home
radioThese are reader comments for the article 'Dawkins Delusion'
Reader Comments
Posted by Chris @ 21:22 on Mar 3 2007
Anyone who can say the Bible ISNT historically reliable hasnt researched the Bible properly - THAT is absolute fact.
Asi it is, I've read some of the God Delusion and find it doesnt even mention God in half the book - Dawkins is in fact the deluded one, putting forward VERY dated arguments to dispute his belief in God which are also poorly backed up and terribly researched - if thats the best Atheists have to offer then Atheism as a depressing self-delusion as suspected.
Anyone who can say the Bible ISNT historically reliable hasnt researched the Bible properly - THAT is absolute fact.
Asi it is, I've read some of the God Delusion and find it doesnt even mention God in half the book - Dawkins is in fact the deluded one, putting forward VERY dated arguments to dispute his belief in God which are also poorly backed up and terribly researched - if thats the best Atheists have to offer then Atheism as a depressing self-delusion as suspected.
Posted by bobdigital21 @ 09:16 on Mar 2 2007
Why is it "obvious" that the Old Testament should not be regarded as reliable?
Well the whole "the world is 6000 years old thing" is a bit on the unreliable side i would say.
This whole (i will not call it a rebuttle as that would be an overstatement) paper has no real evidence to show that the book "the god delusion" in anything but accurate. Infact, if this is the best job the opposition could do to attack Dawkins' reasoning then i just became much more interested in reading the book!
Why is it "obvious" that the Old Testament should not be regarded as reliable?
Well the whole "the world is 6000 years old thing" is a bit on the unreliable side i would say.
This whole (i will not call it a rebuttle as that would be an overstatement) paper has no real evidence to show that the book "the god delusion" in anything but accurate. Infact, if this is the best job the opposition could do to attack Dawkins' reasoning then i just became much more interested in reading the book!
Reply by Donald Wood in Durham @ 21:17 on Mar 27 2007
Why would the fact that the Bible states that the world is 6,000 years old make it unreliable?
Do you have any evidence that the world is older than that? There is a good argument that the world is in fact young. Many PhD scientists (including myself) believe that the evidence points towards a young Earth. The book 'In Six Days' has the testimonies of 50 well-qualified scientists who hold the view that God created the world in 6 days about 6,000 years ago. This should at least make us take the view seriously.
Why would the fact that the Bible states that the world is 6,000 years old make it unreliable?
Do you have any evidence that the world is older than that? There is a good argument that the world is in fact young. Many PhD scientists (including myself) believe that the evidence points towards a young Earth. The book 'In Six Days' has the testimonies of 50 well-qualified scientists who hold the view that God created the world in 6 days about 6,000 years ago. This should at least make us take the view seriously.
Posted by Mark Holdcroft in Slovakia (formerly Stoke. UK) @ 09:12 on Mar 2 2007
If I understand Paul Taylors position correctly, he is trying to emphasise the fact that, who is "reputable" is a subjective, rather than objective, opinion. A person or organisation is "reputable" if they have a proven track record of sharing the same values as your own.
To Dawkins, a scholar will be "reputable" if they have a track record of undermining the Bible. For AiG the opposite is true. Therefore Paul Taylor is right to point out that Dawkins uses the word "reputable", in order to strenghen his argument, without presenting any clairfication as to why he labels them in this way.
If I understand Paul Taylors position correctly, he is trying to emphasise the fact that, who is "reputable" is a subjective, rather than objective, opinion. A person or organisation is "reputable" if they have a proven track record of sharing the same values as your own.
To Dawkins, a scholar will be "reputable" if they have a track record of undermining the Bible. For AiG the opposite is true. Therefore Paul Taylor is right to point out that Dawkins uses the word "reputable", in order to strenghen his argument, without presenting any clairfication as to why he labels them in this way.
Posted by Wiseclam in Colorado @ 19:39 on Feb 28 2007
Paul Taylor writes: "In the opinion of Answers In Genesis, a "reputable biblical scholar" is one who approaches the Bible with respect, believing it to be the inspired, inerrant and authoritative word of God, from the very first verse."
What an amzing statement! And the author expexts the reader to take in his commentary without critique?
There is little evidence - perhaps none given the scope of the claims - to support the notion that the claims of the bible are true. To treat those claims as if they are *certainly true* without evidence is presposterous.
Paul Taylor writes: "In the opinion of Answers In Genesis, a "reputable biblical scholar" is one who approaches the Bible with respect, believing it to be the inspired, inerrant and authoritative word of God, from the very first verse."
