It's no suprise that of the hundreds of interviews I've watched with the great Richard Dawkins, it's the great Jonathan Miller who asks the most interesting, intelligent questions. 5 stars.
Such beautiful use of language from both of them - they're both great men of language whether you agree with what they're saying or not - HOW they're saying it is wonderful
It's a curio: if it were reported in the corporate “media” that the local buffet restaurant, that serves 30,000 diners per month, has been killing 2 diners per month with ptomaine & botulism, the buffet would find itself with an abundance of good parking spots and cold toilet seats. The fact that the Centers for Disease Control admit that 95,000 American patients are killed by staph infections cultured in hospitals has yet to shake the faith of the dwindling middle 5/8's.
@ThreeLions89: Valid point. The gift of reason allows us question the truth of claims and accept it when a valid conclusion has been reached. If only religious people could do this.
Well he didn't want sheep. He wanted us to have the choice of whether we loved him or not. Its more complicated than what I can explain in just 500 characters.
I love the talk about how religion focuses on morality and sin and punishment more than it does the beauty that exists in our world.... no one knows where we came from or how, religious or otherwise, science is the only thing able to unite this world for a common good, can you imagine the amazing things we could acomplish if that were to happen? The division and hatred religion causes will NEVER achieve it.
I think almost every atheist who comes from a religious background has experienced events like what Richard describes. Hearing things in church that you cannot believe or understand like people who would often tell you something was missing in your heart without God. 10-year-old children never feel on their own that there is a God-shaped voice or sadness that stems from separation from Jesus. It's only when they're told over and over that their unhappy that they grudgingly start to believe it
No evil.... So if killing people feels good to one man, and dying feels bad to another man. Who is right? The murderer or victim? What about stealing or lying?
Exactly... he did not say "science says..." he expressed an educated guess as a specialist of Darwinian evoultion and Biology. He is not a psychoanalyst.
During the introduction, by Johnathan Miller, I was a bit taken back by his assumption that evolution played any role in Dawkins rejection of religion. Even without evolution, it takes no evidence to reject a claim without evidence.
You know when sin entered the world it tarnished much of what God created. However their is still enough beauty in the world to see where God has left his earmark.
It's kind of a miracle that Dawkins escaped the values tought to him as a child. I wish I could tell the same story. But 'thank god' I wasn't brought up with the bible by my side. Because then I think I would still be a 'believer'. The ignorance...The horror...
Ahh. I gotcha. Indeed. With science becoming increasingly transparent to more of the mass public, atheism is becoming more appealing (and acceptable) and thus, needs a label.
No he's not. He says "I SUSPECT that many of them (Americans) can not tell the difference...". He's not basing his opinion as fact or being intolerant. In other words he's simply stating his opinion and nothing more. It's not bigotry.
What he says near the start about the public attitude towards afghanistan being so easily switched to iraq is reminiscent of Orwell's 1984 when the war is switched from being waged on eastasia to eurasia.
Actually I find great passion in what Dawkins says and does. There is nothing 'party-like' about religion other then it is like an opium. Except the side-affects never go away. And what should be a quick jaunt of jocund unreality remains a truth for millions of people who believe their make-believe friends are real. Noise is definitely associated with religion. Especially in metaphorical terms.
Even children can see through religioun with the type of questions the ask. I recall asking questions about the world and veracity of the bible to my parents, teachers and priests/pastors at the catholic pre/middle-school I attended that never got answers(or satisfying ones). It's funny to see Dawkins went through the same kind of upbringing.
The popular theory is that God realized that by not giving Adam and Eve a choice he would be regulating them to the position of sheep. By giving Adam and Eve a choice to eat the fruit or not he was giving them a true choice whether or not to obey God.
There are billions of scents we cannot detect... there are countless sounds we can not hear... the little light we can see barely makes it possible for us to make our way through the world. What if you could see more... what would you see? A tunnel of bright light? Ghostlike beings walking around? It's a fact that we are almost blind and deaf... But noone thinks to think what we would see and hear were we to see all and hear all. (Just imagine to see gravity.)
My religious experiences somewhat parallel Dawkins'. I kind of drifted from religion slowly since elementery school when I realized there were so many religions all of witch have the same validity compared to my own. However I didn't really go through a conversion. After I left my Lutheran elementary school I just kinda drifted from it very slowly. I admitted to myself I was an atheist my freshman year of college though I was one in spirit most likely well before that point.
