Answering the New Atheism by Scot Hahn

Stephentlig

Hello, I am about to buy this book and have watched the following videos concerning its content and I really enjoyed them. I am wanting Christians who have read the book to let me know if it was a good read.... or if you have not read it to watch all three videos right the way through and let me know if they think if would be a good buy?

Dr.Scott hahn is a Catholic apologist for the faith who along with his colleague has written a book that dismantles dawkins incredulous God delusion published back in 2005.

let me know your thoughts upon it, the interview runs in 3 parts.


Pax Christi,
Stephen


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f-I1w9R8co ( part 1 )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbNcFX6VnWU ( part 2 )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCz7zRO7vA0 ( part 3 )

strobe

Stephentlig wrote: »

Hello, I am about to buy this book and have watched the following videos concerning its content and I really enjoyed them. I am wanting Christians who have read the book to let me know if it was a good read.... or if you have not read it to watch all three videos right the way through and let me know if they think if would be a good buy?

Dr.Scott hahn is a Catholic apologist for the faith who along with his colleague has written a book that dismantles dawkins incredulous God delusion published back in 2005.

let me know your thoughts upon it, the interview runs in 3 parts.


Pax Christi,
Stephen


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f-I1w9R8co ( part 1 )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbNcFX6VnWU ( part 2 )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCz7zRO7vA0 ( part 3 )

I was given a present of the book a few of months ago by a freind of mine, haven't gotten around to reading it yet but will let you know (if you are interested) what I thought of it over the next few days.

In relation to the interview.....well to misquote Eamon Dunphy, "ha ha Bill, that's the first time we've seen three grown men having sex live on youtube". They use the word snide so often to describe Dawkins, do you think they know the meaning of the word? If they watched that interview back do you think they would better understand the words irony or hypocrite?

Kepti

strobe wrote: »

I was given a present of the book a few of months ago by a freind of mine, haven't gotten around to reading it yet but will let you know (if you are interested) what I thought of it over the next few days.

In relation to the interview.....well to misquote Eamon Dunphy, "ha ha Bill, that's the first time we've seen three grown men having sex live on youtube". They use the word snide so often to describe Dawkins, do you think they know the meaning of the word? If they watched that interview back do you think they would better understand the words irony or hypocrite?

I've never seen such a softball interview. The interviewer actually giggles at the end of a couple of questions.

I really don't like the authors trying to argue for the existence of God through science. Religion is based on faith; God is outside the domain of science.

They brought up the story of an 80 year old philosopher, who after a lifetime of atheism concluded that there was a god. They then used this example to argue that belief in god was a logical conclusion of a lifetime of philosophy, while completely ignoring every single atheist philosopher who ever existed.

Later in part three, they bring up Lenin, Stalin, and Mao Tse Tsung as examples of atheist leaders, again ignoring every single tyrant in human history who happened to be religious. This is shameless scaremongering. They even raise Nazi Germany as an argument, just in case the communist triumvirate wasn't frightening enough.

Here's a quote by the interviewer in reference to Dawkins' book: "...it's getting out there. It's stealing those souls, it's destroying lives, it's destroying cultures..."

I'm an atheist, but at the same time I have a lot of respect for peoples' religious beliefs. However, I don't have a shred of respect for these authors. I think their arguments are incredibly dishonest, and I have a suspicion that the publishing of this book is a cynical attempt to make some money on the back of the popularity of "The God Delusion".

monosharp

Kepti wrote: »

Later in part three, they bring up Lenin, Stalin, and Mao Tse Tsung as examples of atheist leaders, again ignoring every single tyrant in human history who happened to be religious. This is shameless scaremongering. They even raise Nazi Germany as an argument, just in case the communist triumvirate wasn't frightening enough.

Whats frightening is the number of people who believes this tripe, then again its probably the same kind of people who believe anything which supports their beliefs, religious or political or anything in fact.

I'm not even the biggest fan of 'the god delusion', i find him much more interesting when he talks about biology, but those videos are just ridiculous nonsense.

Argumentum ad populum et argumentum ad Logicam.

Its rubbish and I'd love to hear anyones argument otherwise.

Xluna

Adding comments has been disabled for this video

Nuff said.

mehfesto

"the evidence"
"the science"
"the arguements"

none of these are explained, but just words thrown in to make a weak argument look poor. There is better out ther than this. It's merely piggybacking on the success of God Delusion.

The first video really only attacks his tone. Which is a piss poor argument. They're Reading G.D as some sort of atheist bible, that dawkins mistakes are indicative of atheism. They're not.

I suggest the op finds a better text than this. I wouldn't imagine it hard to find one.

kelly1

Stephentlig wrote: »

Dr.Scott hahn is a Catholic apologist for the faith who along with his colleague has written a book that dismantles dawkins incredulous God delusion published back in 2005.

Hello Stephen, to defend effectively against atheism, I think one needs to be qualified/well versed in science, philosophy and theology - a rare combination I would say!

I know Dr. Hahn is an excellent biblical scholar but I'm not so sure he'd be as comfortable arguing philosophy or science. Quoting scripture to atheists only brings derision but I think atheism can be easily attacked on philosophical grounds.

I'll take a look at the vids if I get a chance.

God bless,
Noel.

Stephentlig

kelly1 wrote: »

Hello Stephen, to defend effectively against atheism, I think one needs to be qualified/well versed in science, philosophy and theology - a rare combination I would say!

I know Dr. Hahn is an excellent biblical scholar but I'm not so sure he'd be as comfortable arguing philosophy or science. Quoting scripture to atheists only brings derision but I think atheism can be easily attacked on philosophical grounds.

I'll take a look at the vids if I get a chance.

God bless,
Noel.

Thanks everyone for your replies, I found your replies much similiar to others, everyone simply rubbishes their attitude/argument, but does not actually respond to it. I find it interesting that many atheists ( if they are honest with themselves ) never read these books and check out the other side of the coin, but to the contrary, many ordinary joes of society who have already made up their minds about the existence of God prior to reading books such as the God delusion often dont want to check out the other side of the coin lest their beliefs be undermined and their tower of fundamentlist atheism falls flat. I today read a book of a Christian theolgian, who said that at one of his lectures in response to the God delusion a richard dawkins fan was outraged after it and came up to him waving his finger agitatingly and said ''you have destroyed my faith''. He had built his whole system of belief upon the inadequate and shaky foundations of another man ( richard dawkins ) who came across to him in is works as ''more intelligent than you'' therefore ''you should listen to me''.

he had to go away and revisit and question his whole system of belief again.

Noel thank you for taking the time to look at the videos, Dr.Scott hahn is on your side, he says in the videos that we know we cant quote scripture to them as it holds no authority, therefore we have to meet them on their ground, he is well versed in philosophy, and I feel he is capable of responding to it. many think the book is just trying to make money off the God delusion, but do they expect us just to sit back an not write any books at all? I find that a silly statement and one that does not respond to the argument.

God bless
Stephen

Scott received his Bachelor of Arts degree with a triple-major in Theology, Philosophy and Economics from Grove City College, Pennsylvania, in 1979, his Masters of Divinity from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in 1982, and his Ph.D. in Biblical Theology from Marquette University in 1995. Scott has ten years of youth and pastoral ministry experience in Protestant congregations (in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Massachusetts, Kansas and Virginia) and is a former Professor of Theology at Chesapeake Theological Seminary. He was ordained in 1982 at Trinity Presbyterian Church in Fairfax, Virginia. He entered the Catholic Church at the Easter Vigil, 1986.

Kepti

Stephentlig wrote: »

Thanks everyone for your replies, I found your replies much similiar to others, everyone simply rubbishes their attitude/argument, but does not actually respond to it. I find it interesting that many atheists ( if they are honest with themselves ) never read these books and check out the other side of the coin, but to the contrary, many ordinary joes of society who have already made up their minds about the existence of God prior to reading books such as the God delusion often dont want to check out the other side of the coin lest their beliefs be undermined and their tower of fundamentlist atheism falls flat. I today read a book of a Christian theolgian, who said that at one of his lectures in response to the God delusion a richard dawkins fan was outraged after it and came up to him waving his finger agitatingly and said ''you have destroyed my faith''. He had built his whole system of belief upon the inadequate and shaky foundations of another man ( richard dawkins ) who came across to him in is works as ''more intelligent than you'' therefore ''you should listen to me''.

he had to go away and revisit and question his whole system of belief again.

Noel thank you for taking the time to look at the videos, Dr.Scott hahn is on your side, he says in the videos that we know we cant quote scripture to them as it holds no authority, therefore we have to meet them on their ground, he is well versed in philosophy, and I feel he is capable of responding to it. many think the book is just trying to make money off the God delusion, but do they expect us just to sit back an not write any books at all? I find that a silly statement and one that does not respond to the argument.

God bless
Stephen

You know what I find interesting? Your casual dismissal of every single argument made against these authors and their book in your very first sentence. This snippet was particularly amusing: "everyone simply rubbishes their attitude/argument, but does not actually respond to it.". I hope you can see why.

Do you support their demonizing of atheism?

Stephentlig

You know what I find interesting? Your casual dismissal of every single argument made against these authors and their book in your very first sentence. This snippet was particularly amusing: "everyone simply rubbishes their attitude/argument, but does not actually respond to it.". I hope you can see why.

and your not reading my snippet (as you call it) properly, I'm saying that you have not responded to the argument for the existence of God put forward in his interview or book, but are simply just rubbishing his position with snide like comments.

Do you support their demonizing of atheism?

we dont have to demonize it, communists like Stalin etc etc have already done that for us, atheists who when put into power have murdered hundreds of thousands Christians and religious alike because they did not convert to their belief. Abusing children in the 1950's in their classrooms getting them to recite mantras such as ''Science has disproved religion.'' ''there is no God''.

Xluna

That has more to do with Communism than atheism. Communist are atheist but very few atheists are communists. All atheism denotes is a lack of belief in a deity. Why can't people comphrend this simple fact? I'll have to use it as my signature.:rolleyes:

Sam Vimes

Stephentlig wrote: »

we dont have to demonize it, communists like Stalin etc etc have already done that for us, atheists who when put into power have murdered hundreds of thousands Christians and religious alike because they did not convert to their belief. Abusing children in the 1950's in their classrooms getting them to recite mantras such as ''Science has disproved religion.'' ''there is no God''.

