There is no good reason to believe in a supernatural creator, says a leading British atheist who believes religious explanations of how the world came to be, such as creationism, are petty and outdated – especially when modern science can now offer a better understanding of the existence of life.
Today's Christian News Online - The Christian Post
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. (JN 8:32)
CP HOME
> Education > General
Darwin's 'Rottweiler', Christian Apologist Heat Up God Debate
By
Nathan Black
Christian Post Reporter
Fri, Oct. 05 2007 11:09 AM EDT
[-] Text [+]
Prev1Next
Most Commented Articles
La. Governor Signs 'Science Education Act'
Obama Prying Loose Evangelicals from Republicans
Federal Marriage Amendment Re-introduced in Senate
Why I Thank God for Charles Darwin
Anglican Head Sees Risks in Conservative Proposals
PCUSA Assembly Approves Deleting Gay Clergy Ban
Arizona Puts Marriage Amendment on Ballot - Again
Featured Advertiser Links
Comments
http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
What I'm wondering merkin & Citizen is why you are posting on a Christian website?? Is it solely for the sake of argument or are you searching for answers?
Anyone noticed I don't believe in the trinity after years of study?
bcootz: It's not an artificial restriction, its a recognition that books of mythology do not qualify as evidence for the truth of the stories they contain.
Asking to prove there is God without the Bible is like saying prove there are single cell organisms without a microscope. It is an artificial restriction. You can be have meaning and even morality (to an extent) apart from Biblical authority, but it is just an opinion at that point and no more valid than any other opinion that would be in conflict with it.
Citizen,
For me to believe that living organisms adapt to their surroundings has in no way shape or form to say that I believe in evolution. Micro-evolution is merely adaptation, and adaptation is in all regards, another great example of the masterful stroke of the Creator.
Sorry to disappoint you.
Religion is man's attempt to reach God. Jesus is God's attempt to reach man.
Belief is independent of truth. Truth does not need someone to believe for it to be true. God loves you even if you chose not to believe in Him. And yes God loves Mr. Dawkins!
I believe in God, in Jesus and the Holy Spirit and if the world wants to call me delusional and a fool than I praise God in thanks for not being accepted by this world!
Peace be unto you!
Moreover, if you can't recognize that meaning and morality is available outside of your religion, then that religion has narrowed your mind.
dunscotus: You claim god is a necessary basis of my existence? Prove it without using the bible, because the bible is just a book like any other. It has no inherent special authority. If you think that it does, no one else is obliged to respect or agree with that opinion, and I don't.
The debate is on YouTube, divided in 11 parts.
The existence of God is axiomatic. If one attacks an axiom one undermines the bases of one's own existence. The Bible states that such a person is a fool, a person with a morally perverse mind. The more meaningful questions are: Is God good or evil? Is it possible to know God? Has God revealed Himself to humanity at any time in our history? If so what does He reveal about Himself and us? Does He have a purpose in this creation? Can I speak to God? Does God communicate with human beings? Will he communicate with me? How can I know the answers to these questions? If you have decided in your heart there is no God then all the answers to these questions, and more, and a life full of meaning and significance is closed to you. Why would anyone who claims to have a curious intelligence, with a desire to know as much about this life as possible, close that door? God Himself has promised that if we seek Him we shall find Him, if we search for Him with all our heart.
Think of all the qualities you most desire to find in another person and to be yourself. Qualities such as truthfulness, faithfulness, lovingkindness, gentleness, meekness, patience, humility. These qualities are all the qualities of God. If you love these qualities then you love God. If you hate these qualities then you hate God. This is why only God is wholly good. Only He is a perfect manifestation of these qualties we all agree are good. He has eternally defeated evil in Himself and He has provided a Way for us to do the same. This is the meaning of the Cross. Through the Cross we can enter into Him, into His Life, His Truth. He then enters into us and forms in us a perfect union with Himself. This is why we are here. This is the meaning of life. None of this can be yours as long as you believe in your heart that there is no God.
joshuageller,
It takes no more faith to disbelieve in gods than it does to disbelieve in fairies or leprechauns.
There is also no good reason not to believe in a Creator. Supernatural is a term: I consider everything that exists to be natural, whether or not we humans understand it or can understand it.
This is all a matter of faith. The thing that annoys me about atheists is not that they don't believe in God: lots of people don't believe in God, but that they insist that what they are doing is somehow more logical or rational than religion. I believe in God because that is what I believe. It is a matter of faith, not logic. Dawkins doesn't believe in God in exactly the same way, but he won't admit that this is the case.
I'm going to jump in and add my two cents to this agnosticism/atheism debate.
Strictly speaking, everyone is an agnostic. As strong as a person's convictions may be, one way or the other, they are not founded on empirical evidence. Any Christian who has ever used Pascal's wager to defend her beliefs has acknowledged this. The whole enterprise of 'faith' rests on the assumption that this is true. If there was undeniable, empirical, evidence, most of us would accept the facts and terms like theism and atheism would become obsolete. Unfortunately there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of God and so we have these titles to describe our varying personal persuasions. It's an odd thing to assert that a person cannot be both an atheist and agnostic. I can't see how an atheist (or a believer) could claim to be anything but, very strictly speaking, agnostic.
Citizen,
How much weight would you like my friend? I have a few pounds to shed :)
zenodaddy: the dictionary defines words as they are used in mass culture, right? So if there is a misunderstanding of atheism in the mass culture, that would make its way into the dictionary right? Since I actually am an atheist, aren't I more likely to know what I am talking about? So when I tell you that "lack of belief in gods" is a valid definition of atheism, you might want to give some weight to that.
Citizen,
So can one be a Protestant and a Catholic at the same time? I honestly do not mind you being an agnostic or an atheist, I am merely pointing out that it is impossible to be both.
'I know you prefer the other definition of atheism because fuels a lot of your anti-atheism rhetoric'
Definition of Atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no God. -- Dictionary.com
Definition for Agnosticism: The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist, or The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge. - Dictionary.com
'but you should ask the atheist in question whether they believe no gods exist, or simply don't believe in any of l the claimed gods before jumping in to define them to your own satisfaction.'
Wouldn't that be a circular argument since an atheist believes in no god at all? That would be like asking a Christian if they believe in God.. either that is redundant, or the questioner has no intelligence.
Duly noted, citizen.Thanks for keeping me straight on that one.My apologies to you and to all Humanists.
zenodaddy: you said it yourself "to be an atheist means not believing in a god." I don't. I don't know for sure whether one exists or not, but the possibility that one does is on par with the possibility that invisible unicorns exist. But we don't have to go through all that. Just take a look at the words: theism: belief in gods atheism: lack of belief in gods. gnosticism: knowledge of the existence of gods exist agnosticism: lack of knowledge concerning the the existence of gods
I know you prefer the other definition of atheism because fuels a lot of your anti-atheism rhetoric, but you should ask the atheist in question whether they believe no gods exist, or simply don't believe in any of l the claimed gods before jumping in to define them to your own satisfaction.
GoldenEagle: You are aware that the American Humanist Association has issued two more manifestos since 1933, neither of which declares Humanism a religion, right? Religion can indeed be used in a broad sense, but that use is disfavored, because that would substituting for "ideology, lifestance, or worldview" rather than using it to refer merely to the subset of those that involves supernatural deities.
Citizen,
'Atheism has to do with belief, agnosticism has to do with knowledge.'
I am sorry Citizen, but where are you getting your information? Atheism has nothing to do with belief, atheism is the absenteeism in any supernaturals at all. To be an Atheist means you do not believe in a god. Being agnostic on the other hand means that you leave the possibility that a supreme being does exist, however there is not enough evidence to prove if a god exists or does not exist.
'I am both agnostic and atheist'
So you believe that you do not believe in a god, interesting... and impossible.
'I don't know (agnostic), but its highly unlikely in the absence of evidence, therefore I do not believe (atheist).'
Alright, so you are an agnostic since you 'do not know' and that it is 'highly unlikely'. You are an agnostic, not an atheist my friend.
Like I said, to be an atheist you must conclude that there is no possibility whatsoever that a god exists, period with no room for anything else.
