OK, I have removed this post as the debate on Science and Religion is back on. 🙂
About Chris Jensen Romer
I am a profoundly dull, tedious and irritable individual. I have no friends apart from two equally ill mannered cats, and a lunatic kitten. I am a ghosthunter by profession, and professional cat herder. I write stuff and do TV things and play games. It's better than being real I find.
I would have ignored you, too. Just because you post on the RDF site, you think that gives you an expectation that he would even acknowledge you? Who do you think you are? He’s turned down a slam dunk challenge from that moron Ray Comfort, who offered $10,000 to debate him, and that would be a decidedly one-sided debate. How many such challenges do you think Dawkins gets every month, let alone year? Seriously, who the heck do you think you are?
I’m Correct, which puts me one up on Professor Dawkins on this issue. It’s an important one — a question of history, a question of fact — not some atheist versus theist religion issue. I think you will find I fully accepted he did not have time to address every challenge — I said as much did I not?
The misrepresentation of the relationship between religion and science to my mind is one of the greatest dangers facing our civilization, because it creates an entirely mythical conflict and puts barrier to science education and the work of rational intelligent people to build a better future. I don’t care who I call out to get the message across that much of what is spouted about is dogmatic myth making — and luckily I have now found an appropriate and useful format to do so. A debate would have been fun though.
If you want to know who I am go ask on RD.net. 🙂
Oh and in case I’m not clear in response to “Seriously, who the heck do you think you are?” someone who actually knows their history of science and fights myths and bollocks in the name of truth and opposes misrepresentation even from talented science writers. If you want to follow authority figures even when they are mistaken and plain wrong feel free – as I have found their are dogmatic atheist out there too – but maybe educate yourself on the issues first? 🙂 Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis and look up the books on the bibliography in your local library? Or email ten historians of science and ask what they thing? You can worship your sacred cows, but it won’t make you right old boy. 🙂
Well said CJ!
There is far too much crap that passes for ‘scientific thinking’ around these days. When I read Dawkins’ book I just found it descended into a rant. It seems you can write all sorts of drivel and get away with it as long as you have good word skills and sound confident. Bollocks is bollocks, now matter how well you dress it up.
My old Patristic Theology and Philosophy tutor at Kent Uni was one of the most intelligent men I’ve ever met, and also a devout Christian. He could run intellectual rings around Dawkins!
Keep looking David and you will find more intelligent people than devout Christians. If your professor had been born in Saudi Arabia he would be a Moslem today and he would be devout and seem intelligent about that. If he had been born in one part of Ireland he’d be a Catholic and born in another area a Protestant. Most so called “intelligent” people just become devout (blind) followers of whatever religion their parents practice. That is a pretty undisputable fact in our world today and through out history.
You can raise a child to be devout about virtually anything if you just devote the time (say just two hours every Sunday morning for example) to indoctrinate them to believe exactly what you tell them and what you force them to memorize. You can cause a child to become an adult with a devout belief in Hitler, Zeus, Mohammad or Jesus and you can formulate a litany of compelling beliefs and behaviors to mandate with their acquired devotions – all you have to do is employ the processes that religions and the religious do.
Obviously, the atheists who identify and reject all this programming and brain washing have to be recognized as truly more intelligent than anyone who believes, just by definition. What do you say that we call your professor smart or educated but not intelligent? One ought not to use intelligent and devout in the same context. That is always an oxymoron.
Well, for a start, he wasn’t born a Christian, he was an atheist and then he became a Christian. His was an intellectual decision as much as a faith one, based on what he regards as good evidence. Please do not make statements about someone you have never met and know nothing about.
Secondly, I know many Christians and other religious who are so by choice, and their upbringing had little if anything to do with it. Myself included. So your view that upbringing and cultural background automatically leads to having a particular belief system is quite wrong.
And if you seriously think that ‘atheists have by definition to be more intelligent than religious believers’, than that doesn’t say much about your understanding or experience of human beings, or your own intelligence. What utter crap!