Following this line of reasoning, how can there be any “self”? If we are all equally part of the universal awareness, then is there really any “me” to be aware of “you”?
There is more awareness in the universe outside of me and you.
Humans are equal, but animals are not.
[quote author=“Bad_Conduct”]Because you are aware of me, and you are equally a part of it. I need to worry about what it will take to keep you alive because you are human. You deserve to be alive. Other people will try to take your life from you, your money, your wife, your house, for their own personal gain.
[quote author=“Bad_Conduct”]Because when you hurt someone, directly or indirectly, you only justify reasoning to be hurt yourself.
[quote author=“Bad_Conduct”]Go have your gay sex all you want. I don’t care, just don’t be offended if someone unknowingly calls you a fag, faggot.
Nothing unknowing about it, except your total, utter, complete, perfect unknowingness. So much for the self-f*cking awareness of the f*cking Universe.
You’re unequal to the task, BC. You are f*cking unequal to the task. You complain about people trying to pull you down when they can’t elevate themselves. Stop worrying about other people, BC. You’re driving yourself crazy. You don’t have to worry, BC, you’re as low as it is possible to go. You can’t fall off the f*cking floor.
[quote author=“Bad_Conduct”]There is more awareness in the universe outside of me and you.
But how does that support your concept of a “universal awareness”? If you accept the concept of “self” then you and I each have our own unique awareness of the universe. Even if we may be looking at the same object, we do not necessarily see the same things. The only way you could be aware of what I am aware of is if we communicate together. There certainly may be “more awareness” in the universe but how does that make a God?
[quote author=“Bad_Conduct”]Humans are equal, but animals are not.
Equal in what way? Awareness is a binary quality, either you are or you are not. For your statement to make any sense you would have to show that animals have no sense of awareness . I don’t think you can.
There is a book soon to come out that some of you might be interested in. It's called The Dawkins Delusion – a response to Richard Dawkins and it will hit stores in February of 2007. It was written by Alister McGrath in response to Dawkins book, The God Delusion. McGrath has been highly critical of Richard Dawkins, calling him "embarrassingly ignorant of Christian theology". He has wanted to have a public discussion with Dawkins but Dawkins has declined.
Alister E. McGrath is a biochemist and Christian theologian born in Belfast, Northern Ireland, and is currently Professor of Historical Theology at the University of Oxford. I don't know all that much about him but after hearing some of his lectures I think he is an interesting guy. Many of you will likely disagree with him before even listening to what he has to say. If that is you then don't bother reading the book. But many of you are not afraid to listen to a differing worldview. And for those who enjoyed Dawkins' book you owe it to yourself to hear what McGrath has to say.
To listen to a recent lecture of his click on the following link:
I hope to finish Dawkins book and follow it up with McGrath's. It will be interesting to hear what these guys have to say.
Let me know if McGrath says anything new. I won’t waste my money on apologists that simply rehash the same old easily destroyed arguments. But if he has finally found evidence of his god, please let us know.
And when I say same old, I mean OLD. The Epicurean riddle has gone how many centuries without an answer?
Well, one that isn’t an embarrassment to the species.
1. He spends quite a bit of time discussing how believing in god is not like believing in santa clause. His argument is fallacious. NO adult believes in santa clause and if one did they would be considered mentally ill. However, many people push the belief that god is real throughout their life. He then said that it was an unfair analogy (myth v myth sounds like a fair analogy to me).
2. He says atheism is a belief system where it is actually a denial of many beliefs system.
3. ‘does wishing something so make it not so has no bearing on whether it is real or not.’ This is very true, however, he totally avoids whether or not there is any proof of god.
4. Concentrates on the meme theory by comparing it with a physical virus. He asks whether all ideas are virus’ of the mind. Dawkins actually touched on this in the book and said that many ideas are indeed virus’ (memes) including oral ideas such as jokes and stories that evolve over time.
5. He discusses other books such as collin’s (whose religion is based on faith) whose ideas are discussed in the god delusion. However, he provides no evidence as to why their views trump dawkins’.
