Is there anyone out there that thinks that Jerry Falwell is a good person?

Question

and... are there any Christians that would say that he was a better person than the atheist Richard Dawkins?

Shaolt... explain to me how Dawkins' logic is flawed. (other than supporting the theory of evolution, which is something that every other respectable, reasonable scientist does)

SoftT... is it not obvious what I think? I have watched every Dawkins lecture I could find online, and I have never seen him be mean or nasty. Falwell on the other hand is a bigot.

upsman... evolution does not happen by random chance. Maybe you should read up on it before commenting on its validity. You misquote Dawkins... he was saying that labeling a child as a 'Christian' or 'Muslim' is abuse in the same way that labeling a child 'Republican' or 'Democrat' is. You are defining them before they have a chance to reason it out for themselves. He specifically said that he was not equating it with actual physical or sexual abuse of children.

Dawkins founded the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Science and Reason, and I say from experience that it is a resource for atheists. He is a scientist... he centers his work around science, and I would say that educating the public about science is a pretty good service to humanity.

Answer 1

He's a slimeball. A hypocritical hateful venal slimeball.
But Pat Roberston is worse

Answer 2

I have met Jerry Falwell and heard him preach several times at First Baptist Church in Woodstock, GA. I think he's a good person. I wouldn't know Richard Dawkins from Adam's tomcat... I've heard of him but have never met him or directly studied what he teaches. I've seen a video of Mr. Dawkins on YouTube.com. Since I highly doubt either of these men are pedophiles or violent criminals, I couldn't say that one is better than the other.

Answer 3

The world hates Jerry Falwells message because he doesn't sugarcoat it and make it more palatable to the listener.
He preaches Gods Word and he pulls no punches.
God uses many different preachers, with many different styles of preaching, to get His Word out. There are people who need to hear the message of repentance, there are some who need to hear teachings about Love and Forgiveness, there are some who need to hear the Milk of Gods Word and there are some who need to hear the Meat of Gods Word. The bottom line is this: Gods Word needs to be taught throughout the world.
Praise The Holy Lamb Of God !!!!

