Collins: Why this scientist believes in God

[Necrosis]

How?

Do you have a source for that?





1. Give me an example of an Argument of Dawkins being "dissected easily". Then 'dissect' it. You dissect it. Don't post a link of where you think it's been 'dissected'.
2. Dawkins wrote his book "The God delusion" with the intention of having people of all beliefs read it. He's not trying to preach to any choir.

Actually many of his arguments are novel. Including his "climbing mount improbable" example. However, After hundreds of years of religious debate, there aren't many "new" or "original" arguments concerning theism vs atheism.

He's not an expert in Atheism. He is a famous Atheist. I don't even know what being an "expert in atheism" would entail. Dawkins knows a lot about religion and science and when combined, can make very good arguments.

1)because its unintelligent drivle .

2)quantum questions by ken wilber

3)post the argument you like and ill have at it. im not going through the trouble. i assume the book your reffering to is the god delusion? since he's wrote many books.

4) he is preaching to the choir especially with arguments that attack the astrocities done in the name of religion. entertaining but moot

5)someone with phd in theology, religious works, or philosophy would suffice. he is none of the above and knows how much? evolutionary biologists arent my idea of religious giants. a better book is wonder of the world by varghese.

[Necrosis]

quantum questions is a great book, that has all the spiritual writings of great physicists, like bohm, eddington, einstein, planck. good read, you should check it out. ken wilber is also an amazing philosopher, perhaps the best in his particular field if you can quantify it.

[Wikidudeman]

1)because its unintelligent drivle .

I asked for examples.

2)quantum questions by ken wilber

What does this have to do with anything?

3)post the argument you like and ill have at it. im not going through the trouble. i assume the book your reffering to is the god delusion? since he's wrote many books.

I'm not the one who said his arguments are bunk. You did. You also claimed that you have read his book. So YOU give me an example of one of his arguments and refute it for me.

4) he is preaching to the choir especially with arguments that attack the astrocities done in the name of religion. entertaining but moot

Atrocities*

How is this preaching to the choir? Why can't religious people take note of the atrocities from religion?

5)someone with phd in theology, religious works, or philosophy would suffice.

How would someone with a Phd in theology or philosophy be considered an "expert in atheism"? Atheism isn't a religion or for that matter even a philosophy. It's simply the lack of belief in a God or gods. Dawkins never claims to be an "expert in atheism" for that matter.

he is none of the above and knows how much?

He's a very smart man.

evolutionary biologists arent my idea of religious giants.

You don't need a degree in theology to be keen about religious ideas.

a better book is wonder of the world by varghese.

I would recommend Daniel Dennett over Varghese.

[Necrosis]

I asked for examples.



What does this have to do with anything?


I'm not the one who said his arguments are bunk. You did. You also claimed that you have read his book. So YOU give me an example of one of his arguments and refute it for me.

Atrocities*

How is this preaching to the choir? Why can't religious people take note of the atrocities from religion?

How would someone with a Phd in theology or philosophy be considered an "expert in atheism"? Atheism isn't a religion or for that matter even a philosophy. It's simply the lack of belief in a God or gods. Dawkins never claims to be an "expert in atheism" for that matter.

He's a very smart man.

You don't need a degree in theology to be keen about religious ideas.


I would recommend Daniel Dennett over Varghese.

atheistic philosophers ala antony flew.

to argue adequetely about religion i would assume a phd in theology or philosophy of religion would suffice. atheism has many philosophical standpoints or ideologies or arguments for.

quantum questions is the source.

im not writing out arguments then, debating myself. i dont have enough time or desire to do that. ive already went over it umpteen times.

i guess it depends on how you define philosophy, its a nebulous term for the most part.

[Wikidudeman]

atheistic philosophers ala antony flew.

He's not an Atheist.

to argue adequetely about religion i would assume a phd in theology or philosophy of religion would suffice. atheism has many philosophical standpoints or ideologies or arguments for.

I can list many PHD's in theology who know nothing about atheism and many people without phd's who know a lot about it. I don't see how having a 'degree' designates one an 'expert in atheism". Someone can know all of the arguments for atheism without holding any degrees.

quantum questions is the source.

What source? Please quote what you're responding to so I know what you're responding to.

[Necrosis]

He's not an Atheist.

I can list many PHD's in theology who know nothing about atheism and many people without phd's who know a lot about it. I don't see how having a 'degree' designates one an 'expert in atheism". Someone can know all of the arguments for atheism without holding any degrees.

What source? Please quote what you're responding to so I know what you're responding to.

 i get the feeling your hurt by my corrections on your mistakes such as the "edge of the universe" or "infinities cant expand", "infinite amount of time". especially when you say antony flew is not an atheist. while being correct, he is a pantheist of sorts(spinoza) this was only very recently. for the first i dont know 70 years or how ever old the guy is, he was an avid atheist, perhaps the most famous. he was converted after reading, wonder of the world, a great book. have you read it.

because atheism can be considered philosophy, especially since it adresses ontology(being) and metaphysical questions, which are in the realm of philosophy. hence, people whos education deals with this material usually are the most competant in it.






















































just kidding about the hurt feelings...... just wanted you to melt at your computer for a second.

[Wikidudeman]

i get the feeling your hurt by my corrections on your mistakes such as the "edge of the universe" or "infinities cant expand", "infinite amount of time".

What corrections? I'm right.

especially when you say antony flew is not an atheist. while being correct, he is a pantheist of sorts(spinoza) this was only very recently. for the first i dont know 70 years or how ever old the guy is, he was an avid atheist, perhaps the most famous. he was converted after reading, wonder of the world, a great book. have you read it.

So?

because atheism can be considered philosophy, especially since it adresses ontology(being) and metaphysical questions, which are in the realm of philosophy. hence, people whos education deals with this material usually are the most competant in it.

I don't quite understand what you're saying. Atheism itself isn't a philosophy. It's true that atheists can use philosophy to support their beliefs but this doesn't mean that atheism itself is a philosophy.

[Necrosis]

What corrections? I'm right.


So?

I don't quite understand what you're saying. Atheism itself isn't a philosophy. It's true that atheists can use philosophy to support their beliefs but this doesn't mean that atheism itself is a philosophy.

there is no edge to the universe, we dont know if infinities can expand in real life, the universe could be infinite. Read a book by paul davies he adresses this question throughly, although i cant remember the specific answer . infinite refers to size, not time. in god and the new physics he argues about a finite and infinite universe, along with many paradoxes about time.

so? my point exactly, why even type that.

"because atheism can be considered philosophy, especially since it adresses ontology(being) and metaphysical questions, which are in the realm of philosophy. hence, people whos education deals with this material usually are the most competant in it".

the term atheistic philosopher is used alot, as well since its a direct opposite of a religious belief theism, and a faith, people who usually argue for, argue against, hence dawkins and many other famous debates.