6. How do you interpret nature in a christian way? Either the bible is right and the world was created 6000 years ago or it is wrong and the earth was created over 4 billion years ago. Otherwise you have to pick and choose what you want to believe.
7. He denies that ‘real scientists are atheists’ but never touches on those studies that reveal that most scientists are atheists.
8. He basically calls dawkins an antisemite, which is totally false. I’ve read the book and this is not true. I think he must be talking about a study that utilized israeli children.
9. He says that jesus is all about non violence. Thessalonians 1: In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
10. In discussing history, he touches on the french revolution but never speaks about how it occurred, in large part, because of injustice by the church.
11. He avoids almost all of the evidence that Dawkins puts forward to raise doubt about the existence of god, such as the first cause. He does not talk about the variety of religious belief or many other numerous subjects talked about in the book. He picks out several subjects that do not actually deal with whether or not god exists but how dawkins speaks about religion. In other words, he misdirects the audience by utilizing an ad hominem attack on Dawkins. There are so many fallacious arguments in his speech, I could not keep up with them all. I may read his book, but if all of his reasoning is this circular, whats the point.
Excellent analysis! The guy is a crackpot and his arguments defeated! CASE CLOSED! Dawkins wins!
1. He spends quite a bit of time discussing how believing in god is not like believing in santa clause. His argument is fallacious. NO adult believes in santa clause and if one did they would be considered mentally ill. However, many people push the belief that god is real throughout their life. He then said that it was an unfair analogy (myth v myth sounds like a fair analogy to me).
2. He says atheism is a belief system where it is actually a denial of many beliefs system.
3. ‘does wishing something so make it not so has no bearing on whether it is real or not.’ This is very true, however, he totally avoids whether or not there is any proof of god.
4. Concentrates on the meme theory by comparing it with a physical virus. He asks whether all ideas are virus’ of the mind. Dawkins actually touched on this in the book and said that many ideas are indeed virus’ (memes) including oral ideas such as jokes and stories that evolve over time.
5. He discusses other books such as collin’s (whose religion is based on faith) whose ideas are discussed in the god delusion. However, he provides no evidence as to why their views trump dawkins’.
6. How do you interpret nature in a christian way? Either the bible is right and the world was created 6000 years ago or it is wrong and the earth was created over 4 billion years ago. Otherwise you have to pick and choose what you want to believe.
7. He denies that ‘real scientists are atheists’ but never touches on those studies that reveal that most scientists are atheists.
8. He basically calls dawkins an antisemite, which is totally false. I’ve read the book and this is not true. I think he must be talking about a study that utilized israeli children.
9. He says that jesus is all about non violence. Thessalonians 1: In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
10. In discussing history, he touches on the french revolution but never speaks about how it occurred, in large part, because of injustice by the church.
11. He avoids almost all of the evidence that Dawkins puts forward to raise doubt about the existence of god, such as the first cause. He does not talk about the variety of religious belief or many other numerous subjects talked about in the book. He picks out several subjects that do not actually deal with whether or not god exists but how dawkins speaks about religion. In other words, he misdirects the audience by utilizing an ad hominem attack on Dawkins. There are so many fallacious arguments in his speech, I could not keep up with them all. I may read his book, but if all of his reasoning is this circular, whats the point.
Excellent analysis! The guy is a crackpot and his arguments defeated! CASE CLOSED! Dawkins wins!
Seems he’s not worth the price of admission. (gee, didn’t see that coming) Again though, “his” arguments have been immolated by the fires of reason a long, long time ago.
Dawkins himself has complained about the worst part of debating Christians - they can’t come up with anything new.
1. He spends quite a bit of time discussing how believing in god is not like believing in santa clause. His argument is fallacious. NO adult believes in santa clause and if one did they would be considered mentally ill. However, many people push the belief that god is real throughout their life. He then said that it was an unfair analogy (myth v myth sounds like a fair analogy to me).
2. He says atheism is a belief system where it is actually a denial of many beliefs system.
3. ‘does wishing something so make it not so has no bearing on whether it is real or not.’ This is very true, however, he totally avoids whether or not there is any proof of god.
