Have you heard of Einstein? He called for a "cosmic religiosity"..enraptured wonder at the harmony of the laws of nature...a deep faith in the rationality of the structure of the world."
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Have you heard of Einstein? He called for a "cosmic religiosity"..enraptured wonder at the harmony of the laws of nature...a deep faith in the rationality of the structure of the world."
If that is what you believe then you can understand why we do not believe in the fairy story of evolution which is lacking considerable evidence.
A
AgeofKnowledge
Guest
Interestingly, many of the very top scholars and best scientists in the U.S. are Christians. Some of their associations have hundreds of thousands of members (e.g. Biologos, Reasons To Believe, etc...).
When interviewed, many have responded that they didn't start out Christians and were atheists through most of their careers but after passing the mid way mark in their careers and eventually reaching the top hierarchy of their respective fields were no longer impeded or threatened by the biased necessity in the fields of science and academia to align with atheism in order to progress in their career.
Finally being free, they began to examine the evidence for the Christian worldview and apply what they had learned to it. The result was their conversion to Christianity.
Christian Academics Cite Hostility On Campus : NPR
Study: http://www.jewishresearch.org/PDFs2/FacultyReligion07.pdf
Of course outside of academia and the scientific enterprise in the U.S., the reverse is often true. But, if you leave the U.S. Christians are the most persecuted religious group in the world.
It's important to point out that this "oppression of others" in inherent in modern humans. These divisions are ultimately social constructs that reflect the fundamental sociological need for communities to self define and identify those who are "in" and those who are "out," those who are "friends" and those who are "foes."
The importance of "binary opposition" in shaping perceptions of identity and how the "other" is perceived has been highlighted in recent years. This binary opposition leads to the construction of the category of "the other devalued half of a binary opposition, when applied to groups of people.
In other words, it's a problem with unregenerate human nature and historically this has manifested as real persecution and oppression (not to be confused with mere disagreement). Christianity teaches that the love of God can transcend and abrogate these social divisions; however, there exists a requirement for people to choose it (e.g. freewill) and apply it but only some do.
When interviewed, many have responded that they didn't start out Christians and were atheists through most of their careers but after passing the mid way mark in their careers and eventually reaching the top hierarchy of their respective fields were no longer impeded or threatened by the biased necessity in the fields of science and academia to align with atheism in order to progress in their career.
Finally being free, they began to examine the evidence for the Christian worldview and apply what they had learned to it. The result was their conversion to Christianity.
Christian Academics Cite Hostility On Campus : NPR
Study: http://www.jewishresearch.org/PDFs2/FacultyReligion07.pdf
Of course outside of academia and the scientific enterprise in the U.S., the reverse is often true. But, if you leave the U.S. Christians are the most persecuted religious group in the world.
It's important to point out that this "oppression of others" in inherent in modern humans. These divisions are ultimately social constructs that reflect the fundamental sociological need for communities to self define and identify those who are "in" and those who are "out," those who are "friends" and those who are "foes."
The importance of "binary opposition" in shaping perceptions of identity and how the "other" is perceived has been highlighted in recent years. This binary opposition leads to the construction of the category of "the other devalued half of a binary opposition, when applied to groups of people.
In other words, it's a problem with unregenerate human nature and historically this has manifested as real persecution and oppression (not to be confused with mere disagreement). Christianity teaches that the love of God can transcend and abrogate these social divisions; however, there exists a requirement for people to choose it (e.g. freewill) and apply it but only some do.
A few thoughts from Thomas Nagel, an avowed atheist.........
Last fall, Philosophy Professor Thomas Nagel of New York University published a small book entitled Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False (Oxford University Press). The book is important for more than its contents. Nagel is one of the most respected Anglo-American philosophers and also a self-declared atheist (“I lack the sensus divinitatis that enables—indeed compels—so many people to see in the world the expression of divine purpose”). Consequently his criticisms of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory cannot be written off as one more attempt to defend religion, but rather need to be dealt with on their own terms, as attacks on the adequacy of the theory itself.
