Total Posts:58|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Jesus Didn't Kill Anyone. Oh Really?

muizz99
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 4:43:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Ezekiel 9

Then I heard him call out in a loud voice, "Bring near those who are appointed to
execute judgment on the city, each with a
weapon in his hand." 2 And I saw six men coming from the direction of the upper gate,
which faces north, each with a deadly
weapon in his hand. With them was a man
clothed in linen who had a writing kit at his
side. They came in and stood beside the
bronze altar.

3 Now the glory of the God of Israel went up from above the cherubim, where it had been,
and moved to the threshold of the temple.
Then the LORD called to the man clothed in
linen who had the writing kit at his side 4 and said to him, "Go throughout the city of
Jerusalem and put a mark on the foreheads
of those who grieve and lament over all the
detestable things that are done in it."

5 As I listened, he said to the others, "Follow him through the city and kill, without showing
pity or compassion. 6 Slaughter the old men, the young men and women, the mothers and
children, but do not touch anyone who has
the mark. Begin at my sanctuary." So they
began with the old men who were in front of
the temple.

7 Then he said to them, "Defile the temple and fill the courts with the slain. Go!" So
they went out and began killing throughout
the city. 8 While they were killing and I was left alone, I fell facedown, crying out, "Alas,
Sovereign LORD! Are you going to destroy
the entire remnant of Israel in this
outpouring of your wrath on Jerusalem?"

9 He answered me, "The sin of the people of Israel and Judah is exceedingly great; the
land is full of bloodshed and the city is full of
injustice. They say, "The LORD has forsaken
the land; the LORD does not see." 10 So I will not look on them with pity or spare them, but
I will bring down on their own heads what
they have done."

11 Then the man in linen with the writing kit at his side brought back word, saying, "I have
done as you commanded."

Question: Who is the God of Old Testament?
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 4:53:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 4:43:42 AM, muizz99 wrote:

Question: Who is the God of Old Testament?

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Richard Dawkins
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 5:21:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 4:53:41 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 4:43:42 AM, muizz99 wrote:

Question: Who is the God of Old Testament?

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Richard Dawkins

This quote says everything one needs to know about the New Atheism.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 5:25:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 5:21:38 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 4:53:41 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 4:43:42 AM, muizz99 wrote:

Question: Who is the God of Old Testament?

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Richard Dawkins

This quote says everything one needs to know about the New Atheism.

How so?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 5:29:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 5:25:12 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:21:38 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 4:53:41 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 4:43:42 AM, muizz99 wrote:

Question: Who is the God of Old Testament?

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Richard Dawkins

This quote says everything one needs to know about the New Atheism.

How so?

It pretty much skips the rational discourse that other atheists respectfully engage in. I'm pretty sure Dawkins is quoted comparing theology to what he calls "leprechaunology," another fine example of his intellectual radiance.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 5:35:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 5:29:28 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:25:12 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:21:38 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 4:53:41 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 4:43:42 AM, muizz99 wrote:

Question: Who is the God of Old Testament?

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Richard Dawkins

This quote says everything one needs to know about the New Atheism.

How so?

It pretty much skips the rational discourse that other atheists respectfully engage in. I'm pretty sure Dawkins is quoted comparing theology to what he calls "leprechaunology," another fine example of his intellectual radiance.

How does it skip rational discourse? It seems a reasonably fair summation of the OT god. Albeit that it is vicious.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 5:55:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 5:35:10 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:29:28 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:25:12 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:21:38 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 4:53:41 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 4:43:42 AM, muizz99 wrote:

Question: Who is the God of Old Testament?

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Richard Dawkins

This quote says everything one needs to know about the New Atheism.

How so?

It pretty much skips the rational discourse that other atheists respectfully engage in. I'm pretty sure Dawkins is quoted comparing theology to what he calls "leprechaunology," another fine example of his intellectual radiance.

How does it skip rational discourse? It seems a reasonably fair summation of the OT god. Albeit that it is vicious.

The quote is sort of an emotional attack on the biblical God rather than a logical critique of theism, which is what his book is meant to represent. This sort of behaviour is analogous to the New Atheism as a whole.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 6:03:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 5:55:54 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:35:10 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:29:28 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:25:12 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:21:38 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 4:53:41 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 4:43:42 AM, muizz99 wrote:

Question: Who is the God of Old Testament?

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Richard Dawkins

This quote says everything one needs to know about the New Atheism.

How so?

It pretty much skips the rational discourse that other atheists respectfully engage in. I'm pretty sure Dawkins is quoted comparing theology to what he calls "leprechaunology," another fine example of his intellectual radiance.

How does it skip rational discourse? It seems a reasonably fair summation of the OT god. Albeit that it is vicious.

