Quote:
Originally Posted by PKFFW
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardeegee
Also, here's the Dawkins debate where he was so "awful."
|
I agree that atheists are sometimes overbearing, but as the videos of the referenced debate ardegee posted shows, the author of the article in
The Daily Telegraph fails to make his case against Dawkins. There was no bullying in evidence by Dawkins, just soft-spoken and well reasoned argument.
As for those who imply that all believers somehow lack intelligence or discernment, I have to disagree. No one knows how the universe came to be, but to assume it had a cause, and to suppose that intelligence was involved in the causation, poses no contradiction with known facts.
It's when the traditional attributes of God are ascribed to the proposed Creator that contradictions arise. Attributes such as omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence have long posed a problem for believers. In a quote ascribed to Epicurus (341–270 B.C.E.), the problem of evil is summed up thus:
Quote:
|
.....Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
|
Personally, I think that if this Universe has or had a creator, the creator was more of an experimental scientist than an all-knowing and all-powerful deity, for the Universe seems to be more in the nature of an ongoing experiment rather than a finished and perfected work.
<><><>
Those who are curious to see how rational their views of God are may like to check out The Philosophers' Magazine's "Battleground God" at
http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.php. Sure, it isn't the final word on one's rationality, but is is a fun quiz. I took it years ago and if I remember correctly I answered all but one of the questions "correctly."