Re: [asa] Expelled

From: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
Date: Sun Apr 27 2008 - 17:01:55 EDT

You miss the point. If one believes in God as creator of the world then it
makes sense to believe that there are standards of morality which have some
source beyond the world even if we don't know in detail what those standards
are. Denial of the existence of a creator means that there is no basis for
such a claim.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

----- Original Message -----
From: "PvM" <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
To: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Expelled

>I find the argument that atheists lack a moral standard of ethics
> quite flawed, as flawed as the idea that Christianity somehow provides
> us with a clear standard of morality. At best the Bible gives us
> guidelines which we attempt to interpret as best as we can to guide us
> in how we behave. However, the Bible is hardly a reliable or unique
> source of morality.
>
> On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 3:52 PM, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
>
>> The soft atheists of coursel argue, with a good deal of truth, that
>> religious people in general aren't a lot more moral than atheists. But
>> there is no reason for athiests like Dawkins to follow any particular
>> syatem
>> of morality or ethics. OTOH, religious people have a moral standard by
>> which they can be judged. The point is not that atheists are more
>> immoral
>> than believers but that they are unwilling or afraid to face up to the
>> consequences of their position.
>>
>> Shalom
>> George
>> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: David Heddle
>> To: PvM
>> Cc: David Campbell ; asa@calvin.edu
>> Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 5:10 PM
>> Subject: Re: [asa] Expelled
>>
>> I'll take a stab--the answer is twofold. One is that his statements are
>> so
>> outrageous. His claims of child abuse will not resonate except with his
>> own
>> choir. The other is that his arguments against theism are so childish and
>> primitive--boiling down to "religious people are dumb" and "if God mad
>> everything, who made God?" Compared to intellectual atheists of the past,
>> such as Bertrand Russel, Dawkins is (when it comes to theology) a
>> lightweight. PZ tried to rescue him with the "Courtiers Reply" but that
>> is
>> little more than a justification and a rationalization to make a
>> simpleminded response instead of doing your homework.
>>
>> In my opinion, Dawkins is to atheism what Benny Hinn is to theism.
>>
>> David Heddle
>> Associate Professor of Physics
>> Christopher Newport University, &
>> The Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 2:51 PM, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > How is Dawkins one of the best arguments against atheism?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 11:37 AM, David Campbell <pleuronaia@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > By accepting the claim that evolution entails scientism and by doing
>> > > a
>> > > poor critique, the movie to me does more to endorse scientism than
>> > > to
>> > > counter it. Of course, conversely Dawkins is one of the best
>> > > arguments against atheism.
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Dr. David Campbell
>> > > 425 Scientific Collections
>> > > University of Alabama
>> > > "I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> > > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>> > >
>> >
>> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>> >
>>
>>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Apr 27 17:05:09 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Apr 27 2008 - 17:05:09 EDT