There is no God and Richard Dawkins is his prophet

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Alan McDougall

New Member
Jul 23, 2016
22
1
3
83
Johannesburg
Faith
Christian
Country
South Africa
This little puffed up egotistical man goes all over the world on some useless endeavour to prove that God does not exist.

As the scientist, he claims to be he should know that his "New Atheism" is just as faith based as that of the believers he mocked as stupid or delusional.

He is a hypocrite doing exactly what he despised in believers, preaching his own gospel of atheist mainly to the already converted

What is your thought on the matter?

(We should greatly defend our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ because all that stand between a lost eternity in hell is the Lord Jesus Christ)

Alan
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Alan McDougall said:
This little puffed up egotistical man goes all over the world on some useless endeavour to prove that God does not exist.

As the scientist, he claims to be he should know that his "New Atheism" is just as faith based as that of the believers he mocked as stupid or delusional.

He is a hypocrite doing exactly what he despised in believers, preaching his own gospel of atheist mainly to the already converted

What is your thought on the matter?

(We should greatly defend our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ because all that stand between a lost eternity in hell is the Lord Jesus Christ)

Alan
Alan,

In a free society where there is freedom of speech, Richard Dawkins has as much right as you and I have in promoting his world view. To my dying day, I'll defend his right to promote what he believes. Why? Because it gives me the right to continue to proclaim the Gospel while my country of Australia still enjoys freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

You'll have to provide your evidence to demonstrate he is a hypocrite. You haven't provided it here.

I don't agree with his conclusion, but he has a right to proclaim it wherever he wants. That gives me the opportunity to refute him. My experience as an apologist in the public arena is that most Christians I know do not know how to refute or expose his dangerous ideas.

Richard Dawkins has admitted that he’s not a 100% atheist.

The Daily Mail [UK] reported the debate this way:

Professor Richard Dawkins today dismissed his hard-earned reputation as a militant atheist – admitting that he is actually agnostic as he can’t prove God doesn’t exist.

The country’s foremost champion of the Darwinist evolution, who wrote The God Delusion, stunned audience members when he made the confession during a lively debate on the origins of the universe with the Archbishop of Canterbury….

But when Archbishop Dr Rowan Williams suggested that Professor Darwin is often described as the world’s most famous atheist, the geneticist responded: ‘Not by me’.

He said: ‘On a scale of seven, where one means I know he exists, and seven I know he doesn’t, I call myself a six.’
Professor Dawkins went on to say what he believed was a ‘6.9’, stating: ‘That doesn’t mean I’m absolutely confident, that I absolutely know, because I don’t’….

This latest admission by Professor Dawkins comes after he was left lost for words [to] name the full title of his scientific hero’s most famous work during a radio discussion last week in which he accused Christians of being ignorant of the Bible.

In his frustration, he resorted to a helpless: ‘Oh God’ (Hills 2012).
See my article, Is Richard Dawkins an agnostic or an atheist?

Oz

Works consulted

Hills, S 2012. ‘I can’t be sure God DOES NOT exist’: World’s most notorious atheist Richard Dawkins admits he is in fact agnostic. Mail Online, February 24. Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105834/Career-atheist-Richard-Dawkins-admits-fact-agnostic.html (Accessed 20 March 2012).
 

Alan McDougall

New Member
Jul 23, 2016
22
1
3
83
Johannesburg
Faith
Christian
Country
South Africa
OzSpen said:
Alan,

In a free society where there is freedom of speech, Richard Dawkins has as much right as you and I have in promoting his world view. To my dying day, I'll defend his right to promote what he believes. Why? Because it gives me the right to continue to proclaim the Gospel while my country of Australia still enjoys freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

You'll have to provide your evidence to demonstrate he is a hypocrite. You haven't provided it here.

I don't agree with his conclusion, but he has a right to proclaim it wherever he wants. That gives me the opportunity to refute him. My experience as an apologist in the public arena is that most Christians I know do not know how to refute or expose his dangerous ideas.

Richard Dawkins has admitted that he’s not a 100% atheist.

The Daily Mail [UK] reported the debate this way:


See my article, Is Richard Dawkins an agnostic or an atheist?