The quote is sort of an emotional attack on the biblical God rather than a logical critique of theism, which is what his book is meant to represent. This sort of behaviour is analogous to the New Atheism as a whole.

Wow......

Seriously?

Ok......

So, do you actually lack the ability to understand that one quote doesn't necessarily represent an entire book, or are you just being intellectually dishonest?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 6:12:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 5:55:54 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
The quote is sort of an emotional attack on the biblical God rather than a logical critique of theism, which is what his book is meant to represent. This sort of behaviour is analogous to the New Atheism as a whole.

That's probably because most christians don't have any sort of real, thought out, argument as to why they think that god exists.

Most christians just accept god as existent, haze over the contents of the OT, haze over whether the OT is meaningful to Their beliefs, and figure that God's existence is Grand... and see no reason to mess with it by thinking.

If you want to get these people thinking you have to shake things up by brushing off some of the more scandalous bits that demand answers.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 6:13:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 6:03:27 AM, muzebreak wrote:
So, do you actually lack the ability to understand that one quote doesn't necessarily represent an entire book

that too I suppose :P
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 6:28:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 6:03:27 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:55:54 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:35:10 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:29:28 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:25:12 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:21:38 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 4:53:41 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 4:43:42 AM, muizz99 wrote:

Question: Who is the God of Old Testament?

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Richard Dawkins

This quote says everything one needs to know about the New Atheism.

How so?

It pretty much skips the rational discourse that other atheists respectfully engage in. I'm pretty sure Dawkins is quoted comparing theology to what he calls "leprechaunology," another fine example of his intellectual radiance.

How does it skip rational discourse? It seems a reasonably fair summation of the OT god. Albeit that it is vicious.

The quote is sort of an emotional attack on the biblical God rather than a logical critique of theism, which is what his book is meant to represent. This sort of behaviour is analogous to the New Atheism as a whole.

Wow......

Seriously?

Ok......

So, do you actually lack the ability to understand that one quote doesn't necessarily represent an entire book, or are you just being intellectually dishonest?

I'm certainly not saying the quote represents the entire book. I'm saying that it has no place in a book of that nature, since the book is meant to be a logical critique. It's further analogous to the New Atheism movement, since I generally find the New Atheists to engage in this sort of behaviour.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 6:30:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 6:12:50 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:55:54 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
The quote is sort of an emotional attack on the biblical God rather than a logical critique of theism, which is what his book is meant to represent. This sort of behaviour is analogous to the New Atheism as a whole.

That's probably because most christians don't have any sort of real, thought out, argument as to why they think that god exists.

Most, sure.

Most christians just accept god as existent, haze over the contents of the OT, haze over whether the OT is meaningful to Their beliefs, and figure that God's existence is Grand... and see no reason to mess with it by thinking.

Most, sure.

If you want to get these people thinking you have to shake things up by brushing off some of the more scandalous bits that demand answers.

That quote is extracted from The God Delusion, a critique of theism...
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 6:32:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 6:13:30 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:03:27 AM, muzebreak wrote:
So, do you actually lack the ability to understand that one quote doesn't necessarily represent an entire book

that too I suppose :P

I don't believe I ever said the quote represents the entire book. I stated the quote is analogous to the New Atheism as a whole, for the reasons I outlined above -- that the quote is an emotional attack rather than an exercise of rational discourse.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 6:40:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
To the OP: sorry for derailing your thread. Muzebreak's quote was certainly relevant, though my criticism of the quote and how it relates to the New Atheism wasn't. I apologise.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 6:45:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 6:28:50 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:03:27 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:55:54 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:35:10 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:29:28 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:25:12 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:21:38 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 4:53:41 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 4:43:42 AM, muizz99 wrote:

Question: Who is the God of Old Testament?

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Richard Dawkins

This quote says everything one needs to know about the New Atheism.

How so?

It pretty much skips the rational discourse that other atheists respectfully engage in. I'm pretty sure Dawkins is quoted comparing theology to what he calls "leprechaunology," another fine example of his intellectual radiance.

How does it skip rational discourse? It seems a reasonably fair summation of the OT god. Albeit that it is vicious.

The quote is sort of an emotional attack on the biblical God rather than a logical critique of theism, which is what his book is meant to represent. This sort of behaviour is analogous to the New Atheism as a whole.

Wow......

Seriously?

Ok......

So, do you actually lack the ability to understand that one quote doesn't necessarily represent an entire book, or are you just being intellectually dishonest?

I'm certainly not saying the quote represents the entire book. I'm saying that it has no place in a book of that nature, since the book is meant to be a logical critique. It's further analogous to the New Atheism movement, since I generally find the New Atheists to engage in this sort of behaviour.

I don't think you've read the book, have you......

