Richard Dawkins is a super coward

reply to post by windword

I don't believe you that your girlfriend is a "strong atheist" or that she's very smart at all, given that she succumbed to Craig's presuppositions and illogical arguments.

Dawkins should have it easy then.


BTW you're free to believe whatever you want. I know the truth. I would almost guarantee that her academic credentials would top yours......not that that means anything to anyone with sense though. And maybe I was talking past tense when I said "strong atheist". At this point she knows that being a strong atheist is the least logical opinion to have on the matter.


Dawkins himself knows he would get crushed and that's why he is clearly ducking Craig.

I'll ask it again......How is Dawkins not being a coward? His peers even think that he should........

Originally posted by sdb93awd
It's off topic and it's an incredible amount of information.

That's where you fail. If you had any evidence it would be simple and straight forward. Noone cares about your opinion, the opinion of "experts" or any othat nonsense people seem to mistake for evidence.

You see, science allows for this. Is the scientific method finds evidence contrary to the hypothesis, then it re-evaluates that hypothesis and goes about analysing, observing and investigating the observable phenomenon to discover the truth.

reply to post by noonebutme


Science is one of the biggest human institutions(and therefore an ideal candidate for corruption due to its influence) in the world so by default it is corrupt and perverted. Keep believing in it. They've always had it right throughout history. There is no way a huge institution based in academia could possibly be corrupt right?

I could give you many examples of science gone awry if you'd like....

Uhm. No. No, not at all. There is zero evidence, none what so ever, that the human being, referred to as Jesus of Nazereth, "rose from the dead". Those stories were written long after his death.

You have a lot to learn. Christianity would have been dead on the spot had Jesus of Nazereth been killed and never resurrected. He clearly stated his deity and historians won't even argue that point.

I don't have religious beliefs BTW. Religion is men.

So you can pick and choose which things you want to support your belief? Even if they cast doubt upon your beliefs?

What am I picking and choosing? Westborough Baptist clearly perverts the gospel and the Catholic religion is a human institution that is corrupt to the core. The catholic church and its evilness is even prophesied in the Bible. Catholics aren't even encouraged to read the actual Bible. In fact, they were told to never read the Bible until very recently. It's all about what the Pope and the clergy say in that religion. They used to sell tickets to heaven lol

Well, i do too, because it seems so laughable, so childish and so counter-intuitive to the natural world that is directly observable and testable.

Go ahead and keep making fun of people who believe in the power of Love over everything else. They are truly worthy of ridicule and they are all idiots. Maybe you should proclaim how stupid Martin Luther King is while you're at it. His whole ideology and insight and influence was based in the love of Christianity. What an idiot.


The words of Jesus are the most influential words this world has ever seen. There's something about that Man.

reply to post by PsykoOps

That's where you fail. If you had any evidence it would be simple and straight forward. Noone cares about your opinion, the opinion of "experts" or any othat nonsense people seem to mistake for evidence.

What is the topic of this thread?

Is Dawkins being a coward?

And I even told you I'll dedicate an entire thread to the proofs of Jesus when I have time. Quit jumping the gun against me man. It's not fair.

reply to post by DeadSeraph



reply to post by sdb93awd


So you two are good that the same guy you want Dawkins to debate try's to justify slaughtering children

So I take it that I am the bad guy because I said I would be tempted to punch the scumbag who makes the case for genocide.

Call me a bad guy if you want but I stand on much higher ground than.......well... someone who would defend such a thing or someone who defends such a person.

Whatever view of origins you choose intimately relies on faith because none is available to observation.

reply to post by Grimpachi

So you two are good that the same guy you want Dawkins to debate try's to justify slaughtering children

You can't even be serious about this............

-Dawkins goes out of his way to harass Christianity

-Dawkins debates/speaks with Christians all of the time.... In his manufactured excuse that he published, he spoke of speaking with bishops and cardinals and such who he thought were of more importance.......

-Why would he rather debate those who are from a large religious institution that has been behind most of the "atrocities of Christianity"? Catholics haven't deleted the Canaanite slaughter and they use the Old Testament as well.

It's ok for him to debate and talk with Catholics(the atrocitors), but it's not ok to debate a man from outside of this large and corrupt human institution?

The man makes no sense.

I remember watching a video of Hitchens giving WLC much props for his knowledge and debating skills. He has debated most top atheists. He wants to debate Dawkins.........

Why won't a foremost atheist of superhuman intelligence just debate this supposed "idiot"?

