Posted on 11/11/2006 10:29:18 AM PST by VOA
Here is a "headsup"; set video recorder as needed):
The God Delusion
Richard Dawkins
On Saturday, November 11 at 10:00 pm (EASTERN) and
Sunday, November 12 at 7:00 pm (EASTERN)
(Note: Program start times are approximate and all times are Eastern.)
Description: From Randolph-Macon Woman's College in Lynchburg,
Virginia, Richard Dawkins argues that there is no rational or
moral reason to believe in God or any other supernatural
higher power. He says that because atheists are discriminated
against in the United States they tend not to be vocal about
their views, even though collectively they could be an influential
political and social force. Professor Dawkins also reads selections
from his new book, talks about his love for science, and answers
questions from the Randolph-Macon audience.
(Excerpt) Read more at booktv.org ...
OK.
No problem.
But I'll let the good doctor die first, then tell me from where he resides.
I always wondered what happened to this guy after he left Family Feud.
No, Thank you. I've become divorced from anything presented by C-Spam. . . might as well call itself DNCspam, because they present such a slanted selection of programming. I used to be a daily viewer in the early 90's when it was interesting. Now I might watch one hour / six months. I've asked my cable company to take all of it off. . . I resent having to pay for pure liberal moderators, guest, and callers in. Don't know anyone right of moreonorg who ever watches.
Pardon the ping...perhaps of interest?
The athesistic view is taught in schools.
Broadcast in the media.
Enforced on college campi.
Its even glorified here on FR.
Prof. Dawkins has a persecution complex called guilt.
Jesus might be talking subtley to him directly.
Or maybe not.
If he thinks that there is discrimination against atheists then he should take a look at what it is like to be a Christian.
"I've become divorced from anything presented by C-Spam. . . might as
well call itself DNCspam, because they present such a slanted selection
of programming."
Yes, some weekends (like the last one) certainly seem to do a "let's pile on
conservatives and the religious right!".
And many of the presentations are pure Sominex.
I just look if I see something I can't get anywhere else (and if I'm
really interested).
For a schedule of BookTV (C-Span2) for this weekend, go to this URL:
http://www.booktv.org/schedule/
So that's it. We're all stupid, and Dawkins is brilliant.
Or maybe he just hasn't looked around enough?
ML/NJ
I wonder what would happen should this guy instruct audiences in Saudi Arabia or Iran on his views.
Dawkins' latest book has gotten hammered, even by publications that are decidedly unfriendly to Christians. The NY Times ran a review that just skewered Dawkins personally and his thesis in general. That was followed up by a total panning by The New Republic.
The guy has essentially written the same book four times now...the only difference is that he gets nastier in each one.
In his latest book, he suggests having the state remove children from religious households so they are not taught their harmful world view and are instead indoctrinated into the blessings of Dawkins' own. I am not a church going man, although I am generally relion friendly, but that suggestion is outright Stalinism and personally repugnant to me.
For some reason, GOD decided to delude these people about their intellect.
Thses poor saps think they have it ALL figured out.
This Dawkins guy has the ba**s to show his face after what "South Park" did to him the past two episodes? He ought to be looking for a hole to hide in!!!!!!! It had to be one of the most humiliating things they've EVER done to anyone!!
Rational? No. Moral? In the absence of an absolute, transcendent moral authority, "morality" becomes impossible. The idea that something as collective (and absolute) as right and wrong can somehow be individualized is a contradiction in terms.
And there is no rational reason NOT to believe in God either. In fact, it is just as logical to believe in intelligent design as it is in cosmic evolution or random chance.
Finally, belief in God, and more importantly, His principles, is not a matter of reason, but a matter of Faith, "the belief in things not seen."
It defends the existence of God perfectly.
pardon the ping...perhaps of interest...
He's probably a bright enough fellow, but still a fool.
People who grow up smarter then those around them don't like the idea of something that is beyond their own understanding. So they foolishly assume that if they don't understand it, then it isn't allowed to be real, and none of the rest of us are allowed to have any revealed knolledge that they couldn't figure out first.
The person claiming to be God showed up on Earth and let Himself be known. He said was that life is eternal and what one makes of their spirit in this world determines where and with whom the continue on with life elsewhere. That person said in Matt 12:39
He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.
The sign of Jonah is the Holy Spirit the knowledge, wisdom, understanding and decisions of Free will of God. One can only know God through the Holy Spirit, not through physical science. That is impossible as God said. Dawkin's hasn't a rational leg to stand on.
He also rejects Free will and thus the concept of individual spirit itself. He's not being rational by attempting to convince folks they should make a choice to not believe in God, when he denies Free will from the start. He's simply a credentialed illogical con man pushing his authoritarian socialist acheme.
bump for publicity
Sounds like he has the beginning of a serious god complex
bump for publicity
Had God not ahown up in person to tell us who He was, it would be illogical to believe that there was a God. That's, because the belief would be in something that no one could see, or examine on a consistent and rational basis.
