Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35841248)

My point is that when I cited a source that you didn't like, introducing accusations of paedophilia of all things, I gave you other sources that can explain some of the reasons behind the OP's point.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 3584124)

I don't see that Dawkins is against personal faith

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 3584124)

It is when they try and force that viewpoint on others that I, personally, have a problem with.

Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35841212)

Did you actually sample at least some of the video, or just go looking for negative aspects on Chuck Missler?

Thankfully, God isn't as judgemental on peoples' credential as you seem to be. He will use anyone who has a heart for Him and believes fully in his Word. Some, God gives the gift of teaching to via the Holy Spirit and I believe Chuck Missler is one of those (1 Corinthians 12 V 27-28) . I have listened to his teaching on some of the books of the Bible and never had a check in my spirit regarding anything I've heard from him.

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 35841135)

.....followed by The Dawkins Delusion......

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 35841256)

What happened was you offered a biased source, I gave a counter-point source which you dismissed out of hand based on other peoples' opinions which you then contradicted by saying such views should be read regardless of the author.

My response was in the case of that particular writer keep in mind other things he's come out with.



From in his book Dawkins writes:



He has NO right whatsoever to intend for me to lose my faith and anyone supporting him trying to do so is equally arrogant and intolerant.



Does that extend to Dawkins and his type trying to force atheism on me?

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35841257)

Evangelism (as a purely Christian concept, from the Greek word for "good news") is conceptually different from "forcing". If force is used, it's not evangelism, it's something else.

FWIW, while I believe the door knocking approach is often counter-productive in our culture, it, too, can hardly be called "forcing".

Forcing is kidnapping ethnically Christian Nigerian school girls, making them profess Islam and marrying them off to Muslim men.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35841278)

Though if you don't hear it, how do you know if you're going to agree or not ...

Sorry, I don't mean to be facetious. I happen to believe that in postmodern, western and westernised cultures, evangelisation is more effective as a primary means of communicating the good news - basically, that's the approach where Christians live different, sacrificial, serving lives in their communities, resulting in other people wanting to ask them why this is, rather than them standing in the high street yelling about hell and damnation.

But I still don't agree that a Christian cold calling your front door is "forcing". "Highly irritating" quite probably. But forcing? No.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35841276)

Dawkins is not forcing you to buy or read his book.
Dawkins is not making your children read it at school.
Dawkins is not knocking on your door asking to believe his book as a divine truth.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35841276)

There are Christians that would equally believe that atheist readers of the Bible would be believers after they have read it.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35841276)

As I said, Dawkins is just one person presenting an argument against a religious explanation of the Universe.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35841283)

In the very same postmodern, western and westernised cultures, all the information on said "good news" is instantly available and accessible should you *want* to listen.

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 35841256)

What happened was you offered a biased source, I gave a counter-point source which you dismissed out of hand based on other peoples' opinions which you then contradicted by saying such views should be read regardless of the author.

My response was in the case of that particular writer keep in mind other things he's come out with.



From in his book Dawkins writes:



He has NO right whatsoever to intend for me to lose my faith and anyone supporting him trying to do so is equally arrogant and intolerant.



Does that extend to Dawkins and his type trying to force atheism on me?

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 35841256)

What happened was you offered a biased source, I gave a counter-point source which you dismissed out of hand based on other peoples' opinions which you then contradicted by saying such views should be read regardless of the author.

My response was in the case of that particular writer keep in mind other things he's come out with.




From in his book Dawkins writes:



He has NO right whatsoever to intend for me to lose my faith and anyone supporting him trying to do so is equally arrogant and intolerant.



Does that extend to Dawkins and his type trying to force atheism on me?

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 35841299)

Nobody is forcing you to buy or read the Bible, if you disagree with your children's syllabus as school then vote appropriately at the next election (or at least bring it up at the next parents' evening) and as Chris says I'm pretty certain if you're being honest with yourself you won't call knocking on someone's door 'forcing'.

After all, if a Sky salesman turned up asking you to sign a contract would you then ring the police to report them for forcing you to go with them?



And if that's the case I'm sure you now understand and agree with my disdain for Dawkins.



No, he's not. He is one person on a campaign against religion and beliefs with the intention of turning as many believers as possible in to atheists. My faith has helped me through difficult times over the past few years and anyone with the arrogance to decide I need that to be removed is not someone I can or want to respect.

---------- Post added at 05:23 ---------- Previous post was at 05:21 ----------



You could say the same about the current 'remain' or 'leave' campaign but I've not seen anyone complain either being 'forced' on them right now.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35841302)

just look at atheism as a faith and you will see that mr dawkins is only trying to introduce people to the good book he's only doing his religious duty and trying to save people whats the harm in that .

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35841302)

just look at atheism as a faith and you will see that mr dawkins is only trying to introduce people to the good book he's only doing his religious duty and trying to save people whats the harm in that .

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35841310)

I guess atheism is an anti-faith but your point is a good one.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35841283)

Here is an article that make my point I feel:

Isn’t evangelism unloving?

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35841327)

I must admit to finding Dawkins a tad over-zealous in this regard.

I went through a similar phase but grew out of it. I'm not that big on evangelism in either direction. If a truth is really that self-evident people will find it on their own if they wish. If they don't who am I or anyone else to shove it in their face.

I happily present facts as truth, I'm quite comfortable pointing out BS when I see it, but things like where I presented evolution as fact, which it is, are perfectly compatible with mainstream interpretations of Christianity. Those who would reject it and consider the Bible literal are a minority, most consider the 'good book' allegorical.

Let's not look at atheism as a faith. It's a faith in the same way that 'Off' is a TV channel. The only people who can be described as having a 'faith' in atheism are those who think they know there's no higher power and they are being ignorant. Even Dawkins himself doesn't claim that.

---------- Post added at 09:40 ---------- Previous post was at 09:35 ----------



It's an absence of faith, not an anti-faith. It is a basic human right to permit someone to follow a faith. All who are anti-faith are probably by definition atheists, far from all atheists are actively anti-faith. For right now it has a place and is key to many people's lives. Some base their entire life around their faith and, regardless of my view on that, that is their absolute right.

I am anti- a few things that are related to faith for sure. I'm against those who misuse science to present a warped version of reality, usually for material gain. I'm against those who misuse faith to justify inhumanity. Faith itself? Meh.

---------- Post added at 09:44 ---------- Previous post was at 09:40 ----------



Interesting article. The take-home there, for me, is that it's probably not possible for someone with faith to understand why someone without could not see evangelism as anything other than an act of love.

One person's self-evident truth is another's self-evident untruth.

EDIT: Can't you tell work is quieter than normal today?

EDIT 2: Which actually makes me think my time would be better spent studying than commenting on a religious thread. Russ / Chris, remember when I used to go all-in on these? I don't miss that version of me. Age clearly mellowed me a little even if it did up the cynicism count a bit. :D Well, age but most of all humanism. Once you find a group of like-minded people and are able to learn from them you feel far more secure in your own belief system, it becomes far more rounded and as a result feel far less inclined to try and, essentially, impose it other people by telling them how ridiculous anything different is.

Man I was a real Richard at times with that stuff. Still a tad evangelical over science, mind you, but happy to admit I don't know and science doesn't know when we don't - see abiogenesis, Big Bang, etc.

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh (Post 35841345)

A good reposte to Dawkins in God's Undertaker - John Lennox.

I've found this to be a well written and ordered volume. It is far less "foam at mouth" than some for both sides. The essential premise is that even if Dawkins' science is right it doesn't prove the non-existence of God. It also argues that the science isn't proven either.

(There are detractors to this book claiming that Dr X work on something shows that the book is wrong in this fact. But that will always happen as the book is published at a point in time and science continues, this is true on both sides.)

----
Atheism isn't absence of faith, it's more absences of an object (person) of faith. And it's often those atheists who want to impose their belief on others citing freedom to prevent others expressing their faith. It's a small step between avoiding harassment and denying rights.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35841327)

I happily present facts as truth, I'm quite comfortable pointing out BS when I see it, but things like where I presented evolution as fact, which it is, .