastes like a tomato.  God doesn't have to create dirt... create a seed... plant the seed.... etc, etc,

Same as above. Filling in the gaps with mind-games.

Another thing.... Dawkins criticized God for being jealous, arrogant, etc... but we're talking about a GOD.. God doesn't have to be humble!  He's God !  On an episode of Star Trek the "Q" were criticized for being arrogant.... and the "Q" would argue that an omnipotent being has every right to be arrogant!

An omnipotent man has every right to be arrogant, but an omnipotent being has no right because that is just anthropomorphism created by man! A humble God or an arrogant God cannot exist because that's tacking on imperfect human qualities onto a perfect non-human being. Also, why should we follow God's rules if he kills, is prideful, jealous, etc?

Many will question whether God deserves worship.... but you know... it doesn't matter if He wasn't really perfect... the fact that He gave us this spark of conscience that Dawkins says we are so "Grotesquely Lucky to Have" is mere reason enough to show respect and homage.

Creation does not beget instant worship. Respect is earned by the actions of the person whose respect is wanted. Killing the entire world in a flood merits no respect.

And we have no right to question Him.  Dawkins' notion of us Evolving our morality and even being so moral as to judge a God is just absurd.  Barking Mad, as he would say.  He needs to not quit his day job as a biologist and keep his evolution terms in his own field.  Dawkins should remember that evolution simply means to change (regardless for better or worse).... it has no meaning of moving intentionally towards something "better".  In addition, to think that a God could create something more moral than himself is lunacy.  Dawkins also does a great job of taking every single biblical story out of context...dramatizing it... and then showing how totally oblivious he is to the philosophical tenets of what it means to be THE God.  Not just a God.

Absurd to judge God? Hardly. Children recognize this while growing up, that they are being told not to do something their parents did. Sure, do not kill as commanded by God, but then God kills the entire world save but a single family? How's that for hypocrisy? What's so great about God's command if he chooses not to follow it himself? By example is a great form of teaching. And I do not believe that Dawkins believes that evolution is a gradual change towards perfection or any betterness of the species. Not sure where you got that impression.

Also i have a big problem with what he said at the end of his video.  He said.... atheism isn't despair.....people say "there must be more than this... there must be more than this life"  ... and then Dawkins says " BUT WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT?"  "THE NUMBER OF OTHER PEOPLE WHO COULD BE IN MY PLACE OUTNUMBERS THE SANDS IN THE SAHARA... WE ARE SO GROTESQUELY LUCKY TO BE HERE !"  "WE ARE PRIVILEGED TO DIE BECAUSE OTHERS WONT DIE...BECAUSE THEY WILL NEVER BE BORN!"  "LIVE THIS LIFE AND EXPLORE"

TO me this only affirms that there is a God.  Dawkins is stating how crazy it is that he is sitting there on that grassy hill speaking to a camera.  Yea it is crazy.... it is wild... so why blame others for believing there's something else?  Why call their beliefs a virus?  Dawkins admits how awesome and unbelievable this world is and yet he is basically saying.... deny spirituality.. just live for the now... and then DIE!  Because we're lucky to DIE.. Woo hoo!

He is simply saying that through the actions of random mutations and non-random mechanisms, it is "grotesquely" lucky that we came out in this part of time. We should embrace that chance, that fortune. Love life. Live life. A wonderful statement for living. Not at all an affirmation of a god, quite the opposite. A description of humanism, some might say.

What a nutcase....  One thing people dont understand is that the probability of this world  existing on its own without any Intelligent force constructing is so astronomical.  Furthermore, it would make sense that given infinite time and infinite matter and space, and whatever else.. that we would eventually exist.  Except that there isn't infinite time.  There isn't infinite matter.  Everything in this universe is finite.  That means you have less numbers to play with.  That's something that people never realize.  This universe hasn't been around forever.. its been around for a finite amount of time.  And even 15 billion years is minuscule compared to an infinite time frame.

What people don't understand is that whatever the odds, they played out in our favor and it is only because of that that we can look at it and see how incredibly unlikely it was. But then again, given an infinite number of universes that is possible, life had to come up sometime or another. We are simply that time. No god. No creation story.

Now i know Acriku's response is that.... Well if you say there universe is complex and needs a creator.... then something even more complex like God must certainly have a creator.  And if you say God doesn't need a creator... then the universe doesn't need one either.  Well hold on there.  I perfectly understand that loop.  The fact is this.... You can only go back so far...before the only logical conclusion is that something had no beginning.  So you are left with either the uncreated item being a huge black vacuum with energy/matter that originated from a supernatural expanding of space/time like a balloon.... what was it expanding in tho? (4th dimension?).... or  an intelligent being (God) that resides in the Dimension that the space/time balloon was expanding in.