The first few chapters are, essentially, a logical summation of the god hypothesis, with Dawkins opinions on them. The rest of the book is about religion and morality, which this quote fits right into.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 6:46:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 6:32:47 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:13:30 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:03:27 AM, muzebreak wrote:
So, do you actually lack the ability to understand that one quote doesn't necessarily represent an entire book

that too I suppose :P

I don't believe I ever said the quote represents the entire book. I stated the quote is analogous to the New Atheism as a whole, for the reasons I outlined above -- that the quote is an emotional attack rather than an exercise of rational discourse.

An emotional attack can involve rational discourse......
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 6:49:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 6:45:26 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:28:50 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:03:27 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:55:54 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:35:10 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:29:28 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:25:12 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:21:38 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 4:53:41 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 4:43:42 AM, muizz99 wrote:

Question: Who is the God of Old Testament?

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Richard Dawkins

This quote says everything one needs to know about the New Atheism.

How so?

It pretty much skips the rational discourse that other atheists respectfully engage in. I'm pretty sure Dawkins is quoted comparing theology to what he calls "leprechaunology," another fine example of his intellectual radiance.

How does it skip rational discourse? It seems a reasonably fair summation of the OT god. Albeit that it is vicious.

The quote is sort of an emotional attack on the biblical God rather than a logical critique of theism, which is what his book is meant to represent. This sort of behaviour is analogous to the New Atheism as a whole.

Wow......

Seriously?

Ok......

So, do you actually lack the ability to understand that one quote doesn't necessarily represent an entire book, or are you just being intellectually dishonest?

I'm certainly not saying the quote represents the entire book. I'm saying that it has no place in a book of that nature, since the book is meant to be a logical critique. It's further analogous to the New Atheism movement, since I generally find the New Atheists to engage in this sort of behaviour.


I don't think you've read the book, have you......

The first few chapters are, essentially, a logical summation of the god hypothesis, with Dawkins opinions on them. The rest of the book is about religion and morality, which this quote fits right into.

I have. I don't recall any intent to critique revealed religious morality, just natural theology. If there in fact are discussions of the revealed theology in relevant religions, then I retract my statement concerning the irrelevancy of the quote to the book.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 6:53:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 6:46:06 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:32:47 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:13:30 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:03:27 AM, muzebreak wrote:
So, do you actually lack the ability to understand that one quote doesn't necessarily represent an entire book

that too I suppose :P

I don't believe I ever said the quote represents the entire book. I stated the quote is analogous to the New Atheism as a whole, for the reasons I outlined above -- that the quote is an emotional attack rather than an exercise of rational discourse.

An emotional attack can involve rational discourse......

Not in the sense I meant here. In this sense, I meant appealing to emotion to ground a belief (one in which its veracity doesn't concern emotion to begin with...)
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 7:36:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 6:49:38 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:45:26 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:28:50 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:03:27 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:55:54 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:35:10 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:29:28 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:25:12 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:21:38 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 4:53:41 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 4:43:42 AM, muizz99 wrote:

Question: Who is the God of Old Testament?

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Richard Dawkins

This quote says everything one needs to know about the New Atheism.

How so?

It pretty much skips the rational discourse that other atheists respectfully engage in. I'm pretty sure Dawkins is quoted comparing theology to what he calls "leprechaunology," another fine example of his intellectual radiance.

How does it skip rational discourse? It seems a reasonably fair summation of the OT god. Albeit that it is vicious.

The quote is sort of an emotional attack on the biblical God rather than a logical critique of theism, which is what his book is meant to represent. This sort of behaviour is analogous to the New Atheism as a whole.

Wow......

Seriously?

Ok......

So, do you actually lack the ability to understand that one quote doesn't necessarily represent an entire book, or are you just being intellectually dishonest?

I'm certainly not saying the quote represents the entire book. I'm saying that it has no place in a book of that nature, since the book is meant to be a logical critique. It's further analogous to the New Atheism movement, since I generally find the New Atheists to engage in this sort of behaviour.


I don't think you've read the book, have you......

The first few chapters are, essentially, a logical summation of the god hypothesis, with Dawkins opinions on them. The rest of the book is about religion and morality, which this quote fits right into.

I have. I don't recall any intent to critique revealed religious morality, just natural theology. If there in fact are discussions of the revealed theology in relevant religions, then I retract my statement concerning the irrelevancy of the quote to the book.

"he second half of the book begins by exploring the roots of religion and seeking an explanation for its ubiquity across human cultures. Dawkins advocates the "theory of religion as an accidental by-product " a misfiring of something useful" as for example the mind's employment of intentional stance. Dawkins suggests that the theory of memes, and human susceptibility to religious memes in particular, can explain how religions might spread like "mind viruses" across societies.

