Haha, the Virgin Mary was born of a virgin! I laughed at that.
Dawkins should look in a mirror if he wants the true definition of arrogance.
I love it when he says “we don’t have a shred of evidence”
[quote="tgm21234, post:4, topic:178770"]
I love it when he says "we don't have a shred of evidence"
Was he talking religon, global warming, black matter or the big bang?
I don’t mean Richard Dawkins is an [expletive deleted] liar. I mean that, with the humblest pseudo-non-judgmental attestation, Richard Dawkins is a blinking liar–his incessant blinking is suggestive of one who is flat out lying. I’m so grateful for this video demonstrating that Richard Dawkins is a blinking liar. Please pray for this monkey’s bum. He blinking well knows there’s a God.
If anyone is interested, Dr. Craig debunks Richard Dawkins central arguments in ‘The God Delusion.’
Richard Dawkins’ Central Argument Refuted 1/3 - youtube.com/watch?v=KfDKhDUWBWE
Richard Dawkins’ Central Argument Refuted 2/3 - youtube.com/watch?v=3SNpPtltyeE
Richard Dawkins’ Central Argument Refuted 3/3 - youtube.com/watch?v=AtgKB-slrNU
In the second video in that Richard Dawkins interview, where he is says religion might come out of obedience to authority, survival etc. My question is, if you believe that, why are there atheists then? Why isn’t everyone religious?
There is nothing wrong with questioning & pondering the meaning of life. The problem is that people like Dawkins are truly the arrogant ones, as they have absolutely no facts to base their religion of random creation on (something from nothing by a random cause), yet they believe!
The real problem is the premise Dostoevsky presents in his novel The Brothers Karamazov**“If God does not exist, everything is permitted.” **
The true arrogance is these pseudo-intellectuals like Dawkins trying to justify their own immoral behavior by denying God’s existence & by making everything relative, ie. “there is no such thing as right or wrong!.”(They use the same logic as a 2 year old who doesn’t see his mommy around & eats a whole box of cookies!)
As Papa Benedictus XVI said so eloquently;
"We are dealing here with the vast question as to how we can and cannot know God, how we are related to God and how we can lose him. The arrogance that would make God an object and impose our laboratory conditions upon him is incapable of finding him. For it already implies that we deny God as God by placing ourselves above him, by discarding the whole dimension of love, of interior listening; by no longer acknowledging as real anything but what we can experimentally test and grasp. To think like that is to make oneself God. And to do that is to abase not only God, but the world and oneself, too." “Jesus of Nazareth” Papa Benedictus XVI, (p. 37)
Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!
The moment a person forms a theory, his imagination sees in every object only the traits which favor that theory
Excellent point. It’s a contradiction within his own belief system.
Some scientists refuse to acknowledge that there can be truth outside the reach of their timespace-dependent instruments. Some believers refuse to acknowledge that scientific discoveries challenging our notions regarding God’s methodology actually point to His creative beauty and do no violence to His sovereignty.
Both approaches shortchange God.
I found Dawkins’ characterization of atheists as “strident” to be an interesting way to look at it. Webster’s definition of strident is: of loud harsh sound, shrill. This as opposed to the Christian belief of having the peace of the Holy Spirit. Which way sounds more attractive?!
I also listened to Tony Blair’s comments from the same website and his reasons for becoming a Catholic even though his father is an atheist. The original theme of the Dawkins piece was the “arrogance” of religious belief, Blair’s idea was that a person has to have humility when thinking about God and has to realize that there will always be a mystery involved in this belief since we’re so inferior to Him. Dawkins’ approach of looking for solid proof and nonsensical talk of fairies doesn’t hold a candle to what Blair says.
Also, Dawkins talks about feeling wonderment when looking at the Milky Way or looking through a microscope. These are proofs of God’s amazing power! They’re right in front of his eyes! Poor man, with all his knowledge, he doesn’t know this.
That’s a good point. Can a cosmologist look at a set of equations that point to an old universe and a Big Bang and get the same sense of wonder at the creative power of Almighty God? Dawkins is wrong and should be summarily dismissed. He could be considered arrogant by some standards. But there are certainly believers who are indeed arrogant regarding their firmly-held presuppositions.
Interestingly, a few months ago I heard Dawkins say on TV, “The chances of inorganic chemicals combining randomly to create life are so small as to be quite impossible - but we’re here so it must have happened.”
Clearly the first part of the sentence is scientific in nature but I can’t think of a less scientific comment than the second part of the statement. Indeed, we [he] don’t have a shred of evidence that life arose from inorganic chemicals.
I wish I’d been there, I would have reminded him of a quote from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle where he [Sherlock Holmes] said, “Once you’ve eliminated the impossible whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
So that leaves Prof. Dawkins with a ‘Creator’ as the source of life!!
I do too, but I suspect that I love it for a different reason: you don’t have a shred of evidence that any god is real.
Indeed, we [he] don’t have a shred of evidence that life arose from inorganic chemicals.
Actually, there has been some experimental confirmation that abiogenesis – the generation of a self-replicating molecule from non-life – is at least feasible (they’ve observed organic molecules arise from inorganic molecules in conditions that likely resemble the environment of the early earth, and they have recently managed to create RNA under similar conditions).
I mean no disrespect, but that’s because you insist on interpreting your “evidence” using the straitjacket of spacetime. That’s why a fish doesn’t believe anyone can play a piano because it’s not in his fishbowl. Dawkins is on a leash. Of course he can’t accept something that transcends the categories imposed by spacetime.
I know, silly atheists. Insisting that evidence actually be demonstrable.
What wacky ideas will they come up with next?
Can we stipulate that “evidence actually being demonstrable” presupposes the dimensions of spacetime? If we can’t agree on time and space as the arena in which the required evidence will or will not show itself, then we’ve painted ourselves into a corner.
[quote="a_priori, post:19, topic:178770"]
Can we stipulate that "evidence actually being demonstrable" presupposes the dimensions of spacetime?
If you're not going to demonstrate something in space and time, where do you propose to demonstrate it?
For clarity's sake, I don't presuppose that space and time exist -- there is a great deal of evidence for their existence.