What happened to 'love thy neighbour' folks.

This is turning into a 'mine is better than yours' contest once again.

Sorry Trav, but I have not yet once had to resort to throwing stones and I challenge you to find one instance of me doing so.

This is nothing more than a smear designed to divert attention away from your false accusations, and failed attempts to defend Craig’s most prized argument.

<<Your failure to apologise for your slight on my character, after being shown strong evidence against your accusation, simply reinforced my suspicion that you are more interested in dogmatic internet debate than thoughtful discussion.>>

I wasn’t asking for an apology, just that you take back your demonstrably false accusations. Besides which, two wrongs don’t make a right.

Anyway, my accusation (or 'slight on your character' as you have so dishonestly referred to it) was well founded considering it had appeared that you blatantly mis-quoted a Wiki definition.

When you showed an archived page that adhered to your quote, I acknowledged the misunderstanding by saying that you could hardly blame me when we see so much intellectual dishonesty from theists on OLO on an almost daily basis. Just look at how much I’ve encountered in this thread alone!

So now we have two more unfounded accusations from you - one of dogmatic behaviour and another of stone-throwing.

Give it up, Trav. It won’t get you anywhere.

I agree with AJ that once again we get nothing of any substance in defence of the theist view. By substance I mean perhaps some theological argument--rather than just referring to Craig. But no, it appears to be "we just believe" and so there really seems no point going on with it.

On the other hand I've made political/ethical criticisms of Dawkins side that are have just been ignored.

Aristocrat,
I do however appreciate the philosophical debate and will get back to you.

Formersnag,
when you've got something intelligent to say that isn't elitist or paranoid in some offensive sense, you might get an intelligent response.

Aristocrat:
"Nietzsche is actually much closer to Darwin and Lamarck than any Cartesian".
That is of course if we assess Nietzsche on his own terms and accept the will to power as essential and essentialising being. But we can just as easily insist that he is using the mysterious faculty of reason in the very instance of rationalising it away; where is the empirical evidence of will to power (has the gene been isolated)? which sets us on an endless regress since each presuppose the other? Indeed it seems to me that if we are persuaded by post-metaphysical logic in general, as it's been (de)constructed since Nietzsche, then that's arguably because we accept the initial materialist premise of an instigating bias and evolving predilection in the first place (subsequently corrupted by culture--the symbolic order?).
I could also argue that if the will to power "has evolved over time as the most useful and successful tool in order for man to stamp his will on the world", that would suggest teleology, or even intention since evolution is supposed to be undirected?

More importantly, in terms of My Taylor quote above, the logic of this conception of reality tends toward an anti-ethicism whereby the usual verities--compassion, egalitarianism etc--amount to weakness and corruption, whereas liberal rationalism finds itself vindicated in its indifference and can look forward to the day it casts off its humanist baggage, and the concomitant burgeoning masses (an economic booster rocket), to pursue its own post-evolutionary destiny (admittedly this is arguably not as bad as it sounds).
Nietzche said "the time was coming when the struggle for world domination will be carried on ... in the name of fundamental philosophical doctrines". It's happening now! but I think it's more a malaise than a struggle--this shows though how idealism, even for Nietzsche, still precedes materialism.
Apropos all of this, it seems to me Dawkins's positivism is as naive as theism?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12760#220930

Squeers, i am aware of your "political/ethical criticisms of Dawkins" & agreed with them, then went on to ask simple questions like.

Q, is relativism/equivocation of M & E just as bad as hard views either way on atheism/theism?

nothing elitist or paranoid about that is there?

what part of agreement & compliments do you have a problem with?

Pelican,

Apologies for giving the impression of hostility- coming across that way wasn't my intention. I have no grudge to bear with anyone here, and I hope my online conduct always aligns with my beliefs and worldview. If not, I take responsibility for my own failing.

Where AJ is concerned, it's a matter of practicality. I have nothing against him. Rather I am just not interested in spending time engaging with someone who has previously shown me that their method and overall approach is not conducive to the way in which online discussion ought to be done