Dawkin's Logic

[Ps 27:1]

This is just priceless.



1Cr 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness" (NIV)

On a sidenote. Still waiting on those wings. News at 11:00.

If believing the bible makes me delusional, then go ahead and call me delusional. It won't be the first or the last time.

If believing that it takes intelligence to make anything useful (even a crude arrowhead took someone with some intelligence) versus "lucky accidents", then go ahead and call me delusional. http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

Cheers,
Steve, the "delusional"

[Richard Amiel McGough]

This is just priceless.

1Cr 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness" (NIV)

On a sidenote. Still waiting on those wings. News at 11:00.

If believing the bible makes me delusional, then go ahead and call me delusional. It won't be the first or the last time.

If believing that it takes intelligence to make anything useful (even a crude arrowhead took someone with some intelligence) versus "lucky accidents", then go ahead and call me delusional. http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

Cheers,
Steve, the "delusional"

I don't see what's so "priceless" about a "gotchya" video. Everyone has a brain-freeze now and then. It doesn't impact anyone's understanding of evolution pro or con, unless they are basing their beliefs upon a debater's ability (or lack of thereof) to never stumble in a debate. But that would be a ridiculous standard for determining truth, wouldn't it?

And yes, if you believe things that are demonstrably false, regardless if the source is the Bible or not, then you are, by definition, delusional.

Case in point, things can be "useful" without them being designed. For example, a rock is very useful for a weapon. It was not designed for that purpose.

I think you batted zero in this round.

All the best,

Richard

[Ps 27:1]

I don't see what's so "priceless" about a "gotchya" video. Everyone has a brain-freeze now and then. It doesn't impact anyone's understanding of evolution pro or con, unless they are basing their beliefs upon a debater's ability (or lack of thereof) to never stumble in a debate. But that would be a ridiculous standard for determining truth, wouldn't it?

That is the whole point of the video. But I see it went right over your head. Like I said, your bias is clouding your judgement and comprehension ability.

Still waiting on those wings.

Steve

[Richard Amiel McGough]

That is the whole point of the video. But I see it went right over your head. Like I said, your bias is clouding your judgement and comprehension ability.

Still waiting on those wings.

Steve

Actually, it was my point that went over your head. Unlike your belief in the Bible, evolution does not depend on what any "authority" says. But you have to believe what you are told by your "paper Pope" that was put together by men that you deem to be "authorities." If their authority were invalid, then you faith would be shown to be false. Science is not estbalished on authority. It is established on logic, facts, and evidence. Religion is established on heresay by supposed "authorities" that must be believed without evidence.

[David M]

Posted by RAM
Actually, it was my point that went over your head. Unlike your belief in the Bible, evolution does not depend on what any "authority" says. But you have to believe what you are told by your "paper Pope" that was put together by men that you deem to be "authorities." If their authority were invalid, then you faith would be shown to be false. Science is not estbalished on authority. It is established on logic, facts, and evidence. Religion is established on heresay by supposed "authorities" that must be believed without evidence.

Richard. Your quote above stirs me to contribute to the chat you are having with Steve and as an observer I get a better perspective of what both sides are saying. Therefore, I wish to make the following general comments.

First of all, we have a choice to believe, we do not have to believe anything we are told; that is the freedom God gives to us.

You are stating that the Bible is not the work of God and herein is a fundamental problem that will exist between us. I picked up in a thread of Rose's which I forget in which thread it was, but Rose also states that she does not believe the Bible as the Word of God (correct me if I have got that wrong).

On the balance of evidence from Biblical archeology and Biblical prophecy and what I can see of nature around me, I believe in what God has revealed through His word. Man is just trying to find out as much as he can about the earth and nature and the universe and the sciences. Man is trying to acquire the knowledge of God without acknowledging Him. The generalisation is that man does not consider he has a finite mind and will ever reach the limit of his understanding and what he will be able to achieve. How appropriate are the words of Paul to Timothy describing man's intellect; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof:


Science is based on fact etc as you say, but some scientists will say that Evolution (in part) is based on bad science and does not report truthfully on the results found or has used unreliable methods to obtain the results. I am reporting what I have been told, I cannot produce the evidence now for supporting what I hear others claim, though I am inlcined to believe their word based on the understanding of science that I have and can appreciate the scientific arguments presented.

You are right in part about by saying; "Religion is established on heresay by supposed "authorities"." This is a major problem caused by mainstream religions not teaching the true God or the true Jesus of the Bible. I do not profess to be an authority, but I can see the mistakes others are making and falsely interpreting God's Word. Therefore, it is to be expected that I will side with those who have come to understand as I do and hold the same beliefs.

