Runner, your views are not typical of mainstream Christianity, which has no problems in holding evolution as a mechanism, and God as the cause! Christian theology is way beyound the simplistic veiw you present as Christian.

Lecy

With all due respects what you regard as mainstream Christianity has more than likely never represented Christ or biblical teachings in many areas. IF you want to compromise plain teaching of Scriptures and observing the obvious using pseudo science as a reason so be it. No doubt you won't upset anyone with your compromised beliefs.

Runner, I am curious. What do you regard as "real science"?
Who might you regard as the real scientists of the past couple of generations?

David

I have been looking at the essay that John Perkins delivered to the Atheist conference. the paper is titled "The Cost of Religious Delusion: Islam and terrorism" and can be found at his home page: http://home.alphalink.com.au/~jperkins/Articles.htm

John makes a lot of remarks about Islam but does not support his opinions with serious scholarship. This seems to be characteristic of the other essays that i have been able to read.

For example, he states that

--the Qu'ran "describes the sun as being in orbit around the earth." p4

--"Islam is the only religion born of war and established by war." p4

--that Muhammad "became wealthy from the booty of war." p4

...among other things.

I would contend that John has not a leg to stand on and this is reflected in the fact that he does not provide scholarship to support these statements. I would contend that he would not be able to find a serious scholar (i.e. anyone with an academic reputation of integrity to protect and peer-reviewed publications to their name) in Islam who would support such statements.

My follow up question is this: Why didn't the organisers of the conference invite a speaker who would be in a position to challenge Islam with real scholarship? Or couldn't they find one?

Dear Jane, I can relate to a lot of what you say, but from the other side of the fence.

As someone who has tried to put forward an opposing view to that of Dawkins here at OLO, I can tell you that I’ve received more colourful words than ‘strident’. (You can look through my history and find some of them).

When you put a view clearly and expressively that lands in awkward places, you can expect to be called some names. And as you say, you might as well wear them as a badge of honour.

‘Strident’ has a meaning, and may be used appropriately on the right occasion. Your beef seems to be that it is usually just a putdown term. I’m also irritated by those who throw around the word ‘fundamentalist’ when it is seemingly only used as slight or slander. When the word was first coined, it did have a specific meaning. Nowadays it’s just used as a synonym for Neanderthal or extremist. So exactly what kind of preacher would you say was Dan Barker?

While we’re talking about words, I saw on PZ Meyers’ website a response he posted to a challenge put from Australia’s leading creationists to Atheist conference speakers to publicly debate the issue of our origins.

Did you read Meyers’ response? He actually didn’t use any words. Instead he posted a renaissance style portrait of Jesus with the middle finger flashing the bird. Would you call that strident?

Did you see Dawkins’ performance on the ABC’s Q&A the other day? If you didn’t, here’s a taste -

DAWKINS: “If you believe in the New Testament, that God, the all powerful creator of the universe couldn't think of a better way to forgive humanity's sins than to have himself put on earth, tortured and executed in atonement for the sins of humanity? What kind of a horrible, depraved notion is that?”

Would you call that admirably strident?

I only wish the ABC had the guts, or at least a descent sense of theatre, to give him a worthy debating opponent.

Posted by Dan S de Merengue:
QUOTE

Did you see Dawkins’ performance on the ABC’s Q&A the other day? If you didn’t, here’s a taste -

DAWKINS: “If you believe in the New Testament, that God, the all powerful creator of the universe couldn't think of a better way to forgive humanity's sins than to have himself put on earth, tortured and executed in atonement for the sins of humanity? What kind of a horrible, depraved notion is that?”

UNQUOTE

Interesting ... Dawkin's view is similar to what the Qur'aan says:

"It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! When He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is." (Surah Maryam, ayat 35)

Allah does not need to become a man to forgive us our sins :-)