Richard Dawkins gets attacked quite regularly for attacking religion. Fair enough. Tit for tat... One could do worse. Dawkins "belief" in evolution is denigrated of course by our own Ham of the Noah's Ark Reconstruction and by other religious figures with doctorates in godology because they have studied godology with studious belief in godology. 

 

Yes evolution never happened and the godologists tell us we were plonked on this planet 6000 years ago — plus about 15 years since the Sydney Olympic games — to fart around with morality as a walking stick, while awaiting final salvation. 

 

In term of secular science fiction, we are waiting for aliens to rescue us from this forsaken place spinning around a little sun in a dark void... unless these aliens come to take over our little paradise in which case we fight back. 

So in religious reality we are stranded through our own fault because of the original sin that happened 6000 years ago. Our idiotic ancestors ate the EFFING forbidden fruit salad because of a nasty EFFING snake... Beaut ! Since then, we have had to wear fig leaves on the you-know-what... Count me out of this....

Makes sense? Nupe... It does not. Wake up.

 

Evolution is more of a powerful idea than that of god. And more accurate.  Mind you, the idea of god would be quite cute, if we did not fight like hell over who had the best god inside our pants.

Evolution allows for understanding the imperfection of the system, which of course are the result of the bad bad Devil mucking up god's creation. So Richard sarcastically sends god up as a "lazy" creature that created an ungodly mess... because let's face it, it's a random mess that is not so random, with more uncertainty than the weather...

-----------------------------

Atheist author and biologist Richard Dawkins recently called God "lazy" for creating a world which is a "mess." Answers in Genesis Ken Ham responded by stating that Dawkins is confused, because he chooses not to trust the Bible, and called evolution an "anti-God religion."

In a comedic video posted earlier this month, Dawkins is seen talking to a character called "Mr. Deity," who supposedly represents the biblical God. The author of The God Delusion tells the character: "As a biologist I am uniquely qualified to understand just how lazy you've been."

He brings up examples of what he finds to be imperfections in nature, such as the human eye retina being positioned backwards, and adds: "It's just so clear that no intelligent being had a hand in this mess."

Ham, who often comments on social issues on his AiG blog, said that Dawkins' mistake is that he's choosing to trust "his religion of evolution and millions of years" instead of the Bible.

 

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/richard-dawkins-says-god-is-lazy-and-creation-is-a-mess-ken-ham-argues-evolution-is-an-anti-god-religion-134242/#AbAUfrWZGw7HivWx.99

 

---------------------------

 

Here, you cannot fault Ken Ham. He is consistent and focused. And we know why — or possibly why not...

A recent study has shown how conservative minds are as bad as Liberal minds to trust or distrust science... I have no idea what this iffy "study" means... Are scientists likely to vote for Democrats or Republicans? The experiment seems to have many flaws and for me it cannot be trusted. The "contextual Thesis" in a "online" test of political polarisation of a conservative-dissonant and liberal-dissonant on science is more than suspect. But in the end it does not matter. The dissonant-science message could have various qualities that would influence the distrust or the trust of science. The result that :

 

"Interestingly, liberals, moderates and conservatives were all less trustful of the science that was related to political debates compared to the ideologically neutral science. In other words, conservatives were less trustful of science related to fracking and nuclear power, though not as distrustful as liberals, compared to science related to ideologically-neutral astronomy and geology findings. And liberals were less trustful of science related to climate change and evolution, though not as distrusful as conservatives, compared to the ideologically neutral science." 

This uninteresting study should not defeat our trust in science... 

 

Political and social "sciences" are NOT SCIENCES, despite statistics and analytical stuff. They are ART forms in which manipulations, present and past IDEOLOGIES of participants being studied will influence the results of the study. For example, It's highly probable that fewer people understand science than those who believe in Santa Claus or fairy tales about princesses and hope for a better life. 

 

Push forward a positive view of climate change science and it is likely the liberal minded persons (not the Australian conservative alla deceitfully so-called LNP) would adjust to the new value of knowledge, while the Christian conservative will tighten their butt — as the equivalent of closing their mind. The idea here is that conservatives will resist change while liberal-minded people are more opened to it. Though there could be some resistance since our brain is strongly wired to resist contradicting information. But should you conduct the experiment with a slightly different question or premise, this might bring a similar statistical result WHILE THE SAME PEOPLE MIGHT HAVE A DIFFERENT RESPONSE. 

 

On average the human species is average, is you see what I mean, even with an average margin of error. We muddle with erroneous beliefs that we really don't care whether they are erroneous or not, as long as the level of satisfaction is habit-forming average.

 

For example, the feat of landing a space craft on a comet has not registered in most people brain... For many it's as if it did not happen or as if it was run-of-the-mill stuff. News: It's far more complex than believing in the bible. The science behind this event is so powerful, that a belief in Noah's Ark is a joke. 

 

The technology behind genetic manipulation is beyond belief. But this is based on the science of evolution. This could not happen should one place one's hope in the trinity for a miracle. There is no miracles in this feat of cross-species genetics. There are dangers of course, such as the pollution of "nature" with new "man-made GM stuff" and possible health side-effects, nothing more. 

 

Science holds all the trump cards of knowledge but the religious mob still want to play with damp unmarked cut pieces of cardboard from a crushed box. It ain't going to work, except the religious mob add spittle, fear and spruiked "magic" to entice simple minds into believing simplistic beliefs. 

 

Most magic tricks rely on science. Others rely on a swift hand and a deft brain speed that will remove your cash from your pocket before you can say boo. Unfortunately, and not so strangely, there is little magic in science. None. But we want to to believe in magic to allay our pain. Science can only tell us to adjust, adapt either by using pills or by mind manipulations such as meditation. No tricks but physical processes which of course include the mental as anything. No belief but an understanding.

 

Now, in order to maintain position, we are offered another area of generosity... the religious mob is often forgiving and giving when there is a wet cardboard card to be played. The holy spirit is the magic here: We all have it... Thank you...

 

But is the spirit of God really in all people, including atheists like Richard Dawkins, the British evolutionary biologist who authored the best-selling book, The God Delusion?

"If we look at it this way: God's spirit is God's breath, right? We can all agree with that. God breathes the spirit into people," Levison responded. "Well, if God breathes life into human beings, is that some sort of profane, secular life that God breathes into them? And what God breathes into Christians is some sacred, spiritual thing? I don't think you can draw that kind of a dichotomy …"

Watch the CP Newsroom video below to hear more of Levison's comments on the Holy Spirit, including how the spirit is viewed in the New Testament and in modern Pentecostal movements. He also offers suggestions for how new Christians can begin exploring the third person of the Trinity.

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/is-gods-spirit-in-everyone-even-in-aggressive-atheists-like-richard-dawkins-133290/#tYmS6djrAP9zVDYT.99

Hello? Has any believers sane of mind and body studied the origin of the belief in the trinity? This is a bit contradictory... The third person of the trinity? You gotta be kidding us...

The trinity was invented AFTER 313 AD. It was decreed in order to manage conflicting stories about Jesus — stories that had been written by various forgers and liars. Of course this did not come without a godologist fist fight. Here we need to go to the Council of Nicaea in 321, for the dispute about the "trinity" to be decided one way for some of the Christians and another way for others. The Catholics adopted the concept of the trinity, while others Christians rejected it, including, later on, our scientist extraodinaire, Mr Isaac Newton, who had a good Jewish first name. 

To this day most Christians have adopted the Bishops of the Council of Nicaea decree: 

At this First Council of Nicaea twenty-two bishops, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia, came as supporters of Arius. But when some of Arius's writings were read aloud, they are reported to have been denounced as blasphemous by most participants.[1] Those who upheld the notion that Christ was co-eternal and con-substantial with the Father were led by the young archdeacon Athanasius. Those who instead insisted that God the Son came after God the Father in time and substance, were led by Arius the presbyter. For about two months, the two sides argued and debated,[3] with each appealing to Scripture to justify their respective positions. Arius maintained that the Son of God was a Creature, made from nothing; and that he was God's First Production, before all ages. And he argued that everything else was created through the Son. Thus, said Arius, only the Son was directly created and begotten of God; furthermore, there was a time that He had no existence. He was capable of His own free will, said Arius, and thus "were He in the truest sense a son, He must have come after the Father, therefore the time obviously was when He was not, and hence He was a finite being."[4] Arius appealed to Scripture, quoting verses such as John 14:28: "the Father is greater than I". And also Colossians 1:15: "the firstborn of all creation." Thus, Arius insisted that the Father's Divinity was greater than the Son's, and that the Son was under God the Father, and not co-equal or co-eternal with Him.

There you have it — various interpretation of god that does not stop mushroom growing in the dark... actually it encourages Christians to stay in the dark, while believing that science is evil... 

Keep poking at the religious mob, Richard, you little devil you... Keep at it...
-----------------------
Meanwhile:
A survey examining Americans' views on Christian theology revealed that, among even self-identified Christians, there is confusion or disagreement about the Holy Spirit. Is the spirit a force or a personal being? Is the spirit present in only Pentecostal Christians, or in all believers? According to one theologian, the spirit is both a force and a being — and is present in everyone, not just Christians.

The overall findings of the survey, conducted by LifeWay Research and commissioned by Ligonier Ministries, might not be that earth-shattering to some — because, well, Christians and Americans in general believe differently about the Bible on many points. But what "The State of Theology" survey reveals about Evangelical Christians' beliefs about the historical doctrine of the Trinity might be surprising.

While 71 percent of Americans believe in the Trinity, the concept that God exists as three persons (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), 64 percent of them think the Holy Spirit is a force. Among those identified as Evangelical: 59 percent of them say the Holy Spirit is a force; 31 percent say the Holy Spirit is a person; and 10 percent just aren't sure either way (LifeWay).

 

Jack Levison, the William Joseph Ambrose Power professor of Biblical Hebrew and Old Testament Interpretation at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, has written extensively in the area of pneumatology. He was actually encouraged by the survey's findings.

"As I read the survey, I think it's a silver lining. Because if we had the spirit either as a force or as a person or something else, we'd be misunderstanding the spirit. The spirit is all of that," Levison said during a CP Newsroom discussion. "So I think the uncertainty is a positive thing, because we can begin to move from the uncertainty into the mystery of the spirit, which is more than one and all of those things."

Bloody useless survey if you ask me... A sliver lining?... Totally unscientific, completely stupid and loopy... But then my name is: ...


Gus Leonisky
Your local supporter of Richard Dawkins and a rabid atheist.