Does God Exist?

@Quehoniaomath,
a) I was limiting the context to being able to claim genuine knowledge of the non-existence of a god; I wasn't giving him a blanket endorsement.

b) In order to believe that what Sheldrake claims about Dawkins' intellectual dishonesty, you have to presume Sheldrake's honesty, and believe you me, there are a LOT of people who strongly doubt that.

(As for me, I have a certain degree of sympathy for Sheldrake when he says that science has become dogmatic

, but when he goes into his claims about telepathy, etc, I remain thoroughly skeptical. The evidence he presents is partial and poorly controlled, as far as I've seen so far. I suspend judgment on that until more data is collected, analyzed and peer reviewed.)

c) At the end, he explains that an assistant had misinformed him of the purpose of the visit, and the producer of the show agreed that the assistant was at fault. That in no way implicates Dawkins himself

I don't care how many people doubt that. It is not important at all,
I only care if it is true or not, Not how popular it is.
popularity is no measure for truth. I might think you are aware of this,

I really think it is even more dogmatic then he claims. It is really a religion. No rational and real critical thinking allowed. I know they say it is allowed, but in actuallity it isn't.

As I have stated in my thread about ESP, the evidence is more then overwhelming,
Now it is up to you to look at it, or not.That is, the evidence.

...there is more that show that Dawkins is very dishonest,
especially when it comes to esp and that sort of a thing.Furthermore he is not even qualified to talk about these things. Why? Simple, he hasn't researched the evidence and he showes he is extremely biased.
Strange thing for someone in his function!(Public Understanding of Science)
He does a lot of harm.

Which thread? Got a link? I'll give it a look.

I don't doubt that he's biased, but having a bias isn't intellectual dishonesty. I think most of us are biased in one way or another, if nothing else because we each are shaped by our time, location and culture. Unfair bias is another thing.

Dawkins is indeed unfair biased.He is extremely dishonest.

If he did that, he'd be on the side of theism..

FBM said to me: It's also possible to FEEL with the very same absolute certainty that Santa Claus is bringing the gifts or that you're getting your engrams stimulated

Neologist said: I pretty much meant your idea of the resurrection, Romeo.. I simply wish to know if you believe your father will be there...

Neologist said: Romeo. In the resurrection, let us hope there is a high probability you will both be alive. Then, in the coming millenia, you are bound to meet. The question focuses on that event. Will you continue to call him a little s^&*t? If he continues to revile you, how would that fit in with the purpose of a loving God?

Quote:

Which thread? Got a link? I'll give it a look.

http://able2know.org/topic/246606-1

please read this:

VICTOR J. ZAMMIT LAWYER rebuts Prof. Richard Dawkins, scientist, re the paranormal .
http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/dawkins.html

Quote:

If he did that, he'd be on the side of theism..

The usual partial response.

Unless you can provide a method of restraining our animal passions in the interests of social accord it is a dishonest response.

I assume you accept that the free exercise of those passions is a recipe for social discord and despotism.

Perhaps if you looked into the activities of Roman emperors whose passions were not restrained you might more readily see the point of Theism.

Nero, Caligula and Commodus should be sufficient but if not I can add a few more.

Romeo. In the resurrection, let us hope there is a high probability you will both be alive. Then, in the coming millenia, you are bound to meet. The question focuses on that event. Will you continue to call him a little s^&*t? If he continues to revile you, how would that fit in with the purpose of a loving God?

. . . .According to my Bible, in the resurrection all tears will be wiped dry and there will be no remembrance of this life. . . .

With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his people. And God himself will be with them. 4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.”

OK, but that doesn't present any evidence of anything, including Dawkins' alleged intellectual dishonesty. It's just some guy's opinion. We need genuine evidence in order to make a fair and informed decision. Sheldrake has such evidence concerning James Randii; that's why he can openly call him a liar and not get charged with slander.

Strange reaction indeed!
My guess is you haven't read or understood it at all!!!
Or you are deep in some sort of denial.
How can it be more clear?
we are not talking opinions here.Otherwise start studying the work about the afterlife by Victor.

A brief summary:

• Why was Prof. Dawkins not honest enough to report the huge amount of critical objective psi evidence by some of the most intelligent scientists which are changing the world to-day?

• A brilliant Ph.D physicist (Dr Fred Alan Wolf known as Dr Quantum) traveling the world lecturing on his book How Quantum Physics Proves the Existence of the Soul knows that post-physical consciousness is the greatest discovery in human history. If Dawkins disagrees with that, why has not
Dr. Dawkins tried to properly and legitimately rebut his work in context of quantum physics? That would be honest. That would show high integrity and full professional responsibility.

• Other Ph.Ds are using strict scientific method to control, measure, quantify non-physical energy in the mediumship context. This is all revolutionary stuff in science. Why is Dawkins as quiet as a mouse in these matters?

• For more on scientists succeeding in empirically investigating non-physical energy – the paranormal/afterlife go to my book.