Oklahoma House of Representives oppose Richard Dawkins as speaker at OSU
The Oklahoma House of Representives has issued a Resolution opposing the invitiation to speak, by Oklahoma State University, of Richard Dawkins. A state sponsored, bona fide, Resolution (State of Oklahoma 1st session of the 52nd Legislature, 2009, House Resolution 1015)! In so doing they have demonstrated a complete disregard for concepts like irony, hypocrisy, and unintentional comedy. The Onion could scarcely do a better job of ridiculing the Oklahoma House, or satirizing parochial politics better than the god-squad in Oklahoma.
It is a
A Resolution opposing the invitation to Richard Dawkins to speak on campus; encouraging the University of Oklahoma to engage in a certain discussion of certain scientific theories; and directing distribution.
The state legislature is encouraging a "certain discussion of certain scientific theories?" On what grounds ought they do this? What scientific qualifications do the honorable members of the House possess that they should be offering ideas about what is good or bad science? How certain a discussion I wonder? What certain theories you may ask? Of course you needn't ask because you already know. Besides they inform us very early in their Resolution.
Under the guise of academic freedom, members of the Oklahoma House are trying to force OSU, indeed any university I would guess, that gets public funding to teach either intelligent design (hereafter ID) or straight creationism (hereafter tucked into my ID abreviation because they are one and the same thing). The wording of the Resolution pretends to want to foster a university which is "open to all ideas, and should train students in all disciplines of study and research, and to use independent thinking and free inquiry." This is an assortment of meaningless nonsense. There are obvious objections. What would it mean to be "open to all ideas?" If a professor wanted to teach a course on the therapuetic benefits of bondage gangbangs would Todd Thomsen (the representative who appears to be pushing Resolution 1015) and his gang be open to the possiblities? Would they embrace this fresh, counter-intuitive idea, that would presumbly be short on data, and even shorter on sound methodology? The hypothetical professor's idea is certianly ripe with independent thinking, and encourages free inquiry. Would they support a field course on cryptozoology, that taught the wildlife biology of unicorns, bigfoots, Lochness monsters? Just what is it they want OSU to allow? R1015 is actually short on such specifics but we can infer a great deal of their specific aims by examining that which they aim their extreme antipathy.
All disciplines? What does that even mean? What more can reasonably be added to college curriculae? Clearly our minds must be open to new possiblities, but they should be so open that our brains fall out. That Resolution 1015 singles out Dawkins is something of a surprise, but that it would then attack the science of evolutionary theory, Charles Darwin was not.
You are probably wondering just what R1015 has to say...
WHEREAS, the University of Oklahoma has planned a year-long celebration of the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin and the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s theory of evolution, called the “Darwin 2009 Project”, which includes a series of lectures, public speakers, and a course on the history of evolution; and
WHEREAS, the University of Oklahoma, as a part of the Darwin 2009 Project, has invited as a public speaker on campus, Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, whose published opinions, as represented in his 2006 book “The God Delusion”, and public statements on the theory of evolution demonstrate an intolerance for cultural diversity and diversity of thinking and are views that are not shared and are not representative of the thinking of a majority of the citizens of Oklahoma; and
I must confess that I doubt Todd Thomsen, or the other authors of R1015 have even cracked the cover of The God Delusion or read any thing but quotes of Dawkins "public opionions", nor ever listened to him discuss evolutionary theory. A harsh accusation I grant you, but one born of some unpleasant experiance. Dawkins is in no way obligated to hold an opionion commensurate with that of "the thinking of a majority of the citizens of Oklahoma." Nor is OSU's biology department or its College of Arts and Sciences in any way similarly obligated to parrot the purported sentiments of most of the thinking citizens of Oklahoma. Charges like cultural intolerance, and intellectual intolerance are, when left vague, ultimately pointless. What does it mean specifically to call Dawkins intolerant? The authors of R1015 are not concerned with specifics, just making the charge, and the careless implication.
