Dawkins, Osteen, Haggard. What's the deal?

Anyone want to tell me why fields like science and Christianity are represented so poorly by men like this?

Sure Dawkins is Smart. But he does make mistakes, he does use strawman arguments and poor arguments. Half the time Dawkins would be pwned by any decent Christian apologetist if it wasn’t about Science.

Haggard, Moron. Google “Root of Evil” (Dawkins does a bad Job himself)

Osteen, bigger Moron. Youtube Osteen on Larry King.

So men like this represent because…? They’re easy to understand? Maybe intelligent thinkers are too complicated for us Americans?

Where’s men like Zacharias, Craig, Ramsden, N.T. Wright?

Where are the super intelligent scientists we believe exist? Surely there are better one’s then Dawkins.

And then we wonder why regular people argue about religion and atheism like idiots. Why most Christians are afraid to read about atheism or science. Why Atheists think Christians are still in the child stage of believing in fairy tales.

Discuss this nonsense, please. [/list]

I’m just curious as to why you see it necessary to ruthlessly insult the people themselves, as opposed to fielding a counter-argument for their arguments.

Perhaps it is because you don’t know the argument you are trying to disect. Perhaps you’ve never read any of their works. And perhaps you’re an angry person.

Club,

Is believeing in nothing just as absurd as believing in somthing? or vise versa?

Is not Christianity, just as Absurd as Islam, Or Paganism, Or Budism, Hinduism, Universalism, Judaism or Atheism?

What makes one better or more true than the other? And what makes the arguments or Oppinions of others on such matters so Absurd or Crazy or Idiotic? There are many Christian Scientist’s who disagree completely with the bible because they can PROVE that most of it is conjectured doctrinated BS.

Just as there a many Scientist’s who could provide evidence to the Oposite.

Remember there are those who think the same about your oppinion’s as you do about theirs, Otherwise there would be no argument in the first place.

What Im asking is:

What exactly are you fishing for, so to speak?

And if its the name of a Scientist, try Darwyn.

He was a devout Christian (Most do not know this) , and also the author of the theory of evolution, which in itself despite oppinions NOT discount the bibles creation myth, He was merly trying to explain how God created man “from the dust” and grew him into what he is now. It was his way of trying to understand Where and how God had made man, and What direction God had planed for man to become.

But see Science is the key to the Universe, Metaphysical and otherwise. NOT Faith. Though without Faith you wouldnt be able to fuction period.

  1. You drive your car because you have faith it will get you where you need to go faster.
  2. You walk on your floor because you have faith you wont fall through it.
  3. You ride in airplanes because you have faith that you not going to crash or that it’s safe.
  4. You eat food at a restraunt or from the store or at home because you have faith that you wont get sick from it.

What do all of these Faith things have in comen?

Science, Now lets look at somthing a little more dificult:

You believe That when you die there is somthing beyond death…Why?

A book tells you there is? You “Know” there is? Because society tells you so? Because your aprents and family Believe there is and brought you up believing so? Because to you it makes sence that their must be somthing more…Or is that just hope telling you that?

OR, Is it because:

Science can Prove it? Not what lies after Death, Just that there is “somthing” After it.

You see if Science didnt exist this would be a realm based on the metaphysical principals of what you call Magick. Not the Physical principals Science teaches.

If this was a Metaphyscialy based realm You could “see” and “Know” Rather than guess and make examples with a Physcial tool that in 50-2000 years will become obsolete…

What I am trying to say here, is that No Christian will win a conversation about science with a Scientist who isnt. Even if the Christian is a scientist.
(Unless the Scientist is ignorent in what the debate is portraying) <Most conversations in science are neutral so this would only portain to those about Creation and Religion or History, obviously if your a scientist and believe that man came from the dust into a Coporial shell in an instant at the behest of an otherworldly being whos existance canot be scientificaly proven, then your not a very good one. that or you need to re-examine your belief structure and logical thought process’s acording to the Science you were schooled in>

Why? Because Christianity has a way of thought process which blocks your ability to see through Certain aspect’s and Around certain theories in Warped logic.

Example and this is from a while back so Im not going to debate about it again:

The Universe is infinate.