It is best if we can remain open-minded to hear other people's opinions; this does not mean we have to accept them as I know you do not. In this we agree. I will always reference the things spoken about God or Jesus back to God's Word as we have it in the Bible today. The fundamental truth of the Bible has been revealed in a simple way that a child can understand and maybe that is too simple for some people to see.

The arguments over whether God means this or that in His Word is completely separate from the scientific arguments that we are having with Evolution. In this we have disagreements between scientists who do not necessarily have to belive in God or the Creation. Where scientists disagree with other scientist, this must make us suspicious of the claims the scientists object to from their own profession.

As I have probably said elsewhere in another thread and will continue to repeat; God says there is only one way you can prove (test) that God exists and that is; who else can tell you the future before it happens? Scientists cannot tell the future any better than weather forecasters can predict what the weather will be like tomorrow or in a week's time. I know you are skeptical of Bible prophecy, but the Bible has been shown to be true in lots of different ways and there is also a lot more to be found out that we only see in part at the moment.

My own position is that I have been presented with a lot of evidence from all quarters and the result is; I have founded my belief and hope on the revelation from God. My belief is not unfounded or blind and whilst Richard Dawkins had a lapse of memory, I would not hold that against him. In fact, I agree with what he is saying about so-called Christians, because as others have come to find out, the true God of the Bible and the true Jesus of the Bible is not being taught by most of the Christian religions. Richard Dawkins is correct, if you ask a so-called Christian what they know, they know very little of what is in the Bible. What they do know is based on the lies they have been told. Unless they bother to find out for themselves what is the truth, they will remain blind. The other thing I can almost guarantee is that most of the so-called Christians do not apply the teaching of Jesus in their lives, because they have not read the Bible and therefore they cannot know what the teaching of Jesus is.Their conduct often betrays them.

If you ask a Catholic, a Protestant, a Jew etc why they hold the religion they do, they will most likely say it is because their parents are such an such. This is a form of tradition following in the name of the religion of their parents and not fully understanding what the religion stands for.

Now did you ever think I would agree with Richard Dawkins? In the main I don't, but then, as you say, we have to identify the truth of any position and discern the overall truth for ourselves.

As you say Richard, its great to chat with you.

David

[duxrow]

Well said, David -- my sentiments exactly, unless I missed a subtelty or something. The Bible is the most challenging and intriguing set of books ever written!

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard. Your quote above stirs me to contribute to the chat you are having with Steve and as an observer I get a better perspective of what both sides are saying. Therefore, I wish to make the following general comments.

First of all, we have a choice to believe, we do not have to believe anything we are told; that is the freedom God gives to us.

Hey there David,

I'm glad you jumped in to this conversation.

The idea that I can "choose what to believe" never made any sense to me. Can I choose to believe in gravity? That I am a man? That 2 + 2 = 4? I can't think of anything I "choose" to believe except those things which are NOT proven with evidence. So I could "choose" to believe that God inspired the Bible, but that belief is contradicted by much evidence so it doesn't make any sesne to make that choice.

You are stating that the Bible is not the work of God and herein is a fundamental problem that will exist between us. I picked up in a thread of Rose's which I forget in which thread it was, but Rose also states that she does not believe the Bible as the Word of God (correct me if I have got that wrong).

For many years I believed the Bible was the "work of God." Indeed, that's why I made this website. But I finally opened my eyes to the evidence, and concluded that if the Bible really is the "work of God" then one of it's intended messages is that we should not think of it as the "inerrant and infallible Word of God" because God put contradictions, errors, and moral abominations in it to make that impossible. Folks put their own personal dogma above the Bible and ignore what it actually says when they say that it is the "inerrant and infallible Word of God." The highest view of Scripture is to accept it as given, and when we do that, we must conclude that the author intended for us to understand that it is not entirely accurate.

On the balance of evidence from Biblical archeology and Biblical prophecy and what I can see of nature around me, I believe in what God has revealed through His word. Man is just trying to find out as much as he can about the earth and nature and the universe and the sciences. Man is trying to acquire the knowledge of God without acknowledging Him. The generalisation is that man does not consider he has a finite mind and will ever reach the limit of his understanding and what he will be able to achieve. How appropriate are the words of Paul to Timothy describing man's intellect; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof:

Paul was talking about religious fakers, not scientists.

There is very little Biblical prophecy that can be convincingly demonstrated to have been fulfilled. And there is much that is demonstably erroneous. And worse, most Christian reject the strongest evidence for fulfilled prophecy, namely, the prophecy of Daniel and the Olivet Discourse centered on the coming of Messiah before the destruction of the Temple. They reject the fulfillment of Daniel 9 (70 weeks) because they want those prophecies to be fulfilled in the future (re-built Temple re-desecrated by a re-vived Roman empire, etc.).

