Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to The legion of Puppets
HOWDY DOODY
was smarter than that.
posted by
Xeno-x
on November 14, 2006 at 7:02 AM
| link to this | reply
Yeah Gomedome, whatever.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on November 13, 2006 at 4:14 PM
| link to this | reply
posted by
A-and-B
on November 13, 2006 at 2:22 PM
| link to this | reply
JanesOpinion - I knew that is what you meant -
I just found it too typical to respond directly to. Yeah so, you think that some other personality in the believing world would have done a better job, the only relevancy to this post is that Collins was motivated by wanting to become such a personality.
posted by
gomedome
on November 12, 2006 at 11:20 AM
| link to this | reply
Actually, Gomedome, I recommended Ravi Zacharias because
I have yet to hear or read the works of someone who can match or surpass his ability to reason and debate using intellect and logic. Until you've heard him lecture on religion (which he has done all over the world, in all the great universities) you won't know what I am talking about. He has a profound grasp on logic and reason and leaves his (frequently atheist and agnostic) audiences a tremendous amount to think about.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on November 12, 2006 at 11:02 AM
| link to this | reply
As they say in some circles, Gome...
Amen...
posted by
arGee
on November 12, 2006 at 10:49 AM
| link to this | reply
arGee -aside from the pitfalls of trying to guess what goes on in the heads
of intelligent men, I tried to remain objective.
Not so much towards the topic of the debate, or even towards the two principles but more towards how it appeared to unfold. When a pointless and unresovable topic is chosen for debate, the debate itself can only be viewed as a self serving stunt.
posted by
gomedome
on November 12, 2006 at 10:34 AM
| link to this | reply
FreeManWalking - I believe that the answer as to why someone would write
such an inane book is found in the success of previous similar works.
The book title "The God Delusion" smacks of an attempt at Da Vinci Code oneupmanship. Unfortunately the ratcheting up of controversy, as Dawkins is attempting to do here, inevitably leads to a distaste that is unpallatable by most people.
posted by
gomedome
on November 12, 2006 at 10:28 AM
| link to this | reply
JanesOpinion - that's another aspect about this type of debate that I find
comical (and guilty of myself to a certain extent).
Us bystanders all become like Chicken George from Roots in that we act like it's a cock fight. We start naming "seconds" as they call them in the fighting game.
posted by
gomedome
on November 12, 2006 at 10:21 AM
| link to this | reply
ariel70 - isn't that the truth, the word "debate" is being used for lack of
a better word.
The so called "debate" was nothing more than one man attempting to manufacture controversy as a means of propelling sales and another man attempting to earn his feathers with his gang. That is what it has come to, the age of insincerity could be attached to the age of unreason.
posted by
gomedome
on November 12, 2006 at 10:14 AM
| link to this | reply
Parnell - I'm not sure where you derived my disaproval from but it was
enough to make me revisit the line that you refer to.
When I originally posted, I didn't like the way it sounded so I have changed it. Being likened to Dawkins is something I can live with.
posted by
gomedome
on November 12, 2006 at 10:06 AM
| link to this | reply
I think you got it just right, Gome...
Dawkins had an agenda. Personally, I think that trying to prove or disprove a concept like "God" is a little like trying to discuss the number of angels that can dance on a pin head. Is there a god like the Christian God, or Allah, or Jehovah? These questions are more subject to logical analysis, perhaps, but as to the general question...
Read my post, Why I Believe — And What, for another approach to this question.
posted by
arGee
on November 12, 2006 at 8:54 AM
| link to this | reply
Gomedome - the last meaningful debate (full of theatrics) on the subject
happened in 1925 in the Rhea County Courthouse. I'm not sure why anyone would write such an inane book whose specific purpose is to disprove God. And similarly I am not sure why a believer would be bothered to go hear the author talk about it. I guess there wasn't a football game on that afternoon.
posted by
FreeManWalking
on November 12, 2006 at 7:36 AM
| link to this | reply
I would like to see Dawkins debate someone like Ravi Zacharias.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on November 12, 2006 at 7:26 AM
| link to this | reply
Gomedome
If the 18th century was the Age of Reason, then the 20th and 21st will surely come be seen as the Age of Unreason.
We live in an age of moral, social and intellectual squalor, and the self-serving "debate" that you cite is just about typical of most current political, religious and social debate.
posted by
ariel70
on November 12, 2006 at 1:04 AM
| link to this | reply
Re Dawkins
So you don't believe in whacking christians over the head when they try to use a little bit of logic?
I think there might be a little bit of Dawkins in Gomedome...
posted by
Antipodean
on November 11, 2006 at 11:25 PM
| link to this | reply