Well-heeled, tax-exempt charlatan

D12 self-assesses with all humility:

'This Daniel person has a true obsession with ideas--all ideas--an almost sexual obsession precisely because he is fortunate to experience ecstasy not confined to the act of sex. He has a sensitive ear, eye, mind--every day he wakes up if not from an erotic dream then to the very real possibility of experiencing ecstasy in other form. And his preferred method of communicating this ecstasy is in written form.'
_______________

Personally, I'll take a dead Oral Roberts. His days of ecstatic self-adulation are now thankfully over......

Close Barferio, close--but not close enough.

This Daniel person has a true obsession with ideas--all ideas--an almost sexual obsession precisely because he is fortunate to experience ecstasy not confined to the act of sex. He has a sensitive ear, eye, mind--every day he wakes up if not from an erotic dream then to the very real possibility of experiencing ecstasy in other form. And his preferred method of communicating this ecstasy is in written form.

This daniel person has a true obsession with atheists, an almost sexual obsession with atheism.

He puts forth the same kind of hypergraphic BS that you see from the religiously ill.

He is a troll. He is not worth your attention.

Oral has gone.
We must carry on.

Daniel,

I largely agree with you. (My brief disagreement: there are eastern traditions of science (ayurveda, politics, law, mathematics, astronomy) and empirical science was well on its way before christianity in the west stopped that progress.)

I wonder if you could identify the a priori, ergo logical, errors in the atheist position and the a posteriori, consequental, errors in the atheist perspective as you see it. I believe they deserve separate treatment.

hariaum

Sorry! Correction of some errors in typing:

The last sentence of part three needs a comma and should read "Candide exists to show us existence is not fundamentally good, that the existence of God is questionable".

The first sentence of part five should read: "Now of course the question is begged how at all..." In other words I misspelled the word "of" and wrote the word "at" twice.

The second to the last sentence of part five should read: "Need I continue?" and the last sentence of part five should end "...the creature which by their own admission has been mad for millennia upon millennia".

Part one. On atheists

Modern atheists seem to be mindbogglingly dense, utterly without knowledge of their own position. Certainly without any understanding of the fact that the more an intellectual position tries to be grand, tries to be a view within which all partial views of existence such as evolution or relativity theory or any number of lesser scientific observations exist, the more the view automatically has problems as to logic, to be specific contradictory statements start to creep in. In fact even in partial explanations of existence contradiction is not rare. A good modern example is in quantum theory being either able to calculate the position of a particle or its velocity but not both at the same time. Actually this is something of a paradox than contradiction proper, but paradox and contradiction are rife in human views. And probably the most familiar is the problem of the individual with respect to society--how to reconcile freedom with social obligation.

Now in religion we of course have problems such as how God can possibly be good when of course evil exists. If God is as powerful as stated he must have created evil. And if one wants to get out of it by saying God is not all powerful and that he did not create evil we arrive at the problem of how he can possibly guarantee salvation to even the most saintly of us, for his heaven is just not guaranteed, his triumph over evil not assured. This is just a basic problem with religion that the religious try to play down and atheists play up as far as they are capable. Atheists have absolutely no problem recognizing such a problem, they never tire of pointing out the logical inconsistencies of religion.

Part two.

And of course the religious defend their position for all they are worth, not giving an inch. But shockingly atheists do the same. They take their position as impregnable logically. I have never even heard of an atheist admitting a shortcoming to his view. Atheists are as dogmatic as the religious about their position. And what makes it all the more strange is that one would think atheists would be aware of the basic philosophical understanding that, as already mentioned, no grand view is logically consistent, all grand views are flawed. If a grand view could be arrived at which is not flawed, then all science would merely be detail, the universe would be essentially solved for us.

