Is Christianity the only way to prove GOD?

Originally posted by Marinkatomb
Coming from someone who ghas already admitted they haven't read the book, this statement doesn't really amount to much now does it? Read it first, then throw it out the window. 😛

I started reading it, but the author couldn't hold my attention. Reason enough to throw it out the window. But I can always be convinced. Give me a compelling reason.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I started reading it, but the author couldn't hold my attention. Reason enough to throw it out the window. But I can always be convinced. Give me a compelling reason.

How far did you get?

Originally posted by Marinkatomb
How far did you get?

As far as the end of the first chapter.

Tell you what--provide a credible response to Orr's critique, and I'll read the damn thing entire. (If scottishinnz is reading this--I challenge you, too).

--Incidentally--if I'm guilty of dismissing a book that I haven't read properly--so is Dawkins, as Orr amply demonstrates.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
As far as the end of the first chapter.

Tell you what--provide a credible response to Orr's critique, and I'll read the damn thing entire. (If scottishinnz is reading this--I challenge you, too).

Sorry, that's just too easy. Why don't you address some of the criticisms of the Bible then? I'm not qualified to argue semantics with a professor of genetics over the philosophical in's and outs of his argument, however Daniel Dennet most certainly is...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dennett (for information on who he is...)

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19928

Reply to Orr's review of God delusion by Daniel Dennet. Obviously this is not Dawkins, but if we're going to get political then Dennet is in Dawkins corner...

Originally posted by Marinkatomb
Reply to Orr's review of God dilusion by Daniel Dennet. Obviously this is not Dawkins, but if we're going to get political then Dennet is in Dawkins corner...

Dennett's tone is aggressive and resentful (not to mention vainglorious, portraying himself as some sort of ideological warrior)--hardly the objective response one might expect from a scientist, but just the sort of thing you're likely to see in anyone who chooses a camp. I don't belong to any camps; I don't go in for primitive either-or thinking...and I dislike it when people who should know better do. Did you read Orr's response to that letter? Makes Dennett look a bit silly, I think--as though his polemic stance has fundamentally affected his ability to read.

"It's one thing to think carefully about religion and conclude it's dubious. It's another to string together anecdotes and exercises in bad philosophy and conclude that one has resolved subtle problems. I wasn't disappointed in The God Delusion because I was shocked by Dawkins's atheism. I was disappointed because it wasn't very good."

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Dennett's tone is aggressive and resentful (not to mention vainglorious, portraying himself as some sort of ideological warrior)--hardly the objective response one might expect from a scientist, but just the sort of thing you're likely to see in anyone who chooses a camp. I don't belong to any camps; I don't go in for primitive either-or thinkin illy, I think--as though his polemic stance has fundamentally affected his ability to read.

Wow, so you don't come from a camp, doesn't really look like that to me. You reference the review, bait me to refute it, all the while having read the response and the re-response to the article? Prey, why did you not link all of the argument to start with? Was it an attempt to try and catch me out in some way? God delusion is a good book, it ain't perfect but it certainly put the final nail in God's coffin (for me anyway). I was pretty much there already, i just needed to see the issue addressed head on. I've had religion make the point to me all my life, perhaps Dawkins isn't the best author on this subject, maybe he does have too partisan an approach, maybe he is too agressive, maybe...

His point is good! He makes no appology for holding it.

Originally posted by Marinkatomb
Wow, so you don't come from a camp, doesn't really look like that to me. You reference the review, bait me to refute it, all the while having read the response and the re-response to the article? Prey, why did you not link all of the argument to start with?

OK, what camp am I in, as far as this discussion is concerned?

I hadn't read the reponse and counter-response until you posted them 🙄 --But you agree that Orr makes Dennett look silly?

(Sorry, ahosyney, for hi-jacking this thread)

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
OK, what camp am I in, as far as this discussion is concerned?

I hadn't read the reponse and counter-response until you posted them 🙄 --But you agree that Orr makes Dennett look silly?

I hadn't read the reponse and counter-response until you posted them 🙄

You happened to pick up my post the second i posted it, read the response and counter response and replied to my post in 6 minutes? It doesn't look likely to me, though i'll take your word for it...

Yes, Orr writes well, i'm not contesting that. Orr is entitled to his opinion, it is better informed than mine i'm sure! If you like i can go and get a load of good and bad reviews for God delusion. Perhaps we can total them all up and see whether it is a good book or a bad book this way? I've got a better idea, why don't you actually read it and then we can talk about our opinions. How about it? 🙂

Originally posted by Marinkatomb
You happened to pick up my post the second i posted it, read the response and counter response and replied to my post in 6 minutes? It doesn't look likely to me, though i'll take your word for it...

Call me a speed demon.

I'm not interested in reading TGD any further, so I'll just drop it. I do recommend reading the Shelley text, if only to compare the style of a great atheist stylist with a (cough) not-so-great one.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Call me a speed demon.

I'm not interested in reading TGD any further, so I'll just drop it. I do recommend reading the Shelley text, if only to compare the style of a great atheist stylist with a (cough) not-so-great one.

Ok, i'll have a look at that, though again, you're judging a book before you've read it. I disliked the tone of the first chapter too, it doesn't invalidate the book just because he's passionate...

Originally posted by Marinkatomb
We're going round in circles here, you are right. Let me think over your statement a little, perhaps I can put my view in a better way... 🙂

I'm still waiting for you....

Originally posted by twhitehead
You still have not even given a hint as to why there should be a designer. Yes there are the laws of physics. Yes I don't know where they come from. But that does not logically lead to the question "Is there a designer?".

[b]But what I have a problem with cross species one, I mean , evolution from one species to another. Is there an evidence that 45 ch ...[text shortened]... w species with a different number of chromosomes than its parent species. The answer is yes.

sorry for late replaying to you, I was busy, I will try to make it clear. I will be back

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No, you already made an a priori assumption here. The evidence does not point one way or the other.

It is as was brought up in another thread, for some seeing life
is evidence that God is real, or the way the universe is set up. You
have no desire to see God's handy work no matter how clear it is.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
It is as was brought up in another thread, for some seeing life
is evidence that God is real, or the way the universe is set up. You
have no desire to see God's handy work no matter how clear it is.
Kelly

I contest that. You wish to see God in everything so you do. That does not make him real. I'm not saying non-believer are better, just that non-believers try to rest their beliefs on some sort of evidence. There is nothing to say a God created anything, other than a load of 'Holy' men. Take them out of the picture and God really doesn't exist!

Originally posted by Marinkatomb
I contest that. You wish to see God in everything so you do. That does not make him real. I'm not saying non-believer are better, just that non-believers try to rest their beliefs on some sort of evidence. There is nothing to say a God created anything, other than a load of 'Holy' men. Take them out of the picture and God really doesn't exist!

Why should I take them out of the picture?