Citizen,
Religion is a pretty broad term.It would include Humanism (since the "Humanist Manifesto" declares it to be a religion), among other things.My dispute is with what Dawkins said, although I'm not sure that your contention that religion has always been at odds with the scientific method is correct, either.Dawkins admitted himself that science rose out of a theistic background, so if religion is at odds with the scientific method, how could this be? You would think that if that were the case it would have hindered many a religious scientist.But I guess they rose above the archaic limitations of religion and discovered great things.At any rate, thanks for clarifying your take on this.I still think Dawkins is wrong, but at least you've given me something to think about.
GoldenEagle: I never said Isaac Newton being a believer discredited him as a scientist. The message I was attempting to send was that he was a great scientist in spite of being a believer. To add to that, i will also note that he lived hundreds of years ago, before evolution was discovered. Many scientists were creationists back then. Today, it is different. Religion has always been at odds with the scientific method, and today, with the rise of ID and creationism, it actively promotes the god of the gaps.
zenodaddy: Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Atheism has to do with belief, agnosticism has to do with knowledge. I am both agnostic and atheist: I don't know (agnostic), but its highly unlikely in the absence of evidence, therefore I do not believe (atheist).
Citizen,
'If you think that Humanists and atheists have "a special contempt" for Christianity, maybe you should consider that it is the dominant religion in America.'
Actually... Christianity is the dominant religion of the world, not just America.
'I, for one, think the other religions are just as silly, they just don't come to my attention as often as Christianity does.'
I find atheism to be a asinine seeing as though to be an atheist, you mus know everything there is to know about anything. At least agnostics allow for the possibility.
Maybe you should re-read what I said.Nowhere was I advocating everything that Isaac Newton believed.Nor did I say that Einstein was a devout Christian.I was simply disputing Dawkins' claim that "religion teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding", and I was using the example of Newton and Einstein to dispute this.Whatever Einstein was, he was certainly not an atheist, and just because Newton was a believer, it does not discredit him as a scientist.In fact, he is considered by scientists themselves as the greatest scientist who ever lived.
Citizen -
Not a pantheist (that's the view he held prior to understanding the universe had a beginning), but a deist. But in any event, Einstein recognized that an eternal Creator existed and that the universe we know is not eternal.
Zenodaddy: The format was indeed bad, but not because it was unfair to Lennox. What ended up happening is that on any given topic, Lennox ended with the last word, so Dawkins would have to use his time on the next topic to rebut the previous one. That makes it stacked against Dawkins, not Lennox.
Atheism does not require one to be a communist, so that line of attack is fruitless, whereas religions have historically included violence against unbelievers or different religions.
If you think that Humanists and atheists have "a special contempt" for Christianity, maybe you should consider that it is the dominant religion in America. I, for one, think the other religions are just as silly, they just don't come to my attention as often as Christianity does.
GoldenEagle: Issac Newton was also an alchemist. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_occult_studies) Should we believe in alchemy based on his authority? Einstein did not believe in any god you'd recognize: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." - Albert Einstein, responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein's question "Do you believe in God?" quoted in: Has Science Found God?, by Victor J Stenger. In other words, he was a pantheist.
Zeno, you are great.You never cease to amaze me, friend.You always leave me with something to think about.I thank you for that!!
GoldenEagle,
Einstein even repented about changing the mathematical equation regarding general relativity. Upon learning that his equation called for an expanding universe he changed the numbers to show a constant unchanging universe which was then corrected by his colleague. I have found most (but not all) atheists to be severely bitter individuals who hold a special contempt for Christianity but tend to be less harsh with the other religions.
Great post!
I find Dawkins' argument that "religion teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding" very interesting in light of the fact that many of the greatest scientists in history were very religious people.Not only was Isaac Newton a believer, but evn Albert Einstein believed in God.He once said that "God does not play dice with the Universe".
I would like to point out though that Lennox's response to the 'Religion causing evil acts'' remark was brilliant in pointing out that Communism was started by Atheists. Communism has killed and tortured a hundred fold more souls then Christianity or religion has dreamed about.
I would first like to ask why Fixed-Point Foundation has not made the transcript available, which I assume they will do shortly.
However, as I stated before this was a lose/lose event. If you notice from the article, the majority of this was to cover Dawkin's and very little was given for Lennox. You cannot tell from the article on who officially came out triumphant.