What about religious believers who murdered hundreds of thousands and who abused generations of our children in far worse ways than getting them to recite mantras? Did they demonise religion?

Who got children to recite those mantras? I've never heard of that happening. Surely you can't be referring to one or two instances where you heard of this happening and inferring that the entire concept of atheism is demonised because of it?

Stephentlig

What about religious believers who murdered hundreds of thousands and who abused generations of our children in far worse ways than getting them to recite mantras? Did they demonise religion?

Sam, yes I knew this would be the response, but its not just mantras, many were burned alive too and they did medical experiments on them, do some research into it and you'll find it. you've also pin pointed that its not about conduct its about truth, both of us can expose the ''fundamental'' of each side, Christians are guilty of bad conduct in the past, but such conduct was never willed by the Doctrine of Christ or God himself.

Many atheists are also would not agree with killing people for not beleiving in their system of belief. I'm showing though that Christians use their christianity to condone the killing of others and atheists use atheism to do the same thing. both Christianity and Atheism are beliefs that require faith on the evidence provided, but the fact that atheists cant prove there is no God is a beleif that is a leap of faith, which is based on no evidence at all. they try and explain away Christian miracles with probability causes and theories that have no evidence to sustain them. ''its probably due to a shift in the DNA'' ''Its probably due to the chemicals in their brain'' probably probably probably is all I hear Sam.

Who got children to recite those mantras? I've never heard of that happening. Surely you can't be referring to one or two instances where you heard of this happening and inferring that the entire concept of atheism is demonised because of it?

not just mantras sam but they were murdered, hundreds and thousands of them murdered and dumped into trenches, bulldozed in there were that many bodys. as I said do some research into it and you'll find out more.

Sam Vimes

Stephentlig wrote: »

Sam, yes I knew this would be the response, but its not just mantras, many were burned alive too and they did medical experiments on them, do some research into it and you'll find it. you've also pin pointed that its not about conduct its about truth, both of us can expose the ''fundamental'' of each side, Christians are guilty of bad conduct in the past, but such conduct was never willed by the Doctrine of Christ or God himself.
...
not just mantras sam but they were murdered, hundreds and thousands of them murdered and dumped into trenches, bulldozed in there were that many bodys. as I said do some research into it and you'll find out more.

Yes both of us can expose the fundamentalists on each side so pointing out that some atheists have done bad things is irrelevant and does not demonise atheism any more than christians doing bad things demonises christianity. You say that such things were never willed by the doctrine or christ himself (you may have met my friend the true scotsman) but atheism doesn't even have a doctrine to will these things. Some people are just insane and they'd be insane regardless of whether they believed in a specific holy book or not.

Stephentlig wrote: »

Many atheists are also would not agree with killing people for not beleiving in their system of belief. I'm showing though that Christians use their christianity to condone the killing of others and atheists use atheism to do the same thing. both Christianity and Atheism are beliefs that require faith on the evidence provided, but the fact that atheists cant prove there is no God is a beleif that is a leap of faith, which is based on no evidence at all. they try and explain away Christian miracles with probability causes and theories that have no evidence to sustain them. ''its probably due to a shift in the DNA'' ''Its probably due to the chemicals in their brain'' probably probably probably is all I hear Sam.

No I don't think that is what you were saying, you were trying to infer that if atheists do bad things it demonises atheism but that if christians do bad things it doesn't demonise christianity. And it takes exactly zero faith to not believe that some Jewish guy 2000 years ago walked on water. I don't have a doctrine about how the universe came into being, I don't have to be able to answer a single one of the "big questions" to be an atheist, all I have to do is say that I find a story about a guy who walked on water and raised from the dead implausible and recognise that invoking god just because something happened that we can't explain is poor reasoning that had us believing in sun gods and thunder gods for thousands of years.

strobe

Stephentlig wrote: »

and your not reading my snippet (as you call it) properly, I'm saying that you have not responded to the argument for the existence of God put forward in his interview or book, but are simply just rubbishing his position with snide like comments.

I haven't been able to track down my copy as of yet, but here is a chapter by chapter dismantling of their dismantling if you have half an hour to spare.

http://arizonaatheist.blogspot.com/2009/10/answering-new-atheism-by-scott-hahn.html

Zombrex

Stephentlig wrote: »

Thanks everyone for your replies, I found your replies much similiar to others, everyone simply rubbishes their attitude/argument, but does not actually respond to it. I find it interesting that many atheists ( if they are honest with themselves ) never read these books and check out the other side of the coin

There are a lot of books on Christian apologetics. By the sounds of these particular books are pretty bad.

If anyone has a serious book on why theism is a correct and rational book by all means present it, but atheists like myself don't have time to read every single apologetics book no matter how bad it is on the small off chance that it actually raises a valid point.

Stephentlig wrote: »

I today read a book of a Christian theolgian, who said that at one of his lectures in response to the God delusion a richard dawkins fan was outraged after it and came up to him waving his finger agitatingly and said ''you have destroyed my faith''. He had built his whole system of belief upon the inadequate and shaky foundations of another man ( richard dawkins ) who came across to him in is works as ''more intelligent than you'' therefore ''you should listen to me''.

Ummm .. that story sounds some what implausible, given that The God Delusion does not attempt to convert theists nor does it present a "belief system".

Who was this Christian theologian?

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

Ummm .. that story sounds some what implausible, given that The God Delusion does not attempt to convert theists nor does it present a "belief system".

Exactly what I thought. Stinks of madeuppery to me tbh

Zombrex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Stinks of madeuppery to me tbh

Yeah like that's a real word :P:pac:

Stephentlig

Yes both of us can expose the fundamentalists on each side so pointing out that some atheists have done bad things is irrelevant and does not demonise atheism any more than christians doing bad things demonises christianity. You say that such things were never willed by the doctrine or christ himself (you may have met my friend the true scotsman) but atheism doesn't even have a doctrine to will these things. Some people are just insane and they'd be insane regardless of whether they believed in a specific holy book or not.

exactly it doesnt have a doctrine to will these things which makes it all the more dangerous if it was put into power and when its in power, they can pretty much do what they like to people because there is no God or consequences, because when put into power they make all the laws.


No I don't think that is what you were saying. And it takes exactly zero faith to not believe that some Jewish guy 2000 years ago walked on water. I don't have a doctrine about how the universe came into being, I don't have to be able to answer a single one of the "big questions" to be an atheist, all I have to do is say that I find a story about a guy who walked on water and raised from the dead implausible and invoking god just because something happened that we can't explain is poor reasoning that had us believing in sun gods and thunder gods for thousands of years.[/QUOTE]

Sam your moving around and getting tangled in your own rhetorical speech. so let me just be blatant and ask the question can you prove there is no creator? have you got evidence that there is no God?

Your answer no doubt will be a resounding NO...therefore your beleif is as infantile as a childs belief in santa claus.

strobe

Stephentlig wrote: »

Your answer no doubt will be a resounding NO...therefore your beleif is as infantile as a childs belief in santa claus.

That statement would only make sense if it went "therefore your disbelief is as infantile as an adult's disbelief in santa clause" surely you can see how that makes more sense than what you wrote above, yes?

Sam Vimes

Stephentlig wrote: »

exactly it doesnt have a doctrine to will these things which makes it all the more dangerous if it was put into power and when its in power, they can pretty much do what they like to people because there is no God or consequences, because when put into power they make all the laws.

So the reason to keep religion is that it makes people fear consequences?

Firstly, that is a terrible, terrible reason to believe in a god, secondly having religion around hasn't really done a whole lot better in that area. Remember that every single atrocity that was ever carried out was carried out in a world where ~95% of people believe in some kind of higher power and supernatural consequences for immoral acts. If religious societies were all bastions of morality and irreligious societies were all murdering each other left, right and centre you might have a point but that is quite clearly not the case. The cases you are talking about are extremist forms of communism and as Xluna points out, communism is atheistic but not all atheists are communists. Your problem here is with extremist communism and more generally extremism and fundamentalism. Any form of extremist fundamentalism is bad, be it religious or atheistic.


Maybe instead of looking at a few meglomaniacs throughout history and blaming their atheism for their extremism while trying to make excuses for religious people who carried out atrocities just as bad and worse, you should ask yourself why so many atheists don't behave as you would expect them to, given the lack of a supernatural carrot and stick?

Stephentlig wrote: »

Sam your moving around and getting tangled in your own rhetorical speech. so let me just be blatant and ask the question can you prove there is no creator? have you got evidence that there is no God?

Your answer no doubt will be a resounding NO...therefore your beleif is as infantile as a childs belief in santa claus.

No I can't prove there is no creator. So let me just be blatant and ask the question can you prove there is no flying spaghetti monster? The point being that just because you can't prove something doesn't exist doesn't mean you should believe in it. The question is whether or not it is reasonable to believe in such a being. And something else you should remember is that the question of whether or not there was some form of intelligence involved at the creation of the universe is totally separate to the question of whether some Jewish guy walked on water 2000 years ago.

Zombrex

I listened to the videos. Can I have my 20 minutes back.

Not only did they not have a counter for Dawkins arguments, they apparently didn't even understand them.

For example their insistence in part two that Dawkins has profound faith in chance is quite amusing given Dawkins background in evolutionary biology and the lengths he has gone to try and explain Darwinian evolution to people. They missed the point of the Virgin Mary hand waving analogy as well (and the difference between improbably and impossible).

Shockingly my atheism is still in place.

Come on Christians, is this the best you can do? You can't complain that atheists make claim to the intellectual high ground when you present such dumb arguments against atheism :pac:

Stephentlig

Ummm .. that story sounds some what implausible, given that The God Delusion does not attempt to convert theists nor does it present a "belief system".

Who was this Christian theologian?

No Dawkins didnt say in the God delusion ''If this book works as I intend, religious leaders who open it will be atheists when they put it down.'':rolleyes:

the theologian and scientist is Alister Mc Grath who has a doctorate in molecular biophysics, he had his doctorate prior to converting from atheism to Christianity and is now a theologian.

herbiemcc

That 'dismantling' video on page one was really poor. Religious comments like these do no favours for the cause.

Why didn't the interviewer ask some interesting, tricky questions?

Why don't the interviewees mention some valid points instead of effectively saying 'Dawkins was very nice to us so nobody listen to him'?

Even talking about "athiest fundamentalism" etc - that's so obtuse that it's childish.

Zombrex

Stephentlig wrote: »

No Dawkins didnt say in the God delusion ''If this book works as I intend, religious leaders who open it will be atheists when they put it down.'':rolleyes:

No actually he didn't, though I take it that this miss-quote means you are getting your version of the God Delusion from what Christian bloggers say it is (that line has been quoted incorrectly on a ton of blogs).

What he actually said was

If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down. What presumptuous optimism! Of course, dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads are immune to argument, their resistance build up over years of childhood indoctrination using methods that took centuries to mature (whether by evolution or design).

If you want to read the context he was saying it in (religious readers means people who are culturally religious but atheist or agnostic on the inside, hiding that because of shame) and who he was writing The God Delusion for read the preference on Google Docs (I appreciate that actually buying the book my cause Satan to appear at your door straight away)

http://books.google.ie/books?id=yq1xDpicghkC&lpg=PP1&ots=1ghKV8GbEN&dq=The%20God%20Delusion&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Stephentlig wrote: »

the theologian and scientist is Alister Mc Grath

Why am I not surprised, McGrath has turned misunderstanding Dawkins into a career choice ...

Stephentlig

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So the reason to keep religion is that it makes people fear consequences?

Firstly, that is a terrible, terrible reason to believe in a god, secondly having religion around hasn't really done a whole lot better in that area. Remember that every single atrocity that was ever carried out was carried out in a world where ~95% of people believe in some kind of higher power and supernatural consequences for immoral acts. If religious societies were all bastions of morality and irreligious societies were all murdering each other left, right and centre you might have a point but that is quite clearly not the case. The cases you are talking about are extremist forms of communism and as Xluna points out, communism is atheistic but not all atheists are communists. Your problem here is with extremist communism and more generally extremism and fundamentalism. Any form of extremist fundamentalism is bad, be it religious or atheistic.


Maybe instead of looking at a few meglomaniacs throughout history and blaming their atheism for their extremism while trying to make excuses for religious people who carried out atrocities just as bad and worse, you should ask yourself why so many atheists don't behave as you would expect them to, given the lack of a supernatural carrot and stick?



No I can't prove there is no creator. So let me just be blatant and ask the question can you prove there is no flying spaghetti monster? The point being that just because you can't prove something doesn't exist doesn't mean you should believe in it. The question is whether or not it is reasonable to believe in such a being. And something else you should remember is that the question of whether or not there was some form of intelligence involved at the creation of the universe is totally separate to the question of whether some Jewish guy walked on water 2000 years ago.

I never said because you cannot prove something means you should beleive in it, God has given many miracles down through the years, for instance my brother was cured at lourdes along with thousands of others from a life long illness, yet all science can do is to state probability causes and theories as to why it happened but cannot put forward the evidence of their theories. therefore the evidence of Gods existence is all around us but its up to us to put our faith in that evidence, but sadly many choose to put their faith into the evidence of the babblings of the many intelligently stupid scientists that are out there.

therefore although God has revealed himself and is evident, faith will always be needed to believe in the proof he gives us.

Strobe has given me a link so I've at least got a decent response, I'm gonna leave it here as I've a lot to do in my personal life other than disuss the obvious with those who have already made their mind up on religion without reading the responses given to them, the change in dawkins.nets forums show us just how frightened these fundamental atheists are of a good response.

Pax Christi
Stephen

Stephentlig

Wicknight wrote: »

No actually he didn't, though I take it that this miss-quote means you are getting your version of the God Delusion from what Christian bloggers say it is (that line has been quoted incorrectly on a ton of blogs).

What he actually said was

If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down. What presumptuous optimism! Of course, dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads are immune to argument, their resistance build up over years of childhood indoctrination using methods that took centuries to mature (whether by evolution or design).

If you want to read the context he was saying it in (religious readers means people who are culturally religious but atheist or agnostic on the inside, hiding that because of shame) and who he was writing The God Delusion for read the preference on Google Docs (I appreciate that actually buying the book my cause Satan to appear at your door straight away)

http://books.google.ie/books?id=yq1xDpicghkC&lpg=PP1&ots=1ghKV8GbEN&dq=The%20God%20Delusion&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q=&f=false



Why am I not surprised, McGrath has turned misunderstanding Dawkins into a career choice ...

oops acutally not many christian blogs have misread it as ''leaders'' I did as I was quoting it out of his actual book I have beside me I put in leaders instead of readers thats my mistake.

as for your explanation for readers who were atheistic on the inside, thats nothing but a belated cover up because of Mc Graths response.

Zombrex

Stephentlig wrote: »

I never said because you cannot prove something means you should beleive in it, God has given many miracles down through the years, for instance my brother was cured at lourdes along with thousands of others from a life long illness, yet all science can do is to state probability causes and theories as to why it happened but cannot put forward the evidence of their theories.

Ok, so if that is the case, if scientists using the latest medical technology can't determine what happened to your brother then how do you know God cured your brother?

It is a bit silly to claim that science can't explain this but you can by simply abandoning any form of standards and just making up an explanation that you find pleasing, with no way of testing or verifying if that explanation is in anyway actually the correct or accurate one.

Science could do that as well, but it doesn't because it is more concerned about being accurate than simply having an answer, any answer, to present to people.

Yet people like you turn that around and use that as a criticism of science, as if science is doing something wrong by not blindly guessing at answers.

Stephentlig

strobe wrote: »

That statement would only make sense if it went "therefore your disbelief is as infantile as an adult's disbelief in santa clause" surely you can see how that makes more sense than what you wrote above, yes?

your disbelief in God remains with the beleif you have in your own ignorance that there is not a God a beleif that requires faith because you have no evidence to prove there is no God.

Sam Vimes

Stephentlig wrote: »

I never said because you cannot prove something means you should beleive in it, God has given many miracles down through the years, for instance my brother was cured at lourdes along with thousands of others from a life long illness, yet all science can do is to state probability causes and theories as to why it happened but cannot put forward the evidence of their theories. therefore the evidence of Gods existence is all around us but its up to us to put our faith in that evidence, but sadly many choose to put their faith into the evidence of the babblings of the many intelligently stupid scientists that are out there.

therefore although God has revealed himself and is evident, faith will always be needed to believe in the proof he gives us.

No actually that's not what you said at all. You simply said that the fact that I cannot prove your specific god doesn't exist means that not believing in him is infantile. Now you're changing to saying that there is a lot of evidence that I choose to ignore. Well Stephen I think it's you who's ignoring evidence. You look at a few good things that happened that seemed unlikely and say that's evidence for god but I look at all events and I see that good things and bad things happen with exactly the frequency that would be expected by probability. The universe appears to be completely indifferent to our existence. You look at one person getting cured at Lourdes, I look at the millions who didn't and ask why. And the answer that makes the most sense by a country mile is that god's hand is involved in neither the good nor the bad. It's the "sh!t happens" theory.

Stephentlig wrote: »

Strobe has given me a link so I've at least got a decent response, I'm gonna leave it here as I've a lot to do in my personal life other than disuss the obvious with those who have already made their mind up on religion with reading the responses given to them, the change in dawkins.nets forums show us just how frightened these fundamental atheists are of a good response.

Eh


The members of the forum are very very angry about the forum being shut down. It was the action of one man who has no involvement in the forum other than that he is paid to run the website.

Zombrex

Stephentlig wrote: »

oops acutally not many christian blogs have misread it as ''leaders'' I did as I was quoting it out of his actual book I have beside me I put in leaders instead of readers thats my mistake.

Really? Odd that so many bloggers would make the same mistake. Must be one of those crazy coincidences ... what do you call them? Miracles?

Anyway, if you take a few minutes to read the preference of the God Delusion you will see exactly who Dawkins is writing the book for.

He says over and over he is not writing it for people like yourself.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Why am I not surprised, McGrath has turned misunderstanding Dawkins into a career choice ...

Rather ironic since Dawkins has turned misunderstanding theology, philosophy and Christianity into a career choice.

McGrath, of course, has the advantage over Dawkins in that he understands history, philosophy and theology as well as understanding science.

Stephentlig

Ok, so if that is the case, if scientists using the latest medical technology can't determine what happened to your brother then how do you know God cured your brother?

my faith in him tells me he cured him, I put my faith into the evidence of the things heard and seen, when people went into the water baths of lourdes they came out cured, scientists examined the water but couldnt find anything that caused a cure, thats because the cure is in the faith not the water. if you read into the story of Lourdes you'll know why.

It is a bit silly to claim that science can't explain this but you can by simply abandoning any form of standards and just making up an explanation that you find pleasing, with no way of testing or verifying if that explanation is in anyway actually the correct or accurate one.

my faith is based on the evidence of what was heard and seen, read the story of lourdes to find out more.

Science could do that as well, but it doesn't because it is more concerned about being accurate than simply having an answer, any answer, to present to people.

its concerned with being accurate yet has never been able to give us an accurate answer to these miracles attributed to God.

PoleStar

Hiya!

Right I confess I havent looked at this interview yet but I see a comment that many atheists have not looked at this kinda stuff or these kind of books that reply to Dawkin's God Delusion.

I am an atheist.

Have a read of Dawkin's Angel, it is supposed to be a swift and damning riposte to Dawkins book. As people at here implied, the religious seem to believe that by sticking words such as "evidence", "philosphy" and logic in amongst religious rhetoric that it turns the arguments into genuine logical scientific arguments.

I suggest a read of Dawkin's Angel. It is a whole book of circular logic which if you study correctly comes up with no conclusion as to why Dawkins is wrong.

Apologies if I have slightly gone off topic!

Sam Vimes

Stephentlig wrote: »

my faith in him tells me he cured him, I put my faith into the evidence of the things heard and seen, when people went into the water baths of lourdes they came out cured, scientists examined the water but couldnt find anything that caused a cure, thats because the cure is in the faith not the water. if you read into the story of Lourdes you'll know why.

That sounds to me an awful lot like the placebo effect. People swear by homoeopathy for the same reason. All they're do is drinking water and eating sugar tablets but it can have an effect. Show me someone who stepped into the bath with one arm and walked out with two and I'll be convinced.

Stephentlig

No actually that's not what you said at all. You simply said that the fact that I cannot prove your specific god doesn't exist means that not believing in him is infantile. Now you're changing to saying that there is a lot of evidence that I choose to ignore. Well Stephen I think it's you who's ignoring evidence. You look at a few good things that happened that seemed unlikely and say that's evidence for god but I look at all events and I see that good things and bad things happen with exactly the frequency that would be expected by probability. The universe appears to be completely indifferent to our existence. You look at one person getting cured at Lourdes, I look at the millions who didn't and ask why. And the answer that makes the most sense by a country mile is that god's hand is involved in neither the good nor the bad. It's the "sh!t happens" theory.

because if God cured everyone and revealed himself to everyone in the whole world he would compel us against our own free will, therefore he gives us just enough light to get to him.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

No actually he didn't, though I take it that this miss-quote means you are getting your version of the God Delusion from what Christian bloggers say it is (that line has been quoted incorrectly on a ton of blogs).

Really? I googled those words (in quotation marks) and not a single result came up that used leaders instead of readers.

Can you link to one of these blogs?

Sam Vimes

Stephentlig wrote: »

because if God cured everyone and revealed himself to everyone in the whole world he would compel us against our own free will, therefore he gives us just enough light to get to him.

But god does reveal himself to some people. Does that not effect their free will?

Also, I could not walk on the surface of the sun if I wanted. Does that not effect my free will?


Also, a being that allows horrendous suffering to befall billions through no fault of their own lest he reveal his own existence but arbitrarily decides to help certain people, even people who have themselves carried out horrendous acts of cruelty, isn't really a being that I want to have anything to do with tbh

strobe

Stephentlig wrote: »

your disbelief in God remains with the beleif you have in your own ignorance that there is not a God a beleif that requires faith because you have no evidence to prove there is no God.

I know you don't get this concept, and that you won't after reading this post either but........I have no evidence to prove there is no Shiva, or teapot in orbit around the sun, or Yeti, or Flying Spaghetti Monster, or wizard with the power to turn grass into gold living somewhere near the north pole.......so should I give all these things, along with God, an equal chance of existing or not existing because I can't definitevly prove they don't exist?

PoleStar

Stephentlig wrote: »

because if God cured everyone and revealed himself to everyone in the whole world he would compel us against our own free will, therefore he gives us just enough light to get to him.

I hear ya but yet you aint making sense.

So what you are saying is he only give a little information so many have to doubt him and the only way is to take other people's word for it that he is the lord.

I dont buy that one bit, but I guess that's faith.

As for the healings, what I find strange is that a tiny a mount of people actually claim to have been "healed by faith. People seem to forget who has done most of the healing: humans, not god, humans! Through improved sanitation and development of modern medicine and the hard work of doctors, nurses, physio's and other allied health professionals who do it for a job. Yet yet one person gets cured of their illness (and yes as pointed out, its NEVER something easily provable like a limb growing back etc) and they say "I have faith" then its a miracle!

Oh wait, I forgot, "god is working through the doctors and nurses etc"

Stephentlig

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That sounds to me an awful lot like the placebo effect. People swear by homoeopathy for the same reason. All they're do is drinking water and eating sugar tablets but it can have an effect. Show me someone who stepped into the bath with one arm and walked out with two and I'll be convinced.

Your response is similiar to the religious pharisees at the foot of the cross who said if you are the Son of God save yourself and they WERE religious people NOT atheists. therefore there is a more sinister influence around us, but of course you'll need faith for that.

this resonates the question the devil put to him earliar in scriptures when tempted by him in the desert, he said if you are the Son of God throw yourself down from this mountain.

go and study these cures and scientists studies of them, and you'll see the thousands who were cured of all diseases over the years.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Really? I googled those words (in quotation marks) and not a single result came up that used leaders instead of readers.

Can you link to one of these blogs?

I'll do better than that, I'll teach you how to use Google properly (a skill that will see you right for years and years)

If you want to search for the exact phrase you entered put double quotes around it, not single quotes

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=%22If+this+book+works+as+I+intend,+religious+leaders+who+open+it+will+be+atheists+when+they+put+it+down.%22&btnG=Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=

Stephentlig

Sam Vimes wrote: »

But god does reveal himself to some people. Does that not effect their free will?

Also, I could not walk on the surface of the sun if I wanted. Does that not effect my free will?


Also, a being that allows horrendous suffering to befall billions through no fault of their own lest he reveal his own existence but arbitrarily decides to help certain people, even people who have themselves carried out horrendous acts of cruelty, isn't really a being that I want to have anything to do with tbh

it does not effect their free will because beleive it or not they have they still have the free will to accept him or reject him, which makes me come to a rather good conclusion, even if God were to show himself, people who are so conditioned in society that they would say it wasnt him and still reject his existence to his face, why? because they have been given free will. they'd come up with all the theories in the world, its all in me head, its something to do with my dna :rolleyes:

therefore Christianitys job is not to convince you, you simply listen to what God has to say and what he has shown us, or you simply reject it, this is known as free will.