He then turns to the subject of morality, maintaining that we do not need religion to be good. Instead, our morality has a Darwinian explanation: altruistic genes, selected through the process of evolution, give people natural empathy."

http://en.wikipedia.org...
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 7:36:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 6:53:20 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:46:06 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:32:47 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:13:30 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:03:27 AM, muzebreak wrote:
So, do you actually lack the ability to understand that one quote doesn't necessarily represent an entire book

that too I suppose :P

I don't believe I ever said the quote represents the entire book. I stated the quote is analogous to the New Atheism as a whole, for the reasons I outlined above -- that the quote is an emotional attack rather than an exercise of rational discourse.

An emotional attack can involve rational discourse......

Not in the sense I meant here. In this sense, I meant appealing to emotion to ground a belief (one in which its veracity doesn't concern emotion to begin with...)

Ok.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 7:55:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 7:36:11 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:49:38 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:45:26 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:28:50 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:03:27 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:55:54 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:35:10 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:29:28 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:25:12 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:21:38 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 4:53:41 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 4:43:42 AM, muizz99 wrote:

Question: Who is the God of Old Testament?

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Richard Dawkins

This quote says everything one needs to know about the New Atheism.

How so?

It pretty much skips the rational discourse that other atheists respectfully engage in. I'm pretty sure Dawkins is quoted comparing theology to what he calls "leprechaunology," another fine example of his intellectual radiance.

How does it skip rational discourse? It seems a reasonably fair summation of the OT god. Albeit that it is vicious.

The quote is sort of an emotional attack on the biblical God rather than a logical critique of theism, which is what his book is meant to represent. This sort of behaviour is analogous to the New Atheism as a whole.

Wow......

Seriously?

Ok......

So, do you actually lack the ability to understand that one quote doesn't necessarily represent an entire book, or are you just being intellectually dishonest?

I'm certainly not saying the quote represents the entire book. I'm saying that it has no place in a book of that nature, since the book is meant to be a logical critique. It's further analogous to the New Atheism movement, since I generally find the New Atheists to engage in this sort of behaviour.


I don't think you've read the book, have you......

The first few chapters are, essentially, a logical summation of the god hypothesis, with Dawkins opinions on them. The rest of the book is about religion and morality, which this quote fits right into.

I have. I don't recall any intent to critique revealed religious morality, just natural theology. If there in fact are discussions of the revealed theology in relevant religions, then I retract my statement concerning the irrelevancy of the quote to the book.

"he second half of the book begins by exploring the roots of religion and seeking an explanation for its ubiquity across human cultures. Dawkins advocates the "theory of religion as an accidental by-product " a misfiring of something useful" as for example the mind's employment of intentional stance. Dawkins suggests that the theory of memes, and human susceptibility to religious memes in particular, can explain how religions might spread like "mind viruses" across societies.

He then turns to the subject of morality, maintaining that we do not need religion to be good. Instead, our morality has a Darwinian explanation: altruistic genes, selected through the process of evolution, give people natural empathy."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The way it's described here, the second half sounds like a composite critique of natural and revealed.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 8:09:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 7:55:38 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 7:36:11 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:49:38 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:45:26 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:28:50 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:03:27 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:55:54 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:35:10 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:29:28 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:25:12 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:21:38 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 4:53:41 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 4:43:42 AM, muizz99 wrote:

Question: Who is the God of Old Testament?

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Richard Dawkins

This quote says everything one needs to know about the New Atheism.

How so?

It pretty much skips the rational discourse that other atheists respectfully engage in. I'm pretty sure Dawkins is quoted comparing theology to what he calls "leprechaunology," another fine example of his intellectual radiance.

How does it skip rational discourse? It seems a reasonably fair summation of the OT god. Albeit that it is vicious.

The quote is sort of an emotional attack on the biblical God rather than a logical critique of theism, which is what his book is meant to represent. This sort of behaviour is analogous to the New Atheism as a whole.

Wow......

Seriously?

Ok......

So, do you actually lack the ability to understand that one quote doesn't necessarily represent an entire book, or are you just being intellectually dishonest?

I'm certainly not saying the quote represents the entire book. I'm saying that it has no place in a book of that nature, since the book is meant to be a logical critique. It's further analogous to the New Atheism movement, since I generally find the New Atheists to engage in this sort of behaviour.


I don't think you've read the book, have you......

The first few chapters are, essentially, a logical summation of the god hypothesis, with Dawkins opinions on them. The rest of the book is about religion and morality, which this quote fits right into.

I have. I don't recall any intent to critique revealed religious morality, just natural theology. If there in fact are discussions of the revealed theology in relevant religions, then I retract my statement concerning the irrelevancy of the quote to the book.

