Dawkinswatch

Exposing Evolution As A Mess and Atheism As Hot-Air!

True Atheism and Gnostisms

with 19 comments

Have you wondered why there is tension between science and religion ?  Richard Dawkins and Charles Darwin are mere pawns in this cosmic drama.

Those of you who have read the bible you will know that the Tower of Babel was caused by a technological discovery of a brick. Man started to be conceited and wanted to make a name for himself.

Listen to the great William Cooper and I would recommend his Mystery Babylon Series if you really want to get deep into knowledge.

Your avarage Dawkinites is caught up in exoteric knowledge but now let us deal with the esoteric.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Advertisements

Written by dawkinswatch

March 6, 2008 at 2:15 pm

19 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Actually the reason there is conflict between science and religion is pretty simple- science keeps on showing that things religion claimed are wrong.

    None of the knowledge we are currently dealing with is esoteric (except physics of the start of the material universe).

    Samuel Skinner

    March 6, 2008 at 6:57 pm

  2. samuel skinner watch the video.?

    I beg you sir, please provide me with things you have proved religion to be wrong by.

    dawkinswatch

    March 6, 2008 at 7:11 pm

  3. The entirety of the Genesis story isn’t true. That’s one thing.

    But really, the fundamental part of the conflict is that Science hinges on reason and Christianity doesn’t. There is no reason to believe that souls exist, but Christians still believe in them. Are scientists required to respect these views? No more than they are required to accept Astrology, which makes considerably more sense than Christianity.

    I love how you hubristically state that “Richard Dawkins and Charles Dawin are mere pawns in this cosmic drama.” Richard Dawkins and Charles Darwin (how stupid are you that you can’t spell anything right?) are called scientists. They discover things. Get used to it.

    J. Frantz

    March 7, 2008 at 12:14 am

  4. “I beg you sir, please provide me with things [science] have proved religion to be wrong by.”

    Don’t forget geocentrism. That’s a big one, from astronomy.

    Then there are some that haven’t been strictly disproven, but are so contrary to the reality we live in: that (really) dead people can come back to life; that magic apples exist; that talking snakes exist; that you can turn water into wine (or other such alchemy-based explanations); that the paranormal exists (e.g. spirits, angels, demons, etc.)… should I keep going?

    … superstition, basically…

    Dan

    March 7, 2008 at 9:38 am

  5. 1. Regarding the videoclip, does Cooper (or Dawkinswatch) understand what “metaphor” means?

    I’m not sure. It certainly seems that neither of them do, although Cooper does recognize that the Prometheus myth is just that – a myth. Hard to say whether he understands that the Lucifer story is a myth also.

    2. Cooper clearly doesn’t understand the humanist position on capital punishment, if that’s how he describes it.

    — His reasoning, if that’s what you want to call it, is pretty muddled though. I couldn’t even tell if he was ranting against the priesthood and their ‘hidden knowledge,’ or the humanists, who he doesn’t describe in any rational terms at all.

    Dan

    March 7, 2008 at 9:55 am

  6. edit this on March 7, 2008 at 12:14 am3 J. Frantz
    The entirety of the Genesis story isn’t true. That’s one thing.

    But really, the fundamental part of the conflict is that Science hinges on reason and Christianity doesn’t. There is no reason to believe that souls exist, but Christians still believe in them. Are scientists required to respect these views? No more than they are required to accept Astrology, which makes considerably more sense than Christianity.

    I love how you hubristically state that “Richard Dawkins and Charles Dawin are mere pawns in this cosmic drama.” Richard Dawkins and Charles Darwin (how stupid are you that you can’t spell anything right?) are called scientists. They discover things. Get used to it.

    reply: What do mean the Genesis story is not right? If I debated with you I would surely destroy you because I could easily give you archeological proof that the book of Genesis is true.

    Glad you have recognise a spelling mistake and that makes you a genius. That must make you feel better about yourself, you are a genius.

    dawkinswatch

    March 7, 2008 at 1:18 pm

  7. Dan

    Your reason for not believing in God are miracles? Well i will post an interesting video of water turning to wine. And every miracle you question.

    William Cooper was explaining the Luciferian philosophy which is found in freemasonry. The story of prometheus is a metaphor for Lucifer providing the gift of intellect or enlightenment.

    Gnosticism is about worhipping knowledge and the provider of knowledge Lucifer (lightbringer).

    This is a large area and I would direct you to Albert Pike “Morals and Dogma” and Manley P Hall’s ” Secret teaching of All Ages” if you want to find out about the Luciferian philosophy.

    You cannot dismiss it so easily simply because it is an undercurrent in both Eastern and Western Philosophy. Where does a Nitsche get the idea of a superman?
    Just because you do not believe in it does not mean that no one believes in it.