As I said in post 21, the person that did present Himself as God did show up, and he said no physical evidence whatsoever would be given. That includes evidence of design. He gave his reason, and that was so only His Spirit was to be the evidence on examines to know Him and believe in Him. One's judgement of that Spirit and honest incorporation of that Spirit as one's own is the sole basis of salvation. Salvation being the continuaiton of life with God and others of like spirit. That was given in Matt 12:32
"Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."
"belief in God, and more importantly, His principles, is not a matter of reason, but a matter of Faith, "the belief in things not seen."
It's not rational to believe in what can't be seen, or examined. That's not the case with God, since He came and taught who He was and what He was about. As He pointed out, it's the spirit that's importent, the physical machinery that supports that spirit in this world. Examination and judgement of God's Spirit, or any decisions regarding one's own spirit, requires a rational examination and judgement. As I pointed out, that is required and it is the basis of salvation.
Examining the physics of this world to search for God was never to be allowed. From the beginning access to the tree of life was forbidden and a cherubim wielding a flamming sword was assigned to guard it. That cherubim is the physics of this world. The beauty, knowledge and understanding of God is to be found in His Spirit, not in the physical machinery.
Sounds like Dawkins spends most of his time now bashing religious folks rather than doing science.
As an atheist, I've never been discriminated against, contrary to Dawkins' assertion. He weeps about discrimination against atheists, while supporting discrimination against Christians. As a social and fiscal conservative, I have more in common with most Christians than I do with any liberals.
I have a degree in biology, and taught science for 19 years, so I'm acquainted with genetics and Darwin's ideas.
He misuses science to attack religion. He is a disgrace to science.
(And as a previous poster mentioned, South Park humiliated him!)
The assertion that He was God cannot be "examined on a consistent or rational basis." Thankfully, it does not need to be. Science will never prove God's existence, and Faith doesn't need to.
the person that did present Himself as God did show up, and he said no physical evidence whatsoever would be given. That includes evidence of design.
Or self-enforcing logic post hoc, ergo propter hoc. The point is, trying to use science to prove or disprove God is like using a can opener to catch fish: it's the wrong tool and succeeds only by chance.
Let the atheists believe (un-believe?) whatever they want. It shouldn't make one ounce of difference to a person of Faith.
Thank science somebody posted something apolitical. At this point I think I'd rather listen to atheists than politicians. I don't pretend to understand God, I am just grateful He understands me. I'll keep worshiping The Son Of God and he can keep believing in nothing. Dawkins is no more likely to change my beliefs than I am to change his. Only one of us is wasting their breath trying.
Unless I happen to hear about a program of particular interest, I skip C-Span, too. I get enough left-slanting information all day long. It's everywhere.
When dealing with religion, I'll stick with the folks with the experience.
Maybe it would be better to say, "When I go on a safari, I'd prefer to take the local guide with the most experience."
I don't want to be guided by an inexperienced someone who says there is no such thing as a savanna or as a wild beast.
If one has rational capacity, it must be. Judgement is required. That judgement is what determines salvation. That rational examination and judgement is what occers in John 6:44
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day."
The draw is the judgement, that what God said about Himself is of beauty, value, worthy of praise and incorporation into one's own spirit.
"Thankfully, it does not need to be."
For those incapable of rational thought for whatever reason, that is true. For those capable of rational thought, it is not true, because they will make decisions and judgemnets in their lives.
Right on.
I'm not sure why I should give a damn about this.
Dawkins---- A hateful angry creature.
Most servants of Satan are.
Well said...my sentiments on this guy exactly. I heard him on a pubic radio show once day and he was absolutely raving against the "extreme right wing Christians"
He has some serious mental and spiritual problems.
Several years ago I read a book called "The atheist syndrome" that made a very good case that many people who call themselves atheists have severe mental/spiritual problems.
I do not mean to paint all atheists with a broad brush, just the raving nutters like this Dawkins character.
It's interesting, but Dawkins is beyond help.
He still gets to go home to Lalla Ward (Romana in Doctor Who) who was a very pretty lady in the 1980s (I had a youthful crush on her).
I wish C.S. Lewis was still around to deal with tripe that Dawkins is spilling. It is one thing to be an atheist (what a person believes is his own business), but to attack religion in the way that he does gives evolutionists a bad name. I believe that you can be a Christian and still accept the scientific evidence of adaptation and mutation. You can't get around the fact that humans are an order of magnitude different than chimps with which they share 98%+ genes.
I think it makes as much sense for a scientist to write about faith as it does a pastor to write about science.
Agree completely.
He actually dissects Aquinas' proofs quite well in this book.
So how does explain the order of the Universe, or daily life?
If it is indeed by design, albeit anthropic, what determied the design?
How do we know what design is?
Design implies intent, does it not?
Blessings...
Well the question is whether there is a designer in the first place not whether there is intent on their part.
But if you read Aquinas's Summa Theologica (Which I have just spent reading a few weeks back.) you understand that intent has everything to do with his argument that supports the existence of God, and his designing the Universe.
Ping!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.