"he second half of the book begins by exploring the roots of religion and seeking an explanation for its ubiquity across human cultures. Dawkins advocates the "theory of religion as an accidental by-product " a misfiring of something useful" as for example the mind's employment of intentional stance. Dawkins suggests that the theory of memes, and human susceptibility to religious memes in particular, can explain how religions might spread like "mind viruses" across societies.

He then turns to the subject of morality, maintaining that we do not need religion to be good. Instead, our morality has a Darwinian explanation: altruistic genes, selected through the process of evolution, give people natural empathy."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The way it's described here, the second half sounds like a composite critique of natural and revealed.

In a way. It's more that Dawkins presents religious moralities and gives his critiques on them. And he also gives an evolutionary explanation for the moralities we appear to have in common with the majority.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 10:38:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 8:09:07 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 7:55:38 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 7:36:11 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:49:38 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:45:26 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:28:50 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:03:27 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:55:54 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:35:10 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:29:28 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:25:12 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:21:38 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 4:53:41 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 4:43:42 AM, muizz99 wrote:

Question: Who is the God of Old Testament?

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Richard Dawkins

This quote says everything one needs to know about the New Atheism.

How so?

It pretty much skips the rational discourse that other atheists respectfully engage in. I'm pretty sure Dawkins is quoted comparing theology to what he calls "leprechaunology," another fine example of his intellectual radiance.

How does it skip rational discourse? It seems a reasonably fair summation of the OT god. Albeit that it is vicious.

The quote is sort of an emotional attack on the biblical God rather than a logical critique of theism, which is what his book is meant to represent. This sort of behaviour is analogous to the New Atheism as a whole.

Wow......

Seriously?

Ok......

So, do you actually lack the ability to understand that one quote doesn't necessarily represent an entire book, or are you just being intellectually dishonest?

I'm certainly not saying the quote represents the entire book. I'm saying that it has no place in a book of that nature, since the book is meant to be a logical critique. It's further analogous to the New Atheism movement, since I generally find the New Atheists to engage in this sort of behaviour.


I don't think you've read the book, have you......

The first few chapters are, essentially, a logical summation of the god hypothesis, with Dawkins opinions on them. The rest of the book is about religion and morality, which this quote fits right into.

I have. I don't recall any intent to critique revealed religious morality, just natural theology. If there in fact are discussions of the revealed theology in relevant religions, then I retract my statement concerning the irrelevancy of the quote to the book.

"he second half of the book begins by exploring the roots of religion and seeking an explanation for its ubiquity across human cultures. Dawkins advocates the "theory of religion as an accidental by-product " a misfiring of something useful" as for example the mind's employment of intentional stance. Dawkins suggests that the theory of memes, and human susceptibility to religious memes in particular, can explain how religions might spread like "mind viruses" across societies.

He then turns to the subject of morality, maintaining that we do not need religion to be good. Instead, our morality has a Darwinian explanation: altruistic genes, selected through the process of evolution, give people natural empathy."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The way it's described here, the second half sounds like a composite critique of natural and revealed.

In a way. It's more that Dawkins presents religious moralities and gives his critiques on them. And he also gives an evolutionary explanation for the moralities we appear to have in common with the majority.

It is widely accepted that dawkins is a blubbering fool, who's admirers consist mostly of childish chavs who troll the internet, much of what dawkins has claimed in philosophical arguuments has been refuted by almost anybody who has a brain, even by his fellow atheists, Dawkins is a biology professor not a theologian of philosopher, he should stick to where he is good at because when he steps outside of his comfort zone of biology, he is made to look a fool.

He sold two million copies of the God delusion worldwide, but yet he claimed he had no interest in debating William Lane Craig, claiming he only debates high ranking members of the church such as cardinals and the like, yet he has had many debates with people who hold no such credentials, He ran away and hid from William lane craig, and I am not a supporter of Dr Craig, in fact I find him slightly annoying, but I would defend my God delusion principle with arguably the worlds most leading Christian apologist, William Lane Craig, instead of hiding in fear of shame......
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 10:58:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 10:38:16 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/8/2013 8:09:07 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 7:55:38 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 7:36:11 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:49:38 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:45:26 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:28:50 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:03:27 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:55:54 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:35:10 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:29:28 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:25:12 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:21:38 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 4:53:41 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 4:43:42 AM, muizz99 wrote:

Question: Who is the God of Old Testament?

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Richard Dawkins

This quote says everything one needs to know about the New Atheism.

How so?

It pretty much skips the rational discourse that other atheists respectfully engage in. I'm pretty sure Dawkins is quoted comparing theology to what he calls "leprechaunology," another fine example of his intellectual radiance.

How does it skip rational discourse? It seems a reasonably fair summation of the OT god. Albeit that it is vicious.

The quote is sort of an emotional attack on the biblical God rather than a logical critique of theism, which is what his book is meant to represent. This sort of behaviour is analogous to the New Atheism as a whole.