Nagel points to three things that we encounter in the world which cannot be adequately explained within this materialist-reductionist framework: consciousness, reason or mind, and moral values. We should not try to explain these things away—as often happens—just because they do not square with the reductionist view of nature. Rather, he argues, it is the reductionist view itself that needs to be questioned.
By consciousness Nagel means the fact that beings such as animals and certainly humans have awareness of things, that is, they have subjective experiences like smelling coffee, seeing the blue sky, feeling fear.
In the case of mind or rationality, Nagel argues that, in addition to the problem of consciousness, it seems difficult to see how reason as a reliable faculty for discovering the truth could simply evolve.
Finally, Nagel, like many other thinkers (e.g., C.S. Lewis in The Abolition of Man), points out that the materialist-reductionist view of nature provides no foundation for objective moral values or laws.
Nagel concludes that evolutionary theory, if it is to be truly explanatory of nature, needs to be such that it can explain consciousness, mind and value.
Any atheist out there who can go one better than Nagel and give us answers?
Last fall, Philosophy Professor Thomas Nagel of New York University published a small book entitled Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False (Oxford University Press). The book is important for more than its contents. Nagel is one of the most respected Anglo-American philosophers and also a self-declared atheist (“I lack the sensus divinitatis that enables—indeed compels—so many people to see in the world the expression of divine purpose”). Consequently his criticisms of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory cannot be written off as one more attempt to defend religion, but rather need to be dealt with on their own terms, as attacks on the adequacy of the theory itself.
Nagel points to three things that we encounter in the world which cannot be adequately explained within this materialist-reductionist framework: consciousness, reason or mind, and moral values. We should not try to explain these things away—as often happens—just because they do not square with the reductionist view of nature. Rather, he argues, it is the reductionist view itself that needs to be questioned.
By consciousness Nagel means the fact that beings such as animals and certainly humans have awareness of things, that is, they have subjective experiences like smelling coffee, seeing the blue sky, feeling fear.
In the case of mind or rationality, Nagel argues that, in addition to the problem of consciousness, it seems difficult to see how reason as a reliable faculty for discovering the truth could simply evolve.
Finally, Nagel, like many other thinkers (e.g., C.S. Lewis in The Abolition of Man), points out that the materialist-reductionist view of nature provides no foundation for objective moral values or laws.
Nagel concludes that evolutionary theory, if it is to be truly explanatory of nature, needs to be such that it can explain consciousness, mind and value.
Any atheist out there who can go one better than Nagel and give us answers?
When the Lord saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said...
This verse implies that others may have not taken the time to notice that the bush was not being consumed. I have wondered this myself, do I miss things that are clear messages from God because I am too busy or distracted? And there are other things that I feel God has clearly directed me to do, but I am stubborn. I pray that I to, will one day give myself fully to God.
Here is a good example of the killjoy atheists who are more concerned about themselves losing ground rather that what is good for society. They don't care if people get killed as long as Christians are not used to save lives.
The American Atheists organization in Alabama is complaining about one police department's new initiative to curb high crime rates in their town by sending trained pastors to crime scenes to counsel the suffering.
Alabama's Montgomery Police Department launched the "Operation Good Shepherd" initiative this past summer in an attempt to reduce the climbing homicide rate that threatens to make the city one of the most violent places in the U.S. per capita. The purpose of the initiative is to train nearly 40 Christian clergy in the area so they may accompany police to crime scenes to offer counsel to the suffering. They will then attend monthly meetings to discuss how crime can be decreased in certain areas of the city.
The pastors are all volunteers, but the American Atheists organization argued in a recent letter to Montgomery Mayor Todd Strange and Police Chief Kevin Murphy that the initiative is unconstitutional because it only involves evangelical pastors and therefore promotes one particular religion.
The letter argues that although the clergy participating in the program are volunteers, the policemen are on-duty when training them for crime scene scenarios. Additionally, the letter argues that "incidental" administrative costs to taxpayers are incurred through ID badges for the pastors and transportation.
The letter claims the organization has "received complaints from a number of residents and taxpayers in Alabama who object strongly to 'Operation Good Shepard' [sic] whereby public funds and public employees are to be used to promote the Christian religion in an attempt to reduce crime in the State of Alabama."
The letter goes on to state that the program is "blatantly and facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States," adding that if the program is not dismantled the group will pursue legal action. The letter is signed by David Silverman, the president of American Atheists.
The letter was sent to the city on Tuesday, and city officials and the police department have yet to respond to its content. In a previous ceremony at Montgomery's City Hall, Montgomery Police Corporeal David Hicks said the purpose of the program was to reduce crime in the city: "They're going to make a difference, and they're going to help everyone in their time of need see that change can be made."
Note that they are all upset that taxpayers money is being used to give the Christians badges and transportation to crime scenes. They would rather see people die.
Then they bring up that old furphy about the First Amendment. They are so desperate and dishonest they will use any lie to impose their will on law abiding citizens.
Instead of whinging about everything all the time, perhaps they could do themselves a favour and volunteer themselves to help save lives. Mind you they wouldn't be much good at it. Just imagine a situation. The victim says "I don't feel too good. I wonder if I am dying?" The atheist chaplain replies "Well if you do you are obviously not one of the fittest so dying ain't so bad as there is nothing to look forward to. When you die that's it, so cheer up."
The American Atheists organization in Alabama is complaining about one police department's new initiative to curb high crime rates in their town by sending trained pastors to crime scenes to counsel the suffering.
Alabama's Montgomery Police Department launched the "Operation Good Shepherd" initiative this past summer in an attempt to reduce the climbing homicide rate that threatens to make the city one of the most violent places in the U.S. per capita. The purpose of the initiative is to train nearly 40 Christian clergy in the area so they may accompany police to crime scenes to offer counsel to the suffering. They will then attend monthly meetings to discuss how crime can be decreased in certain areas of the city.
The pastors are all volunteers, but the American Atheists organization argued in a recent letter to Montgomery Mayor Todd Strange and Police Chief Kevin Murphy that the initiative is unconstitutional because it only involves evangelical pastors and therefore promotes one particular religion.
The letter argues that although the clergy participating in the program are volunteers, the policemen are on-duty when training them for crime scene scenarios. Additionally, the letter argues that "incidental" administrative costs to taxpayers are incurred through ID badges for the pastors and transportation.
The letter claims the organization has "received complaints from a number of residents and taxpayers in Alabama who object strongly to 'Operation Good Shepard' [sic] whereby public funds and public employees are to be used to promote the Christian religion in an attempt to reduce crime in the State of Alabama."
The letter goes on to state that the program is "blatantly and facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States," adding that if the program is not dismantled the group will pursue legal action. The letter is signed by David Silverman, the president of American Atheists.
The letter was sent to the city on Tuesday, and city officials and the police department have yet to respond to its content. In a previous ceremony at Montgomery's City Hall, Montgomery Police Corporeal David Hicks said the purpose of the program was to reduce crime in the city: "They're going to make a difference, and they're going to help everyone in their time of need see that change can be made."
Note that they are all upset that taxpayers money is being used to give the Christians badges and transportation to crime scenes. They would rather see people die.
Then they bring up that old furphy about the First Amendment. They are so desperate and dishonest they will use any lie to impose their will on law abiding citizens.
Instead of whinging about everything all the time, perhaps they could do themselves a favour and volunteer themselves to help save lives. Mind you they wouldn't be much good at it. Just imagine a situation. The victim says "I don't feel too good. I wonder if I am dying?" The atheist chaplain replies "Well if you do you are obviously not one of the fittest so dying ain't so bad as there is nothing to look forward to. When you die that's it, so cheer up."
S
Sirk
Guest
What it comes down too is that there 3 types of people in the world......Red Light , green light and yellow light people. In my experience, most if not all atheists fall squarely in the red light category......esp when it comes to Christianity. I wonder why that is?
A
AgeofKnowledge
Guest
Mustaphadrink, philosophers of science have long made the point that scientific theories that are presently believed to be true may have to be discarded in the future as additional evidence emerges or new theoretical interpretations develop.
Furthermore, there are many present assertions that are statistically impossible and improbable within a purely naturalistic atheistic worldview and the result is that critically necessary assertions and mechanisms which are unproven are presently assumed to keep the model viable. I don't have a problem with that as every model has those. It's the dogma that they are facts, when they are not, I have a problem with.
Transcending that discussion is the fundamental issue confronting the sciences of how to make sense of a highly complex, multifaceted, multilayered reality that materialism doesn't adequately address. This fundamental question in human knowledge has been much discussed by philosophers of science, and often ignored by those who, for their own reasons, want to portray science as the only viable route to genuine knowledge.
The natural sciences depend on inductive inference, which is a matter of "weighing evidence and judging probability, not of proof." Despite the dogma, there are competing explanations evident at every level of the human endeavor to represent the world... from the details of quantum mechanics to what Karl Popper termed the "ultimate questions" of meaning.
This means that the great questions of life (some of which are also scientific questions) cannot be answered with any degree of certainty within the materialistic construct. Any given set of observations can be explained by a number of theories. To use the jargon of the philosophy of science: theories are underdetermined by the evidence. The question then arises: what criteria can be used to decide between them, especially when they are "empirically equivalent"?
An orthodox atheist would simply revert back to a fundamentalist position that favors their atheistic worldview in the exact same manner as a young earth creationist would revert back to a fundamentalist position that favors their particular worldview. This behavior hinders discovery.
The truth is that given the limits of science: science, philosophy, religion and literature all have a legitimate place in the human quest for truth and meaning. This is a widely held view, both in Western culture at large and even within many sections of the scientific community itself. Naturalistic science and other disciplines are not at war. It is the atheist (whose core, incontrovertible, foundational assumption is that there is no God) that places them so and tries to force us to choose between them. Worldviews promoted in such a way leans toward fanaticism.
Furthermore, there are many present assertions that are statistically impossible and improbable within a purely naturalistic atheistic worldview and the result is that critically necessary assertions and mechanisms which are unproven are presently assumed to keep the model viable. I don't have a problem with that as every model has those. It's the dogma that they are facts, when they are not, I have a problem with.
Transcending that discussion is the fundamental issue confronting the sciences of how to make sense of a highly complex, multifaceted, multilayered reality that materialism doesn't adequately address. This fundamental question in human knowledge has been much discussed by philosophers of science, and often ignored by those who, for their own reasons, want to portray science as the only viable route to genuine knowledge.
The natural sciences depend on inductive inference, which is a matter of "weighing evidence and judging probability, not of proof." Despite the dogma, there are competing explanations evident at every level of the human endeavor to represent the world... from the details of quantum mechanics to what Karl Popper termed the "ultimate questions" of meaning.
This means that the great questions of life (some of which are also scientific questions) cannot be answered with any degree of certainty within the materialistic construct. Any given set of observations can be explained by a number of theories. To use the jargon of the philosophy of science: theories are underdetermined by the evidence. The question then arises: what criteria can be used to decide between them, especially when they are "empirically equivalent"?
An orthodox atheist would simply revert back to a fundamentalist position that favors their atheistic worldview in the exact same manner as a young earth creationist would revert back to a fundamentalist position that favors their particular worldview. This behavior hinders discovery.
The truth is that given the limits of science: science, philosophy, religion and literature all have a legitimate place in the human quest for truth and meaning. This is a widely held view, both in Western culture at large and even within many sections of the scientific community itself. Naturalistic science and other disciplines are not at war. It is the atheist (whose core, incontrovertible, foundational assumption is that there is no God) that places them so and tries to force us to choose between them. Worldviews promoted in such a way leans toward fanaticism.
O
oldernotwiser
Guest
Just imagine a situation. The victim says "I don't feel too good. I wonder if I am dying?" The atheist chaplain replies "Well if you do you are obviously not one of the fittest so dying ain't so bad as there is nothing to look forward to. When you die that's it, so cheer up."[/QUOTE]
what about an evangelical pastor might tell the parents of a dead teenager that they must immediately get saved or they will go to hell with their dead son?
what about an evangelical pastor might tell the parents of a dead teenager that they must immediately get saved or they will go to hell with their dead son?