Oz

Works consulted

Hills, S 2012. ‘I can’t be sure God DOES NOT exist’: World’s most notorious atheist Richard Dawkins admits he is in fact agnostic. Mail Online, February 24. Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105834/Career-atheist-Richard-Dawkins-admits-fact-agnostic.html (Accessed 20 March 2012).
Then i am baffled as to what you are doing in a Christian forum, especially lying that Dawkins is an agnostic, when he is in fact an outright atheist spouting his hateful gospel of "New Atheism" at every chance and every place at every opportunity he gets.

And the fact is he is a hypocrite doing exactly what despises in believers forcing his unprovable belief down their throats and making a huge amount of money and fame in the process.

He should go home and abandon his useless quest what be with those that he loves best, namely his wife, children and grandchildren in the little time he has left in this world.

He is not only an atheist "He is an angry Athiest" and that is the fact, not your nonsense that he gives any credence toward the existence of God


[Link Removed]

Militant atheism








Joseph Stalin, the Premier of the Soviet Union from 6 May 1941 to 5 March 1953, patronised the League of Militant Atheists, whose chief aim, under the leadership of Yemelyan Yaroslavsky, was to propagate militant atheism and eradicate religion.[1][2]


Militant atheism (Russian: воинствующий атеизм) is a term applied to atheism which is hostile towards religion.[3] Militant atheists have a desire to propagate the doctrine,[4] and differ from moderate atheists because they hold religion to be harmful.[5]

Militant atheism was an integral part of the materialism of Marxism-Leninism,[6] and significant in the French Revolution,[7] atheist states such as theSoviet Union,[8] and Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.[9] The term has also been applied to antireligious political thinkers.[10]
According to Harold J. Berman, a Harvard specialist in Soviet law, "militant atheism was the official religion, one might say, of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party was the established church."[19] The militant atheism of the Bolsheviks owed its origins to the "standard Marxist feeling that religion was the opium of the masses."[20] Vitalij Lazarʹevič Ginzburg, a Soviet physicist, wrote that the "Bolshevik communists were not merely atheists but, according to Lenin's terminology, militant atheists."[21]

The goal of the Soviet Union was the liquidation of religion and the means to achieve this goal included the destruction of churches, mosques, synagogues, mandirs, madrasahs, religious monuments, as well the mass deportation to Siberia of believers of different religions.[22] Under the Soviet doctrine of separation of church and state, detailed in the Constitution of the Soviet Union, churches in the Soviet Union were forbidden to give to the poor or carry on educational activities.[23] They could not publish literature since all publishing was done by state agencies, although after World War II the Russian Orthodox Church was given the right to publish church calendars, a very limited number of Bibles, and a monthly journal in a limited number of copies.[23] Churches were forbidden to hold any special meetings for children, youth or women, or any general meetings for religious study or recreation, or to open libraries or keep any books other than those necessary for the performance of worship services.[24] Furthermore, under militant atheist policies, Church property was expropriated.[25] Moreover, not only was religion banned from the school and university system, but pupils were to be indoctrinated with atheism and antireligious teachings.[26] For example, schoolchildren were asked to convert family members to atheism and memorize antireligious rhymes, songs, and catechisms, while university students who declined to propagate atheism lost their scholarships and were expelled from universities.[27] Severe criminal penalties were imposed for violation of these rules.[28] By the 1960s, with the fourth Soviet anti-religious campaign underway, half of the amount of Russian Orthodox chu


Recently the term militant atheist has been used to describe adherents of the New Atheism movement,[11] which is characterized by the belief that religion "should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed."[12]
 

princevinco

New Member
Dec 23, 2014
1
0
1
59
Nigeria
what do you expect from a fool, as the bible puts it in Psalm 53;1 "The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, and have done abominable iniquity; There is none who does good".
 

Alan McDougall

New Member
Jul 23, 2016
22
1
3
83
Johannesburg
Faith
Christian
Country
South Africa
princevinco said:
what do you expect from a fool, as the bible puts it in Psalm 53;1 "The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, and have done abominable iniquity; There is none who does good".
God bless you that quote of your proves to me that you believe in our Lord God Almighty Thank you

Alan

Atheism is largely responsible for the below, why because according to their gospel we are not accountable for our actions or inactions while living as mortal beings on planet earth


DEPRAVITY RULES THE EARTH AND GOD IS A HATED CONCEPT

The world is now really now worse than the people God destroyed because of their violence and depravity in the days of Noah.

