MS, I'd be amazed if more than 5% of people around here agreed with you that Dawkins and Hovind are equally convincing.
If you insist on that line, (when one is shown to be wrong at almost every quote, and the other yet to be specifically faulted) - then I consider your recommendations of what more to read etc to be pretty optional reading .
Personally I hope that God doesn't exist - because if He/She/It is so powerful and still let's the things happen that do, then we're all in trouble.
why try to convert people to a belief in something if not seeking control?
suggest that this is the fear tactic employed by religions to win the minds of people.Hence the "apocalyptic literature" in the book of revelations.
From this cursory perusal of the book, it is evident that the Seer was influenced by the prophecies of Daniel more than by any other book. Daniel was written with the object of comforting the Jews under the cruel persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes. The Seer in the Apocalypse had a similar purpose. The Christians were fiercely persecuted in the reign of Domitian. The danger of apostasy was great. False prophets went about, trying to seduce the people to conform to the heathen practices and to take part in the Caesar-worship. The Seer urges his Christians to remain true to their faith and to bear their troubles with fortitude.
There are several books akin to Revelation in the Old Testament - Daniel, parts of Ezekiel, Judith, and others. This apocalyptic literature is full of symbolism, using code words or names to hide the real message from persecutors. If the persecutors of the faithful came across this subversive writing, they would either not know what it meant or think it was something from the past. This provided protection for those who understood the writing’s symbolism and codes. So the Book of Revelation is not a prophecy for the twenty-first century Christian, as some preachers would say.
Now the populist argument that less than 5% of people around here would probably find Dawkins more convincing than Hovind may or may not be true.
A question could be, why try to convert people to a belief in something if not seeking control?
In general, I think people try to convert not because they are seeking control, but because they think the belief to be true and therefore worthy of believing. Why believe anything if one does not think that belief corresponds with the way things really are "out there"? For example, Dawkins clearly believes that "belief in god" is a dangerous delusion and he is so convinced of that he is trying to persuade others to think similarly. Is Dawkins seeking control of others? Or does he think his belief is true and therefore worthy of attempting to persuade others to see his perspective?
To the wide waters, touch to corporal things,
Intangibility to the viewless void.
But state of slavery, pauperhood, and wealth,
Freedom, and war, and concord, and all else
Which come and go whilst nature stands the same,
We're wont, and rightly, to call accidents.
Even time exists not of itself; but sense
Reads out of things what happened long ago,
What presses now, and what shall follow after:
No man, we must admit, feels time itself,
Disjoined from motion and repose of things.
If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is....
..."God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. "No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all."
Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? ....
.... something like this maybe?We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is....
poll questions are poor choices since to be a disbeliever (athiest) or believer you must first know who or what god is and no one does know (beyond reasonabel doubt either way)
recall a little quote that goes like " it is impossible for a religious person to think logically, because if you are capable of logical thought there is only one conclusion.........the religious will have to guess what that is."
I thought this was going to be a logical argument for a moment.
You want logical thinking? Here...
http://philofreligion.homestead.com/files/alspaper.htm
Now according to traditional Christian (and Jewish and Muslim) thought, we human beings have been created in the image of God. This means, among other things, that he created us with the capacity for achieving knowledge””
knowledge of our environment by way of perception, of other people by way of something like what Thomas Reid calls sympathy, of the past by memory and testimony, of mathematics and logic by reason, of morality, our own mental life,God himself, and much more.
Sorry to butt in but it can`t go without noting that this chappy `jumped` to a conclusion about what being created in the image of a god means.
Now according to traditional Christian (and Jewish and Muslim) thought, we human beings have been created in the image of God. This means, among other things, that he created us with the capacity for achieving knowledge””knowledge of our environment by way of perception, of other people by way of something like what Thomas Reid calls sympathy, of the past by memory and testimony, of mathematics and logic by reason, of morality, our own mental life, God himself, and much more.[6] And the above evolutionary account of our origins is compatible with the theistic view that God has created us in his image.[7] So evolutionary theory taken by itself (without the patina of philosophical naturalism that often accompanies expositions of it) is not as such in tension with the idea that God has created us and our cognitive faculties in such a way that the latter are reliable, that (as the medievals like to say) there is an adequation of intellect to reality.
But if naturalism is true, there is no God, and hence no God (or anyone else) overseeing our development and orchestrating the course of our evolution. And this leads directly to the question whether it is at all likely that our cognitive faculties, given naturalism and given their evolutionary origin, would have developed in such a way as to be reliable, to
furnish us with mostly true beliefs.
wysiwyg, you better reread the WHOLE line of thought and keep that quote in its context. This chappy did not jump to any conclusion.
He is saying "According to theistic thought X, Y and Z. But if naturalism is true then A, B and C."
And the above evolutionary account of our origins is compatible with the theistic view that God has created us in his image
Now according to traditional Christian (and Jewish and Muslim) thought, we human beings have been created in the image of God.
Sorry, but since Thomas Reid,mathematics, logic by reason are introduced into the sentence, then `This means` tells me they are his thoughts/interpretation of "created in the image of God" and not a general theistic view.
Then could this be believed ... "So man created God in his own image, in the image of man created he him; male and female created he them."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?