Butterflyleo:


Yet he said and I quote from another source



He used the word CREATED TWICE and order and rules and intelligence. He was now trying to explain what he meant as a scientist. He made it clear that if anyone implied from his comment that he was referring to God they should know that God cannot be proven or disproven by science since science would not be scientific if it goes outside science.

He only expanded his comment based on the understanding it was given.

He still used the words CREATE and GOD and also slammed science for wanted to prove or disprove God. That's not a rejection of God, that's an intelligent man who saw intelligence behind the universe and rules behind this intelligence. Rules that chance could not have brought about.

Michio Kaku accepts evolution. He is not a creationist. Guy, stop lying. What kind of christian lies 10 times a day without flinching?


Here is Michio Kaku talking about evolution


https://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=NG&hl=en-GB&v=UkuCtIko798

Butterflyleo:


Yet he said and I quote from another source



He used the word CREATED TWICE and order and rules and intelligence. He was now trying to explain what he meant as a scientist. He made it clear that if anyone implied from his comment that he was referring to God they should know that God cannot be proven or disproven by science since science would not be scientific if it goes outside science.

He only expanded his comment based on the understanding it was given.

He still used the words CREATE and GOD and also slammed science for wanted to prove or disprove God. That's not a rejection of God, that's an intelligent man who saw intelligence behind the universe and rules behind this intelligence. Rules that chance could not have brought about.

Obgbeni post the source let's see it in details. That was how you quoted a misrepresentation of his position. Bring the source let's examine it.

superhumanist:




Michio Kaku accepts evolution. He is not a creationist. Guy, stop lying. What kind of christian lies 10 times a day without flinching?


Here is Michio Kaku talking about evolution


https://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=NG&hl=en-GB&v=UkuCtIko798

. I tire for the guy.

Dalamama:


. I tire for the guy.

God is The Supreme Spirit. Under Him in Heaven, there are:-
Lucifer and Jesus;
Darkness and Light;
Search and Knowns;
Missing and Availables;
Disobedience and Obedience;
Indiscipline and Discipline;
Selfishness and Righteousness;
All of the above are Spirits of The Supreme Spirit. The unwritten Rule was, you use what you have to get what you don't have. Trade by Barter-The Original law of God. So those Spirits on the right were intended to brighten up those on the left.
Vagyna falls on the left and Penees on right. But Anus is a common factor. You have Anus. I have Anus. Use your Penees or Vagyna to bleep your own Anus not mine. It doesn't fit. The introduction of money to buy my Anus to use when you cannot use yours, is a waste, corruption and complicating. This is the greed and the indiscipline of "SAME-SEX-MARRIAGES".

The Philosophers are right. All Atheists are "Mama Bleepers, Anus Hunters and Same-Sex-Blunders". They feel and go: no more rational reasoning before interactions.. The higher they are in the Society, the more Garbage they feed into the Society, the more unreasonable is their approach. Or isn't it irrationally unreasonble for any group to assert that they wrote The Bible without same-sex-marriage, which the World has accepted without blemish till now and that they alone can freely and irrationally rewrite the Bible couched in obscene tongues? They just don't believe anything again. Capitalism, they are redefining, rebranding and reparkaging for us.

Canterbury is planning to rewrite The Bible. What are New Atheists' Contributions?

orisa37:
The Philosophers are right. All Atheists are "Mama Bleepers, Anus Hunters and Same-Sex-Blunders". They feel and go: no more rational reasoning before interactions.. The higher they are in the Society, the more Garbage they feed into the Society, the more unreasonable is their approach. Or isn't it irrationally unreasonble for any group to assert that they wrote The Bible without same-sex-marriage, which the World has accepted without blemish till now and that they alone can freely and irrationally rewrite the Bible couched in obscene tongues? They just don't believe anything again. Capitalism, they are redefining, rebranding and reparkaging for us.

Keep quiet if you have nothing sensible to say.

superhumanist:


Keep quiet if you have nothing sensible to say.

.

Thank you. By their fruits, we shall know them.

orisa37:
.


Thank you. By their fruits, we shall know them.

Your fruits too are showing.

You are a fundamentalist Christian. Intolerant towards atheists, gays and pagans.


If you were in Christ shoes, you would have stoned the prostitute. You want gays to be treated like animals.

Pharisee.

So U're Gay and an Atheist? Let's keep interacting. I like to win U for Christ. How do U know these words, Pharisee, Stoned, Christ etc?

orisa37:
So U're Gay and an Atheist? Let's keep interacting. I like to win U for Christ. How do U know these words, Pharisee, Stoned, Christ etc?

This is how I know that you are a typical Nigerian christian. Who told you that I am gay?

Are you assuming that I'm gay because I defend gay rights? Is everyone that supports gay rights, gay? Is Obama gay just because he supports gay rights? I am a straight man who loves women. I am not gay.


Your fruits are showing. Ignorance, intolerance, prejudice and hypocrisy.

The Philosophers are saying that New Atheists don't KNOW THE BIBLE well enough to criticise God.

Butterflyleo? How far now? You ran after being intellectually pounded?

OLAADEGBU:


How did New Atheism obtain this identity for itself?
the-four-horseman

1. They use people's ignorance to their advantage.
Most people who attend atheist conferences and events are laymen. Most people who read the books of Harris, Hitchens, and Dawkins are laymen. Most have not taken any courses in philosophy or had formal training in logic. Most are under-educated in the areas of religious studies and theology.

Most have not graduated from post-secondary with a relevant degree. Most have not read the works of Plantinga, Dr Craig, Moreland, or other professional Christian philosophers who have spent decades reading, writing, and formulating thoughts on these topics.

It's perfectly fine to be a layman in these questions, but the problem is it makes people extremely vulnerable to fallacious arguments, rhetoric, and sophistry. This makes people susceptible to being hypnotized by the wit and cleverness of people such as Dawkins.

2. They use people's resentment and pain to their advantage.
A great deal of atheists, whether they will admit it or not, have either pain or anger stored up against the church and Christian faith. Some have even been spiritually, physically, or emotionally abused by people who call themselves Christians. Hypocrisy has filled people with frustration, resentment, and negative emotional charge towards both God and those who believe in Him.

3. They use their rock-star status as scientists to their advantage.
Scientists have a very strange and undeserved authority in our society. They are listened to even when they speak about something totally outside of their discipline and area of expertise. A scientist can write a book on theology, culture, politics, or philosophy and sell a million copies. Take Sam, Harris for example, a neuroscientist who consistently writes best sellers on topics of politics, religion, and morality.

These books are poorly received by experts in these fields, and along with the works of Hitchens and Dawkins, will go down in history as making absolutely no positive academic or scholarly impact in any way. Just because someone has a Ph.D. in plant biology or particle physics does not mean they are fit to write about theology or philosophy.

Scientists are the only ones who can get away with being writing sloppy, uncareful material about subjects they know next to nothing about. They carry a celebrity-type status that brings their listeners into intellectual submission, regardless of how learned they are in the discipline they are commenting on.

So when we have millions of laymen with the sour taste of religion in their mouth sitting under scientists who are posturing themselves as experts, the result is a cultural renaissance of "new atheism." That is, until, their works get reviewed by professors of religion, or professors of theology, or professors of philosophy:

"THE GOD DELUSION MAKES ME ASHAMED TO BE AN ATHEIST." ⁽¹⁾

http://reasonsforjesus.com/new- atheists-are-not-intellectually-bright-philosophers-agree/

Are the New Atheists the intellectually elite? Not quite.

It may surprise some, but "God Is Not Great" and "The God Delusion" contributed absolutely nothing to the discussions had at an academic level regarding questions theology and Christianity.

More can be said about these atheists, in particular how Dawkins refuses to debate William Lane Craig (professional philosopher and theologian) and has even been called a coward by an atheist colleague of his because of this.

But for now, let's conclude by facing the most basic of facts:

Harris is a neuroscientist, Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, Hitchens was a journalist, and Krauss is a theoretical physicist. They are laymen in all areas involving questions of God and religion, and their works will go down in history as being, at the most, fun yet useless contributions to questions of God and religion.

They deserve love from Christians and non-Christians. They deserve our prayer. But they do not deserve the cultural pedestal they have inherited. Their success is built on sensationalism, marketing, and rhetoric, not argumentative substance.

We will close with a quote from leading philosopher and professor at Notre Dame University Alvin Plantinga who doesn't hold a very high view of Dawkins' efforts:

"YOU MIGHT SAY THAT SOME OF HIS FORAYS INTO PHILOSOPHY ARE AT BEST SOPHOMORIC, BUT THAT WOULD BE UNFAIR TO SOPHOMORES; THE FACT IS… MANY OF HIS ARGUMENTS WOULD RECEIVE A FAILING GRADE IN A SOPHOMORE PHILOSOPHY CLASS." ⁽²⁾