Wow......

Seriously?

Ok......

So, do you actually lack the ability to understand that one quote doesn't necessarily represent an entire book, or are you just being intellectually dishonest?

I'm certainly not saying the quote represents the entire book. I'm saying that it has no place in a book of that nature, since the book is meant to be a logical critique. It's further analogous to the New Atheism movement, since I generally find the New Atheists to engage in this sort of behaviour.


I don't think you've read the book, have you......

The first few chapters are, essentially, a logical summation of the god hypothesis, with Dawkins opinions on them. The rest of the book is about religion and morality, which this quote fits right into.

I have. I don't recall any intent to critique revealed religious morality, just natural theology. If there in fact are discussions of the revealed theology in relevant religions, then I retract my statement concerning the irrelevancy of the quote to the book.

"he second half of the book begins by exploring the roots of religion and seeking an explanation for its ubiquity across human cultures. Dawkins advocates the "theory of religion as an accidental by-product " a misfiring of something useful" as for example the mind's employment of intentional stance. Dawkins suggests that the theory of memes, and human susceptibility to religious memes in particular, can explain how religions might spread like "mind viruses" across societies.

He then turns to the subject of morality, maintaining that we do not need religion to be good. Instead, our morality has a Darwinian explanation: altruistic genes, selected through the process of evolution, give people natural empathy."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The way it's described here, the second half sounds like a composite critique of natural and revealed.

In a way. It's more that Dawkins presents religious moralities and gives his critiques on them. And he also gives an evolutionary explanation for the moralities we appear to have in common with the majority.


It is widely accepted that dawkins is a blubbering fool, who's admirers consist mostly of childish chavs who troll the internet, much of what dawkins has claimed in philosophical arguuments has been refuted by almost anybody who has a brain, even by his fellow atheists, Dawkins is a biology professor not a theologian of philosopher, he should stick to where he is good at because when he steps outside of his comfort zone of biology, he is made to look a fool.


He sold two million copies of the God delusion worldwide, but yet he claimed he had no interest in debating William Lane Craig, claiming he only debates high ranking members of the church such as cardinals and the like, yet he has had many debates with people who hold no such credentials, He ran away and hid from William lane craig, and I am not a supporter of Dr Craig, in fact I find him slightly annoying, but I would defend my God delusion principle with arguably the worlds most leading Christian apologist, William Lane Craig, instead of hiding in fear of shame......

Go bitch about Dawkins elsewhere please.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 11:17:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 10:58:56 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 10:38:16 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/8/2013 8:09:07 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 7:55:38 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 7:36:11 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:49:38 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:45:26 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:28:50 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:03:27 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:55:54 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:35:10 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:29:28 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:25:12 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:21:38 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 4:53:41 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 4:43:42 AM, muizz99 wrote:

Question: Who is the God of Old Testament?

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Richard Dawkins

This quote says everything one needs to know about the New Atheism.

How so?

It pretty much skips the rational discourse that other atheists respectfully engage in. I'm pretty sure Dawkins is quoted comparing theology to what he calls "leprechaunology," another fine example of his intellectual radiance.

How does it skip rational discourse? It seems a reasonably fair summation of the OT god. Albeit that it is vicious.

The quote is sort of an emotional attack on the biblical God rather than a logical critique of theism, which is what his book is meant to represent. This sort of behaviour is analogous to the New Atheism as a whole.

Wow......

Seriously?

Ok......

So, do you actually lack the ability to understand that one quote doesn't necessarily represent an entire book, or are you just being intellectually dishonest?

I'm certainly not saying the quote represents the entire book. I'm saying that it has no place in a book of that nature, since the book is meant to be a logical critique. It's further analogous to the New Atheism movement, since I generally find the New Atheists to engage in this sort of behaviour.


I don't think you've read the book, have you......

The first few chapters are, essentially, a logical summation of the god hypothesis, with Dawkins opinions on them. The rest of the book is about religion and morality, which this quote fits right into.

I have. I don't recall any intent to critique revealed religious morality, just natural theology. If there in fact are discussions of the revealed theology in relevant religions, then I retract my statement concerning the irrelevancy of the quote to the book.

"he second half of the book begins by exploring the roots of religion and seeking an explanation for its ubiquity across human cultures. Dawkins advocates the "theory of religion as an accidental by-product " a misfiring of something useful" as for example the mind's employment of intentional stance. Dawkins suggests that the theory of memes, and human susceptibility to religious memes in particular, can explain how religions might spread like "mind viruses" across societies.

He then turns to the subject of morality, maintaining that we do not need religion to be good. Instead, our morality has a Darwinian explanation: altruistic genes, selected through the process of evolution, give people natural empathy."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The way it's described here, the second half sounds like a composite critique of natural and revealed.