mustaphadrink said:
Cycel said:
Einstein? How does this relate to our discussion? On 24 March 1954 he wrote, “It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
(See: Religious views of Albert Einstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
“... as far as our science can reveal it.” Einstein made it quite clear that he did not believe in the existence of a personal god and that he put his full faith in science. You are barking up the wrong tree. In fact you are in complete disagreement with Einstein. You don’t trust science at all or the conclusions it brings us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJoOhbf3_Ts
(5 minute video worlds most famous atheist changes his view in light of scientific discoveries)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9po_rkGTc4
(3 minute video of Famous athiests last words
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeE2xg3REtA
7 minute video as a dying man warns of hell
(5 minute video worlds most famous atheist changes his view in light of scientific discoveries)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9po_rkGTc4
(3 minute video of Famous athiests last words
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeE2xg3REtA
7 minute video as a dying man warns of hell
If you were out walking, jogging, or cycling and saw a single bush engulfed in flames don’t you think you would investigate? Do you really think people would walk by and think nothing of it? I’d most certainly walk up to it for a closer look, and I know I would notice that its leaves were not being consumed by the flames. That would be pretty obvious. Not to mention that Moses is on a mountain called the mountain of God, which I assume was a sacred place to the Midianites.
I wasn’t too busy or distracted. I was actively looking for a sign, but didn’t see one. I was hoping for a sign.
As I stated previously, many have suggested that God did send me signs but that I simply was not open to them. I countered with assurance that I had in fact been actively looking. I was not likely to overlook something God had intended me to see. Further more I don’t think you can miss what God truly intends you to see. My understanding is that when God taps you on the shoulder, you notice!
Also, I don’t want to leave the impression that I became an atheist only because I did not get a personal memo from God. I had searched for evidence of God for years and found nothing. Essentially I already had become an atheist. All my atheistic arguments were already in place when I decided to set all that aside and turn to God, to prayer, to scripture. I wanted back in, and why? – it was for the salvation of my soul. You see, there was always the niggling doubt in the back of my mind, like an itch I couldn’t scratch. What if I was wrong?
In the end that renewed effort to find God collapsed. Primarily I encountered all the issues in the Old Testament that Richard Dawkins had written of in his book, The God Delusion, but some 40 years earlier. Those discoveries in Genesis, Exodus, and elsewhere, drove a splinter through the heart of my renewed faith. Secondarily, God never tapped me on the shoulder. Had he done so I would not have returned to my earlier atheism. In the end I concluded I had been right all along – but what of that itch? More time passed, weeks or months I do not know, but one evening I experienced an epiphany that fell on me like a hammer blow. It was the unexpected realization that the itch had gone. It was no more; and it was no conscious decision either. God had fallen into step with Zeus, Hera, and all the others.
Last edited:
S
Sirk
Guest
Looks to me like you were waging a spiritual war with weapons of the flesh and lost.
O Cycel.. your heart has been hardened. I myself have seen the reality that God is real and Jesus is Christ and satan is real. It may seem like a blessing and indeed I am thankful but with that came a sense of fear. When I stand before God I lost my ability to say "I didn't know" God is more real than this keyboard. I was blinded on the side of the highway in Austin at the overpass on hwy 71 outside of Austin Bergtrom International Airport. I wasn't alone, my friend was blinded behind me and to my left. He never saw me drop to my knees because he too was blinded by this man dressed as an apostle speaking "THUS SAYS THE LORD GOD" for 3 days we had dreams that manifest into real life. snakes, harlots and numbers. This is only one of many experiences. I know you won't believe me, but maybe you like entertaining stories? how about an atheist stung by 5 box jellyfish? see what happened to him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTU7MfOgDKM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTU7MfOgDKM
P
phil112
Guest
A
AgeofKnowledge
Guest
I'd caution about asserting Einstein's religious views as they were all over the map so to speak.
Wikipedia states:
"Albert Einstein's religious views have been studied extensively. He said he believed in the "pantheistic" God of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal god, a belief he criticized. He also called himself an agnostic, while disassociating himself from the label atheist, preferring, he said, "an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."
^ I'd say that probably comes close.
Wikipedia states:
"Albert Einstein's religious views have been studied extensively. He said he believed in the "pantheistic" God of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal god, a belief he criticized. He also called himself an agnostic, while disassociating himself from the label atheist, preferring, he said, "an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."