You never were able to Understand anything I ment when I last debated with you on that and missed most of my points completely. Why?

Because of the above reason.

“Most” (Not all) theist are black and white individuale’s and therefore can not see the Posibilities beyond Black and white, is or isnt Arguments.

While I see evrything as infinate and can give infinite examples or reasoning on any subject, you can only give Is or Isnt examples to any subject. This is due to the above stated error in thinking.

You can remain a Christian and still be able to think and do the above reasoning, But once your able to you wont want to be a Christion anymore
Or for that matter Need a monitheistic Belief, Youll have your own theory and purpose so others will become obsolete and Not be needed any longer in your life.

Its evolution of the mind or rather spirit, you’ll get there eventualy.

Oh come off it. That Dawkins knows nothing about religion is pretty much a given. It may sound like dogma, but it can be backed up with reasoning. I’ve read Dawkins (I’ve got a signed copy of The God Delusion, incidentally, and heard the man speak last year, but I wouldn’t say he knows his stuff.

But, if we must talk about arguments, perhaps you can present one of his claims, and then we can talk about whether or not it is true.

I’m not insulting. In no way am I angry. I find it funny actually, at how pathetic it is.

Fine, I’ll attack their arguments.

Dawkins uses poor arguments to attack religion. Shows no education in a religious area. Show’s no sympathy, overly arrogant. “Who made God” Strawmans, on and on, etc. Poor speaker at least in my opinion. Sure he has good points, but nowhere near many unpopular Christian Apologetists.

Ted Haggard? Watch the beyond good and evil video. Obviously you haven’t seen it. He doesn’t even know what a Nuremburg Rally is.

Joel Osteen? Cares only about money and growing a large church. He gives people happiness and appeals to their emotions. Has hardly any intellectual skills. Is a horrible representation for Christians.

? Happy?

Dawkins is a scientist. Not a philosophical thinker. Has nothing to do with faith here. Dawkins is just popular, that’s all. And sure he has good books, good points. He’s smart. But he does lack in many areas as well. And I think he’s a poor representation of the scientific community.

I’ve tried to stay interested Watcher, I lost much interest in your post. In fact there are so many things I could argue about with your post here. Fact is you dont understand religious people anymore than a Christian doesn’t understand you. Take it easy will ya? Next time you wake up with a couple new ideas you think are great. Don’t go spill them on one of my post please. Obviously you haven’t been here in a while to know that I’m agnostic, been Agnostic for about 2 months.

Sam Harris is an ivy league philosopher and grad student in neuroscience, and has written two books, and comments extensively in Dawkin’s circles. His critiques of religion are almost always devoid of common fallacy. His only weakness is his inability to sway people already infected with the religion meme, not that I or anyone could do better…but with all Sam’s talent, he’s achieved nothing but preaching to the choir and annoying (and thus further polarizing) religious people. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Sam Harris effect makes religious people more religious, since he attacks them so precisely, he gives them little choice to remain liberal.

Maybe I should read his books then. He’s a different person when speaking.

I don’t know why you bothered with Credentials. Slap in the face to Ravi Zacharias, Michael Ramsden, William Lane Craig, John Polkinghorne, Bernard Haisch, and Alister Mcgrath. Those are just a few religious men with great credentials who have all but one or two studied at ivy league universities.

Well, first off, I think that there is a world of difference between preaching to the choir and trying to actively convince people.

I generally think that Dawkins is simply preaching to other atheists – a sort of secular humanist poster-boy. I also think he is trying to convert the large number of ‘cultural Christians’ in Britain. There isn’t really anything similar to that idea in America, but they are basically atheists/agnostics that still consider themselves Christians and support the church (at least with their taxes) when their energies could be better spent on other things (like art). So, basically, he’s trying to get people to tick a different box on their tax forms.

The others you mentioned are celebrities. There is a reason why the Reformation was so important for Christianity. The monks were always trying to reform themselves because they invariably became corrupt. First the Benedictine monks, then the Cistercians, then the Franciscans, and so on. In the Middle Ages, there was a saying, “Rich as a Cistercian”. These people were supposed to have taken a vow of poverty! But once you are in a position to make a crap ton of money, you generally will. And so, no matter how pure your intentions might have been at the start, by the end all you want is money money money.