R1015 demonstrates a decided annoyance with evolutionary theory, Charles Darwin, and any celebration of either or both. It accuses the scientific establishment at OSU of presenting "a biased philosophy on the theory of evolution to the exclusion of all other divergent considerations rather than teaching a scientific concept" not only by inviting Dawkins, but by its focus on Darwin this year. What other divergent considerations? Again the authors glide by it. But we can bet they are not upset by the fact that hypotheses utilizing group selection are not more widely examined, or the novel and engaging ideas of Lynn Marguilis concerning the role of cooperation as a driver of evolutionary trends are not being widely accepted among evolutionary biologists. The reason for this is that those minor scientific arguments (which will be settled by experiental results that are subsequently duplicated in various independent labs) do not claim to be doing anything other than expanding the mechanisms by which evolutionary change happens. ID is exactly the thing with which the authors of R1015, and presumbly most of thinking Oklahoma want to see in the class rooms of OSU. The problem is that pesky scientific method, that ignores ideas, no matter how novel, free wheeling, or paradigm shifting if they come with no data, no experiment, er...well, with absolutely nothing but the earnestness of the their claimants. While the authors don't want to bring up ID, it is the only thing about which they can be talking.
But what has been resolved? (The caps are theirs not mine)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE 1ST SESSION OF THE 52ND OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:
THAT the Oklahoma House of Representative strongly opposes the invitation to speak on the campus of the University of Oklahoma to Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, whose published statements on the theory of evolution and opinion about those who do not believe in the theory are contrary and offensive to the views and opinions of most citizens of Oklahoma.
Dawkins has said that most people who think there is an alternative explanation for the diversity of life on are simply ignorant of the facts. His views about evolution are as it happens not opinions per se in the same way that my thoughts on the sun being the center of our solar system are not opinions. It is demonstrable, verifiable fact. Evolution is as demonstrable as heliocentricy. In fact it stands as one of the three great pillars of scientific success in the past 200 years. The other two relativity, and quantum mechanics being found in physics. When more ID nitwits understand those two theories better they will have no choice but oppose them as well. Being offended by facts can happen I suppose, but it won't stop their being true.
1015 further "resolves" that
THAT the Oklahoma House of Representatives encourages the University of Oklahoma to engage in an open, dignified, and fair discussion of the Darwinian theory of evolution and all other scientific theories which is the approach that a public institution should be engaged in and which represents the desire and interest of the citizens of Oklahoma.
OSU's biology department is already engaged in an open, dignified discussion of evolutionary theory and has been for several decades. I do wish they would spell out what they think is unfair about the current approach. Evolutionary biology is a lively field, full of intense inquiry, disaggreement and research. What can we add that isn't already being discussed? If the authors of R1015 would like professor's of biology to teach something they call "the controversy" (IDers prefer to think in terms of a false dichotomy. In their mind there is Darwinian evolution and ID. Here they are utterly wrong. There is currently only evolutionary biology because IDers have produced no science at all). There is no scientific controversy to teach. It seems that simply because some, perhaps sizable, percentage of Oklahomans prefer a literal interpretation of their scripture, the authors of R1015 think science classrooms should waste valuble time on mythology. Sadly for the proponents of R1015 scientific truth is not adjudicated by democratice means.
Opposing Dawkins as a speaker, while at the same time crying over academic freedom, fair and dignified discussions, and asking for free inquiry all seem like counter-productive moves. It would be hard to ignore the fact it also seems utterly inconsistent with the stated goals of the distinguished representatives in question. "Please, we want free inquiry, we want a fair and balanced appraisal of the issues, but...uh...this guy shouldn't be allowed to speak."
Did the authors of R1015 not see this? Apparently not.
Finally R1015 resolves:
THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the President of the University of Oklahoma, the Dean of the College of Arts and Science at the University of Oklahoma, and the Chair of the Department of Zoology at the University of Oklahoma.
This is easily the only intelligent thing accomplished by R1015. They decided to send a copy to the people that offended them. Well done.
Post Script:
Clearly the authors of R1015 are creationists who hold a more or less fundamentalist, literalist position of the bible. As such they are likely completely in the dark about how science works. Only in this way can they think that all that is needed for creationism to be more widely believed among biologists is for more "discussion." The simple fact is that there is just nothing to discuss. The past one hundred and fifty years of research have established evolution as scientific fact. Discussion won't shift that paradigm. The only thing that possibly could cause a change in the scientific view would be actual research that falsified the evolutionary hypothesis. No one is opposeing such research, and I invite the proponents of ID to get well on with it.
If you don't hold a literalist view of your scripture I suppose science is not a threat to your religious views. If you take the position of metaphor, and allegory then what bother is it that we are kin with the rest of the biosphere? There are probably ways to make even greater, more beautiful religious metaphors awaiting you in the sciences. No doubt such a view is more work and all yours to do, but why set your belief system on the tracks of the scientific endeavor? The literalist of the cosmos has already been run down.
Move along, nothing to see here.
posted by Max II @ 3:09 PM
4 Comments
4 Comments:
THE GOD DELUSION
BY
RICHARD DAWKINS
A review of the above titled book by Michael Henry Cook
The preface of this book is a subtle brainwashing of indoctrinating the reader; in legal jargon it is known as “leading the witness,” a means by which Mr. Dawkins can convert the reader into believing in his God! Oops, I meant atheism, and his atheistic zeal in propagating it. He goes on to quoting prominent intellectuals to support his argument, pointing out, no doubt proudly, “that they too are atheists.” Those who choose to believe in God do the same, naming, as Mr. Dawkins does, elite members of society in support of their argument; claiming, “that they too are believers,” which simple counter argument negates his shallow reasoning
Mr. Dawkins on page 27 of his book uses the analogy of atheists to herded cats, because they, (cats), tend to act independently and will not conform to authority, so creating a picture of himself and other atheists as unique, as standing out among the masses as independent in their thinking! Is that not a superior attitude bordering on the divine? Does Mr. Dawkins have his head in the clouds; does he aspire to a higher office? Or is his head somewhere else, for the smell is already offensive, and I have not yet come to the first chapter. Is this man not aware of those God fearing men throughout history who have stood by their own independent beliefs in God, going against the accepted doctrine of the time, knowing they could be burnt at the stake, disemboweled, and many were. Yet they stood firm in their personal convictions, and were willing to pay the ultimate price of forfeiting their lives, rather than lose that which they felt was more important than life itself, a trueness to ones own self, a personal integrity of belief, which without it, life to them would not be worth living.
They did not hide, they had no protection from the authority of the day, they did not have a position of professorship to protect them, they spoke out in a hostile intolerant world, not in a medium of security as is afforded to the likes of the “brave,” Mr. Dawkins.
The author quotes Microsoft word on page 28 of the paperback version of his book, which defines “delusion,” as “a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence, especially as a symptom of a psychiatric disorder.” Implying those who believe in a God have a mental problem! Is it not possible that atheists persist in a false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence! Having yet to begin to read the first chapter of this book, I am still in the pages of the puzzling preface, coming to the conclusion that this book should be re-titled, “The Dawkins Delusion.” He has the affrontry to call the billions of believers in God over the millennia, to quote page 25 of his book. “ When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion.” He goes on to boast quite openly that those religious leaders who read his book would be an atheist when they put it down. That will make them like him surely? And when many people suffer from a delusion like that, does it not make them followers of “Dawkinism?” It is all right for them to believe in his book, but not the Bible? Is it better to follow Dick Dawkins, Professor for the public understanding of science at Oxford University, receiver of numerous honours; The Michael Faraday Award; The Shakespeare Prize, etc., or are people insane for following a man called Jesus Christ, Son of God, The Messiah, King of Kings, etc., compare the pedigree of Jesus Christ with that of Dick Dawkins the Delusional Don from Oxford! There is not a name in the whole of human history that has affected mankind more than that of Jesus Christ, as one commentator succinctly summed up Christ’s profound affect upon the lives of the people’s of the earth in these words;
“ All the armies that ever marched, all the navies that ever were built, and all the parliaments that ever sat, all the Kings that ever reigned, put together have not affected the life of man on the earth as powerfully.”
Alexander The Great, Julius Caesar, Henry The Eighth, Napoleon, their combined impact upon mankind pales into the margins of history, compared to that of Jesus Christ! Even history’s timetable of events is determined by the life of Christ. B.C. or A.D. What delusional impression does Mr. Dawkins expect to leave behind? Mr. who? Where will you be in twenty years time Mr. Dawkins? I will tell you, forgotten, and that is no delusion sir! The self-righteousness of the man increases on page 22 of his book where he lays the blame for people turning to religion as the fault of the educational system, they have, he claims, not been properly taught “Darwin’s astounding alternative;” or is it Dawkins astounding alternative? I have read and studied both Darwinism and Dawkinism and find them offensive and delusional in the extreme that they could think that such staggering order, design, and law could originate by chance. His statement on page seven, a memoriam to a Douglas Adams, which says; “ Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?” Mr. Dawkins has convinced himself that fairies don’t do gardening; but gardeners do Mr. Dawkins, and one can appreciate the gardener’s horticultural flair, even those deprived of an education can appreciate a well-managed garden! He further implies, that one does not have to believe in a God to appreciate a beautiful garden, he might feel that way but there are many others who see God’s green fingers in such beauty.
