Quote:
Originally Posted by tweetiepooh
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. |
Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Faith: strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
"Lack of belief" .. "absence of faith" ..
I guess we are getting into semantics here ..
Can you give some examples of "atheists who want to impose their belief on others citing freedom to prevent others expressing their faith"? I can think of some relating to Islam where France has banned the Burka for example but for Christianity?
I do not think that Dawkins et al. seek to prove the non-existence of God, rather they seek to prove that there is no need for the existence of God.
Also, I think that anyone who seeks to deny someone's rights to what they want to believe are just ... wrong.