And I should also mention that a reason why both the religious and atheistic are so dogmatic about their respective positions, and why political and economic ideologies are so entrenched is that for all capacity of the individual to be individual, when it comes down to it every individual does not want his intellectual views to die with him, he wants to hold a view that is agreeable to the collective of humanity. People can stand dying, but something of themselves must live on, and of all things they insist their basic understanding of existence will live on. The religious of course go a step further. They hope in salvation after death as well as that their religious idea will exist after their death. Atheists do not believe in life after death, but they fully expect their view to go on beyond the individual's death and in fact expect atheism to supersede religion. To put it as simply as possible, the less a person feels his overall view of life is shared by others, the more he begins to feel mortal. One of the most open secrets of man is that people strive to hold views which others share so they can live on through others. And they continue striving to hold such views even though the larger and more encompassing the view the more it has problems as to logic. People just overlook these problems.

Part three.

Now atheism has problems of logic all its own. It is a well known fact that religion in the West helped the birth of science even though in its more dogmatic forms religion retarded science. By comparison religion in the East truly retarded science by holding such concepts as maya, that existence is illusion and to be dispelled by pure morality leading one to enlightenment. In the Eastern view there was simply no incentive to look into existence because it was taken as illusion. In the West however, incentive was great because the conception of God's order was held, that a plan exists and man can discover it. This view of religion in the West helped birth science and science in turn affected religion and turned it to deism, natural law and into a large part of the philosophical basis of the French and American revolutions.

It was held that, for all downplaying of religion, an order exists, that there are laws behind existence that man can discover through his own reason upon nature. And instead of man being really sinful, man is fundamentally good, has natural rights, natural law. And the political view of freedom, democracy, should exist as an expression of God's desire that man live reasonably in an orderly and nonviolent fashion. Well, despite the modifications of religion to this view compatible with science--and modern democracy, I might add--atheism existed which sought to wipe out every trace of religion. This meant downplaying order, goodness in existence to discredit the view that God is good. The view of atheism depends on existence not being fundamentally good, for the more existence seems good to man the more it seems a benevolent God is behind it. One would not have even considered the position of atheist if the universe did not demonstrate questionable aspects from the perspective of God being good. A famous example of this atheist action is Voltaire in Candide mocking the religious notion that we live in the best of possible worlds. Candide exists to show us existence is not fundamentally good that the existence of God is questionable.

Part four.

But atheists in attacking religion to this degree also put themselves at odds with science, for the scientific enterprise depended--and still depends--on the view that there is a positive order behind things. Atheists discredit such a view and even use science to demonstrate such. Atheists bring up entropy, evolution, etc. as demonstrations that for all order which might help man behind the universe the universe is fundamentally indifferent to man. This of course is the famous/notorious purely naturalistic view, which holds that man had no special beginning and is destined in the end to failure.

No difficulty seeing that. Basic intellectual history of Western civilization. Now we can instantly see a problem with atheism holding this naturalistic view. How can reason exist in the first place, and how can such a thing be improved, when it is something confined to, so far as we know, only planet earth in a vast and indifferent universe? And how can morality exist in the first place and be improved? How can atheists say at all that in dispensing with religion and moving to an atheistic view of the world that progress will at all be guaranteed? But atheists speak as if reason, morality and progress are all so evident especially after we dispense with religion. And what makes this problem all the more glaring is that atheists never tire of telling us the religious are deluded, in fact mentally ill, which means atheists are telling us that they, with their reason, can bring this creature called man, who has been mentally ill (religious) over all his history to reason--and furthermore this mentally ill creature called man lives in an utterly indifferent universe which apparently to modern atheists is no great challenge to man.

Part five.

Now off course the question is begged how at at all atheists can succeed at this project which has come to mind as a consequence of their elimination of the concept of religion. They dispense with religion, yes, but at the price of having for themselves the project of enlightening the fundamentally mad creature man in a universe which cares nothing for him and will destroy him in the end. It is transparently obvious that atheists have got themselves into a typical bind which arrives typically the more a person tries to arrive at a large, total, encompassing view of existence. In fact this bind atheists have gotten themselves into demands that they perform miracles--for what is it to save the mad creature man (fundamentally religious) in the indifferent universe than a miracle? Certainly atheists should admit there is at least some difficulty placed on man in holding the view of atheism. But do we hear of even the slightest difficulty from atheists--an admission of difficulty? Not at all. Atheism by atheists is taken as evident, and that life will just get better without religion.