The author goes on to say that many will be warned off from reading his book, as it will be looked upon as the work of Satan. He should be so lucky, my study of the Bible over many years, and the Devils past recorded behaviour, shows he would not touch Mr. Dawkins book with an Oxford barge pole? I know that Satan has had a go at Adam, Moses, the Kings of Israel, Jesus Christ, them I know, but Dick Dawkins the Delusional Don from Oxford? And this guy is a Professor? The forked tongue logic of Mr. Dawkins and his intellectual disciples is well summed up in the expression, “Thank God I am an atheist.” They all acknowledge the awesomeness of the universe, the beauty of a garden, the wonders without number that are all about us, they attribute it all to “nature,” “ natural selection,” “ evolution,” just as one speaks to a seaman or a miner, and I have been both, you will find they have a language all of their own that becomes familiar to you as you become one of them.
So to has atheism, the one consistent theme of atheists language, is that there is no greater intelligence than theirs, making them the highest intelligencia of all?
Does that make them Gods? Is atheism a smokescreen for the egotism of atheists to usurp God, so by becoming a God themselves?
Is that the goal of Mr. Dawkins, for he is gaining a devoted following, will he establish churches, sorry, places of learning where people can be taught Mr.Dawkins interpretation of Darwin’s astounding alternative!
Will Mr. Dawkins preach his message of salvation, which is, to save us from God and religion, to turn the Israelite into a Dawkinite, the Christian into a Darwinian? For remember Mr. Dawkins everything is made after its kind, a world filled with Dawkinite atheists, in contrast to a world filled with followers of Christ, Christians. These Dawkinite atheists remind me of the man who was presented with quisine of the highest quality, food prepared as works of art with the taste to match, enjoying meal after meal, day after day, a seeming endless banquet of beauty and tastes, with not a word of praise or thanks to the chef, as he could not accept that such excellence of craft could have a heart and soul behind it? There are none so blind as those who see! Mr. Dawkins and his disciples are praising the Emperor, atheism, and how astoundingly dressed he is, when he, the Emperor in his nakedness and swaying genitalia praises their finery, and they all march off naked and exposed to Mr. Dawkins temple of delusion to discuss how they can dress even more nakedly.
My conclusions on Mr.Dawkins book are that he has admired the banquet, but not tasted of it. I agree with him about religions disgraceful history, and its hypocrisy, never more so than what we see today. That I believe in the existence of God does not close my mind to asking questions of both God and religion, whether people feel my questions are blasphemous or not, for how otherwise am I to learn if I am restricted in my curiosity of thought. I must agree with a former President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson as quoted on page 64 of Mr. Dawkins book, “Question with boldness even the existence of God, because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.”
My feelings and my reasoning powers led me, like Mr. Dawkins to write a book called, “God, mans loving enemy,” under the pen name of Adam Bolton, and I, like Mr.Dawkins have asked many questions of God and religion which have so disturbed me. But unlike Mr. Dawkins I have not denied God’s existence, and as I say in my book on page 81, “I look and see God’s creation as staggering in its diversity, his universe as awesome, one cannot deny the obvious, but he seems to have difficulty with the thinking and reasoning element of his creation,” “Maybe a Creation to Far.” This is where he and I differ, his foundation for dealing with God and religion is to deny both, where as I accept their existence, but do not necessarily agree with both. It is like denying there was an Adolph Hitler and his Third Reich, we could strongly disagree with their objectives, but we could not deny their existence. That 12-year history of the Nazi Party, profound as its affect was on the world, is nothing compared to God and religions domination of human affairs, mainly I might add to man’s injury.
Yet Mr. Dawkins is adamant in the non- existence of God, so then why challenge something you are so convinced does not exist. If he does not exist what is there to fear? Why write a book about a God who is non- existent? This non- existing God seems to have got Mr. Dawkins hot under the collar! I am sure Mr. Dawkins respects peoples right to believe in God’s, Ghosts, Phantoms, Devils, Demons and Atheism, it just seems to me that he is so convinced of his own beliefs, that he cannot understand others believing as strongly as he does, but to the contrary? This speaks to me of intellectual snobbery, superiority of thought, which seems to come about in those who feel they are part of an elite section of society, which position and notoriety seems to embolden and corrupt many men. What I find missing in his book, is an air of humility, also the lack of a becoming mind that is touched by soulful reasoning. When one reads the numerous ways in which Jesus Christ dealt with the many people he came across, one cannot but admire and be touched by his warm consideration of others! If atheism has made Mr. Dawkins what he is, then give me Jesus every time.
