Dawkins relies on ignorance

[Kulindahr]

In your dictionary, "literalist" means "Anything but the plain and easily discernible meaning which is fatal to my position."

That's a lie and you know it. It has a meaning in scholarship, and I use it.

 

[Kulindahr]

You keep calling people ignorance LOL
Do you know how long it took people to become an atheist ?
Most people took 20, 30 plus years to become an atheist. They looked at all the evidence provided and concluded they DON'T believe. That is not ignorance.

The "Funny Anti-Religious Internet Pics" thread refutes your claim. Most of the atheists who post in their are delighted by ignorance -- a huge portion of what is supposed to be funny is actually just either deliberate lies or utter ignorance.

And as you confessed earlier, you didn't even look at the evidence.

 

[Kulindahr]

I keep wondering where the idea that the Bible says anything about how old the Earth is comes from other than some folks sitting around counting begats for no good reason.

It comes from not bothering to ask what they're reading, and assuming the Bible is little more than a bus schedule and/or shopping list.

 

[Telstra]

I've listened to hours of Dawkins, and his argument boils down to "If it doesn't look like science, you're delusional".

Nope,
I did the same and it doesn't boils down to that.

 

[Kulindahr]

Bullshit analogy, you aren't proposing yourself as an all knowing, all powerful, creator of all, agent that set the sun in the sky on it's course in the first place and wrote the laws of physics, because if you were such a personage, you are the mover not the laws and not the sun, which also you aren't proposing has any ability to choose to come up or not, so fail all around there. So no, do not pass go do not collect $200.00.

If god created you, he created your flaws, created the environment that would cause you to sin, then put you in it, with no possibility of him being wrong and you not sinning when he KNEW you were going to sin. Omniscience, what a bitch. With just a little effort, he could have created a different you that would not have sinned in the first place. You have no ability to surprise god, who made you the way you are, and put you in the position to sin, and didn't give you the option of acting in any other way than commuting the sin he knew you'd commit. YOU can't surprise god who made you to do exactly what he knew you were going to do, in every instance, omnipotence, what a bitch. WHY DIDN'T HE MAKE A YOU THAT WOULDN'T SIN?

Because it's a necessary plot point for the rest of the mythology that's why, if you can't sin, there's no need for salvation, if there's no need for salvation, there is no need for Christ, who is only needed because man sins. It's just an illogical circular justification for the whole she-bang.

"All-knowing" is irrelevant. Your premise is that if an action is known ahead of time, it was determined.

That just demonstrates shallow thinking.

The rest of your paragraph shows you haven't bothered to check out what you're talking about. This is true: God created this universe, but this is not the universe God created.

 

[Kulindahr]

Nope,
I did the same and it doesn't boils down to that.

Since you're already a self-confessed claimant to things you didn't do, this claim means nothing.

When in a corner, Dawkins resorted to "I think you're delusional". It was his final argument.

 

[Stardreamer]

If I was going to believe in a Deity, it would have to be the kind of deity who's divine finger stroked the primordial ooze one fine afternoon, and has since been handing out the odd epiphany now and then. Why? Curiosity, probably just because, boredom, amusement? Certainly nothing noble or altruistic.

Boredom was another philosophical idea I liked out of a science fiction novel of all places, based on the idea that God is in all of us and we are all part of the divine. The idea that God created the universe not just as a place for sentience to evolve but as a challenge for him(her?)self. Having set the universe in motion in the 'Big Bang' he then merged with it and his consciousness is spread among all life in the universe semi-aware and struggling though the evolution of sentience to solve the puzzle of himself. That struggle manifests in all the religion, philosophy and the occasional manifestation of prophets, wise men and miracles. This is an interesting viewpoint because it works no matter what your belief and evidence.

 

[Kulindahr]

I have a particular philosophy I am attracted to that NONE of the religions are literally true but they may have pieces of the truth.

That would only be true if the Creator isn't really interested in communicating with His creation.

 

[Kulindahr]

Boredom was another philosophical idea I liked out of a science fiction novel of all places, based on the idea that God is in all of us and we are all part of the divine. The idea that God created the universe not just as a place for sentience to evolve but as a challenge for him(her?)self. Having set the universe in motion in the 'Big Bang' he then merged with it and his consciousness is spread among all life in the universe semi-aware and struggling though the evolution of sentience to solve the puzzle of himself. That struggle manifests in all the religion, philosophy and the occasional manifestation of prophets, wise men and miracles. This is an interesting viewpoint because it works no matter what your belief and evidence.

