23 Feb 2008 @ 02:17 by Natalie @184.108.40.206 : God & Dawkins
Thanks for featuring my cartoon strip, Ming. The Dawkins debate goes on and he is sounding more and more like those he derides.
8 May 2008 @ 19:37 by Maresfield Mentor @220.127.116.11 : Draco???
Who are these guys and what are they about - are they clouds in the summer sky????
13 Jun 2008 @ 18:11 by Deiologist @18.104.22.168 : God talks about Richard Dawkins
God is composed of the unity of Natural Laws - the Mind of God - & The Fundamental Powers or Force Fields i.e. The Gravitational, Electromagnetic and two Nuclear Fields ( God's Body). Dawkins defines God by the Delusion that he argues against. He is just beating up a straw man that has nothing whatever to do with the real God.
20 Jul 2008 @ 18:34 by A. Sclepias @22.214.171.124 : religion
Just bringing up this subject of "god" here causes all this site to have a bit less credibility. There is quite sufficient discussion of "god" and religion forced upon us all in this world. If anything be true, then we all are potential immortals, but simply have not yet accepted the responsibility to go there and do the work involved.
21 Jul 2008 @ 13:39 by ming : God
I don't believe in that kind of God, some fellow that looks like a human. But it is a funny swipe at Dawkins who seems to believe that that's the only form of god worth considering. Of course because that's the easiest god to ridicule, as it is kind of silly to assume that the universe had been created by some balding guy that looks like you and me. Much harder to argue against the beauty and intelligence of the multiverse, which would be a much better candidate for being called God, if one even needs such a term.
29 Oct 2008 @ 13:14 by wadge @126.96.36.199 : turtles
Taoism (not a religion) says that we're all just 'chi' manifested and anyone who has had a 'near death' experience reports a feeling of 'absolute oneness' - makes the best sense to me
I like the multi-verse idea but it doesn't go any way to explain god, it just poses an even bigger question... what is the eleventh dimension inside?
It's turtles all the way down!
26 Nov 2008 @ 16:45 by ixv @188.8.131.52 : Knee-jerk reactions against rationalism
"Straw man! Straw man! Dawkins is creating a straw man, that's not my god he's defining!", is a common evasive and wishy-washy tactic.
The easiest type of god to ridicule also happens to be the same anthropogenic, sentient, supernatural creator type of god that is most prevalently believed in. If it was your esoteric obscure concept of a god that was prevalent, Dawkins would not be making any argument.
Abstract concepts of a god that equate god to natural law, is metaphorical concept, it is a pantheistic belief. Dawkins does address this type of concept (you'd have known if you read his book), as "sexed up atheism", what Einstein referred to as the God of Spinoza. It has nothing to do with a theistic god.
Some of you should actually READ his material on the relevant subject before erecting your own straw man.
21 Mar 2011 @ 16:37 by Troy @184.108.40.206 : "Knee-jerk reactions against rationalism
Einstein was not a pantheist nor an atheist(nor a theist for that matter either). Einstein beilved in a "spirirt manifest in the laws of nature".Dawkins is just lying in his book to support his case. ..... and yes his book is loaded with straw men
17 May 2011 @ 14:29 by Andrew @220.127.116.11 : Dawkins
A good book to read is 'Why there almost certainly is a God' by Keith Ward. I bought it cos of the title, plus it's really good.