Dawkins - 'The God Delusion'

I think just the fact a prominent scientist would write such a book is very telling in itself, along with the fact so many evos think ToE means there is no God or Designer. It's a reflection of their objectivity....

If Haggard remained in the pulpit in his position of authority with the Christian community all behind him, you might have a point. As such, you don't.

what central thesis? You want me to read a book by a total loon?That's how he comes off to me thus far. Maybe there is a sharp mind there, but I kind of doubt it.

Exactly. He is widely respected despite arguing that science means a rational person must be an atheist. You prove my point.

Haggard's position is not hypocritical. His message is not hypocritical in other words. His behaviour was. That's a big difference.Imo, Dawkins' comes close to being hypocritical in his message in that he claims objectivity. The fact he is so well-respected in the evo community is a testament to the lack of objectivity within the evo camp.

Crash, there is widespread and overwhelming agreement that there is a Creator, and so you are just wrong. If we are to judge by conscensus, as science does, then we have to say the concensus is that there is a God.The fact there are differences in theological understandings of God is to be expected since the physical evidence for a Creator does not necessarily explain some of the other aspects of God, except that God possesses beauty, perfection, divine wisdom and power, etc,...

Not ignoring you. I showed the Haggard example was false. Dawkins has not lost his teaching position, nor really been censured. He is endorsed and widely respected in the evo community.Glad to see some think he's gone overboard, but you can read this thread and see the absurd non-objectivity dominating the evo camp.

Is Buddhism a religion if it does not have a God or Creator?I think it is. I think there is a lot of misinformation on what constitutes religion and that evo advocates are often actually teaching religion in the classrooms.

You are still missing the point. There is unanimity on the attribute of a Creator or Divine Force that has created the universe. It matters not that there are other issues unresolved. There is overwhelming agreement on this attribute of God or the Divine.

You didn't refute it, crash. You pointed out there are theological disagreements on what and whom the Creator is, but there is no real disagreement among religious people that the world was created, and that's because this attribute of God is linked to physical evidence in the world we live in. Ironically, the thing about physicality you mentioned having the ability to bring concensus works for the open-minded, and thus we see such an incredible high number of people that accept the world was created by some sort of God or Divine power.However, it is testament to the arbitrary nature and rejection of this logic among scientists that they choose to ignore the very principle of objectivity they claim to adhere to, and so despite the mountain of evidence for God in the form of the designs of the universe, people like yourself insist on something completely illogical and unscientific, that the universe appeared without cause all on it's own, and without any Intelligence behind it's creation.

Are you suggesting that Buddhists are atheists, crash?The fact that Buddhism deals with spiritual practices more than doctrinal worship of God, and even there this is not exactly true as most practiced Buddhism does deal with God or gods, but regardless, Buddhists are not claiming there is no God or Creator as you erroneously suggest. Prove this. First, you ignored what I said, which is there is widespread and overwhelming consensus among the religious that the world was created. That is true. The fact that some religious tenets avoid the issue is irrevalent, as well as it is patently obvious that I am ignoring the religion of atheistic evolutionism in that.

Crash, not really.....you aren't really getting what Hindus believe. Hindus believe in God, some say gods and some say all the gods are but facets of one divine. The Hindu of reality is opposite of what someone like you, being a rationalist materialist denying the spiritual dimension thinks.

Crash, actually if you look at the spiritual mechanics within most religions, they is a remarkable level of agreement on certain aspects, and there is widespread agreement in the world that world is created.Additionally, if you ask scientists whether there is a God or not, there is disagreement there as well, right?Does that make science invalid?Does that mean there is no God?Crash, what you fail to realize is that science is limited by technology, and science moreover is often wrong. In fact, we can say with a great bit of certainty that many widely accepted ideas in the scientific community are wrong and scientists in the future will say they are wrong. That's historically been shown to the case.So the fact that science works by concensus is absolutely no guarantee scientists are correct. Your claims and analysis really fall apart upon close examination.