3:17
That's actually a very embarrassing parable. It just shows that the author (and presumably yourself) doesn't have the faintest idea what evidence is.
Anon,
Thats the whole point - he is paralleling Dawkins' approach to Christianity, using exactly the same sort of arguments Dawkins uses. So indeed it is very embarrassing - for Dawkins. As many of non-christian reviews have noted in public reviews the book, The God Delusion, is shoddy.
See the articles referenced on this page
http://www.albertmohler.com/blog...read.php?
id=797
Thank you for your unwitting confirmation of the farcical nature of Dawkins evidence/logic.
Also see for Michael Ruse (atheist) opinion of Dawkins as an "absolute disaster in the fight against intelligent design.”
"“What we need is not knee-jerk atheism,” says Ruse, “but serious grappling with the issues.”
http://www.uncommondescent.com/i...hp/archives/
844
No you eejit. When was the last time that God appeared on live television? Or gave a lecture to dozens of students? Or wrote a book?
It really is an exceedingly silly comparison. There's vast amounts of evidence for Dawkins' existence, evidence that does not exist for God. It's not rocket science.
I see your point, although it hinges on the fact that Dawkins is lucky enough to have lived in the last 100 years of human existence when photography and TV were around. Say for example we were talking about William Shakespeare. That would make the parallel more accurate. No photographic evidence (even though it isnt real proof since it is fallible)
What the author of the parable has done is to show (albeit apart from the handy get out clause of photos and TV) that Dawkins arguments for the non existence of God are flawed.
What proof do we have that Dawkins actually wrote the book? I suspect you dangle the question "When did God last write a book?" to prompt to to suggest the bible. And then you will ask, "how do we know God wrote the bible?" so i ask how do we really know Dawkins wrote his book? I suppose people will really think that Roy Keane actually wrote his biography and not Eamon Dunphy.
As for eye witnesses of God, I would venture that the fact that the New Testament was written, not 100s of years post event, but within the lifetime of hostile eye witnesses who could contradict its claims, and the fact that Paul appeals to the 500+ who saw the risen Jesus constitutes serious eye witness evidence. There was no cover up - the 11 men simply didnt have the clout to do that.
Given that these followers were clearly not delusional - if you read the accounts it is clear that they werent hoping against hope that he was alive, rather they ere convinced he was dead - not great circumstances for having an hallucination or experiencing auto-suggestion - this evidence has to be taken as real.
Add to that the fact that Christianity owes its early spread, not to some fanatical followers, but mostly to one man - Paul, who was dedicated to murdering Christians and was radically transformed while on route to murder more by the appearance of God the Son, the one being his mind was pre-programmed not to believe in - again not a candidate for autosuggestion or hallucination.
Dawkins has failed to grapple with the real answers to his questions, he chooses instead to take on the half baked arguments of liberal Christians and to expose and mock (justifiably ) the flaws of Prosperity Gospel christians with there health and wealth nonsense.
This cannot be denied as even his fellow atheists have rebuked him for this.
Jesus is the staggering evidence for the existence of God. And I would invite you to investigate for yourself the reliability of the documents and the historicity of Jesus - not by poking about on the web, but by getting some seriously footnoted books, as opposed to believing Dan Brown like waffle from someone whom even the usually Christian hating press has had to admit hasnt a clue about the fundamental history behind the bible. See quote from Terry Eagleton in the London Review of Books
"Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology."
I notice you didnt comment on either of the links?
Commenting by HaloScan
