UK loses faith

[Russ]

Originally Posted by ianch99

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.

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.

Originally Posted by ianch99

I don't see that Dawkins is against personal faith

From in his book Dawkins writes:

'If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down'

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.

Originally Posted by ianch99

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

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

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.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by passingbat

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.

I do judge people based on their credentials, because that's how I get some idea of how seriously to take them.

I watched the video I linked before I posted it. It is ridiculous on so many levels. The man was so busy trying to prove the ignorant atheists wrong he made a complete ass of himself.

As a general rule I'm not that interested in being lectured in life-sciences by someone who doesn't know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution.

I have watched / read various material positing a young Earth and it is without exception attempting to misuse science to supply a veneer of respectability to something that is demonstrably, and indeed repeatedly demonstrated to be wrong.

This is what happens when, rather than producing a theory and then following the scientific method to test it, one already has the conclusion and is trying to produce the evidence that, in their mind, leads to it.

The Wikipedia entry on this man doesn't seem quite as flattering as the bio on his website, unsurprisingly.

This guy is a proven plagiarist, in one case stealing 'new age' ideas to pass off as 'new Christian science', in another stealing content verbatim from a critic, in both cases unattributed.

Still your call if you want to take such an obvious charlatan seriously. He strikes me as being no more believable than L. Ron Hubbard.

---------- Post added at 22:33 ---------- Previous post was at 22:30 ----------

Originally Posted by Russ

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

Thank you, Russ. Wasn't aware of this and will read it.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Russ

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?

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.

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

I think the arrogance you see is someone challenging the theist premise of existence.

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

---------- Post added at 22:57 ---------- Previous post was at 22:52 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

I agree wholeheartedly with your point about Nigeria.

Force, in the context I referred to, is when someone is trying to present their (Religious) viewpoint onto people who have not asked for it.

It is only "good news" to those who a) agree and b) want to hear it ..

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.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

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.

The individual can make an informed choice and not have it "forced" upon them ..

Here is an article that make my point I feel:

Isn’t evangelism unloving?

I sometimes get the question, “Shouldn’t we just let people believe what they want to believe?” Or, put another way, “Isn’t evangelism unloving because you are trying to force people to leave their beliefs behind and accept yours?” In this age of “tolerance,” as it is called, there is a growing notion that people ought to be able to believe whatever they want and that all beliefs are created equal. To tell someone what he believes is wrong is unloving and, well, wrong!

Sometimes our efforts to persuade people towards Christ are seen as pushy or unloving, but the heart of our intentions are for the good of those with whom we are sharing our faith. Imagine for a moment that you saw a person who was both blind and deaf standing on a railroad track, unaware that a train was speeding his way, and clearly under the impression that he was in no danger whatsoever. What would be the loving response on your part--let him meet his fate with the train or try to move him out of harm's way? Obviously the answer is to try to move him out of harm's way. In fact, I would argue that you have a moral obligation to attempt to save this man’s life.

An individual may resist you.

Now it may be the case that when you come alongside an individual, he will resist you because, after all, he doesn’t know who you are or why you are urging him to move from his belief. You seem like an inconvenience at the least and maybe even a threat to his well-being, but in reality you are performing an act of love with his best interests in mind.

This is a great example of Christian evangelism.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by ianch99

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.

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?

Originally Posted by ianch99

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

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

Originally Posted by ianch99

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

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 ----------

Originally Posted by ianch99

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.

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.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Russ

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?

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 .

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Russ

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?

I just find him rude, no matter what your beliefs or lack thereof there is no excuse for bad manners. Perhaps he doesn't care about alienating his target audience in favour of evangelising like some firebrand preacher to those that already believe his message.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Russ

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.

OK,

Nobody is forcing you to buy or read the Bible,

Agreed

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)

So you agree that Religion is mandated for our children even when it is now a minority belief in this country

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?

The Sky salesman is not trying to tell me what to believe or save my soul

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

Agreed, Dawkins can be a pompous ass at times. As you find him personally offensive, this is why I gave you a number of other sources.

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.

How is that any different from Christians, Muslims, etc. doing exactly the same thing? Dawkins won't knock on your door asking you to become an atheist .. Evangelicial Christians will.

---------- Post added at 08:15 ---------- Previous post was at 08:13 ----------

Originally Posted by papa smurf

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 .

I guess atheism is an anti-faith but your point is a good one. He is no worse or better than anyone who is trying to pursuade you of their viewpoint.

It is however, your personal choice whether you choose to listen to the man

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

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 .

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 ----------

Originally Posted by ianch99

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

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 ----------

Originally Posted by ianch99

Here is an article that make my point I feel:

Isn’t evangelism unloving?

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. 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.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

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. 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.

You are right, atheism is absence of faith .. I was trying to present it as an opposing view point.

As I have said before, faith is everyones right and anyone who is trying to deny someone's choice is wrong.

As you say, everyone should be entitled to their belief system and not try and impose it on others ..

[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.

[ianch99]

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.

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

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, .

How can you be so sure? There seem to be many scientists who believe in creation.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-ed...cientists.html

As Science Digest reported:

"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities… Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science." 3

I am not in a position to argue either way. But personally, I don't need to. I believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and therefore believe in creation.

Yes, that is a faith position, a faith that is bourn out of my walk with Jesus. But given that there are qualified scientists that believe Evolution is wrong and Creation is right, your belief in Evolution also becomes a faith belief. A faith belief you are entitled to hold.

My view is that as scientific discovery increases, Bible believing Christians need not fear that those discoveries will negate what the Bible says in any way at all.