Quote:
Originally Posted by niftydrifty  "Mostly" is your word. I've never used it. I understand you've used this word to sum up my position, but it's inaccurate. |
I believe you said "I am actually in complete agreement with you, Dawkins, and Harris on the subject of fundamentalism and creationism" and that "Many, perhaps even most, Christians don’t “get” Christianity" in post #5.
Does most or many not count as mostly?
Quote:
Originally Posted by niftydrifty I actually don't agree with their arguments on religion. |
You mean you do not agree with all of them, given that you agree with them when it comes to fundamentalists, creationists and think that "most" Christians don't "get" it.
What percentage of religionists do you think that covers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by niftydrifty They believe it's all false. I don't. |
Wrong, not believing in any religion and believing that there is no evidence or reason to is not the same as believing that a certain belief is false.
There is a HUGE distinction between "I do not believe in a god" and "I believe that there is no god." They believe that they cannot all be true, given that they make incompatible claims, and that they have never been presented with valid evidence for any such propositions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niftydrifty I believe Christianity can lead to a valid spiritual experience. They don't. |
Wrong again, Sam Harris (and Dawkins, but namely Sam) recognizes it, among various other avenues (like meditation, isolation, etc...) for inducing "spiritual experiences."
Quote:
Originally Posted by niftydrifty They seem to believe that all Christians embrace Natural Theology. We don't. |
Not true, they believe that believers believe whatever they say that they believe. They take believer's claims and arguments at their word, and then debunk them.
Would you mind explaining exactly what you mean by "natural theology?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by niftydrifty Dawkins thinks religion is a scientific theory. I don't. |
Wrong, that would be absurd. Evolution and the fact that we revolve around the sun are scientific theories; There is no way he would regard any religion as that credible.
He believes that whether or not there is a god is a scientific hypothesis, and a failed one (a whole chapter on this.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by niftydrifty I could literally go on and on. These are big differences. |
And I could literally go on and on about how you misunderstand and misrepresent the arguments that you say you disagree with. Given that each of your criticism is invalid, I really don't think you understand their arguments and have too quickly glanced over their books dismissively.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niftydrifty My response, to everything you've typed here, will come in a few weeks. It will be another long one. |
Please try and be as concise as possible.