-
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
-
-
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
Ray Comfort vs Dawkins.
- Thread starter John
- Start date
So did you guys watch the Dawkins videos?
I see know reason to hate the guy.. Unless of course his book makes terrifying sense to you ;)
For instance I own many religious books. For example I have the Koran and read it often. It's the reason I know I'm not a Muslim. I would never destroy it because many of the passages make me angry and many cultures as the result of it are ass-backwards living in the dark ages.
I see know reason to hate the guy.. Unless of course his book makes terrifying sense to you ;)
For instance I own many religious books. For example I have the Koran and read it often. It's the reason I know I'm not a Muslim. I would never destroy it because many of the passages make me angry and many cultures as the result of it are ass-backwards living in the dark ages.
G
GojuBrian
Guest
Hate? No, just not interested in self indulgent thoughts of non-believers. 
I do think we should educate ourselves on other beliefs, but not to get caught up in them.
I think it's funny that John's beliefs are so strong he would take a shotgun to the book. :D
It made me think of the many times I wanted to do the same thing to this computer, the television, etc... :yes
I do think we should educate ourselves on other beliefs, but not to get caught up in them.
I think it's funny that John's beliefs are so strong he would take a shotgun to the book. :D
It made me think of the many times I wanted to do the same thing to this computer, the television, etc... :yes
animal said:
If we are comfortable with our belief systems, and secure in the truth of them, then there should be nothing that sways us from them. Sounds as if you have arrived.
BTW, I watched the Dawkins videos. I felt sorry for him frankly.
2Ti 3:6 For of this sort (Dawkins) are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
What a shame.
lovely
Member
- Apr 20, 2005
- 3,012
- 0
Mr. Dawkins doesn't promote science, he promotes a hatred of people of faith to the point of trying to sway others to take away their liberties and keep them from practicing science entirely...even if they are ID'ers who agree with evolution. Mr Dawkins believes all people who believe in God are unfit to practice science without exception. May God bless Him and reveal Himself to him.
We should not hate him, but pray for him. We need to continue to speak the truth of the Gospel and live it before men, and Mr. Dawkins needs a touch from God so that his eyes may be opened to the undeniable truth of God's uncomparable Word. Unfortunately at the moment he is a tool of the deceiver being used to stir up hatred against God's people. He is a mocker, and should be pitied.
The Lord bless all of you, and I would like to encourage everyone to agree in prayer for this man. Paul was also a persecutor of God's people, and God blinded him so that he could 'see'.
We should not hate him, but pray for him. We need to continue to speak the truth of the Gospel and live it before men, and Mr. Dawkins needs a touch from God so that his eyes may be opened to the undeniable truth of God's uncomparable Word. Unfortunately at the moment he is a tool of the deceiver being used to stir up hatred against God's people. He is a mocker, and should be pitied.
The Lord bless all of you, and I would like to encourage everyone to agree in prayer for this man. Paul was also a persecutor of God's people, and God blinded him so that he could 'see'.
lovely said:
I'm sorry but you're completely wrong. He does not promote hatred of any kind and it's disgusting for anyone to think so. He sees nothing wrong with people having faith and has been quoted numorous times saying something along the lines of "far be it from me to impose my beliefs on others". He, like myself, has seen and studied the evidence and have been able to grasp it as a whole. We feel sorry for people who deny what can so easily be placed right in front of their faces. We're not taking God from anyone. We just want to keep people from shoving God into our faces telling us what we should teach as scientists aka students of your Gods supposed creation.
lovely said:
This makes no sense to anyone who understands that throughout history hundreds of Gods have lived as your God has and have been buried in the mass grave of mythology. But that's a completely different discussion.
destiny
Member
- Apr 15, 2004
- 4,043
- 4
I absolutely agree with you, lovely... because I see the hatred for God and Christianity in Dawkins, it comes out in His views and actions in a very obvious way.lovely said:
He is just another tool of satan and he should be pitied and prayed for, I agree. It takes a lot less faith for me to believe the God who has revealed Himself to me, than Dawkins game of theories and empty blanks. Sad.
destiny said:
If you insist on using the word hatred you should change "Christianity" to "theism" at least. He's not waging war against Christianity. He merely has a problem who's mindless devotion to dogma effects this world negatively. There is nothing wrong with being religious in his mind he (as well as mine) as long as people aren't trying to force the supernatural in the way of science, education, and healthcare.
animal said:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqg7S3scnpM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-pFTkUo ... re=related
Watch at least the beginning of the second video. Dawkins does a pretty good job of answering that pretty stupid (sounding) question at the end of video 1.
Actually no, try to watch all of video 2
animal, these are interesting videos.
But I must say, much of the time it doesn't sound like those who are atheist are very far off from the conclusion that God is possible ( even probable) in their thought process.
The question the woman poses around 2:21 (Video 1) is remarkable. Dawkins acknowledges her posit as a likely possibility, and mainly works from it for the remainder of the two videos. I agree with her posit. She says something extremely progressive in my mind:
" ....I'm wondering how reasonable it is to extrapolate from what we know about science on earth and assume that those laws and principles apply or would apply elsewhere in the universe as well?"
This is the very groundwork for acknowledging a possibility of something much much greater than ourselves. Now Dawkins goes on to discuss DNA and RNA and how likely other life might exist with DNA or a similar structure. He mentions proteins and whether or not that, or some other chemical, is necessary for life. He also discusses our carbon based life and suggests silica or ammonia as being viable building blocks as well.
Now in my opinion, these are possible, but I still believe the thinking to be a bit shortsighted.
Why can't life be something entirely different? We know a little about the relationship between matter and energy. We know about Electromagnetics and the curious relationship light has with both waves and particles. We understand what Gravity does (but what it is remains mysterious). We’ve postulated about the existence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Quantum Physics have opened entirely new realms of possibilities for what our universe might be. We know that our principles and laws break down when we are trying to quantify things such as singularities. There is so much reason to believe that laws and principles may be different elsewhere in the universe (or maybe right underneath our nose). My questions about life extend even further. Why can’t life exist in a state other than matter? Why can’t life exist in a state we cannot measure (such as Dark Matter or Dark Energy)? Why can’t life exist in dimensions we cannot even fully define? What else is in store for us to discover opening up even more possiblities?
Now, like Dawkins, I find the question at the end of Video 1 (around 8:15) absolutely fascinating as well.
The woman asks Dawkins what he thinks about the extent to which our laws and principles apply elsewhere in the universe. He responds:
"How much we can say on purely logical grounds has got to be true"
Now this statement is a bit sticky and I think Dawkins acknowledges this to a certain extent. However, I would add that with the advent of quantum physics and the discovery of things like singularities we already know that our logic is very limited.
Now I believe that we cannot abandon our logic, nor even think it is not true (we have to use something!), but I do think we should allow for governing principles beyond that which our minds can comprehend as logical.
We know there are places in the universe that are not logical, yet they are true. We know time and space break down.
Dawkins goes on to make the statement that complexity without evolution is highly improbable. I wouldn’t disagree with that, but improbable does not make impossible. And I would posit that the improbable does happen. We know it does. We know it does because we are here. And we are here because of the Big Bang. And I would think that Dawkins knows about the incredible complexity that was inherent in the singularity that was our universe in the beginning. It was infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, and infinitely complex.
Granted, Dawkins is talking about life in these two videos; however, in my opinion he is doing the very thing that he pointed out that many science fiction writers are guilty of: Taking too much from what they know about life on earth, and assuming it to be the only thing possible elsewhere.
There, in the singularity of the big bang, we have something that is infinite. I find it quite likely that in that exists something amazingly complex, even a complex life, (dare I say, an infinite life) something that would be... God.
Now I would say God is apart from even that... but that is probably just my faith.
lovely
Member
- Apr 20, 2005
- 3,012
- 0
Destiny,
You pinpointed it well. Mr. Dawkins 'preaches' a message of exclusion, get's rich from books and speeches that spread that hateful message, and yet the 'tolerant' intelligent scientists of the world are completely supportive of Him. (Scientists of faith excluded, of course) Mr. Dawkins is a very artful communicator. He can simply placate those who 'follow' him by peppering his message with comments that sound very tolerant. He is saying one thing, and pushing for another....and in all of it science isn't even really being debated.
The Lord bless you.
You pinpointed it well. Mr. Dawkins 'preaches' a message of exclusion, get's rich from books and speeches that spread that hateful message, and yet the 'tolerant' intelligent scientists of the world are completely supportive of Him. (Scientists of faith excluded, of course) Mr. Dawkins is a very artful communicator. He can simply placate those who 'follow' him by peppering his message with comments that sound very tolerant. He is saying one thing, and pushing for another....and in all of it science isn't even really being debated.
The Lord bless you.
Veritas said:
Great post
You obviously have the mind of a scientist. But to call something we accept that we do not understand and may never understand "God" is completely unecessary. Even things we do not understand are still apart of or are some extension of the natural world. Assuming they are bound by natural laws we currently understand we can assume one day we will be able to comprehend them. But who knows? We'll see. If they are not bound by the natural laws we currently understand then they are still bound by some law and are still apart of or an extension of the natural world. But in any case we cannot assume this thing can read our minds and answer our prayers. I'm not even going to get into it's ability to guide the hands of a few men and compose a few books.lovely said:
He is no different than any other real scientist. He studies the natural world. Many "faithful" scientists are no different than him when they are in the lab. Are you familiar with Kenneth Miller?
His "message of exclusion" is necessary for real science to work. I'm sorry.
And the only reason we can rely on real science is BECAUSE it is debated/argued over every single day.
John said:
Reading that gave me chills. Of course they aren't. I'm definitely most familiar with Behe and even I am capable of tearing his ridiculous irreducible complexity arguments apart.
What's wrong with Miller? He gave my name to a NY Times reporter a few months back who was writing an article on science students and their faith. That was a lot of fun. Anyway your problem with him is that he has a problem with intelligent design?