An interview with Richard Dawkins, was most revealing. It illustrates admirably the importance of analysing the 'ethics' and moral values which are connected with a set of ideas.

We all know the phrase "Religion causes all wars" and untrue as it might be, it is still accepted by many. I've tried to point out on many occasion that the CRUCIAL point in evaluating a religioun, is to examine what the requirements of the Deity are for the followers.

"I am the Lord your God, you shall/shall not......." such and such.. we all know enough about the 10 commandments. Then the words of Jesus, "By this shall all men know, you are my disciples.. that you have love, one for another" (on this statement alone, it could be argued that Christians can enjoy a love-fest among themselves, while hating the guts of every non believer) but the Parables of Jesus are abundantly clear, that God is reaching out in love and compassion to the lost, and portrays Himself in Christ as 'The Good shepherd' who will leave the safe 99 and go looking for the 1 gone astray.

I've contrasted this with other religions, one major religion in particular.

Back to Dawkins.

The reader will need to hear this debate, to verify Dawkins words "I hate...all religions".
http://www.bethinking.org/download.php?MediaID=865&Player=WindowsMediaPlayer

Now..'hate' is an emotion, not an argument. It should be added, that Dawkins field of expertise is not 'science' in the physics sense, but BEHAVIOR ism.. he studied the "selective pecking of domestic chickens"

Yep..that really qualifies him to make definitive pronouncements about 2000 yr old events....?

Most of what Dawkins says is 'opinion' and 'assertion' and all that in turn is based on his 'presuppositions' "I hate all religions".

Not only is he 'un' scientific, he is openly biased, and one might say even 'bigoted' in his scientism fundamentalism.

He is honest enough to admit he is in reality an 'agnostic'.

CONCLUSION. For those who use Dr Dawkins as some kind of debating baseball bat against we 'gullible Christians'.. I suggest a re-think of who should be your idol :)

David
Little Buddy. Look if you want to serve the Lord thats wonderful. However please remember the first book was written seventy years after- and then in greek!
No apart from translations we are left with a few fact. They are in those days if somebody was sick they thought they were possed by the devil because they didnt understand disease. Likewise if somebody was mentally ill it was thought they were in the devils hands.
You cant argue somethings that been proven wrong. The world is not flat and our space ships have not flown off into a brick wall either.

Unless the christian leaders modernise their religion it will die.

If you and others want to be good desciples start working with the real world and stop expecting us to read that rubbish all the time.

You really put everybody off when you post that pre historic stuff that been proved untrue.

Why not work towards a better leadeship so people these days can relate to it.

You have good fountain to work with because a long time ago there walked the Son of God on earth and his name was Jesus.

He had great love for his people and I believe his creatures equally.

Only "he knows" what he said David Not the mumbo jumbo in all these books

What we DO know he would want people like you to carry his! message to people in todays age.

I believe if he were here today he would probably rock up looking a bit like Elvis with a huge grin on his face because they got his words so wrong.
Forget the book and just go out and spread love and good will and for pity safe come back to year 2007.
He would like that.
You can start by stop telling women what to do with their bodies because thats the same as saying sick people are with the devil.
I cant make it any more clear than that and if people dont wake up there wont be a Church left

Has evolution become a religion?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/evolution-become-religion.html

South Park did a good sendup of Dawkins.

freediver,

No, its a theory supported by the available evidence. Yup there are problems with it, thats what makes it a theory and not a "fact". However the theory of evolution matches the available data a lot better than Creationism(and please don't drag up Intelligent Design).

Wait a minute, you dragged up creationism, why shouldn't others drag up ID. After all, you are the one who mentioned it first.

Shouldn't the theory be judged on it's own merits rather than comparing to a theory from a different paradigm? It's not even possible to compare theories from different paradigms without comparing the paradigms themselves.