There is a hatred of God like never before and against Christianity especially, which is fast being replaced by Islam or atheism, with unspeakable depravity raging all over the world.


On one site on the internet, a person called Jesus a 2000-year-old Jewish Zombie.

For instance, same-sex marriage and even bestiality becoming legal in some countries.
People are no longer man and woman , female and male now they are "Non-Binary Things" or "Its"

I really feel God's hand is being forced to act or all flesh will be lost under the blanket of legalised depravity.

The end of days are really really here although at our age we might not be around to see it happen, but our children will, so we must ask God for his promise that if "We believe Jesus is the Christ and God has raised him from the dead, our families will be saved regardless.

Like the family of Noah, only he was righteous not his wife or his children or his children's spouses God saved them all because of Noah's righteousness and he will do it for us.

Brother

Alan
 

junobet

Active Member
May 20, 2016
581
165
43
Germany
OzSpen said:
Alan,

In a free society where there is freedom of speech, Richard Dawkins has as much right as you and I have in promoting his world view. To my dying day, I'll defend his right to promote what he believes. Why? Because it gives me the right to continue to proclaim the Gospel while my country of Australia still enjoys freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

You'll have to provide your evidence to demonstrate he is a hypocrite. You haven't provided it here.

I don't agree with his conclusion, but he has a right to proclaim it wherever he wants. That gives me the opportunity to refute him. My experience as an apologist in the public arena is that most Christians I know do not know how to refute or expose his dangerous ideas.

Richard Dawkins has admitted that he’s not a 100% atheist.

The Daily Mail [UK] reported the debate this way:


See my article, Is Richard Dawkins an agnostic or an atheist?

Oz

Works consulted

Hills, S 2012. ‘I can’t be sure God DOES NOT exist’: World’s most notorious atheist Richard Dawkins admits he is in fact agnostic. Mail Online, February 24. Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105834/Career-atheist-Richard-Dawkins-admits-fact-agnostic.html (Accessed 20 March 2012).
[SIZE=medium]Yes indeed, the debate between Archbishop Rowan Williams and Dawkins, moderated by agnostic philosopher Anthony Kenny, is well worth a watch, not just because of the Archbishop’s cute joke about his own beard. For those who haven’t seen it already: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8t090Fr7mfI[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]In it Dawkins has to admit that he doesn’t have the first clue about philosophy, thus basically confirming Terry Eagleton’s review on “The God Delusion”, which IMHO hits the nail on the head:[/SIZE]

Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology. Card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins, who is the nearest thing to a professional atheist we have had since Bertrand Russell, are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since they don’t believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding. This is why they invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince. The more they detest religion, the more ill-informed their criticisms of it tend to be. If they were asked to pass judgment on phenomenology or the geopolitics of South Asia, they would no doubt bone up on the question as assiduously as they could. When it comes to theology, however, any shoddy old travesty will pass muster. These days, theology is the queen of the sciences in a rather less august sense of the word than in its medieval heyday.
(…)
What, one wonders, are Dawkins’s views on the epistemological differences between Aquinas and Duns Scotus? Has he read Eriugena on subjectivity, Rahner on grace or Moltmann on hope? Has he even heard of them? Or does he imagine like a bumptious young barrister that you can defeat the opposition while being complacently ignorant of its toughest case? Dawkins, it appears, has sometimes been told by theologians that he sets up straw men only to bowl them over, a charge he rebuts in this book; but if The God Delusion is anything to go by, they are absolutely right. As far as theology goes, Dawkins has an enormous amount in common with Ian Paisley and American TV evangelists. Both parties agree pretty much on what religion is; it’s just that Dawkins rejects it while Oral Roberts and his unctuous tribe grow fat on it.
(…)"

[SIZE=medium]http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching[/SIZE]
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Alan McDougall said:
Then i am baffled as to what you are doing in a Christian forum, especially lying that Dawkins is an agnostic, when he is in fact an outright atheist spouting his hateful gospel of "New Atheism" at every chance and every place at every opportunity he gets.