There you go. First God is in the sky. Then he's beyond the sky in the "heavens" or space. Then he's in another dimension. Where else will this God hide in before we run out of places to stick him in?

Since we are talking about space/time balloons and big bangs and crazy ass sh!t like that... i fail to see how believing in God is so wacky.  I see no problems with placing my bets on the uncreated item being the Intelligent entity existing in the realm that our universe expanded in....and if He exists outside of our space/time material continuum that means that death (material decay) which is a feature of our world is something that can we can overcome if He has given us a connection to His world (i.e. a spirit)

Ah well sorry for the big rant.... i just felt like emptying my head.  ;)

Guns

God is not only wacky, but an archaic idea that has survived the years through ignorance of the world around us and the hope that lingers in the minds of beings aware of their inevitable departure from Earth. I say he's wacky because there so many absolutes tacked onto him that he's become an undefinable creature. Go ahead and try and define God. Define perfection.  He's become an idea that is so intangible that when imagined, our minds draw a blank and replace it with whatever makes us feel good, like a shimmering light above us that exemplifies hope, or like an all-loving parent that is looking out for us in this lonely desperate world.

[GUNWOUNDS]

The fault for that is laid upon Haggard's success. He is one of the most out-spoken Christians in America, so why not interview him? The same formula can be repeated throughout the Southern churches. The most outspoken, and popular, Christians are not that intelligent in theology. Dawkins attacks the mainstream thinking, what most people believe and why they believe it being the mainstream. And does it well.

Of Course the mainstream wont be as intellectual in theology as the best theologians..... just like most biologists aren't on Dawkins level.  Whether it was documentary or not... Dawkins unfairly singled out those weaker than him.  Haggard is not some super intellectual.. he is just an ordinary man who is charismatic who tried to help people obtain what they believed to be spirituality.  To make fun of that is just being an insensitive bastard.  I especially hated how he went into the Jewish school and basically ridiculed the Rabbi. Most ordinary folk...are just that... ordinary folk.  Not everyone is a rocket scientist.  To go around and make fun of people because there aren't on your level a on a particular subject is just lame.

I would've loved for those debates, too. However, Haggard wasn't a debate as it was more of an interview for a documentary.

What you really mean is that he didn't want to look like a fool in his own documentary so he avoided people of his caliber.... despite the fact that there may be popular Christians of his intellectual caliber in terms of science.  Gotcha.

This is really stretching to fill in the gaps. As for your supposition, it makes no sense. There'd be no reason to make the universe in t = 15 billion years later (or whatever old the universe is). This is just mind-games to make archaic religion fit into reality. We are currently getting light waves from millions of light-years away, are you saying that what we are seeing never happened and is made up by God to form the reality of a billions-of-years-old universe? Simply mind-games.

Don't play dumb with me.... and don't call my explanation "mind games".  You full well understand what i am talking about.  I'm starting to wonder about you if you cant understand the simple concept of God creating a 30 yr old man (Adam) who is both 30 yrs old biologically and yet only 1 minute old chronologically.  Its not a stretch... its not a mind game.  Its a clear explanation of what something would be like if God were to create it in an instant mature form.  We could take Adam and dissect him and see that his bone structure and organ development as well as gonad development and hormone levels show him to be 30 years old.  However he has only been in existence for 1 minute.  He wouldn't be any less real than you or I.  He wouldn't be "made up".  So you're saying God cant make something instantly without it being "made up" or a "mind game"?  So man has to come from amoebas to be genuine?  Thanks for telling us what God can and Cannot do.

Yes we are still getting rays that are incoming from millions of light years away but that doesn't undo what i said.  If God created the universe fully mature, then that means light waves travelling would also be created in their proper vector and set in motion.  Just as if Adam were created he would have blood and cells and DNA flowing and functioning as if they had had a 30 year history.  And if God made a tomato it would be correctly put together with cells and seeds in the proper places. You're asking me if what we're seeing in those light waves happened or not?  Just because the universe was made fully mature doesn't mean what we are seeing didn't happen.  When God made the universe mature everything was calculated in His mind... for light to be travelling in this vector ...this had to have happened... for this rock to be flying this way.. this had to have happened.  The history exists merely because it has to because the creation is built on His physics.  The history may not be on our timeline.  The history is in God's omniscient mind.. and that is enough.  Just like How Adam's receding hairline and blood cells are very real and have a history even if its not on our timeline.  WE talking about a God that can manipulate space, matter, and time.  Its nonsense to say God cant do THIS because *I* think its nonsense.  in Addition, it makes sense for God to put us in a Universe that is NOT physically 10,000 years old as that would be a DEAD GIVEAWAY that he exists thereby giving away the very fact He exists and ruining our free will.

