Richard Dawkins & Rowan Williams Archbishop of Canterbury discuss human nature & ultimate

ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Richard Dawkins & Rowan Williams Archbishop of Canterbury discuss human nature & ultimate

Debate Feb 23rd, 2012 Oxford. Very British debate. Haven't listened to it all but somewhere all the way Dawkins says he is not entirely sure there is no god.

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Starting at 1:08

 The Dawkins statement begins with some background at 1:08.

Really like how it was respectful and not about winning the debate like WL Craig is known for.

 

 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Confused Kapkao is confused

Dawk may go for 'pragmatism' at this point, but at the same time... he did author Gunslinger. The 'pragmatism' you allude to Ex-m reeks of moderately educational promotion and (perhaps) some sort of marketing strategy amongst whatever publishing company represents Dawk's authored works, including but not limited to his books on religion and his debates with catholics.

I think that there are many reasons to remain dubious towards whatever 'pragmatic humility' atheists like Dawk display regarding religion. Quite frankly, they may pretend to have such qualities in discourse, but they are still kidding themselves. I personally am having a hard time imagining RD not having a condescending and elitist attitude towards the people he debates with, because he has yet to demonstrate an absence of such personality traits in his public form.

Any attempt by known 'n grown atheist "intellectual heavyweights" at intellectual humility can kindly go to hell at this point, because no evidence exists in its favor. Like the "God" concept often laughed at by us vocal atheists everywhere, 'humble-yet-proud atheism' strikes me as largely mythical. It doesn't seem to actually exist in public contexts, because of the tortured assumption made by such "atheist vs theist" debaters that their suppositions are inherently more accurate and more salient than their opposition's unless said suppositions are convincingly challenged; IOW the "I'm automatically right until proven wrong" mentality that I've seen on the web at various lengths. It seems to be a predominate trait of what is collectively described as "New Atheism" and Abrahamics alike.  Genuinely 'pragmatic atheism' appears to have died a very obscure and ignoble death sometime during the 20th century, in part because of what amounts to a social philosophy of "the hubris of my enemy justifies my hubris" often exemplified by Fender/redneF.

 

Bottom line, I contend that if Dawk goes for polite accomodationism he will be laughed and heckled at by legions of supporters and critics alike. It isn't an option for him, IMO.

(Sound is almost nonexistant on this damn portapottyPC that most people call "a netbook", but I'll go on passive observation and intuition.)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
the part I'm actually confused about

"Ultimate" what?? It says "ultimate" in the thread title but it looks cut off.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
 I believe ultimate origin

 I believe ultimate origin of life was meant.

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 739
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I don't need to listen-

ex-minister wrote:

Debate Feb 23rd, 2012 Oxford. Very British debate. Haven't listened to it all but somewhere all the way Dawkins says he is not entirely sure there is no god.

If they don't know Human nature from Animal nature then the discussion is senseless. When they find/learn the difference there's nothing to discuss. (addition) I would guess they're intelligently confusing each other.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2764
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Around 1:09 the priest

Around 1:09 the priest starts speaking after being asked why the writers of the scripture didn't say anything about the specifics of the start of the Universe. He said that the writers didn't need to speak about it, they were writing about god and the message from god. He implies that they HAD the technology but they didn't bother to talk about it.

Dawkins sort of refutes the comments but then around 1:11 he goes in the "I'm an agnostic" but not that he believes in god or a creator. He's correct in what he says, that people who preach these religions are not providing factual information. There is no proof, not even enough to even consider that there could be a creator.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 739
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Ok, But there is a Creator.

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Around 1:09 the priest starts speaking after being asked why the writers of the scripture didn't say anything about the specifics of the start of the Universe. He said that the writers didn't need to speak about it, they were writing about god and the message from god. He implies that they HAD the technology but they didn't bother to talk about it.

Dawkins sort of refutes the comments but then around 1:11 he goes in the "I'm an agnostic" but not that he believes in god or a creator. He's correct in what he says, that people who preach these religions are not providing factual information. There is no proof, not even enough to even consider that there could be a creator.

 

I'm not saying what that is (as in this instance I don't know). The evidence is- we are here, and something had to make that happen. So- there had to be a "Creator". That isn't necessarily a "person". What religious floks don't understand is --there is an origin of material, and an origin of the spiritual/personage. But, there must be material first for all other things to base upon. That means that "God" could not have been before material. God, can only exist once a brain has formed, as "God" is merely a matter of mind, or the mind itself. The ancients used the term "God" as a description of forces/things they didn't understand which remains in use today. As can be seen Christians argue/discuss material formation as a matter of a Christian God. A Christian god is not the creator of the material universe, but rather the creator of "Being". First the brain, and then the Being/person forms within it, and that is long after material constructions. The Christian "God' is a matter of one's person and knowledge of it. If one claiming to be Christian argues or attached material creations to his religion that same is not a Christian, as true Christians wouldn't know what created material any more then anyone else, and cannot be combined with Christianity, as Christianity is not a matter of understanding where the material came from.  As I pointed out in previous posts, what is believed to be Christianity is merely Europeanism and the same religion as before Euros ever got the bible. They have no understanding what the book is about. What they have is a European concept of God, not a biblical or Christian one.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.