What's wrong with Dawkins?

[MindOverMatter]

We call that scientism, not science. :coffeeread:

Tell me more about this strange occult activity called scientism.

 

[buffalo]

Clearly not. Ooh, where? Can you provide a link?Yes - an observable, measurable, repeatable, empirical god. We call it science, and it’s rather good.

Indeed, God made science good keep it that way.

 

[Gabriella_San_S]

Clearly not. Ooh, where? Can you provide a link?Yes - an observable, measurable, repeatable, empirical god. We call it science, and it’s rather good.

Here’s a “link”…[fyi: Creator God*** is* compatible with science.btw]

Science is*** good*** and so is campbell’s soup! ("mmm, mmm good!)
It*** isn’t possible*** to make it a "god"…we can observe, measure, and repeat analyses and scientific theories with empirical results, until the cows come home…what does that really*** prove*** in the final analysis?
What is the meaning and purpose for your life? Aren’t you and Dawkins even a*** little*** bit curious about*** why*** we are all here? And where we are going? Now there’s the*** real*** challenge for you both…don’t let*** fear*** keep you from seeking*** real*** answers!

“We were made for God, and our hearts are restless, until we rest in** HIM**” (Saint Augustine)

 

[Gabriella_San_S]

You do think there is an orbiting teapot? Anybody else think that teapot is out there?

I thought*** you*** knew. Does it really matter? I just thought that a cup of tea sounded nice at the time.

 

[j1akey]

MindOverMatter:

The title of this thread is, what’s wrong with Darwkins.

Answer: He is a fundamentalist.

Uhhhhhhh…based on what I’ve seen you say on these forums before it sounds to me like you’re a fundametalist. Especially when it comes to your “quest to destroy atheism” in the “Design Through Evolution” thread you started.

So I guess it’s OK to be fundamentalist as long as it’s for the right team? The rest of us can just get bent?

Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

 

[Gabriella_San_S]

Uhhhhhhh…based on what I’ve seen you say on these forums before it sounds to me like you’re a fundametalist. Especially when it comes to your “quest to destroy atheism” in the “Design Through Evolution” thread you started.

So I guess it’s OK to be fundamentalist as long as it’s for the right team? The rest of us can just get bent?

Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

Doesn’t that make you a fundamentalist-on a quest to “save atheism” through your irritability that you’re team might not be winning? Does getting “bent” out of shape about the existence of a** Creator God** who is an awesome Designer make you hyper-critical? Just wondering.

 

[j1akey]

Gabriella San S:

Doesn’t that make you a fundamentalist-on a quest to “save atheism” through your irritability that you’re team might not be winning? Does getting “bent” out of shape about the existence of a Creator God who is an awesome Designer make you hyper-critical? Just wondering.

Well first in order to try and “save” something I’d first have to think something needed saving but that’s not really the point. I am who I am and I think what I think.

I also said nothing about getting “bent out of shape about the existence of a creator”, which was nicely taken out of context by the way. Telling someone to get “bent” is like telling them to get lost or **** off (trying to put it in a less offensive way) in the context in which it was used.

I’m also not sure how pointing out hypocrisy makes me hyper-critical of anything.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Okay, people. Let’s keep the discussion civil with no personal remarks from either side of the argument. Thank you all.

 

[Gabriella_San_S]

Well first in order to try and “save” something I’d first have to think something needed saving but that’s not really the point. I am who I am and I think what I think.

I also said nothing about getting “bent out of shape about the existence of a creator”, which was nicely taken out of context by the way. Telling someone to get “bent” is like telling them to get lost or **** off (trying to put it in a less offensive way) in the context in which it was used.

I’m also not sure how pointing out hypocrisy makes me hyper-critical of anything.

OP “What’s wrong with Dawkins”
In my* humble* opinion, what I believe is wrong with atheism in general, and those who ascribe to it’s fatalistic fallacies**, is that** pride and fear** are the** real** operative principles of* their* delusion. And I’d like to end with a prayer for Dawkins and his kind…"Oh Great and Glorious God, Give Light to the darkness of our Hearts, Give Us Right Faith, Certain Hope and Perfect Charity. Lord Give Us Wisdom and Insight , so We Might Always Discern, Your Holy and True Will. (the Seraphic Saint Francis of Assisi)

 

[wanstronian]

OP “What’s wrong with Dawkins”
In my* humble* opinion, what I believe is wrong with atheism in general, and those who ascribe to it’s fatalistic fallacies**, is that** pride and fear** are the** real** operative principles of* their* delusion.