Dawkins has fallen victim to that too, but he’s not just after money, he is also lusting after fame.

I think I mentioned credentials because you said Dawkins was a scientist, not a philosophical thinker. Since Sam studied philosophy at Stanford AND is seeking a doctorate in neuroscience, I thought you might like his style more. Religious or not, I think a philosophy degree from a top program usually makes you more productive in discourse, in terms of things like straw men, so I mentioned credentials. Anyway, I’m too old and dangerous to be dealing with some ornery punk like you. Good luck.

Great post, and relevant! Fully agreed.

And I understand what you’re saying about Dawkins too. Quite possibly the good arguments someone like Dawkins may have are never really unleashed because they are not concerned with converting a Christian to atheism. To them what they believe is the most obvious so it’s hard not to go about being arrogant like a Sam Harris or a Richard Dawkins. Quite frankly I can’t say I blame them. I only wish scientists with more sensitivity were popularized.

In a way a Dawkins and Osteen are the same. Osteen doesn’t see the need to be intelligent because he gives Christians what they want to hear. Dawkins doesn’t see the need to be sensitive and attack religion with intelligence because he gives atheists what they want to hear. Makes them both rich and popular and their fine with that.

Lol, Good finish. My apologies if I’ve mistaken you. Have you seen youtube videos of Harris? Some of his attacks on religious people? Atheists will buy his books and listen because it’s what they want to hear. People usually aren’t compelled by bold arrogant remarks about their beliefs that tie to emotions of all things.

Good Christian philosophers should be able to draw attention from atheists. Not offend them or look foolish. Same goes for Atheistic Philosophers talking about Religion. A great speaker should take an argument. Take it apart, show if it makes sense on some kind of mutual level, and go from there.

I find that Christian Apologetists are always going to be better speakers on these topics because that’s their speciality. If anyone knows of an atheistic person of today that specifies only in religious topics and argues against them with sensitivity, let me know; I’m interested.

01.11.07.1862

Club, America (the bulk of it anyway) is stupid. It is full of laymen who won’t get the argument unless it is put to them in layman terms. Unfortunately, some arguments are too complex even in layman wording. So, an argument from either side is bound to hit a wall and left only with frustration and the demeanor of character.

Is it merely a matter of time before some psycho nutball atheist decides to go militant and starts killing religious folk because they wouldn’t accept the truth that their belief is bullshit? I’m not sure, but it’s possible. Most people who are atheists are generally intelligent and smart, even well educated.

By the way Club, what mistakes has Dawkins made? I’d like to know.

No offense, but just for consistency… how does that same argument not apply to religious folk; especially Christians? The Purpose Driven Life sells like crazy… all because of a theological hooligan who tells Christians what they want to hear.

Agreed.

Agreed.

Dawkins- What do you mean specifically as mistake? I could say he’s made the mistake of using poor arguments to attack religion. Shows a lack of wisdom on religious matters when that is what he is most popular for as of now. I can’t exactly say his arguments on Colbert were mistakes because… seems to be a half hearted conversation anyway. He failed to attack the design argument for what it really stands for, instead his answer was that we believe because we design things mechanically that something designed us to. Which is not the reason many top ID scientists believe what they do. You ask for mistakes, those are some I think are mistakes. You ask for argument fallacies, I don’t have any off the top of my head and really don’t feel like taking the time to look all the videos i’ve watched of him speaking. But I do see some of his arguments as strawmen in the way he does not understand the intelligent view behind Religion.

I would like to see a debate between Dawkins and some of his Buddies over in Wycliffe hall.