What an amzing statement! And the author expexts the reader to take in his commentary without critique?
There is little evidence - perhaps none given the scope of the claims - to support the notion that the claims of the bible are true. To treat those claims as if they are *certainly true* without evidence is presposterous.
Reply by Tim in west midlands @ 09:56 on Mar 2 2007
Wiseclam, I dont see where you find the statement you are talking about. You have the wrong end of the stick.
Paul Taylor does not state the quote above as a fact, he clearly states it as his opinion. He is simply showing that Dawkins states the disreputation of the bible as a fact. Dawkins takes for granted that the bible is a disrepitable source and that everyone believes this, Paul Taylor simply states this is a taken for granted, and clearly untrue as he and his associates believe something else.
Wiseclam, I dont see where you find the statement you are talking about. You have the wrong end of the stick.
Paul Taylor does not state the quote above as a fact, he clearly states it as his opinion. He is simply showing that Dawkins states the disreputation of the bible as a fact. Dawkins takes for granted that the bible is a disrepitable source and that everyone believes this, Paul Taylor simply states this is a taken for granted, and clearly untrue as he and his associates believe something else.
Posted by Frank Lewis in USA @ 23:45 on Feb 27 2007
You think Dawkins is illogical for saying "Jesus probably did not exist" because "There is no question that Jesus existed."
This is a matter of evidnce. Not a matter of logic. Where is the evidence of the existence of Jesus?
You think Dawkins is illogical for saying "Jesus probably did not exist" because "There is no question that Jesus existed."
This is a matter of evidnce. Not a matter of logic. Where is the evidence of the existence of Jesus?
Reply by Trevor in Stoke on Trent @ 19:08 on Feb 28 2007
Do you class written record as evidence? Leaving aside the Gospels and other NT writings, Jesus is mentioned by Josephus in his 'Antiquities of the Jews', AD 93. Admittedly, the passage is dispuited, but flimsier evidence than this has often been held up as truth.
Do you class written record as evidence? Leaving aside the Gospels and other NT writings, Jesus is mentioned by Josephus in his 'Antiquities of the Jews', AD 93. Admittedly, the passage is dispuited, but flimsier evidence than this has often been held up as truth.
Posted by Edmund in Tunbridge Wells @ 20:15 on Feb 27 2007
As a student of AS level Critical Thinking, I found this article very interesting. What I disagreed with (most was very well reasoned) was the claim that a reputable Biblical scholar was one who approaches the Bible "with respect, believing it to be the inspired, inerrant and authoritative word of God, from the very first verse." With respect, yes, but coming from this doctrinal position makes you disreputable. You should come to your subject of study without either set of values. AiG made the same mistake as Dawkins, just on the other side of the pendulum's swing.
As a student of AS level Critical Thinking, I found this article very interesting. What I disagreed with (most was very well reasoned) was the claim that a reputable Biblical scholar was one who approaches the Bible "with respect, believing it to be the inspired, inerrant and authoritative word of God, from the very first verse." With respect, yes, but coming from this doctrinal position makes you disreputable. You should come to your subject of study without either set of values. AiG made the same mistake as Dawkins, just on the other side of the pendulum's swing.
Reply by Edmund in Tunbridge Wells @ 13:12 on Mar 3 2007
Tim in West Midlands, my point is that AiG makes exactly the same mistake as Dawkins. He writes that Dawkins thinks this, well we think this makes someone reputable. A reputable scholar is one who will suspend their preconceptions and go where the evidence leads. Fine if you want to argue that this particular outcome is where the evidence leads, but not if you want to say before you have studied something "I am going with the preconception that this is what the evidence shows"
Tim in West Midlands, my point is that AiG makes exactly the same mistake as Dawkins. He writes that Dawkins thinks this, well we think this makes someone reputable. A reputable scholar is one who will suspend their preconceptions and go where the evidence leads. Fine if you want to argue that this particular outcome is where the evidence leads, but not if you want to say before you have studied something "I am going with the preconception that this is what the evidence shows"
Reply by Tim in west midlands @ 09:51 on Mar 2 2007
I disagree with the statement made by Edmund. As a past social constructionist student I believe it is impossible to approach any argument, science, faith, theory without any set of values or bias. To do so would mean you would have to disconnect yourself from being human, being totally impartial is humanly impossible.
Secondly, what I think Paul Taylor is trying to say is Dawkins takes for granted that a reputable Biblical scholar is someone who rubbishes the bible, whereas Paul Tayor believes the opposite. The point he is trying to make is either is an opinion, and should not be stated as a fact, as in Dawkins book.
I disagree with the statement made by Edmund. As a past social constructionist student I believe it is impossible to approach any argument, science, faith, theory without any set of values or bias. To do so would mean you would have to disconnect yourself from being human, being totally impartial is humanly impossible.
Secondly, what I think Paul Taylor is trying to say is Dawkins takes for granted that a reputable Biblical scholar is someone who rubbishes the bible, whereas Paul Tayor believes the opposite. The point he is trying to make is either is an opinion, and should not be stated as a fact, as in Dawkins book.
Posted by Bruce in Orlando, FL @ 19:34 on Feb 27 2007
A scholar is simply one who has mastered a study. But I would only consider them reputable if they were willing to follow the truth where the facts lead and not approach a subject with a preconceived slant.
In the opinion of Answers In Genesis, a "reputable biblical scholar" is one who approaches the Bible with respect, believing it to be the inspired, inerrant and authoritative word of God, from the very first verse.
A scholar is simply one who has mastered a study. But I would only consider them reputable if they were willing to follow the truth where the facts lead and not approach a subject with a preconceived slant.
In the opinion of Answers In Genesis, a "reputable biblical scholar" is one who approaches the Bible with respect, believing it to be the inspired, inerrant and authoritative word of God, from the very first verse.
Posted by Fedor in Moscow @ 17:56 on Feb 27 2007
There is no question that Jesus existed? Wrong. "A few scholars have ventured to question the existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure. The views of scholars who entirely reject Jesus' historicity are summarized in the chapter on Jesus in Will Durant's Caesar and Christ; it is based on: a suggested lack of eyewitness, a lack of direct archaeological evidence, the failure of certain ancient works to mention Jesus, and alleged similarities between early Christianity and contemporary mythology."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
Dawkins merely suggested that the existence of Jesus was not rigorously proven.
There is no question that Jesus existed? Wrong. "A few scholars have ventured to question the existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure. The views of scholars who entirely reject Jesus' historicity are summarized in the chapter on Jesus in Will Durant's Caesar and Christ; it is based on: a suggested lack of eyewitness, a lack of direct archaeological evidence, the failure of certain ancient works to mention Jesus, and alleged similarities between early Christianity and contemporary mythology."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
Dawkins merely suggested that the existence of Jesus was not rigorously proven.
Posted by Allan Clare in Bristol, UK @ 11:42 on Feb 27 2007
Although I don't agree with everything Terry Eagleton says, his review of 'The God Delusion' in "The London Review Of Books" might also interest you...
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html
Although I don't agree with everything Terry Eagleton says, his review of 'The God Delusion' in "The London Review Of Books" might also interest you...
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html
The opinions expressed in the Reader Comments are not necessarily those held by Cross Rhythms.
What a weak article indeed.
The fact that the whole bible contradicts itself bigtime in a gazillion places is enough reason to disregard it as any form of evidence for anything. Dawkins is wise enough to do so.
*Any* book that manages to contradict itself in such a enormous way as the bible should be disregarded for any real research purposes.
Try here:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=bible+(contradiction+OR+con tradictions+OR+inconsistency+OR+inconsistencies)
Hey Buddy!! Please don't allow the chaotic situation of the world to take toll on your reasoning. In that, letting it hinder you from thinking clearly and comprehensively. Take time and read the bible carefully from cover to cover. If you don't understand it, do it again. When you do, you would be saying something totally different and more rational. Because I used to say the very say and think the very same things, and even more, like yourself and this Dawkin fello. I feel so sorry for him. Becuase he would die sooooo ignorant. I hope you would not.
I am fortunate to have discovered the truth before it was too late for me. I was very hostile and cruel to the bible for years. You would not imagine some of the rotten and nasty things I said about the bible. But happy was the day when I proved its authenticity and devine- inspiration. I had to swallow my swelling pride and egocentricity, put my tail between my legs as a cut - tailed dog and humbly accept the Bible. I really glad I did.
The BIBLE is what the world desperately needs today. To solve many of the problems the world has which science is unable to remedy, not even in a billion years to come. I thought I was smart by going against the bible. But I was only being the biggest educated fool one would ever find. Please be wise and accept the bible. God is not a bad word.
There is soo much I can attest to, but time does not allow. I hope that would suffice for now.
[report abuse]