I see nothing that indicates people don't "want" to acknowledge God. The problem is that God has chosen to act as if he doesn't exist. He's taken himself out of the equation so that no rational person can include him in their description of physical reality as if functions on a daily basis. You can't blame the scientists for God's choice to hide himself.

Science is based on fact etc as you say, but some scientists will say that Evolution (in part) is based on bad science and does not report truthfully on the results found or has used unreliable methods to obtain the results. I am reporting what I have been told, I cannot produce the evidence now for supporting what I hear others claim, though I am inlcined to believe their word based on the understanding of science that I have and can appreciate the scientific arguments presented.

You've been grossly misinformed. Have you actually read any books that explain the science of evolution? If not, how is it possible that you think you are qualified to come to such a conclusion? Would you challenge the mathematical structure of General Relativity if you had never learned mathematics?

And besides, the folks who attack evolution do so for ideological reasons, whereas the hundreds of thousands of scientitst that have contributed to the theory and use it on a daily basis are simply doing sceince to the best of their ability. Most never enter into any polemical debates with Christains. That's not the point of their work at all. They are not driven by any thoughts about God, pro or con. And there are prominent evangelic Christians like Francis Collins who believe in God and know that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

You are right in part about by saying; "Religion is established on heresay by supposed "authorities"." This is a major problem caused by mainstream religions not teaching the true God or the true Jesus of the Bible. I do not profess to be an authority, but I can see the mistakes others are making and falsely interpreting God's Word. Therefore, it is to be expected that I will side with those who have come to understand as I do and hold the same beliefs.

I think you missed my point. The "authorities" of whom I spoke are named Peter, Paul, James, John, and the bishops, and scholars who put together the Bible that you take as "authortative." Why do you accept the work of those men as "authortative?" Why do you reject the apocrypha in the Catholic and Greek Orthodox Bibles? What is the real foundation of your faith?

It is best if we can remain open-minded to hear other people's opinions; this does not mean we have to accept them as I know you do not. In this we agree. I will always reference the things spoken about God or Jesus back to God's Word as we have it in the Bible today. The fundamental truth of the Bible has been revealed in a simple way that a child can understand and maybe that is too simple for some people to see.

I totally agree that we should be open-minded and listen to the opinions of others.

I don't think the Bible is as simple as you think. Sure, any child can understand things like "God is Love" but try to teach them the Trinity or why God gave ordered mass murder or how women are "saved in childbirth" and see what happens.

If your experience on internet forums has taught you anything, I would think it has taught you that Christians are the most discordant group in the world. Hardly anyone agrees about anything in the Bible. Everything is disputed. The plain words of Scripture are rejected by those who claim to love it most. Eschatology is the best example. Jesus plainly stated that the events of the Olivet Discourse would be fulfilled during the lifetime of the generation that heard him, and history confirms this fact, yet most Christians reject his words and "explain" why they mean something other than what they say. They prove by their actions that their unbiblical dogmas trump the Bible.

The arguments over whether God means this or that in His Word is completely separate from the scientific arguments that we are having with Evolution. In this we have disagreements between scientists who do not necessarily have to belive in God or the Creation. Where scientists disagree with other scientist, this must make us suspicious of the claims the scientists object to from their own profession.

Is there any other field of science that depends upon a belief in God? When people design airplanes, do they have to believe in God or the planes will crash? When folks design computers, do they have to believe in God to get the programs to work? Obviously not. God has nothing to do with science in any way at all because God has chose to act as if he does not exist.

The only reason Christians go after the Theory of Evolution and not the Theory of Electromagnetism is because the conclusions contradict their dogmas.

As I have probably said elsewhere in another thread and will continue to repeat; God says there is only one way you can prove (test) that God exists and that is; who else can tell you the future before it happens? Scientists cannot tell the future any better than weather forecasters can predict what the weather will be like tomorrow or in a week's time. I know you are skeptical of Bible prophecy, but the Bible has been shown to be true in lots of different ways and there is also a lot more to be found out that we only see in part at the moment.

I think a thread on "Fulfilled prophecies that prove the Bible" would be very interesting!

I am "skeptical" of Bible prophecy only because so little of it has been fulfilled. But my mind is open because there remains some prophecies that look like they may have been fulfilled (Daniel, Olivet Discourse, Revelation).

But that's not even relevant to the Big Picture because it wouldn't prove that the other things in the Bible were intended by God to be there. It seems completely obvious to me that the God of the OT frequently acts like a primitive Bronze-age tribal war god, and I would be a fool to believe that the true God is anything like that.