And the fact is he is a hypocrite doing exactly what despises in believers forcing his unprovable belief down their throats and making a huge amount of money and fame in the process.

He should go home and abandon his useless quest what be with those that he loves best, namely his wife, children and grandchildren in the little time he has left in this world.

He is not only an atheist "He is an angry Athiest" and that is the fact, not your nonsense that he gives any credence toward the existence of God


[Link Removed]

Militant atheism








Joseph Stalin, the Premier of the Soviet Union from 6 May 1941 to 5 March 1953, patronised the League of Militant Atheists, whose chief aim, under the leadership of Yemelyan Yaroslavsky, was to propagate militant atheism and eradicate religion.[1][2]


Militant atheism (Russian: воинствующий атеизм) is a term applied to atheism which is hostile towards religion.[3] Militant atheists have a desire to propagate the doctrine,[4] and differ from moderate atheists because they hold religion to be harmful.[5]

Militant atheism was an integral part of the materialism of Marxism-Leninism,[6] and significant in the French Revolution,[7] atheist states such as theSoviet Union,[8] and Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.[9] The term has also been applied to antireligious political thinkers.[10]
According to Harold J. Berman, a Harvard specialist in Soviet law, "militant atheism was the official religion, one might say, of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party was the established church."[19] The militant atheism of the Bolsheviks owed its origins to the "standard Marxist feeling that religion was the opium of the masses."[20] Vitalij Lazarʹevič Ginzburg, a Soviet physicist, wrote that the "Bolshevik communists were not merely atheists but, according to Lenin's terminology, militant atheists."[21]

The goal of the Soviet Union was the liquidation of religion and the means to achieve this goal included the destruction of churches, mosques, synagogues, mandirs, madrasahs, religious monuments, as well the mass deportation to Siberia of believers of different religions.[22] Under the Soviet doctrine of separation of church and state, detailed in the Constitution of the Soviet Union, churches in the Soviet Union were forbidden to give to the poor or carry on educational activities.[23] They could not publish literature since all publishing was done by state agencies, although after World War II the Russian Orthodox Church was given the right to publish church calendars, a very limited number of Bibles, and a monthly journal in a limited number of copies.[23] Churches were forbidden to hold any special meetings for children, youth or women, or any general meetings for religious study or recreation, or to open libraries or keep any books other than those necessary for the performance of worship services.[24] Furthermore, under militant atheist policies, Church property was expropriated.[25] Moreover, not only was religion banned from the school and university system, but pupils were to be indoctrinated with atheism and antireligious teachings.[26] For example, schoolchildren were asked to convert family members to atheism and memorize antireligious rhymes, songs, and catechisms, while university students who declined to propagate atheism lost their scholarships and were expelled from universities.[27] Severe criminal penalties were imposed for violation of these rules.[28] By the 1960s, with the fourth Soviet anti-religious campaign underway, half of the amount of Russian Orthodox chu


Recently the term militant atheist has been used to describe adherents of the New Atheism movement,[11] which is characterized by the belief that religion "should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed."[12]
Alan,

You did not address the issues I raised regarding Richard Dawkins. It is he himself who has admitted he is agnostic and no longer an atheist. I am not LYING that Dawkins is an agnostic. He himself has admitted such in his debate with Archbishop Rowan Williams in 2012. It's time you dealt with the evidence that Dawkins has presented about his agnosticism.

When you copy and paste this irrelevant material that does not address what I posted, you commit a red herring logical fallacy. We cannot have a logical discussion when you use this fallacious reasoning.

Why am I on this forum? I'm a Christian who is addressing Christian issues - honestly.

Oz
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
junobet said:
[SIZE=medium]Yes indeed, the debate between Archbishop Rowan Williams and Dawkins, moderated by agnostic philosopher Anthony Kenny, is well worth a watch, not just because of the Archbishop’s cute joke about his own beard. For those who haven’t seen it already: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8t090Fr7mfI[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]In it Dawkins has to admit that he doesn’t have the first clue about philosophy, thus basically confirming Terry Eagleton’s review on “The God Delusion”, which IMHO hits the nail on the head:[/SIZE]

Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology. Card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins, who is the nearest thing to a professional atheist we have had since Bertrand Russell, are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since they don’t believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding. This is why they invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince. The more they detest religion, the more ill-informed their criticisms of it tend to be. If they were asked to pass judgment on phenomenology or the geopolitics of South Asia, they would no doubt bone up on the question as assiduously as they could. When it comes to theology, however, any shoddy old travesty will pass muster. These days, theology is the queen of the sciences in a rather less august sense of the word than in its medieval heyday.
(…)
What, one wonders, are Dawkins’s views on the epistemological differences between Aquinas and Duns Scotus? Has he read Eriugena on subjectivity, Rahner on grace or Moltmann on hope? Has he even heard of them? Or does he imagine like a bumptious young barrister that you can defeat the opposition while being complacently ignorant of its toughest case? Dawkins, it appears, has sometimes been told by theologians that he sets up straw men only to bowl them over, a charge he rebuts in this book; but if The God Delusion is anything to go by, they are absolutely right. As far as theology goes, Dawkins has an enormous amount in common with Ian Paisley and American TV evangelists. Both parties agree pretty much on what religion is; it’s just that Dawkins rejects it while Oral Roberts and his unctuous tribe grow fat on it.
(…)"

[SIZE=medium]http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching[/SIZE]
Junobet,

What a brilliant assessment by Terry Eagleton of Dawkins' theological ineptitude. He said it so wistfully. I'm in the midst of debating a rationalist online who thinks he is as bright as Dawkins but his theological ability is as Eagleton has stated, 'This is why they invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince. The more they detest religion, the more ill-informed their criticisms of it tend to be'.

If you want to join me in debating RationalRazor, come to the Comments section of my article: Is 'no religion' a new religion?

Thanks so much for sharing this review.

Blessings,
Oz
 

Alan McDougall

New Member
Jul 23, 2016
22
1
3
83
Johannesburg
Faith
Christian
Country
South Africa
OzSpen said:
Alan,

You did not address the issues I raised regarding Richard Dawkins. It is he himself who has admitted he is agnostic and no longer an atheist. I am not LYING that Dawkins is an agnostic. He himself has admitted such in his debate with Archbishop Rowan Williams in 2012. It's time you dealt with the evidence that Dawkins has presented about his agnosticism.

When you copy and paste this irrelevant material that does not address what I posted, you commit a red herring logical fallacy. We cannot have a logical discussion when you use this fallacious reasoning.

Why am I on this forum? I'm a Christian who is addressing Christian issues - honestly.

Oz
This is not a philosophical forum it is a Christian Forum with firm beliefs in the existence of Almighty God are sacred , so don't quote philosophical nonsense to as me supposedly using "Red herring fallacy" to get my point of view over.

You have the gall to tell me not to put in links when you did the exact same thing before I did which is a foirm of hypocicy

I joined this forum to avoid compromising people like you, who want to water down Christianity and make it more palatable to the masses

The fact is Richard Dawkins is a militant radical atheist that hates the concept of GOD and is dong his utmost to turn the world into radical atheist like him.

When he says there might be an intelligence of some sort or the other behind the creation of the universe, he is most definitely not talking about the Christian God who created all of existence.

All he is doing is patronising and pandering in a subtle attempt to draw the vulnerable into his deception.

Show me where and when he clearly states that "I AM AN AGNOSTIC"

if you admire him so much i could give you the link to his site where you can enjoy his company , there but not here in a Christian forum where we should be defending Christianity and the existence of Almighty God.
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Alan McDougall said:
This is not a philosophical forum it is a Christian Forum with firm beliefs in the existence of Almighty God are sacred , so don't quote philosophical nonsense to as me supposedly using "Red herring fallacy" to get my point of view over.

You have the gall to tell me not to put in links when you did the exact same thing before I did which is a foirm of hypocicy

I joined this forum to avoid compromising people like you, who want to water down Christianity and make it more palatable to the masses

The fact is Richard Dawkins is a militant radical atheist that hates the concept of GOD and is dong his utmost to turn the world into radical atheist like him.

When he says there might be an intelligence of some sort or the other behind the creation of the universe, he is most definitely not talking about the Christian God who created all of existence.

All he is doing is patronising and pandering in a subtle attempt to draw the vulnerable into his deception.

Show me where and when he clearly states that "I AM AN AGNOSTIC"

if you admire him so much i could give you the link to his site where you can enjoy his company , there but not here in a Christian forum where we should be defending Christianity and the existence of Almighty God.
Alan,

It so happens that you have posted in 'a Christian debate forum' in which I have exposed a logical fallacy you use. God is the God of logic - the God of logos. In fact, for us to even have Scripture in written form, God has arranged for it to be written in logical sentences in the original language so that we can have logical sentences (and paragraphs) in English.

Where did I say this to you: 'You have the gall to tell me not to put in links'? Please tell me the post where I told you that.

You have been here for 10 posts. You don't even know me or the kind of posts I've made over the YEARS. But you have the audacity to be so judgmental that you make this false statement about me: 'Compromising people like you, who want to water down Christianity and make it more palatable to the masses'. This is an utterly false view. I have reported you to the moderators for making this flaming comment.

I provided you with a link to the debate of Richard Dawkins with Rowan Williams where Dawkins acknowledged that he was a 6.9 out of 7.0 agnostic.

Bye,
Oz
 

Alan McDougall

New Member
Jul 23, 2016
22
1
3
83
Johannesburg
Faith
Christian
Country
South Africa
OzSpen said:


Alan,

It so happens that you have posted in 'a Christian debate forum' in which I have exposed a logical fallacy you use. God is the God of logic - the God of logos. In fact, for us to even have Scripture in written form, God has arranged for it to be written in logical sentences in the original language so that we can have logical sentences (and paragraphs) in English.

Where did I say this to you: 'You have the gall to tell me not to put in links'? Please tell me the post where I told you that.

You have been here for 10 posts. You don't even know me or the kind of posts I've made over the YEARS. But you have the audacity to be so judgmental that you make this false statement about me: 'Compromising people like you, who want to water down Christianity and make it more palatable to the masses'. This is an utterly false view. I have reported you to the moderators for making this flaming comment.

I provided you with a link to the debate of Richard Dawkins with Rowan Williams where Dawkins acknowledged that he was a 6.9 out of 7.0 agnostic.

Bye,
Oz


Below is what you said , you are telling me not to use links or copy and paste what is according to you is irrelevant information, but seems you lack the intellect to see that what I was trying to get over is that Dawkins is doing the exact same thing as Stalin communist USSR preaching the gospel of atheism. There is nothing wrong copying and pasting if the link to the source of the information is reflected in the post, which I provided!
When you copy and paste this irrelevant material that does not address what I posted, you commit a red herring logical fallacy. We cannot have a logical discussion when you use this fallacious reasoning.
According to your twisted logic, it is irrelevant when in fact it addresses the issue directly by comparing Dawkins radical atheism with that of the communist USS regime

I tremble with fear now that you have reported me to the moderators, you are compromising Christianity by pandering to Dawkins and I have as much right to my opinion as you do!.

This is what Dawkins actually said in the link you provided

[SIZE=1.2em]He said: 'On a scale of seven, where one means I know he exists, and seven I know he doesn't, I call myself a six.'[/SIZE]

Professor Dawkins went on to say he believed was a '6.9', stating: 'That doesn't mean I'm absolutely confident, that I absolutely know, because I don't.'
That statement by Dawkins is as remote from admitting that he was an agnostic as I have ever read he clearly states on a scale of 6 to 7 he is sure GOD DOES NOT EXIST, and you put words in his mouth by telling me he admitted being an agnostic.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105834/Career-atheist-Richard-Dawkins-admits-fact-agnostic.html#ixzz4FMsiKe6d
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
 

Angelina

Prayer Warrior
Staff member
Admin
Feb 4, 2011
37,110
15,058
113
New Zealand
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
New Zealand
You have the gall to tell me not to put in links when you did the exact same thing before I did which is a foirm of hypocicY
Alan, please read the link regarding posting links in posts. New members cannot post links in a post until they have reached the required x 10 post which you have just reached now. If you look at other posters here, you will see that they have surpassed the required posts needed ie; Oz has 1,478 posts and Junobet has 97.

Posting links to your own site will also require you to create a thread in the webmaster/IT forum.
http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/22551-new-members-please-read-posting-links/

This thread is now closed as I can see nothing positive come from it...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.