It depends on the situation. However there is plenty of evidence for the existence of a designer in the universe. The problem is the scientific community tries it very best to deny all evidence of design.
"This can become an never ending circular argument. Eventually you must have an uncaused first Cause." then even that cause must have a cause, and the circular argument continues! what science says is leave what is not scientifically proven and dont try to fill in the gaps with ur imagination because science is trying to solve those answers with evidence
Like I said sin is an awful thing. These events are not the earmark of God but the earmark of the condition human beings are stuck in due to sin. God has a plan to deliver us from this condition but the problem is most people don't want to go along with it.
The policy regarding Saudi Arabia and Pakistan should be: political and economical pressure requiring them to comply and root out terrorists. As you just said: Radical Islam will be around for much longer, so how was Iraq of any help? Any dead Al-Quaeda foot soldiers that ended up in Iraq don't really contribute to our safety. When the terrorists operational strongholds remain untouched and safe outside the borders of Iraq, it would be the same if we didn't even bother to go in Iraq.
Babies aren't born religious OR atheist as they cannot comprehend religion or the alternatives. Babies are born neutral to both and it is their subsequent surroundings that influence whether or not they oppose or believe in religion.
This is a well thought out question. Private revelation does not count within a scientific context. Thats why it falls under theology and not a natural science. About how I can be sure. Its because I have a relationship with God. Throught the Holy Spirit I receive certain "graces". They enrich my life and fill my soul in a specific manner. Have you ever wondered why so much charity work is done by Believers in Christ? It is out of Gratitude for the real presence of Christ in their life.
Funny thing about "Christians" who believe that disease is caused by sin is that, in the Bible, a woman made that very claim in front of Jesus Christ-& he verbally ripped her a new one... Ah, "Christians"...so unlike in Christ every fundamental way...:)
Its probably true that Bush is not that intellectual, but we don't really know. Public speaking is not the same thing as intelligence. You don't have to dig that deep to see the underlying reason behind his actions, regardless of whether or not those reasons are correct.
Good point; an overlap between the social and natural sciences. I would have to say, however, that it is more social than natural (or, in this case, allegedly supernatural!.
True...but you will agree that logic and science has taken us farther than religion or theology. You will also agree that only logic and science makes new discoveries every day, and not theology and religion.
just because you can only see the world through rigid dogma, doesn't mean other people can't think for themselves. Never bought the book, seem interesting though so I'll probably look into it eventually.
A lot of people reject God out of pride. You'll notice that a lot of atheists say they are too smart to be fooled by the "fairy tale" that consists of the Bible.
Dawkins allows for the idea of god(s) on the same level as The Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's why chapter 4 in "The God Delusion" is entitled "Why there is almost certainly no God", rather than "Why there is no God".
however from there to the infinit conciousness that decodes the world for us so we can see it, I'm not sure why this would be necessary, since we are metaconstructs in an upper world working with metasensory organs build from molecular bricks, to detect just other structures within that molecular level. maybe quarks and electrons are holograms, but from the moment on, they start interact to form an entity, they become solid..
A lot of the reasons dawkins gave here for questioning religion as a child are similar to mine but the main reason was when i realised that christianity {the religion i was taught to follow in school} made me feel obligated to follow because a man was turtured and crucified for my benefit and that made me feel obligated even though i knew somehow it was all rubbish.{it's psychological abuse}.
Intuition is according to me "jumping to a conclusion that "seems" right". For example, some people can intuitively calculate the product of large numbers. They don't actually do any calculation...the anwser just "pops" into their heads. Then some people can intuitively throw knives blindfolded, but that is just instinct i guess.
"I will pay no respect to a being capable of ending all the world's evils and refuses it" You realize God will eventually end all the world's evil. God does not sit idly by. It says that those who do evil are storing up for themselves God's wrath that will be poured out in full measure on the day of judgement.
Well with a scientist its different. He's very happy not knowing anything and is motivated by what he doesn't know..rather than what he does. The ultimate truth according to me will be the unified theory of physics...which will explain the behavior of everything from galaxies to neutrinos with one law. For a person of faith...he must know the answer right away, so he's happy to accept the simplest explanation at hand, even if its completely illogical.