In a way. It's more that Dawkins presents religious moralities and gives his critiques on them. And he also gives an evolutionary explanation for the moralities we appear to have in common with the majority.


It is widely accepted that dawkins is a blubbering fool, who's admirers consist mostly of childish chavs who troll the internet, much of what dawkins has claimed in philosophical arguuments has been refuted by almost anybody who has a brain, even by his fellow atheists, Dawkins is a biology professor not a theologian of philosopher, he should stick to where he is good at because when he steps outside of his comfort zone of biology, he is made to look a fool.


He sold two million copies of the God delusion worldwide, but yet he claimed he had no interest in debating William Lane Craig, claiming he only debates high ranking members of the church such as cardinals and the like, yet he has had many debates with people who hold no such credentials, He ran away and hid from William lane craig, and I am not a supporter of Dr Craig, in fact I find him slightly annoying, but I would defend my God delusion principle with arguably the worlds most leading Christian apologist, William Lane Craig, instead of hiding in fear of shame......


Go bitch about Dawkins elsewhere please.

Actually I think I gave a fair account of Dawkins credibility to defend his views where it counts, but your reply is quite bitchy....Nevertheless I am happy to go elsewhere.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 11:26:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 10:58:56 AM, muzebreak wrote:

Go bitch about Dawkins elsewhere please.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 1:07:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Not true. Jesus didn't kill anyone. Yahweh did.

See my debate "Christianity is an Attack on Jesus Christ"
http://www.debate.org...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 1:12:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 11:17:17 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/8/2013 10:58:56 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 10:38:16 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/8/2013 8:09:07 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 7:55:38 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 7:36:11 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:49:38 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:45:26 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:28:50 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:03:27 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:55:54 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:35:10 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:29:28 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:25:12 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:21:38 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 4:53:41 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 4:43:42 AM, muizz99 wrote:

Question: Who is the God of Old Testament?

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Richard Dawkins

This quote says everything one needs to know about the New Atheism.

How so?

It pretty much skips the rational discourse that other atheists respectfully engage in. I'm pretty sure Dawkins is quoted comparing theology to what he calls "leprechaunology," another fine example of his intellectual radiance.

How does it skip rational discourse? It seems a reasonably fair summation of the OT god. Albeit that it is vicious.

The quote is sort of an emotional attack on the biblical God rather than a logical critique of theism, which is what his book is meant to represent. This sort of behaviour is analogous to the New Atheism as a whole.

Wow......

Seriously?

Ok......

So, do you actually lack the ability to understand that one quote doesn't necessarily represent an entire book, or are you just being intellectually dishonest?

I'm certainly not saying the quote represents the entire book. I'm saying that it has no place in a book of that nature, since the book is meant to be a logical critique. It's further analogous to the New Atheism movement, since I generally find the New Atheists to engage in this sort of behaviour.


I don't think you've read the book, have you......

The first few chapters are, essentially, a logical summation of the god hypothesis, with Dawkins opinions on them. The rest of the book is about religion and morality, which this quote fits right into.

I have. I don't recall any intent to critique revealed religious morality, just natural theology. If there in fact are discussions of the revealed theology in relevant religions, then I retract my statement concerning the irrelevancy of the quote to the book.

"he second half of the book begins by exploring the roots of religion and seeking an explanation for its ubiquity across human cultures. Dawkins advocates the "theory of religion as an accidental by-product " a misfiring of something useful" as for example the mind's employment of intentional stance. Dawkins suggests that the theory of memes, and human susceptibility to religious memes in particular, can explain how religions might spread like "mind viruses" across societies.

He then turns to the subject of morality, maintaining that we do not need religion to be good. Instead, our morality has a Darwinian explanation: altruistic genes, selected through the process of evolution, give people natural empathy."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The way it's described here, the second half sounds like a composite critique of natural and revealed.

In a way. It's more that Dawkins presents religious moralities and gives his critiques on them. And he also gives an evolutionary explanation for the moralities we appear to have in common with the majority.


It is widely accepted that dawkins is a blubbering fool, who's admirers consist mostly of childish chavs who troll the internet, much of what dawkins has claimed in philosophical arguuments has been refuted by almost anybody who has a brain, even by his fellow atheists, Dawkins is a biology professor not a theologian of philosopher, he should stick to where he is good at because when he steps outside of his comfort zone of biology, he is made to look a fool.


He sold two million copies of the God delusion worldwide, but yet he claimed he had no interest in debating William Lane Craig, claiming he only debates high ranking members of the church such as cardinals and the like, yet he has had many debates with people who hold no such credentials, He ran away and hid from William lane craig, and I am not a supporter of Dr Craig, in fact I find him slightly annoying, but I would defend my God delusion principle with arguably the worlds most leading Christian apologist, William Lane Craig, instead of hiding in fear of shame......


