Dawkins' Preachings

This was ofcourse, referring to the book, Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion, and the Appetite for Wonder.What always strikes me about these sort of dogmatic and determined atheists, who tell us to grow up and stop believing in pink unicorns orbiting Saturn, is that they assume a position that no evidence means evidence of nothing pertaining to their own mindsets. In this way - we don't see air, so it's not there. And what I mean by that analogy, is that we are at the dawn of Science at best. Isn't it a bit silly - to conclusively dismiss higher levels of reality at this stage? Isn't it more sensible, to regard the possibility of a higher intelligent agancy - like people like Einstein did?People usually say, "I have no reason to believe because science doesn't say anything about God".....Forgive me - but what a get out, who's asking science? Is science the only way to know things?If we see, through the systematic realities of this universe - the incredible collection of coincidental random activity, then cannot we share a common knowledge - through our very witnessing the matter, and thereby conclude a genuine and true conclusion based on this knowledge?I say we can. I say that God is evidenced in the very universe. Just because science can't say anything about this evidence, doesn't mean it isn't there. Here is the simple construct that atheists partake of, concerning shifting common knowledge over to science."Dear atheist, look at all the knowledge of God - our very existence etc.."Atheist shifts goal posts; "Science doesn't evidence God"Believer; "What the fu** - who's science - was I asking him?".This happens far too much, because of 2D thinking from unbelievers. They're like drones in this regard - maybe they just have no imaginitive capabilities. But knowledge doesn't require evidence. I know I have wonderful feelings which I cannot evidence. I know that any investigation into them will not satisfy or live up to them. It's like trying to describe how good Shakespeare is, by examining the letters in the words. Listen - you're far too fascinated with science! But it doesn't suggest God doesn't exist. Even if the universe is indifferent - I am not. Why? You see - Dawkins uses science as a way of trying to disprove God. Why bother? All the texts from millenias - are documentation, just like any other document. So if the bible is a fairytale to you - yet it speaks truly to me - and gets things right in reality, in my life - and in the same way you could test a science book - then a science book is just as much fairytale to those who subjectively create atheistic positions from it. Indeed - my reality is dictated from a book called a "fairytale" by you atheists, how much fantasy can it be? The only difference is that you have used an objective story - to fulfill a subjective mindset. And I have used a subjective story to fulfill a subjective mindset. Atleast I'm consistent. All you're doing is post-creating your subjective atheist fairystory from an objective science book.I totally agree with physicist S. Barr. I noticed the logical error of assuming positions concerning Newton etc...In essence, using the science but not the opinion of the one who theorized, despite forcing his opinion on us - and telling us to grow up. Mindsets, *Ho hum*. I suppose Dawkins doesn't care for the minds who discover the science - despite no science ever being possibly found out without minds. So indeed - the opinion of theistic scientists who make great discoveries - is very necessary! Why should anyone take on this neo-Darwinian fantasy, and random poppycock?Why should any Darwinistic atheistic and rare philosophy be more prevailent than another scientists? Even your science puts its barriers up and says "no opinions allowed" - therefore any agreement with Dawkins is your subjective mind, wishfully disregarding the objective truths in order to derive subjective falsehoods.

You make the logical assumption that I am specifically and personally attacking you. But really, I'm attacking these atheists who support Dawkins, who says I should "grow up" etc..concerning a believer's religious beliefs.You mentioned this logical fallacy of focusing on the arguer rather than the argument?If anything, I think I spoke clearly concerning this. Dawkins has left his objective science - to hark on about atheism and indifference, as the Physicist S.Barr referenced in the pertaining quote. Dawkins has left his science and entered the opinionated arena. Yet in his book, he uses scientist's theories, such as Newton, without giving any credit or thought to the opinions of those scientists.Everybody agrees concerning the knowledge of the universe and the realities of the partakers of it. This common knowledge, if you like - or even what one feels - is just as real and/or valid as what one thinks.If Newton comes up with a theory, I know his opinion cannot effect the science. Big deal, that's shifting goal posts. Dawkins has made his "opinion" known, if it is so great - let's bring in some more scientific opinions. That's correct, you are starting to learn this now - I can see you have intelligence. Because we all know through CN, that our hearts beat. We feel it beat, we don't need evidence to "know" it beats. The knowledge is preceding the evidence in this example. So we don't need science to know things. This CN is ignored by those atheists who choose to dismiss reality in favour of a naturalistic random fantasy.So if my bible is subjective, and science is objective, why would I seek to objectify my subjective?Anyone can share common knowledge - even subjectively - yet truthfully and factually. I can have a real walk with God - and he can foretell me all things through my subjective bible, yet I remain consistent, factual and true, in that - the bible effects reality and is knowledge of truth.Epistemology is the key here. One can know many things without science. people knew all about the sun and sky before science. This modern atheistic Dawkinist mindset, focuses on random activity as explaining all, yet with very little evidence and mostly theory. Infact - it's a big atheistic collusion, focusing in on the science. It works like this;Science cannot say anything about God
The scientist cannot have his opinions mentioned concerning his science.But the question is about the epistemological truths that atheists and theists agree on, so it's one big wussie fence-sitter of a strawman.

Ahahahahaha! What a prime example of a big old scientific STRAWMAN. I didn't say my opinion is equal to the achievements of science. What I have said is that knowledge can certainly be had, without science, or precede it, and that epistemology is certainly a valid endeavour.If you had read post one then you'd realize that I am FAR from suggesting I am trying to worship science or include God in it. What an absolute failure of logic from a person who claims it!I'll make it real simple now;Common knowledge is agree upon by both the believer and none believer. They both see the purpose to say - lungs. That's right, purpose. We knew the sun was there before science, and we know our hearts beat.Infact, my opinion as you call it is 2+2=4. What a silly and childish attempt to dismiss all that I have said!The absolute fact and truth, is that I have walked with God succesfully, according to all that is written in the bible. Sorry to trump your hopes but that's a fact.Here's what you people do;Rule 1. Science cannot say anything about God ( Delbert says - I'm not talking science)Rule 2. The scientists opinion cannot be relevant, concerning God.So, that's science and the scientist that cannot mention God.A and B = C (No God, guaranteed and you're LOVING IT)) Infact - it's as stupid as 2+2= whatever number you want.So Delbert suggests valid logical endeavours concerning the facts OF LOGIC, that knowledge doesn't require evidence. And you people say "science cannot blah blah blah, your opinion isn't relevant." LOL. Then neither is Dawkins'.If science cannot mention God, and neither can the scientist, then that's formula for "removing" God so that no person is in a position to give God any credence.Look at it again;Science says nothing about God
The scientist's opinion about God cannot be deemed relevant.So this is a categorically HUGE error of atheist/agnostic arrogance.It's just like saying "We MUST be all there is as we cannot detect anything else".You're a man of logic. Does no evidence evidence nothing?All that MrHambre said, is still happening. You are guilty of saying "There is no God, because science hasn't found him".Here's another one;There is no life in the universe apart from on earth.STOP worshipping science, and trying to get me to worship it like you. This is VALID knowledge of God, by great minds who have been great enough to succeed in science. If Dawkins views you agree with, then you're favouring your subjective atheistic inclinations!How can you conclude no higher intelligent agency? Does a microbe on a dunghill say "there are no stars"?This message has been edited by Delbert Grady, 12-01-2004 06:36 PM

This is irrelevant. The fact is that we know we have something beating in us preceding the science. It doesn't matter if I cannot articulate the various natural structures "made up" by humans, what matters is that I feel it before it's evidenced. I notice what we feel is given far less importance than what we think, despite the two being both equally true/valid.The rest is similar jive concerning your precious one, science.The fact is, that logic dictates that we do not need evidence to have knowledge.We can know many things, so define evidence. You'll have a job I'm guessing, if your definition has to remove all possibilities pertaining to evidence of God.If my feeling my heart is evidence, then feeling God is also evidence. So please, define. And if you don't want to - then tie your epistemological shoes, and realize that science will not be the end all of knowledge. That's nice. But isn't the topic at hand. I'm so upset.