• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

Richard Dawkins and the Pope – two peas in a pod?

Devil’s advocate here to annoy you all again – sorry, it’s in my nature.

I’d like to pose a paradoxical thesis that the two gentlemen mentioned above are practially one and the same. The progressive, self-proclaimed consciousness raiser Dawkins and his disposal of God as a delusion, and the pope, most faithful of all believers in Christ.

Why? I’m bored, I guess. But maybe I can get a rise out of someone.

So here’s the reason:

Dawkins, a consummate atheist, is fully aware that he chooses to be one. His disposal of God in his book “The God Delusion” is tight as a drum. His arguments are ironclad. There is absolutely, unequivocally, indisputably no physical evidence whatsoever of God. The only evidence we have gathered so far about the universe and the world we live in suggests only that we do indeed exist. God is make-believe.

The pope, a consummate christian, is fully aware that he chooses to be one. His defence of God in his book “The Bible”, is also tight as a drum. His arguments are also ironclad. There is indeed absolutely, unequivocally, indisputably no physical evidence whatsoever of God. The pope believes in God nevertheless, who is therefore “make-believe”. This doesn’t bother the pope because he operates on what is known as “faith” ( a belief in something that cannot be proven). 

So what?

Well, according to the bible, God does not play favorites (we do, but that’s another story). All it takes for God to credit us with faith is a mustard seed of it. Dawkins has it – he knows that he can’t disprove God’s existence so he must by his own admission leave the door open at least a crack. He does not like it, but he is honest enough to admit it. The pope is also credited by God with faith. He knows that he cannot “prove” God’s existence. He keeps his door wide open anyway.

Dawkins actively disbelieves in God whereas the pope actively believes. These are not two equivalent forms of faith and it is not the point being made here. The point is that God does not differentiate between a cracked door and a wide open one. The pope gets a gold star, and so does Sir Richard.

The two gentlemen are “practically” the same because faith doesn’t get scored based on “how much” of it one possesses. Otherwise the score would be about a million to one in favor of the pope. The bible says that “faith without works is dead”. What this means to me is not that one doesn’t have faith if one doesn’t act like it or that one has “more and more” faith the more one acts on it. What it means is that one’s faith will eventually die if one does not act. Richard Dawkins acted in analyzing his own belief system – albeit in an agressively anti-religion kind of way. It brought him to the admission that he can’t deny the possibility. He gets an A from God. The pope isn’t the teacher’s pet. He get’s an A, too, though.  

Salvation is a different thing altogether, though…

That’s my pontification for today.

About these ads

5 Responses

  1. I have met neither man, but have listened to Mr. Dawkins more often than Pope Benedict.

    I much prefer the Pope from what I have learned. Within his care and thought, there must be considerably less certitude and more wondering about life and its origin than with this modern Englishman, for Mr. Dawkins has none.

    However, in terms of snot value, Mr. Dawkins is king of us all.

  2. I just checked the WSJ online and this article appears in today’s journal

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597314928257169.html

    An excerpt:

    “Mr. McGinn began by commenting that it was eminently rational to suppose that Santa Claus doesn’t exist even if one cannot definitively prove that he doesn’t. Likewise, he argued, we can apply the same logic to the supposed existence of God. The moderator of the session, Bill Brinkman, a reporter with some religious inclination, surprised me by bursting out in response, “Then I guess you are a rational atheist.”

    As a rational atheist, he gets an A!

  3. There is indeed absolutely, unequivocally, indisputably no physical evidence whatsoever of God.

    The Psalmist says: “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth His handywork.” (Ps. 19:1).

    Faith is the evidence of that which is unseen; faith is the substance of things hoped for. The faith in God of countless billions throughout the ages is itself a powerful testimony to His existence.

    • The faith in God of countless billions throughout the ages is itself a powerful testimony to His existence.

      When I talk about evidence I’m talking about physical evidence. Faith is “evidence” to the extent that so many people have it – so there must be something supporting that faith. There is power in that, but I’m not talking about that kind of “evidence”.

      The point I’m making is that we (including those who despise religion) who are rational and honest must leave the door open a crack. God credits that as faith. So should we. That’s all.

      Thanks

    • Most modern Americans, particularly critics of religions fail to recognize the meaning of the word, FAITH. They can only lazer beam their thoughts on your introductory sentence, tpkatsa, “There is indeed absolutely, unequivocally, indisputably no physical evidence whatsoever of God.”
      Faith is a belief in something or someone or even in an idea, especially without logical proof.
      Personally, being interested in religion at an early age, I thought belief in God was quite logical. I believed evil exists. Since I had been taught every force has a counterforce, it seemed logical this also applied to God, ie, good, as the opposite of evil. It would then be easy to go further and accept that God is all knowledge, versus the opposite force, total ignorance.
      I have never found sufficient challenge to sway my juvenile thoughts on this matter, so I have never changed them.
      Atheism is just another religion, one that is a counterforce for religion.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 338 other followers

%d bloggers like this: