A question for all belivers

[A. Leaf]

No, sorry. Given what I've heard of him, and the little I've read about him, I don't think I'll ever be that open minded.

Oh sorry Willamena, ive realized that it's not Richard Dawkins your in Love with.

Totaly agree with him not. I do(.....mmm sound like Yoda)

 

[Runlikethewind]

I fully intend to read it. From what i have read of him, he is a good scientist but not so good philosopher. The question of the reasonability or validity of religion does not seem to be a scientific one as much as it is a philosophical/metaphysical issue. I shall see how it turns out, I am just waiting for the library to get its copy so i can check it out and read it for myself.

 

[Syed_Ahmed_Gillani]

Allah of islam. has indeed sent down proof upon us. If athiests are so open minded and "scientific", then for once open your mind to religion with a full heart.

Question. Do you really limit your knowledge on what other humans discover.... Right or Wrong!!

Question. When one thinks about the mind, is it our mind thinking about itself????? The complexity and present condition of the mind is much more than a result of evolution.

you aethists think of everything in a scientific way. Its blinded you. Open your eyes. What will happen to you after you die, can you imagine, according to science you will dissappear completely, there wont even blackness, itll be like looking through glass and not being able to see the other side!

But you cant visualize this because, of your sense of interpertation, the way you feel yourself alive... That is your soul. And it can't dissapear into nowhere...

There is more to the human science can explain. Do you agree that in this almighty, almost infinite universe, there are things that will can't be captured physically or measured.

Question. How come kids are born with a sense of right and wrong.

Because evryone is born as a muslim (or peacful understanding person)then it is that your surroundings corrupt you.

ever heard of james Cidis??? IQ 230... Einstein?? IQ 160... Both were some of the most greatest scientists ever born and although jewish, believed in an Alpha cosmos intellectual (we know him as Allah).

There is so much more to say, but people hesitate to read large posts.


HERE IS YOUR PROOF

In the Quran there is a refrence of a city that mistreated the prophet jacob, Allah then turned thier coastal city over and brought upon them a great horror..

If you go to the exact spot refrenced in the quran, and dive in the ocean there you will find a buried city... CLEAR PROOF!!!! hard as it gets.

HERE ARE SOME MIRACLE PICS>>> BELIEVE IT OR NOT... and i know some of you will still protest or deny against these pictures because in the back of your minds, you didn't truly open your hearts to islam. !!HOW CAN YOU DENY!!, the very air you breathe is the proof of Allah. Think beyond what our pathetic discoveries have fed into your minds..

sorry i can't paste pics yet, browser doesn't allow. just search up "miracles of allah" on google images search


bEsides..... who said religion doesn't approve science, all science is religion and knowledge being proved.. The quran even reffers that the atomic number of iron FE = 26 which is a very recent discovery


WATCH THE VIDEO ON THIS LINK!!


AFTER WATCHING TELL ME IF THIS COULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN IN THE QURAN 2000 years ago!!!!
go to yourube and search "miracles of Quraan" then watch part 11, or 9, or whatever

 

[James the Persian]

I've been reading Dawkins for donkey's years. I haven't read that particular book, but I've read enough of his views on religion to realise, as someone with a firm foundation in both science and religion, that his arguments hold no water. I'm sorry to say that all of it is based upon his arch-materialist premise, which (as all logical premises must do) renders his conclusions invalid if it is wrong. The problem for Dawkins is that his belief that this is true is every bit as much 'religious' (by which I mean non-scientific) as my belief that it is not. If you asume a priori that all is material then of course religion looks silly, but that is an assumption which he never proves and in order to actually make a reasonable argument against religion, it is an assumption he absolutely has to prove. Just goes to show that if someone attempts to use either science or religion to disprove the other, they end up looking silly.

James

 

[Syed_Ahmed_Gillani]

well said james...:clap

 

[Mike182]

Are you open minded enough to read Richard Dawkins 'The God Delusion'? Could you, given that you know at the outset that it sets out to show the paucity of reason/evidence behind all religions?

Or will you dismiss it without having evaluated the ideas put forward?

i saw his documentary The root of all evil", and it was rooted in purposeful ignorance and miss representation. i also read an article from him in the sunday time, he wrote some article on belief and then a criticism of Aquinas' 5 ways. in his criticism of Aquinas, he was very selective about the points he challenged which made his argument look very strong, which it wouldn't have if he had challenged all of the points. - i have not read his book because i suspect it will be subject to the same tactics.

 

[Papersock]

Well, I read it. But I not really a religious believer. So maybe I'm biased. But who isn't, really?
Anyway, I thought Dawkins made some good points.
The more I learn about evolution the more it seems to explain a lot. Then again, anyone can interpret the same things differently.
I think I should read The God Delusion again, and more skeptically. Especially after I've read I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Geisler and Turek.

Evolution and Creationism are both full of holes.

 

[Runlikethewind]

I've been reading Dawkins for donkey's years. I haven't read that particular book, but I've read enough of his views on religion to realise, as someone with a firm foundation in both science and religion, that his arguments hold no water. I'm sorry to say that all of it is based upon his arch-materialist premise, which (as all logical premises must do) renders his conclusions invalid if it is wrong. The problem for Dawkins is that his belief that this is true is every bit as much 'religious' (by which I mean non-scientific) as my belief that it is not. If you asume a priori that all is material then of course religion looks silly, but that is an assumption which he never proves and in order to actually make a reasonable argument against religion, it is an assumption he absolutely has to prove. Just goes to show that if someone attempts to use either science or religion to disprove the other, they end up looking silly.

James

My sentiments exactly, well done!

 

[astarath]

If it is a book against God I have no desire to read it. I am sure the points he makes may seem important and valid as an argument against God but quite frankly I am more interested in reading a book that glorifies God than one that rips him down.

 

[Mister_T]

I've actually been meaning to read it. I doubt, though, that it will introduce anything "groundbreaking" that I haven't heard before.

 

[Yerda]

I've actually been meaning to read it. I doubt, though, that it will introduce anything "groundbreaking" that I haven't heard before.

It won't.

 

[drukenhard]

I love how hardly anyone is "open minded" enough to read this book yet you will believe that god created everything in 7 days!

Who will read the satanic bible then?

 

[michel]

Are you open minded enough to read Richard Dawkins 'The God Delusion'? Could you, given that you know at the outset that it sets out to show the paucity of reason/evidence behind all religions?

Or will you dismiss it without having evaluated the ideas put forward?

I would read it; I have read Dan Brown's The Da Vinci code and another (I forget the title), but I read them as slightly exciting fiction. Dawkin's book - I would read it, but I doubt very much that it would have any effect on me other than "Yes, but what about all the things that you can't evince ?"

 

[James the Persian]

I love how hardly anyone is "open minded" enough to read this book yet you will believe that god created everything in 7 days!

Actually, quite a few of us have said that we would or have read the book and I for one do not believe in young earth creationism. Your anti-religious comments would be more effective if you based them on what people actually said rather than your expectations as to what they might say.

James

 

[Mike182]

I love how hardly anyone is "open minded" enough to read this book yet you will believe that god created everything in 7 days!

Who will read the satanic bible then?

i am a fond reader of Crowley, LaVey isn't much further on than that

i haven't read the satanic bible, but only because of restraints on my time as opposed to not wanting to read it.

besides, like i said, i have a just reason for not actively looking for material from Dawkins, i do believe in God, and i do not believe in creationism - could you try to at least be open to those of us who are not the believers you prejudge us to be?

but that aside, welcome to the forums

 

[Papersock]

It seems that if someone has a strong belief in something it is very hard for them to be convinced of the opposite. This goes for anyone. Something has to happen inside the person to make them doubt what they believe.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Are you open minded enough to read Richard Dawkins 'The God Delusion'? Could you, given that you know at the outset that it sets out to show the paucity of reason/evidence behind all religions?

Or will you dismiss it without having evaluated the ideas put forward?

Weell, ya know, just bein a stupit, ignant, narrowminded, bigot, just like the rest of us Crhristians, I'll just dismiss it out of hand. Happy now?

 

[Papersock]

Dawkins' book may not have had anything particularly groundbreaking, but it did have a few things that were new to me.
Like the chapter on moral standards. I found it interesting how our standards seem to have risen, separate from religion.
But I guess it could be said that people started interpreting the scriptures incorrectly.

 

[Syed_Ahmed_Gillani]

I love how hardly anyone is "open minded" enough to read this book yet you will believe that god created everything in 7 days!

Who will read the satanic bible then?

When god says he created everything in six days (islamic), it could quite possibly mean six days of god, that means six god days equals 6000 human years

 

[Yerda]

When god says he created everything in six days (islamic), it could quite possibly mean six days of god, that means six god days equals 6000 human years

What would that explain?