I have just given a fundamental problem with atheism and of course the denial of atheists concerning this problem. I will now describe it even clearer to show what atheists are asking of us. First apparently atheists have faith in reason. But they have, first, reason somehow existing in an indifferent universe. Second, they have the notion that it can be improved. Third, they have this reason supposedly existing in man when in their own words man has been virtually mad all his history holding the delusion of religion. And need I continue? Do I have to add how it can possibly be atheists are so confident of their reason when they too are men, the creature by their own admission has been mad for millennia upon millennia?

Part six.

Atheists face a clear problem here. But now I should admit that I have become an atheist--I have reasoned my way, with no real help from atheists, to this position. Atheists have always felt I am attacking them and supporting religion--even when I explicitly state problems with religion--but I approach all intellectual positions vigorously and with the demand that they be open about problems and possibilities. Atheists have taken me as a true enemy, but now they will come to understand that the best friend is a former enemy--because the enemy in attacking a position and then being reconciled to it knows all its weaknesses and how in the end despite these weaknesses it is stronger than the alternative view. I have found in exposing as much as possible the weaknesses of atheism a viewpoint concerning it which is dangerous to religion.

What I mean is first, of course I know the atheists posit an indifferent universe, and that a mad creature (religious) called man exists in this universe, and that this creature aspires to something he calls reason when the question is begged how such a thing in the first place can arise in an indifferent universe. Well, all these things might be true yes, but what does it mean if man accepts this problem? My answer is that if man accepts this problem it demonstrates he has faith, faith greater than any religious faith: He has faith in himself. The religious form of faith is a dependency, man having faith in God and being dependent on him. The atheist's faith is to have faith in oneself--a far more difficult faith. And this idea is dangerous to religion because the religious never tire of throwing the word faith in the face of atheists. Well they can do so no more. The atheist can say he has faith in himself, man, and that with insight, duty, responsibility man can--or at at least should--fend for himself. And interestingly enough, and to the chagrin of the religious, the atheist can paradoxically go back to believing in God--just not as the religious do of course. The atheist can say "God? sure he exists, but so what? Why bother the old man? Let him be. Man does not need God anymore. We can do things for ourselves. For after all, how did God become God? HE BECAME GOD BECAUSE HE LEARNED TO DO THINGS FOR HIMSELF. ONLY A BEING THAT DOES THINGS FOR ITSELF CAN BE CALLED OMNIPOTENT, OMNISCIENT, ETC. Man is learning to do things for himself. And perhaps that is arriving at something of heaven. Certainly it is arriving at something of God".

@DANIEL12

You've said a few times that the atheist view has logical problems, and that atheists refuse to accept or recognize those problems. Can you please state what these logical problems are. Don't just assert that they exist, and that they are denied.

If you can see logical problems with the atheist view (not believing in god) then it would make sense to share them so they can be discussed and, maybe, shown to be an actual problem or a misunderstanding of what the atheistic view is.

In "The Blank Slate" by Stephen Pinker, previously the Director of the Center for Cognitive Neouroscience at MIT makes a case the the desire to share a common belief in a supernatural, and after life existance is a survival trait that has been "hardwired" into the human psyche over 250,000 yrs of evolution. He is talking about religions from the very earliest animist and shamans through the very advanced religions of Buddhism and Jainism.

But he does not attempt to make the connection to any spiritual reality. Humans have had so many diverse belief systems, most of them mutually exclusive that Occams razor tells us that since they can't all be 'true' the most obvious answer is that NONE of the worlds religions are 'true'.