An omnipotent man has every right to be arrogant, but an omnipotent being has no right because that is just anthropomorphism created by man! A humble God or an arrogant God cannot exist because that's tacking on imperfect human qualities onto a perfect non-human being.

That's basically what i said.... you rearranged the semantics a bit but the idea is the same.... I said that God could be arrogant then i back-tracked and said that wasn't a good word because its human-ish.  The point is God doesn't have to humble himself to us... and we cant judge Him for stating His Superiority to us and asking us to submit to His will.  Such as no other Gods before me.  Its a Fact.  If you're an omnipotent entity you ARE superior, and there are no reasons why your demands shouldn't be met.  Dawkins has no justification to deny this.

Also, why should we follow God's rules if he kills, is prideful, jealous, etc?

Creation does not beget instant worship. Respect is earned by the actions of the person whose respect is wanted. Killing the entire world in a flood merits no respect.

Absurd to judge God? Hardly. Children recognize this while growing up, that they are being told not to do something their parents did. Sure, do not kill as commanded by God, but then God kills the entire world save but a single family? How's that for hypocrisy? What's so great about God's command if he chooses not to follow it himself? By example is a great form of teaching.

God does follow His Rules.

Do not kill the innocent = God Kills those deserving of punishment.  God also says that sin can be inherited to the next generation.  Hence children can be cursed as well.  The flip-side to this is that children can inherit blessings as well.  Thankfully this helps us in terms of salvation with Jesus.  We choose to follow Jesus ... then we can inherit blessing of salvation ...instead of being stuck with inheritance of separation from God from Adam.  Also God has the divine right to decide who lives and who dies... its His sandbox right? Its His Atoms right? He gets to decide whether you get to use those atoms (your body) or not. You can say that you don't like this rule.. but that doesn't change the fact that God isn't breaking His own rules.

Do not be Prideful = God is not prideful.  God merely states "I am Omniscient" as a matter of fact.  Sinful Pride is a human trait.. it means to demand unwarranted credit for something.  You cannot do anything without thanking God for it.  For without Him you couldn't do anything.  You're using his molecules that make up your body to do whatever it is you're doing.  We have no right to be prideful and think ourselves better than God.  Hmm no breaking of the rules here.

Jealousy & Anger.... these two are often confused by people who don't think about the different types.   There is righteous Anger and righteous Jealousy.  As well as perverted versions.

Do not covet thy neighbor's wife = Bad Jealousy

Having your wife get jealous because you're coveting your neighbor's wife = Righteous Jealousy.

Swelling up with irrational hatred because someone is black = Bad Anger

Watching someone kill your mother and getting angry = Righteous Anger.

When God says do not be jealous or angry... He is obviously speaking about the perverted versions.   God never committed acts of perverted Jealousy or Anger.  They were all righteous.  I'd say that completely debunks your poorly thought out attack on God "breaking His own rules"   This is just one of many examples of how you and people like Dawkins attack God without giving the time to sit down and think things thru.  Oh I'm sure you'll just come back with your classic default response of "Oh your playing mind games again"

Oh and creation doesnt begat respect?..... yea i guess your right if you're an ungrateful SOB.  If you knew you were created by the same God that created this wonderful universe and you didnt respect Him out of awe of the sheer wonder of the magnitude and incomprehensibility of it all... then #1 you got pride issues.... #2 you're ungrateful .... #3 You're just being purposefully rebellious...#4 your mind cant comprehend the magnitude of the situation.   To say that God has to "earn" your respect and worship is so utterly insulting..... i'm speechless.  He has given you something which you are grotesquely lucky to have.... and you shrug it off and say "so what?"  Well if you dont value what He has given you... take a gun and pull the trigger.  You wouldnt want to use His gift of life and be hypocritically unthankful for it?  So hold true to your word and give His Gift of Life right back to Him.  Pull the trigger.

I've heard of firefighters pulling people out of burning houses... but you know the victim doesnt say "let me do a background check on this firefighter before i tell him thank you... just to be sure he is worthy."  No they simply say THANKS for not letting me die.  In a way God has done the same for you.... He didnt allow you to become permanently dead by never being born.  He allowed you to come into existence.  That alone should have you stoked !   Some gratefulness?   Ah forget it.  I'm speaking to 21st century young americans...... what was i thinking.