Go bitch about Dawkins elsewhere please.



Actually I think I gave a fair account of Dawkins credibility to defend his views where it counts, but your reply is quite bitchy....Nevertheless I am happy to go elsewhere.

It was bitchy because you came in and saw us having a discussion on Richard Dawkins, then jumped in and started insulting Dawkins heavily, without actually making any points related to the subject.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 1:46:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 1:12:41 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 11:17:17 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/8/2013 10:58:56 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 10:38:16 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/8/2013 8:09:07 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 7:55:38 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 7:36:11 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:49:38 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:45:26 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:28:50 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 6:03:27 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:55:54 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:35:10 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:29:28 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:25:12 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 5:21:38 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 4/8/2013 4:53:41 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/8/2013 4:43:42 AM, muizz99 wrote:

Question: Who is the God of Old Testament?

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Richard Dawkins

This quote says everything one needs to know about the New Atheism.

How so?

It pretty much skips the rational discourse that other atheists respectfully engage in. I'm pretty sure Dawkins is quoted comparing theology to what he calls "leprechaunology," another fine example of his intellectual radiance.

How does it skip rational discourse? It seems a reasonably fair summation of the OT god. Albeit that it is vicious.

The quote is sort of an emotional attack on the biblical God rather than a logical critique of theism, which is what his book is meant to represent. This sort of behaviour is analogous to the New Atheism as a whole.

Wow......

Seriously?

Ok......

So, do you actually lack the ability to understand that one quote doesn't necessarily represent an entire book, or are you just being intellectually dishonest?

I'm certainly not saying the quote represents the entire book. I'm saying that it has no place in a book of that nature, since the book is meant to be a logical critique. It's further analogous to the New Atheism movement, since I generally find the New Atheists to engage in this sort of behaviour.


I don't think you've read the book, have you......

The first few chapters are, essentially, a logical summation of the god hypothesis, with Dawkins opinions on them. The rest of the book is about religion and morality, which this quote fits right into.

I have. I don't recall any intent to critique revealed religious morality, just natural theology. If there in fact are discussions of the revealed theology in relevant religions, then I retract my statement concerning the irrelevancy of the quote to the book.

"he second half of the book begins by exploring the roots of religion and seeking an explanation for its ubiquity across human cultures. Dawkins advocates the "theory of religion as an accidental by-product " a misfiring of something useful" as for example the mind's employment of intentional stance. Dawkins suggests that the theory of memes, and human susceptibility to religious memes in particular, can explain how religions might spread like "mind viruses" across societies.

He then turns to the subject of morality, maintaining that we do not need religion to be good. Instead, our morality has a Darwinian explanation: altruistic genes, selected through the process of evolution, give people natural empathy."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The way it's described here, the second half sounds like a composite critique of natural and revealed.

In a way. It's more that Dawkins presents religious moralities and gives his critiques on them. And he also gives an evolutionary explanation for the moralities we appear to have in common with the majority.


It is widely accepted that dawkins is a blubbering fool, who's admirers consist mostly of childish chavs who troll the internet, much of what dawkins has claimed in philosophical arguuments has been refuted by almost anybody who has a brain, even by his fellow atheists, Dawkins is a biology professor not a theologian of philosopher, he should stick to where he is good at because when he steps outside of his comfort zone of biology, he is made to look a fool.


He sold two million copies of the God delusion worldwide, but yet he claimed he had no interest in debating William Lane Craig, claiming he only debates high ranking members of the church such as cardinals and the like, yet he has had many debates with people who hold no such credentials, He ran away and hid from William lane craig, and I am not a supporter of Dr Craig, in fact I find him slightly annoying, but I would defend my God delusion principle with arguably the worlds most leading Christian apologist, William Lane Craig, instead of hiding in fear of shame......


Go bitch about Dawkins elsewhere please.



Actually I think I gave a fair account of Dawkins credibility to defend his views where it counts, but your reply is quite bitchy....Nevertheless I am happy to go elsewhere.

It was bitchy because you came in and saw us having a discussion on Richard Dawkins, then jumped in and started insulting Dawkins heavily, without actually making any points related to the subject.

Actually I made a very good point, Richard sold two million copies of the God delusion but when it came time to defend his position on the high stage in front of the world and against arguably the worlds leading Christian apologetics, he backed out and was afraid to take him on, although the whole world was anticipating it.......He has been accussed of cowardice by a fellow oxford don who is also an atheist. I just brought it to your attention, seeing as you held the god delusion in such high esteem, whist Richard dawkins bank account is full of cash from the sales from this book, he never had the guts to defend it where it mattered.....again I am not a fan of William Lane Craig, But at least he wasn't a coward.