It's a topic that's his wheelhouse and Craig is a top apologist. You can't say he's sick of speaking with Christians because he still engages them regularly........

Originally posted by sdb93awd
reply to post by PsykoOps

 

That's where you fail. If you had any evidence it would be simple and straight forward. Noone cares about your opinion, the opinion of "experts" or any othat nonsense people seem to mistake for evidence.

What is the topic of this thread?

Is Dawkins being a coward?

And I even told you I'll dedicate an entire thread to the proofs of Jesus when I have time. Quit jumping the gun against me man. It's not fair.

You bring it up. I provide a reply. That's how this works.

Originally posted by DeadSeraph
reply to post by Prezbo369

 

You use the Hitchens debate as evidence of Craig having his ass handed to him? Wow. Just goes to show the very subjective nature of the subject. The debate I watched, featured Hitchens being soundly defeated. Funny how that works... All the atheists say Hitchens won and all the Theists say Craig won. Just goes to show you are about as unbiased as a westboro baptist when all things are considered.

Just another troll comment in a troll thread.......

Yes the outcome of a debate can be entirely subjective, but you have to understand that one participant was supporting and endorsing what many people consider to be the most important factor in their lives, more important than their families, their partners, their friends even their children.....which would understandably lead to a biased conclusion.

The other participant was rejecting this claim, and was pointing out its ridiculousness. Nobody holds the rejection of these claims to be the most important factor in their lives, nobody considers them more important than their families or children etc etc etc.

Seems pretty obvious to me that one side would be more biased than the other no?

reply to post by Prezbo369


You obviously missed my point entirely. BOTH sides are equally biased. Thats the funny thing about atheists, you see. They claim their opinions are based purely on empirical evidence but when it comes to the big questions surrounding the origins of the universe, their scientific "impartiality" fades to black, and they become just as narrow minded, biased, and silly as their supposedly ignorant religious counterparts. Both sides must execute a certain degree of "faith" when it comes to the origins of the universe because neither can conclusively prove the other wrong. Atheists claim that an absence of evidence in the physical world around them is enough to declare there is no God. That's a pretty far reaching claim considering that people didn't think germs existed either not that long ago.

The argument will probably never be settled as long as there are still theists/deists on the earth. I'm ok with that. I just wish atheists were a little more philosophically honest, as agnosticism is the only logical position to take when one considers the bigger questions. Of course certain individuals within academia don't see it that way, so they concoct ridiculous theories to plug the gaps in their own paradigms. Ideas like the multiverse, or even simulation theory. None of which really solves the big questions and just pushes them up the chain of the inevitable. If the universe is a simulation, who created it? Who created the simulations creator/s? If there is a multiverse, how did it form? The bigger philosophical questions still remain. Yet still we have proud atheists waving around flying spaghetti monster memes as if anyone who subscribes to the idea of intelligent design is somehow a drooling simpleton

edit to add:

My comments in no way even remotely resemble trolling. You just took it that way. As far as the hitchens/craig debate is concerned, I would suggest the only way to truly determine the winner of that debate would be to assemble a panel of individuals who are completely impartial on the subject (truly neutral agnostics) and open to either outcome, and have them vote on who they felt made the better argument. The odds a Christian will admit that Craig lost said debate are about as high as an atheist admitting that Hitchens lost. At least have the guts to admit your own bias.

Originally posted by DeadSeraph

My comments in no way even remotely resemble trolling. You just took it that way.

You compaired me to the WBC, how else would I take it?

As far as the hitchens/craig debate is concerned, I would suggest the only way to truly determine the winner of that debate would be to assemble a panel of individuals who are completely impartial on the subject (truly neutral agnostics) and open to either outcome, and have them vote on who they felt made the better argument. The odds a Christian will admit that Craig lost said debate are about as high as an atheist admitting that Hitchens lost. At least have the guts to admit your own bias.

Seems the chart wasn't clear enough.......agnostics are atheists! People either believe in God/s, or they don't. There's no in-between, no hinding place for people who don't have the conviction to have an opinion.

Admit my own bias? do you even read the posts you're replying to?

see here:

Seems pretty obvious to me that one side would be more biased than the other no?

Thats the funny thing about atheists, you see. They claim their opinions are based purely on empirical evidence but when it comes to the big questions surrounding the origins of the universe, their scientific "impartiality" fades to black, and they become just as narrow minded, biased, and silly as their supposedly ignorant religious counterparts. Both sides must execute a certain degree of "faith" when it comes to the origins of the universe because neither can conclusively prove the other wrong.