    I have written about Eistein and Newton’s involvement in Theosophy and freemasonry before.

    dawkinswatch

    March 7, 2008 at 1:41 pm

  8. You’re not all that well-educated, are you?

    Dan

    March 7, 2008 at 2:28 pm

  9. Well I think being educated at the London School of Economics, I must be a terribly educated.

    I have not Insulted your education because I do not know what your education level is,

    dawkinswatch

    March 7, 2008 at 2:53 pm

  10. Dang, forgot to close the hyperlink. Well, there’s one typo for me.

    Dan

    March 7, 2008 at 3:02 pm

  11. By the way, for your English (fifth item), is there a chance that you’re just not a native English speaker? Otherwise, I might have to read this and take it literally:

    “I must be a terribly educated”

    A terribly educated what?

    Dan

    March 7, 2008 at 3:17 pm

  12. “reply: What do mean the Genesis story is not right? If I debated with you I would surely destroy you because I could easily give you archeological proof that the book of Genesis is true.”

    Then “easily give” it to me right here on this board. Go ahead; nothing is stopping you.

    “Glad you have recognise a spelling mistake and that makes you a genius. That must make you feel better about yourself, you are a genius.”

    Oh, I didn’t say that I was a genius. I just pointed out how disrespectful it is to write like a 7-year-old.

    J. Frantz

    March 7, 2008 at 4:34 pm

  13. Here’s the comment again explaining why I asked why Dawkinswatch was not all that bright:

    Sorry, I should probably explain why I said that…

    First off, because you said this: “What do mean the Genesis story is not right? If I debated with you I would surely destroy you because I could easily give you archeological proof that the book of Genesis is true.” Ignorant in the extreme (See #1).

    Second, you (and Cooper) are talking about “Luciferian philosophy” as though you had a point, but you’re not following through on making that point. Inept.

    Third, in an earlier comment on another thread, when the subject of the order of books in the Torah is mentioned, you go and look in the Bible. Not so bright.

    Fourth, in your “About me” you refer to Dawkins as a communist. Let’s spell it out for you: economics has nothing to do with either theism or atheism.

    Fifth, horrible spelling. This isn’t just one or two typos – this is every single sentence, just about. They let you out of HS?

    Sixth, you claim to not be an animal. What are you then, a plant?!

    Dan

    March 7, 2008 at 6:48 pm

  14. J. Frantz
    “reply: What do mean the Genesis story is not right? If I debated with you I would surely destroy you because I could easily give you archeological proof that the book of Genesis is true.”

    Then “easily give” it to me right here on this board. Go ahead; nothing is stopping you.

    “Glad you have recognise a spelling mistake and that makes you a genius. That must make you feel better about yourself, you are a genius.”

    Oh, I didn’t say that I was a genius. I just pointed out how disrespectful it is to write like a 7-year-old.

    That makes you a genius.

    dawkinswatch

    March 7, 2008 at 10:06 pm

  15. I do not have to prove anything to you, like I said if it makes you sleep better at night, you are entitled to your own opinion.

    Dan and J Frantz you are the most intellectually adept people I have ever met.

    dawkinswatch

    March 7, 2008 at 10:12 pm

  16. What you mean is that you have nothing to back up your position, and are content to hold us in contempt without actually arguing your point.

    Hey, thanks for the compliment.

    J. Frantz

    March 7, 2008 at 11:15 pm

  17. “I do not have to prove anything to you, like I said if it makes you sleep better at night, you are entitled to your own opinion.”

    That would be true if you weren’t evangelizing your faith as fact. Alas, that IS what you’ve built this site to do.

    Dan

    March 8, 2008 at 7:32 am

  18. I’m interested in this “evidence” proving the genesis myths true. There must be some enormous conspiracy keeping the truth hidden on this one. Either that, or your evidence isn’t actually evidence, or doesn’t actually support the argument you think/hope it does 🙂

    Havok

    March 11, 2008 at 5:37 am

  19. Dawkinswatch,

    With your writing, both it’s style and the inane ideas you have, I strongly doubt that you attended the London School of Economics. I doubt it so much that I am simply dismissing you as a liar.

    That is, of course, nothing new from the creationist, anti-science fold. Lying for Jesus is practically a second career for most people of that kind.

    This is my last word on this blog. You have shown yourself to simply not be worth my time. You are a fool and a liar. You are willfully ignorant and arrogant about it. You ignore science and history in favor of cock-eyed internet videos. Here is something you may want to consider: Internet videos are very poor source material. You have no idea what evidence is and is not.

    Mike

    March 12, 2008 at 12:58 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: