[lotuseclat79]

Article here.

-- Tom

[BanditFlyer]

Say What????

What's your take on that, Tom?

[SlackAli]

Was that actually written by Dawkins or is it a commentary?

I ask as Dawkins is a master of prose (for a scientist), and that piece is written in an uncharacteristic vernacular style.

[kidcnote]

"Almost Certainly" He doesn't flat out deny it. He leaves a little room Almost Certainly is like kinda, sorta, maybe & might be...LOL Another day, another waste of bandwidth. Another goober who sits in the middle. Lukewarm and neither hot nor cold.

I love people who try to tell the rest of us how the founding fathers would think or feel..Just more babble for the masses to suck up...LOL
(America, founded in secularism as a beacon of eighteenth century enlightenment, is becoming the victim of religious politics, a circumstance that would have horrified the Founding Fathers)

[redivivus]

It is a biased work with no new information. Someone sums it up in pretty words and skews it to his side. Ive seen books doing the same in a pro-religious manner so im not going to blame him.

[Littlefield]

Sounds like he needs to buy Newt Gingrish's new book where he lays out the historical facts that our founding fathers did believe in God and based our government on that the Creator gives men rights.

[linskyjack]

Yes Littlefield, but I could have you read books by active scholars who say the exact opposite.

[BanditFlyer]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

Yes Littlefield, but I could have you read books by active scholars who say the exact opposite.

Read me a lullaby, LJ. Please?

A secular lullaby? Perhaps a nice a-moral bedtime story?

[lotuseclat79]

Originally Posted by BanditFlyer

Say What????

What's your take on that, Tom?

Here's my take on Dawkin's post:
Since he has just published his book, "The God Delusion", it stands to reason that his post is geared to resonate with different groups of folks who read it. They either are on one side or the other of the issue. Any news is good news to a publisher.

While I have yet to read "The God Delusion" it is on my list of books to read in the coming months - may ask for it for it as a Christmas present.

Ever since being raised as an Episcopalian, I have been a skeptic of religiouos dogma. While an atheist does not believe in God, an agnostic allows for the possibility. I prefer to believe in facts rather than fiction, and correspondingly:
1) I reject the so-called "Intelligent Design" as false pseudo-science mumbo-jumbo.
2) If someone wants to believe in "Intelligent Design", from a secular POV, they have the right to do so, as long as they don't try to push their beliefs onto me or anyone else who has the right of free-will to choose for themselves.
3) If God were to spring up before me and speak from a "burning bush" and give me guidance for living my life - I might then believe that a God exists, as long as this miracle also happens for every other human on Earth in the context of their own religion. Otherwise, I'll probably remain a skeptic.
4) Organized religion, to me, is not the way. The way is to find God or what the meaning of God represents to you within yourself for each and every individual.
Wasn't that what Jesus was preaching as documented in the Gnostic Gospels? - which the Church prohibits from being released freely.

I definitely believe in what Dawkins has to say, the scientific facts support it.

This, however, is not to say that science and religion are not two sides of the same coin.

I clearly do not care whether anyone else colors me a skeptic, an agnostic or an atheist, as any relationship between a God (if possible) is between God and myself. And, I respect the rights of others to their own relationship in the matter of God. Just don't suffer me to have the same relationship as you or try to force it upon me.

-- Tom

[Littlefield]

Hawkins has no concept of US history the facts are that our government was designed by our founding fathers that believed our rights were given to us by the Creator.

[lotuseclat79]

Originally Posted by Littlefield

Hawkins has no concept of US history the facts are that our government was designed by our founding fathers that believed our rights were given to us by the Creator.

Hawkins is British. The issue of the existence of God has nothing to do with whether or not the founding fathers believed wht they did.

-- Tom

[Littlefield]

Sure it does our government was based on the existence of God

[BanditFlyer]

I reject Intelligent Design also. The thing about the article that struck me most was it's taking sides on politics almost as strongly as it did on religion. I was struck By SlackAli's comment here as to whether it was written by Dawkins himself or by some Huffingtonian on that particular site since it seemed to take such a strong political bent.

Thanks for your input, and the link.

[erick295]

Intelligent, creative, complex, statistically improbable things come late into the universe, as the product of evolution or some other process of gradual escalation from simple beginnings. They come late into the universe and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it.

This guy seems to think that our limited perception of existence is the ultimate truth and the only way anything can ever be. If that's his idea of proving that God doesn't exist, then he's every bit as ignorant as the people who say the Bible is proof that God does exist.

[BanditFlyer]

Originally Posted by erick295

This guy seems to think that our limited perception of existence is the ultimate truth and the only way anything can ever be. If that's his idea of proving that God doesn't exist, then he's every bit as ignorant as the people who say the Bible is proof that God does exist.

He's got some very credible sources on the topic. Haven't finished reading the article yet, but his qualification of what he means by "God" pretty much takes all the bite out of the argument. Nowhere (so far) have I seen him list a definition of something not measureable in the material realm, which is something you would expect with him using the sources he used.