What do you or don't you believe?

Post by **_Trevor** » Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:25 am

dartagnan wrote:Einstein citations you won't find Dawkins addressing:

By the way, thanks for the quotes. Very interesting.

Post by **_dartagnan** » Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:29 am

Are you put off by the recent aggressiveness of certain atheists, or are you really angry at atheism? What is wrong with denying the existence of God?

You had it right with the first comment. Dawkins rubs me wrong and I am in good company since some of his strongest critics are atheist scholars. His abuse of Einstein is inexcusable.

Post by **_Trevor** » Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:31 am

dartagnan wrote:You had it right with the first comment. Dawkins rubs me wrong and I am in good company since some of his strongest critics are atheist scholars. His abuse of Einstein is inexcusable.

Ah. OK. I think there are more people than just Dawkins doing this. I have heard and read similar things in other atheist media.

Post by **_dartagnan** » Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:32 am

Yea you're right. Hitchens is worse than Dawkins, but he isn't the "respected scholar" selling millions of books.

Post by **_Trevor** » Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:33 am

dartagnan wrote:Yea you're right. Hitchens is worse than Dawkins, but he isn't the "respected scholar" selling millions of books.

Hitchens I don't really like. Dawkins I find interesting within certain limits. His complete lack of sympathy for religion limits the value of his perspective on it in certain ways.

Post by **_dartagnan** » Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:48 am

Hitchens I don't really like. Dawkins I find interesting within certain limits. His complete lack of sympathy for religion limits the value of his perspective on it in certain ways.

He goes further than that. He criticizes or marginalizes any scientist who is sympathetic to religious views. Or in other cases, he refuses to deal with valid points made by others who surpass his credentials. For example, Jay Gould once wrote that religion and science aren't necessarily incompatible and said if this were true, then half of his colleagues must be idiots. Dawkins responded to this comment by saying something like, "I just don't believe Jay could have really meant much of what he said in that."

Marg,

This discussion is also about your claim that you share a similar God belief to what Einstein did. If we can not pin point what your belief is because of lack of information from you, then we are unable to agree with you that you share a similar God belief to Einstein.

Well, we both believe:

1. God exists
2. God is responsible for writing the laws of the Universe.
3. God is a superior reasoning power
4. God is a spirit, not anthropomorphic.

by the way, Dawkins does use some quotes to illustrate Einstein wasn't a deist. 'God is subtle but he is not malicious' or 'He does not play dice' or Did God have a choice in creating the Universe' All those quotes are not from a deist.

Do yourself a favor and don't use Dawkins to tell you what Einstein believed. Dawkins is untrustworthy as that article proves.

They could be from someone who believes in an interfering sort of God which I'll label theist, but we know Einstein didn't believe in that. So what is left?

Uh, a God that doesn't interfere?

Post by **_Bond...James Bond** » Sun Jun 01, 2008 3:23 am

I'm apathetic. and pro female hottie.

Post by **_KimberlyAnn** » Sun Jun 01, 2008 3:30 am

Welcome to the board, Mudcat.

I'm an ex-Mormon.

KA

Post by **_TrashcanMan79** » Sun Jun 01, 2008 3:53 am

TrashcanMan is a reluctant agnostic who will sometimes, for no real reason, refer to himself in the third person. Born and raised in the LDS Church, I lost my faith a little over a year ago - the so-called "New Atheists" and biblical criticism (a la Spong, Ehrman, Price, and many a Mormon apologist) did me in.

Post by **_bcspace** » Sun Jun 01, 2008 4:02 am

I don't see how this hurts at all, especially if the Gods are an end product.

Well, at the very least it creates more questions that demand answers.

Not if evolution is the way our physical bodies are created on all the worlds.

And LDS apologists are burdened enough as it is with questions they can't answer.

Not this apologist.

Eventually more and more LDS will get sick of the fact that just about every facet of Mormonism requires more and more ad hoc "just so" answers to troubling questions.

We might get sick of demands for answers to strawman questions yes. But I'm having lots of fun just being here. I find it fascinating that many LDS critics can't seem to handle a lttle nuance.