It's utterly contradictory to Christianity and Islam, for starters.

 

[TX-Beau]

"All-knowing" is irrelevant. Your premise is that if an action is known ahead of time, it was determined.

That just demonstrates shallow thinking.

The rest of your paragraph shows you haven't bothered to check out what you're talking about. This is true: God created this universe, but this is not the universe God created.

No I'm saying that God created the action, the actor, the context, and the consequence in the first place, already knowing the outcome. He could have created different for a different outcome could he not? The rest of that is your standard myopic obfuscation when confronted with the illogical aspects of a God YOU believe is factual.

 

[TX-Beau]

Boredom was another philosophical idea I liked out of a science fiction novel of all places, based on the idea that God is in all of us and we are all part of the divine. The idea that God created the universe not just as a place for sentience to evolve but as a challenge for him(her?)self. Having set the universe in motion in the 'Big Bang' he then merged with it and his consciousness is spread among all life in the universe semi-aware and struggling though the evolution of sentience to solve the puzzle of himself. That struggle manifests in all the religion, philosophy and the occasional manifestation of prophets, wise men and miracles. This is an interesting viewpoint because it works no matter what your belief and evidence.

Sounds a lot like some types of N.A. animism. Without the science references of course. Paganism in general follows that kind of idea more or less.

 

[TX-Beau]

That would only be true if the Creator isn't really interested in communicating with His creation.

A fair question, why should he be interested in talking to you?

 

[palbert]

Time for

"Select individual Word Counts (rounded to nearest ten) & associated Word Clouds (most frequent one-dozen uncommon words)"

to see how the discussion goes.

 

[opinterph]

Time for

"Select individual Word Counts (rounded to nearest ten) & associated Word Clouds (most frequent one-dozen uncommon words)"

to see how the discussion goes.

Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.

 

[TX-Beau]

In Kansas, the earth is only 4000 years old.

 

[opinterph]

In Kansas, the earth is only 4000 years old.

I think the number is closer to 6,000~ but you are awarded the point anyway.

 

[opinterph]

i don't need to read books. I listened to people and judge for myself.

Some people learn by reading text. Other people learn by watching videos.

 

[opinterph]

I found the article rather patronising and illogical in places.

Thank you. I started to mention that in my initial post, but refrained.

 

[mightbe]

When in a corner, Dawkins resorted to "I think you're delusional". It was his final argument.

And yet, you keep calling us all ignorant.

Here's some ad hominem: Time and time again you set out to demonstrate how infinitely superior your views are, and time and time again you prove your own conceit. Here's what tends to happen: you approach conversations with a supremely arrogant and sanctimonious attitude, and repeatedly manage to prove that you're the most myopic and obstinate person in the discussion. You give glib dismissals, lengthy and occasionally self-contradictory responses, and generally attempt to portray yourself some kind of rhetorical genius. When someone calls you out on it, you'll repeat your earlier argument and then offer advice on how to be more like you--usually accompanied with some deprecating criticism. You will intentionally obfuscate your own wording just to allow the possibility of correction sometime in the future. That's dishonest. When you're accused of anything, even something you actually are, you'll take the opportunity to "correct" them in some way. That's frankly very condescending.

Here's my reply: You've quite literally only acknowledged the finality of the statement, without your precious "context and idiom". That's the "final argument" because nothing else would register with the other debater. There was nothing Dawkins could say that would make them listen. That doesn't make it his official argument, it makes it the last point to appear. It's a last resort when dealing with a particularly stupid person. If nothing else got through, if none of the well-reasoned and eloquent verbiage presented earlier in the debate made any appreciable impact, Dawkins will fight fire with fire. Belief with belief. The "corner" you speak of is the corner of the other's arrogance and hard-headedness.

And now to play your favorite card: "You've misinterpreted T-Rexx; here is how to properly digest that post." Where did T-Rexx say that an exact course of action was predetermined? Right! He didn't. What he did say was "you can't surprise God". An omniscient God would be fully cognizant of every future possibility--that means diverging from every situation are two or more possibilities. Every possibility can be seen and understood with equal clarity. You couldn't surprise God because he'd have foreseen every juncture. That doesn't mean that God knows the exact chain of events beforehand, simply that he knows every possible chain of events. I doubt God would sit there and place bets.

 

[mightbe]

That would only be true if the Creator isn't really interested in communicating with His creation.

Who's to say he isn't? A divine entity would have more pressing matters to tend to than to play "Big Brother" with all of his creations. And even if he didn't, what enjoyment would be gained?