Richard Dawkins lecture on Science & Religion

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ADPc3ZF5Yok

A very interesting lecture that some of you may be interested in watching.

Here he is talking about religion.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=a1WCpUvjLE4

 

hehe... he called his book a kinda "self-help to atheism". He's an evangelist for scientific atheism. Many before him have crusaded against belief in God, yet belief is still with us.

Nothing new really. What is funny to me is that the Bible says "the heavens declare the glory of God" and yet the scientific atheist says "the heavens declare there is no God".

 

Actually, he acknowledges that science cannot disprove the existence of god. He is therefore by definition not an "evangelist atheist," but like many (myself included), he concludes based on the best empirical evidence that no god exists. Interesting film.

 

His acknowledgement is empty rhetoric. It amounts to saying "while I can't rule out God, there absolutely is no God". He then goes on to mock saying you can't rule out a flying spaghetti monster either.

Call him what he is: a scientific atheist evangelist.

 

He has disdain for religion, but acknowledges that you cannot rule out anything in the way of belief. He is saying that if someone chooses to worship the sky, or claim a past life, there is no way to prove or disprove either. He's right.

 

well if you base your life on provable facts then there really isn't much chance of there being a god is there?

You hope there is god, and there might be a god, but there is no real proof there is god? right? You can recognize that can't you?

 

Is there a universe? Are there immutable laws that govern this universe and make life possible? Is there air to breath? Is there love, kindness, goodness, honor, morality? Is there a soul in man that seeks truth? Is there a conscience in man that knows right from wrong?

Provable facts, you betcha. They are all around you.

 

Actually, rereading what you wrote, nextbizguy,

He said precisely the opposite. When asked about his statement in his book:

-and whether he therefore leaves open the possibility that there is a god, he said:

"Of course. Any scientist would leave that possibility. You can't absolutely disprove the existence of anything. So just as you can't disprove the existence of Thor, and Zeus, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, we can't be dogmatic and say, 'it is certain that god does not exist."

You may not like him, nextbizguy. But shouldn't the debate go by the facts, and not your personal disdain for what he said?

I found him a reasonable, inquiring man.

 

yeah, so things exist therefore there is a supreme being, can't argue with that

 

That's why it's called 'FAITH'.

 

Faith based on nothing, if you here someone say they believe in werewolves you laugh at them yet you think it's perfectly reasonable to believe that the world was created by a superior being. What's the difference between you and the person who believes in monsters?

 

There aren't werewolves?

 

Guess I'm just in a mood today.

Biblical faith is roughly "trust/belief based on God's promise". An example often used is Abraham (often called the Father of Faith). When God spoke to Abraham and told him that his descendents will be more numerable than the stars or sand, Abraham "believed" God.

Romans 4:21 describes it as "being fully convinced that what He (God) had promised He (God) was also able to perform."

Faith has never been devoid of reason, logic, or facts. Christianity is based entirely on facts throughout history (particulary the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ).

Sure, some want to argue that since God isn't manifesting Himself in some overt manner that He doesn't exist. But God makes it clear that there are two sources of revelation: General (i.e. creation) and Special (i.e. The Bible).

So swinging this back to Dawkins, while he wants to rid humanity of the God delusion, his very life is predicated on God existing (though he would never admit it).

The greatest irony is that he only has to look in the mirror and see God's greatest work: man made in the image of God. The great scientist uses his God given talents to oppose the very One that makes his existence possible.

Ok, nuff about Dawkins.

 

The problem, nextebizguy, is that there is nothing factual about Christ's resurrection. It has no objective reality outside of your faith. It is simply not "fact," but faith.

When I look in the mirror, I see a tired guy who stayed up too late. I see the results of millenia of my ancestors' genes resulting in the face staring back at me. I do not see god. Different reality. I do not deny yours, but you deny mine.

And this is the problem with religion, in my opinion. Ascribing fact to what properly belongs to faith. It does not have the empirical weight to so categorically deny the findings that those not of religious faith find.

 

yeah but they are not really, the bible is just stuff written by a man

either bible is wrong or archeological evidence is wrong

I'm not positive but I read somewhere that christ wasn't consdered the savior for like couple hundred years after he died

 

Back to this again ferret? The last thread on this debunked the myth that you have faith in. You know, the one that science or archaeological evidence somehow disproves the Bible. That is some strong faith you have.

Christ was considered the savior before He was even born in Bethlehem.

(I have a feeling this will go around in circles again, since someone doesn't read or check facts. LOL - I wish I had faith as strong as yours.)

 

What's amazing is, some 2000 years after his death, people are still trying to disprove Christ's existence and/or that he was the Son of God. That's pretty powerful influence, for anyone.

I have to admit, I don't know too many people from so long ago, who are the subject of daily discussion around the world about whether they existed or not.

One thing I'm pretty sure about though, is that none of us here are going to be discussed in such manner 2000 years from now. I doubt history remembers any of us at all. One can easily ask: "What have I accomplished in my short lifetime that places me above someone who is the topic of discussion every day for the last 2000 years?"

Food for thought...

 

who gives a shit what people are talking about in 2000 years, gtech

people still talk about greek mythology too, doesn't make it real

really , it was foretold that someone named jesus crhist would come and be the savior?

or was just predictions of a savior?

 

Indulge me on this one for sake of discussion. What you are saying is nothing "new". Heck, Paul had to deal with it to and he lived during the time of Christ.

Notice that in what follows, Paul does NOT say there is no objective reality outside of faith. In fact, he lists eyewitnesses to the resurrection.

Paul later says:

So while you find it so easy to dismiss as being not "factual", Paul would definitely look you in the eye and say "I and many others saw Him".

 

is paul the one who never met jesus?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Tarsus

is that the guy?