  We should embrace that chance, that fortune. Love life. Live life. A wonderful statement for living. Not at all an affirmation of a god, quite the opposite. A description of humanism, some might say.

Yes and living life means free expression of your imagination and faith-based beliefs.... to restrict someone of their traditions, culture, and beliefs because your a pompus asshole that thinks he is superior because he believes in some biological facts while simultaneously keeping a closed mind to any notions of spirituality and calling them bronze-aged myths, a virus, and ignoring all arguments to the contrary as fence sitting or mind games.... is just degrading and causes conflict and doesn't help people LIVE LIFE LOVE LIFE.   Also i might say that atheism is quite depressing. And its quite biased.

You see its easy to have Dawkins view on life when you are a rich upper-class Caucasian male living the high life.  YES I AM DAWKINS I CAN EXPLORE THE WORLD AND LIVE LIFE LOVE LIFE.  Yea?  Tell that to Jerome growing up in the hood.  Tell him to LIVE LIFE LOVE LIFE.  All that means to him is to rob a bank so that he can LIVE LIFE LOVE LIFE.  Its a sure recipe for disaster.  Telling people to carpe diem is dangerous when they feel that they aren't getting "their share".   Just imagine if every hoodlum in the hood became atheist.... they'd be so worried about whether their life was as good as it could be that they would constantly be "looking out for themselves".  Oh wait.. didn't Dawkins say that we have altruistic genes that tell us to work together?   OH RIGHT.  That's why the hoodlums wont be robbing banks alone... they'll be doing it in GANGS.

The real altruism is in knowing that this life isn't the end... it means i can donate all my wealth to the poor and make sacrifices in my life.... which is ok.. because i have an afterlife to look forward to.  If i am atheist.. then i wont be as inclined to be as altruistic as i could be.... unless i am certain i can get some benefit out of it in THIS life.

Remember... Dawkins said we are altruistic in this life because we know it helps us in THIS life than just working alone.  So atheistic altruism is based on "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours"  So in other words i am expecting to have my back scratched in THIS life.... in order for me to scratch someone else's back.  Whereas a true christian would scratch infinite backs without expecting their own to be scratched.  Because they know that getting their back scratched in this life isn't the most important thing...they know that they have another life to look forward to....  That's the difference.

And the main reason atheism is full of despair is because our lives are but an instant.  Billy Graham said the most shocking thing about life.... is that when you are 80 yrs old... you think to yourself.. "it was only yesterday that i was 20!"   Basically time flies.  before you know it.. you're dead.   You can LIVE LIFE LOVE LIFE.  But its so temporary.... so fleeting... that it would be much better time spent exploring spirituality.... especially since our minds are capable of conceiving such a concept.  I find that interesting in and of itself.  here we are.. creatures out in the middle of space on a floating rock.... and we have this notion of God that just wont go away.... yea Dawkins is right... it seems unshakable.  No other creature on this earth has the same "God" problem that we do.  With reason + conscience comes unstoppable thoughts of God.  Is there a God gene? All cultures from all over have tried to express this internal programming of a God that seems to be inside them.  There has to be more to it than just "oh we need a crutch", or "oh we're afraid to die". 

Primitive man was scared of lightening and fire and whatever other unexplainable events.  But the natural response would be to run away and avoid it.  Not to build shrines and worship it.  Aztecs saw the Spanish Conquistadors on Horses and Worshipped them....why not try to kill them?  OR run from them?  Why do we have this innate ability to attempt to detect that which is divine and offer worship?  There is just no reason unless we were given subconscious knowledge of God from God as a sort of internal compass to find Him.  Something just isn't right.  Current explanations from atheists as to why we want God just aren't enough.

  What people don't understand is that whatever the odds, they played out in our favor and it is only because of that that we can look at it and see how incredibly unlikely it was. But then again, given an infinite number of universes that is possible, life had to come up sometime or another. We are simply that time. No god. No creation story.

There you go. First God is in the sky. Then he's beyond the sky in the "heavens" or space. Then he's in another dimension. Where else will this God hide in before we run out of places to stick him in?

God is not only wacky, but an archaic idea that has survived the years through ignorance of the world around us and the hope that lingers in the minds of beings aware of their inevitable departure from Earth. I say he's wacky because there so many absolutes tacked onto him that he's become an undefinable creature. Go ahead and try and define God. Define perfection.  He's become an idea that is so intangible that when imagined, our minds draw a blank and replace it with whatever makes us feel good, like a shimmering light above us that exemplifies hope, or like an all-loving parent that is looking out for us in this lonely desperate world.