Ah! But if you were Tarzan, and raised by apes, you might be lucky enough to be saved by a missionary. He'd teach you wonderful things, such as the creation of fire and the joys of cleaning houses for free. He might take away that useless flammable liquid and give you something useful, like a Mickey Mouse T-shirt. If you're really lucky, he'll tear down those tiresome trees and teach you how to grow pretty poppies!!
This can become an never ending circular argument. Eventually you must have an uncaused first Cause. One must believe that the uncaused First made himself evident in his creation. (see Bible) In the big bang theology there was a small thing that exploded but where did this small thing come from. Everyone desires purpose and those that say they don't are contradictory because they purpose not to have a purpose. Therefore where does this desire come from and where does the answer lie.
You're onto something. We can call ourselves rationalists, and theists get to be arationalists. Let they that own the burden of proof carry the negative prefix.
There is another way of looking at it...maybe we won't be proven wrong after all. I mean..we will of course discover lots more stuff, but its not necessary that the old stuff need to be proved wrong. Archimedes principle still applies after all this time and so does the law of gravitation...
To disprove your claim that Saddam was a threat to the US: 1. He didn't have any weapons that have intercontinental capability to deliver WMDs. 2. We didn't find any WMDs. 3. If terrorists want to get their hands on WMDs there are PLENTY of ways to do it, they don't have to rely on Saddam. 4. Terrorists can make their own WMDs EASILY, because WMDs are just chemicals which are easily found. 5. Saddam's long range missiles only had a range of 90 miles!
@TheEddmon I liked the poerty of that passage in Shantaram, but it at best is some really nice waffle. If the almost infinitely hot and infinitessimally small energy fog from which the comos exploded was simple, I'm pretty sure there are hundreds of cosmologists around the world who'd love you to explain it to them.
This is a technicality :) But "Thou shall not lie" is not in the Bible. At best "Thou shalt not bear false testimony" is in the ten commandments, but that is just about lieing in a court trial situation. ;)
We are the results of the forces of nature, not the force of nature itself. Nature is not capable of design, but it is capable of arriving, through natural selection, at a being capable of design. Us.
Nope. I am not generalizing. I have spent hours discussing religion, with the believers, and read a few books on the subject, and I have pretty solid logical arguments against all major religions at least.
Before I looked into Evolution I thought there was no evidence, I thought it was simply a theory. However when I looked for the evidence I found there was proof which changed my view on Evolution (not all fact though). It is the same with faith, I don't think you can claim there is no evidence unless you have searched for God. In my case I searched for God, and experienced something I would describe as spiritual that changed my life around and as crazy as it sounds I could now never deny God.
empty space, electromagnetic field the electron generates while rotating around it, gives it a value that influences the molecular plane where other atoms come together and bind. that is the level where the phenomenon of structure comes up. the physicality of it is clear upwards. inwards it's still a riddle. they say, that they are not sure, if quarks have real mass, therefore they would need the higgsparticle, ..
Psychosocial interactions have developed in our species over a very long time, and religious belief represents only a small part of such interactions. Religion is theorised to be more a by-product of either evolving psychosocial behaviour or, particularly back in older civilisations, an attempt to fill gaps in understanding regarding (at least then) largely unanswerable questions of being. Dawkins has gone into this numerous times in his books and talks, which I take it you haven't looked at.
Yes. I know. And, that's why I posted what I did. Someone posted that they thought we should allow for the *possibility* of god(s) and that Dawkins doesn't. I was just pointing out that he does (but only barely).
well, i've heard somebody joke that dawkins prononces evolution EVILution. But most british people say evolution, the evol part like rhymes with full rather than rhymes with fill.
Agreed, I think atheism is a term that didnt need to exist until recently. Atheist was not needed as a term any more than someone who didnt believe in mermaids was a amermaidist. The atheist means a=not or no theism=religious subscription. The term would be the same for one who never knew a deity and one who rejected the notion of a deity.
What do you mean he has failed to explain why? He explains why throughout the entire Bible. As to where the whole "God didn't want sheep" clause is written down where it is implied throughout Paul's writings in the New Testament.
mooo karl, moo moo moo moo mooooo moo, the cow god is all knowing and i thank it every day for its bountious milky world. you know darn well you are in a goat milk trance preventing you from seeing the all mighty cow.
Having a lack in a belief is not going to cause me to hold my breathe, in fact, just the opposite. If you suspect that you will ever know that you are right or wrong, then you'd better hope this "heaven" is a physical environment. But i suppose that's exactly what you're doing...