My own position is that I have been presented with a lot of evidence from all quarters and the result is; I have founded my belief and hope on the revelation from God. My belief is not unfounded or blind and whilst Richard Dawkins had a lapse of memory, I would not hold that against him. In fact, I agree with what he is saying about so-called Christians, because as others have come to find out, the true God of the Bible and the true Jesus of the Bible is not being taught by most of the Christian religions. Richard Dawkins is correct, if you ask a so-called Christian what they know, they know very little of what is in the Bible. What they do know is based on the lies they have been told. Unless they bother to find out for themselves what is the truth, they will remain blind. The other thing I can almost guarantee is that most of the so-called Christians do not apply the teaching of Jesus in their lives, because they have not read the Bible and therefore they cannot know what the teaching of Jesus is.Their conduct often betrays them.

Your sentiment is very common amongst members of this forum. Almost all who think of themselves as Christians say that most Christians are wrong on the fundamentals of the faith. This proves to me that God has nothing to do with the religion of Christianity or the teachings of the Bible. It's really quite ironic.

If you ask a Catholic, a Protestant, a Jew etc why they hold the religion they do, they will most likely say it is because their parents are such an such. This is a form of tradition following in the name of the religion of their parents and not fully understanding what the religion stands for.

That's exactly right. And that's why I asked you in another thread where you learned your religion. It sounds like you were a member of the Worldwide Church of God. If so, then you were a member of yet another "Christian denomination" that is rejected as "false" by many other Christians denominations. So I just reject it all as a confused mess that obviously has nothing to do with the truth of God. There's no way God could judge anyone on what they believe given the confusion in the Bible and all the different squabbling denominations that say everyone else is wrong!

Now did you ever think I would agree with Richard Dawkins? In the main I don't, but then, as you say, we have to identify the truth of any position and discern the overall truth for ourselves.

As you say Richard, its great to chat with you.

David

No, I certainly did not expect you to agree with Dawkins about anything. It's very refreshing!

Thanks again for your input.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The Bible is the most challenging and intriguing set of books ever written!

I agree completely. The literary critic Northrop Frye calls it the "Great Code" of Western civilization. It impacted and guided the development of Western civilization (for good and for ill) like no other.

But is it inerrant and infallible? Absolutely not.

[duxrow]

For many years I believed the Bible was the "work of God." Indeed, that's why I made this website. But I finally opened my eyes to the evidence, and concluded that if the Bible really is the "work of God" then one of it's intended messages is that we should not think of it as the "inerrant and infallible Word of God" because God put contradictions, errors, and moral abominations in it to make that impossible. Folks put their own personal dogma above the Bible and ignore what it actually says when they say that it is the "inerrant and infallible Word of God." The highest view of Scripture is to accept it as given, and when we do that, we must conclude that the author intended for us to understandr that it is not entirely accute

Richard

Hey RAM, I agree with much of what you say, but not with some of the 'spin' you put on it -- the "contradictions, errors, and moral abominations" come out differently for me... I'm not quick to accept opinions of others, but was impressed by your Triple acrostic of 66 books and could see it agreed with my own count of 66 generations from Adam to Jesus.
The many hidden things of scripture are there for us to meditate on and figure out... and the truthful-history of the ages for our learning. Rom15:4, rather than blaming God for "making it so". But of course when a person loves another, they'll do their best to resist blame and try to see that person in the most favorable light.
As I said, am in agreement with much of what you say, so am staying tuned. Blessings! /s/dux

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey RAM, I agree with much of what you say, but not with some of the 'spin' you put on it -- the "contradictions, errors, and moral abominations" come out differently for me... I'm not quick to accept opinions of others, but was impressed by your Triple acrostic of 66 books and could see it agreed with my own count of 66 generations from Adam to Jesus.
The many hidden things of scripture are there for us to meditate on and figure out... and the truthful-history of the ages for our learning. Rom15:4, rather than blaming God for "making it so". But of course when a person loves another, they'll do their best to resist blame and try to see that person in the most favorable light.
As I said, am in agreement with much of what you say, so am staying tuned. Blessings! /s/dux

Hey there Bob,

Thanks for the encouraging words. The Bible Wheel remains the strongest evidence for the Bible that I know of. But that's obviously irrelevant since it is unknown to the vast majority of Christians so obviously God did not set it up as central to the salvation of anyone.

The Bible is an amazing and rich book. I just have no reason to think it is the "inerrant and infallible Word of God." Do you?

I think it is foolish to credit God as the author of the Bible but then not "blame" him for things found in it.

Great chatting,

Richard