Multiple universes?... and you call me a story-teller and a mind-gamer?  So its ok to think outside the box when it suits you?  As far as you saying we had to be created eventually..... even if i give you that... that doesn't negate God or a creation story. Because God could be the uncreated item... or the universe could be the uncreated item.  And seeing how the universe was created... through the Big bang... which was a supernatural expanding of a balloon within another unknown area.... that's lending itself to suggest that there is more than meets the eye.  Is God undefinable?  Of course He is.  That's the beauty of it... if He were easy to pigeon-hole then He wouldn't be much of a God.  Pascal said it best when he said "It is inconceivable that God exists... and it is inconceivable that God does NOT exist". 

Guns

[Caid Ivik]

Perhaps they all should study physics and not talk about cultural activity as religion. Problem is, that the knowledge isn't constructed on bad foundations, just both areas have different languages. Righteousness may hardly be understood from cosmology - of course, only if you don't follow some renaissantic alchymist under strong influence of neoplatonism...

[Cyborg]

Watching someone kill your mother and getting angry = Righteous Anger.

What if that someone was God? Would the anger still be righteous?

Don't play dumb with me.... and don't call my explanation "mind games".  You full well understand what i am talking about.  I'm starting to wonder about you if you cant understand the simple concept of God creating a 30 yr old man (Adam) who is both 30 yrs old biologically and yet only 1 minute old chronologically.  Its not a stretch... its not a mind game.  Its a clear explanation of what something would be like if God were to create it in an instant mature form.  We could take Adam and dissect him and see that his bone structure and organ development as well as gonad development and hormone levels show him to be 30 years old.  However he has only been in existence for 1 minute.  He wouldn't be any less real than you or I.  He wouldn't be "made up".  So you're saying God cant make something instantly without it being "made up" or a "mind game"?  So man has to come from amoebas to be genuine?  Thanks for telling us what God can and Cannot do.

Yeah, I think Acriku understands that, and I do too. However, the principle of God's omnipotence is so adaptable that it can be made to explain everything. There are infinite answers to each problem, and you're just presenting one of the possibilities.

When talking about God being arrogant:

Also, why should we follow God's rules if he kills, is prideful, jealous, etc?

Creation does not beget instant worship. Respect is earned by the actions of the person whose respect is wanted. Killing the entire world in a flood merits no respect.

Absurd to judge God? Hardly. Children recognize this while growing up, that they are being told not to do something their parents did. Sure, do not kill as commanded by God, but then God kills the entire world save but a single family? How's that for hypocrisy? What's so great about God's command if he chooses not to follow it himself? By example is a great form of teaching.

Do not kill the innocent = God Kills those deserving of punishment.  God also says that sin can be inherited to the next generation.  Hence children can be cursed as well.  The flip-side to this is that children can inherit blessings as well.  Thankfully this helps us in terms of salvation with Jesus.  We choose to follow Jesus ... then we can inherit blessing of salvation ...instead of being stuck with inheritance of separation from God from Adam.  Also God has the divine right to decide who lives and who dies... its His sandbox right? Its His Atoms right? He gets to decide whether you get to use those atoms (your body) or not. You can say that you don't like this rule.. but that doesn't change the fact that God isn't breaking His own rules.

Why do they deserve punishment? Because God says so?

The ten commandments only say: You shall not kill others. I can't see any mention of deserving it there...

So, when he kills us because he just says we deserve it, should he then expect us to pay homage to him? To worship him?

I mean, when your parents spanked you, did you turn around and say: Thank you for the spanking. I really deserved it.

No, you judge them, and have your rights; they're breaking the rules to punish you for breaking the rules... That's like fighting for peace.

Do not be Prideful = God is not prideful.  God merely states "I am Omniscient" as a matter of fact.  Sinful Pride is a human trait.. it means to demand unwarranted credit for something.  You cannot do anything without thanking God for it.  For without Him you couldn't do anything.  You're using his molecules that make up your body to do whatever it is you're doing.  We have no right to be prideful and think ourselves better than God.  Hmm no breaking of the rules here.

Well, I think of pride as stating your superiority to someone who has no chance whatsoever of gaining it. It's like spitting in someone's face. "I own you! In case you forgot it..." If God likes to remind us of his omniscience, it is pride. He didn't even have to say it to us. Does it matter to us that he is omniscient? He isn't less omniscient by letting us find out by ourselves.

