God Delusion is Delusional

[BlueShadow123]

I don’t think any of the reasons that Dawkins presents are reasonable at all.

I also don’t think he’s somehow unbiased because he is an atheist.

There are some reasonable atheists though.

I do. But thats personal opinion

 

[Windfish]

I do. But thats personal opinion

Can you name one?

 

[BlueShadow123]

Can you name one?

I cannot prove God exists if he is invisible. God has never appeared to me, or physically talked to me. You can’t disprove him either. Just like you cant disprove dragons, or unicorns or goblins.

If somebody were ever ask me for proof of God himself, I could not give any. I do not have his phone number or email or pictures of him. There is no proof I could present to them. That doesn’t mean hes not real, it means I have no evidence for somebody who is invisible.

 

[Windfish]

I cannot prove God exists if he is invisible. God has never appeared to me, or physically talked to me. You can’t disprove him either. Just like you cant disprove dragons, or unicorns or goblins.

Oh my, my sad face is coming back…

 

[BlueShadow123]

Oh my, my sad face is coming back…

Its true. I cannot prove to ANYBODY that God exists. I have no physical/scientific evidence of his existence. I wish I did, but I don’t. Actually, if I did, i’d be rich.

 

[BlueShadow123]

However Windfish, if you do have physical and scientific evidence for the existence of God, then show us! People would love to see it, and you could get rich pretty fast.

 

[Windfish]

Its true. I cannot prove to ANYBODY that God exists. I have no physical evidence of his existence.

Physical evidence is hardly the only criterion for proving the existence or truth of anything. Moreover, there is physical evidence, like scientifically examined miracles, which do point to God.

And yes, you can disprove the existence of dragons, unicorns or goblins. I recommend this article in full:

reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7249

 

[Windfish]

However Windfish, if you do have physical and scientific evidence for the existence of God, then show us! People would love to see it, and you could get rich pretty fast.

It is impossible to have physical or scientific evidence for non-empirical Being. As I have said, however, this is hardly the only criterion to establish the existence or truth of something.

 

[BlueShadow123]

It is impossible to have physical or scientific evidence for non-empirical Being. As I have said, however, this is hardly the only criterion to establish the existence or truth of something.

I am only speaking on GOD himself. You said yourself there is no physical or scientific proof of him. That is a big reason why athesits don’t believe in God.

However if you feel there is proof of him in other ways, I suggest you contact Mr. Dawkins (which this thread is about) and give him what you believe to be proof of God. Do not tell me this. I already believe God is real, I just don’t have physical and scientific evidence for him.
The miracles that you speak of would be very nice to see. However nobody seems to catch these things on tape. =/ Kind of a bummer, isn’t it?

I do definitely believe they have happened, and will continue to happen though. Also too, I don’t have any proof that any of them happened or are real.

So like I said, if there is proof that the ‘miracles’ that you speak of are actually miracles, then you need to take this to a scientific community and deal with it from there. Same goes for your proof of God you claim there is. There are many atheist, scientific communities out there. I suggest you talk to them about this and prove them wrong.

 

[Windfish]

I am only speaking on GOD himself. You said yourself there is no physical or scientific proof of him. That is a big reason why athesits don’t believe in God.

Then that it is foolish. It is not possible for non-empirical Being to yield that kind of evidence. As I said, though, this is not necessary.

However if you feel there is proof of him in other ways, I suggest you contact Mr. Dawkins (which this thread is about) and give him what you believe to be proof of God. Do not tell me, I believe God is real, I just don’t have physical and scientific evidence for him.

It wouldn’t do much good. He is a disciple of scientism. He has shut out God.

The miracles that you speak of would be very nice to see. However nobody seems to catch these things on tape. =/ Kind of a bummer, isn’t it?

Says who?

I do definitely believe they have happened, and will continue to happen though. Also too, I don’t have any proof that any of them happened or are real.

That’s a shame. Thankfully, though the Catholic Church does.

So like I said, if there is proof that the ‘miracles’ that you speak of are actually miracles, then you need to take this to a scientific community and deal with it from there. Same goes for your proof of God you claim there is. There are many atheist, scientific communities out there. I suggest you talk to them about this.

Why?

 

[BlueShadow123]

Then that it is foolish. It is not possible for non-empirical Being to yield that kind of evidence. As I said, though, this is not necessary.

If God is really all powerful and able to do anything, he can find a way to prove his existence to the skeptics.

It wouldn’t do much good. He is a disciple of scientism. He has shut out God.

If you had solid, scientific proof of God, then he would have no choice but to accept it.

Says who?

Really? If you have the link to the video, I’d love to see it!

That’s a shame. Thankfully, though the Catholic Church does.

Like I said, i’d love to see it. Please show it to me. I do want to see the proof that it wasn’t debunked either.

Why?