4. Concentrates on the meme theory by comparing it with a physical virus. He asks whether all ideas are virus’ of the mind. Dawkins actually touched on this in the book and said that many ideas are indeed virus’ (memes) including oral ideas such as jokes and stories that evolve over time.
5. He discusses other books such as collin’s (whose religion is based on faith) whose ideas are discussed in the god delusion. However, he provides no evidence as to why their views trump dawkins’.
6. How do you interpret nature in a christian way? Either the bible is right and the world was created 6000 years ago or it is wrong and the earth was created over 4 billion years ago. Otherwise you have to pick and choose what you want to believe.
7. He denies that ‘real scientists are atheists’ but never touches on those studies that reveal that most scientists are atheists.
8. He basically calls dawkins an antisemite, which is totally false. I’ve read the book and this is not true. I think he must be talking about a study that utilized israeli children.
9. He says that jesus is all about non violence. Thessalonians 1: In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
10. In discussing history, he touches on the french revolution but never speaks about how it occurred, in large part, because of injustice by the church.
11. He avoids almost all of the evidence that Dawkins puts forward to raise doubt about the existence of god, such as the first cause. He does not talk about the variety of religious belief or many other numerous subjects talked about in the book. He picks out several subjects that do not actually deal with whether or not god exists but how dawkins speaks about religion. In other words, he misdirects the audience by utilizing an ad hominem attack on Dawkins. There are so many fallacious arguments in his speech, I could not keep up with them all. I may read his book, but if all of his reasoning is this circular, whats the point.
Excellent analysis! The guy is a crackpot and his arguments defeated! CASE CLOSED! Dawkins wins!
Seems he’s not worth the price of admission. (gee, didn’t see that coming) Again though, “his” arguments have been immolated by the fires of reason a long, long time ago.
Dawkins himself has complained about the worst part of debating Christians - they can’t come up with anything new.
Pretty sure I’ve had those before in the South. A bowl of Kellogg’s Christnuts. Pretty sure.
Anyways, a group of local women came by and saw the empty bowl and said it was a sign.
1. He spends quite a bit of time discussing how believing in god is not like believing in santa clause. His argument is fallacious. NO adult believes in santa clause and if one did they would be considered mentally ill. However, many people push the belief that god is real throughout their life. He then said that it was an unfair analogy (myth v myth sounds like a fair analogy to me).
2. He says atheism is a belief system where it is actually a denial of many beliefs system.
3. ‘does wishing something so make it not so has no bearing on whether it is real or not.’ This is very true, however, he totally avoids whether or not there is any proof of god.
4. Concentrates on the meme theory by comparing it with a physical virus. He asks whether all ideas are virus’ of the mind. Dawkins actually touched on this in the book and said that many ideas are indeed virus’ (memes) including oral ideas such as jokes and stories that evolve over time.
5. He discusses other books such as collin’s (whose religion is based on faith) whose ideas are discussed in the god delusion. However, he provides no evidence as to why their views trump dawkins’.
6. How do you interpret nature in a christian way? Either the bible is right and the world was created 6000 years ago or it is wrong and the earth was created over 4 billion years ago. Otherwise you have to pick and choose what you want to believe.
7. He denies that ‘real scientists are atheists’ but never touches on those studies that reveal that most scientists are atheists.
8. He basically calls dawkins an antisemite, which is totally false. I’ve read the book and this is not true. I think he must be talking about a study that utilized israeli children.
9. He says that jesus is all about non violence. Thessalonians 1: In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
10. In discussing history, he touches on the french revolution but never speaks about how it occurred, in large part, because of injustice by the church.
11. He avoids almost all of the evidence that Dawkins puts forward to raise doubt about the existence of god, such as the first cause. He does not talk about the variety of religious belief or many other numerous subjects talked about in the book. He picks out several subjects that do not actually deal with whether or not god exists but how dawkins speaks about religion. In other words, he misdirects the audience by utilizing an ad hominem attack on Dawkins. There are so many fallacious arguments in his speech, I could not keep up with them all. I may read his book, but if all of his reasoning is this circular, whats the point.