When God says do not be jealous or angry... He is obviously speaking about the perverted versions.  God never committed acts of perverted Jealousy or Anger.  They were all righteous.  I'd say that completely debunks your poorly thought out attack on God "breaking His own rules"  This is just one of many examples of how you and people like Dawkins attack God without giving the time to sit down and think things thru.  Oh I'm sure you'll just come back with your classic default response of "Oh your playing mind games again"

He is obviously speaking about the perverted versions? Says who? You?

And of course God's jealousy and anger was righteous... He made the rules! If he were to cross a line, he could just make a new rule that let him do it! You can't just say that he's perfect because he followed his own rules, because after all, they're his own freaking rules...

Oh and creation doesnt begat respect?..... yea i guess your right if you're an ungrateful SOB.  If you knew you were created by the same God that created this wonderful universe and you didnt respect Him out of awe of the sheer wonder of the magnitude and incomprehensibility of it all... then #1 you got pride issues.... #2 you're ungrateful .... #3 You're just being purposefully rebellious...#4 your mind cant comprehend the magnitude of the situation.

Yeah, he created it all, but I doubt he made it just so that we should go around worshipping him for it... I thank God, if he exists, for making me who I am, but I've then said "thank you." I can say "thank you" a million times, but does that make him more satisfied? Does he like all the worshipping? If so, he prideful. If not, a simple "thank you so much, God! I like your work." should be in order.

I mean, he created me, puts me into this world, that is extremely much more advanced that I'd require it to be, and expects me to go around and worship him, because all he's made is so cool? That's like me buying you a new house just to place you in my debt. I would certainly expect you to thank me, but what more can I expect? You are in no position to return the favour, so you might aswell settle with a verbal one. And I have a memory that works, so saying thank you more than a couple of times isn't needed; I can remember that you are thankful.

So its ok to think outside the box when it suits you?

Ditto...

I would've loved for those debates, too. However, Haggard wasn't a debate as it was more of an interview for a documentary.

What you really mean is that he didn't want to look like a fool in his own documentary so he avoided people of his caliber.... despite the fact that there may be popular Christians of his intellectual caliber in terms of science.  Gotcha.

Are you putting words in other people's mouths here? Did any one of them actually say that? Or state that they meant it?

[Edric O]

I strongly suggest that anyone trying to discuss the morality or imorality of a possible God should first of all come up with a coherent definition of good and evil, and a justification for that definition.

In other words, if you say, for example, that God is evil because he punishes people, you must first explain why you believe that punishing people is bad. In particular, if you are a moral relativist, then your whole argument falls to the ground because you do not believe in any objective good or evil.

Case in point:

Respect is earned by the actions of the person whose respect is wanted. Killing the entire world in a flood merits no respect.

Really? Why not? Are you saying that killing people is evil? Objectively evil? Why?

He is simply saying that through the actions of random mutations and non-random mechanisms, it is "grotesquely" lucky that we came out in this part of time. We should embrace that chance, that fortune. Love life. Live life.

Why? If life has no purpose, then we have no reason to embrace or love it, any more than we would embrace or love a pile of rocks.

Dawkins' views - as well as yours, Acriku, and those of most atheists - seem to be based on fundamental ethical contradictions. You deny any supernatural source of good and evil; many atheists also deny the existence of any objective good and evil. But at the same time you talk and act as if there was a universal standard of morality that all people and all human action should be judged by.

I watched an interview given by Dawkins to a BBC reporter, in which Dawkins was forced to choose between truth and happiness (the question was, "If religion was false but made people happy, would you still oppose it?"). Dawkins responded that he was categorically on the side of truth; he said he would uphold the truth no matter the consequences, no matter if it made people unhappy.

Okay, so his ethics are deontological (see here) and are based on "truth" as the supreme value. Fine. But then he comes around and attacks religion for causing a lot of human suffering. Wait a minute. I thought he didn't care about happiness and suffering. You can't have your cake and eat it too, Dawkins. Either happiness is the supreme value, in which case it doesn't matter if religion is true or false; or truth is the supreme value, in which case it doesn't matter if religion makes human life better or worse.

[Acriku]

I strongly suggest that anyone trying to discuss the morality or imorality of a possible God should first of all come up with a coherent definition of good and evil, and a justification for that definition.

In other words, if you say, for example, that God is evil because he punishes people, you must first explain why you believe that punishing people is bad. In particular, if you are a moral relativist, then your whole argument falls to the ground because you do not believe in any objective good or evil.

