Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Richard Dawkins is an atheist. Hardcore atheist.

ngdawg · 03-07-2007, 09:01 AM

While I liked the video in general, Dawkins himself is evangelical in his commentary.
I consider myself to be a 'logical atheist', in that I just look at what is there in religion, question it and draw a conclusion. It seems to me that if you have belief in God, you would have belief in the stories attributed to him in both the Old and New Testaments and none make a lick of sense.
People don't live to be over 400 years old, then have children; a man can't live in the belly of a whale and the only way to walk on water is if it's ice. And the beginnings of human life didn't pop up out of dirt.
This discussion has gone on for 192 comments so far and it boils down to a who is right and who is wrong. Having faith in a supreme entity is not wrong for the people who have it; it only becomes wrong when an attempt is made to use that faith to override factual information such as evolutionary evidence.
Personally, I'm of the feeling that if you believe in God and Jesus, you believe a fat man really could deliver toys to believing children simply by driving a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer; that fable makes about as much sense as turning around and becoming a pillar of salt. But that's just me. I have a hard time understanding how anyone can say they know those biblical stories are exagerations, but swear they think God and the miracles in the NT are true.
But, is that not the definition of faith? To believe without objectivity?

03-07-2007, 09:01 AM	#194 (permalink)
ngdawg peekaboo Location: on the back, bitch	While I liked the video in general, Dawkins himself is evangelical in his commentary. I consider myself to be a 'logical atheist', in that I just look at what is there in religion, question it and draw a conclusion. It seems to me that if you have belief in God, you would have belief in the stories attributed to him in both the Old and New Testaments and none make a lick of sense. People don't live to be over 400 years old, then have children; a man can't live in the belly of a whale and the only way to walk on water is if it's ice. And the beginnings of human life didn't pop up out of dirt. This discussion has gone on for 192 comments so far and it boils down to a who is right and who is wrong. Having faith in a supreme entity is not wrong for the people who have it; it only becomes wrong when an attempt is made to use that faith to override factual information such as evolutionary evidence. Personally, I'm of the feeling that if you believe in God and Jesus, you believe a fat man really could deliver toys to believing children simply by driving a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer; that fable makes about as much sense as turning around and becoming a pillar of salt. But that's just me. I have a hard time understanding how anyone can say they know those biblical stories are exagerations, but swear they think God and the miracles in the NT are true. But, is that not the definition of faith? To believe without objectivity? __________________ Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em.