@Jacobbmarley I see what you mean. I think that the phenomena of hands on etc (of which ive been involved in teh past ...had a religious family) is plausibly explained using psychology and would therefore need to present some other more convincing means. control trial studies showed that people in hospital for heart surgeries that were prayed for (and the patients knew it) did worse than those not prayed for.
god shows himself through his word, through his followers, and through his creation. If you want God to show himself in a bold way to the world than you should wait for the rapture. Whether you survive that event or not is a risk you must be willing to take.
An atheist would say, 'I don't believe God exists'; an agnostic would say, 'I don't know whether or not God exists'; and an ignostic would say, 'I don't know what you mean when you say, "God exists" '. A coherent definition of "God" must be presented before the question of the existence of "God" can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition cannot be falsified, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of "God" is meaningless.
It's no suprise that of the hundreds of interviews I've watched with the great Richard Dawkins, it's the great Jonathan Miller who asks the most interesting, intelligent questions. 5 stars.
Fascinating discussion. I really enjoyed their clarity and they can articulate thoughts beautifully. Would like to hear more of them.
Agree. Excellent point. Spoken like a true Canadian!
Such beautiful use of language from both of them - they're both great men of language whether you agree with what they're saying or not - HOW they're saying it is wonderful
It's a curio: if it were reported in the corporate “media” that the local buffet restaurant, that serves 30,000 diners per month, has been killing 2 diners per month with ptomaine & botulism, the buffet would find itself with an abundance of good parking spots and cold toilet seats. The fact that the Centers for Disease Control admit that 95,000 American patients are killed by staph infections cultured in hospitals has yet to shake the faith of the dwindling middle 5/8's.
these chaps are soooo funny. They crack me up. ha ha ha
You've certainly given me something to think about! Cheers.
I love how Miller pronounces "evil." He's straight off of Austin Powers. Word. Ey-vell.
I love that the camera man has to accomodate for all of Jonathan's strange movements, despite that he's sitting in one place.
@ThreeLions89: Valid point. The gift of reason allows us question the truth of claims and accept it when a valid conclusion has been reached. If only religious people could do this.
I'm so glad to be free from religion's evil
Interesting to watch two very intelligent men in discussion - mutual respect exists.
Well he didn't want sheep. He wanted us to have the choice of whether we loved him or not. Its more complicated than what I can explain in just 500 characters.
I love the talk about how religion focuses on morality and sin and punishment more than it does the beauty that exists in our world.... no one knows where we came from or how, religious or otherwise, science is the only thing able to unite this world for a common good, can you imagine the amazing things we could acomplish if that were to happen? The division and hatred religion causes will NEVER achieve it.
I think almost every atheist who comes from a religious background has experienced events like what Richard describes. Hearing things in church that you cannot believe or understand like people who would often tell you something was missing in your heart without God. 10-year-old children never feel on their own that there is a God-shaped voice or sadness that stems from separation from Jesus. It's only when they're told over and over that their unhappy that they grudgingly start to believe it
No evil....
So if killing people feels good to one man, and dying feels bad to another man. Who is right? The murderer or victim? What about stealing or lying?
Who can decide it? I guess consensus between a group of qualified people is the best way to decide.
Exactly... he did not say "science says..." he expressed an educated guess as a specialist of Darwinian evoultion and Biology. He is not a psychoanalyst.
This video was interesting. I finally understand why Richard Dawkins cannot feel the presence of God in his life.
During the introduction, by Johnathan Miller, I was a bit taken back by his assumption that evolution played any role in Dawkins rejection of religion.
Even without evolution, it takes no evidence to reject a claim without evidence.
You know when sin entered the world it tarnished much of what God created. However their is still enough beauty in the world to see where God has left his earmark.
Very interesting.
Every individual is the result of multidimensional infinite consciousness expressing itself differently. Infinite consciousness is energy.
I actually laughed
I totally agree!
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.
It's kind of a miracle that Dawkins escaped the values tought to him as a child. I wish I could tell the same story. But 'thank god' I wasn't brought up with the bible by my side. Because then I think I would still be a 'believer'. The ignorance...The horror...
Ahh. I gotcha. Indeed. With science becoming increasingly transparent to more of the mass public, atheism is becoming more appealing (and acceptable) and thus, needs a label.