As far as discussing God's morality, I've been assuming that God does exist and that his morality is true (in other words, his commandments are true). I am not arguing from a moral relativistic point-of-view because believing in Yahweh does not permit that (in my opinion).

Case in point:

Really? Why not? Are you saying that killing people is evil? Objectively evil? Why?

Killing people is evil because God says so. Again, I'm arguing under the assumptions that God exists and his commandments encompass morality. He says thou shalt not kill. He killed millions on Earth by a flood, therefore is evil (evil as in going against the moral code established by God himself).

Why? If life has no purpose, then we have no reason to embrace or love it, any more than we would embrace or love a pile of rocks.

Life has no inherent purpose, but there's nothing stopping us from creating one. And we love fellow human beings because we evolved to behave that way. From what I've read, it's a convincing argument that empathy is an evolved trait.

Dawkins' views - as well as yours, Acriku, and those of most atheists - seem to be based on fundamental ethical contradictions. You deny any supernatural source of good and evil; many atheists also deny the existence of any objective good and evil. But at the same time you talk and act as if there was a universal standard of morality that all people and all human action should be judged by.

Of course there is no universal standard of morality, but having no supernatural source of good and evil does not negate the credibility of a natural source of good and evil. We've evolved with a sense of empathy and love, and some people see the benefits of following a moral life. There's no threat of eternal damnation guiding us along this path of life, and there is no hope of eternal bliss if we do follow this path. Speaking for myself in this statement, I see it as being more beneficial to follow a good life (being honest, avoiding violence, etc). It makes me happy to follow a good life. Happiness is the end-to-all-ends here, is what I'm saying. Leading a good life is my means for this end. I can't speak much more about it for anyone else.

I watched an interview given by Dawkins to a BBC reporter, in which Dawkins was forced to choose between truth and happiness (the question was, "If religion was false but made people happy, would you still oppose it?"). Dawkins responded that he was categorically on the side of truth; he said he would uphold the truth no matter the consequences, no matter if it made people unhappy.

Okay, so his ethics are deontological (see here) and are based on "truth" as the supreme value. Fine. But then he comes around and attacks religion for causing a lot of human suffering. Wait a minute. I thought he didn't care about happiness and suffering. You can't have your cake and eat it too, Dawkins. Either happiness is the supreme value, in which case it doesn't matter if religion is true or false; or truth is the supreme value, in which case it doesn't matter if religion makes human life better or worse.

Who said he didn't care about happiness and suffering? You're twisting his words. From what you posted, he was asked if he had to choose, well he doesn't have to choose and is quite content in not choosing either-or. He chooses both. As do I. As do most reasonable people.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Ok i am getting tired of this " God kills people so therefore he is evil" therefore [insert conclusion based on misconceived notions]

You people are reading the english translated from hebrew.   In Hebrew the original meaning is DO NOT MURDER.   MURDER gives the connotation that someone INNOCENT was killed.  Or that someone was wrongly killed.   We dont say that the Governor of Texas Murders Death Row Inmates.  We say they were Executed.

I believe that all of you people in this thread have the mental capacity to understand the difference between murder and execution.  God executes people.  He doesnt murder.

Everyone knows that to get the true meaning from the Bible it should be read in its original text and meaning is lost in translation.

My grandmother studies greek and hebrew.  She has shown me many instances where text in the Bible is misunderstood due to english simplification.  For instance, In Genesis where it says a serpent tempted Eve.  The Hebrew word that is actually used there means "Shining Bewitcher".  Now that makes alot more sense.  It makes more sense for Satan to approach Eve in a beautiful angelic mesmerizing form to Tempt her...than for him to crawl up like some animal and say "Yo wassup i be a talkin snake homie!

The serpent example and the murder example are just 2 of MANY english simplifications that have plagued Americans for a long time.  And it just eats me up inside when i see intelligent people like Cyborg, Acriku, and even Dawkins making fools of themselves by constructing these elaborate arguements against God based on misconceptions and complete lack of understanding of what they've read.

You've taken something out of context gone thru all the trouble of making a "clever" arguement... only to have wasted your precious time, misled yourself and others, and hold a false set of beliefs based on misunderstood linguistics.

*sigh*

Guns

[Acriku]

Ok i am getting tired of this " God kills people so therefore he is evil" therefore [insert conclusion based on misconceived notions]

You people are reading the english translated from hebrew.  In Hebrew the original meaning is DO NOT MURDER.  MURDER gives the connotation that someone INNOCENT was killed.  Or that someone was wrongly killed.  We dont say that the Governor of Texas Murders Death Row Inmates.  We say they were Executed.

I believe that all of you people in this thread have the mental capacity to understand the difference between murder and execution.  God executes people.  He doesnt murder.

Everyone knows that to get the true meaning from the Bible it should be read in its original text and meaning is lost in translation.

My grandmother studies greek and hebrew.  She has shown me many instances where text in the Bible is misunderstood due to english simplification.  For instance, In Genesis where it says a serpent tempted Eve.  The Hebrew word that is actually used there means "Shining Bewitcher".  Now that makes alot more sense.  It makes more sense for Satan to approach Eve in a beautiful angelic mesmerizing form to Tempt her...than for him to crawl up like some animal and say "Yo wassup i be a talkin snake homie!

The serpent example and the murder example are just 2 of MANY english simplifications that have plagued Americans for a long time.  And it just eats me up inside when i see intelligent people like Cyborg, Acriku, and even Dawkins making fools of themselves by constructing these elaborate arguements against God based on misconceptions and complete lack of understanding of what they've read.

You've taken something out of context gone thru all the trouble of making a "clever" arguement... only to have wasted your precious time, misled yourself and others, and hold a false set of beliefs based on misunderstood linguistics.

*sigh*

Guns

Gunwounds, get off your high chair and sit back down with the rest of us. Listen, I can see that there is probably good reason to believe God meant 'Thou shalt not commit unlawful killing' instead of plain killing. Give yourself a pat on the back for learning a lesson from your grandmother. Now, do you honestly believe that the millions of men, women and children who were drowned in the flood were all guilty enough to be killed? I want an honest answer. Now, of course it's probably easier to say yes when you don't have to see the people in real life, but I want you to really think about it and give an answer. The babies that were just being born, the babies that were alive for months, a couple years, maybe ten years. They were all guilty enough to be drowned in a massive flood created by God? If you think so, then I have nothing further to argue with you (and wouldn't want to argue with someone who is that apathetic). If you don't think so, then perhaps I didn't make a fool of myself by making this argument. Maybe I didn't waste my precious time and maybe I didn't mislead myself and others.

[Egeides]

Counting how many people are in my cool club or in yours makes no difference. People have personal reasons and demons, it does not stand that this has any significance on the field they practice in.

My point wasn't about cool clubs, but about clubs constituted of IF/OR radicalized discussions. It is often based not on the topic itself but on effects of some other field. All this is hardcore interdisciplinarity I guess.

[TMA_1]

I agree with edric that Richard Dawkins really doesnt have a handle on any sort of knowledge partaining to religious philosophy or theology. If you hear him speak of religion or God, he seems to have formed his own view of religion, which strikes me as odd since he is a very bright man.

His view that religion is a virus is pretty misguided. He hasent found the root of the problem, and that is the hubris of man which makes him think his ideas partain to the real truth. He himself follows this arrogance which is very ironic. This kind of mindset can be placed within any structured line of thought, any cultural, social, or religious philosophy. Religion is just one (extremely obvious) way of placing one's truths as higher than other people's truths. Once this mindset is adopted by a government, then this is when you see the real dangerous shit occuring. It could be possible to see a completely secular genocide occuring, in fact these kinds of quasi scientific or philisophical murders have already been seen, and if you could see humanity five hundred years into the future, I could very well see more of them. Religion isnt the enemy, it is the inherent hubris inside man that is the enemy. You cannot get rid of this, as it is apart of what makes man who he is. It can only be tempered and contained through tolerance and love, and even then it can never be fully contained.

By the way, Haggard does not speak for me or for any other christian, he only speaks for himself. Christians need to stop rallying behind others, and live their own life through Christ, and nobody else.

to acriku:

You need to open your mind Acriku, and I say this as a friend from dune2k (weird, huh!?) I mean it though, and I always wished that the weirdness of the past would end. I just wish that you would soften your heart and really listen. Stay critical, just dont cross that fine line between being critical, and be completely cynical. Those who are absolutely cynical are generally extremists just like a christian extremist (hypocrite) like Haggard.

Also to Edric and others discussing God's morality, I think there is one big flaw in these discussions. We anthropomorphize God's morality. I think it is important to remember that God's morality and ethics are different. There is obvious and absolute synergy between His morality and ethics, and our own morality and ethics. The key though is that God had to translate the morality, almost as if he had to shoot it through the prism of the human mind. In fact I guess God IS morality. So really we only see through a dark glass on this. I think it is a part of why God had to humiliate himself and come to earth as Man in order to atone for all of man's sins. We cannot save ourselves. In fact the whole topic of morality and God is an interesting one, and should be discussed.