On page 68 of his book Mr. Dawkins quotes Nehru, once head of state for India who said, “ Religion almost always seemed to stand for blind belief and reaction, dogma and bigotry, superstition, exploitation and the preservation of vested interests.” Mr. Dawkins is trying to justify his condemnation of religion by quoting celebrated figures of the past and present, what he cannot see, as he is blinded by so much hatred of religion, that if he was to take the word religion out of the quotation and insert atheism, it would prove that they who are atheists are just as capable of exploitation, bigotry, dogma, with their own vested interests close at heart? It is so easy to paint others black, as we seek to justify ourselves, and because of that we can find difficulty in seeing that we are no better than those whom we choose to condemn, it seems to be criminal to do it in the name of God, but not in the name of atheism!
What if atheism ruled supreme, with Richard Dawkins as our atheistic King? Would that mean no more wars? No more hunger? No more disease? No more crime? What if some did not agree with King Richards’s form of atheism, and wish to set up their own atheistic agenda, with their own devoted followers, will King Richard make war upon them? Will he establish a set of laws for all to follow, “An Atheistic Bible, a “little red book,” a “Koran of atheism,” a “Mosaic Law,” or should I say, “Dawkins Law.”
What would the reaction be, would there be atheistic sects springing up everywhere, hostility, differences of atheistic interpretation, endless debates on Darwin’s origin of the species, leading to division, even to war? A world divided, sound familiar Mr. Dawkins? Then we start to see people writing books on the evil of atheism, preaching that a belief in a God will solve our problems. Do you get the picture Mr. Dawkins? The cycle goes on? If God and Jesus Christ have not solved mans problems, who is Dick Dawkins the Delusional Don from Oxford to think that he has the remedy? This crusade by Dawkins with the banner of atheism as his emblem, followed by evolutionism, agnosticism, naturism, secularism, rationalism, and all the other isms, are no different from the opposing religious factions and their isms, Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism, and Judaism. The reality is we are all in a lunatic asylum of dogmatism, idealism, meism, and I’m rightism.
As Ecclesiastes says in chapter 12 v 12,” As regards anything besides these, my son, take a warning. To the making of many books there is no end, and much devotion to them is wearisome to the flesh.” And Eccl, 1v18 adds, “For in the abundance of wisdom there is an abundance of vexation, so that he that increases knowledge increases pain.” I would recommend to Mr. Dawkins the reading of Ecclesiastes; a powerful summation of life is within this brief, but moving book, that even the most ardent atheist could not but smile and nod with approval at many of its conclusions that sum up perfectly our brief time on this earth. A book written by someone who knew a great deal about life.
My reading of Mr. Dawkins book has indeed been wearisome to the flesh, a book given to me by my daughter, who after reading less than two chapters, found it went off into a disturbing dimension of mental dysfunction that even a gaggle of psychiatrists could not unravel. To help you understand what I mean, I will re-phrase it in Mr. Dawkins language. They had become lost in a hieratic aslant which disturbed their ataraxia. I am quite sure that if a survey was done on this book, most people would freely admit, providing they were honest atheists, that they never got past the second chapter! Even though Mr. Dawkins has by now convinced us, so he believes, that we came about by natural selection through “Darwin’s outstanding alternative,” in contrast to creation, but is perplexed by the fact that billions of people over millenniums and in all parts of the earth have desired to worship a God, and still do? What a powerful demonstration of the spirit of man, from the prince to the pauper, from the educated to the barbarian, from the richest to the poorest, from the jungle to the city, the belief in, and search for God continues? Mr. Dawkins himself was once a church goer as his book reveals, his about turn for what ever reason, and I believe there are quite a few, has not stopped his obsession about God. His life is taken up with that which according to him does not exist? His lectures, his writing, his broadcasting, he seems to be keeping alive that which is non existent, (God), he is making more people aware of God, does that make him an evangelical atheist? Is God using him to prod people’s consciences? What are they saying in the heavens, thank God for Mr. Dawkins? He has certainly awakened many people out of their spiritual slumber; it would not surprise me if church attendances increased, I know there’s one pew vacant, vacated by Mr. Dawkins, or is it?