Your fervent belief in your religion has no more value than a Roman's belief in Jupiter or an ancient Vikings belief in Odin.
The amazing thing is that humans ARE EVOLVING. A great many are able to overcome the "hardwiring" and look at irrational belief systems and declare them so. And from that learn that any human can be as capable at creating an ethical world view as any of the priest, prophets or fiction authors that created the worlds religions. Unless you believe that all of the worlds religions have been 'true' and there are a million gods with a million names and attributes the you must admit that at least all but one(yours?) were created by men, fiction authors, to explain the unknowable or control other men. Once again the obvious answer is that all religions are works of fiction.

"You have no evidence for your gods, that's the only assertion we make."

I make the same assertion and I don't consider myself an atheist. My position is this - the existence of gods is unknown, it can neither be proven nor disproven, but the burden of proof is on the assertion that gods exist. I define atheism as a positive stance that gods don't exist. But I'm less interested in defining atheism and more interested in making a distinction between my stance and the positive stance.

When Dawkins dismisses the followers of Oral Roberts as stupid, that's not just rude but also misses the larger issue. The Roberts prosperity gospel seems to have its origins in a much older idea, the just world fallacy. Many religions postulate some version of a just world, and Roberts claimed a much more explicit connection. The idea of an inherently just universe is very seductive because it offers the illusion of an explanation for suffering. The obvious, but unstated, implication of his gospel was that lack of wealth was attributable to unbelief or sin. That was a common belief before Roberts and it lingers today. Roberts' indulgence of that fallacy probably did much more damage to the psyche of the human race than did his public demands for money.

Oral's Prayer

Watch old Oral on your TV
His Prayer of Jabez is there to see

He spins a web of selfishness
Trades on folk's fears of their illness

"And Jabez called on God by saying,
'Oh, that You would bless old Oral's braying,

Enlarge the bank accounts he holds,
Your hand guards the bucks he folds,

And that You would keep him from the evils
Of insufficient fund's upheavals.'

So God granted him what he requested."

- I Chronicles 4:10 WSJ

Danuel12

If atheists are trying to prove there is no God, and if they have an argument that there is no God, that is all secondary.

What is primary is that they simply do not believe in God, without arguing, and without proving anything. It is just what seems true to them, or rather, the reality of a God does not seem true to them. There is no argument or proof for may seem true or what may not seem true.

I think you do not understand this. What seems true is something that comes to a person, almost like touched from some external force. If a person cares to make arguments to prove why his belief seems true, that is ok, but it is secondary; it comes AFTER belief, not BEFORE.

Belief is uncontrollalbe and cannot simply be willed this way or that, as thought you can defeat what seems true to you by simple will power.

I've never met any atheists who believe any of that crap you claim. You're sticking words into their mouths and then having an argument with them.

That is truly pathetic.

Poor poor Khote. I have no God to offer you. I clearly stated in my piece that both religion and atheism have logical and/or other problems. Too many of you atheists are exactly like the religious, utterly unwilling to see any defects in your view. If you think the latter is an unjust statement, please point out for me defects in the view of atheism. So far here--on on faith--I have not met any atheist willing to give even an inch. No, the atheist view is perfectly logical, has no problems. Never mind that the view is first a purely naturalistic one--in fact the use of scientific findings such as entropy and the horrors of evolution--to demonstrate clearly that no good God can be behind existence. Existence is utterly indifferent to man in this view. Furthermore man had no special beginning and is destined for no special end--in fact eventually the human race will be defeated by the universe and pass like everything. Now with this view atheists tell us not only that morality and reason exist, but can be improved, in fact best if we all become atheists--progress is then assured. And what makes it even more comical is that atheists constantly call the religious deluded, that religion is a mental illness. So what we have is man, largely a mentally ill animal, because of course religious over virtually all his known history, in an indifferent universe, headed eventually toward failure, to be enlightened by--you guessed it--the atheists...Sounds to me atheists believe in miracles after all. What else do you call it when a group of men and women--atheists--believe they can bring to reason an animal not only in an indifferent universe (which begs how reason can exist in the first place) but an animal by their own admission largely mentally ill for believing in God. What heroic saviors of the human race the atheists are! What is this future polity created by the good atheists to be like? Can we answer this question by contemplating the political entities which have declared themselves atheistic in the past? Say the Soviet Union with its perfect, atheistic worker's paradise? China with its great leap forward under the reign of Mao? The Khmer rouge? No, that would not be fair right? Atheists. No different than the religious. The both claiming perfect logic and no problems with their view. Both with pretensions of saving man. Spare me both atheists and the religious.

Daniel you really are missing the point. Atheists have nothing to prove. You are coming at this from the point of view of a believer, a believer in one of the current crop of gods humanity worships.

That is the believer paradigm, we don't involve ourselves in that. You have no evidence for your gods, that's the only assertion we make. If one were to show up, incontrovertible proof would be there, and that would be the end of atheism.

Still waiting for that proof.

By Memes Distressed

A meme there was that is no more.
On this meme we close the door.

Although this meme they called him Oral,
We have no words to frame a moral.

Therefore we must say goodbye.
He's building his tent up in the sky.

And so we stagger through the fog,
Until this drek is off this blog.

By Memes Possessed

Mediaeval monks they warned of demons
Like Dawkin's memes who's names are Legion

They move from mind to mind with glee
Possessing all who try to flee

Control your dreams and sleep at night
Like succubi that bring delights

They soon displace your reason's rule
Replace the logic learned in schools

And soon control your every thought
Until your subjugation's wrought

Poor old Deluded Dick Dawkins
Whose memes fill dreams with feral grins

But how to stop this mental mess?
Just wear tin foil hats, I guess!

I always found the idea that everything you need to know you learned in kindergarten was absolute nonsense and a slap in the face of learning. We grow deeper and acquire a greater understanding of life as we get older and experience reality in its complexity and simplicity. I hope the idea that we confuse children with discussions of higher constructs of truth is never a litmus test.

The atheist argument has a problem of attempting to prove a non-existence. And logically that is impossible with out conditions. But conditions allow one to test existence and non-existence: There is no human being in the internet. This is very likely to be true understanding the internet is a network of wires and information be calculated by binary digits. If we add the condition that human interfaces are part of the internet, then we can say humans are on the internet. We have changed the question, but still there is lacking evidence of a human being IN the internet.

Thus the problem for the atheist and the theist is an empirical question: under what conditions would we say god exists or does not exist. This brings forth the real question: what is god and what is it to mean when we say existence - this goes beyond empiricism and gets to the deontological argument. But once that is answered, we can answer the empirical question: under these conditions we expect these results that are measurable via....

If we assume, for example, that god is synonymous with truth that is eternal, then we can expect eternal truths - non temporal ones. We can then look at non-temporal relationships and see if we find truths: mathematics. If we say that god of eternal truths is immanent, we can look for immanent eternal truths: statistics. If we say god is morality, we can look for moral eternal truths and find cross species experiments that find moral choice making... and so we can translate the idea of the eternal truth of god to our empirical reality.

But if we say god is this thing that you can't see nor measure but it affects us all. Well, then what's the point of a god that we can't measure?

all this off topic of course.

hariaum

Oral Roberts--religion in general--might be dubious, but the atheist alternative is not without problems of logic and/or other problems. The atheist argument against the existence of God hinges on demonstrating existence to be no definitely positive thing--in fact atheists point out the negatives of existence to demonstrate the nonexistence of God. They do not just say there is no proof of God, as if this statement is not based on evidence in their minds there is no God, no, their saying there is no proof of God is based on examples primarily of existence being negative and therefore without God.

This culminates in the famous/notorious purely naturalistic view of existence, no God supported by scientific findings such as entropy, the horrors of evolution (struggle for existence, etc.), existence with no special beginning for man and no special end, all man's accomplishments eventually coming to naught. And within this world atheists tell us that somehow reason, morality not only exist in the first place, but can be improved. So we have them essentially telling us that first existence is negative and what we call human order eventually will come to naught in an indifferent universe, and second that reason and morality can improve.

What makes this contradiction of expecting good things like reason and morality supposedly improving in a fundamentally indifferent universe even more glaring is that atheists never tire of telling us religion is delusion, man mentally ill--which is to say atheists tell us existence is negative, that there is no absolute foundation of reason and morality, that man is doomed in the end, and that he has essentially been mad during virtually all known history by subscribing to religion, but that reason and morality exist and can be improved!

Explain this to children in school and tell me they will not be confused. Try to tell them atheism is perfectly logical and without any other problems. Tell them religion is evidentally wrong and atheism so obviously right. The truth is both religion and atheism have problems when it comes to logic and/or other problems.

I think that's a little harsh, not where Oral Roberts is concerned, but where the people are concerned.

But do his victims have a true choice? I wonder. Is it not possible that they are so indoctrinated by their parents, and the milieu in which they were born and happen to live, that they can't escape? Is it not possible that many of them, -yes, it sounds patronizing- simply lack the intelligence to see this con-man for what he really is?

If god is willing to cure someone of cancer just because some hack prays for them, and yet lets millions of other people die in horrible pain from such diseases, doesn't that make him something of a huge jerk?

"I knew people who Mr. Roberts prayed for who were healed of diseases such as cancer and leukemia. Was this mere coincidence? Positive thinking? Those explanations seem less likely to me than divine intervention."
Posted by ProfessorDavidEggert

Professor Eggert,

Is it your position God needed Mr. Roberts intervention to perform these miracles? Personally, I find your references to coincidence or positive thinking more likely.

Spontaneous remissions happen, and the placebo effect is real. We also (often) don't have any follow-up on these healings. Sometimes when we do, it turns out poorly, see Lufrank1's reference, (omitting his very rude comments) he has a point. Sometimes faith-healing can be profoundly damaging.

For example, many people confined to wheelchairs can, if pressed, walk a few steps. I personally spent almost three months confined to one, due to a rheumatoid arthritis flair. I could walk, a bit, but it was painful, and I couldn't go more than a few steps. After that flair was controlled, it took about another six months of physical therapy to recover almost fully. Some joint damage was not reversible. Had I been "healed" in one of these media events, I could have staggered a few steps. Under the adrenaline rush, I might have been able to do much more. However, I might have done myself more permanent damage. And my being able to take those few steps (or dance across the room) wouldn't necessarily mean I had been healed.

The biggest problem I have with your argument, however, is the notion that God needs to have Oral Roberts (or anyone) call the divine attention to someone's situation. God is unaware? God is uncaring, unless a "favorite son" call in a favor? Either image is far from flattering. Personally, I find the idea of coincidence more comforting.

As long as we are discussing miracle workers we might as well watch an actual one. Here is a link to Jeff Beck playing She's a woman back in '75. Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZlFTbvfKPE

ABHAB1:
"What had those who try to discredit him contributed to humanity?"

I'll tell u what I have not done....Scam money off people to build an empire. Its the lowest form of filth on the planet taking advantage of peoples stupidity like that.

If pastor Oral Roberts had done nothing but build that university in Tulsa he deserves to be commended and respected. What had those who try to discredit him contributed to humanity? Belittling great men is the mark of little men

" Years ago, I knew people who Mr. Roberts prayed for who were healed of diseases such as cancer and leukemia."

Yeah, yeah, Mr. Troll, sure you did. Uh, what are the names of these people who were healed of diseases?

Dawkins has scientific evidence on his side. Roberts at least tried once to do right and start a hospital but real world kicked in when nice words didn't cure myeloma, and the bills mounted up. Mountebank? How about grifter? well you can't take it with you.

So good to hear some sane words about this ghastly idiot.

Dawkins isn't quite as cruel as Hitchens but he will do on a joyous night like this. Falwell, Helms, Roberts gone -- if we can get Robertson out of here soon, it will truly be a blessed solstice.

yup, we've all heard the stories about divine intervention forcing cancer into remission. but as people smarter than myself have famously wondered, why do we never hear about prayer re-growing an amputee's limb?

"Proffessor":
"Years ago, I knew people who Mr. Roberts prayed for who were healed of diseases such as cancer and leukemia. Was this mere coincidence? Positive thinking? Those explanations seem less likely to me than divine intervention."

Seriously, there is nothing, nada, zip at all scholarly about your conclusions. Can u also name people he prayed for and were not cured? So it worked some of the time and didn't others. Doesnt that also mean that it may indeed not have had anything to do with him?

U leap to the conclusion of divine intervention like it is the most rational answer. May I suggest there are a helluva lot of avenues (in this world and on this planet) to explore before jumping to the conclusion that he was healed by "divine intervention" or some magic cherub in the sky.

Its just basic academic honesty "professor".

@PROFESSORDAVIDEGGERT:

You wrote: "Years ago, I knew people who Mr. Roberts prayed for who were healed of diseases such as cancer and leukemia. Was this mere coincidence? Positive thinking? Those explanations seem less likely to me than divine intervention."

Without knowing the actual figures, I can't comment decisively. But consider a few things.

1) Intuition, or 'seem'ing, is a famously bad tool for understanding statistics.

2) Sometimes cancers such as leukemia go into remission for no apparent reason.

3) A cancer patient that visits a faith healer may very well also be receiving medical treatment, which (if science-based) will have a proven rate of recovery above that of no intervention at all.

4) If you take a large enough sample of cancer patients and sprinkle chalk over their heads, some of them will get better simply by playing the numbers. This does not imply that chalk causes cancer. Substituting 'prayer' for 'chalk' changes nothing.

In conclusion: Don't be so quick to dismiss 'mere' coincidence. The universe is very big and very old. With large enough numbers, even highly improbable things can happen all the time.

ProfessorDavidEggert

No, that's no coincidence. It is a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy and you should do really do something about your gullibility fuelled by medieval thinking.

Richard Dawkins, respectable, honest, ethical and truthful.

Oral Roberts, a charlatan, dishonest, unethical and a liar.

Mr. Dawkins dismisses Oral Roberts as a "charlatan" and his contributors as "stupid." Of course, this is no surprise coming from Mr. Dawkins who has staked out his position that God himself is a delusion. But let me offer a different perspective. Years ago, I knew people who Mr. Roberts prayed for who were healed of diseases such as cancer and leukemia. Was this mere coincidence? Positive thinking? Those explanations seem less likely to me than divine intervention. I knew personally someone who Oral Roberts layed hands on who felt incredible power surge through his body. And a prayer was answered.

It is obvious that Oral Roberts was not perfect--who is, Mr. Dawkins? And I, like many others, feel that some of what he said was outlandish. But substitution of divisive rhetoric for true analysis is no way to assess truth. As Ben Franklin said, let's all doubt a bit of our own infallibility.

Whenever I hear "Oral Roberts" name. I immediately remember the mile long line of automobiles and pick up trucks on their way to Oral Roberts for healing. That was Tallahasse, FL circa 1960.
Turned out that one young boy Oral said "Stand up and walk" or words to that effect, did so. Later, he had to be returned to the hospital for Doctors to open him up again and redo the damage steel pins had done to his bones because RECTAL ROBERTS had (in his fundamentalistic stupidity and ignorance) had commanded him to walk.
"Rectal" is a more appropriate name for that pseudo-religious idiot!

Oral Roberts was not just a televangelist; he was a faith healer. He was well outside of the mainstream of Christian thought and practice.

MIKE991 was obviously one produced out of a molestation between a superstition and a myth believer.

ANd no where is it more obvious when he believes that he has to use a religious dictionary ("disciple", "faith") to try to make his point.

Of course lowering atheism to theism is ironic in itself!

Good thing Oral Roberts is dead. It eliminates the possibility that the charlatan cannot rip any more of the poor.

Maybe this is what happens when you do not your fund-raising quote for the year.

Dawkins is just as big a mountebank as Roberts, he has his own delusions, and his disciples, the disciples of hopelessness and misery.
He is making a fortune out of his non belief, I suspect people will have faith long after Dawkin's bones have turned to dust.