I don't know if you know this, but science works. We have reason to have confidence in the hypothesis they put forward. Much more confidence than we would put into the claims made by a desert superstition. You think that's being narrow minded, biased, and silly? really? you're not a theist by any chance are you?

Atheists claim that an absence of evidence in the physical world around them is enough to declare there is no God. That's a pretty far reaching claim considering that people didn't think germs existed either not that long ago.

There was evidence of germs, verifiable observable evidence. We looked into the evidence and eventually found microbes. No evidence of gods, ghosts, ghouls or any kind of spooky spiritual goings on have been produced at this point. And until evidence has been provided for this very specific set of superstitions (gods etc), we have no good reason whatsoever to even consider the claims made for there existence to be true.

The argument will probably never be settled as long as there are still theists/deists on the earth. I'm ok with that. I just wish atheists were a little more philosophically honest, as agnosticism is the only logical position to take when one considers the bigger questions.

Remember the chart?

Of course certain individuals within academia don't see it that way, so they concoct ridiculous theories to plug the gaps in their own paradigms. Ideas like the multiverse, or even simulation theory. None of which really solves the big questions and just pushes them up the chain of the inevitable.

I know right, those crazy scientists asking questions, positing ideas and trying to work out the universe......what are they thinking!!

If the universe is a simulation, who created it? Who created the simulations creator/s? If there is a multiverse, how did it form?

I don't know, why are you asking me? I have no idea what you're talking about...

The bigger philosophical questions still remain. Yet still we have proud atheists waving around flying spaghetti monster memes as if anyone who subscribes to the idea of intelligent design is somehow a drooling simpleton

ID is creationism that they've (creationists) have attempted to sound more scientific and formal. Creationists believe everything was created by their god/s of choice from their book of choice. It's the stuff of childrens bedtime stories, but adults believe it. It's found to be ridiculous in the extreme, and ridicule inevitably follows as you would expect.

They'd have more credibility if they brought anything to the table in support of their claims instead of constantly attacking anything that contradicts their claims with transparent dishonesty.

The claims they make are not equal to the scientific work done in this area, and so shouldn't be compaired in the lab, the classroom or anywhere else.

Originally posted by sdb93awd

The words of Jesus are the most influential words this world has ever seen. There's something about that Man.

Apparently not. At least, if you look at the societies where Christianity (and religion in general) proliferates it appears his words are not taken very seriously at all. Such societies have all sorts of troubles commensurate with thier religious belief, that are less of a problem in secular societies who seem more peaceful and tolerant overall. It's hard not to notice that the (possibly) largest Christian nation on earth, also seems one of the least peaceful and most war like.

The words of Jesus are claimed to be profound by his followers. Yet even if we cherry pick the good stuff from amongst the gibberish, is there anything that should really be beyond common sense?

Originally posted by sdb93awd


Science is one of the biggest human institutions(and therefore an ideal candidate for corruption due to its influence) in the world so by default it is corrupt and perverted. Keep believing in it. They've always had it right throughout history. There is no way a huge institution based in academia could possibly be corrupt right?

I could give you many examples of science gone awry if you'd like....

guess what? scientists make huge effort to fix those issues, when was the last time any christian institution did that? all of them hide it away, or cry persecution. scientists who produce science no one can reproduce are run out on a rail!
lol by default the churches everywhere are corrupt and perverted by your idiotic logic, churches have more influence than science does.

You have a lot to learn. Christianity would have been dead on the spot had Jesus of Nazereth been killed and never resurrected. He clearly stated his deity and historians won't even argue that point.

lol is that why the people who wrote mark never show jesus after he leaves earth? if you were right there wouldn't have been a need to tack on more verses to mark for it to be inline with later beliefs.
there is no way to prove he was resurrected, no one outside the bible and everything stemming from christianity had evidence to back the resurrection up.
jesus didn't "clearly" state his deity, people interpreted his words as him being a deity, if it was as clear as you think it was, how did sects like the ebionites exist? they didn't think jesus was god, but a special human, messiah and redeemer but not god.
christianity would have been dead if constantine hadn't thought he saw a cross in the sky before a battle, and if his mother hadn't adopted christianity.
by the way no modern historian thinks jesus was divine, only apologists fraudulently pretending to be historians do.
ancient historians wrote about people who walked upside down and giant gold mining ants, that hardly inspires anyone to think the ancients were very critical of what they wrote about.
everyone agrees that jesus was a real person who lived, became an apocalyptic preacher with a following, was arrested for sedation and crucified. that is what modern historians accept, everything else about jesus was what christians believed.

I don't have religious beliefs BTW. Religion is men.

yes you do, your beliefs fit how we define religion to a T, stop pretending.

What am I picking and choosing? Westborough Baptist clearly perverts the gospel and the Catholic religion is a human institution that is corrupt to the core. The catholic church and its evilness is even prophesied in the Bible. Catholics aren't even encouraged to read the actual Bible. In fact, they were told to never read the Bible until very recently. It's all about what the Pope and the clergy say in that religion. They used to sell tickets to heaven lol

LOL it is so cute how christians bash the source of 99% of their beliefs. yeah, if you are going to bash the catholics please make the effort to learn about them first..
what is "the actual bible"? the one with 66 books or the one with 73? or 69? it wasn't that long ago that there wasn't one.
the catholics consider the church leaders to be on the same footing as the bible, it was like that for a good 1500-1600 years give or take. after all who had authority before paul wrote his letters? before the gospels were written? people did.

Go ahead and keep making fun of people who believe in the power of Love over everything else. They are truly worthy of ridicule and they are all idiots. Maybe you should proclaim how stupid Martin Luther King is while you're at it. His whole ideology and insight and influence was based in the love of Christianity. What an idiot.

oh gosh! because christians show such fruits so often! pffftttthhhhh.
if love was the only thing you guys showed, i don't think anyone would have problems. it's all that other stupid, like forcing schools to teach creationism, banning gay marriage, abstinence-only education,etc that are the problems.

The words of Jesus are the most influential words this world has ever seen. There's something about that Man.

edit on 20-8-2013 by sdb93awd because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-8-2013 by sdb93awd because: (no reason given)

LOL no.
his words were just carried farther than their source was.
you know one of his most famous statements? love thyself and god as thyself, that is the sum total of the law?
that one? yeah it's found in the talmud.

the only reason it seems that way is because of rome, ironic that you hate the main driving force for your religion's spread.

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Apparently not. At least, if you look at the societies where Christianity (and religion in general) proliferates it appears his words are not taken very seriously at all. Such societies have all sorts of troubles commensurate with thier religious belief, that are less of a problem in secular societies who seem more peaceful and tolerant overall. It's hard not to notice that the (possibly) largest Christian nation on earth, also seems one of the least peaceful and most war like.

it's strange that no fault divorce is allowed in one of the biggest christian nations on earth, i mean jesus went out of his way to tell us that divorce was a major sin. yet these days most churches don't blink at it.

The words of Jesus are claimed to be profound by his followers. Yet even if we cherry pick the good stuff from amongst the gibberish, is there anything that should really be beyond common sense?

edit on 22-8-2013 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.

not really, it wasn't like his stuff was that original.
every culture has a form of a golden rule, it's pretty much just a vocalized form of empathy anyway.
though i will say turn the other cheek was kind of new for the AME, but wasn't new for the world. buddha taught much the same idea.
now it is common sense, back then? not so much. it's a good reason why the jews didn't believe he was messiah, the beliefs about messiah solidified around that time into a warleader who would defeat the romans.

jesus... well he was a hippy telling people to let the romans hurt them because it doesn't matter since they will get riches beyond that life.
that didn't sit well with the people.

reply to post by Prezbo369


It's obviously pointless attempting to have any sort of discussion with you. You are so full of yourself that you aren't even capable of rational thought. So now agnostics are atheists? Please.

I won't even bother replying to the rest of your comments. I have no use for anyone who feels the need to patronize someone else because they don't conform to their own views. Have a nice life.

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Apparently not. At least, if you look at the societies where Christianity (and religion in general) proliferates it appears his words are not taken very seriously at all. Such societies have all sorts of troubles commensurate with thier religious belief, that are less of a problem in secular societies who seem more peaceful and tolerant overall. It's hard not to notice that the (possibly) largest Christian nation on earth, also seems one of the least peaceful and most war like.

You keep mistaking religion and true Christianity. Christians aren't even allowed to be angry. Feeling hateful towards ANYBODY(including enemies), is a sin. Please try and see the difference. Read the words of Jesus again if you must.

Also, the words of Jesus are profound. Read them. Is it common sense to love your enemy? Is forgiving somebody unlimited times common sense? Is sacrificing life and limb for the sake of saving a strangers soul common sense?

reply to post by demongoat

guess what? scientists make huge effort to fix those issues, when was the last time any christian institution did that? all of them hide it away, or cry persecution. scientists who produce science no one can reproduce are run out on a rail!

All of the time. I've been listening to some intensely fascinating discussions in the creationist community. None of them have denied scientific findings even once. You obviously cant get over your past experiences with the lowest common denominator of ID proponents. I myself have gotten over the idiocy of gnostic atheists and I even look forward to talking with them these days.

there is no way to prove he was resurrected

So the worlds most influential and loving religion just sprang up from people who saw Jesus executed? They all died horrific deaths for a man who was executed but claimed to be God?

yes you do, your beliefs fit how we define religion to a T, stop pretending

Jesus called the religious hypocrites throughout the New Testament. Read his words before sounding so ignorant. Religion is man made. Everybody knows that man made institutions are corrupt. Jesus never told people to rely on hman institutions. This is very clear sir.

oh gosh! because christians show such fruits so often! pffftttthhhhh.

A lot of Christians are brainwashed by religion. We've been over this. Read the actual words of Jesus.

like forcing schools to teach creationism, banning gay marriage, abstinence-only education,etc that are the problems.

Schools teach or did teach abiogenesis(impossible). Intelligent design is just as valid of a theory to the origin of life. Science certainly does not know. You have a guess and so do we. They both firt the observable evidence(remember we are not all young earthers).

Gay people are allowed to get married if they would like. But the essence of marriage throughout history has been heterosexual. Nobody wants to intrude on their sex life but please dont call a man and a man marriage. Thats all.

Abstinence before marriage is absolutely the best way to live. Read the studies on traditional families and also the studies on the effects of the number of previous sexual partners before marriage.

LOL it is so cute how christians bash the source of 99% of their beliefs.

I have never bashed the Bible. Catholicism is an enormous religion that is basically the reverse of the true gospel. Catholicism is the source of 0% of my beliefs. You can't blame Christianity for anything that Catholicism has done or how they have perverted the gospel.

Originally posted by sdb93awd
Science is one of the biggest human institutions(and therefore an ideal candidate for corruption due to its influence) in the world so by default it is corrupt and perverted. Keep believing in it. They've always had it right throughout history. There is no way a huge institution based in academia could possibly be corrupt right?

I never said it was not susceptible to corruption. What I said was, it allowed for itself to be CORRECTED when the evidence of investigation and discovery disprove a theory.

Sure it can be corrupt - like anything we humans get involved in. But please, don't try and get righteous about what is/is not corruptible and you aim it at science in one hand, while you discuss religion and Jesus in the other hand. Please - the MOST CORRUPT aspect of recorded human history is religion. Shall I name the priests and their kiddie-fiddling? How about the general approach to women? Or science? Or free thinking?

Don't play the corruption card while trying to hide behind the veil of religion.

You have a lot to learn. Christianity would have been dead on the spot had Jesus of Nazereth been killed and never resurrected. He clearly stated his deity and historians won't even argue that point. I don't have religious beliefs BTW. Religion is men.

Religion is men, I agree as well. However, he never said he was God or the son of god. That came some time later.

Go ahead and keep making fun of people who believe in the power of Love over everything else.

Religion is not about love. Or oneness, or togetherness. It's about segregation, fear and control It was used to control the masses and maintain a sense of order in a time when people didn't understand why the skies roared, or the ground shook, or why a small butterfly in the pacific could cause a devastating weather storm. They were scared and fearful and religion gave them a sense of safety.

When mankind evolved, intellectually, we discovered maths, science, physics, biology. We understood why the skies roared, why the ground shook and how a butterfly could change weather patterns. The need for religion to control and dominate people is no longer needed.

Maybe you should proclaim how stupid Martin Luther King is while you're at it. His whole ideology and insight and influence was based in the love of Christianity. What an idiot.

Why the hell would I do that? MLK was a brilliant man, with brilliant, philanthropic ideas on how people, ALL people, should be with one another. And just like Jesus, he was just...a man. Nothing more.

The words of Jesus are the most influential words this world has ever seen. There's something about that Man.

I don't disagree - there certainly was something special about that mortal man. His beliefs and ideals on equality, tolerance, peace and brotherly love were far ahead of where humanity was at the time. And sadly, it got him killed for it.

reply to post by noonebutme

I never said it was not susceptible to corruption. What I said was, it allowed for itself to be CORRECTED when the evidence of investigation and discovery disprove a theory.

Sure it can be corrupt - like anything we humans get involved in. But please, don't try and get righteous about what is/is not corruptible and you aim it at science in one hand, while you discuss religion and Jesus in the other hand. Please - the MOST CORRUPT aspect of recorded human history is religion. Shall I name the priests and their kiddie-fiddling? How about the general approach to women? Or science? Or free thinking?

I'd like to start odd by saying that you must not read things too thoroughly. Religion IS NOT true Christianity. Jesus even had a major problem with religion. Y'all need to stop using religion as a punching bag because that is clearly a corrupted human institution craving money and power.

Every Christian woman I know is extremely satisfied with life. There is no justification for the mistreatment of women as a Christian. The women in my life are the center of my life. I love them so much that I couldn't possibly do it justice with words. They live life as shining examples of what women should be and I'm so grateful for the opportunity to have been raised by God fearing women.

Science is adored by many Christians including myself. Just because we all don't agree with the grand evolutionary story or we may be skeptical about the power of darwinistic mechanisms does not make us hate science. There are clearly mechanisms of change via these principles but it is yet to be seen if these mechanisms are sufficient for the proposed story. I know I love science....

Religion is men, I agree as well. However, he never said he was God or the son of god. That came some time later.

You just simply couldn't be more wrong. Why would there have even been a later had Jesus just died? Why would his followers all die painful deaths in his name? Christianity began when he rose from the tomb and what came later was the attempt to politicize the movement(Catholicism).

Jesus of Nazareth was crucified. This is historical fact. He was crucified because he claimed to be the Son of God.

Why else would he have been crucified?

Religion is not about love. Or oneness, or togetherness. It's about segregation, fear and control It was used to control the masses and maintain a sense of order in a time when people didn't understand why the skies roared, or the ground shook, or why a small butterfly in the pacific could cause a devastating weather storm. They were scared and fearful and religion gave them a sense of safety.

When mankind evolved, intellectually, we discovered maths, science, physics, biology. We understood why the skies roared, why the ground shook and how a butterfly could change weather patterns. The need for religion to control and dominate people is no longer needed.

Read the words of Jesus. It is absolutely about love over everything. You keep falling for the trap of attacking religion; ironically, just like Dawkins.

Also just because we understand what these vague things are about to some degree, does not produce any evidence for or against a creator. Discoveries such as DNA however, clearly indicate a designer. Science doesn't know enough about the universe or genetics to have any conclusion on the existence of divinity.

On a side note, science also has great potential to control people. It's an incredibly large and powerful HUMAN institution. Just look at what the pharm industry is up to.....They justify all of their actions based off of peer reviewed studies and scientific journals and such. Did you know that close to 50% of our populace is on psychotropic medicine?(and therefore has far diminished emotional capacity and thus far reduced concern for what is going on). I think with our intellectually diminished population combined with an overall reverence for science has made people ripe for brainwashing.(Again, just look at the drug industry). TPTB will use any institution that furthers their cause. Why isn't there a public outrage about all these people who are on hardcore drugs? Because they get them from their DOCTORS and science has studies to show that this is ok hha

way

Why the hell would I do that? MLK was a brilliant man, with brilliant, philanthropic ideas on how people, ALL people, should be with one another. And just like Jesus, he was just...a man. Nothing more.

My point was simpy that Christians are not intellectually bankrupt as a lot of folks will try and say. MLK used the power of the gospel(love) to persuade a divided country that togetherness IS the answer and that NOBODY is better than ANYBODY else. He convicted the hearts of his white bretheren in Christ who had obviously strayed from the true character of their God.

I don't disagree - there certainly was something special about that mortal man. His beliefs and ideals on equality, tolerance, peace and brotherly love were far ahead of where humanity was at the time. And sadly, it got him killed for it.

Just the way it was prophecied. Good thing for him that the tomb is empty and that his love can now be enjoyed by the Jews and Gentiles alike!

Again, just as prophecied!

Both sides of this debate are being stubborn.

There is a clear divide here and each side has so much built up energy and misinformation built up over the years that they seem to refuse to want to compromise.

There is evidence for both sides to lean on and I'm quite sure that the truth will end up somewhere in that gray area. We just all need to stop being so dumb.


I'd still love to hear a Dawkins-Craig debate though. It would be good fun for both sides and I really think Dawkins is wussing out!