In chapter 10 of his book he uses the experiences of some children who make an imaginary friend for themselves, which he believes turns into God, as they grow older! The imagination of children is what childhood is all about, one could interpret this natural childhood characteristic into anything, and we could use it to justify all kinds of fanciful theories if we were so inclined. The apostle Paul said, and I believe his words speak for the majority of adults, “ When I was a babe I used to speak as a babe, to think as a babe, to reason as a babe, but now I have become a man, I have done away with the traits of a babe,” and the evidence shows that Mr. Dawkins to has an imaginary friend, “Darwin’s outstanding alternative,” which has become his God as he has grown older! (1Cor. 13v11)
He keeps grasping at straws to justify his belief in atheism, using expressions to impress, like those children’s imaginary friends who he believes are going through a psychological “pedomorphis,” look at the change that Mr. Dawkins has went through, from a believer, to a committed fire and brimstone firebrand for atheism; is that not a “metamorphosis,” deserving of a professorship? He goes on to swamp us with the, “bicameral mind,” the “Gilbert Pinfold voice,” whatever that is? Egyptian inscriptions of the God “Ptah,” the “paedomorphosis theory,” and there’s more! Surely this desperate don of delusion must be right, he is a Professor at Oxford? I cannot understand a thing he is talking about, but who could use such sophisticated language and be wrong? Does not the fraudster project an image of honesty, does not the prostitute project her fleshly wares, and does not the criminal project a legitimate front? The fool is soon parted from his money, as those in want of heart fall by the wayside in their pursuit of flesh, to be struck with guilt and shame, as disease now invades their body, and guilt their soul. So go all deceivers, it is our own personal responsibility to weigh up all that is put before us, and as I conclude Mr. Dawkins book I feel I should be compensated for having to read such ranting of thought by a disturbed mind, no doubt caused by past experiences that have filled the author to seek revenge. I am in no doubt as I look at the elite of our society, whether they be in politics, the arts, financiers, etc., has brought me to the indisputable conclusion that the lunatics are in charge of this world!!
The staggering irony of it all which I have kept till last, and that is, if we were to accept Mr. Dawkins belief that there is absolutely no God, and he is utterly convinced of this, and no doubt his disciples feel the same. Then we must lay all the blame for the world’s troubles at the door of Darwin’s outstanding alternative, natural selection, evolution, call it what you will. For some intangible reason and no doubt to Mr. Dawkins annoyance, his beloved Darwin’s outstanding alternative, has spawned and spread throughout the whole of the world a belief in God!!! For if there is no God, where else could this belief come from? So then, Mr. Dawkins is talking about, writing about, and broadcasting about, his own beloved beliefs as the cause of all our troubles? Does he know this? Or is he well named, DICK DAWKINS, DARWIN’S DELUSIONAL DON!
Thank God I’m not an atheist.
Contributed by Michael Henry Cook.
Michael Cook,
What a spectacularly worthless response. There is nothing really to respond to here. No substantial critique of any argument made in TGD, or by atheists in general. You also do, as is typical of your brand of theist, a bit of lying for jesus. Dawkins, has said his hope is that a believer would, upon reading his book, put the book down an atheist. He then goes on to say he isn't so naieve to think this will be too common an occurance.
There is really only one point upon which I will bother to engage you. And that is the assertion that Jesus is single handedly the most profound influence on human history. This is such worthless claim because it sets no benchmarks. The character of Jesus has certainly been influential in human history, but you really need some kind of tally and comparison with other great figures in human history. The rest of the world doesn't exactly follow the Western Calender (hense the different New Years Celebrations that occur all over the world. And the BC AD divide is something imposed on the world by some of the followers of Jesus and not by Jesus himself.
You will not agree but, Buddha and Muhammed are at least as influential as the character of Jesus.
Let me say that I understand your inability to engage Dawkins book more fully. You like many of the critics of TGD have managed craft a full on broadside, but have read not even to the first chapter.
You sir,
Are a tool.
-Max
"Even if someone was raised from thee dead you would not believe it." So said Jesus to those who had just witnessed a miracle before their eyes and denied it was from God. Jesus with all his powers of reason and the many miracles he performed, only a handful out of a NATION became his followers. So who am I to convert such a skeptical world! Your counter arguement is weak, but I will leave that for the reader to decide. Your response is I feel where Jesus words fittingly apply to, "You strain out the gnat, but gulp down the camel." Michael.
Max11.
"Even if someone was raised from the dead you would not believe it." So said Jesus to those who had just witnessed a miracle before their eyes and denied it was from God. Jesus with all his powers of reason and the many miracles he performed,yet only a handful out of a NATION became his followers. So who am I to convert such a skeptical world! Your counter arguement is weak, but I will leave that for the reader to decide. Your response is I feel where Jesus words fittingly apply to, "You strain out the gnat, but gulp down the camel." Michael.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home