tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5745814378416915364.post6742541785324886400..comments2023-12-23T00:19:35.005-08:00Comments on ADAM'S ALE: THIS EITHER MEANS SOMETHING OR IT MEANS NOTHING AT ALLFr. Vhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13201561855047420853noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5745814378416915364.post-1938926053607577792013-11-15T11:44:33.992-08:002013-11-15T11:44:33.992-08:00you want to talk with someone about apologetics?you want to talk with someone about apologetics?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5745814378416915364.post-3768694478145946092013-11-14T10:12:32.652-08:002013-11-14T10:12:32.652-08:00James,
Good to hear from you. Yes. These are th...James,<br /><br />Good to hear from you. Yes. These are the things that I would love to talk about with someone!<br /><br />Fr. Vhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13201561855047420853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5745814378416915364.post-28928181806835792592013-11-14T10:11:23.535-08:002013-11-14T10:11:23.535-08:00Wow! Great Redearth! Gave me lots to think about...Wow! Great Redearth! Gave me lots to think about. I think you hit one thing right on the head in particular - I think most of the people with whom I've been trying to engage on this topic have been more on the anti-theist side rather than the atheist persuasion. Great distinction there which I failed to notice.Fr. Vhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13201561855047420853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5745814378416915364.post-83419719634309301772013-11-14T08:25:02.030-08:002013-11-14T08:25:02.030-08:00I would bet to differ on Dawkins as an atheist. He...I would bet to differ on Dawkins as an atheist. He's not, he's anti theist. There's a distinct difference. Anthony Flew, one of the greater atheist minds recently, used strikingly logical arguments against theism. Dawkins, on the other hand, resorts to so many logical errors and fallacies I'm surprised he even has a scientific career, but now I'm sounding like him. I've read his books, and the constant underlying motive is " I wear a lab coat, that makes me an authority, therefore I know things and I know this is too ridiculous to be true so it is not true. If you disagree see my lab coat. " <br /><br /> Harris at least is more honest. Flew was good and challenging to read and he was very logically minded. But in the end Flew decided on theism, not Christianity, but a form of deism. <br /><br />Now that being said the current rhetoric of the Dawkin is ridicule and leave no room for discourse. Disagreement is idiocy and therefore if you disagree your a fool. Of course there are self proclaimed theist philosophers and theologians with the same tact. I think the underlying motive is fear, for both sides. The theist is frightened that the god they're projecting is not real their world will fall apart, the Dawkins anti theist thinks the same way but that their world requires more. Meaningful discourse with a mutual respect will only bring clarity and understanding and if people are mature enough to handle a persons differing world view without belittling the person we would be able to understand one another and still disagree realizing that it's ok to disagree, but it's not ok to disrespect because of disagreement. Redearthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08046544474938081329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5745814378416915364.post-23442270557813208262013-11-14T07:33:48.239-08:002013-11-14T07:33:48.239-08:00It was interesting to me how Dawkins explained the...It was interesting to me how Dawkins explained the physics of "nothing," claiming it is made up of a substrate of particles and energy. Where then did the sustrate come from? <br />Furthermore, atheists tend to dismiss evolutionary arguments about the development of Christianity, but don't seem able to recognize that scientific thought and progress also develops. The Universe itself is still expanding, hence further developing too. James Millernoreply@blogger.com