^ I'd say that probably comes close.
I didn't get a sign either.. I asked many times. I have many unanswered prayers. Watching people die around me from illness and they remain faithful the entire time. Watch them deteriorate and finally fade. And then watching Christians try to come up with explanations...horrible explanations. (Trying to justify why God didn't heal them?) It's no easy thing. My faith started to deteriorate rapidly over time too...To the point.. I'd pray maybe once every 3 months and it would only be to ask God if He was real...Finally that stopped too. That's when I became agnostic.
But over time as I pondered the existence of God or if it was even possible to have the knowledge of whether God exists or not... I began to ask myself something else. I had scrutinized Christianity to the brink. After all, it was just a myth like all those other mythical religions, right? I mean, that's what so many blog writers and youtubers tell me. I really hadn't studied the subject, just assumed. I had already embraced the idea of no God existing without really questioning it. I based it on.... God didn't answer my prayers... Christians are hypocrites and they love ignorance... Science was the ultimate authority on knowledge... I was a biology major in college.... and a bunch of other emotional reasons and assumptions.
So... to be fair. I needed to think deeper on naturalism. You know the atheistic arguments... but how much time have you spent studying the arguments for the existence of God or the arguments against naturalism. How could naturalism explain my existence? Shouldn't a good hypothesis have good explanatory means? Intrinsic human worth... morality.. rationality... why should I even trust my own rationality if naturalism is true? Morality is just an illusion hoisted upon us by evolution to help our species prevail...a social construct.. No such thing as objective morality. No such thing as intrinsic human value. Determinism... just dancing to the music of our DNA as Dawkins says. I found these things needed deeper reflection, study and scrutiny. I think that's the rational approach. I personally found theism to be far more convincing in the end. Not because of some amazing spiritual experience or emotional breakdown... not because of some awesome sign in the sky or God speaking to me...just based on reasoning and following the evidence.(Which I now believe God was guiding me in... but not at the time.)
It surprises me that many atheists I've met who have left the Christian faith did so for emotional reasons but at the same time did not question their own atheism to much extent, yet they pride themselves on being the "rational" ones. (Not saying this is you, just saying a lot of ex-christians I know have this sort of condescending attitude towards Christians.) I have met atheists who do a have a very deep understanding of naturalism and their own beliefs. I can respect that. But it's just ironic to me how many of them don't and how they base their own reasons on emotional or personal experiences. Something they often attack Christians for doing.
A
AgeofKnowledge
Guest
While a great many people around you found God, but then you had essentially already chosen atheism and all your atheistic arguments were already in place. You were just trying to scratch an itch as you say.
As for 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins, it's one of the worst pieces of fallacious argumentation I have ever read.
Richard's (and your) metaphysical position is false. The living creator God has nothing to do with fictional pagan pantheons or Richard's fabrications and your false assertion is nothing but a fallacious attempt to associate something true with something that is not. The living God is very much at work in my life and the lives of many people that I personally know.
This isn't ad hominem but rather the truth: you both are apostate blasphemers spreading lies and misinformation about God.
Yet an observable itch of some sort remains. In fact, I've never met an apostate Christian turned atheist that wasn't compelled by the spiritual and for good reason as every single one of them has an unbreakable future date with the living God.
[video=youtube_share;ZO0O5PxFbeE]http://youtu.be/ZO0O5PxFbeE[/video]
As for 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins, it's one of the worst pieces of fallacious argumentation I have ever read.
Richard's (and your) metaphysical position is false. The living creator God has nothing to do with fictional pagan pantheons or Richard's fabrications and your false assertion is nothing but a fallacious attempt to associate something true with something that is not. The living God is very much at work in my life and the lives of many people that I personally know.
This isn't ad hominem but rather the truth: you both are apostate blasphemers spreading lies and misinformation about God.
Yet an observable itch of some sort remains. In fact, I've never met an apostate Christian turned atheist that wasn't compelled by the spiritual and for good reason as every single one of them has an unbreakable future date with the living God.
[video=youtube_share;ZO0O5PxFbeE]http://youtu.be/ZO0O5PxFbeE[/video]
