Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
I would accept he existed but not worship him because I would staunchly disagree with a lot of his morality/philosophy.
Richard Dawkins sums up religion
- Thread starter Merlin5
- Start date
I would accept he existed but not worship him because I would staunchly disagree with a lot of his morality/philosophy.
He/it would have to prove it
what would you class as evidence of god existing?
Like I said...you're having a discussion of your own here as I didn't say that.
I said its hypocritical to say mocking someone who has views you disagree with is acceptable, but then say that mocking someone who has views you agree with is unacceptable.
Now, as I said in my first post... its time to move on.
Criteria from The idea of the Holy along with the performance of something impossible like healing the world's sick at the same time. I cant' think of any other example and I'm sure everybody's idea of a god, if they had one, would be different.
If God made himself physically and intellectually apparent then I would question whether such a being needs or wants worship. Any Being of sufficient power who tells me the Bible is his literal word then I would question the authenticity of such a claim tbh...
Theists like to claim that god is transcendent. In other words he transcends the natural world. He exists beyond space and time. He can intervene in our reality at will. If god exists and has the qualities that theists bestow upon him, then he would have no trouble proving his existence.
It's not an atheists job to disprove god. It's the theists job to prove he exists as they are making the claim and they have the burden of proof.
It's quite telling that no such proof exists.
Also, before anyone starts quoting the bible as proof of god, stop. The bible is not proof of anything. If the bible proved god then Lord Of The Rings would prove Hobbits and Harry Potter would prove wizards.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
You implied it.
No you are not, you are saying that mocking Dawkins' name is equally as valid as mocking someone's beliefs, something that I don't take as a given.
No one is saying Professor Dawkins is above mockery, they are saying it is lame to pun the first syllable of his name in response to his mockery of those that believe in (essentially) magic and fairy tales.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Until you ask them why Hitler (sorry Godwin) and murderers exist, then suddenly God is powerless because he gave us "free will". Just another example of the contradictory nature of religious belief.
In your head perhaps. But I'm telling I did not. That and what I've said previously should be clarification enough. If it's not, then frankly that lack is your problem.
Clearly I know what I am saying and what my intent was better than you, whatever you thought I said, i was gracious enough to clarify it for you, so accept what I said and move on.
Last edited:
Indeed. This can be countered by the problem of evil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil
A 3 Omni god is negated and thus disproved by the problem of evil.
It only works if you make the assumption a 3 omni god would want to remove evil. Otherwise the argument doesn't work.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
So you are now denying that your argument was, in a nutshell (up til this point anyway), that calling Richard Dawkins, Richard Dork-ins is as equally justified as Dawkins mocking the belief the the supernatural?
That WAS your original argument here, your previous posts are evidence of that, you just have to read upwards.
Only after realising how silly that is have you now changed your tone to 'no one should be above criticism' which absolutely no one disagreed with in the first place.
It's not. As you've made assumptions on the nature of God's omnipotence that are that are not entirely compatible with mainstream Christian Theology or with the definition of Omnipotence in the languages of the Bible (where is relates to All-Powerful rather than Absolute Infinite Power)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
It works because if you read the Christian bible, the 3 Omni god is claimed.
You still have to assume that a 3 omni god wants to remove evil.
So no, your version of what I said simply isn't correct. I never said anything was justified (in fact I am on record on this forum saying I don't think mocking someone for their views is really acceptable in a debate), only that it is hypocritical to advocate mockery on one hand and denounce it with the other.
No. You don't understand. If god is omnibenevolent as is claimed in the bible, then this is in direct contradiction to the self evident truth that evil exists.
This contradiction can only be resolved one of two ways. Either there is no evil in the world. But we know there is. Or god is not omnibenevolent. In which case the bible is wrong.
so then god would either :-
A) like evil
B) not care about evil
C) not know about evil
D) not have the power to stop evil
either way, it doesn't sound like the god being preached about.
Unlimited power is not absolute or infinite power.
CS Lewis said "His Omnipotence is the power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not what is intrinsically impossible"