Let's get this party started right...

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Joe Shoemaker on February 22, 2008 at 12:10am

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ben McCann on February 24, 2008 at 12:04am

WOW... what an interesting couple of clips... I took notes and I would like to say, very well done.

Here are my thoughts on Richard Dawkins having just watched those clips.

Dawkins starts out defining a difference between Traditional Religion and Einsteins Religion as he calls it. I will not make any claims to rebut his comments that Einstein or Thomas Jefferson may have had belief in God (as the Christians do) or not. As I don't know that it means anything one way or another given this discussion, although this is obviously something that people who disagree with him often use as "proof" or at the very least to try to make a case that these men held closer beliefs to them vs. dawkins.

He starts out asserting that any "Supernatural view of God or Religion is Delusional". He then talks about his definition of the God Hypothesis.. mentioning that the "God of the Old Testament is the most unpleasant character in all of fiction"... going on to identify him as "Jealous & proud of it, a petty unjust, unforgiving control freak, a vindictive bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser, a massogonistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, philocidal, pestelential, megalominiacal, sadomasochistic capriciously malevolent bully."

I hope I spelled that right... I would hate to misquote.

He then asserts that because of our Judeo Christian heritage that we have been desensitized to the horror of God. Yahweh, Jesus in particular.

(I think he is right that we are desensitized to the horror of God, but his use of this goes down a different path then I would take on that point... I digress)

He then states that he is not attacking any specific God or gods.. i.e. zues, allah, yahweh, jesus etc... but the idea of any god or God In general. He makes the comments that any superhuman, supernatural creative intelligence is the end product of extended and gradual evolution of humans and that God is a Delusion.

He then goes on to recap many chapters of his book on the subject but starts out by quoting Jefferson when he says that "ridicule is the only weapon to use on unintelligent subjects. ( I wholeheartedly disagree with this approach, 1 because of the lack of respect in using ridicule to anyone, and 2 because it makes the assumption that anyone that disagrees with you is unintelligent and should be subject to your opinion... this occurs multiple times throughout his speach and other speaches by most athiests that I have seen.) but again, I digress

He then outlines a very good case (and rightfully so) against the claims of the Catholic church to be a monotheistic religion but the hippocrisy of the diefication of Mary, the Pope, and over 5,120 saints. (there is way too much evidence to argue with him on this point... I wholeheartedly agree that the "evolution" of the Catholic religion (for the most part) has become one that has lost it's zeal for truth and replaces it with religious dogma that enslaves people in their minds to be subject more to human control than the loving submission to a loving but Holy God. Although I do know personally many Catholics who practice the true teachings of Jesus and the Fruit of the Holy Spirit is evident in their life. Like many other denominations within the Christian beliefs as well, most people don't even study their scriptures enough to know what they mean or say as it regards the way they should live their life and treat people. If more Christians acted more like Christ... the world would be a better place, regardless of whether or not athiests exist or not.

Dawkins then skims through the titles of the next chapters on why there is almost certainly no God, and why people are religios (which they are as he admits, whether they believe in God or not) He then mentions the 10 Commandments as an example of "Obnoxious" rules. ( why he says this I don't know... they seem like pretty good rules to me, I would not like my children to break them or anyone to break them against me.) he mentions how the Good book could not be a very good book as a guide for moral rules for living... and starts his rant with Abraham... who is the "Father" of all 3 Monotheistic Religions. ( I assume he means Judaism, Islam, and Christianity)

He then mentions that Abraham's story of Isaac is a sick story about God "joking" with abraham by "tempting & testing" the faith. He mentions what kind of Psychotrauma Isaac must have endured, the Bullying, Child Abuse, and the statement that is often used as an excuse "I was only obeying orders". ( I agree, I don't fully understand why this is the moment in which the Label to Abe was given to him as the "Father of Faith" but I have heard many disertations to this and the answer is, that the God of the Bible wants our total submission and obedience to him, even if we don't understand it. this doesn't make sense to the carnal part of us that seeks to understand why a "Holy, Loving, and Just God" would put someone through something like that... my carnal reaction to this is " that's not funny" and If I were only thinking with rational thought and my own intellectual reasoning... I couldn't come up with a good reason for this.

There in lies the biggest point that despite all the claims and statements about Science, Religion, etc.. at the very end of it all, Mr. Dawkins States... that it is just easier to believe in evolution, and rely on own intellect and resoning than to admit that there could be a supernatural being that supercedes nature. For that would take more faith than he possesses and is willing to possess. When posed the question: " how could you believe in E.T. as a higher bieng and not believe in God. He answers by saying that an E.T. can only exist by a slow gradual process of evolution and darwinian theory. Basically because he can't explain God, he limits his own thinking and beliefs to that which he can see or comprehend, even though he mentions that there is more out there than what we can see or comprehend, he is not willing to accept that there could be a supernatural Creator being that supercedes Nature as he knows it or sees it. His excuse is... It is just too complicated to try to prove or disprove the existence of God, so because it is too complicated for him... he chooses to only look at the natural.

When asked, " What if you are wrong" he simply wouldn't answer it, turning the question back around in a mocking way towards the student, just like Jefferson would have liked.

I find it incredible that when the question was asked about the syptom of Anger as being common in those who are going through a deconditioning process from their parents religion he said he didn't know. in fact the students whom admitted this said, they were angry agains "All authority figures who pushed them to believe in God" ( now my simple mind just thinks of it this way... Rebellion is the "sin" of witchcraft and is the fruit of Pride which is the "sin" in which Satan was kicked out of heaven to begin with .. that pride leads to an anger and bitterness that rages because there is no tolerance or acceptance of "sin" to me that is evidence of what the bible says happens to people that reject God's truth.) i digress again.

when questioned about Dinosaur Bones in a University that were claimed to be only 3,000 yrs old, he mocked the university and encourage facultiy to leave and go to a real university. again stating that anyone that disagrees with him is obviously an imbicle and uneducated.

Basically Darwin has been widely accepted by scientists, but a growing amount of secular scientists are beginning to challenge and question his theory... Here is a scientific aproach to the arguement from a study at the University of California Berkly and the Pyro Dunes meeting with multiple groups of scientists that were looking at science willing to face the fundamental mystery of life's origin.

The impact of this is crucial to any further comments that I can make regarding Professor Dawkins speach... When Asked what would it take to believe in God? He readily admits that the if someone could prove that Laws and constants in the universe as we know it are two finely tuned to be an accident and then convinced by biology that he would start to believe in God's existence. I have posted the arguments for the Universe on this on the blog "thoughts on the "Coexist" bumper sticker on page, and they can be seen on you tube on the video search "The Priveleged Planet"

After viewing those videos and then watching these... I think we may have a forum for disucssion since they prove 2 things. 1. The Universe is too finely tuned to be an accident and 2. Darwin's theory has been debunked... which is the basis of ALL of Prof. Dawkins Claims. now get some popcorn and enjoy :o)

▶ Reply to This