How so? Isn’t the belief that God has a personal interest in the human race a significantly greater indication of personal pride than the belief that he doesn’ exist? What do you suppose atheists are so proud about? Their independence of thought? Well, maybe. And what do you suspect atheists to be afraid of? Given the approach of Catholicism to exploit the personal guilt of its followers, I’d imagine them to be far more fearful than your average atheist. And accusing atheists of fallacy is ironic in the extreme, not to mention ironic. Maybe you should look up what the word means. Finally, I have to take issue about the phrase ‘delusion’ - exactly what do you base this on? Our inability to see things that aren’t really there? That’s a ‘delusion’ I’ll sign up to, quite honestly.

And I’d like to end with a prayer for Dawkins and his kind…"Oh Great and Glorious God, Give Light to the darkness of our Hearts, Give Us Right Faith, Certain Hope and Perfect Charity. Lord Give Us Wisdom and Insight , so We Might Always Discern, Your Holy and True Will. (the Seraphic Saint Francis of Assisi)

Your intent is no doubt honourable, but your actions are unnecessary.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Wanstronian

*What do you suppose atheists are so proud about? Their independence of thought? *

Yes. Their imagined superior grasp of the truth that God does not exist and they therefore need not bend their knee to His will. The Greeks called it hubris. Catholic belief in our creation by God is not a cause for hubris, as you allege, but rather for thanksgiving. Moreover, in Catholic theology Pride heads the list of Seven Deadly sins.

*And what do you suspect atheists to be afraid of? *

That maybe after all there is Someone watching their sins.

 

[Gabriella_San_S]

Isn’t the belief that God has a personal interest in the human race a significantly greater indication of personal pride than the belief that he doesn’ exist?

True humility, lies in the self-deprecation of the human heart, in order to bow down in worship to the Majestic Creator God and to attribute the awesome splendor and design of the created universe to HIM as His creatures.Atheists reject the notion of a Higher Being through their own obstinance, and other self inflating dependencies.

What do you suppose atheists are so proud about? Their independence of thought? Well, maybe.

How well you prove that point here.

And what do you suspect atheists to be afraid of?

The very things that most men are afraid of… suffering; rejection; commitment;failure;their own ignorance; and ultimately,death…but for atheists-mostly submission to a Higher Power than themselves.

Given the approach of Catholicism to exploit the personal guilt of its followers, I’d imagine them to be far more fearful than your average atheist.

Thank you for revealing your personal prejudice against the True Church. That’s just a small example of the “fallacies” that incite an angry atheistic rejection of a “punitive” God. And how great a fallacy*** that*** is, my friend. I’m sorry you were never taught about** His** greatest attribute of Mercy.

And accusing atheists of fallacy is ironic in the extreme, not to mention ironic. Maybe you should look up what the word means.

I’m quite aware of it’s meaning- deception;or*** false*** notion, a meaning directly opposite of TRUTH. And I did mean it in the extreme. (no irony intended)

Finally, I have to take issue about the phrase ‘delusion’ - exactly what do you base this on? Our inability to see things that aren’t really there? That’s a ‘delusion’ I’ll sign up to, quite honestly.

Then you* reject* Dawkin’s "God Delusion"?? Surely he can’t see* so much* of what*** is really ***there! But you can pray for that grace to “see” at every moment.

Your intent is no doubt honorable, but your actions are unnecessary.

Well, I thank you for your kind words and for coming to CAF for this discussion. I do find it particularly* necessary* to continue praying for the salvation of souls, and will do it with your special intentions at heart. God bless you.

 

[wanstronian]

Wanstronian

*What do you suppose atheists are so proud about? Their independence of thought? *

Yes. Their imagined superior grasp of the truth that God does not exist and they therefore need not bend their knee to His will.

Well it it’s truth it should be easily proved. Please present your evidence at your leisure.

The Greeks called it hubris. Catholic belief in our creation by God is not a cause for hubris, as you allege, but rather for thanksgiving. Moreover, in Catholic theology Pride heads the list of Seven Deadly sins.

*And what do you suspect atheists to be afraid of? *

That maybe after all there is Someone watching their sins.

You seem to be saying that not believing in God is in itself a sin. Apart from being a circular argument, it paints a picture of God as a pretty nasty piece of work. If God exists, and judges people on whether they believe in him rather than whether they lead moral, loving, charitable, hard-working lives, then that is a God of fear, not a God of love. If he’s as nice as everyone here seems to think he is, then I have nothing to fear from the simple act of declining to believe in him. Surely he will judge me on my actions, not my beliefs?