No offense taken. Yes I fully agree it’s the same. I’m totally against that. Ignorant Theists who have no understanding of what intelligent atheists of today argue. Something like pastors who tells audiences, “Do you believe we came from monkeys? I bet John over there did! Hahaha crowd laughs” That sorta thing. Joel Osteen is popular because he’s a wimp who tells people what they’d like to hear. Anything he cant answer he says, “Gee… you know larry I don’t know much about that but if it contradicts the bible I’m against it”

The first thing I would like to do is list, Club, how many times you have failed to even mention one argument Dawkins has presented that you disagree with, instead simply stating that his arguments are somehow incorrect or fallacious, and then ignorantly casting insults:

The difference between intelligent, critical thinkers, and you, is that intelligent critical thinkers would actually have a reason, an example, SOMETHING, for every time they decided to rant or insult a person’s ideas or philosophies. I’m not sure how to make it any more clear that you haven’t presented even one idea of Dawkins, and then refuted it with an argument of your own. The closest you came was from an interview on Colbert report, in which you yourself admitted:

I’m not sure how to make it any more clear that:

You ARE the ignorant theist who has no understanding of what intelligent atheists of today argue. You couldn’t, out of every post you’ve made thus far in this thread, or any thread for that matter, come up with one argument that Dawkins, obviously atheist, has presented. Obviously, to refute such an argument, your first step would be to at least CITE one. How isn’t this completely intelligable? Please let me know where things get fuzzy so I can clarify for you, I don’t see where you’re missing the train here.

Really Xunzian, perhaps this is a reflection of how you personally would react to being in such a situation, but I doubt Dawkins would prefer making money on books about refuting God. He seems to have already made quite a bit on his previous books about evolution.

Do you really believe that Dawkins is only after money and fame? Do you think he has no concern for the millions who suffer in vain because stem cell research lacks federal funding, funding that could accelerate such research to a cure for hellish diseases?

Do you really believe Dawkins doesn’t care about the thousands who died in the twin towers, or in Iraq, or the persecution of gays, blacks, and women, because religious fundamentalism exists? Do you believe he’s disingenuous when he shares his worries about blind faith being a virtue that children are taught to have, or that it is completely acceptable for children to be labeled Catholic, Jewish, or Muslim before they are even old enough to know what such terms mean?

Yes, being an author can bring in a lot of money, but so can discovering the cure for cancer, and I seriously doubt those who are desperately searching are doing so solely for fame and fortune.

I hate to break it to you, but religion isn’t rocket science…

Watcher, I would like to compliment you on your well thought out ideas and eloquent post. Following this compliment, I would like to express my disdain and sorrow that such a post would be ignored, and insulted, by a person who obviously has no interest in hearing a difference in opinion. A person who has no desire to reach outside of their comfortable understanding of the world, to try to flex their mental muscles and understand, and comprehend, the beauty that others see in the world, in logic, and in reason.

Club, why do you even come to these forums? It’s blatant that you have no desire to learn anything from anybody else. Had you such a desire, perhaps you actually would be able to read more than two sentences without your attention being lost. Perhaps then you’d finally reach a better understanding of the world. Why are these forums plagued with those who have no desire to think? Who have no desire to learn what it means to rationalize, to argue, to analyze, and to think critically? Perhaps next time, you could avoid cluttering the forums with this nonsense. I believe there is a rant forum for that.

You mean like this nonsense? It’s pathetic.

I said I didn’t want to take the time tonight to go back and write down all the mistakes Dawkins has made. Give me a bit and I will. Patience. My point is what you misssed. Dawkins knows his science, but he does not know his religion. He does not understand all the arguments that back theological thought. If so he would be more understanding and less arrogant. The point is men like Dawkins and Osteen are popular, and people want to listen to men like this, but Dawkins is not a role model for an aspiring atheist, just as an Osteen for an apologetist.

Lol, the watcher’s eloquent post, haha. I’ll get to that.

Lol, I will take my time to reply to some of the Watchers post because Dorkyman demanded it.

Watcher declares that we have faith when we drive a car, faith when we walk on a floor we won’t fall through, etc. All of these are faiths in the meaning of “Being Certain”

Religious people are Certain because of other things that lead to that belief. You’ve walked on red floors. One day you walk on a blue one, so you don’t believe we can be certain we won’t fall through?

There are many things in this world that lead to convictions and certainties to be religious. The bible never once uses faith as it is a custom, or some blind faith, it means a reasonable faith, a faith of certainty.

I’m not sure why he keeps implying that science, science, science, is contradictory to religion. While it may seem to contradict religion, it may in fact not. Certain words, Phrases, ideas, didn’t exist 2000 years ago. Of course the bible is going to be simplified. The book of Revelation. The locusts John describes could be helicopters. Writers tried to explain what they saw in the best way they could. I’m not saying this is the answer, but this is a reason you shouldn’t be so sure Christianty contradicts science. In fact science is contradictory in certain areas.