Answer 4

To say that the intelligent design argument is not a scientific argument, as some people say, is just not true. It's a perfectly logical and scientific argument. Science uses physical laws to predict things that they don't see all the time. You take 'dark matter' for instance. What is it? Nobody knows for sure. They've never seen it. They have a laboratory about a mile below the surface of the earth in England looking for dark matter and they've never found anything. But our physical law of gravity tells us that the amount of gravity that we measure in the universe is not enough to keep the universe from flying apart. But the universe doesn't fly apart. Therefore there must be more gravity which would require more matter(96% more) than we see. Therefore, scientists accept the concept of 'dark matter'(which is some kind of matter that has mass but it's not made of atoms) because our law of gravity demands it. No one has ever actually seen a black hole. Yet we accept the existence of black holes because the laws of physics predict that it has to be there. Similarly, the law of cause and effect(which Einstein called the most reliable of all the physical laws) says that whatever has a beginning must have a cause. The Big Bang theory says the universe had a beginning. Therefore, it must have a cause. The effect must exist in the cause since you can't give what you ain't got. But the effect has information(our DNA). Information only comes from intelligence. Thus the cause has to be an intelligent cause. The effect has design. Therefore, it needs a designer. Hence, using the same scientific method that we used to go from the law of gravity to the need for 'dark matter' and from the laws of physics to the need of black holes, we also argued the same way to go from the Law of Causality to the need of an intelligent designer for the universe. The intelligent design argument is very scientific.
It seems to me that the intelligent design answer to the evolution question is irrefutable. It simply says that design in the universe is undeniable. The law of cause and effect says that wherever you find design you must have a designer somewhere. Since the cause must have everything the effect does and the effect(the universe) has intelligence, the cause(the designer) must also have intelligence. So you need an intelligent designer of this universe. But who could design a universe outside of a God. You call Him whatever you want to call Him. I call Him a God. That refutes evolution since evolution says that everything came about by random chance. The I.D. argument, it seems to me, is irrefutable. It's a simple logical argument:
Premise #1: Wherever you find design, you need a designer.
Premise #2: The universe exhibits design
Conclusion: The universe needs a designer.
Either you deny Premise #1 or you deny Premise #2 or you deny that given Premise #1 & 2, the conclusion follows. You can’t deny Premise #1 and you can’t deny that given Premise #1 & 2, that particular conclusion follows.
The only way around that argument is to deny the second premise. Every atheist has to deny design. As I've said before, If you read Richard Dawkins two latest books('the blind watchmaker' and 'the god delusion') that's exactly what he does. He denies design. He says that there's no design in the universe, just the "appearance of design". But that's insane. You just can't logically and realistically deny that there's design all through the universe. It's all around you. You have to be blind not to see it. There are branches of science that basically just study the design in nature.........scientific disciplines such as nano-technology and bio-mimetrics. These disciplines study the design in nature.......whales,bats,dolphins... have sonar.......and try to create machines that mimic that design. There’s even a weekly program on the science channel that looks at the design in nature trying to find leads for technology. Everywhere you look there's design. Where there's design there's got to be a designer. That's just common sense. Creation is not an unproven theory. It's a common sense fact that we come to by just using a little logic and reason and anyone who says that there is no design in the universe(only the appearance of design), I would say is using "flawed logic".
. You look at bats. They do not fly by sight. They can barely see in the day but they sleep in the day. They are nocturnal creatures. They do all their activities at night and at night they are blind. They fly by means of sonar. They send out sound waves through their nose as they are flying. If those sound waves bounce off something and come back at them, they pick them up and know that they are heading toward something and need to veer in a different direction. Somehow they know how fast they are flying and they know that sound travels at 723 MPH and as they fly they continue to send out sound waves so they continue to get updated information. Given enough info(and continued updated info) a mathematician could sit down with a pencil and paper and some calculus equations and figure out how far the bat was from the object and with the right info could even figure out if the object the bat is heading toward is stationary or moving toward the bat or away from it. But that would take time and if the bat took that much time he’d be flying into trees and telephone poles other things. We have developed computers that can do that in a second. That's what sonar is all about. The bat has a computer in his head that can figure that info out in a nanosecond. It knows what it is heading for without being able to physically see. It's flying by instruments(as pilots would say). Do you really think that the sonar equipment that is in the bats head just came about by random chance(read....luck) natural processes? You do if you're Richard Dawkins.
As far as Richard Dawkins never being "mean or nasty". He's called christians everything under the sun. He's said christianity is child abuse. You don't think that's mean and nasty. Richard Dawkins is an anti-christian bigot.
As far as Jerry Falwell is concerned, I would say go to his church(Thomas Roads Baptist church). They've got programs to help alcoholics, drug addicts, single woman with children, they have programs to feed the poor. I'd like to see some programs that Richard Dawkins has started lately to actually help people or any atheist for that matter. I'm still waiting to see the first hospital that was built by atheists or the first soup kitchen. Christians are just 2 % of the population in India yet they are 98% of the humanitarian organizations that feed the poor. When it comes to helping the poor, atheists are all talk and no action. All they do is criticize other good people who are helping others.

Answer 5

Choose for yourself.

Jerry Falwell

http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=Jerry+Falwell+scandels&FORM=MSNH

http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=Jerry+Falwell&form=QBRE&go.x=12&go.y=6

Richard Dawkins

http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=Richard+Dawkins+scandels&form=QBRE&go.x=17&go.y=11

http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=Richard+Dawkins&form=QBRE&go.x=16&go.y=11

Answer 6

I can't say if Falwell is a good person, I never met him. As to Dawkins, I must say the same. But Dawkin's logic is very poor, very poor indeed.

Answer 7

A good person?... Sure, (good enough to stay out of jail.)
An honest person?...Never.
Better than Dawkins? ... In what way?

[][][] r u randy? [][][]
.

Answer 8

Can't wait to see the answers for this one. That man is as crooked as they come and I'll hope that Christians say so.

Answer 9

I never met him. I don't agree with him 100% but I really can't judge the man.

Answer 10

That is like comparing Trump to Rosie. Who cares which annoying narcisist is worse?