Sam Vimes

Stephentlig wrote: »

Your response is similiar to the religious pharisees at the foot of the cross who said if you are the Son of God save yourself and they werent even religious people. therefore there is a more sinister influence around us, but of course you'll need faith for that.

this resonates the question the devil put to him earliar in scriptures when tempted by him in the desert, he said if you are the Son of God throw yourself down from this mountain.

go and study these cures and scientists studies of them, and you'll see the thousands who were cured of all diseases over the years.

I'm sure I will see thousands who were cured of diseases in ways for which we have no explanation but that means nothing more than we have no explanation. "I don't know so it must be god" is bad reasoning. Always.

And even if I was to accept that there was a supernatural influence in these cures, why should I believe that the hand involved was that of a Jewish guy who lived 2000 years ago and not that of any of the other thousands of gods, goddesses, demi gods, pixies, fairies and spooks that have been said to exist throughout the years?

PoleStar

Stephentlig wrote: »

go and study these cures and scientists studies of them, and you'll see the thousands who were cured of all diseases over the years.

Are you suggesting that all those who have been cured of an illness for which no reason can be found have been cured by god?

I guess this will go the same way as many other "miracles" of human knowledge such as the earth is orbited by the sun moon and stars. As human knowledge advances (not religious knowledge), the amount of spontaneous cures that are thus attributed to god and faith will diminish as we learn of explanations such as our own innate immune response (some humans for example will mount an immune response to antigens on their own cancer cells and be cured without treatment).

Or could the argument be even more confusing. What happens if an atheist undergoes spontaneous resolution of disease, was it god who cured him? What if a pagan is cured, did mother earth heal them? What about Muslims, has Allah healed them?

And dont say that "they are all talkin about the same god in different ways", that is simply not the case, in fact the ten commandments are very clear on that and thus I cant see why the "true god" would heal those who believe in false gods because it states clearly in the various different religious books that they are going to hell for an eternal barbecue!

Sam Vimes

Stephentlig wrote: »

it does not effect their free will because beleive it or not they have they still have the free will to accept him or reject him, which makes me come to a rather good conclusion, even if God were to show himself, people who are so conditioned in society that they would say it wasnt him and still reject his existence to his face, why? because they have been given free will. they'd come up with all the theories in the world, its all in me head, its something to do with my dna :rolleyes:

therefore Christianitys job is not to convince you, you simply listen to what God has to say and what he has shown us, or you simply reject it, this is known as free will.

So then why doesn't he reveal himself and cure everyone, since you now say we'd still have free will if he did? You're contradicting yourself

Zombrex

Stephentlig wrote: »

my faith in him tells me he cured him, I put my faith into the evidence of the things heard and seen, when people went into the water baths of lourdes they came out cured, scientists examined the water but couldnt find anything that caused a cure, thats because the cure is in the faith not the water. if you read into the story of Lourdes you'll know why.

So you simply picked an answer. And then complained about science not having an answer because they weren't prepared to simply make one up.

Brilliant :rolleyes:

Stephentlig wrote: »

my faith is based on the evidence of what was heard and seen, read the story of lourdes to find out more.

Evidence that you cannot verify in anyway to any standard, yet complain about science not giving you an answer.

If anyone, including yourself, were able to actually back up these explanations to any sort of rigorous standard (like science does) then that would be the scientific answer.

Stephentlig wrote: »

its concerned with being accurate yet has never been able to give us an accurate answer to these miracles attributed to God.

That is exactly the point. Science doesn't simply guess at answers and then pick the guess that is the most appealing.

How you think that is a criticism is beyond me

Stephentlig

Wicknight wrote: »

I'll do better than that, I'll teach you how to use Google properly (a skill that will see you right for years and years)

If you want to search for the exact phrase you entered put double quotes around it, not single quotes

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=%22If+this+book+works+as+I+intend,+religious+leaders+who+open+it+will+be+atheists+when+they+put+it+down.%22&btnG=Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=

wow thats weird, because me and PDN are most certainly being honest, his book does not say ''leaders''

PoleStar

Stephentlig wrote: »

therefore Christianitys job is not to convince you, you simply listen to what God has to say and what he has shown us, or you simply reject it, this is known as free will.

This is kinda a mis representation. We do not listen to what god has to say, we listen to people that tell us what god has to say.

Just because people have been saying it for 2000 years doesnt make it true. For example, people tell us that Scientology is true. Yet most sane people can easily recognise the insanity in it. Perhaps in 2000 years if people are still going on about Scientolgy, should we believe it then?

Stephentlig

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So then why doesn't he reveal himself and cure everyone, since you now say we'd still have free will if he did? You're contradicting yourself

not contradicting, I'm correcting myself and expanding even more on my thoughts and your posts are helping me to do this.

Stephentlig

PoleStar wrote: »

This is kinda a mis representation. We do not listen to what god has to say, we listen to people that tell us what god has to say.

Just because people have been saying it for 2000 years doesnt make it true. For example, people tell us that Scientology is true. Yet most sane people can easily recognise the insanity in it. Perhaps in 2000 years if people are still going on about Scientolgy, should we believe it then?

God speaks to us through his own ways, through people and in many other cases he does it supernaturally too.