No Christian will win a debate about Science with a scientist who isn’t? You sure? Recheck that idea there.

Sure Christianity has a way of blocking certain thought processes. So does atheism. I have a whole post about that.

The last of your post was closely related to my post about defending agnosticism as a perspective between atheism and theism.

*Someday you’ll understand Atheism And Theism Perspectives swing both ways. So while you may want me to understand atheism more, you need to try understanding religion and spirituality more. I don’t believe as of now that one is inferior to another but more on how you look at it.

DD:

You don’t understand religion enough to make these kinds of statements Dorky. Rocket science is a matter of understanding principles of physics; understanding religion requies a completely different approach.

Your “point”, that religion isn’t rocket science, is simply an example of how you think intelligent people are busy with scientific pursues, like rocket science, while religion is something that logical, sensible people must KNOW is complete bullshit, and walk away from.

Religion is about why people live; it provides meaning to existence and gives guidance on how to live.

All you’ve done is looked at a few silly religious beliefs, and then decided religion is invalid in the modern world (I’d say that the modern world is invalid to life itself). A religion is like the poetic crib notes of a culture’s knowledge.; it both expresses the history of man attempting to integrate his animality with his self-consciousness, and mosaics the flashes of a greater potential (of the human mind).

You’re right, religion isn’t rocket science. Rocket science tackles a specific problem, while religion (I am, of course, speaking about all religions, not a single one) attempts to identify all the problems of a time, and work towards a future that is not only free of those problems, but moves towards a particular goal (in “spiritual” development).

matthatter, in your post above you could have substituted “myths” for every time you said religion, or “art” for that matter. Religion as a repository of poetry and values certainly has potential to be worthwhile. It is when religion makes authoritative truth claims about reality which are arbitrary and at odds with peace, that it begins to be a problem.

Club has wasted a lot of time critiquing people instead of arguments. Take one argument used by Sam Harris (his are very simple, unoriginal and reductive) that Christians can be described as Atheists as it pertains to Zues. Why can a president openly believe in the interfering power of Yahweh and yet be derided as a lunatic if he were to make executive decisions based on what Zues thinks? If religious people today could try to imagine being surrounded by zealous Zues freaks, they’d begin to glimpse how “atheists” view today’s zealous christians and muslims.

Apologeticists exist because it’s not inconceivable for children who love the jesus story more than life to grow up, become professors, and bend words in ways that will help them, and the less intelligent who listen to them, retain their jesus delusion. To my mind their arguments are increaingly looking like three card monty, and eventually only the slowest eyes will be fooled. There are a lot of slow eyes around, and a sucker is born every day.

I would argue that Dawkins is clearly after fame and money not in spite of his previous books, but because of them! He’s really workin’ hard on the ‘philosophy’ part of his Ph.D.

Real scientists don’t sit around all day writing books unless they have made a discovery so unimaginably great that they honestly don’t have time for old-fashioned research. And even most of those people try to do their best and squeeze in as much lab time as humanly possible. So, in reply to Club’s question about where all the super-smart scientists are: in a lab!

Dawkins doesn’t even work in a lab, let alone run one! All he has done is written some books aggrandizing his own theory (selfish gene), which is great, don’t get me wrong, but to start acting like he is Watson is the hight of hybris.

So, if Dawkins doesn’t want to be a scientist, what does he want to be? A cultural icon, he wants to be famous. So, what do you do when the goose you’ve been milking runs dry? Stir up a crapload of controversy! He’s basically like Michael Jackson in the late '80s right now. Maybe even later. The basic capitalistic drive to at least maintain one’s high standing, coupled with the hope that scandal will possible cause one to rise higher has pretty much taken over.

Now, that isn’t to say that I think his motives are entirely cynical. I think that he (like Osteen, medieval monks, ect.) all have the best of intentions and do indeed think that what they are doing is a noble thing. And, it is worth pointing out, that much of it is. But, it is also worth pointing out that somewhere along that noble path somebody took a pretty sharp left turn somewhere. Indeed, I don’t even think he is aware of it.