LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksAnd, of course, the brilliant reply:Originally Posted by Mariella Froster
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006 ... _reply.php
And, of course, the brilliant reply:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006 ... _reply.php
And, of course, this:
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/art ... hp?num=280
I've yet to see Eagleton actually counter any of Dawkins points on the improbability of a God, he just sorta whinges about how religious people are portrayed as evil.
Signed, Universal (LGBT...QRSTUVWXYZ)
Too stupid for words. Misses the point and painfully contrived.And, of course, the brilliant reply:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006 ... _reply.php
Did you read or understand what Eageton said?
[quote=Mariella Froster]Did you read or understand what Eageton said?[/quote:2op8m1bt]
Yes, and not once did he refute any of Dawkins key arguments on the probability of a God, in fact in his "review" of one of his books he got some of Dawkins claims flat out wrong and I wondered if he'd actually read it.
Signed, Universal (LGBT...QRSTUVWXYZ)
No persons views should ever be banned.........but their actions are a different matter altogether !!!! Mr Dawkins is an eminent scientist who I'm sure has applied the most eminent science to all his claims/arguments/rebukes etc. Surely anyone can easily find all of Mr Dawkins' empirical data that support his claims, comments, absurdities and imaginations. One can only assume that his opinions are based on empirical fact and that he hasn't resorted to the empirically unverifiable disciplines of math and logic that we common folk use!
[quote=Mariella Froster]Did you read or understand what Eageton said?[/quote:33zbnd69]
I did, and I understand it, and he's completely wrong. Not surprising as he (Eagleton) has gone off the boil significantly over the last few years.
What he ignores is the fact that, while Dawkins et al may not engage with sophisticated theological arguments (although I'd question the extent one can make a theological argument which retains any sense), neither do those against whom Dawkins is writing. While a Professor of Cultural Theory might consider a statement like God is the condition for all existence to be a meaningful one, the real difficulty with religious belief comes from those who pace Eagleton actually do believe in a personal God whose desires and demands are knowable. Sophisticated Professors of theology might not crash planes into skyscrapers, or claim that evolution is a hoax, or state that homosexuality is evil but religious people do, people who believe in the actual existence of a God who intervenes in the world.
All one has to do is ask whether children in schools in Ireland are taught that God is the condition of any entity existing, and that it would be valid to say that God does not exist, or whether they're taught that the phrase "God loves you" is meant to be taken literally to determine whether the concept of God which Eagleton proposes or the one which Dawkins opposes is the concept which has most currency in society. In reading that article, whenever Eagelton says 'traditionally' (as in 'what is traditionally meant by God), he's actually means 'Eagleton' (as in 'what Eagleton means by God). Unlike the claims of Dawkins, the assertions of Eagleton about things being sustained by God's love only make sense if you already accept the very premises that Dawkins and others are challenging.
It's a nice try by Eagleton, but doesn't make much sense. The Courtier's Reply is spot on.
Failed liberal traitors:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To all who are posting on this forum. We must realize that Dawkins has completely abandoned all scientific/empirical protocol in his critique on Christ and God/religion etc. We can all yap on all night - arguing for and against these various arguments. Reality is merely experiential. There is no such thing as atheist! There is only Gnostic and Agnotstic. Gnostic - meaning those with spiritual Knowledge through experince; and Agnostic - meaning those with knowledge but without spiritual experience. (agnostic has always traditionally meant - without spiritual experience/knowledge)
Really? How so?
Failed liberal traitors:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote