Can this quote be refuted?
- Thread starter Twila
- Start date
Apparently those who need a frontman and his iconography do. If you need somebody else to argue your point, it's not your point.
Who is the guy you're quoting who is unaware or deliberately misinformed you of translation issues.
Who said he was the frontman? Was a vote held that I missed? Cause I'd have voted for Neil DeGrasse Tyson or possibly Daniel Dennett. Maybe even Stephen Hawking...There are just so many possibilities to choose from...
Maybe she was trying to provoke an inaccurate and unsupported conclusion from an alleged scientist.
If so, it worked a rare treat!
It's certainly accurate. "Truth" I leave to those who deal in undefined terms, except when I'm getting paid.
I thought you were arguing he was the frontman for Atheists?
You could answer the question I posed or you could continue on as you are. Choices are marvelous things, eh?
Well, to be as accurate as one can be about anything, one must consult as many sources as possible. There is no one written source for information that would lead one to an accurate picture of any one subject. To come to any conclusions of accuracy one must be a detective, weigh the evidence presented and draw a picture according to the available evidence that exists. The first written records, in the case of the Sinixt, came from Jesuit monks, the first explorers and the fur traders that dealt with them. Then you check those accounts with the people themselves and look to see if the accounts match. Then you check with the people of the surrounding areas and get their take on things. It is about as close as one can get to the truth in this matter.
The Bible is as Dawkins states. He sees it for what it is.
One can hide behind the fact interpretations are rampant .
But the jist of it is pretty lucid unto itself.
Dawkins knows what it is.
I would argue there is much good to be gleemed from this book.
After all the gospels of christ do point to the fact there is a God, and I believe there is a God.
Now is this the same god as small g god's . The god that is depicted in the old testament. A god helping a tribe with their wars and coming of age with themselves.
I have not read Dawkins , so I do not know what he actually believes in or is he just trying to debunk the bunk .
One can hide behind the fact interpretations are rampant .
But the jist of it is pretty lucid unto itself.
Dawkins knows what it is.
I would argue there is much good to be gleemed from this book.
After all the gospels of christ do point to the fact there is a God, and I believe there is a God.
Now is this the same god as small g god's . The god that is depicted in the old testament. A god helping a tribe with their wars and coming of age with themselves.
I have not read Dawkins , so I do not know what he actually believes in or is he just trying to debunk the bunk .
I am not defending anything other than questioning why I would take Dawkin's of Cliffy's 'interpretation' as being the one and only
I see, so basically what you're doing is attacking the other guy to try to deflect attention from the fact that your own position is indefensible
I didn't say you were. But you know that.
Where's the attack?
Not your best work, Cap.