Skylurker continunig his pathteic attempt to reduce my view of God and make it contradict Tillich's says:
You disavow the big-man-in-sky, you affirm the big-man-in-the-sky. Why just today you were talking about the great white throne.
He says this because he can't distinguish between belief in Supernatural effects and a big man in the sky. Any God who effects the world is an anthropomorphic God. This has nothing at all to do with defending Dawkins. It's true that major criticism is that Dawkins attacks the big-man-in-the-sky of the OT and tries to put god on the level of a biological organism. So they think striking back at my view of god is justification for doing this even though he's just misconstruing my view.
My response: Meta:
you keep equating SN effects with big man in the sky I've corrected every single time and you contually ignore my correction. I'm going t have to you to the wood shed again.
remember you admitted I've read a lot more Tillich than you have. that also goes for theology in general. You dont' just simply do not know that it's about. I've posted just as often on the true nature of the SN and you contumely ignore it. if you wont learn and you wont change your errors you are not worth talking to.
Its annoying isn't it?Of cousre this has nothing to do with defending Dawkins and it's not even true.
The version of god being invoked is always the one that they can use to argue with.
It's no wonder that these apologists can often look quite good in verbal debates, they can pick and choose the most suitable version of god to hammer their opponent with, and can mangle the meanings of words to nicely fit with their claims.
By contrast the secularist will usually be hampered by trying to stick to commonly held understandings of words and, usually a baseline honesty that I don't see the apologist trying to maintain.
William Rea took an orignal line: Dawkins can defend himself:
Dawkins can defend his own ideas, he is not a spokesman for my atheism, if you have a problem with him then seek him out and have at it. In effect, you are using Dawkins prominence and perceived credibility to make an argument from authority. All that aside, your post is a cut and paste from a six month old blog made by you at AtheistWatch which is a self proclaimed 'Atheist hate group' watch site (see below). Persecution complexes are dangerous, unhealthy and unpleasant to observe.Like he's really gonna come over here and argued with me. You would think if they admire him so much they would defending him.
The guy started it by saying we weren't attacking Dawkins ideas doesn't make an attempt to defend them:
I've always found Dawkins to be a somewhat weak debater. It appears to me as though he tends to get emotional and retorically outmaneuvered. This, however, doesn't make him wrong.Instead he evokes this bizarre parody of religion like wackiness is suppose to prove he's right.
The problem most atheists have to face when making a case against belief in the Christian God, is that the God concepts offered up by Christians appear so incredibly vague and inconsistent. It really is as if each Christian maintains their own unique God concept.
These are the facts of our existance, as understood in accordance with the Word, as related to us by the holy prophet Lubna, as obtained throught the spiritual guidance of Dimethyltryptamine.Meta:
There are eight multidimensional, yet identical, Gods. They are understood to be manifested as great geometric orbs of light, perfectly arranged in a circle and simultaneously as stretching out, enveloping the totality of existance. Beings of unimaginable power and purpose, yet Their minds are nothing like the minds of humans. They are known as The Quixoctotron - The Eight Gods of Everything.
don't you see what you are doing/ you are making this sloppy parody of religion which means you really don't understand religion.
thus your real argument is that "I hate religion barbecue I dont' undersatnd it and it offends my sensibilities. so where does Dawkins come in? he's just an excuse.
you have actually disproved Dawkins.
Tra-la-la tried to psychologize me.
I like to get to the simple core, and for you this is it.
If what ever you want to study has ANY effect or existence in any form, either physical or purely in the mind then it can tested.
The second it entered your mind that you know god exists you have created a testable case, since there has been a change. We can then deduce causes for the change.
none of these approach is valid. What's really odd is that not one of them actually tried to defend Dawkins ideas. they know that he's indefensible they just use him as a rubber stamp. The priest of knowledge gives them permission to be atheists and that's all they need.