 

[buffalo]

Well it it’s truth it should be easily proved. Please present your evidence at your leisure.
You seem to be saying that not believing in God is in itself a sin. Apart from being a circular argument, it paints a picture of God as a pretty nasty piece of work. If God exists, and judges people on whether they believe in him rather than whether they lead moral, loving, charitable, hard-working lives, then that is a God of fear, not a God of love. If he’s as nice as everyone here seems to think he is, then I have nothing to fear from the simple act of declining to believe in him. Surely he will judge me on my actions, not my beliefs?

Imagine a relationship with someone. For the relationship to grow you have to face each other and acknowledge each other. A relationship does not exist where one party refuses to acknowledge the other.

Now God is always facing and loving you. What is your response to Him?

God is perfectly loving and perfectly just. He has to be. You are trying to set your own terms.

Here is now the difference - you are no longer invincibly ignorant.

 

[Gabriella_San_S]

Well it it’s truth it should be easily proved. Please present your evidence at your leisure.
You seem to be saying that not believing in God is in itself a sin. Apart from being a circular argument, it paints a picture of God as a pretty nasty piece of work. If God exists, and judges people on whether they believe in him rather than whether they lead moral, loving, charitable, hard-working lives, then that is a God of fear, not a God of love. If he’s as nice as everyone here seems to think he is, then I have nothing to fear from the simple act of declining to believe in him. Surely he will judge me on my actions, not my beliefs?

Post #232 addresses all of your points here specifically. How curious that you didn’t respond directly to it. I’m left only to surmise that you found them irrefutable. Or maybe you needed more time for “independent” thought before tackling the substantive issues that were addressed.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Wanstronian

Well it it’s truth it should be easily proved. Please present your evidence at your leisure.

And when your truth that there is no God can be proven, please do so at your leisure.

You seem to be saying that not believing in God is in itself a sin.

It is. It’s the greatest sin and sneer in the world. The sneer usually goes away on one’s deathbed. :bible1:

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Wanstronian

If God exists, and judges people on whether they believe in him rather than whether they lead moral, loving, charitable, hard-working lives, then that is a God of fear, not a God of love. If he’s as nice as everyone here seems to think he is, then I have nothing to fear from the simple act of declining to believe in him. Surely he will judge me on my actions, not my beliefs?

It’s not an either/or situation. You can believe in God and still get to hell. What God wants is our friendship and our virtue (likeness to Him).

You don’t get to commit the most abominable sin by denying the existence of God (in Catholic theology this is called the unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit) and then pretend that working hard and playing nice with your friends will make up for the difference.

When someone says he wants nothing to do with God, God obliges him. And so forever after the atheist has no legitimate beef since it was he who chose hell, not God.

Not sure what any of this has to do with Dawkins except that I’d say it to him as well as to you.

 

[wanstronian]

Post #232 addresses all of your points here specifically.

Gabriella, it really doesn’t answer anything at all. It just presents a set of theist beliefs. Beliefs, not proofs.

How curious that you didn’t respond directly to it.

I truly felt that there was nothing to respond to

I’m left only to surmise that you found them irrefutable.

If it makes you feel better, go for it.

Or maybe you needed more time for “independent” thought before tackling the substantive issues that were addressed.

That must have been it. I’m sorry, I can’t take your post seriously. If you truly want me to respond to each of your points, I can do. Let me know.

 

[wanstronian]

Wanstronian

Well it it’s truth it should be easily proved. Please present your evidence at your leisure.

And when your truth that there is no God can be proven, please do so at your leisure.

Oh Charlemagne, please have a little dignity. I have not stated that I can prove God exists, I am simply asking those who claim he does, to prove it. The burden of proof is not upon me. You know this, yet you continue with straw man arguments. Have you nothing else? If you do, present it. If you don’t, admit it. But either way, quit this childish evasion

You seem to be saying that not believing in God is in itself a sin.

It is. It’s the greatest sin and sneer in the world. The sneer usually goes away on one’s deathbed. :bible1:

Quite a few people void their bowels too, I’m told .

Your belief is your own, of course. You are welcome to it. I repeat, if having a questioning, rational, scientific mind is a sin, then God is not a very nice invisible person.

 

[wanstronian]

Imagine a relationship with someone. For the relationship to grow you have to face each other and acknowledge each other. A relationship does not exist where one party refuses to acknowledge the other.

Now God is always facing and loving you. What is your response to Him?

God is perfectly loving and perfectly just. He has to be. You are trying to set your own terms.

Here is now the difference - you are no longer invincibly ignorant.

Well, the other difference is that I can see, touch and hear the person with whom I’m in a relationship. And so can everybody else. In other words, there is a wealth of evidence that they exist. I would say that’s a titanically bigger difference than the one you state.