Posted on 02/24/2012 10:12:20 AM PST by SeekAndFind
He is regarded as the most famous atheist in the world but last night Professor Richard Dawkins admitted he could not be sure that God does not exist.
He told the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, that he preferred to call himself an agnostic rather than an atheist. The two men were taking part in a public “dialogue” at Oxford University at the end of a week which has seen bitter debate about the role of religion in public life in Britain. Last week Baroness Warsi, the Tory party chairman, warned of a tide of “militant secularism” challenging the religious foundations of British society. The discussion, in Sir Christopher Wren’s Sheldonian Theatre, attracted attention from around the world. As well as being relayed to two other theatres, it was streamed live on the internet and promoted fierce debate on the Twitter social network.
For an hour and 20 minutes the two men politely discussed "The nature of human beings and the question of their ultimate origin" touching on the meaning of consciousness, the evolution of human language – and Dr Williams’s beard.
For much of the discussion the Archbishop sat quietly listening to Prof Dawkins’s explanations of human evolution.
At one point he told the professor that he was “inspired” by “elegance” of the professor’s explanation for the origins of life – and agreed with much of it. Prof Dawkins told him: “What I can’t understand is why you can’t see the extraordinary beauty of the idea that life started from nothing – that is such a staggering, elegant, beautiful thing, why would you want to clutter it up with something so messy as a God?”
CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE VIDEO
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
I don’t think so. The only context we discussed that had to do with a belief being dependent on something external, was my example of the resurrection. I only used that because you weren’t satisfied with my original answer, right? That’s not what we or the others on this thread are really talking about, is it?
What about the belief that sins are forgiven? What would be the object in that case?
“What about the belief that sins are forgiven? What would be the object in that case?”
In this example the object is the physical event—the bodily resurrection of Christ.
This event is evidence providing answers to all the important questions: the existence of God; the divinity of Christ; the reliability of our trust in God; the truth of the Gospel—that Jesus Christ paid the price for all sin and that he is truly our representative before God, the Person who bridges that spiritual divide between God and man that we find documented throughout the Bible and that we witness again and again in our daily lives in July of 2012.
Does sin even exist?
I suppose having a list of them handed down shows that sin really exists? Would you call that list the object in this case?
If the resurrection hadn’t happened, would there be no sin?
...no object, no sin?
Or does that go back to Adam and Eve?
“Does sin exist?” = “Does evil exist?”
If there had been no Resurrection, there would have been no defeat of sin.
The answers to all these questions are very clear.
Does actual (evil=sin) exist for all or is what you believe to be (evil=sin) exist one way for you and another way for someone else?
Please answer clearly.
Evil exists absolutely. We all know this inherently. Extreme examples are very simple to describe, and they illustrate the fact of absolute evil very well.
Opinions vary. ;-)
So no buddy, actually your viewpoint is more dangerous to mankind, and we have several millennia of religious wars, conflict, and genocide to prove it.
Like Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin and all the other despots of Africa and China? You will find that they killed far more than any did in the name of Christ. And those doing it in the name of Christ were going directly against Christ's teachings.
I challenge you to tell me where men have committed genocide in the name of Einstein, Spinoza, Jefferson, Paine, and Carl Sagan. Don't look long, because you won't find them.
Why would they? What does that have to do with atheism. And, as I said, an atheist's god is himself. If you want a list of powerful atheists who DID commit genocide, refer to my list above.
Your comment makes no sense. The first part talks of what one believes while the last part talks of what one does. One can be both a non-believer AND a child molester. And none of my comments are about either. They are about atheist vs agnostic vs Christian. There is a fourth group: religious people who are not Christian. But that is a subject for a different thread.
Do you believe that our perception of evil is the same as that of God’s? Perhaps God doesn’t see evil like we do, perhaps it is just a human thing He designed into us so that we can make laws?
We agree that the resurrection either happened or didn’t. If it did happen, how is that proof that sins are or can be forgiven?
Atheism actually takes more faith than a belief in a Designer.As usual, savagesusie, you go right to the heart of the matter.
You are 100% correct.
To say "I know with certainty that there is no god" requires a MUCH stronger faith than to say "I believe in God".
Darwin, Nietshe, Marx and Freud were the big bangs of scientific materialism.
In the century before WWII, Nietsche predicted the cultural phenomenon he named the “death of God” would result make the upcoming century more bloody than all 18 centuries prededing it, combined. He was right. Darwin expressed the same opinion regarding the cultural effects of his own writings.
Hitler personally presented Darwin’s works to Mussolini and to Stalin.
Together they slaughtered tens of millions of innocent people. Here is the count of genocide by atheists and anti-Christians:
USSR: 61 million murders
Nazi Germany: 20 million
Communist China: 35.2 million
Communist Vietnam: 1.6 million
Communist Cambodia: 2 million
Anti-Christian Mexican Revolution in 1900-1920: 1.4 million murders
Compare these with the Spanish Inquisition, which was responsible for the killing of between 2 and 32 thousand people, and the “witch hunts” of religious fanatics who called themselves Christians killed about 50,000 people.
Atheism’s mistake is that it denies the transcendent basis for the life’s meaning and especially the intrinsic value of human life, leading to destruction, despair, murder and genocide.
The crucifixion and resurrection of Christ was predicted multiple times in the Old Testament, including redemption from sin. The fact that the prediction was fulfilled, combined with the many remarkable and miraculous events which occurred in conjunction with the Resurrection is very substantial evidence: (Christ’s tomb was empty; an enemy was converted (Saul of Tarsus); a skeptic was converted (James); the disciples’ lives were changed to the point they preached the Gospel knowing it meant poverty and certain horrible death; Christianity grew in vast numbers during the decades and centuries following the Resurrection.
Throughout the Bible, God tells us enough about his perception of evil. I’m sure you agree with the principle that opinions expressed from ignorance are not valid. (This is why I’m sure your would agree with the need to read the Bible thoroughly when we desire to comment on Christian theology.)
Yes, but it still requires that leap of faith, doesn’t it? There is still no way to know if your sins really have been forgiven, is there?
All of what you say requires a belief in the bible that is the same as yours, right?
Everything in life requires a leap of faith.
Except mathematical proofs, and maybe cogito ergo sum.
I agree
Therefore, we can’t accept anything in our daily lives as true. This could be quite paralyzing, if we follow it to the logical conclusion.
That’s why things of this subject shouldn’t be followed to what may be thought of as a logical conclusion.
I was talking about your reasoning—not this subject.
Your reasoning is: the truth of forgiveness of sins is only believed on faith, so it isn’t worth believing.
What I’m saying is that the same reasoning applies to your belief that minds other than your own truly exist, or that the world wasn’t created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age.
In other words, because everything in our daily life must be taken on faith, this line of reasoning mandates the view that daily life is not worth living. However, such a view is not valid, so the reasoning must be flawed.
I didn’t say it’s not worth believing.
Why do you feel this line of reasoning mandates the view that daily life isn’t worth living?
I certainly don’t think that.
The point is that to reject something because it requires faith is not a rational thing to do.
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.