A Response to Richard Dawkins

[JC Lamont]

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most pleasant deity of the ancient world; protective and proud of it; a meticulous, just, forgiving, structure-advocate; a pragmatic, impartially-symbiotic ethnic creator; a women-avenging, sexuality-designing, orphan-protecting, child-defending, slave-respecting, justice-enforcing, empathetic, long-suffering guardian.

The God of the New Testament is arguably the most sacrificial of religious founders; impartial and proud of it; a religious-hypocrisy intolerant; an ardent, prayer-engrossed temple cleanser; a women-dignifying, child-elevating, enemy-loving, torturer-forgiving, disease-healing, soul-saving, life-giving, death-conquering, sin-paying liberator.

The above is a response to Richard Dawkins' now renowned, long-winded, loquaciously garrulous paragraph of insults against the Judaeo-Christian God, which says:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction; jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, blood-thirsty ethnic cleanser; a, misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

And so before he decides to attack Jesus with an equally long list of adjectives aimed at destroying Christ's character, I beat him to it.

[Jack Burchett]

I just viewed Ben Stein's video, "Expelled", where he documented conspiratorial and unfair actions by educational elitists against any form of opposition to evolution, Richard Dawkins just happened to be a featured, though unwitting, guest in the film. He is an amazingly intelligent man but still exhibits the ease in which one can become ensnared by a self-perpetuated, agenda-fulfilling dogma that has no basis in fact or even logic For example, his enthusiastic embracing of the alien cell-seeding fantasy while dismissing the existence of a loving creator is unimaginable to me. Theorizing God out of science is like hypothesizing that Bill Gates had nothing to do with the rise of Microsoft.

[Ruth Ann Nordin]

I need to see "Expelled", and my father-in-law has the same alien theory.

[Ruth Ann Nordin]

Give me the God of the Bible over any other god any day. I loved this post. :)

[Kat Heckenbach]

Richard Dawkins is a topic I can talk about for hours--the same way one can rant about idiot drivers. He uses no actual science in his theorizing. I love dismantling his statements, but of course, I'm not going to take up this comment page doing so.

I was introduced to his writing when I was in college, majoring in Biology. A couple of friends and I actually burned the book of his we were required to read. At least in his earlier works, he made an attempt at backing up his ideas, as outlandish as they were. Look up "memes"--the man thinks our thoughts are genetically controlled and even made up his own term for it. His work deteriorates over the years, though, which doesn't surprise me. Yes, he's perusasive in his speaches, but his reasoning is circular on every point I've ever seen him try to make. And, as this post illustrates, he's sunk to the level of name-calling now.

There is a great quote in a book called "Darwinian Fairytales" by the deceased Australian philospher, David Stove. I wish I had marked the page in the book, so I could rememeber his exact words Basically, Stove, who states that he "has no opinion" on the existence of God (which to me translate to atheist), says he "questions Dawkins' sanity." That book is a great read. Stove tackles Darwinism from a socialogical point of view. And it was written ten years before Dawkins had his little hissy fit in The God Delusion, so it's not even based on Dawkins' worst ravings.

[Ruth Ann Nordin]

I finally saw "Expelled". What scared me wasn't what Richard Dawkins said so much as the reality that people looking at God as the Creator are being silenced, or even those who refuse to accept the "norm" for what the people at the top want them to mention. I hate seeing our freedom of speech dwindling down in this country.

[Kat Heckenbach]

It's the double standard that bugs me. If a Christian were to name-call like Dawkins did in The God Delusion, that Christian would be called "intolerant" and be accused of verbally "attacking" evolutionists.

And evolution is constantly spoken of as "fact" but Christianity is just a "religion" or a "world view." Evolution is no more "proven" than Christianity. If anything, we have more scientific evidence supporting Creation! The words of the Bible are being proven true over and over through archeological digs. That is definitely where your point comes in, Ruth. When evidence is found in support of Christianity, it's hushed. People don't get a chance to CHOOSE what to think when they are only allowed one side of the story.

What it boils down to is this--most Christians don't have issue with both Creation and evolution being discussed provided those listening are not forced into belief. Why? Because we are SECURE in our knowledge of truth!! Evolutionists like Richard Dawkins are insecure--they don't have an Almighty God backing up their views, they don't have the peace of Christ, so they are afraid that if all the cards are laid on the table, they will have to face that their hand is the losing one.

[Donald James Parker]

I went after Richard Dawkins in my fiction book dealing with the evolution debate- All the Voices of the Wind nearly two years ago. He's a real work.

[Garry R. Kennedy]

Great comments!