No he's not. He says "I SUSPECT that many of them (Americans) can not tell the difference...". He's not basing his opinion as fact or being intolerant.
In other words he's simply stating his opinion and nothing more. It's not bigotry.
"Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error." Thomas Jefferson
What he says near the start about the public attitude towards afghanistan being so easily switched to iraq is reminiscent of Orwell's 1984 when the war is switched from being waged on eastasia to eurasia.
Actually I find great passion in what Dawkins says and does. There is nothing 'party-like' about religion other then it is like an opium. Except the side-affects never go away. And what should be a quick jaunt of jocund unreality remains a truth for millions of people who believe their make-believe friends are real. Noise is definitely associated with religion. Especially in metaphorical terms.
Even children can see through religioun with the type of questions the ask. I recall asking questions about the world and veracity of the bible to my parents, teachers and priests/pastors at the catholic pre/middle-school I attended that never got answers(or satisfying ones). It's funny to see Dawkins went through the same kind of upbringing.
The popular theory is that God realized that by not giving Adam and Eve a choice he would be regulating them to the position of sheep. By giving Adam and Eve a choice to eat the fruit or not he was giving them a true choice whether or not to obey God.
Yeah, I see that you agree with me I was confused at first haha, but yes I definitely agree with what you are saying.
What do you want from me? I already agree with you here.
There are billions of scents we cannot detect... there are countless sounds we can not hear... the little light we can see barely makes it possible for us to make our way through the world.
What if you could see more... what would you see? A tunnel of bright light? Ghostlike beings walking around? It's a fact that we are almost blind and deaf... But noone thinks to think what we would see and hear were we to see all and hear all. (Just imagine to see gravity.)
My religious experiences somewhat parallel Dawkins'. I kind of drifted from religion slowly since elementery school when I realized there were so many religions all of witch have the same validity compared to my own. However I didn't really go through a conversion. After I left my Lutheran elementary school I just kinda drifted from it very slowly. I admitted to myself I was an atheist my freshman year of college though I was one in spirit most likely well before that point.
It depends on the situation. However there is plenty of evidence for the existence of a designer in the universe. The problem is the scientific community tries it very best to deny all evidence of design.
"This can become an never ending circular argument. Eventually you must have an uncaused first Cause."
then even that cause must have a cause, and the circular argument continues!
what science says is leave what is not scientifically proven and dont try to fill in the gaps with ur imagination because science is trying to solve those answers with evidence
Amooon, brother, amooon.
Like I said sin is an awful thing. These events are not the earmark of God but the earmark of the condition human beings are stuck in due to sin. God has a plan to deliver us from this condition but the problem is most people don't want to go along with it.
The policy regarding Saudi Arabia and Pakistan should be: political and economical pressure requiring them to comply and root out terrorists. As you just said: Radical Islam will be around for much longer, so how was Iraq of any help? Any dead Al-Quaeda foot soldiers that ended up in Iraq don't really contribute to our safety. When the terrorists operational strongholds remain untouched and safe outside the borders of Iraq, it would be the same if we didn't even bother to go in Iraq.
-what in the name of science
That's the first time I've ever heard that expression.
so true, man
Unless the world today is not what God intended...
Which is why he sent his only Son to save us.
where is the ending? or the second part?
Babies aren't born religious OR atheist as they cannot comprehend religion or the alternatives. Babies are born neutral to both and it is their subsequent surroundings that influence whether or not they oppose or believe in religion.
This is a well thought out question. Private revelation does not count within a scientific context. Thats why it falls under theology and not a natural science.
About how I can be sure. Its because I have a relationship with God. Throught the Holy Spirit I receive certain "graces". They enrich my life and fill my soul in a specific manner. Have you ever wondered why so much charity work is done by Believers in Christ? It is out of Gratitude for the real presence of Christ in their life.
Yes, because creating your own reason for being might take thought and effort- two faculties which creationists seem to have an aversion to.
Funny thing about "Christians" who believe that disease is caused by sin is that, in the Bible, a woman made that very claim in front of Jesus Christ-& he verbally ripped her a new one...
Ah, "Christians"...so unlike in Christ every fundamental way...:)
That would be interesting, a dead person and a fictitious charter in a fight?
how very poetic
Its probably true that Bush is not that intellectual, but we don't really know. Public speaking is not the same thing as intelligence. You don't have to dig that deep to see the underlying reason behind his actions, regardless of whether or not those reasons are correct.
his one of the greatest minds of our time
Good point; an overlap between the social and natural sciences. I would have to say, however, that it is more social than natural (or, in this case, allegedly supernatural!.
True...but you will agree that logic and science has taken us farther than religion or theology. You will also agree that only logic and science makes new discoveries every day, and not theology and religion.
I don't like Bush and I personally believe he is not that smart, but you are 100% correct.
just because you can only see the world through rigid dogma, doesn't mean other people can't think for themselves. Never bought the book, seem interesting though so I'll probably look into it eventually.
Creation = Coming into existence after a certain time of not existing.
A lot of people reject God out of pride. You'll notice that a lot of atheists say they are too smart to be fooled by the "fairy tale" that consists of the Bible.
Dawkins allows for the idea of god(s) on the same level as The Flying Spaghetti Monster.
It's why chapter 4 in "The God Delusion" is entitled "Why there is almost certainly no God", rather than "Why there is no God".
however from there to the infinit conciousness that decodes the world for us so we can see it, I'm not sure why this would be necessary, since we are metaconstructs in an upper world working with metasensory organs build from molecular bricks, to detect just other structures within that molecular level. maybe quarks and electrons are holograms, but from the moment on, they start interact to form an entity, they become solid..
I do that because I haven't heard one rebuttal by an atheist that I consider to be logically sound.
A lot of people think that. To those that are perishing the gospel is foolishness.
The same as me i always knew my mum and dad were bullshiting me about father xmas but i went a long with it until i was eight or nine lol
Every day is Christmas in Fairy Land.
A lot of the reasons dawkins gave here for questioning religion as a child are similar to mine but the main reason was when i realised that christianity {the religion i was taught to follow in school} made me feel obligated to follow because a man was turtured and crucified for my benefit and that made me feel obligated even though i knew somehow it was all rubbish.{it's psychological abuse}.
Intuition is according to me "jumping to a conclusion that "seems" right". For example, some people can intuitively calculate the product of large numbers. They don't actually do any calculation...the anwser just "pops" into their heads. Then some people can intuitively throw knives blindfolded, but that is just instinct i guess.
"I will pay no respect to a being capable of ending all the world's evils and refuses it"
You realize God will eventually end all the world's evil. God does not sit idly by. It says that those who do evil are storing up for themselves God's wrath that will be poured out in full measure on the day of judgement.
Well with a scientist its different. He's very happy not knowing anything and is motivated by what he doesn't know..rather than what he does. The ultimate truth according to me will be the unified theory of physics...which will explain the behavior of everything from galaxies to neutrinos with one law.
For a person of faith...he must know the answer right away, so he's happy to accept the simplest explanation at hand, even if its completely illogical.
Ah! But if you were Tarzan, and raised by apes, you might be lucky enough to be saved by a missionary. He'd teach you wonderful things, such as the creation of fire and the joys of cleaning houses for free. He might take away that useless flammable liquid and give you something useful, like a Mickey Mouse T-shirt.
If you're really lucky, he'll tear down those tiresome trees and teach you how to grow pretty poppies!!
This can become an never ending circular argument. Eventually you must have an uncaused first Cause.
One must believe that the uncaused First made himself evident in his creation. (see Bible)
In the big bang theology there was a small thing that exploded but where did this small thing come from.
Everyone desires purpose and those that say they don't are contradictory because they purpose not to have a purpose. Therefore where does this desire come from and where does the answer lie.
Anyways, maybe some other time...i've got to get breakfast!
You're onto something. We can call ourselves rationalists, and theists get to be arationalists. Let they that own the burden of proof carry the negative prefix.
There is another way of looking at it...maybe we won't be proven wrong after all. I mean..we will of course discover lots more stuff, but its not necessary that the old stuff need to be proved wrong. Archimedes principle still applies after all this time and so does the law of gravitation...
To disprove your claim that Saddam was a threat to the US:
1. He didn't have any weapons that have intercontinental capability to deliver WMDs.
2. We didn't find any WMDs.
3. If terrorists want to get their hands on WMDs there are PLENTY of ways to do it, they don't have to rely on Saddam.
4. Terrorists can make their own WMDs EASILY, because WMDs are just chemicals which are easily found.
5. Saddam's long range missiles only had a range of 90 miles!
I think you will all find that it is the Lord Mouse.And if you don't all start worshiping Him, you're all in ghastly trouble.