Because if you had actual scientific proof of God you would become rich and prove the atheists wrong. If you claim you have proof of God why wouldn’t you try and spread the proof to the scientific community? Atheists are the ones who need the proof the most.

 

[Windfish]

Again, though, God, at least directly, cannot be amenable to science. And Dawkins is a disciple of scientism! It would not accomplish anything to attempt to persuade him. His presuppositions, which are wrong, do not allow for God. Besides, if they would not listen to Moses or the prophets…

 

[BlueShadow123]

Again, though, God, at least directly, cannot be amenable to science. And Dawkins is a disciple of scientism! It would not accomplish anything to attempt to persuade him. His presuppositions, which are wrong, do not allow for God. Besides, if they would not listen to Moses or the prophets…

He just doesn’t see any scientific proof of God, hence he doesn’t feel he should believe in it.
Thats his choice.

 

[Windfish]

He just doesn’t see any scientific proof of God, hence he doesn’t feel he should believe in it.
Thats his choice.

But the notion that one only ought to believe in things that can be scientifically proven is, itself, an unscientific belief. By its own criterion, it must be discarded!

So no, there really isn’t anything reasonable or logical in the book. And this is why professional academics, both theists AND atheists, have ruthlessly criticized his book as amateur and embarrassing.

 

[BlueShadow123]

But the notion that one only ought to believe in things that can be scientifically proven is, itself, an unscientific belief. By its own criterion, it must be discarded!

So no, there really isn’t anything reasonable or logical in the book. And this is why professional academics, both theists AND atheists, have ruthlessly criticized his book as amateur and embarrassing.

Some have, some haven’t. You’ll get that with most books.

 

[AntiTheist]

A few thoughts on an earlier post by AntiTheist regarding Gospel integrity. Fragmentary discoveries of portions of the Gospels of Mark and Matthew have been dated to the period of 55-60 A.D. One very interesting book on the subject is “Eyewitness to Jesus”. Seven papyrus fragments of Matthew’s Gospel were re-discovered at Magdalen College, and their conclusion was that the Gospel pre-dated that of Mark. These Gospels were not written 3 or 4 generations after the death of Jesus.

I’m not going to quibble with you over dates – as I’ve said, it wouldn’t change matters in the slightest if we discovered autographed copies of texts by the four evangelists themselves dated the day after the events supposedly happened. Testimony is not sufficient to demonstrate extraordinary and supernatural events, as the alien abduction example very nicely demonstrates.

In addition, I find it very hard to believe that thousands of Christians marched happily to martyrdom for some arbitrary story akin to “bigfoot”. Something very special happened and they were willing to die for it.

That people are willing to die for a claim doesn’t tell us anything about whether or not the claim is true. That much should be obvious.

 

[Windfish]

Testimony is not sufficient to demonstrate extraordinary and supernatural events, as the alien abduction example very nicely demonstrates.

You cannot be this ham-handed. There is simply no basis of comparison between the shady post-hoc of an alien abduction to a real historical movement. It seems like you are very ignorant about the studies on this.

EDIT: I mean, scholars today come very, very close to the Resurrection, but they try to explain it away by offering alternate theories like the apostles working themselves up into ecstasy and “experiencing” the Risen Lord that way.

 

[awatkins69]

I’m not going to quibble with you over dates – as I’ve said, it wouldn’t change matters in the slightest if we discovered autographed copies of texts by the four evangelists themselves dated the day after the events supposedly happened. Testimony is not sufficient to demonstrate extraordinary and supernatural events, as the alien abduction example very nicely demonstrates.

Now this is interesting. You think that a miracle like the Resurrection is just plain impossible? Or is it by its nature extremely improbable?

If so, why?

Edit: By the way, an alien abduction wouldn’t be supernatural, if it actually happened. So it must be something else…

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

These debates are to some degree pointsless. For the believer the fact that you can not prove God by sceinfic means, means nothing as God is in evrything and the fact that something is proves that God is real. To the non believer they need someone to appear before them and say I am god and make a man to prove it. Anything less than that is not going to work.

Guess what I choose to believe I will share my beliefs with thos willing to hear them I will listen to those that do not believe but they will never convence me that God is a delusion. They will not even get me to admitt it is possible for there to not be God.

As I find the mear thought that there is no God troubling. you know the greatest thing about it is that I have great peace in the Lord and if I am wrong I will never know.

 

[Fenelon]

Dawkins is at his best when he speaks of what he knows: evolutionary biology (Read his latest book * The Greatest Show on Earth *; he makes a pretty convincing case). It’s when he strays into other subjects such as theology and philosophy that his arguments are less than pursuasive.

Personally I wouldn’t be too hard on Dawkins. He’s an atheist, but his quarrel is with the fundamentalists who want to teach creationism in public school. He is simply a sincere man who is fighting for what he believes is the truth. If he backed down at this point and conceeded to the creationists… then I would lose respect for him. It’s difficult to condemn a man for obeying his conscience…