What an asshole...

Clearly he decided he didn't want to have to think for himself any more, so he just let the religion think for him...

Sad, really

Well my friend. I've looked at the evidence and I believe. Cook that in your oven. I'm an inch away from Ph.D. and Dawkins is so plainly a D-bag, it almost makes him the definition of such.

I would be extremely interested to know the evidence you've witnessed that makes you a believer. And why Dawkins is a douchebag. Send me a PM if you like.

>> ^Doc_M:
Well my friend. I've looked at the evidence and I believe. Cook that in your oven. I'm an inch away from Ph.D. and Dawkins is so plainly a D-bag, it almost makes him the definition of such.

OK, maybe he's not a D-bag. I was feeling bitter and I apologize. He's certainly well-meaning. He just annoys the heck out of me because he makes it seem like science and religion are not compatible. That's just not true in my eyes. It's challenging, but show me a philosophy that isn't. Agnosticism makes sense to me as a form of thought, but trying to prove "there is not God" is as impossible as trying to prove "there is a God." Therefore, "Atheists" are as faith-based as theists. He tries to make theists look like fools and I don't like being called a fool.

As for evidence for God in my life? It would take a book-length post for which--at the moment--I don't have time, but perhaps in the future I will write such a book. I'll let you know if it is ever published should I remember. I'll say in brief that I've had as direct evidence as I could ever expect and to ask for more would be not necessary after that. I've had prayers answered on the spot more than once. I've had calls that I cannot explain with mere science despite being a scientist. I've considered the historical accounts, the history of the documents, the dedication of the original followers and their willingness to die for it, the culture and nature of mankind, the goals of mankind, the prophecies, and much more and I've decided that the Bible is true. I am not just a product of my upbringing, but one of careful and methodical thought.

I have in fact decided to get a masters degree in Divinity following my Ph.D. in Genetics which is probably one year off. Where that will go, I don't know, but I wish to seek knowledge in my beliefs to higher levels and if that means more schooling, so be it.

I can say for sure that a seeker will find.

Luke 11:
"For everyone who asks, receives; and he who seeks, finds; and to him who knocks, it will be opened. Now suppose one of you fathers is asked by his son for a fish; he will not give him a snake instead of a fish, will he? Or if he is asked for an egg, he will not give him a scorpion, will he? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?"

Raigen, should I find the time, I will PM you pertaining to my "evidence."

Well, Doc, I would constitute your classification of "Atheist" (someone who wants to disprove God and therefore as faith-based as a Christian, etc) to be just as badly misinformed as you'd say someone who hates Christianity is. An Atheist doesn't need to disprove the existence of a god because an Atheist, by definition, has a lack of believe in any such thing.

I'm an Agnostic Athest (they are not mutually exclusive) and don't go around proving any god does not exist. Proving a negative is impossible, and as a scientist I'm sure you can understand that. Read Carl Sagan's "A Dragon Lives in My Garage" for reference from "The Demon Haunted World".

In my youth I seeked as hard as one could when looking for a god. And believe me, when you're a child and an adolescent looking for a god and you haven't even bothered to understand the breadth of science and reason you coul be bamboozled a lot easier into believing. However not a single prayer was answered, not a single sign was posed to me. And those that I thought were I found much easier explained by natural causes because they were so insignificant and meaningless when compared with what I truly asked for.

>> ^Doc_M:
OK, maybe he's not a D-bag. I was feeling bitter and I apologize.
...
Raigen, should I find the time, I will PM you pertaining to my "evidence."

^Doc_M
Well my friend. I've looked at the evidence and I believe. Cook that in your oven. I'm an inch away from Ph.D. and Dawkins is so plainly a D-bag, it almost makes him the definition of such.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins#Biography

Richard Dawkins has a Doctor of Philosophy from Oxford (the wiki is very badly worded), and a Masters in Zoology.

"Dawkins attended Oundle School from 1954 to 1959. He studied zoology at Balliol College, Oxford, where he was tutored by Nobel Prize-winning ethologist Nikolaas Tinbergen, graduating in 1962. He continued as a research student under Tinbergen's supervision at the University of Oxford, receiving his M.A. and D.Phil. degrees in 1966, while staying as a research assistant for another year.[13] Tinbergen was a pioneer in the study of animal behaviour, particularly the questions of instinct, learning and choice.[17] Dawkins' research in this period concerned models of animal decision making.[18]"