Hi, it is an old-fashioned upper-class English accent!
@TheEddmon I liked the poerty of that passage in Shantaram, but it at best is some really nice waffle. If the almost infinitely hot and infinitessimally small energy fog from which the comos exploded was simple, I'm pretty sure there are hundreds of cosmologists around the world who'd love you to explain it to them.
This is a technicality :) But "Thou shall not lie" is not in the Bible. At best "Thou shalt not bear false testimony" is in the ten commandments, but that is just about lieing in a court trial situation. ;)
We are the results of the forces of nature, not the force of nature itself. Nature is not capable of design, but it is capable of arriving, through natural selection, at a being capable of design. Us.
Nope. I am not generalizing. I have spent hours discussing religion, with the believers, and read a few books on the subject, and I have pretty solid logical arguments against all major religions at least.
Before I looked into Evolution I thought there was no evidence, I thought it was simply a theory. However when I looked for the evidence I found there was proof which changed my view on Evolution (not all fact though).
It is the same with faith, I don't think you can claim there is no evidence unless you have searched for God. In my case I searched for God, and experienced something I would describe as spiritual that changed my life around and as crazy as it sounds I could now never deny God.
empty space, electromagnetic field the electron generates while rotating around it, gives it a value that influences the molecular plane where other atoms come together and bind. that is the level where the phenomenon of structure comes up. the physicality of it is clear upwards. inwards it's still a riddle. they say, that they are not sure, if quarks have real mass, therefore they would need the higgsparticle, ..
Psychosocial interactions have developed in our species over a very long time, and religious belief represents only a small part of such interactions. Religion is theorised to be more a by-product of either evolving psychosocial behaviour or, particularly back in older civilisations, an attempt to fill gaps in understanding regarding (at least then) largely unanswerable questions of being.
Dawkins has gone into this numerous times in his books and talks, which I take it you haven't looked at.
Yes. I know. And, that's why I posted what I did.
Someone posted that they thought we should allow for the *possibility* of god(s) and that Dawkins doesn't. I was just pointing out that he does (but only barely).
well, i've heard somebody joke that dawkins prononces evolution EVILution. But most british people say evolution, the evol part like rhymes with full rather than rhymes with fill.
Agreed, I think atheism is a term that didnt need to exist until recently. Atheist was not needed as a term any more than someone who didnt believe in mermaids was a amermaidist. The atheist means a=not or no theism=religious subscription. The term would be the same for one who never knew a deity and one who rejected the notion of a deity.
I don't think of heaven in a physical environment in the same sense of our natural world. I believe heaven is apart of the spiritual world.
What do you mean he has failed to explain why? He explains why throughout the entire Bible. As to where the whole "God didn't want sheep" clause is written down where it is implied throughout Paul's writings in the New Testament.
mooo karl, moo moo moo moo mooooo moo, the cow god is all knowing and i thank it every day for its bountious milky world. you know darn well you are in a goat milk trance preventing you from seeing the all mighty cow.
Yes that's a better word.
And what exactly do you mean by Creatin Model predict more then Evolutionary model? Could you explain it better?
Having a lack in a belief is not going to cause me to hold my breathe, in fact, just the opposite. If you suspect that you will ever know that you are right or wrong, then you'd better hope this "heaven" is a physical environment. But i suppose that's exactly what you're doing...
@Jacobbmarley I see what you mean. I think that the phenomena of hands on etc (of which ive been involved in teh past ...had a religious family) is plausibly explained using psychology and would therefore need to present some other more convincing means. control trial studies showed that people in hospital for heart surgeries that were prayed for (and the patients knew it) did worse than those not prayed for.
god shows himself through his word, through his followers, and through his creation. If you want God to show himself in a bold way to the world than you should wait for the rapture. Whether you survive that event or not is a risk you must be willing to take.
An atheist would say, 'I don't believe God exists'; an agnostic would say, 'I don't know whether or not God exists'; and an ignostic would say, 'I don't know what you mean when you say, "God exists" '. A coherent definition of "God" must be presented before the question of the existence of "God" can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition cannot be falsified, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of "God" is meaningless.
My bad. It was explained during the interview that it did play a role, at least for Dawkins.
I'd like to see the Incredible Hulk fight Whitney Houston.