Dawkins in the Pulpit... meet the new atheists/evos same as the old boss?

But why all the negative campaigning? Why not promote the positives of atheism which exist in and of themselves without any reference to the oppostion. Are there any advantages that exist without reference to the opposition?Like, belief in God offers eternal life. We don't need to refer to atheism to know that life ceases. Belief in God offers removal of guilt and shame. We don't need atheism to know that we feel guilt and shame

What's your simple test NJ?

Did you pass NJ's test?

Gotcha...

Iano has been at great pains to point to a God of Wrath/Justice/Love in the short time he has been here. It seems that many seem to erect a one-dimensional cardboard cut-out of God. We have the fluffy bearded old fool God who smiles down benevolently at our little...er..transgressions. Or the God of War. Or some other such thing.The inabililty of so many (otherwise) intelligent people to reconcile a God of Wrath/Justice/Love has been the most astonishing aspect of my time here.{AbE}This especially since we are so capable of being the same ourselves. Any parents here?Edited by iano, : No reason given.

See post count to the left. You do remember me chugging into 7 or so petrol stations on empty don't you. And whom I attributed this to.Reflecting on NJ's test. What is the gospel in 10 bullet points or less?

Yours will do fine.

Brings back memories of the first thread I started here. Children are indoctrinated with the information "Evolution is fact" from the day they were born. Steeped in it they are.Given that the science which would demonstrate Evolution to be true is complex and not an area many engage in professionally or as interested laymen, it is safe to say that the average person on the street, if they believe in Evolution, believes so because of indoctrination only.

They haven't got this knowledge to be safe. They accept it because they were told over and over again and failing a deep enough interest to check it our for themselves so they will remain. Objects at rest....My comparison was that one of Dawkins strands of attack against religious belief (ie: due to indoctrination) applies to evolutionary belief. He shoots himself in the foot so to speak.

As does the indoctrinated religious should they so wish. If they did they would come across many sections in the Bible which tell them that they should expect evidence of a compelling sort. If they find that they do not have this evidence themselves then they can make up their minds whether they are believers or not.Evidence is evidence whether evidence of the 5 sense sort or evidence of the faith- based sort.In this, both the indoctrinated God-believers and Evolution-believers are aligned perfectly.

What's your dictionary got to do with it? The Bible describes faith as evidence. Faith = evidence.Most people who believe in evolution do so because of indoctrination. That they can immerse themselve in science and come to a more grounded basis for their belief doesn't allay the fact that most now are simply indoctrinated. Like them, a person who wants to establish whether they have evidence (faith) for God as opposed to indoctrination can immerse themselves in the Bible.I just found it amusing that Dawkins seems to attack Religion on the grounds that its adherants have been subject to indoctrination when ToE can be seen in the same light.

No empirical evidence I think you mean. This is not the same as no evidence. You seem to be assuming empiricism rules but of course can not validate the assumption. Its a faith based notion ultimately.High school science doesn't concern itself with deep evidence. It states things globally to be the case and the students presume what they are being told is true. Thats indoctrination.Thus you have millions who believe it because they were told so in their textbooks.

In the formal sense I was about that age too. But there is a lot going on before that to instill the notion. To prepare the ground so to speak. I sincerly doubt that you never saw the classic monkey-to-man progression drawings somewhere before then. No references to it on tv? Surely you remember the Britvic ads: showing a Neandrthal man hauling his misses around by the hair (very un-PC in todays world). "Britvic - the original of the species" Never heard the playground taunts of coloured kids being compared to monkeys?

Can you say why not without appealing to an empirically unvalidated philosophy such as empiricism? If you cannot lets leave it at that - its not really on topic.Do you agree with this bit of the post?

Empiricism says that all that can be known is that which is empirical (or received through the 5 sense I suppose they mean). This cannot be demonstrated to be the case: empirically or otherwise. All that can be said is that that knowledge which is empirical in nature (ie: received through the 5 senses) is...er...empirical knowledge.Now it can be that there is no evidence to be detected outside the empirical but if there were then the ability to percieve that evidence must be present in order to detect it - the 5 senses patently being of no use to us here. A person who claims to be able to sense such evidence cannot be expected to demonstrate empirically that which is not empirical. This is not to say that non-empirical evidence does not exist - just that it is non-empirical (ie: non-demonstrable in the way that empirical evidence is)The Bible happens to talk of this non-empirical evidence. It calls it faith. Now this doesn't bolster the case in any empirical way but that doesn't lessen anything about it. Empiricism is good for some things but not all things.The trouble with Dawkins approach, it seems to me, is that he ignores this potential and plumps for indoctrination only. The only possible explaination for people saying they have non-empirical evidence. He decides that empiricism rules without being able to ground his case in any way other than pointing to how useful empirical evidence has been to us.Anyway, what do you think of indoctrination as the means whereby vast numbers of people come to believe in Evolution? The millions of man-in-the-street out there who would say they believe in Evolution "because the scientists say so"?Edited by iano, : No reason given.